Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

Could Vixen explain how can she be in a position to attack Amanda and Raffaele for lying when she constanlty lies in her posts and there are numerous instances when Vixen and other PGP have lied, condoned and ignored the lies of other as detailed from my post on Amazon below :-

In view of how the haters constantly accuse Amanda and others of lying, the record of the haters in lying and defending the lies of other should be exposed.

* The prosecution told numerous lies which can be found on http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-media-lies/ and http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html. The prosecution released false information to the media about the purchase of bleach receipts, the washing machine running, Amanda showering in a bloody bathroom, a missing Harry Potter book . The prosecution lied in court. Stefanoni lied about the amount of picograms on Raffaele's knife, Comodi lied in court about the time Amanda called her mother, Stefanoni lied about changing gloves and prosecutor Crini lied saying that Raffaele's knife matched the imprint on Meredith's bed. The haters slavishly defenend corrupt prosecutors who told numerous lies.

* The haters have spread lies about Amanda and Raffaele's supporters. Below is an extract from the chapter "The Truth About the Hate Campaign Against Amanda Knox" Finding Justice in Perugia about the lies the haters have spread about Candace Dempsey :-

Ganong claims that Candace lied about her age on her Linked In account when in fact it was a typo. Candace's age was listed as 20 years younger than it actually was. Who would attempt to shave 20 years off their age? Ganong knows it was a typo but the truth is of little importance. Ganong‘s friend Andrea Vogt asked Candace about the Linked In error while they were both covering the case in Italy. There is no doubt that Vogt relayed the information about the typo back to Ganong.

Ganong often repeats her claim that Candace lied about working at the Spokesman-Review early in her career; when in fact Candace was a summer intern, working all the beats, including courts and police. The lie claim began when Monica Guzman of the Seattle PI interviewed Candace about her book deal in 2008. Guzman asked Candace where she got her training and she said, "At the Spokesman-Review." End of story. Peggy has been calling her a liar ever since. This despite the fact that the Spokesman-Review itself interviewed Candace for her book a year later and said she was a summer intern there.

* Books, documentaries and films about the case are often riddled with falsehoods. The following are examples :-

John Kercher's book Meredith. The falsehoods are detailed on http://groundreport.com/amanda-knox...arable-damage-caused-by-wrongful-convictions/ http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-media-lies/ http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=1870&sid=82fc62b3185cbd71f41e0c2cd6559958

The lifetime move the falsehoods are detailed in chapter 2 of finding justice in Perugia.

Barbara Nadeu's book Angel Face. As with John Kercher's book the falsehoods are detailed on http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-media-lies/ and the chapter Injustice in Perugia on the media.

A documentary on British Television is Amanda Knox guilty the rebuttal can be found by searching "is Amanda Knox guilty youtube rebuttal"

John Follain's book which are detailed

The haters have never complained about the falsehoods in the items listed above. In fact, John Kercher's book Meredith received glowing 5 star reviews on Amazon.

* The haters spread lies in the comments sections of articles about the case and Amazon reviews.

Heiress Amazon review WTBH - "For starters was found cleaning the place with bleach when the police arrived". Truth: Amanda was not caught cleaning when the police arrived.

Bejamin Fletcher "BRFC are back" Amazon review WTBH - "They've found Meredith's blood on a knife in his apartment". Truth: There was no blood on Meredith's knife.

Christina comments page 7 Amazon review WTBH - "whose is the female fooprint who applied female sized bruises on MK's neck in strangulation" Truth: There were no female footprints in Meredith's room or female thumbprints on Meredith's neck.

JF Rodrigue Amazon review WTBH - " She was doing cartwheels in the police station." Truth: It has been proved Amanda did not do cartwheels.

Wendy Murphy in her blog - "pro Amanda forces forget to note the knife was found hidden in a shoebox far back inside a coset at Sollecitito's apartment and that the knife had been scrubbed with bleach." Truth:The knife was found in Raffaele's kitchen drawer and the knife had not been cleaned with bleach.

* The haters have set up a fake themurderofmeredithkercher.com which is full of falsehoods. These falsehoods are detailed here . The haters have lied saying their wiki is based on court documents when in fact their website contains claims which do not appear in court documents. For instance the website claims one of Meredith's friends was so concerned aboout Amanda's behaviour she went to the police. This never happened and does not appear in court documents. The wiki lies about the contents of court documents. The wiki claims the knife tested for Meredith's biological material when in fact C&V wrote in their report the knife tested negative for the human species.

* The haters have on TJMK have lied about Amanda's father saying he used to beat Amanda and her mother. No evidence has emerged Kurt Knox beat Amanda or her mother.

* TJMK has often used the claims of people who lied about their credentials. For instance, TJMK promoted Ellie Ewing a woman who created a blog "lies my mother told me" where she represented herself as a psychologists with many years of experience when dicussing the murder of Meredith Kercher. The reaility was Ellie Ewing had no experience or qualifications as a psychologist.

* There were instances of witnesses lying in this case. Hekuran Kokomani claimed he saw Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy together on the night of the murder. Kokomani was proved to have lied because he said Amanda had gaps in her teeth and an Italian uncle. Fabio Gioffredi said he saw Amanda, Raffaele, Meredith and Rudy on the October 30th 2007 between 4.30 and 5.30 pm. Raffaele's computer shows itense activity from 5.30 pm to 6.30 pm which proved Fabio had lied. The haters have never criticsed these witnesses for lying. The shop owner initially said he did not see Amanda in his shop the morning after the murder and then changed his story a year later to say he had seen Amanda in his shop. The fact the shop owner changed his story proved he has lied at least once. The haters have defended the shop owner.

* Rudy Guede lied about having a date with Meredith and someone else attacked Meredith. The haters have never attacked Rudy for lying. In fact, many haters support and defend Rudy.

* The Chiefi report written to annull the Hellman aquittal and the Nenci motivation report were full of falsehoods. The falsehoods can be found by searching "Injustice anywhere forum Nenci stupid errors" and "Injustice Anywhere forum Chieffi report errors". The haters never complained about these the falsehoods in these reports.

The haters accuse Amanda and Raffaele of lying but lie themselves and have condoned and ignored the lies of others. The mind boggles at this hypocrisy.

Scene: Court Room trial of Amanda and Raff

JUDGE: And who do I have here before me.

WELSHMAN (for it is he): I represent the defendants m'Lud.

JUDGE: Calling the next witness, Prosecutor Mignini.

WELSHMAN <fx jumps to his feet waving his fist> Hater!

<fx sits down>

JUDGE: Do you have anythng more to add?

WELSHMAN: No, m'Lud.

JUDGE TO MIGNINI: You may stand down. Next witness: Stefanoni.

WELSHMAN <fx leaps to his feet> Liar!

Judge: Mr Welshman, you really need to put questions to the witness.

WELSHMAN: Did you change your gloves?

STEFANONI: Yes.

WELSHMAN: Liar! I saw that speck of dust in the video. I don't know how, but I saw it!!! Next!

JUDGE: Can we presume that you consider all of the prosecution to be 'haters' and 'liars'?

WELSHMAN: They are, m'Lud, I saw all the evidence with my own two eyes, honest, on the Amanda Knox Fan Club page. And have you seen the lies on Amazon reviews? Wicked they are, m'Lud, wicked. They accuse the little darlin' of being a liar. I soon put'em right, m'Lud.

JUDGE: Thank you, Mr Welshman, and good day.

 

[Vixen]

I know where to find the testimony, you might want to point me to the quote in Massei or the testimony of Prof Introna "dreaming up the 'fell on the glass shard' idea."...
"IIRC" is just another way to say "Find the quote I'm building my point on, yourself!", and it's not very polite...

Really? You might want to re-read "his testimony" (and the related stuff like the skype conversations and his "diary") and re-think...


Sorry, but this doesn't make sense. IF Guede's ever changing SODDI story would somehow "turn out to be roughly what really happened", (How do you think this would be? Another interview or a facebook post from his new "friends"?) it would surprise me a lot more if his "other dudes who did it" were indeed Knox and Sollecito.


The answer is easy, if you go with the case files instead of the Daily Mail and especially the Mirror when it comes to Sollecito, the "Daily Beast" also isn't a place to look for answers...

BTW. You still haven't answered, why I should trust Stefanoni, who lied in court and falsified documents for the court at worst, or is completely incompetent at best...

This is an informal forum, rather like a discussion in a pub or a debating club. Nobody stops half way in the middle of a point to 'look it up on google' or reach for an encyclopedia. It would be very rude to do so, IMV. One quotes from memory. If I can remember what Massei said, why should I need to dredge up the 400-page report every time his name is mentioned?

I thought you had a good handle on the case, Methos.

 

[Welshman]

Scene: Court Room trial of Amanda and Raff

JUDGE: And who do I have here before me.

WELSHMAN (for it is he): I represent the defendants m'Lud.

JUDGE: Calling the next witness, Prosecutor Mignini.

WELSHMAN <fx jumps to his feet waving his fist> Hater!

<fx sits down>

JUDGE: Do you have anythng more to add?

WELSHMAN: No, m'Lud.

JUDGE TO MIGNINI: You may stand down. Next witness: Stefanoni.

WELSHMAN <fx leaps to his feet> Liar!

Judge: Mr Welshman, you really need to put questions to the witness.

WELSHMAN: Did you change your gloves?

STEFANONI: Yes.

WELSHMAN: Liar! I saw that speck of dust in the video. I don't know how, but I saw it!!! Next!

JUDGE: Can we presume that you consider all of the prosecution to be 'haters' and 'liars'?

WELSHMAN: They are, m'Lud, I saw all the evidence with my own two eyes, honest, on the Amanda Knox Fan Club page. And have you seen the lies on Amazon reviews? Wicked they are, m'Lud, wicked. They accuse the little darlin' of being a liar. I soon put'em right, m'Lud.

JUDGE: Thank you, Mr Welshman, and good day.

Instead of answering the point I raised Vixen all you could do was make up a stupid dialogue. You and other PGP have constantly attacked Amanda and Raffaele for lying. On Amazon reviews a PGP called Amanda a pathological liar. Since joining this thread you have constantly lied in your posts. As can be seen from the post above, PGP have a long history of lying themselves, condoning and ignoring the lies of others. In view of this, how can PGP be in a position to accuse Amanda and Raffaele of lying? This makes PGP hypocrites. How do you explain this hypocrisy?

In addition, if there was a mountain of evidence and a slam dunk case against Amanda and Raffaele, why do you constantly have to lie in your posts? If there was such a strong case against Amanda and Raffaele, why do PGP have to resort to using lies in the comments sections of articles and Amazon reviews? Why does the fake wiki themurderofmeredithkercher.com have to resort to using numerous falsehoods? Why have PGP been consistently unable to argue their case without resorting to lying? If the prosecution have a mountain of hard evidence and a solid case, you should never have to resort to lying to argue your case.

 

[Methos]

p 136 of the translation (the pathology reports start from circa p 117)

As for the wounds on the right and left hands of the victim, Professor Introna expressed strong doubts about the fact that these might be defence wounds. The wounds are extremely tiny, whereas defence wounds are wounds caused by an instinctive action by which the victim being stabbed stops the blade of the knife with the hand and thus suffers enormous cuts. He advance the hypothesis that the victim had received the wounds to the hands by falling onto all fours and encountering tiny fragments of glass on the floor, and in regard to this, he noted that during the
137
inspection, the video of the Scientific Police showed a fragment of glass near a footprint.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Massei_Report_(English)

-In the public domain.
(You might need to type 'Massei' into the search function.)

The reader might want to note Itrona was hired by Raff, who no doubt was extremely anxious to dispel any notion that these 'small pricks' to Mez's hands were caused by his knife. Thus, we are immediately fascinated by his urge to draw our attention to it.

Thank you.
The interesting thing, apart from your choice of words ("dreaming up" etc) is, that Prof Introna (video of court presentation) seems to be offering a different explaination for the wounds on Meredith Kerchers palms. Why would he (paid shill as he is) do that?
The "lack of defensive wounds" was one of the points the prosecution made in favour of the "multiple attackers theory", why would a defense expert even touch this?

 

[Methos]

This is an informal forum, rather like a discussion in a pub or a debating club. Nobody stops half way in the middle of a point to 'look it up on google' or reach for an encyclopedia. It would be very rude to do so, IMV. One quotes from memory. If I can remember what Massei said, why should I need to dredge up the 400-page report every time his name is mentioned?

I thought you had a good handle on the case, Methos.

I have to disagree on the highlighted part. The forum might be "informal", but I don't think the conversation here is akind to pub gossip or debating club point scoring.

The thing is, that IMV () this case was shaped by gutter press reporting from the beginning, and I'm not going to "discuss" or "debate" it here based on something written in the Daily Fail or even the Sunday Times when it's clear and provable that what's written in those publications is not true (see Follain).
As I wrote upthread, I'm interested in "the truth" and not in the substitude "judicial truth"...

 

[Vixen]

Thank you.
The interesting thing, apart from your choice of words ("dreaming up" etc) is, that Prof Introna (video of court presentation) seems to be offering a different explaination for the wounds on Meredith Kerchers palms. Why would he (paid shill as he is) do that?
The "lack of defensive wounds" was one of the points the prosecution made in favour of the "multiple attackers theory", why would a defense expert even touch this?

To cover up Raff's faux pas that he knew about the knife nicks on Mez' hands, which only the perp can have known about.

 

[Planigale]

To cover up Raff's faux pas that he knew about the knife nicks on Mez' hands, which only the perp can have known about.

Of course Sollecito made a mistake there as he thought there was a prick on the back of Kercher's hand, but in fact the injuries were on the palms. Almost as if he did not know where the injuries were!

 

[Vixen]

I have to disagree on the highlighted part. The forum might be "informal", but I don't think the conversation here is akind to pub gossip or debating club point scoring.

The thing is, that IMV () this case was shaped by gutter press reporting from the beginning, and I'm not going to "discuss" or "debate" it here based on something written in the Daily Fail or even the Sunday Times when it's clear and provable that what's written in those publications is not true (see Follain).
As I wrote upthread, I'm interested in "the truth" and not in the substitude "judicial truth"...

How do you get to the truth? Adversarial courts - UK/USA - do this by identifying areas of dispute between the parties. It is nasty and acrimonious, but is a good short sharp method of getting to the crux of the matter. Whoever presents the best evidence and most persuasive argument, wins the verdict. This is one reason why the most expensive barristers can get people off and why the rich are more successful in court than the poor.

In Latin Europe, including Italy, the method is by a gathering of as much infomation as possible, an inquiry or an inquisition, well suited to a tribunal system with a panel of judges. This is more egalitarian, but takes for ever. When do you call a halt?

As for the press, I can still recall vividly the headlines about Amanda & Raff being arrested and Rudy caught in Germany and brought back. On the opposite page - page 3 - where the British press love to run their 'sex scandal' stories, (especially THE DAILY TELEGRAPH)there was a lurid piece about 'Foxy Knoxy' and her webpage. Whilst it seemed incongruous to me that a woman should be involved in this, nonetheless, I didn't have any illusions about press reporting. I did do 'content analysis' as part of my psychology degree in my social psychology option re advertising and persuasion, and how it is done.

For me, press reporting is an important research tool for journalists and historians. Early reports are often the most honest knee-jerk ones, before the politicians and PR agents come along.

Thus, I disagree that the public 'believe what they read in the papers'.

Because I have a good memory, it was easy for me to spot all the lies and contradictions in the kids' defense submissions.

 

[Vixen]

Of course Sollecito made a mistake there as he thought there was a prick on the back of Kercher's hand, but in fact the injuries were on the palms. Almost as if he did not know where the injuries were!

How do you explain Amanda's snide comment she thought she saw blood on Raff's hand, which LOL turrned out to be 'fish blood'.

 

[Vixen]

Instead of answering the point I raised Vixen all you could do was make up a stupid dialogue. You and other PGP have constantly attacked Amanda and Raffaele for lying. On Amazon reviews a PGP called Amanda a pathological liar. Since joining this thread you have constantly lied in your posts. As can be seen from the post above, PGP have a long history of lying themselves, condoning and ignoring the lies of others. In view of this, how can PGP be in a position to accuse Amanda and Raffaele of lying? This makes PGP hypocrites. How do you explain this hypocrisy?

In addition, if there was a mountain of evidence and a slam dunk case against Amanda and Raffaele, why do you constantly have to lie in your posts? If there was such a strong case against Amanda and Raffaele, why do PGP have to resort to using lies in the comments sections of articles and Amazon reviews? Why does the fake wiki themurderofmeredithkercher.com have to resort to using numerous falsehoods? Why have PGP been consistently unable to argue their case without resorting to lying? If the prosecution have a mountain of hard evidence and a solid case, you should never have to resort to lying to argue your case.

Problem is, you perceive anyone who disagrees with you as 'a hater' or 'a liar'. It's not uncommon. I know a few people who get very angry if someone disputes what they say. I just avoid arguing with them, as a waste of time, as their whole self-esteem seems to be based on 'being right'.

I do not like didactic articles which tell me what I should think. For example, when we had the IRA bombing campaigns in the UK, it really irritated me that the tabloids screamed 'BASTARDS!'. I prefer to be given the facts and come to my own conclusions. It is simply not so that PGP 'lap up everything they read', if anything, you'll find that most PGP are well-informed individuals who have taken the trouble to avail themselves of the facts.

Simply screaming that the police and the prosecutor are 'BASTARDS!' (haters/liars - delete as appropriate) will not cut the mustard with enquiring minds.

 

[Vixen]

Of course Sollecito made a mistake there as he thought there was a prick on the back of Kercher's hand, but in fact the injuries were on the palms. Almost as if he did not know where the injuries were!

And you know that how? Since when did the palms of hand extend to the forearms?

So 23 superficial knife wounds in addition to the three major wounds are explained how? A burglar-rapist overcome with uncontrollable lust, or a couple of perps who enjoyed a sadistic tormenting of their victim?

 

[Planigale]

How do you explain Amanda's snide comment she thought she saw blood on Raff's hand, which LOL turrned out to be 'fish blood'.

Since neither Sollecito nor Knox were involved in the murder of Kercher what is the relevance?

I think the quote in whole reflects Knox's view that Sollecito couldn't have participated in the murder. Selectively misrepresenting a small part does your argument no good.

And you know that how? Since when did the palms of hand extend to the forearms?

So 23 superficial knife wounds in addition to the three major wounds are explained how? A burglar-rapist overcome with uncontrollable lust, or a couple of perps who enjoyed a sadistic tormenting of their victim?

Your argument was that Sollecito betrayed knowledge of injuries of the victims by his reference to pricking the back of her hand. I pointed out that since her injuries were in a different location he was betraying lack of knowledge of the victim's wounds.

Since you are convinced of their guilt you view any comment as that of a guilty person. This is not a good basis for argument. From a scientific PoV you need to have a null hypothesis, in legal terms an assumption of innocence. You need to think is there a possible 'innocent' explanation? Only if there can be no innocent explanation can this be used as part of an argument for guilt.

 

[Mike1711]

It is pointless conducting this "debate" on Vixen's terms. Every time she is painted into a corner she changes tack without conceding defeat on the particular point under discussion. I suggest the pro-fact people engage Vixen on a point she chooses to raise. I suggest that only this issue be debated with Vixen until conclusion.

If Vixen moves onto a new sub-topic mid-stream, ignore her.

This "whack a mole" tactic goes nowhere.

Pick your first factoid Vixen. It's your turn for glory.

 

[Kauffer]

It is pointless conducting this "debate" on Vixen's terms. Every time she is painted into a corner she changes tack without conceding defeat on the particular point under discussion. I suggest the pro-fact people engage Vixen on a point she chooses to raise. I suggest that only this issue be debated with Vixen until conclusion.

If Vixen moves onto a new sub-topic mid-stream, ignore her.

This "whack a mole" tactic goes nowhere.

Pick your first factoid Vixen. It's your turn for glory.

I like your characterisation of "pro-fact". This case is better thought of as a divide between people who are aware of the difference between fact and fiction and can properly evaluate real evidence, and the others.

For example, some people are still talking about a size 37 shoeprint, which didn't exist.

Nobody can start to argue the meaning of evidence until they understand what it is first.

There was no mixed blood, no bloody Knox foot or shoeprints and even the prosecution expert admitted that his analysis of the bathmat foottrack was only useful for elimination and not attribution purposes.

 

[Kauffer]

Since neither Sollecito nor Knox were involved in the murder of Kercher what is the relevance?

I think the quote in whole reflects Knox's view that Sollecito couldn't have participated in the murder. Selectively misrepresenting a small part does your argument no good.



