Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

Vixen, before you try to lie and misdirect the line of questioning again, please answer the following (we will get to Stefanoni next):

Do you believe that

1) The court records, which show the defense and independent DNA experts asked for the controls on the DNA testing multiple times, yet did not receive them, are forged?

2) The world renowned, independent (they were not working for the prosecution nor the defense), forensic scientists Peter Gill (who is the man that invented LCN analysis -- the technique used on the knife blade), Bruce Budowle, Greg Hampikian, Stefano Conti, Carla Vecchiotti, etc. were paid off by someone to give false testimony and/or give false analyses?

3) The Italian Supreme Court, who acquitted Amanda and Raffaele after noting the flawed investigation and legal idiocy in the lower Massei and Nencini courts, were corrupted, bribed, paid off, by someone to get them off?

4) The media was corrupted and bribed by someone to mislead the American public?

5) Forensic Science International was paid off by... someone... again? To allow the publication of the peer reviewed work by Peter Gill explaining clearly, precisely, and scientifically why the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was flawed? The most prestigious forensic genetics journal in existence?

6) As an addition to 5), that Nature was paid off as well, since as Bill points out, they have recently published a paper explaining how LCN analysis is prone to contamination (directly supporting the conclusions by Gill and the other scientists in #2 above, and supporting what the pro-innocence side has been saying for 8 years now)?


Vixen, you believe the above 6 things, and you think the statement that Stefanoni did not provide controls, was biased towards the prosecution (whom she worked for), and did not follow proper protocol as outlined by Conti, Vecchiotti, Gill, etc is the "most paranoid conspiracy theories we have heard to date"? (your words)


Like I said, we will get to the claims regarding Stefanoni in a minute, but please clarify the above first before lying, twisting, distorting, and trying to manipulate the line of discussion. Thanks Vixen.

They WERE given the controls. Conti & Vecchiotti were discredited by Chiefi and Nencini. Hampikan and Budowle were a couple of innocence fraud Americans who had a weird idea the Italian Justice system was even more backward than the US, where until recently, even children were given 'life without parole' and whose death penalty is second only to China in its world human rights concerns. In China, people are executed for tax evasion. In Italy over 50% of all convicted persons have their convictions overturned, lifers are out on parole within about nine years, and there is no death penalty. Tell Hampikan and Budowle to go preach in their own country first.

Gill never put himself forward for cross-examination so his opinion does not legally count.


Marasca did indeed cite 'investigative flaws' - with defective and erroneous reasoning (what little there was of it) - they did indeed also uphold that Amanda was there at the murder scene and washed off Mez' blood.

Tell me, why did she never once call the police or report the crime?

 

[Bill Williams]

It's a shame Marasca doesn't realise it either, in that it legally (in perpetuity) places Amanda at the murder scene, and also very likely Raff, and yet the pair never reported Rudy - indeed Marasca court rules Amanda covered up for him. If failing to report a dead body, harbouring a criminal and lying to the police, falsely accusing an innocent man, are not heinous crimes in themselves, then you are seriously deluded.

It seems to never occur to you that elsewhere you argue that the ISC is not a fact-finding court. Yet when it suits you you claim it is.

What the law is in Italy is that the ISC has the last role in a criminal process. Without expressing an opinion on the factuality of what a lower court convicted upon, was it logical for that court to have convicted if a court had assembled those points as "facts".

Marasca-Bruno say, in this case: no. The ISC has no mechanism to assess factuality. But they do know how the law should have been applied.

Yet you keep keeping on with these canards.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen wants evidence of Stefanoni’s corruption. The links below provide evidence of this corruption. Vixen has accused C&V, Hellman and Bruno and Marcesca of being corrupt but then defends Stefanoni who suppressed evidence, falsified documents and lied. Vixen constantly accuses Amanda and Raffaele of lying but defends Stefanoni who committed perjury. This is yet another example of Vixen’s hypocrisy. Vixen constantly boasts about how strong the case against Amanda and Raffaele. Could Vixen explain why the prosecution had to resort to the measures detailed below if their case was such a slam dunk?

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/lab-data-suppression/

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contamination-labwork-coverup/

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/bra-clasp-contamination/

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredith-kercher-perjury-corruption/

All of Stefanoni's procedures were transparent and correct. They were witnessed by independent observers, hired by the defence themselves.

Conti & Vecchiotti tried to undermine Stefanoni, being in cohorts with the Sollecitos and Maori (shaking hands with them, but not with Crini for the prosecution). They deliberately misquoted Stefanoni and indulged in abstract speculation with little foundation in reality.

 

[Planigale]

Rudy knew how to pose Mez' body exactly as it appeared in Raff's manga comic back at the flat? He knew manga vampire slayers stabbed the vampire's neck both from the left and from the right? OK, so he had the same manga devilman sign off as Raff and expressed an interest in drinking blood in an eye-rolling video. However, how do you reconcile a burglar suddenly overcome by lust (your theory) with the highly stylised crime scene, which appeared thought out and calculated, all the way down to the handprint on the wall?

I am genuinely interested where you got this from. It is not something that was ever argued in court. There are no easily available pictures to show how the victim was 'posed' most available pictures show her covered. Have you seen a picture of the body exposed? (I have not)

Have you actually read the Manga book? It is easily available. You keep on saying the falsity about vampire slayer which makes me think you have not read this book. I have.

The heroine is a vampire who works for a shadowy government organisation she does the killing. She kills (evil) monsters. There is no big halloween killing. There is no posed body, there are no devilman symbols.

if you check the stats if a burglar breaks into a house and finds a single female present the likelihood of an assault is high. (By which I mean around 20%); so that a sexual assault occurred is not unusual. What is rare is the progress to murder, but not unknown.

 

[Stacyhs]

Can you arrange that for me?

Only under the condition that I can video it.

Still working on finding me a case where a C of C has overturned a previously confirmed C of C "judicial truth" regarding the same case?

 

[Vixen]

It seems to never occur to you that elsewhere you argue that the ISC is not a fact-finding court. Yet when it suits you you claim it is.

What the law is in Italy is that the ISC has the last rile in a criminal process. Without expressing an opinion on the factuality of what a lower court convicted upon, was it logical for that court to have convicted.

Marasca-Bruno say, in this case: no. The ISC has no mechanism to assess factuality. But they do know how the law should have been applied.

Yet you keep keeping on with these canards.

If it knows it's not a fact-finding court - and it says so itself, then how come it found facts that Amanda covered for Rudy, ruled on something that had never been pleaded, in the alternate, 'if the court finds the kids were there, M'Lud, that does not mean they participated', and yet ruled they were there at the murder scene.

A point of appeal is allowed in the Italian Penal Code on a fact if that fact has been arrived at by faulty reasoning (as happened in the Pistorius-Masapi (_sp?) appeal).

 

[Vixen]

I am genuinely interested where you got this from. It is not something that was ever argued in court. There are no easily available pictures to show how the victim was 'posed' most available pictures show her covered. Have you seen a picture of the body exposed? (I have not)

Have you actually read the Manga book? It is easily available. You keep on saying the falsity about vampire slayer which makes me think you have not read this book. I have.

The heroine is a vampire who works for a shadowy government organisation she does the killing. She kills (evil) monsters. There is no big halloween killing. There is no posed body, there are no devilman symbols.

if you check the stats if a burglar breaks into a house and finds a single female present the likelihood of an assault is high. (By which I mean around 20%); so that a sexual assault occurred is not unusual. What is rare is the progress to murder, but not unknown.

You are wrong. The version found at Raff's flat is set at Halloween and the body is graphically posed (with three pairs of feet surrounding her) exactly as described in Giordano's autopsy summary (Rudy's appeal hearing). ETA And oh, Mignini did argue it at the Matteini hearing IIRC in his closing submissions.

Yes, I am sure burglars do commit sexual assault being of an amoral type. However, that does not explain the highly stylised crime scene as found in the Kercher case. You do know ALL the courts - including Marasca - (apart from the ceremoniously expunged Hellmann) uphold the burglary was STAGED. That is final.

It is a fact.

 

[Bill Williams]

If it knows it's not a fact-finding court - and it says so itself, then how come it found facts that Amanda covered for Rudy, ruled on something that had never been pleaded, in the alternate, 'if the court finds the kids were there, M'Lud, that does not mean they participated', and yet ruled they were there at the murder scene.

A point of appeal is allowed in the Italian Penal Code on a fact if that fact has been arrived at by faulty reasoning (as happened in the Pistorius-Masapi (_sp?) appeal).

We've been through this a dozen times..

Yet I note you, yourself, still claim that M/B found some things as factual - yet both they, you, and me say they don't.

What they can rule on, as even you say - was a fact found as such logically and acc. to law?

So i have no clue why you continue with, "M/B found as factual....." i don't think you'll ever come to grips with the mistake you continually make. Again and again.

Three months from now, you'll reboot as if this had never been pointed out.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

They WERE given the controls.

So you believe the court documents, where the defense experts and independent experts asked for the controls multiple times, and were refused, were forged? Do you have any evidence for this? Has anyone been punished for forging fraudulent court documents? Or are you just living in a fantasy world and are super nuts? Can you provide a citation, thus proving you aren't super nuts?

Conti & Vecchiotti were discredited by Chiefi and Nencini.

Even if this were true, the Italian Supreme Court discredited Chiefi and Nencini. The Italian Supreme Court quashed the Nencini verdict, and supported Conti and Vecchiotti. So, by your "reasoning by authority" the highest legal authority in Italy supports Conti and Vecchiotti. Therefore Conti and Vecchiotti were absolutely correct in a legal sense. You can't argue otherwise. It has been decided, conclusively.

Hampikan and Budowle were a couple of innocence fraud Americans who had a weird idea the Italian Justice system was even more backward than the US,

They are two of the top forensic scientists in the world. Do you have any evidence their motivation was to attack the Italian Justice System? Or is this part of your fantasy? Can you point to a single peer reviewed professional scientist that has refuted their criticism? Or are you just super nuts and make stuff up to support your fantasies?

where until recently, even children were given 'life without parole' and whose death penalty is second only to China in its world human rights concerns. In China, people are executed for tax evasion.

Why are you arguing China has a human rights problem lol? What thread are we in and how does this support your PR campaign for guilt? Does your guilter buddy have a book coming out about human rights violations in China and how it's all Amanda's fault? I actually wouldn't be surprised by this. You know, because of the whole super nuts thing.

In Italy over 50% of all convicted persons have their convictions overturned, lifers are out on parole within about nine years, and there is no death penalty. Tell Hampikan and Budowle to go preach in their own country first.

They do, when they find wrongful convictions based on incorrect interpretations of evidence (as was the case in the Knox and Sollecito convictions, as proven by all of the forensic scientists who have analyzed the case and the Italian Supreme Court, who overruled the Nencini and Massei verdicts). That's kinda their job, Vixen.

Gill never put himself forward for cross-examination so his opinion does not legally count.

Amanda and Raffaele have been acquitted and exonerated. Your opinion, Massei's opinion, Nencini's opinion, and guilter nutter opinions do not legally count.

Marasca did indeed cite 'investigative flaws' - with defective and erroneous reasoning (what little there was of it) - they did indeed also uphold that Amanda was there at the murder scene and washed off Mez' blood.

No, Marasca ruled they did not commit the act. I suggest you brush up on your reading comprehension.

Tell me, why did she never once call the police or report the crime?

Lol there have been novels written about the 112 calls. I would say you're an idiot but I am actually starting to think you just live in a parallel universe. No one is this nuts. No one.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

So, in summary:

The court documents showing the experts asked for the controls multiple times and were refused were forged and fraudulent.

Gill, Hampikian, Conti, Vecchiotti, Budowle, and every other forensic scientist in the world were bent and out to get the Italian Justice System. And likely paid off by the Sollecito family and their lawyers (depending on when you ask Vixen).

The Italian Supreme Court was bent and bribed, paid off, corrupted by Raffaele and the Illuminati. This is why they quashed Massei and Nencini and proclaimed Amanda and Raffaele innocent. No evidence of Freemason involvement has been found. (but that's just because they are that good. The evidence is stored in a vault with video footage of Big Foot.)

Forensic Science International and Nature were greased up by Amanda the witch and her omnipotent PR campaign. They took a 20 spot to publish fraudulent research about LCN analysis. Gill discredits his own analysis technique. No evidence of this either. We just know it. Cuz you know, witchcraft and manga.


All of the above is certainly true. Now Stefanoni. The lab tech working for the prosecution. There are SOME CRAZY CONSPIRACY THEORIES about her. Suggesting that she messed up the analysis. And lied once or twice on the stand. The court documents proving this are ALL FORGED AND FRAUDULENT. Suggesting otherwise is the most paranoid conspiracy theory WE HAVE HEARD YET!!!!!!!!

Vixen, ladies and gentlemen.

 

[LondonJohn]

I did, a while back, but the mods censored it.

No they didn't. And no you didn't.

Truly shameless.

 

[LondonJohn]

I am genuinely interested where you got this from. It is not something that was ever argued in court. There are no easily available pictures to show how the victim was 'posed' most available pictures show her covered. Have you seen a picture of the body exposed? (I have not)

Have you actually read the Manga book? It is easily available. You keep on saying the falsity about vampire slayer which makes me think you have not read this book. I have.

The heroine is a vampire who works for a shadowy government organisation she does the killing. She kills (evil) monsters. There is no big halloween killing. There is no posed body, there are no devilman symbols.

if you check the stats if a burglar breaks into a house and finds a single female present the likelihood of an assault is high. (By which I mean around 20%); so that a sexual assault occurred is not unusual. What is rare is the progress to murder, but not unknown.

When one suffers from the dual afflictions of being a really, really low-grade thinker and having drunk the Kool-Aid of a particular partisan position, ignorance and flat-out lies such as this are very common. An alternative narrative grows, becomes embellished, and then starts to get glibly parroted by "true believers" as incontrovertible and objective truth. We've seen it with the likes of 9/11 truthers and holocaust deniers. What's happening with the small but noisy and self-affirming cadre of pro-guilt commentators in this case is really no different.

 

[LondonJohn]

It's a shame Marasca doesn't realise it either, in that it legally (in perpetuity) places Amanda at the murder scene, and also very likely Raff, and yet the pair never reported Rudy - indeed Marasca court rules Amanda covered up for him. If failing to report a dead body, harbouring a criminal and lying to the police, falsely accusing an innocent man, are not heinous crimes in themselves, then you are seriously deluded.

If Marasca's panel thought that any of the above ever actually resembled the truth - let alone whether it thought they constituted "heinous crimes in themselves", then it would have either convicted Knox and/or Sollecito, referred the case back to the appeal level, or asked for new charges to be brought and tried.

Why do you think the Marasca panel a) immediately acquitted Knox and Sollecito on all charges related to the murder, b) ordered that no further judicial processes were appropriate or fair, on account of there being no case to answer, and c) excoriated the practices and rulings of the lower convicting courts in this case? And "corruption" is not an acceptable or supportable answer.

"Seriously deluded" Hehehehehehehehehehe

 

[Stacyhs]

If the PIP are going to complain to the mods, then I'm afraid it is something you will have to look up for yourselves.

Ah, yes... the standard "look it up for yourselves" excuse. That means you can't provide Jack crap.

Still waiting for that C of C case I've been asking you about for a week.

 

[Bill Williams]

Ah, yes... the standard "look it up for yourselves" excuse. That means you can't provide Jack crap.

Still waiting for that C of C case I've been asking you about for a week.

Vixen's rhetorical tactics include this - as well as a, "it's a typo." Excuses excuses excuses.

Oh yes, "they were paid to say that."

If Vixen had any case at all she'd simply present the evidence.

 

[Stacyhs]

I've been asking in numerous forums for a couple years for someone to provide any example where a C of C has reversed what a previous C of C has confirmed in the same case. I've never received one. This supports my belief that it either can't be legally done, or it's simply not done out of avoiding a very sticky situation. If either of these is the case, it goes a long way to explain why the Marasca court wrote several of the things they did. They would/could not declare the burglary was not staged nor that there were not multiple assailants.

 

[Vixen]

When one suffers from the dual afflictions of being a really, really low-grade thinker and having drunk the Kool-Aid of a particular partisan position, ignorance and flat-out lies such as this are very common. An alternative narrative grows, becomes embellished, and then starts to get glibly parroted by "true believers" as incontrovertible and objective truth. We've seen it with the likes of 9/11 truthers and holocaust deniers. What's happening with the small but noisy and self-affirming cadre of pro-guilt commentators in this case is really no different.

If that's the case - and it does seem to be - why do you keep parading yourself and your said afflictions?

 

[Vixen]

If Marasca's panel thought that any of the above ever actually resembled the truth - let alone whether it thought they constituted "heinous crimes in themselves", then it would have either convicted Knox and/or Sollecito, referred the case back to the appeal level, or asked for new charges to be brought and tried.

Why do you think the Marasca panel a) immediately acquitted Knox and Sollecito on all charges related to the murder, b) ordered that no further judicial processes were appropriate or fair, on account of there being no case to answer, and c) excoriated the practices and rulings of the lower convicting courts in this case? And "corruption" is not an acceptable or supportable answer.

"Seriously deluded" Hehehehehehehehehehe

Watch my lips: Marasca ruled that Amanda was at the scene of the murder and covered up for Rudy. Now answer the question: why did she at no time call the police to report the death of a person, why cover up for someone, who, according to bagels, she would never in a million years consort with, and wtf was she doing scrubbing off Mez' blood????

 

[bagels]

Vixen are you enjoying the Olympics? Did you notice the US women's soccer (football) team washed out early. Maybe it's time for Foxy Knoxy to come out of retirement and show them a trick or two

 

[Vixen]

We've been through this a dozen times..

Yet I note you, yourself, still claim that M/B found some things as factual - yet both they, you, and me say they don't.

What they can rule on, as even you say - was a fact found as such logically and acc. to law?

So i have no clue why you continue with, "M/B found as factual....." i don't think you'll ever come to grips with the mistake you continually make. Again and again.

Three months from now, you'll reboot as if this had never been pointed out.

And I notice that, like a hundred times before, you deftly side-step the facts upheld by Marasca:

• Amanda was at the scene of the murder. 'I cannot lie - I was there' ~ Amanda Knox - prison intercept.
• She covered up for Rudy when she accused Patrick.
• She washed off Mez' blood.
• Amanda and Raff's behaviour remians 'highly suspicious'.
• The pair lied umpteen times.