Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

Oh, boy. I stated the facts that I've never seen anyone here besides you call Meredith "Mez" (despite your claim) and that you had no familiar connection to her. How is that correcting your subjective views or telling you what to think?

Your "fact" is not a fact. It is your opinion not backed up by the evidence or the ISC.

If we ignore the DNA for Rudy, he still would be convicted; bloody shoeprints, bloody palm print under her body, fleeing the country, lying about meeting her at the nightclub and making an assignation with her, etc.

Give me one reasonable explanation as to why his DNA would innocently be on her purse.

And you continue to ignore the fact that Amanda's hair was dyed and the hair found in Meredith's room was not dyed.

Not really, because as your new hero court Marasca ruled, being at a crime scene is not sufficient proof of guilt of the crime.

As for the DNA on the purse, Marasca ruled all DNA evidence should be rejected as not being of international standard.

However, we can see Mez' blood stain on the bag yet, there is no sign of blood inside the bag. If Rudy wiped his hand before rummaging about in it, how come the door handle - presumably touched by the perp opening it - also shows blood?

So, here we have Rudy, in the World according to Stacy shimmying up a 12'4" wall without leaving a mark, and without the lightweight glass-breaking hammer he was found in possession of in Milan, not only switching knife blade from one hand to the other, whilst all the time firmly restraining his victim, we now have him daintily wiping his hands before dipping them in Mez' bag.

Unable to find a condom, he practises the Roman Catholic way of withdrawal. Amazingly considerate of him to worry about making babies or the mortal sin of sex before marriage and using contraception approved of by the Pope.

Oh wait...isn't Raff a papist?

 

[Bill Williams]

Not really, because as your new hero court Marasca ruled, being at a crime scene is not sufficient proof of guilt of the crime.

No - Marasca considered the time period extending into the late morning of Nov 2nd, when it is uncontested that RS and AK were there. Everyone is agreed that being there at that time is not an indicator of guilt.

As for the DNA on the purse, Marasca ruled all DNA evidence should be rejected as not being of international standard.

Marasca ruled no such thing. Nice try.

However, we can see Mez' blood stain on the bag yet, there is no sign of blood inside the bag.

Your use of the term "Mez" is offensive in the extreme.

 

[Bill Williams]

While I am here, has anybody heard how the 'armchair detective' Gabriele Belcastro got on presenting his case re the corrupt Court of Cassation to the Florence Court? There has been nary a word from him for weeks!

It is one thing to simply accuse the Marasca/Bruno court of being corrupt in an obscure website like this one. You can then peddle any conspiracy theory you wish, and the gullible will believe it.

It's quite another to have to guts to test that hypothesis in an Italian court!!!! It's safe to say that Mr. Belcastro was laughed out of court, as well as earned the well placed scorn from none other than former-guilter-journalist Andrea Vogt, who now regards guilters as simply extending the pain of the Kerchers - by pretending that there is some case to be made against AK and RS.

 

[bagels]

Not really, because as your new hero court Marasca ruled, being at a crime scene is not sufficient proof of guilt of the crime.

As for the DNA on the purse, Marasca ruled all DNA evidence should be rejected as not being of international standard.

However, we can see Mez' blood stain on the bag yet, there is no sign of blood inside the bag. If Rudy wiped his hand before rummaging about in it, how come the door handle - presumably touched by the perp opening it - also shows blood?

So, here we have Rudy, in the World according to Stacy shimmying up a 12'4" wall without leaving a mark, and without the lightweight glass-breaking hammer he was found in possession of in Milan, not only switching knife blade from one hand to the other, whilst all the time firmly restraining his victim, we now have him daintily wiping his hands before dipping them in Mez' bag.

Unable to find a condom, he practises the Roman Catholic way of withdrawal. Amazingly considerate of him to worry about making babies or the mortal sin of sex before marriage and using contraception approved of by the Pope.

Oh wait...isn't Raff a papist?

"Anything is possible" - Conti

 

[Vixen]

No - Marasca considered the time period extending into the late morning of Nov 2nd, when it is uncontested that RS and AK were there. Everyone is agreed that being there at that time is not an indicator of guilt.

Marasca ruled no such thing. Nice try.


Your use of the term "Mez" is offensive in the extreme.

You remind me of my mum. Instead of listening to the news, for example, she'd be commenting on the newsreader's tie or how nice he looked.

So, what about the lack of any blood inside the bag? Did Rudy put his burglar gloves back on?

 

[Numbers]

Here's a brief history of the criminal trials of Knox and Sollecito for the murder of Kercher, in a simplified allegory:

Massei Court:

The prosecution states that 2 + 2 = 5 [base 10] and therefore Knox and Sollecito are guilty.

The defense shows that 2 + 2 = 4 [base 10] and that therefore Knox and Sollecito are not guilty.

The Court decides that 2 + 2 can't possibly equal 4, based on its certainty that the prosecution case represents the TRUTH; thus, Knox and Sollecito are guilty, because the prosecution says that they are.

Hellmann Court:

The Court engages independent experts to determine the value of 2 + 2 [base 10].

The independent experts demonstrate that 2 + 2 = 4 [base 10] and can only equal 4 according to the rules of arithmetic in base 10 and the accepted meanings of the numbers and operations in mathematics.

The Court thus acquits Knox and Sollecito.

The Chieffi CSC Panel:

The CSC Panel annuls the Hellmann Court decision, because it believes that there are values of 2 [base 10] that, if added to itself osmotically, will give a value different than 4 [base 10], and sends the case to the Nencini Court to demonstrate that arithmetic, and thus to find Knox and Sollecito guilty.

The Nencini Court:

The Court through its NEW MATH osmotically demonstrates that for large enough values of 2, 2 + 2 = 5 or whatever value the prosecution wants. Therefore, it finds Knox and Sollecito guilty.

The Marasca CSC Panel:

The CSC Panel reviews the Nencini Court NEW MATH and finds it contrary to the rules of arithmetic. Thus, 2 + 2 = 4 and Knox and Sollecito are finally aquitted.

The END

(Except for the ECHR case for Knox's wrongful conviction for calunnia and the revision trial to be held pursuant to the ECHR judgment against Italy so as to acquit Knox of calunnia.)

 

[Stacyhs]

Yes, I did see his tweet.

Obviously. But I think you'd be embarrassed to repeat it seeing how there isn't a shred of evidence supporting it.

 

[Vixen]

Obviously. But I think you'd be embarrassed to repeat it seeing how there isn't a shred of evidence supporting it.

I am pretty sure luminol highlighted blood on the sony one (iirc). So, it's reasonable to infer it fell on the floor into the blood in the tussle.

Remember, Stacy, there was no blood in the bag.

 

[Bill Williams]

The Nencini Court:

The Court through its NEW MATH osmotically demonstrates that for large enough values of 2, 2 + 2 = 5 or whatever value the prosecution wants. Therefore, it finds Knox and Sollecito guilty.

The Marasca CSC Panel:

The CSC Panel reviews the Nencini Court NEW MATH and finds it contrary to the rules of arithmetic. Thus, 2 + 2 = 4 and Knox and Sollecito are finally aquitted.

The END

(Except for the ECHR case for Knox's wrongful conviction for calunnia and the revision trial to be held pursuant to the ECHR judgment against Italy so as to acquit Knox of calunnia.)

LOL. This is surprisingly accurate!

 

[Bill Williams]

You remind me of my mum. Instead of listening to the news, for example, she'd be commenting on the newsreader's tie or how nice he looked.

So, what about the lack of any blood inside the bag? Did Rudy put his burglar gloves back on?

You first. Please name one forensic-DNA expert who agrees with Stefanoni's work. Then it might be tempting to go off on this other wild goose chase, when you won't answer questions yourself.

 

[LondonJohn]

I am pretty sure luminol highlighted blood on the sony one (iirc). So, it's reasonable to infer it fell on the floor into the blood in the tussle.

Not in the slightest. It's just as likely (and arguably far more likely) that any blood on the phone was deposited there when the person who killed her (Guede) handled the phone with Kercher's blood on his hands.

Remember, Stacy, there was no blood in the bag.

Fundamentally wrong. Correct statement = The "crack" police forensics team didn't find any blood inside Kercher's bag. And why didn't they find any blood inside Kercher's bag? Because the incompetent amateurs didn't even test inside the bag. So in reality there may well have been traces of blood inside the bag. It's both wrong and disingenuous to draw the conclusion from the (lack of) evidence that there was no blood inside the bag.


Other than that, I 100% agree with your analytical skills and reasoning powers!

 

[LondonJohn]

Here's a brief history of the criminal trials of Knox and Sollecito for the murder of Kercher, in a simplified allegory:

Massei Court:

The prosecution states that 2 + 2 = 5 [base 10] and therefore Knox and Sollecito are guilty.

The defense shows that 2 + 2 = 4 [base 10] and that therefore Knox and Sollecito are not guilty.

