Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

For some reason I find this amazingly reassuring.
 
acbytesla said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're a bit like the 'fans' who turned up to the Manson trials with shaved head and cross tattooed on forehead. 'Helter Skelter, maaaaaan.' <fx nods sagely>.
 
NotEvenWrong said:
And this is what happens when you don't have an education, and believe that an advanced search algorithm scouring the internet failing to match a phrase a single time anywhere means you are still using it correctly.



Which is exactly what I said it was. Thanks for repeating what I said back to me. (BTW, you do this hilarious thing where someone proves you are wrong and a fool, then somehow twist it around pretending you are the one giving the other person a lecture, while repeating exactly the same thing the other person said to you. You are at least the 3rd guilter I've noticed who does this. Do you guys see the same psychiatrist?)



Lol you aren't having an informal Latin conversation, because we are having a conversation in English. You are using the (Latin) phrase as it is commonly used in English conversation. This is straight up the dumbest crap I have ever read.

You were using it in common language, and the common language way to say it is caveat emptor. I would call you an idiot but there are no words strong enough to describe the way you think, so I don't think that's fair.

If you were having an informal conversation in your made up Latin class, you may have a point. But, you don't. As usual. Looking forward to your lecture on how caveat emptor is a common phrase. And then probably accuse me and LJ of saying "emptor caveat". Because you are literally that nuts.



I have, and it doesn't exist.

Let me get this straight -- you have said the Salem witch trials are invalid because the legal rulings did not have a scientific basis.

You now appear to be saying there are NO scientific experts post-2008, that were not paid for by the prosecution, that refute Gill, Budowle, Hampikian, Conti, Vecchiotti, etc. In other words, ALL the independent, unbiased science supports the defense. The ONLY person who said Stefanoni did a bang up job was Stefanoni. Novelli even said she did not follow protocol in his testimony, AND HE WAS A PROSECUTION EXPERT.

So it looks like there is no science to support the initial Massei ruling, nor the Nencini ruling. It looks like all of the forensic scientists that have commented on the case, and the Italian Supreme Court exonerating Amanda and Raffaele, were all correct.

And now, it looks like you must agree that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent, since you can't find any science supporting your (former?) viewpoint. Remember -- you said for a legal ruling to be correct the evidence has to have a scientific basis. All of the world renowned forensic experts have said the evidence was bunk. And thus they must be innocent. It is now clear Massei and Nencini were wrong.

Unless, of course, you have ulterior motives and are shilling for some friends of yours who are trying to make a buck off Meredith's murder by publishing a dishonest, manipulative pack of lies in book form.

Are you sure you don't have a single forensic scientist on your side Vixen? I hope that isn't true; I thought better of you.



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.
Click to expand...


You are correct 'Caveat Emptor' is the conventional phrase. However, I happened to put 'emptor caveat' and LondonJohn in a moment of spectacular crass stupidity decided he'd correct me in order to publicly give me a dressing down. He showed himself to be a Bloody Fool, as 'emptor caveat' is not actually incorrect. I knew this. He didn't.

Why be so rude as to condescend to correct my grammar at all?

You've been told Latin is highly inflected and word order is thus less critical than it is in English, yet you still don't get it.

You haven't provided any evidence that Stefanoni faked evidence or that she didn't follow protocol. You know perfectly well Mez' DNA was LCN and thus when amplified, there was none left for a second amplification. The defence forensic experts witnessed this procedure, and if they failed to turn up, that is their gross negligence.

Nencini is not a scientist - although I'll bet he is very well-educated - he is a lawyer, when it comes down to it, albeit in a fancy robe. Lawyers are wordsmiths. They play with words. They are persuaders. All a judge is doing in an MR is persuading us his reasoning for the verdict is, well, persuasive. It is not a lab report or a research paper. It is an edict. He is telling you.

Likewise Massei, who heard all of the evidence presented before him. He could see the kids were guilty and that no amount of mitigation and barring of evidence could save them.

Gill and Hampikan are hired guns. Hampikan does the spin, rather like a politician's spiel, a load of soundbites designed to fool the public. Gill had €100K crammed into his hand by Bongiorno at the eleventh hour.


I have looked at it every which way, and can't see that the kids are innocent.
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
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.
Click to expand...

That didn't faze Marasca. It had no difficulty overriding rulings already upheld by Chiefi, and substituting its own.

It was thoroughly bent, and now Florence Assizes might come back to bite it, should Rudy's petition be accepted.
 
Methos said:
I came across that one by some P.Q. Kidd, too. I did not buy it after reading the preview.

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...)


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 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:

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:

On her Blog the passage reads:

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:

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...


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?


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?


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

...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." ;)
Click to expand...


Not so. There are many many factual misrepresentations in Waiting to Be Heard, so much so I found it virtually unreadable. A kind of Edgar Cayce meets Ron Hubbard, but without the enthralling sci-fi. It's like wading through treacle.


Re Liz Houle's book; that's her individual style. I wouldn't have put 'banging a coke dealer' or plugged Andrew Hodges, but hey, it's not me that's the author. She is extrovert, I am a lot more conservative. OTOH I like Liz' pithy way of summing things up in one or two sentences, where others will write pages. She cuts right through the lies. You can't deny Waiting to be Heard is a manipulative attempt by Amanda to get out of her murder charge. To do this, she smears many decent upright honest people. It truly is a despicable book cashing in on her notoreity and crime against humanity.
 
LondonJohn said:
Ah, once again you misunderstand. I have plenty of sympathy and compassion for the people affected, directly and indirectly, by these atrocities. As I do for murder victims everywhere. I simply don't need to broadcast that to the world in some sort of weird display of "conspicuous compassion". I think psychiatrists have a special term for people who feel such a need to broadcast (usually to complete strangers) how caring and sympathetic they are...........
Click to expand...

The special term is 'Friends of Amanda Knox'.
 
Bill Williams said:
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:

​
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?

​
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:

​
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!

​
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.
Click to expand...


The reason Chiefi sent back down Hellmann is for the very reason the prosecution experts were completely ignored by it. Not just Novelli, but also Torrecheli (_sp? [LJ can look this up for me].

Thus Nencini was tasked with looking at the prosecution's submissions, not just Conti & Vecchiotti. True, as pointed out by Marasca, this was not tantamount to 'you must uphold them'.

Let's face it, the only way out for the bought Marasca court was to gabble on about the 'press' and 'investigative amnesia', whatever they may be, as last time I looked, they were not 'points of law'.
 
Welshman said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't recall saying Raff stabbed a girl at school. Citation, please?
 
Last edited:
Numbers said:
Hi, ac. Welcome back to the recycling of false PGP claims thread.

I wish to call attention to the Wikipedia entries on Amanda Knox and on the Murder of Meredith Kercher, which seem to be consistent with the known facts, with perhaps a few relatively minor errors. The ongoing ECHR case that Knox has lodged against Italy for alleged violations of her Convention rights in convicting her of calunnia against Lumumba is not mentioned.

Here's an excerpt from the conclusion of the Wikipedia article on Knox:



Here's an excerpt from the conclusion of the article on the Murder of Meredith Kercher:



ETA: Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_Knox

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher
Click to expand...


Why does the PIP need to resort to deception? Those wiki entries lie by omission.

Would you be the person who wrote it by any chance?
 
Bill Williams said:
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?
Click to expand...

We know the Marasca court was bent. It gave Bongiorno, Raff counsel, two and a half days to give submissions, when everybody else only had twenty minutes. Bongiorno managed to hack on a report she paid Gill to provide - Gill was never cross-examined or saw the evidence first hand - and this is where Marasca gets its stuff from about Nencini being wrong not to rule the scene was contaminated. Bearing in mind Raff and Amanda made sure the cottage was tramped over by at least eight persons, knowing Mez' lifeless body lay behind the door, and that anyway, no crime scene is a sterile one, it took Marasca huge amounts of twisted logic, with its findings Amanda WAS at the scene and DID wash off Mez' blood, buried away at the back, and screaming headlines, 'flawed investigation' and 'unimpartial press' emblazoned at the front, to provide the cheap tabloids ready soundbites for their newspaper copy.
 
Last edited:
Bill Williams said:
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?
Click to expand...
Vixen said:
We know the Marasca court was bent.
Click to expand...
No "we" don't. This is a claim you alone have been making on this thread for months now - simply ignoring all contrary proof.
Vixen said:
It gave Bongiorno, Raff counsel, two and a half days to give submissions, when everybody else only had twenty minutes. Bongiorno managed to hack on a report she paid Gill to provide - Gill was never cross-examined or saw the evidence first hand - and this is where Marasca gets its stuff from about Nencini being wrong not to rule the scene was contaminated.
Click to expand...
LOL! Bongiorno paid Gill. Receipts please. This is as silly as your repeated claim that PIP posters are paid by the Gogerty-Marriott PR Monolith!

Never saw the evidence first hand? That's because Stefanoni destroyed it! Sample 36B is destroyed by necessity, the bra-clasp by Stefanoni's sheer incompetence. A forensic expert tends to comment on those sorts of colossal errors.
Vixen said:
Bearing in mind Raff and Amanda made sure the cottage was tramped over by at least eight persons, knowing Mez' lifeless body lay behind the door,
Click to expand...
Talk about begging the question. You realize, do you not, that Filomena was allowed access to "rummage through her room," (cf. John Follain's, "A Death in Italy") with the permission of authorities both before and after Meredith's body was found!? How did Amanda manage that!? She certainly is an all powerful witch, isn't she - your astrology training should point that out!

It is a hoot reading your confirmation biased, "begging the question" posts and claims.
Vixen said:
.... and that anyway, no crime scene is a sterile one, it took Marasca huge amounts of twisted logic, with its findings Amanda WAS at the scene and DID wash off Mez' blood, buried away at the back, and screaming headlines, 'flawed investigation' and 'unimpartial press' emblazoned at the front, to provide the cheap tabloids ready soundbites for their newspaper copy.
Click to expand...
Once again, for the umpteenth time, Amanda and Raffaele WERE at the crimescene before the body's discovery. Everyone admits that.

The "twisted logic" comes from your refusal to read Section 9.4ff from the point of view that Marasca/Bruno sets out in 9.2/9.3. Marasca-Bruno's timeline is an amalgam of timelines taken from both pro-prosecution and anti-prosecution submissions.

But you just keep on keeping on, with what "we" know!

Yet in grand Vixen style, you claim that Novelli provides a reference for Stefanoni, by quoting Nencini!!!!! And the quote that Nencini uses is to prove that even Novelli agrees that Stefanoni did not follow protocol.

Whose side are you on!?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
You are correct 'Caveat Emptor' is the conventional phrase. However, I happened to put 'emptor caveat' and LondonJohn in a moment of spectacular crass stupidity decided he'd correct me in order to publicly give me a dressing down. He showed himself to be a Bloody Fool, as 'emptor caveat' is not actually incorrect. I knew this. He didn't.

Why be so rude as to condescend to correct my grammar at all?

You've been told Latin is highly inflected and word order is thus less critical than it is in English, yet you still don't get it.

You haven't provided any evidence that Stefanoni faked evidence or that she didn't follow protocol. You know perfectly well Mez' DNA was LCN and thus when amplified, there was none left for a second amplification. The defence forensic experts witnessed this procedure, and if they failed to turn up, that is their gross negligence.

Nencini is not a scientist - although I'll bet he is very well-educated - he is a lawyer, when it comes down to it, albeit in a fancy robe. Lawyers are wordsmiths. They play with words. They are persuaders. All a judge is doing in an MR is persuading us his reasoning for the verdict is, well, persuasive. It is not a lab report or a research paper. It is an edict. He is telling you.

Likewise Massei, who heard all of the evidence presented before him. He could see the kids were guilty and that no amount of mitigation and barring of evidence could save them.

Gill and Hampikan are hired guns. Hampikan does the spin, rather like a politician's spiel, a load of soundbites designed to fool the public. Gill had €100K crammed into his hand by Bongiorno at the eleventh hour.


I have looked at it every which way, and can't see that the kids are innocent.
Click to expand...

You have been provided with evidence that Steffanoni provided false testimony both verbal and written with regards to the testing of the knife. In particular with regards to the quantification of the DNA. It quantified as undetectable she lied about that, and the method of quantification. Testifying falsely about the evidence is pretty close to falsifying evidence.

Your grasp of the process of DNA testing is slender to none so I can not be bothered to explain why the question was never about a second amplification. But ask your self before testing how did she know there was not enough DNA for a repeat test? The normal process is to split your sample and do a run on one half and keep the other in case of accidents. BUT before she ran the test how did she know the result? The very odd way the knife blade sample was processed different from all the other samples and the way Steffanoni seemed able to predict the result is unusual. Perhaps she also studied higher level astrology?
 
Vixen said:
I don't recall saying Raff stabbed a girl at school. Citation, please?
Click to expand...

I recall seeing the lie about Raffaele stabbing a girl at school in one of Vixen's posts. Vixen lies so much in her posts it is understandable that she may have problems remembering the lies she has said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom