Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

And BTW, Vixen. I am extremely proud of Raffaele. Of course, I'm not harboring a cognitively dissonant view that he is a killer. I see him as thee classiest act in this farce.

Agreed. Welcome back, AC.

 

[Bill Williams]

I already referenced Professor Novelli for you, yet you appear to have a blind spot.

Novelli worked for Mignini as a prosecution expert. And he straight up said in his own testimony Stefanoni didn't follow protocol. So this example fails on every front I asked you for. Try again? Or don't. Might hurt your buddy's book income if you were shown to be a fraud.

It's not that Novelli's testimony was not skewed.

You see, Vixen did not reference Novelli, Vixen referenced what Judge Nencini said about Novelli, a witness Nencini himself had not heard.

Nencini said that Novelli had confirmed that multiple amplifications were part of standard protocol, but then added, "But it all depends on the experience of the machine operator," or such words.

Did Novelli say that latter thing? Does anyone have access to Novelli's testimony to the Massei court? My bet is that Novelli made a comment about operator experience in a way which was unconnected to Novelli affirming the proper protocol (which Stefanoni did not follow). At no time did Nencini say that that latter clause applied to Stefanoni, even if it were true.

But still - this makes Marasca/Bruno's eventual throwing out of Nencini's conviction all the more transparent: with the information Nencini had (about Novelli) Nencini should have acquitted!

Why is that hard to understand? Why would Vixen want to skew it all - arguing against the plain text meaning of what both Nencini AND Marasca/Bruno wrote?

 

[Bill Williams]

Liz did a simple comparison with what Amanda said in her book, and the facts according to court records and her own statements to the police and the courts. This is an enormous undertaking as the book is a complex elaborate hoax from page one to the finish, wherein she claims Marasca declared her 'innocent'.

Liz is one sharp, smart lady. Her personal beliefs have nothing to do with it. Why attack someone for their personal beliefs?

Liz Houle is comfirmation biased. Marasca (colloquially speaking) did declare her and Raffaele innocent. In Italian legal parlance, Judge Boninsegna perhaps put it the proper way by saying that the Marasca/Bruno panel of the ISC exonerated the pair. Boninsegna advanced that as a judicial fact, and this has not been challenged anywhere with the authority to challenge it.

Houle's personal "beliefs" have everything to do with it. Houle has abandoned the scientific method - both in her astrology as well as in her book. For one thing her premise is completely batty...... what can "proving" that WTBH "is a hoax" possibly have to do with The Supreme Court in Rome exonerating them?

I agree - Houle's effort is an enormous undertaking. She reminds me of that other astrologer who nearly 5 years ago addressed a question as to his own expertise at "knowing" that AK and RS were guilty.

He said he combined astrology with "observational psychology". Given that one of my university degrees is in that discipline, I was surprised to learn another sub-discipline existed within that large tent called, "psychology."

Then it occurred to me. Observation psychology is a euphemism for "watching", and then applying one's own confirmation bias to what one sees.

Liz Houle is yet another who is spending inordinate time making money off of other people's misery. I wonder if she used that other fraudulent method, Statement Analysis, to continue to expose lies and make her money.

 

[acbytesla]

Agreed. Welcome back, AC.

Thanks Bill. Any idea when the ECHR might rule?

 

[Numbers]

When the police and other judicial authorities break the law (Google translation):

Art. 372.
False testimony.

Anyone to testify as a witness before the courts or the International Criminal Court, says the false or deny the truth, or is silent, in whole or in part, what he knows about the facts on which it is questioned, it shall be punished with imprisonment from two to six years (1).

(1) As amended prior art. 11, second paragraph, D.L. June 8, 1992, n. 306, converted with amendments into Law August 7, 1992, n. 356, and later by art. 10, paragraph 5 of Law 20 December 2012, n. 237.

_______________

Cfr. Criminal Cassation, sez. VI, judgment of 21 May 2008 n. 20328 and Penal Cassation, sez. VI, judgment of 28 September 2009, no. 38107 of Altalex Massimario.

Art. 373.
False expert opinion or interpretation.

The expert or interpreter, appointed by the court, gives advice or false interpretations, or states incorrect facts true, subject to the penalties established in the preceding article.
The sentence, plus disqualification from public office, disqualification from the profession or art.

Source for the above, in Italian:
http://www.altalex.com/documents/ne...itti-contro-l-amministrazione-della-giustizia

And there is a new Italian criminal law, CP Article 375 (replacing the old provision of this number), Fraud in the criminal trial and misdirection, Law 2016/133 (enacted 11 July 2016), brought to attention by poster roteoctober in a post on IIP Forum. Google translation:

Art. 375 (fraud in criminal and screening process) .- Unless the act constitutes a more 'serious offense, and' punished with imprisonment from three to eight years, the public official or the person providing a public service, in order to prevent, hinder or seduce an investigation or a criminal trial: a) artificially immuta {muta, changes?} the corpus delicti, or the state of the places, things or persons connected with the crime; b) requested autorita 'judicial or police to provide information in a criminal case, says the false or deny the truth, or is silent, in whole or in part, what' know the principal facts on which it is heard. If the fact and 'committed by destruction, suppression, concealment, damage, in whole or in part, or training or artificial alteration, in whole or in part, of a document or an object to be used as evidence or in any case useful to the discovery of the crime or its investigation, punishment and 'increased by a third to half'. ...

Source (in Italian):
https://legalederosa.wordpress.com/...so-penale-e-depistaggio-modifica-art-375-c-p/

 

[Bill Williams]

Thanks Bill. Any idea when the ECHR might rule?

None. I'm thinking of taking up astrology to find out.

 

[Numbers]

Thanks Bill. Any idea when the ECHR might rule?

The ECHR will rule when it's ready.

Probably sometime in 2017, at a wild guess.

The ECHR review process involves one or more exchanges of documents and comments between the parties (the Italian government and Knox's legal team) and the ECHR, and then some time for the review by the ECHR judges. And the ECHR has many cases before it, so that can cause delay.

 

[Bill Williams]

The ECHR will rule when it's ready.

Probably sometime in 2017, at a wild guess.

The ECHR review process involves one or more exchanges of documents and comments between the parties (the Italian government and Knox's legal team) and the ECHR, and then some time for the review by the ECHR judges. And the ECHR has many cases before it, so that can cause delay.

Why don't they fast track it by giving it to Liz Houle?

 

[Numbers]

Why don't they fast track it by giving it to Liz Houle?

I didn't know she was an ECHR judge among her many other talents and professions.

Each is judge is from one of the CoE/ECHR States.

Which planet is she the judge from?

 

[Stacyhs]

Does anyone know of any case where Cassation has overturned a previous finalized C of C verdict concerning the same crime case?

I know a C of C declared that a woman could not be raped while wearing tight jeans and that a later C of C disagreed with that reasoning, but they were two different cases. Was it even legally possible for Marasca to declare that there were not multiple killers or that the robbery was not staged when those had been declared judicial truths by the Giordano C of C decision of Dec. 2010?

Can anyone else besides Vixen answer my questions above? For some reason, I have little faith in Vixen's answer being accurate. She stated "Yes, of course. It could have sent the issue back to a lower court."

I was under the impression that a lower court cannot overturn a "judicial truth" previously finalized by the Court of Cassation.

 

[Methos]

I chanced across one account of the case which was about 16 pages long and the characters names kept changing, it was full of inaccuracies and poor details and yet the author was charging IIRC about $3. Amazingly, it was and is still selling well. That's cashing in. It's good amazon do refunds.

I came across that one by some P.Q. Kidd, too. I did not buy it after reading the preview.

You are wrong. The court records do not corroborate Waiting to be heard or Honor Bound.

They do, as I wrote there is AFAIK only one major mistake about a certain phone call in "Waiting to Be Heard". (The rest are mistakes created by misinterpretation by people like Liz Houle...)

If you download Liz Houle's book,

I don't have to download Liz Houle's book, because I have already read it on her own blog (Poor marketing strategy, if you ask me...).

The only difference between the two versions seem to be that she replaced the sometimes inaccurate quotes from "Waiting to Be Heard" with some "explaination of what Amanda Knox wrote" in the "book" edition, probably to avoid copyright problems and that she added cartoonified versions of some well known pictures apparently for the same reason. So I have read the book and my criticism is on what I've read and not merely on the fact that the book exist.

you will discover that WTBH factually does not match the facts. It is a pack of lies, which should give you some warning as to its writer's claimed 'innocence'. In fact, it deliberately misleads the reader on key issues, such as the times of the phonecalls and sequence of events.

