Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dunno. Give up. What is it?

Some say "The Stig" is a Martian with esp ability. ...and some say he isn't.

Some say a certain Mensa individual on this very site is the very reason the average Mensa IQ has been downgraded to "below average".


You have to hand it to Vixen for managing to combine, in one short post, an unfounded and entirely unsupported smear about someone who's written in support of the acquittal of Knox and Sollecito (that he's driven by a lust for Knox) with a bizarre sexual fantasy (again, of course, unfounded and entirely unsupported) about lust driven by a liking for oral herpes. What a disgusting, shameless little woman. (I'm not talking about Knox)
 
i am sure you're aware that herpes cannot be diagnosed from a photograph. So once again you have come to a conclusion founded on no evidence.

...or are you going to surprise everyone with some evidence? Thought not.

But then again Vixen could not pass up an opportunity to sluttify a post about someone having "the hots" for someone else.
 
It's a herpes simplex.

Failed the test?

I am sure you're aware that herpes cannot be diagnosed from a photograph. So once again you have come to a conclusion founded on no evidence.

...or are you going to surprise everyone with some evidence? Thought not.

We know you won't retract.
 
Takes one to know one, eh ;):thumbsup:


Your standard of "come-back" is really getting very poor. Please try harder. Perhaps leaving a couple of minutes between posts to think things through will help, rather than uber-flooding the thread with garbage. Just sayin'. In passing. Ohimennen.
 
Nice evasions. I write something which proves that Novelli actually did not support Stefanoni, such that when Nencini quoted it he should have acquitted, and you ignore it completely by equating fingerprint evidence with forensic-DNA evidence.

That one is a laugher.

Remember, the original question was : name one independent forensic-DNA expert who agrees with Stefanoni's work? You provided Novelli, not independent and he still says the analysis should have had multiple amplifications.

This thread is still waiting for an answer. Rather than these evasions.

He also added the provisio that a competent senior forensic operative was capable of using her best judgement.
 
This is where Marasca erred. It wasn't under its jurisdiction to 'trash all the judicial renderings which convicted, convicting on the basis of a judge substituting himself as a supra-expert on these matters'; the only function of any appeal court is to hear the points of law being appealed and to review the judgment that came to that reasoning.

Nencini only had to show that his verdict (to uphold the findings of Massei as legally correct and a decision within the confines of a 'reasonable' one) was also 'reasonable' and within the reasonable scope, even if another court might have decided differently.

Marasca, fronted by two judges who had been appointed judges by virtue of their political office, had to twist and turn to accommodate Bongiorno, and it was telling they announced á la Hellmann, 'anything is possible' or something similar, foreshadowing they had already come to a verdict before the hearing and all they had to do now was to somehow shoe horn some reasoning for it. Enter, two and half days of submissions for Bongiorno to help them with their cut and paste out of a 306 page appeal,many of the points of law therein, already rejected by Chiefi res judicata.

The only remit Marasca had was to ajudge whether the verdict of Nencini was within the range of a 'reasonable' one, even if they might have found differently. It was defective in giving a verdict on the issue of contamination without sending it back down to be properly tried.

Nencini, as a judge, had the power to prefer the submissions of one expert over another.

As for Stefanoni, she did amplify the LCN to obtain the result that it was Mez' DNA.


Like I've told you before, if you're going to try to use French in order to convey some (bogus) form of erudition, get it right. Otherwise you look even more foolish (hard to believe, I know, but.....). It's à with a grave accent, not an acute accent. Maybe stick to English and Finnish, eh? Entertainment value still extremely high though :D
 
He also added the provisio that a competent senior forensic operative was capable of using her best judgement.


If only that descriptor applied to not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni, eh? Instead, there is a large quantity of reliable evidence that she acted fundamentally incompetently in her work on the Kercher case, not to mention her extraordinary levels of obfuscation (at best) and lying (at worst).
 
I wonder if Rudy's appeal could blow up in his face. Does anyone know if on appeal Rudy may get time added? It's certainly possible in many countries.

If so, he's playing with fire.

No, it's not a 'appeal' per se, it is a request for a review, which is dealt with differently, under the Italian Penal Code. It relates only to persons who have been convicted, there is no statute of limitations (extending even in death), the prosecutor can not appeal, and the only penalty would be a fine of €258 - €2.5K if found to be frivolous.

When new evidence is discovered, that by itself or together with that presented during the trial might justify an acquittal, the convict, his next of kin, his guardian, his heir — if the convict is dead — or the Procuratore Generale presso la Corte d'Appello (the Public Prosecutor attached to the Court of Appeals) may apply to the Court of Appeals for a review of trial. The Court decides de plano with an ordinanza if the application is receivable; if it deems it is not, the losing party can appeal the ordinanza before the Corte di Cassazione. If the Court of Appeals, or the Court of Cassation, deems that the application is receivable, the second part of the review begins before the Court of Appeals itself. During the new trial, the Court reexamines all evidence and can acquit the defendant or uphold his conviction; the verdict is, then appealable before the Court of Cassation. Even if an application for review was turned down before, the convict can apply again, so long as he presents new evidence. A "not guilty" verdict, which has become irrevocable (that has been upheld by the Court of Cassation, that is to say) can never be reviewed.

Other cases of review are as follows:

the conviction was based upon the facts ascertained by a civil or administrative Judge and his judgement has been revoked;
the conviction was the consequence of perjury, bribery or of another crime and the conviction for this crime is irrevocable;
there is discrepancy between the findings of fact contained in the conviction and in another irrevocable one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Code_of_Criminal_Procedure


So, you see, Rudy has nothing to lose, as Marasca does on the face of it appear to differ from Giordano.
 
Last edited:
So I had a passing interest in it once. Big deal. I was merely pointing out that astrology is a popular past-time/interest and even high art, as practised by Liz.


No. That's not what you wrote, is it? Shall I remind you what you wrote? Yes, I shall :)

You wrote:

"I myself once studied astrology to a high level [...] I don't know why or how, but it seems to work."

So "I once studied astrology to a high level" magically becomes "I had a passing interest in it once". Which is it. Vixen? It cannot be both. One of those is a lie, isn't it?

And "I was merely pointing out...." is another revision of history, isn't it? Because in your original post you were doing much more than "merely pointing out" as if you were some sort of objective bystander. No, you explicitly told us in your earlier post that you maintain a belief in it: "I don't know how or why, but it seems to work". So again, which is the true description and which is a lie?


Why mock someone's personal beliefs? Mocking Liz because she's an astrologer is a low blow.


You seem unable to comprehend that questioning someone's judgement and critical thinking faculties - on the basis that they hold a steadfast belief in the veracity and accuracy of a long-totally-discredited medieval piece of nonsense - is in no way the same as "mocking" someone. If Houle is asking to be taken seriously as an objective journalist, then it's entirely appropriate to question her credentials and her capacity for rational thought in the context of her adherence to astrology.

On top of that of course, and entirely regardless of Houle's misguided beliefs, she is a "journalist" of virtually zero credibility and quality. That's why she writes - for clicks at best, and probably for almost no remuneration - for a user-generated online aggregator where there is practically no quality control or editorial hurdle/oversight. And her "book" about Knox is self-evidently a nasty, vindictive effort which is littered with the types of personal prejudices and irrational biases that have characterised her scribblings for the website, and that are anathema for anyone purporting to be a serious, credible, honest investigative journalist. She's a waste of space so far as commentary on this case is concerned. A bitter little irrelevance.
 
(By way of comparison, do you remember any online articles or books written by Russell Grant, Jonathan Cainer or Mystic Meg* about well-known criminal cases? None immediately spring to mind. I wonder why that might be........ :rolleyes: :p)

* To US (and all non-UK, for that matter) readers, those three people have been among the most prominent media astrologers (sic) in the UK over the past few decades. All three are/were preposterous characters. But all three make/made large sums of money operating premium-rate telephone lines where the credulous and gullible could spend lots of their money calling to get astrological (sic) predictions. QED........
 
Bill Williams said:
But then again Vixen could not pass up an opportunity to sluttify a post about someone having "the hots" for someone else.

It was tongue in cheek. Calm down.

I am calm. Your rhetoric is not. You maintain a very sluttified view of this case, as well as those who argue (quite successfully) for innocence for Raffaele and Amanda. This includes the Italian Supreme Court, whom you now hurl all sorts of other "tongue in check's" designed to vilify them, with no evidence offered at all.

You'd do much better here if you answered questions put to you. One lingering one is to provide one - one! - peer-reviewed forensic-DNA expert who supports Stefanoni's work from 2007-2008.

You have not done that. You've merely surfed atop slutty remarks which you try to justify as being merely vacuous. You believe that two people had sex next to a dead person. You say that with no evidence, justification - I suppose that was "tongue in cheek" too!
 
Like I've told you before, if you're going to try to use French in order to convey some (bogus) form of erudition, get it right. Otherwise you look even more foolish (hard to believe, I know, but.....). It's à with a grave accent, not an acute accent. Maybe stick to English and Finnish, eh? Entertainment value still extremely high though :D

Emptor caveat.
 
He also added the provisio that a competent senior forensic operative was capable of using her best judgement.

And then did not identify Stefanoni as being one of those.

Can you identify one - one! - peer-reviewed forensic-DNA expert who agrees with Novelli on that point.

No? I thought not. However, every forensic DNA-expert agrees - multiple amplifications are required to satisfy protocol.

But why use protocol when you know beforehand the person is guilty!
 
I don't have a copy of WTBH to compare - goodness knows what happened to it.
Now that's the cheap way out, isn't it? Well, No answer is also an answer, isn't it?

As the legal process had not completed, it was obviously an attempt to pervert justice and a cynical attempt to get the 'Innocence Projects' behind her.
How exactly? And what "Innocence Projects" got behind her? She mustn't have been very successful, if that really was her plan...

It really doesn't matter what Liz Houle does, she is not accused of murder and rape.
Since Amanda Knox has been acquitted of the murder and rape charges I think it's save to say that she also is not "accused of murder and rape", at least not in a court of law, and aren't those the ones that matter?

If the jursidiction exists - and it does in Italy - Rudy can file the petition, as he has done.

Marasca's MR seems to be in contradiction of Giordano so it appears to meet the section which specifies a conviction can be appealed against such an occurrence.
He can file as much petitions as he wants, it will be indeed interesting to see how the courts will deal with it. Isn't it ironic, that Guede, after being the one who wanted the trials seperated, now wants his verdict tied to the one of the others?

Where do you get those "two and a half days" from?
On March 25th, 2015 prosecution, civil parties and Knox' lawyers were heard, IIRC Sollecito's lawyers spoke for about two hours on March 27th, 2015, before the court started deliberations...
Four of the five parties had just 20" each over two days to submit their skeleton arguments, Bongiono's stretched over two and a half days. IIRC Thursday, Friday and Monday (half day). You say it was 'only two and a half hours, or, 150"; how is that in any way equitable with 20"?
You may want check this post on TJMK on how the first day (a Wednesday) went, and this one about the Friday (no court session on Thursday).
No comment on the highlighted part...

Marasca was clearly bought by its lobbyists and probably by the Bongiorno defence. Marasca was retired immediately after, Bruno has been moved to a desk job, and is said to be suffering from psychological problems, and in any case, politician judges are now barred from this sort of case.
Do you have any sources for this? And who are "its lobbyists"?

We know Bongiorno paid Gill, because (a) he's hardly going to do it for nothing and (b), that's her Modus Operandi (cf: Aviello and Kokomani).
Who is we? And Aviello and Kokomani are credible, why?

This one? The interesting thing is that a lawsuit against WtBH hasn't been filed by now, I wonder why? ;)
It's published in the USA.
And Sollecito's book was published, where?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom