Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

What? The two websites you cite, are so heavily one-sided, poor old Planigale has spent the last eight years believing, 'there were only three pinprick wounds on Mez'./QUOTE]

It shows what a dishonest person that you are that you can put so many lies into one short sentence. That you lie and misquote so relentlessly demonstrates the complete lack of any coherent pro-guilt narrative.

You claim I said 'there were only three pinprick wounds on Mez'. This is a lie. It is a repeated lie. If you had any honesty you would apologise.

1) You do not know what I believe or for how long - you cannot. So two lies here.
2) I never claimed the injuries on the hands were from pinpricks. Lie 3. I pointed out the 'Merit Court' has established as a 'judicial fact' (phrases you are fond of), that the three injuries were defence wounds from a knife - a reference you gave yourself but obviously either chose not to read or do not have the cognitive ability to understand.
3) I never claimed these were the only wounds. Lie 4. We were discussing only the wounds on her hands. Clearly since the case involves the murder of someone by being fatally stabbed in the throat there are more wounds than those on the hands.

Four lies and a misattribution. Sadly repeated, when previously corrected. So other than evil intent it is hard to see what excuse you have for repeatedly lying about what I posted

Then why did you direct people to the Amanda fan site showing just the three 'defence' wounds, when we were talking about numerous knife prick wounds.

You tried to make out this was untrue and your citation was the sum of it.

 

[Welshman]

Vixen should heed her own advice.
Rather than address any of Welshman's points, Vixen shifts to the ad homonym attacks "THINK for yourself. This will make you more of a man".
Vixen does nothing but write lies that cannot be supported.
If anyone refutes a vixen claim they are attacked for not thinking and vixen lets the lie stand without defense.
This lie and move on technique has been the PGP strategy since this whole sorry mess started.

If you are going to come on an internet forum and claim the prosecution have a mountain of hard evidence and a slam dunk case but the arguments you and your fellow PGP use are clearly the arguments PGP would need to resort to if the prosecution have a weak case and a lack of evidence, you should explain this which Vixen refused to do. In my post I clearly showed how the arguments of the PGP are clearly what you would expect if the prosecution have a weak case and the PGP have a lack of evidence to base their arguments on and I provided evidence to back my case. Vixen told me to think but thinking is exactly what I did. I was thinking if the prosecution had such a mountain of evidence and a slam dunk case how do you explain the arguments Vixen PGP have to use.
Vixen did not address a single issue I raised. For instance, I pointed that PGP and Vixen constantly lie about the evidence and things Amanda and Raffaele have done outside the murders. In my posts I have given numerous examples where Vixen and other PGP have lied. If the prosecution have a slam dunk case and a mountain of evidence, you should never have to resort to lying to argue your case. The example below is the evidence in the OJ Simpson case. If this case was discussed here, would it not be strange if PGP had to resort to lying if there was so much genuine evidence to base their arguments on.

http://pages.infinit.net/reparvit/nicole12.html

Vixen refused to explain why PGP lying is a not a sign PGP have a lack of genuine evidence to base their arguments on. If the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was so strong, why did Vixen have to resort to making up non existent facts to make the evidence appear valid? For instance, she said that there were 12 samples of human species on the knife when in fact the knife was negative for the human species. If the DNA on the knife was valid, why did Vixen have to resort to lying about something which was not on the knife? If there was so much evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, why does Vixen have to lie about non existent evidence such as Amanda’s DNA on the clasp? Why does Vixen have to lie about things Amanda and Raffaele have done outside the murder such as falsely claiming Amanda condoned rape in newspaper article?

 

[Vixen]

It is massively stunning that the quote in question is not only badly mis-cited, but equally remarkable (in a bad way) that it is applied as Vixen tries to apply it.

It is as you say, LondonJohn, the parallel would be to direct Niemöller's quote to the complete outrageous-indifference that various courts and prosecutors showed to two people accused of a crime they simply could not have committed.

Anything more I type would be repetition. For Vixen to mis-cite this, and then apply it to herself is more than enough to expose the bankruptcy of what she's posted since joining this forum in April 2015. She not only does not know history (eg. it was not Bonhoeffer who said this) she misapplies it.

No doubt she'll ignore this and like always simply move on with the next factoid. One can hope she would take this obvious boo-boo on her part to make a gracious exit while the exiting is good.

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool......" by Abraham Lincoln, Samuel Johnson, or Mark Twain, depending on who you like better.

Of course I know the quote is by Niemoeller, as I have the poster on my wall!

I simply cut and pasted the quote I cited straight from google without giving it much thought.

It is so characteristic of the PIP to overblow typos and errors into 'LIES!" or "CONSPIRACY BY CORRUPT POLICE".

Please get a grip.

 

[Vixen]

I can understand why Vixen idolizes Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who, by own admission, saw no need to speak the truth.

What? Bonhoeffer is considered one of the most important theologians of our time.

 

[Bill Williams]

Of course I know the quote is by Niemoeller, as I have the poster on my wall!

I simply cut and pasted the quote I cited straight from google without giving it much thought.

It is so characteristic of the PIP to overblow typos and errors into 'LIES!" or "CONSPIRACY BY CORRUPT POLICE".

Please get a grip.

So.... this is the grip you're suggesting.... typos and errors by police should never prevent wrongful prosecution.

Right. Got it.

 

[Vixen]

A handy checklist for Vixen to consider:


https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/shrinknp_800_800/p/7/005/09e/2ce/2988cb5.jpg

Annella, I hope you are well How awfully kind of you to send me your interesting list.

I wish you well.

 

[Mike1711]

Of course I know the quote is by Niemoeller, as I have the poster on my wall!

I simply cut and pasted the quote I cited straight from google without giving it much thought.

It is so characteristic of the PIP to overblow typos and errors into 'LIES!" or "CONSPIRACY BY CORRUPT POLICE".

Please get a grip.

Weak people twist when they're wrong. Those who twist often lie to cover their weakness.

There is little beneath a liar. ... but a weak liar is one of them.

 

[Vixen]

Not only that, Niemöller wrote/spoke those words (in various different but similar formats) after the end of WWII and the total collapse of the Nazi regime and its political/ethnic cleansing programmes, and after the full horror of the concentration/extermination camps and their victims had become global public knowledge.

To that end, Niemöller was not speaking these words as a martyr (as Vixen incorrectly (and agenda-led) ascribed them to Bonhöffer - who was murdered by the Nazis as an enemy of the state during the war), but rather he was speaking them as a combination of an apology and a denunciation of the apathy or collusion shown by various authorities and public bodies (not to mention large swathes of the military and civilian population) towards Nazi ideology and practices between 1932 and 1945.

That's important, because Niemöller was actually pointing out that the established Christian churches in Germany turned a blind eye to (and, in a small number of cases, disgustingly assisted in) the Nazi genocide programmes. And he was making the wider allusion to any groups who were not themselves directly adversely affected by such programmes, but who must have known (or at the very least must have strongly suspected) what was going on. And that it was only at the point when any given group was itself targeted by the Nazi regime that it actually spoke out.

"Yes, yes.... but what's any of this got to do with the Knox/Sollecito trial process?", I hear you ask. Well, it's extremely interesting to note that Niemöller's famous words carry certain resonance in the Knox/Sollecito trials injustice - and a resonance that is ironically opposite to Vixen's misplaced and misunderstood interpretation. And it's this: as soon as Knox and Sollecito were convicted by Massei's court in a gross injustice (and in fact ever since Knox and Sollecito were arrested in the aftermath of those infamous 5th/6th November 2007 interrogations), the vast majority of the media - led by a small cadre of low-intellect stringer hacks who were beholden to an egomaniac prosecutor and who couldn't see what was going on right underneath their noses, but who had become the chief media conduits in this trial process by virtue of having been ever-present - were all too happy to swallow the juicy myth that Knox and Sollecito had grouped up with Guede and sexually assaulted and murdered Kercher. It was a salacious tale which attracted viewers, readers and online clicks, and it had now seemingly been given the imprimatur of validity by the Massei verdicts.

So, in a very real sense (though very obviously on a dramatically different and incomparable scale to the "turning a blind eye" to the Nazi genocides), almost nobody in the media was willing to stick their necks out and challenge the Massei verdicts and the evidence (or "evidence") underpinning those verdicts. It would - and should - have been very easy for any media organisation, in, say 2010, to have looked properly at the way the Massei trial was conducted, and the evidence/testimony driving the verdicts from that trial. It wouldn't have taken a huge budget for a large media organisation to (for example) consult with several internationally-renowned gastroenterologists and/or forensic pathologists with significant experience in analysing post-mortem stomach/intestinal evidence, whereupon they would have learned that beyond all reasonable doubt, Knox could not have died any later than 4 hours after starting her last meal (very likely at 6.30pm), and that this on its own blew the entire prosecution and court theory of the murder - which was importantly predicated on a post-11.30pm ToD - out of the water. They would further have learned that the stomach/intestine evidence in this case indicated that Kercher almost certainly died within three hours of starting her last meal - placing her death at some point between 9pm and 9.30pm - which also directly contradicted other key prosecution "evidence".