You have already said that.
But let's take a closer look at Liz Houle's book, there are quite a few things I have issues with, just from the amazon preview.

Let's start at the beginning:

Amanda Knox’s 500 pages memoir, Waiting to be Heard has been described as:
” . . . insulting, inflammatory, literally makes hundreds of false claims, slimes many, accuses others of crimes, whitewashes AK’s history—including banging a coke dealer for drugs, greatly distorts the factual evidence, and makes very little sense, even to those who have not followed the case closely.”

The link simply goes to the TJMK homepage and the post she "quotes" from has by now moved way down the page and in some time it won't be appearing on their "home" page at all. The link to the post would have been this one, but you'll have to go a long way through the ramblings on "tortured logic" which are indeed a very good example of tortured logic by some poster calling herself Chimera, who seemingly has the same MO as Liz Houle.
BTW: the "banging of a coke dealer for drugs" nonsense from the "quote" has been explained here.

After a bit of bla-bla about the "publication history" and a mention of the mighty and much feared Knox PR machine (my interpretation, not a quote), Liz houle now places an advertisement for Andrew Hodges' book "As Done Unto You: The Secret Confession of Amanda Knox". Dr Hodges takes the art of "I can read anything into any statement" also known as the pseudo science "statement analysis" to a new level. He was apparently betting on a cash in from the expected extradition battle, given the publication date. Hodges seems to be the other model for Ms Houle since as a first step she does the same as he does: Take something irrelevant, read a different meaning into it, blow this meaning out of proportion and interpret it the way you want.
The next step is dissecting this made up point and blame the original author for lying and misleading and whatever else comes to mind.

After this advertisement, Ms Houle tries to make the point, that Amanda Knox somehow was annoyed by Meredith Kercher taking up the remaining room at the cottage because she was speaking English, with the underlying unspoken suggestion that this could have somehow had been a reason for Amanda Knox to murder Meredith Kercher. The passage in the book reads:

Amanda tells everyone she is going to Italy and takes great pains in her plans to avoid any other English-speakers while there. She told her father that she chose the smaller town of Perugia over a larger city to avoid the crowds of students from America.

She was determined to live with Italians to speak and learn as much of the language as possible. Amanda makes it quite clear that anglophones were not welcome on her year abroad which made her feel brave and extraordinary.

[I wonder why this cartoon was added to the book? Everyone interested in the case knows what picture she's refering to...]
Once in Italy, Amanda is thrilled to find a room with two Italian girls: Filomena Romanelli and Laura Mezzetti. Amanda goes to great pains to detail how well the three of them got along, they shared the same interests and bonded immediately. Amanda reminisces fondly and in detail about how they all stood smiling with their arms around each other in a picture.

The Anglophone arrives

All of Amanda’s carefully crafted stories so far infer that Amanda’s Italian dream world ended when Meredith Kercher a British exchange student rented a room in the cottage. Amanda doesn’t say it outright but it’s inferred that Amanda must have been disappointed to have to live with an English speaker.

On her Blog the passage reads:

Amanda tells everyone she is going to Italy and takes great pains in her plans to avoid any other English-speakers while there. She told her father that she chose the smaller town of Perugia over a larger city to avoid the

“herds of American students.”

She was determined to live with Italians to speak and learn as much of the language as possible. Amanda makes it quite clear that anglophones were not welcome on her year abroad which made her feel

“exceptional and courageous.”

[no cartoonified picture here on the blog version... ]
Once in Italy, Amanda is thrilled to find a room with two Italian girls: Filomena Romanelli and Laura Mezzetti. Amanda goes to great pains to detail how well the three of them got along, they shared the same interests and bonded immediately. Amanda reminisces fondly and in detail about how they all stood smiling with their arms around each other in a picture.

The Anglophone arrives

All of Amanda’s carefully crafted stories so far infer that Amanda’s Italian dream world ended when Meredith Kercher a British exchange student rented a room in the cottage. Amanda doesn’t say it outright but it’s inferred that Amanda must have been disappointed to have to live with an English speaker.

It is noteworthy that the supposedly direct quotes from "Waiting to Be Heard" are gone in the book version especially because they are not direct quotes at all. The passage in chapter 1 of "Waiting to Heard" reads:

“Dad,” I said, trying to sound businesslike, “I’d like to spend next year learning Italian in a city called Perugia. It’s about halfway between Florence and Rome, but better than either because I won’t be part of a herd of American students. It’s a quiet town, and I’ll be with serious scholars. I’ll be submerged in the culture. And all my credits will transfer to UW.”
To my relief, his face read receptive.
Encouraged, I exhaled and said, “The University for Foreigners is a small school that focuses only on language. The program is intense, and I’ll have to work hard. The hours I’m not in class I’m sure I’ll be in the library. Just having to speak Italian every day will make a huge difference.”
He nodded. Mom was beaming at my success so far.
I kept going. “I’ve been living away from home for almost two years, I’ve been working, and I’ve gotten good grades. I promise I can take care of myself.”
“I worry that you’re too trusting for your own good, Amanda,” he said. “What if something happens? I can’t just make a phone call or come over. You’ll be on your own. It’s a long way from home.”
Dad has a playful side to him, but when he’s in parent mode he can sound as proper as a 1950s sitcom dad.
“That’s the whole point, Dad. I’ll be twenty soon, and I’m an adult. I know how to handle myself.”
“But it’s still our job to take care of you,” he said. “What if you get sick?”
“There’s a hospital there, and Aunt Dolly’s in Hamburg. It’s pretty close.”
“How much is tuition? Have you thought about the extra costs involved?”
“I’ve done all the math. I can pay for my own food and the extra expenses,” I said. “Remember I worked three jobs this past winter? I put almost all of it in the bank. I’ve got seventy-eight hundred dollars saved up.”
Dad wove his fingers together and set them, like an empty basket, on the table. “How would you get around?”
“The university is right downtown, and there’s a city bus,” I said. “And Perugia is small. It’s only about a hundred and sixty thousand people. I’m sure I’ll learn my way around really fast.”
“How will you stay in touch with us?”
“I’ll buy an Italian cell phone, and I’ll be on e-mail the whole time. We can even Skype.”
“Will you live in a dorm?”
“No, I’ll have to find my own housing, but I’m sure I can get a good apartment close to campus. I checked with the UW foreign exchange office—they say the University for Foreigners will give me a housing list when I get there. I’d really like to live with Italians so I can practice speaking the language.”
I didn’t know what my father would think, but I was pretty sure we’d be going back and forth for weeks no matter what. To my astonishment, he said yes before I’d picked up my fork.
“I’m proud of you, Amanda,” he said. “You’ve worked hard and saved a lot of money. I can tell how much this means to you.”
I knew I’d be just one of about 250,000 American college kids heading abroad in the fall, but this was the most momentous step I’d taken in my life so far. And I was unusual among the people I knew—most of my UW friends weren’t studying abroad. I felt exceptional. I felt courageous. I was meeting maturity head-on. I’d come back from Italy having evolved into an adult just by having been there. And I’d be fluent in Italian.

So the "herds of American students.” and “exceptional and courageous.” are not direct quotes from "Waiting to Be Heard" and replacing this non-quotes with something meaning something similar because of copyright reasons, waters down Ms Houle's suggestion of Amanda Knox wanting to avoid English speakers on her year abroad, Meredith Kercher's arrival spoiled that so Amanda Knox chose to kill her. even further.

I just can't understand how someone is able to read that meaning into the original paragraphs...

And in this way (misreading, making up then disproving) Ms Houle continues...

What Liz Houle is doing is similar to me stating the following:
"Liz Houle is a liar, she claims in her book that Amanda Knox's book has 500 pages. That is clearly wrong since Amazon lists the Hardcover edition as having 480 pages and the Paperback edition as having 496 pages. [add some self righteous ramblings and rantings here]"
Similar because the links to amazon I provided prove that I'm right and because I'm basing my rebuttal on something Ms Houle actually wrote and not on some "made into fitting my narrative" interpretation like she does...

This is why Liz and James' books are important in setting the record straight for the interested public.

I can't see how Mr Raper trying to sell very old whine (not a typo) in new bottles or Ms Houle's fighting against things she herself made up to shoot down, are doing anything to "set the record straight"?
In the case of Ms Houle it looks more like an attempt to get a new source of income because the examiner (the page she was publishing her cash-for-clicks articles before) has shut down as she has announced herself just days before going into self publishing mode... coincidence?

Wasn't Christopher Robinson flogging his book on the back of Amanda Knox publicity?

Wow, should I read this (applying Ms Houle's way of thinking) that you accuse Mr Robinson of dating Ms Knox solely because he thinks he can profit from his girlfiend's notoriety?

Have a word with LondonJohn about his insistence in bringing linguistics into it. (BTW LJ I have two Institute of Linguists certificates, too. this time from a course at London University SSEES. Eat your heart out.)

That comment was made because I don't want to have to cobble together the conversation by cross reading this thread and AAH.

...and before I have to re-do this post again because of a frequently crashing down computer, I'll hve to add this disclaimer (should be my signature):

"If you find a typo, you can keep it "

ETA: Ms Houle's book is a great and entertainig read, the only thing that's missing is this disclaimer:
"This is a work of fiction. Names, characters, businesses, places, events and incidents are either the products of the author’s imagination or used in a fictitious manner. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental."

 

[Methos]

Liz did a simple comparison with what Amanda said in her book, and the facts according to court records and her own statements to the police and the courts. This is an enormous undertaking as the book is a complex elaborate hoax from page one to the finish, wherein she claims Marasca declared her 'innocent'.

Liz is one sharp, smart lady. Her personal beliefs have nothing to do with it. Why attack someone for their personal beliefs?

See my post above...

 

[bagels]

Vixen don't you find it a little strange that, in what is perhaps the top international homicide trial of the new century, not a single distinguished legal expert, or even prominent public pundit or official (not on the state prosecution's team), has stated the case against Amanda Knox is strong? Despite having like eight years to do so while the case was still ongoing?

If you're trapped in a self delusion, there's sometimes clues you can use to try to find your way back to the light, or at least seriously question what you're choosing to believe.

 

[Bill Williams]

Prof. Novelli and Dr. Stefanoni

For anyone who would make reference to the peer-reviewed Prof Giuseppe Novelli as somehow sustaining Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni and her work with relation to the prosecution of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox......

Did you know that Prof. Novelli rates not one mention in the Massei report from 2010? Not one.

In the Fall of 2013 for the Florence Trial, Judge Nencini tasked officers of the Carabinieri in Rome to provide technical expertise on:

the findings of the expert report filed at the appeal level on 29 June 2011 by the court-appointed experts Prof. Carla Vecchiotti and Prof. Stefano Conti, together with the observations expressed by the consultants of the parties, Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni and Prof. Giuseppe Novelli, in documents they submitted at the hearing on 6 September 2011....​

In other words, Prof Novelli reported to the Hellmann court in 2011 purportedly in support of Dr. Stefanoni.

Of that 6 Sept 2011 report, Nencini quotes it as sustaining the 1 in 300 million billion that the knife trace was no one's other than Meredith Kercher's. With the exception of the issue of trace 36I, the RIS Carabinieri said nothing about Novelli's alleged support of Stefanoni's overall work.

Nencini then goes on examining Novelli's testimony to the Hellmann court - incredibly, Nencini accepts Novelli's tortured logic that:

- if this had been a paternity case then the quantity of available DNA would be unlimited, and therefore able to produce a result beyond doubt

- why should, then, this logic NOT apply to a one-off sample when there is no "quantity of DNA" to retest.

- therefore, the 1 in 300 million billion odds of identity with Kercher should stand​

Once again, it should be noted that this is not necessarily Prof. Novelli talking - this is Judge Nencini outlining what he regards as definitive in Prof. Novelli's report!

And further, this is not Prof. Novelli defending his own work, it is Nencini commenting on Conti-Vecchiotti's criticism of Stefanoni's work.

Then to the chase - the issue of multiple amplifications as part of protocol. The evidence that interested Judge Nencini is what Prof. Novelli said about this imperfect world we live in.

- incredibly, Prof. Novelli (rightly) says that multiple amplifications IS part of the protocol.

- more incredibly, "but there is also experience, common sense and the ability of a technician to be able to decide, faced with a given situation, what they should do."​

In other words, we are thrown back into what was wrong with Massei's 2010 reason for believing Stefanoni. We should trust her. Why?

"(O)therwise we would have to call into question all the DNA analyses ever done from 1986-87 until now, at least in our country."​

What follows in the Nencini report is this: Nencini sets it up by saying that the defence was right - yes, Nencini admits the defence objections were right - to object to only a single amplification being made.

Read that again. Nencini agrees with the objection that the defence made on this whole line of "support" Nencini draws from Novelli about Stefanoni.

And what Nencini then does - which is a reason stated by Marasca-Bruno as a reason to annul his conviction - Nencini then substitutes himself as a jurist for this seemingly scientific saw-off in the evidence; which is actually not a saw-off when you think about it - even Nencini agrees with the defence objection.

It's just that Nencini on his own, with no outside scientific, third-party support - substitutes his own opinion for the obvious scientific one:

This Court agrees with the fact that the attribution of the trace found on the blade of the knife seized at Raffaele Sollecito’s home to the biological profile of Meredith Kercher, although unambiguous, is not a fully rigorous piece of evidence, or to say it better, a rigorous element of proof, precisely because of its own intrinsic limitation of not having been able to furnish at least a double amplification. Yet it does not follow that the attribution of the trace to Meredith Kercher is unusable as evidence, as asserted not only by the defense of the defendants and their technical consultants but also by the experts Conti and Vecchiotti in their expert report.​

Read that rationale again. The evidence is not a rigorous element of proof - but we should keep it anyway. In the face of the only independent experts who say otherwise (Conti-Vecchiotti) Nencini simply substitutes himself as knowing better.
For heaven's sake, Nencini even admits that Conti-Vecchiotti handed in an expert report. What "expert reason", then, did Nencini appeal to to ignore it? The RIS Carabinieri? No, all the RIS Carabinieri did at the Nencini trial, particularly under cross examinination by Bongiorno, is echo what Prof Novelli had written in 2011 - that protocol demanded multiple amplifications; and perhaps one might also be guided by statistics when none are possible. But the RIS Carabinieri expressed no opinion as to whether or not Stefanoni might be trusted with that special talent.

So who supported Stefanoni's work?

No one. Neither Novelli in 2011 nor the RIS Carabinieri in 2013, who both had actually sustained the need for multiple amplifications so that protocol can be met; while at the same time failing to identify Stefanoni as one of those rare, experienced technical operators who should be allowed to throw protocol away.

One final thing about the alleged presence of the negative controls.

Nencini actually blames Vecchiotti for not specifically asking Stefanoni to hand them over. That's right - Vecchiotti is blamed by Nencini for something Stefanoni should have done as a matter of course.

On top of this Nencini compounds his lunacy by saying that Prof Novelli claims to have seen the negative controls at the Hellmann Trial in 2011. If that were true, why would Vecchiotti have had to have asked Stefanoni? They simply would have been part of the trial record in 2011!

Prof. Giuseppe Novelli made the effort to ask for them and duly obtained them, so that he was able to examine them and deduce the absence of contamination of the exhibit under analysis.​

For one thing, did any court, anywhere prove there was the absence of contamination? No. The courts from Chieffi's 2013 ISC ruling onward said it was the defence's role to prove a route of contamination.

The rest of the "argument" Nencini uses about Novelli's opinions relates to the testability of trace 36I, which in the end, once tested, added nothing to the case.

Does anyone still wish to pull out Prof. Novelli as being a peer-reviewed (which he is) forensic-DNA expert who supports Stefanoni's work? I know that Nencini did exactly that; yet couched it in terms reminiscent of Judge Massei in 2010 who decided things in terms of "who do you trust, the prosecution (Stefanoni) or the defence."

Massei refused to appoint an independent forensic-DNA expert so as to relieve himself, acc. to law, of the burden of substituting the judge as an expert over the experts.

Nencini did the same thing. With the exception of the issue of trace 36I, the RIS Carabinieri said nothing about Novelli's alleged support of Stefanoni's overall work. The RIS Carabinieri talked about applying a "Likelihood Ratio", but in fact themselves simply restated the need for international protocols to be followed, and Nencini cites nothing that the RIS Carabinieri tells his court, as to why this "likelihood ratio" applies to Stefanoni and her work.

Marasca-Bruno (in part) spotted that and trashed all the judicial renderings which convicted, convicting on the basis of a judge substituting himself as a supra-expert on these matters.

 

[Welshman]

Do you think it is honest for Amanda to cash in on a book packed with lies and designed to save her skin and smear the Italians?

So Liz is an astrologist. I myself once studied astrology to a high level, I used to make a point of popping into the Astrology Shop in Covent Garden to chat with its owner, an eminent British astrologer, whenever I was in the area. I don't know why or how, but it seems to work.

Liz' book about the Manipulative Memoir of Amanda Knox has nothing at all to do with astrology.

Vixen again accuses Amanda and Raffaele of lying. Since Meredith’s murder Vixen and other PGP have viciously attacked Amanda and Raffaele for lying. As can be seen from my post below, there are numerous instances when Vixen and her fellow PGP have lied themselves and condoned and ignored the lies of others and my list provided irrefutable evidence of this.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11333243#post11333243

I went out of my way to back up my claim that PGP lie themselves and condone and ignore the lies of others. For instance, when I said the PGP use Amazon reviews and the comments sections of articles to spread lies, I gave specific examples citing which book was reviewed, the name of the reviewer and the detail of the lie being told. When I pointed out that PGP have defended corrupt police/prosecutors who told numerous lies, I gave links to websites detailing these lies and gave examples in my post of the lies told by the prosecution. I then asked Vixen how can she and other PGP be in a position to accuse Amanda and Raffaele of lying when she and her fellow PGP have a long history of lying and condoning the lies of others. She refused to answer my question.

PGP such as Vixen conveniently forget that Amanda herself was a victim of lies. As stated previously, the police/prosecution told numerous lies. Amanda was lied to she had HIV. In case Vixen comes up with “this was a genuine test which turned out to be a false negative” line, there is an article from Nigel Scott below which demolishes this notion. If there was a genuine HIV test, why are there no details of the time, date and location of the test? Why has there been no documentation produced for this test?

https://nigelscott.co.uk/2016/05/25/amanda-knox-and-the-hiv-test-fraud/

The Nencini report used to convict Amanda was full of lies.

Vixen habitually lies in her posts. I have been going through Vixen’s posts and building a list of the instances where Vixen lies in her posts. Vixen accuses Amanda of lies which contradict court documents. Vixen has told lies in her posts which don’t appear in court documents. For instance, Vixen told this lie in a post dated 22.03.2016 “Stefanoni found 12 bits of tissue on the blade”. The reality there is no record of the prosecution saying there were 12 pieces of human tissue on the knife. This has never been presented as evidence or appear in documents prepared by the prosecution. When C&V tested the knife it was negative for the human species. The fake wiki also contains lies which don’t appear in or contradict court documents. The fake wiki repeats Vixen’s lie that the knife contains Meredith’s biological material. The fake wiki lies that negative control documents were presented in court when they were in fact not. If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was such a slam dunk as Vixen constantly claims, why do PGP have to resort to lying to argue their case? Vixen has refused to answer this question.

There are instances where Vixen has supported proven liars. Kokomani claims he saw Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy together. Kokomani was proven to be a liar when he described a gap in Amanda’s teeth which Amanda did not have. He also mentioned Amanda having an Italian uncle which Amanda did not have. Vixen supports Kokomani. Quintavalle says he saw Amanda in his shop the morning after the murder. The problem with this testimony is that Quintavalle was questioned by the police immediately after the murder and said he did not see Amanda in his shop. He did not say he saw Amanda in his shop until a year later. Quintavalle is a proven liar because he gave two different accounts and only one account can be true. Vixen supports Quintavalle. Nencini wrote a motivation full of falsehoods. Vixen defends Nencini.

Vixen and her fellow PGP have spread lies about Amanda and Raffaele. The fake wiki lied that Raffaele stabbed a girl in school. Vixen has repeated this lie in her posts. This lie is rebutted below :-

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaele-sollecito-scissor-attack-myth/

Vixen has lied in a post saying that Amanda’s family paid £2 million the PR firm hired by Amanda’s family. If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was such a slam dunk, why does Vixen and other PGP have to lie about things Amanda and Raffaele outside the murders.

Vixen has lied about what Amanda and Raffaele’s defence lawyers have said. This is a lie from Vixen’s post dated 11.05.2016 – “the defence on all sides have agreed without challenge that the DNA on the knife did indeed yield a near perfect profile of Mez”. The truth is the defence teams of Amanda and Raffaele have never accepted this. If the case against Amanda and Raffaele is such a slam dunk, why does Vixen need to lie about what the defence teams of Amanda and Raffaele have said?

In view of the above, the hypocrisy of Vixen and other PGP in accusing Amanda and Raffaele of lying is staggering.

 

[Bill Williams]

The Nencini report used to convict Amanda was full of lies.

I am not in a position of commenting on if Necini willfully lied - but reading the way Nencini handles Prof Novelli, Dr. Vecchiotti, the RIS Carabinieri and Dr. Stefanoni......

...... it is very clear that contrary to proper judicial practise, Nencini substituted himself as a supra-expert of the DNA evidence over and against independent forensic-DNA experts. If Nencini had a hunch that Conti-Vecchiotti's report was bogus, he had NO independent reason for thinking this.

Nencini wrote a motivation full of falsehoods. Vixen defends Nencini.

Once again, I am in no position to specifically say Nencini outright lied.

It is true, though, that Nencini twisted facts like a pretzel. Nencini accepted Rudy Guede's view that the murder came about because Meredith and Amanda were fighting over rent money. No one other than Rudy ever claimed this - yet it became the motive Nencini cited, over and against the "pooh-in-the-toilet" motive Prosecutor Crini advanced at trial (once again, with no evidence to support that one!)

Is it a lie for Nencini to accept the rent-money motive from Rudy, but not accept Rudy's view that it was Meredith who had let him in and that his DNA got inside her vagina by consent?

Did Nencini "lie" when he opined, again with no evidence other than his own hunch, that Rudy would never have broken in through Filomena's window because that was a known M.O. of his (known to the PLE) and that no self-respecting burglar would have done anything other than pick the front-door lock?

Are those lies?

Or is it as Marasca-Bruno wrote in Sept 2015 - that a judge cannot substitute a hunch for the evidence?

 

[Welshman]

I am not in a position of commenting on if Necini willfully lied - but reading the way Nencini handles Prof Novelli, Dr. Vecchiotti, the RIS Carabinieri and Dr. Stefanoni......

...... it is very clear that contrary to proper judicial practise, Nencini substituted himself as a supra-expert of the DNA evidence over and against independent forensic-DNA experts. If Nencini had a hunch that Conti-Vecchiotti's report was bogus, he had NO independent reason for thinking this.


Once again, I am in no position to specifically say Nencini outright lied.

It is true, though, that Nencini twisted facts like a pretzel. Nencini accepted Rudy Guede's view that the murder came about because Meredith and Amanda were fighting over rent money. No one other than Rudy ever claimed this - yet it became the motive Nencini cited, over and against the "pooh-in-the-toilet" motive Prosecutor Crini advanced at trial (once again, with no evidence to support that one!)

Is it a lie for Nencini to accept the rent-money motive from Rudy, but not accept Rudy's view that it was Meredith who had let him in and that his DNA got inside her vagina by consent?

Did Nencini "lie" when he opined, again with no evidence other than his own hunch, that Rudy would never have broken in through Filomena's window because that was a known M.O. of his (known to the PLE) and that no self-respecting burglar would have done anything other than pick the front-door lock?

Are those lies?

Or is it as Marasca-Bruno wrote in Sept 2015 - that a judge cannot substitute a hunch for the evidence?

The Nencini report contained documented lies as per the post below from the Injustice anywhere forum :-

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=85&t=3011

 

[bagels]

A few people jested (I think) that Nencini made his motivation report so bad on purpose to insure it would be overturned on appeal.

Of course I don't believe that and stand by the old saying, "he may look like an idiot, and sound like an idiot, but don't let that fool you...he really is an idiot."

...that being said, if one was trying to purposely botch their own ruling, they could hardly have done better than Nencini.

 

[Matthew Best]

Ms Houle's book is a great and entertaining read, the only thing that's missing is this disclaimer:
"This is a work of fiction. Names, characters, businesses, places, events and incidents are either the products of the author’s imagination or used in a fictitious manner. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental."

Thanks for that. One thing I notice is that Liz Houle apparently does not know the difference between "infer" and "imply".

Somehow this doesn't surprise me.

 

[Planigale]

Once again you attempt to mislead the reader. The London police forensics team are employed by the Met. According to planigale this is corrupt.

http://content.met.police.uk/Site/forensicservices

There is a conflict in interest. However unlike Steffanoni the met scientists are not police officers and the UK has a forensic science regulator to try and ensure a separation in interests. Indeed this is why the forensic science service was set up in the first place and why there are plans to reintroduce it.
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/forensic-science-regulator/about