The Court decides that 2 + 2 can't possibly equal 4, based on its certainty that the prosecution case represents the TRUTH; thus, Knox and Sollecito are guilty, because the prosecution says that they are.

Hellmann Court:

The Court engages independent experts to determine the value of 2 + 2 [base 10].

The independent experts demonstrate that 2 + 2 = 4 [base 10] and can only equal 4 according to the rules of arithmetic in base 10 and the accepted meanings of the numbers and operations in mathematics.

The Court thus acquits Knox and Sollecito.

The Chieffi CSC Panel:

The CSC Panel annuls the Hellmann Court decision, because it believes that there are values of 2 [base 10] that, if added to itself osmotically, will give a value different than 4 [base 10], and sends the case to the Nencini Court to demonstrate that arithmetic, and thus to find Knox and Sollecito guilty.

The Nencini Court:

The Court through its NEW MATH osmotically demonstrates that for large enough values of 2, 2 + 2 = 5 or whatever value the prosecution wants. Therefore, it finds Knox and Sollecito guilty.

The Marasca CSC Panel:

The CSC Panel reviews the Nencini Court NEW MATH and finds it contrary to the rules of arithmetic. Thus, 2 + 2 = 4 and Knox and Sollecito are finally aquitted.

The END

(Except for the ECHR case for Knox's wrongful conviction for calunnia and the revision trial to be held pursuant to the ECHR judgment against Italy so as to acquit Knox of calunnia.)

Yep, that's a pretty good metaphor(!) for what was going on.

In respect of your last para in parentheses..... having just done my infrequent trawl of pro-guilt sites, I note with amusement that ballerina-botherer Quennell is still on his self-righteous warpath, full of piss and vinegar. In his latest missive, he's exhibiting Baghdad Bob levels of false confidence in Knox's ECHR application (which Quennell still ignorantly refers to as an "appeal") failing. And it appears that he's still acting as the conspiratorial mouthpiece for that other frothing egomaniac with near-incredible levels of arrogance, hubris and entitlement: Mignini.

(And incidentally, the comments section of that article contains yet another sinister comment from the clearly unstable Grahame Rhodes. I trust that Knox's lawyers and the Seattle FBI have noted this - Rhodes may be a psychotic nobody given free reign on a website which allows this sort of disgusting stuff so long as it's anti-Knox/Sollecito, but he does kind of seem hell bent upon pushing the FBI to act against him. Perhaps he has delusions of (metaphorical) martyrdom if he gets locked up for a year or two........)

 

[Stacyhs]

Not really, because as your new hero court Marasca ruled, being at a crime scene is not sufficient proof of guilt of the crime.

As for the DNA on the purse, Marasca ruled all DNA evidence should be rejected as not being of international standard.

You are evading answering my question; can you give one reasonable explanation for Guede's DNA being innocently deposited on Meredith's purse?

However, we can see Mez' blood stain on the bag yet, there is no sign of blood inside the bag. If Rudy wiped his hand before rummaging about in it, how come the door handle - presumably touched by the perp opening it - also shows blood?

You are assuming that Guede "rummaged" through the purse which is not necessarily so. The wallet may have been easily removed from the large unzipped opening without having to touch anything. It may even have been partially protruding from the opening due to being moved when Meredith took out the phone she used to call her mother. For all anyone knows, Meredith may have removed her local phone in order to access her British phone to call her mother. Women have to remove things from their purses to get other things out all the time. Even tossing them onto the bed would have been a logical thing to do. If Guede didn't have to "rummage through" her purse, it would explain no blood in it.

So, here we have Rudy, in the World according to Stacy shimmying up a 12'4" wall without leaving a mark, and without the lightweight glass-breaking hammer he was found in possession of in Milan, not only switching knife blade from one hand to the other, whilst all the time firmly restraining his victim, we now have him daintily wiping his hands before dipping them in Mez' bag.

Easily climbing up a wall, as demonstrated in a video, lower than the one he accessed in the same way, including throwing a rock through the window, in order to burglarize the lawyer's office ? Or do you believe his story of just innocently buying them from some stranger? I guess it was just a coincidence that Amanda and Raffaele knew what Guede's M.O. was?

As for "switching the knife blade from one hand to the other", that is not a fact. It is conjecture. Massei was very good at that which is one reason he was overturned. Name one expert who says the wounds had to have been made by more than one person. Why would Guede have cuts on his hand but no wounds were found on either Knox or Sollecito? As you've already been told, but continue to ignore, only one expert (for the prosecution) said the murder could not have been committed by a single attacker. T other 6 or 7 said it could have been just one.

Unable to find a condom, he practises the Roman Catholic way of withdrawal. Amazingly considerate of him to worry about making babies or the mortal sin of sex before marriage and using contraception approved of by the Pope.

Oh wait...isn't Raff a papist?

Now you're just being pathetic and I won't bother addressing such nonsense.

 

[Stacyhs]

I am pretty sure luminol highlighted blood on the sony one (iirc). So, it's reasonable to infer it fell on the floor into the blood in the tussle.
Remember, Stacy, there was no blood in the bag.

"Rep.112 – Gray and black cell phone marked “SONY-ERICSSON” (report of seizure edited text of the Postal Police and of the Communication dated 11/02/2007 – page 72 A.F. (not analyzed)Rep.113 – Gray and black cell phone marked “SONY-ERICCSON” model (report of
Seizure edited text of the Postal Police and of the Communication dated 11/02/2007 – page 73 A.F. (not analyzed)"

Remember, Vixen, the inside of the bag was not tested.

 

[Bill Williams]

So, what about the lack of any blood inside the bag? Did Rudy put his burglar gloves back on?

"Rep.112 – Gray and black cell phone marked “SONY-ERICSSON” (report of seizure edited text of the Postal Police and of the Communication dated 11/02/2007 – page 72 A.F. (not analyzed)Rep.113 – Gray and black cell phone marked “SONY-ERICCSON” model (report of
Seizure edited text of the Postal Police and of the Communication dated 11/02/2007 – page 73 A.F. (not analyzed)"

Remember, Vixen, the inside of the bag was not tested.

Is anyone else getting bored out of their skull that Vixen keeps putting this crap out there - the claim that no blood was found when nothing was looked for?

Would Vixen please just answer the questions put to her instead of pumping out this crap!?

 

[Planigale]

You remind me of my mum. Instead of listening to the news, for example, she'd be commenting on the newsreader's tie or how nice he looked.

So, what about the lack of any blood inside the bag? Did Rudy put his burglar gloves back on?

Well the simple answer is that Guede had blood on one hand, the hand that held the (outside) of the bag, the hand he put in was not bloody. Loved that for you.

The second solution is that they did not test the inside of the bag. Can you find a report saying the inside of the bag was tested? Remember the telephones were never swabbed for DNA, the shower was never tested for DNA, many things that should have been tested were never tested.

 

[Vixen]

"Rep.112 – Gray and black cell phone marked “SONY-ERICSSON” (report of seizure edited text of the Postal Police and of the Communication dated 11/02/2007 – page 72 A.F. (not analyzed)Rep.113 – Gray and black cell phone marked “SONY-ERICCSON” model (report of
Seizure edited text of the Postal Police and of the Communication dated 11/02/2007 – page 73 A.F. (not analyzed)"

Remember, Vixen, the inside of the bag was not tested.

It was, too. '@FreeRudyGuede' tweeted me a police picture of one of the phones (Sony and/or Ericsson) showing highlighted presumed blood.

Are you saying the police picture is a fake?

 

[Vixen]

Well the simple answer is that Guede had blood on one hand, the hand that held the (outside) of the bag, the hand he put in was not bloody. Loved that for you.

The second solution is that they did not test the inside of the bag. Can you find a report saying the inside of the bag was tested? Remember the telephones were never swabbed for DNA, the shower was never tested for DNA, many things that should have been tested were never tested.

AIUI the phones were laboratory analysed and the inside of the bag tested (otherwise, how could the finding be there was no Rudy DNA nor any blood).

 

[Vixen]

Is anyone else getting bored out of their skull that Vixen keeps putting this crap out there - the claim that no blood was found when nothing was looked for?

Would Vixen please just answer the questions put to her instead of pumping out this crap!?

I gave you a straight answer to your questions about the expert/s who back Stefanoni and the 'Mez'-name issue.

You seem unable to accept that your questions have been answered.

Let it lie, Bill.

 

[Stacyhs]

Well the simple answer is that Guede had blood on one hand, the hand that held the (outside) of the bag, the hand he put in was not bloody. Loved that for you.

The second solution is that they did not test the inside of the bag. Can you find a report saying the inside of the bag was tested? Remember the telephones were never swabbed for DNA, the shower was never tested for DNA, many things that should have been tested were never tested.

This alone is evidence of the incompetency of the police investigation.

The outside door handle of Meredith's bedroom was also not tested. Unbelievable.