And that's just one example. They could have listened to the world's top forensic DNA scientists, who - to a person - would have stated that the DNA "evidence" presented to the court in the Knox/Sollecito Massei trial was worthless and inadmissible, since it was the product of near-unbelievably incompetent crime scene investigation, evidence collection, evidence handling, packaging and transportation, and evidence analysis in Stefanoni's lab (complete with malpractice in testing and interpreting the results, and the associated failure/inability to provide the critical source data files to the defence or the court).

And they could quickly and easily have established that the three key "witnesses" upon whom the prosecutors and the Massei court relied so heavily were all fundamentally flawed and utterly unreliable/non-credible.

And so on, and so on.

Yet with a few honourable exceptions (Tim Egan in the NYT, the CBS "48 Hours" team.....), most of the mass media simply didn't bother. The narrative had (seemingly) been set in stone, and that was that. Not surprisingly, public perception was coloured heavily by this approach - the public in the US, UK and Italy all lapped up prurient juicy pieces about the manipulative Foxy Knoxy and the pliable "Harry Potter" geek boyfriend under her control. Thus the majority of the public chose to "look the other way" as well.

But Knox and Sollecito knew the truth. Their lawyers knew the truth. Their families and close friends knew the truth. And a very small number of other people in the media, in political circles, and in online communities, knew the truth. And that small collective of people were prepared to speak out in defence of Knox and Sollecito, and in condemnation of the Italian justice process that had treated them so abhorrently between 2007 and 2015.And ultimately (thankfully, but scandalously late) the Italian courts determined the truth (with the dishonourable exception of the outstanding criminal slander conviction, which the ECHR will force Italy to remedy).

And that small collection of people was right.

Actually, I agree with you about how frightful the press can be: low standards, repetitions and 'copy and pastes' from 'press releases', outright plagiarism, even making stories up. Only a small handful actually go out and find stories. However, that is to miss the point.

What the press does give us is the knee jerk emotional temperature of the community we live in. So, whilst the lurid coverage of 'Foxy Knoxy' was ghastly, nonetheless it raises the interesting sociological issue: what came first, the public's demand for salacious stories, or the press feeding them to society?

A female rapist/murderer is so rare, of course there is going to be prurient press interest. However, that's not to say the interest is erroneous or false.

The Marasca supreme court definitively upheld that Amanda was certainly at the murder scene, and Raff, almost certainly. This is based on the solid evidence of the lower merits fact-finding courts, who evaluate the evidence in extraordinarily fine detail.

It is established as a fact, the burglary was staged after the murder and the perpetrator/s undressed and moved Mez' body after her death and desecrated her dignity and modesty. We know Rudy fled almost immediately afterwards and spent the rest of the night at a public disco. Only one person had access to the cottage that weekend, together with all the time in the world to stage the two scenes. In addition, Amanda and Raff were careful to make sure Rudy's crap remained unflushed, despite cleaning up (Rudy testified the hallway was covered in blood and he couldn't understand how Amanda could have slept there).

These people took the time to cover Mez with her own duvet, that her father had helped her to buy in London.

Amanda has shown zero remorse and shed no tears for her 'friend'. So for her to write that sentences for rapists should be as light as six months shows just what a cold-hearted psychopath she is.

Amanda by her own account, in her own writing, and under no pressure or demand for it, recounted how she took 'Patrick' (= meaning Rudy, as upheld by the Marasca supreme court) to the cottage for sex with Mez.

 

[Planigale]

Then why did you direct people to the Amanda fan site showing just the three 'defence' wounds, when we were talking about numerous knife prick wounds.

You tried to make out this was untrue and your citation was the sum of it.

Why do you think facts change depending where they are posted? The reference was to an undisputed court document illustrating the wounds. You have to understand most people unlike you do not make stuff up. If it makes any difference you can have the same facts from the prosecution pathologists referenced to a different web site. The facts remain the same three cuts on the hands. (Ten knife wounds in total).

Lalli (http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Luca_Lalli's_Testimony)

"Dovrebbe essere il terzo dito, era il polpastrello del primo dito. Polpastrello del primo dito della mano destra, mentre alla... faccio (inc.) della falange, della prima falange del secondo dito della mano sinistra era presente questa piccola area, questa piccola lesione che interessando, interessando gli strati superficiali dell'epidermide può essere considerata una piccola soluzione di continuo....
da strumento non meglio indicabile, quindi astrattamente compatibile con l'uso della... con l'uso della mano, cioè, con un afferramento, con l'uso della mano, più... Più, ecco, c'erano delle lesioni sul palmo della mano destra che erano piccole lesioni, e parliamo delle foto presenti alla pagina 34, sono piccole, piccole lesioni molto molto modesta come lesività, piccole lesioni comunque compatibili con l'azione di uno strumento da punta.
GCM:
Scusi, per la collocazione di queste, di questi segni di lesione...
LL:
Sì.
GCM:
Lei prima diceva non c'è stata...
LL:
Il palmo della mano.
GCM:
Sì, non c'è stata attività difensiva della vittima, ecco, si può interpretare...
LL:
Allora, l'attività difensiva nell'ambito di una risposta ad uno strumento da punta e taglio, sì, questa può essere qualificata come possibile difesa, come possibile azione di difesa, anche se in genere vengono descritte nella difesa, soprattutto di una azione portata in essere con colpi magari reiterati, vengono descritte nel senso che si rilevano lesioni da difesa molto più importanti, a livello delle mani, che cercano di bloccare lo strumento che porta l'offesa; comunque essendo queste delle lesioni localizzate al palmo della mano, sono compatibili con lesioni che si possono creare nel momento in cui uno cerca di opporsi allo strumento vulnerante.
GCM:
E questo può dirsi anche intanto che... a quella a pagina 35 al dito, al falange?
LL:
Sì, astrattamente sì, come l'avevo indicata, quella a pagina 35 sì.
FM:
Le lesioni, quelle che stavamo vedendo sulle mani, e in generale le lesioni da difesa, nella sua esperienza, sono proporzionate all'offesa, in quel momento, esistente da cui ci si difende?
LL:
Bisogna vedere le posizioni...
FM:
Mi spiego: di fronte ad una serie di piccole offese o comunque contenute offese effettuate con la punta del coltello per difendermi, per cercare di allontanarlo, quindi non sto parlando delle ferite principali e soprattutto di quella principale sul collo, ma di quella, ad esempio, sulla guancia eccetera, eccetera, posso difendermi con la mano e ricevere quindi corrispondenti offese sulla mano, così come evidenziato?
LL:
Sì.
FM:
Cioè c'è una proporzionalità tra la lesione da difesa e la lesione da offesa?
LL:
In genere la proporzionalità deriva dalla dall'intensità dell'offesa, ovvero più l'offesa è intensa, quindi portata con colpi reiterati e violenti e più... e c'è capacità di difesa maggiori sono le lesioni da difesa. La proporzionalità se si vuole parlare di proporzionalità è questa.
FM:
Certo. E la minima consistenza di queste lesioni sulle mani, può derivare anche dal fatto che in quel momento fossero presenti più persone? E...
LL:
Io, personalmente non sono in grado di rispondere su questo, perché è... Non c'è una, a mio giudizio, corrispondenza tra la lesione sul... tra la lesione sull'organismo cioè la lesione obiettivabile e il dato circostanziale non noto. Quindi, io non me la sento di rispondere in questi termini e sotto, diciamo, il profilo interpretativo."

 

[Vixen]

Your response is a non sequitur.

Let me try again...

"...well written and insightful..."

...now address the issue or shut up.

Let me try again.

The article is NOT well-written; it is degrading to the victim. Its titillating details are uneccessary.

It is unintentionally 'insightful' inosfar it vividly demonstrates the monster that is Amanda.

 

[bagels]

Vixen pretty much stands alone peddling the stuff she peddles.

This is a question for the lurkers out there - IF any are left. Is there any lurker out there who supports Vixen's posts, who would themselves post one post saying so.

Telling us why is optional. If you are not a regular poster to this thread and are somewhat convinced by Vixen's lies posts, please do us a kindness and tell us so.

I am a lurker of continuation 22. I'll lurk in every once in a while to see if any PGP have explained any of the following:

1. Why the alleged murder weapon is the only known murder weapon in the world to contain DNA but no blood.

2. Why Rudy Guede was not thoroughly interrogated and offered a deal to produce evidence against the students, and why this wasn't a failure of the prosecution.

3. Why the interrogation of Amanda Knox was not a procedural failure even though it was a procedural failure and didn't allow the prosecution to extract any admissible incriminating information, and why having nothing was preferable to recording the interrogation, using a neutral translator, and informing the suspect of their rights and providing them with a lawyer, potentially having something.

4. How the crime was an unplanned and a spontaneous escalation of violence (Night with prior engagements, no communication or coordination with virtual stranger Rudy) but also simultaneously a premeditated planned murder involving carrying a kitchen knife across town.

5. How the protracted events of the murder went unwitnessed by a tow truck operator, the occupants of the car waiting to be towed, and another car with acquaintances of the first car, all parked directly in front of the cottage, for a significant portion of the night time in question.

6. Why the only provably incriminating forensic traces found at the cottage specifically timestamped to the time of the murder all belonging to a known burglar Rudy Guede, who was spotted on CCTV twice near the cottage, alone each time, including before Amanda and Raffaele were aware their prior evening plans would be canceled, and with the crime scene having a second story rock smashed window above climbable metal bars suspiciously similar to Rudy the burglar's criminal evidence connection to an earlier break-in a few blocks away with a second story rock smashed window above climbable metal bars - does not add reasonable doubt that the prosecution's vague incoherent crime theory was actually the result of a botched interrogation resulting in the wrongful arrests for a crime that was actually a simple burglary gone bad?

I suspect I will remain lurking in this thread before any of these questions are answered.

 

[Mike1711]

Let me try again.

The article is NOT well-written; it is degrading to the victim. Its titillating details are uneccessary.

It is unintentionally 'insightful' inosfar it vividly demonstrates the monster that is Amanda.

That's a better response.

Now!

Please supply a cut and paste backup from the article to support this

 

[HumanityBlues]

Wow.

 

[Methos]

That's a better response.

Now!

Please supply a cut and paste backup from the article to support this

Let me help out:
West Seattle Herald, June 13th, 2016

Amanda's View: The Stanford rape case: redirecting focus
06/13/2016

By Amanda Knox

There has been a lot of discussion and shaming surrounding the Stanford rape case—of the defendant Brock Allen Turner, presiding Judge Persky, and the criminal justice system as a whole. It’s the digital world equivalent of a lot of loud yelling, fist shaking, and rotten fruit throwing. There has, however, been fewer discussions—or lesser, quieter sentiments perhaps—about reparations for the victim. It’s like we consider punishment and shaming as society’s first responsibility, greatest strength, and ultimately effective means of seeking justice. As important as the prosecution and sentencing process is in the defense of sexual assault victims, we shouldn’t rely so heavily on the perpetrator’s punishment to right their wrong, especially when many, if not most, cases of sexual assault can’t lead to prosecution, a guilty verdict, and sentencing at all.

On January 18, 2015, while bicycling through the Stanford campus, students Carl-Fredrik Ardnt and Peter Jonsson saw a young man, Brock Allen Turner, on top of a young woman on the ground behind a dumpster. The woman was not moving, and Turner was thrusting his hips into her. Ardnt and Jonsson approached and asked Turner what he was doing. Turner stood up, and Arndt and Jonsson saw that the woman still wasn’t moving and was in fact unconscious. Horrified, they called Turner out and Turner fled. Jonsson chased after him and caught him. Ardnt and Jonsson then called the police and restrained Turner until police arrived.

The victim, referred to as Emily Doe to protect her identity, woke up the next morning in the hospital with pine needles in her hair, abrasions on her extremities, and no memory of the assault. She underwent an invasive examination, resulting in the following evaluation: her anus and vagina had been exposed to the outside, her breasts had been groped, fingers dirty with pine needles and debris had been jabbed inside of her vagina, and her bare skin and head had been rubbed against the ground.

What followed was a grueling legal battle over the validity of Emily Doe’s victimhood. Turner did not recognize his criminal responsibility, blaming intoxication and claiming consent. Over the course of the trial, Emily Doe was confronted with unreasonable scrutiny and humiliating, irrelevant questioning meant to delegitimize her. As the GIRLS cast point out in their PSA video, this is often the default reaction to a victim of sexual assault: to disbelieve, silence, and shame. In response, Emily Doe found the courage to articulate her experience of absolute vulnerability with clarity and dignity.

Regardless of the circumstances that lead Turner to doing what he did, he did do it, and on March 30, 2016, he was found guilty of three felony counts—assault with the intent to commit rape of an unconscious person; sexual penetration of an unconscious person; and sexual penetration of an intoxicated person. Emily Doe was vindicated.

The Stanford rape case would likely have disappeared from current-event-consciousness into the oblivion of countless similar campus rape cases were it not for the surprising turn at Turner’s sentencing on June 2, 2016. The maximum sentence Turner faced was 14 years imprisonment. Prosecutors recommended six. Judge Aaron Persky sentenced Turner to just six months imprisonment, three year’s probation, and lifetime registration as a sex offender—what Gavin Kovite, a prosecutor friend of mine, says is akin to “a sweet plea deal,” not the sentence in a contested case where the criminal hasn’t admitted criminal responsibility or expressed remorse.

The vast majority of voices responding to Judge Persky’s sentence would have it that the term of Turner’s imprisonment and probation be much longer, to appropriately symbolize the severity of his crime and society’s absolute non-tolerance policy towards sexual assault in all its forms. This is both social and legal progress, because campus rape, like acquaintance rape, has historically been regarded as not a big deal and not prosecutable, because it’s not “rape rape”—a sodomist psychopath lurking in the bushes with a razor blade.

Within a civilized justice system, sentencing should impose the most lenient, effective punishment that neutralizes the threat of the present criminal and deters future criminals. Sentencing should not, however, seek vengeance. Perhaps Judge Persky is right, and Turner will only need to witness his reputation and future dissolve before his eyes, six month’s imprisonment, three year’s probation, and lifetime of registering as a sex offender to neutralize the threat of him re-committing sexual assault. Perhaps not. Judge Perky’s humanization of Turner-the-criminal is not abominable. However, Judge Persky’s restraint did in fact favor leniency at the expense of deterrence, and he deferred responsibility for the denunciation of the crime onto the rest of society, which, unfortunately, isn’t historically good at humanizing criminals and refraining from seeking vengeance.

It would indeed be an important reparation to Emily Doe if somehow society were able to make Turner recognize his wrongdoing. But there is no way to do that. No amount or form of punishment will necessarily make a perpetrator in denial recognize their fault. Rather, disproportionate punishment on the light end diminishes the symbolic severity of the crime, and disproportionate punishment on the heavy end encourages perpetrators to recognize themselves first and foremost as victims. Any punishment that is purposed towards vengeance, as opposed to rehabilitation and reintegration, is doomed to failure.

The Stanford rape case is the latest example of the problems afflicting our justice system regarding, yes, the unfairness of sentencing, but also, our reliance on sentencing to do right in response to wrongdoing.

If it were true that the only way to address the suffering of a victim were through the punishment of the perpetrator, then it would indeed be a travesty whenever leniency was shown. Fortunately, this is not the case. A sentence is not the only signal society can give that the severity and consequences of a crime matter. We can pay attention and care about the suffering of the victim, whether they are vindicated in a court of law or not. We can mandate educational programs that encourage awareness of the risk factors of campus sexual assault and rape, and educate youth on how to communicate and recognize consent. We can create safer environments for a victim to come forward and find solidarity and support, whether they can prove the assault occurred or not. We can embrace a victim through their recovery, offer them resources, give them voice, recognize their value and struggle, whether we recognize and punish the perpetrator or not.

In many, if not most, cases of sexual assault and rape, the crime is difficult to ascertain and, therefore, prosecute. While DNA testing and forensic evidence can prove sexual contact has taken place, the line between sexual contact and sexual assault is drawn by consent, the evidence of which often comes down to what he says versus what she says. In such cases, the crime cannot be determined beyond a reasonable doubt, and the justice system must rule in favor of the defendant. "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," states Blackstone’s ratio, one of the founding principles of our justice system, otherwise known as the presumption of innocence.

This is why it is especially important in cases of sexual assault, where, unlike any other crime, the proof is so often intangible, that we not confuse helping victims with condemning the accused without trial. It is important that society not necessarily correlate condemnation of the criminal with recognition of the victim, and in so doing deny the support and reparation a victim deserves. A better society is one that symbolizes the condemnation of a crime through the recognition and reparations to the victim more so than through reliance on the condemnation of the criminal.

 

[Bill Williams]

Let me help out:
West Seattle Herald, June 13th, 2016

Don't bother, Methos. Vixen is not concerned with evidence.

 

[Methos]

Don't bother, Methos. Vixen is not concerned with evidence.

Just for the record:

[...]If your post talks ABOUT another member of the forum, you are almost certainly breaching rule 12, so don't do it.[...]

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[Bill Williams]

Just for the record:

So..... addressing the posts and not the poster.... Vixen:

1. Presents something as a quoe from Dietrich Bonhoeffer when it is not from him at all, and then misrepresents the meaning of the quote.
   
2. Responds to the fact that she continually gives a "guilter spin" to things without providing a source (see post #119), with the come-back of a claim of a "logical fallacy #203", instead of providing the source.
   
3. Keeps misrepresenting the "majority view" of this case, including the motivations report written by Marasca and Bruno and released in Sept 2015, by continual cherry picking of paragraphs within it and never, never, ever quoting from te parts which explain why they exonerated the kids.
   
4. Responds to the citations provided by Planigale to the Injustice in Perugia website and Amandaknoxcase.com by simply calling them "so heavily one-sided, poor old Planigale has spent the last eight years believing, 'there were only three pinprick wounds on Mez'," when Planigale had not said any such thing, and not offering any example of those sites being "one sided".
   
5. Is show to have told four mistruths by Planigale in her claim that Planigale believed certain things for eight years (post #134),
   
6. Counsels that people think for themselves, but as "analemma" pointed out, "If anyone refutes a vixen claim they are attacked for not thinking and vixen lets the lie stand without defense. This lie and move on technique has been the PGP strategy since this whole sorry mess started."
   
7. says that "typos" and "errors" of hers are overblown, conceding that she (in fact) is careless in assembling (cutting and pasting) her "facts" (note #143)
   
8. writes that Knox's column in the WSH about the light sentence the rapist got, "vividly demonstrates the monster that is Amanda," (post #150), or, "So for her to write that sentences for rapists should be as light as six months shows just what a cold-hearted psychopath she is," (post #148)
   
9. ignores Methos who then posts the whole WSH piece and asks her to point to the section in it where Knox had said any of those things.

And other posters are not allowed to "address the poster" who continually does this in this thread....means that all one can do, really, is throw up their hands and wonder what happened to JREF/ISF as a skeptics' site.

 

[Bill Williams]

The Marasca supreme court definitively upheld that Amanda was certainly at the murder scene, and Raff, almost certainly. This is based on the solid evidence of the lower merits fact-finding courts, who evaluate the evidence in extraordinarily fine detail.

It is established as a judicial fact, the burglary was staged after the murder and the perpetrator/s undressed and moved Mez' body after her death and desecrated her dignity and modesty. We know Rudy fled almost immediately afterwards and spent the rest of the night at a public disco. Only one person had access to the cottage that weekend, together with all the time in the world to stage the two scenes. In addition, Amanda and Raff were careful to make sure Rudy's crap remained unflushed, despite cleaning up (Rudy testified the hallway was covered in blood and he couldn't understand how Amanda could have slept there).

Couldn't help but correct Vixen on that highlighted part. This case was plagued by judicial facts, which were found mainly in the absence of evidence but which seemed to hamstrung future courts - courts not wanting to be seen as out of step with preceding courts.

In the face of all that, the Marasca/Bruno court exonerated the kids - the word "exonerated" was used as a judicial fact in the Boninsegna Motivations Report when Knox was acquited of calunnia with regards to the translator/polise's allegations about the interrogation.

So at the very least judicial facts cut both ways in Italy!

With regards to Vixen repeating ad nauseam the canard that M/B found it as factual that Knox and Sollecito had been at the scene and that Knox had wiped blood from her hands, let me post ad nauseum the remarks in the M/B report which sandwich Vixen's claims:

9.2 The aspects of the objectively contradictory nature [of evidence] can be, as shown below, illustrated for each defendant, in a synoptic presentation of the elements favourable to the hypothesis of guilt and of the elements against it, as they are shown, of course, by the text of the challenged ruling and of the previous ones.

9.3 During the analysis of the aforementioned elements of evidence, it is certainly useful to remember that, taking for granted that the murder occurred in via della Pergola, the alleged presence at the house of the defendants cannot, in itself, be considered as proof of guilt. In the assessment of the problematic body of evidence, as described by the judge of the second appeal, one cannot but bear in mind the judicial concepts of merely not punishable connivance and of participation in a crime committed by others and of the distinction between them, as established by the indisputable teachings of the jurisprudence of legitimacy.

9.4. However, a matter of undoubted significance in favour of the appellants, in the sense that it excludes their material participation in the murder, even if it is hypothesised that they were present in the house on via della Pergola, consists of the absolute lack of biological traces attributable to them (except the clasp which will be dealt with further on) in the murder room or on the victim’s body, where instead numerous traces attributable to Guede were found.

And sure enough, M/B go on to hypothesize what Vixen claims they mean as factual. Here is where Vixen's claims sit. You make up your own mind. But when you do, remember that the conclusion of this synoptic recreation of things leads M/B to conclude:

10. The intrinsic contradictory nature of the evidence, emerging from the text of the appealed verdict, in essence undermines the connective tissue of the same, leading to its annulment.

In fact, in the presence of a scenario marked by many contradictions, the referral judge should not have come to a verdict of guilt, but - as previously observed – should have reached a verdict of not guilty, given Article 530, section 2, Italian Code of Criminal Procedure.

Marasca/Bruno had just demonstrated that the evidence taken together from both sources, prosecution and defence, leads one to see, "(t)he intrinsic contradictory nature of the evidence".

Vixen will, no doubt, continue to cite that small part of Section 9 - and cite it out of context of the report as a whole, but more importantly out of the context as established in Section 9.2.

 

[analemma]

Couldn't help but correct Vixen on that highlighted part. This case was plagued by judicial facts, which were found mainly in the absence of evidence but which seemed to hamstrung future courts - courts not wanting to be seen as out of step with preceding courts.

In the face of all that, the Marasca/Bruno court exonerated the kids - the word "exonerated" was used as a judicial fact in the Boninsegna Motivations Report when Knox was acquited of calunnia with regards to the translator/polise's allegations about the interrogation.

So at the very least judicial facts cut both ways in Italy!

With regards to Vixen repeating ad nauseam the canard that M/B found it as factual that Knox and Sollecito had been at the scene and that Knox had wiped blood from her hands, let me post ad nauseum the remarks in the M/B report which sandwich Vixen's claims:

​

And sure enough, M/B go on to hypothesize what Vixen claims they mean as factual. Here is where Vixen's claims sit. You make up your own mind. But when you do, remember that the conclusion of this synoptic recreation of things leads M/B to conclude:

​

Marasca/Bruno had just demonstrated that the evidence taken together from both sources, prosecution and defence, leads one to see, "(t)he intrinsic contradictory nature of the evidence".

Vixen will, no doubt, continue to cite that small part of Section 9 - and cite it out of context of the report as a whole, but more importantly out of the context as established in Section 9.2.

Bill,

Thanks for this analysis, it really does reveal the nature of the PGP cherry picking.

Analemma

 

[Vixen]

I am a lurker of continuation 22. I'll lurk in every once in a while to see if any PGP have explained any of the following:

1. Why the alleged murder weapon is the only known murder weapon in the world to contain DNA but no blood.

2. Why Rudy Guede was not thoroughly interrogated and offered a deal to produce evidence against the students, and why this wasn't a failure of the prosecution.

3. Why the interrogation of Amanda Knox was not a procedural failure even though it was a procedural failure and didn't allow the prosecution to extract any admissible incriminating information, and why having nothing was preferable to recording the interrogation, using a neutral translator, and informing the suspect of their rights and providing them with a lawyer, potentially having something.

4. How the crime was an unplanned and a spontaneous escalation of violence (Night with prior engagements, no communication or coordination with virtual stranger Rudy) but also simultaneously a premeditated planned murder involving carrying a kitchen knife across town.

5. How the protracted events of the murder went unwitnessed by a tow truck operator, the occupants of the car waiting to be towed, and another car with acquaintances of the first car, all parked directly in front of the cottage, for a significant portion of the night time in question.

6. Why the only provably incriminating forensic traces found at the cottage specifically timestamped to the time of the murder all belonging to a known burglar Rudy Guede, who was spotted on CCTV twice near the cottage, alone each time, including before Amanda and Raffaele were aware their prior evening plans would be canceled, and with the crime scene having a second story rock smashed window above climbable metal bars suspiciously similar to Rudy the burglar's criminal evidence connection to an earlier break-in a few blocks away with a second story rock smashed window above climbable metal bars - does not add reasonable doubt that the prosecution's vague incoherent crime theory was actually the result of a botched interrogation resulting in the wrongful arrests for a crime that was actually a simple burglary gone bad?

I suspect I will remain lurking in this thread before any of these questions are answered.

Raff took various provisions to the cottage to cook a meal and may have taken the knife there, then.