Your argument was that Sollecito betrayed knowledge of injuries of the victims by his reference to pricking the back of her hand. I pointed out that since her injuries were in a different location he was betraying lack of knowledge of the victim's wounds.

Since you are convinced of their guilt you view any comment as that of a guilty person. This is not a good basis for argument. From a scientific PoV you need to have a null hypothesis, in legal terms an assumption of innocence. You need to think is there a possible 'innocent' explanation?Only if there can be no innocent explanation can this be used as part of an argument for guilt.

Yes! This is the standard for reasonable doubt. So many people do not understand it. Hellmann persuasively cited two Cassation decisions, which codified the standard in these terms.

In this case, the prosecution were hypothesis and not evidence led. It's the suspect centred approach, which leads to wrongful convictions.

 

[Vixen]

Since neither Sollecito nor Knox were involved in the murder of Kercher what is the relevance?

I think the quote in whole reflects Knox's view that Sollecito couldn't have participated in the murder. Selectively misrepresenting a small part does your argument no good.



Your argument was that Sollecito betrayed knowledge of injuries of the victims by his reference to pricking the back of her hand. I pointed out that since her injuries were in a different location he was betraying lack of knowledge of the victim's wounds.

Since you are convinced of their guilt you view any comment as that of a guilty person. This is not a good basis for argument. From a scientific PoV you need to have a null hypothesis, in legal terms an assumption of innocence. You need to think is there a possible 'innocent' explanation? Only if there can be no innocent explanation can this be used as part of an argument for guilt.

Are you seriously asking us to accept, "the only nick wounds were on the palms of the hands. I know this because Raff's defence expert, Prof Introna, suggested the injuries came from a glass shard deposited by the perp from Filomena's room, and caused by Mez falling onto the flat of her hands".

You omit to mention Massei rejected Introna's submissions on the grounds there were far too many of these knifepoint pricks. In addition, he scoffed at Introna's murder construction that Mez was naked from the waist down when the perp (sole, according to Raff's defence) came in and grabbed Mez from behind as, "it would be too much of a coincidence" and in any case, her shoes were in the opposite side of the room to her other clothes.

It was pointed out that there was even a knife point prick on Mez' left cheek (face).

So much for your misleading and deceptive claim "the nicks were on the palms of her hands only".

Massei also rejected the "single attacker" theory pointing out that an aggressor repeats the same act with progressive aim (we can see this in the large knife stab being thrust in three times in a sawing motion); the fact there were all these different focii indicates different perps doing different things.

It's interesting, though, these 23 knife nicks, mostly on Mez' forearms and hands, are something Raff had special knowledge of - as well as having a knife fetish and vampire slayer fantasies - to the extent of getting Prof Introna to come up with an alternative theory to 'knife flicks'.

Massei also ruled that these superficial wounds were not defence wounds, but signs of intimidation by the perp/s.

Doesn't sound like a frenzied rapist acting on impulse, does it?

 

[Mike1711]

Are you seriously asking us to accept, "the only nick wounds were on the palms of the hands. I know this because Raff's defence expert, Prof Introna, suggested the injuries came from a glass shard deposited by the perp from Filomena's room, and caused by Mez falling onto the flat of her hands".

You omit to mention Massei rejected Introna's submissions on the grounds there were far too many of these knifepoint pricks. In addition, he scoffed at Introna's murder construction that Mez was naked from the waist down when the perp (sole, according to Raff's defence) came in and grabbed Mez from behind as, "it would be too much of a coincidence" and in any case, her shoes were in the opposite side of the room to her other clothes.

It was pointed out that there was even a knife point prick on Mez' left cheek (face).

So much for your misleading and deceptive claim "the nicks were on the palms of her hands only".

Massei also rejected the "single attacker" theory pointing out that an aggressor repeats the same act with progressive aim (we can see this in the large knife stab being thrust in three times in a sawing motion); the fact there were all these different focii indicates different perps doing different things.

It's interesting, though, these 23 knife nicks, mostly on Mez' forearms and hands, are something Raff had special knowledge of - as well as having a knife fetish and vampire slayer fantasies - to the extent of getting Prof Introna to come up with an alternative theory to 'knife flicks'.

Massei also ruled that these superficial wounds were not defence wounds, but signs of intimidation by the perp/s.

Doesn't sound like a frenzied rapist acting on impulse, does it?

Who cares what Massei said? His thought process has been trashed by the ISC. Whatever he said doesn't matter. It's been overruled. Dumped. Discarded. Banished. Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[Vixen]

Who cares what Massei said? His thought process has been trashed by the ISC. Whatever he said doesn't matter. It's been overruled. Dumped. Discarded. Banished. Why is this so hard to understand?

No, the merits court remains the fact finding court. All of Massei's rulings were signed off by the Chiefi Supreme Court - i.e., final - apart from those specific issues it sent back down to the Nencini court.

The multiple attacker and staged burglary finding stands as a proven fact, together with the kids' presence at the murder scene, Amanda washing off Mez blood (genetic proof) and Amanda naming Patrick to cover up for Rudy. Official. Factual.

Massei also found as a fact Rudy restrained Mez from behind, whilst Amanda plunged in the murder knife from the front. There was a circular fingernail imprint nearby the knife wound, which Amanda's defense tried to explain away as a knife hilt wound. Five small bruises on Mez' lower face indicate Amanda viciously tried to prevent Mez from screaming with her murderers hand.

 

[Methos]

To cover up Raff's faux pas that he knew about the knife nicks on Mez' hands, which only the perp can have known about.

This doesn't make sense. Why on earth would an expert leave the opportunity to counter the "lack of defensive wounds argument" to explain some confused writing, that hasn't even been adressed in court? Sollecito's diary, just like Knox's has been conficated, but was never used as evidence... (Police and prosecution obviously had another way of (ab)using the diaries...)

Where do you get the "23 knife nicks, mostly on Mez' forearms and hands" from? Even the TMoMK Wiki lists "only" ten. Once again, the prosecution argued that the lack of defensive wounds was a sign that Meredith Kercher was restrained by "multiple assailants". Now you are telling us that these "defensive wounds" not only exist, but that there are 23 of them?

 

[Mike1711]

No, the merits court remains the fact finding court. All of Massei's rulings were signed off by the Chiefi Supreme Court - i.e., final - apart from those specific issues it sent back down to the Nencini court.

The multiple attacker and staged burglary finding stands as a proven fact, together with the kids' presence at the murder scene, Amanda washing off Mez blood (genetic proof) and Amanda naming Patrick to cover up for Rudy. Official. Factual.

Massei also found as a fact Rudy restrained Mez from behind, whilst Amanda plunged in the murder knife from the front. There was a circular fingernail imprint nearby the knife wound, which Amanda's defense tried to explain away as a knife hilt wound. Five small bruises on Mez' lower face indicate Amanda viciously tried to prevent Mez from screaming with her murderers hand.

My word. You are surely brighter than this.

Judicial facts are unlike empirical facts. This has been explained to you on numerous occasions by many including me. A judicial fact is by definition only, and entrenched in law to facilitate the orderliness and functioning of the legal system. Were it not for this double jeopardy could come into play...(another discussion for another day) as an appeal could become a retrial.

In South Africa (for example) judicial facts ARE appealable by the defendant but NOT by the state. In Italy it would seem that neither the state nor the defendant may appeal judicial truths. (Remember South African law is derived from Roman Law).

Judicial truths are not necessarily factual. They are merely cast in stone as truths for the workings of the legal system.

This is why the ISC, bound by lower court "truths", ruled that those "truths" are still a quantum leap from guilt. The ISC has no legal mandate to comment on judicial truths. It does however often, as a matter of ettiquette, defend lower court logic. In this instance by acknowledging that "strong suspicions" exist (whether the ISC actually believe that "strong suspicions" exist or not is open to debate - my opinion is that the ISC does not in reality believe this). This is (often) simply politeness and to avoid open warfare between judicial layers within the system.

Consider an unrelated case but one that is in the world news. Oscar Pistorius was found guilty of murder on appeal by the state (the lower court having found him guilty of a lesser crime). The "facts" (faulty as they are) were not and could not be appealed by the state. The appeal court completely overturned the lower court ruling (reminder...on the merits NOT the "facts"), but went on to CONGRATULATE the lower court Judge for the way she handled the case!!!! How is it possible to get the verdict completely wrong and be congratulated for it? Simple. It's court etiquette

Now stop perpetuating a lie.