Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
bagels said:
If only this case was handled before the days of DNA.

Then all three of them would still be serving their 30 year sentences!

(Plot twist, one of the three's name would be Patrick Lumumba)
Click to expand...

Patrick got off because he had an alibi.

We are still awaiting a verified alibi for Amanda and Raff. Oh wait. Raff is still refusing to give her one.
 
Bill Williams said:
Can you take a look at this page, and explain why by Nov 16, 2007, the prosecution lost all interest in collecting evidence against Rudy Guede?

Thanks in advance.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/guede-dna-investigation/
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
There is far more to solving crime than DNA evidence. How do you think they managed in the olden days?

< ............. stupidity deleted ............. >

I can see you are passionate, Bill, although I am not sure you are fully sincere as anyone who examines the evidence can see it was a travesty of justice for the Kercher family, for the pair to be let out after just four years as though it was a minor felony.
Click to expand...

Do you see here how you did not deal - even remotely - with the question as asked? Once again, take a look at the link and venture an opinion - why when the third batch was being processed the prosecution gave up collecting evidence against Rudy Guede?

They gave up, even though the presumed semen stain found on the pillow-case under the victims hips was never tested!

And - oh yes - reread bagels' post - in the days before DNA testing Patrick Lumumba would still be in prison for this crime. Dr. Mignini, despite venturing the opinion that Amanda Knox was a liar, ran out and had Lumumba arrested solely on what he perceived as Amanda's say-so.

It is unclear where you come up with this, "as though it was a minor felony," stuff. Why on earth would you need to pad your "reasoning" with non-sequitors like this if you were even remotely proving anything? Why lie about why they were let out of prison if you actually have a case?
 
Vixen said:
Patrick got off because he had an alibi.

We are still awaiting a verified alibi for Amanda and Raff. Oh wait. Raff is still refusing to give her one.
Click to expand...

He got off because his DNA didn't match the rape kit, they did not believe his alibi.

They also constructed a false witness against him, coercing this witness to say his bar was closed, even though it was open and he was serving customers.

We don't need to guess how the case would have gone without DNA, the police made it very clear.
 
Planigale said:
Impressive.

But sad they completely missed the whole point of the story that the 'baddy' looks like the 'goody'.
Click to expand...

I rather think you are missing the point.

Here we have a highly stylised murder scene, with attackers who had obviously arrived, armed up to the gills with knives.

And all you can chunter is, 'Oh, it must have been Rudy who was disturbed as he burgled.'
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Patrick got off because he had an alibi.

We are still awaiting a verified alibi for Amanda and Raff. Oh wait. Raff is still refusing to give her one.
Click to expand...


Mr and Mrs Bianchi - the middle-aged couple living in the apartments near the girls' cottage - also don't have an independent alibi for the murder. Would you like to lock them up for the murder too?

Oh no, of course you wouldn't - because having an alibi is in no way whatsoever a necessary way to avoid conviction. For a conviction, one actually needs evidence that the person(s) committed the crime. There's zero evidence that the Bianchis participated in the Kercher murder. Just as there's zero evidence that Knox or Sollecito participated in the Kercher murder.

The Bianchis therefore stand innocent (in both law and ethics) of anything to do with the murder. And Knox and Sollecito also therefore stand innocent (in both law and ethics) of anything to do with the murder. None of them has an alibi. But none of them is guilty. Easy, huh?
 
Vixen said:
Patrick got off because he had an alibi.

We are still awaiting a verified alibi for Amanda and Raff. Oh wait. Raff is still refusing to give her one.
Click to expand...

Really!? Have you not read his book? It's amazing that you would cycle back to this factoid.

It would be better if you answered this question: name one peer-reviewed DNA expert who agrees with Stefanoni's work. You gave us Novelli, and he simply reiterated that multiple amplifications is protocol.

We're still waiting on a whole host of other issues, before you start to cycle back on tired factoids.
 
Vixen said:
I rather think you are missing the point.

Here we have a highly stylised murder scene, with attackers who had obviously arrived, armed up to the gills with knives.

And you you can chunter is, 'oh it must have been Rudy who was disturbed as he burgled.'
Click to expand...


Once again, you seem unaware that Knox and Sollecito were both (correctly) acquitted of participating in any crime related to the Kercher murder, and that in fact there's not one single piece of reliable, credible evidence linking either of them to the murder in any way. Can you perhaps confirm that you know and understand these facts? Because you seem to be repeatedly writing things that imply they are guilty - both in law and in fact. It's a little difficult to understand why you would still carry this fundamental misconception.
 
Bill Williams said:
Really!? Have you not read his book? It's amazing that you would cycle back to this factoid.

It would be better if you answered this question: name one peer-reviewed DNA expert who agrees with Stefanoni's work. You gave us Novelli, and he simply reiterated that multiple amplifications is protocol.

We're still waiting on a whole host of other issues, before you start to cycle back on tired factoids.
Click to expand...

Never mind the DNA expert. Name one legal expert or esteemed individual who believes there was definitely enough evidence to convict Amanda Knox beyond reasonable doubt.

It might be a major clue to the delusional that no such person exists...but nah they have PMF posters, a couple ebook authors, and I guess millions of supermarket tabloid readers who must add up to something....
 
Bill Williams said:
Do you see here how you did not deal - even remotely - with the question as asked? Once again, take a look at the link and venture an opinion - why when the third batch was being processed the prosecution gave up collecting evidence against Rudy Guede?

They gave up, even though the presumed semen stain found on the pillow-case under the victims hips was never tested!

And - oh yes - reread bagels' post - in the days before DNA testing Patrick Lumumba would still be in prison for this crime. Dr. Mignini, despite venturing the opinion that Amanda Knox was a liar, ran out and had Lumumba arrested solely on what he perceived as Amanda's say-so.

It is unclear where you come up with this, "as though it was a minor felony," stuff. Why on earth would you need to pad your "reasoning" with non-sequitors like this if you were even remotely proving anything? Why lie about why they were let out of prison if you actually have a case?
Click to expand...

So why did Bongiorno for Raff keep schtum about this pillowcase stain? We had a peek out of her after the trial was over! She submitted a late application knowing full well a judge won't allow new evidence after a trial unless it was evidence which could not have been known of as of the time of the trial and had 'reasonable prospect of success'.

As I keep saying, Raff in his book confirms, he was terrified the stain would turn out to be his, so his defence advised to keep quiet about it.

Massei could not see it would add anything to the evidence as the flourescence on the pillow was likely to come from the vaseline, not bodily fluids.

We can see just how much Massei bent over backwards for the kids.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
I rather think you are missing the point.

Here we have a highly stylised murder scene, with attackers who had obviously arrived, armed up to the gills with knives. And you you can chunter is, 'oh it must have been Rudy who was disturbed as he burgled.'
Click to expand...

LondonJohn said:
Once again, you seem unaware that Knox and Sollecito were both (correctly) acquitted of participating in any crime related to the Kercher murder, and that in fact there's not one single piece of reliable, credible evidence linking either of them to the murder in any way. Can you perhaps confirm that you know and understand these facts? Because you seem to be repeatedly writing things that imply they are guilty - both in law and in fact. It's a little difficult to understand why you would still carry this fundamental misconception.
Click to expand...

Vixen now lies about what Raffaele and Amanda were supposedly armed with. If Vixen has such a solid case, why does she need to lie like this? Neither of the convicting courts ever said this.

Vixen continues with the fiction that AK and RS got off on a technicality. That technicality, briefly put, is that they didn't do it.
 
Vixen said:
So why did Bogniorno for Raff keep scthum about this pillowcase stain? We had a peek out of her after the trial was over! She submitted a late application knowing full well a judge won't allow new evidence after a trial unless it was evidence which could not have been known of as of the time of the trial and had 'reasonable prospect of success'.

As I keep saying, Raff in his book confirms, he was terrified the stain would turn out to be his, so his defence advised to keep quiet about it.

Massei could not see it would add anything to the evidence as the flourescence on the pillow was likely to come from the vaseline, not bodily fluids.

We can see just how much Massei bent over backwards for the kids.
Click to expand...


I suggest you know full well just what a disingenuous distortion of the truth this is.

Sollecito's stated reason for being wary about the pillow case was NOT that he was afraid that the stain would turn out to be his (on the premise that he knew he actually might have left that stain). His true stated reason was that he was afraid that the police and their "crack" forensics team might concoct false evidence against him from it - just as he knew they'd already done twice, with the kitchen knife and the shoe prints.
 
LondonJohn said:
Mr and Mrs Bianchi - the middle-aged couple living in the apartments near the girls' cottage - also don't have an independent alibi for the murder. Would you like to lock them up for the murder too?

Oh no, of course you wouldn't - because having an alibi is in no way whatsoever a necessary way to avoid conviction. For a conviction, one actually needs evidence that the person(s) committed the crime. There's zero evidence that the Bianchis participated in the Kercher murder. Just as there's zero evidence that Knox or Sollecito participated in the Kercher murder.

The Bianchis therefore stand innocent (in both law and ethics) of anything to do with the murder. And Knox and Sollecito also therefore stand innocent (in both law and ethics) of anything to do with the murder. None of them has an alibi. But none of them is guilty. Easy, huh?
Click to expand...


Well, sorry, luvvie. When we are in court we deal with particulars not possibilities. It was not particularised anywhere that your ridiculous fictitious character was indicted on any charges. It was particularised in great detail - pleaded - that Amanda and Raff were indicted for aggravated murder.

PARTICULARISE

'The term "particularized" is used in connection with an injury that "affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way." Janes v. Harris, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46165 (E.D. Wash. June 1, 2009)' http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/particularized/

(From a nice American legal dictionary.)
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
So why did Bogniorno for Raff keep scthum about this pillowcase stain? We had a peek out of her after the trial was over! She submitted a late application knowing full well a judge won't allow new evidence after a trial unless it was evidence which could not have been known of as of the time of the trial and had 'reasonable prospect of success'.

As I keep saying, Raff in his book confirms, he was terrified the stain would turn out to be his, so his defence advised to keep quiet about it.

Massei could not see it would add anything to the evidence as the flourescence on the pillow was likely to come from the vaseline, not bodily fluids.

We can see just how much Massei bent over backwards for the kids.
Click to expand...

Sigh.

The pillow-case, presumed semen stain should have been analysed even before anyone had ever heard of Raffaele Sollecito or his lawyer Bongiorno. Raffaele was arrested on the morning of the 6th, and the tests should have been away to the lab well before that.

That you simply default to blaming the defence for this is staggering.

Again, you need to read Raffaele's book, instead of placing your case of complete non sequitors!
 
Vixen said:
Well, sorry, luvvie. When we are in court we deal with particulars not possibilities. It was not particularised anywhere that your ridiculous fictitious character was indicted on any charges. It was particularised in great detail - pleaded - that Amanda and Raff were indicted for aggravated murder.
Click to expand...


What the hell are you on about? It's an ALLEGORY, to illustrate a point.

And don't use terms like "luvvie" (or "dear" or "dearie" etc) in my direction again. Final warning. OK? OK.
 
Vixen said:
Well, sorry, luvvie. When we are in court we deal with particulars not possibilities. It was not particularised anywhere that your ridiculous fictitious character was indicted on any charges. It was particularised in great detail - pleaded - that Amanda and Raff were indicted for aggravated murder.
Click to expand...

Can you at least stay on topic. This thread started with you saying that AK and RS did not have alibis apart from each other. LJ presented you with another couple who also had no alibis apart from each other - and similarly, they had no credible evidence which pointed at them either.

Now you're switching to courtroom possibilities vs. particulars? Nice sashay.
 
LondonJohn said:
What the hell are you on about? It's an ALLEGORY, to illustrate a point.

And don't use terms like "luvvie" (or "dear" or "dearie" etc) in my direction again. Final warning. OK? OK.
Click to expand...

If Vixen did not have those loaded terms, she'd have nothing to contribute.
 
Bill Williams said:
Can you at least stay on topic. This thread started with you saying that AK and RS did not have alibis apart from each other. LJ presented you with another couple who also had no alibis apart from each other - and similarly, they had no credible evidence which pointed at them either.

Now you're switching to courtroom possibilities vs. particulars? Nice sashay.
Click to expand...

Bill, please understand we are not dealing with ALLEGORIES, fables, 'what-if's', etc. All a court of law is interested in is:

The Particulars

'What is BILL OF PARTICULARS?
In practice. A written statement or specification of the particulars of the demand for which an action at law is brought, or of a defendant's set-off against such demand, (including dates, sums, and items in detail,) furnished by one of the parties to the other, either voluntarily or in compliance with a judge's order for that purpose. 1 Tidd, Pr. 596-000 ; 2 Ar'hb. Pr. 221; Ferguson v. Ashbell, 53 Tex. 250; Baldwin v. Gregg, 13 Mete. (Mass.) 255t 14. In English law, a draft of a patent for a charter, commission, dignity, office, or appointment Such a bill is drawn up in the attorney general's patent bill office, is submitted by a secretary of state for the King's signature, when it is called the "King's bill," and is then countersigned by the secretary of state and sealed by the privy seal, and then the patent is prepared and sealed. Sweet.



Law Dictionary: What is BILL OF PARTICULARS? definition of BILL OF PARTICULARS (Black's Law Dictionary) '

In addition, any scientist know it is impossible to prove a negative, so LondonJohn's ALLEGORY is RUBBISH.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom