Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

LOL! Is that the best you can do? It looks pretty much the same color all over to me with a bit of grow out at the roots. And it looks clean, too.

url=http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=31891][qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_7166957bf7f414bf87.jpg[/qimg][/url]

Stacyhs claims she can see every single hair on Amanda's head, even the back, from some hazy photo.

She is either deluded or thinks a glib 'explanation' passes as legal standard defence.

 

[Bill Williams]

In a court of law chronology is important. I stated that Amanda did not mention the bath mat shuffle until she was appraised by her lawyers of what forensics had found, and the story of the bathmat shuffle was born. Planigale demanded a primary source and I pointed to Amanda's own email home.

Amanda did deny she rang her mother. Another claim that was disproved by phone logs, yet Amanda insisted in repeating the lie in Waiting to be Heard.

Your problem is that you think dreaming up clever 'counter arguments' in knee-jerk fashion passes as sound logic, when in fact, it's meaningless. A court wants the objective facts and it will be the best judge as to what the motives, attributions and thoughts are.

............... and what you continue to miss is that at the end of the day the Italian courts found there was no substance at all to allegations AK and/or RS had been involved in the murders.

That's why it's completely laughable when you try to lecture the thread about what courts do or don't do, or what police do or don't do.

The Marasca/Bruno court did exactly what is highlighted above - they tried to fit the evidence as claimed by all sides into a synoptic accounting for the crime - and found that nonsense came out the other end.

So they acquitted the pair - an action described by a later Italian court as an exoneration.

 

[Bill Williams]

Oh gosh, someone fetch Peter Falk.

Stacyhs did better than you in posting pictures. One picture you posted proved the exact opposite of what you said it showed. Then you spent about 50 of your 5,000 posts trying to claim that the picture you posted didn't show what it showed.

That one was a laugher!

 

[Vixen]

............... and what you continue to miss is that at the end of the day the Italian courts found there was no substance at all to allegations AK and/or RS had been involved in the murders.

That's why it's completely laughable when you try to lecture the thread about what courts do or don't do, or what police do or don't do.

The Marasca/Bruno court did exactly what is highlighted above - they tried to fit the evidence as claimed by all sides into a synoptic accounting for the crime - and found that nonsense came out the other end.

So they acquitted the pair - an action described by a later Italian court as an exoneration.

So you are happy with what Marasca had to say, eh, Bill?

Is this an Alford deal situation (cf West Memphis Three) whereby the kids are happy to not be found innocent, but all that matters to them and the FOA is that they evade prison. Who cares if Marasca upholds the pair where at the murder.

 

[Stacyhs]

Top legal attorney, Stacyhs, claims it cannot have been amanda's hair as it was blond and Amanda's was only dyed.

No evidence the hair was or wasn't dyed, but Ironside Perry Mason Stacyhs asserts we should marvel at her: stunning, clock-stopping logic.

Like Amanda, if Stacey says a thing, why, it becomes true!

Bwwaahaahaaaa! No, that is not what I said at all. You either have a reading comprehension problem or, far more likely, this is yet another one of your attempts at spin. What I did say multiple times is that Amanda's hair is dyed which is easily identified under a microscope. The hairs found in Meredith's bedroom were never identified as being dyed. If they had been, it would have been incriminatory and presented in court as circumstantial evidence. It wasn't. Now do you understand or are you going to try and spin that into something else?

Interestingly, it is even possible now to identify the brand of dye used on hair.

 

[Bill Williams]

So you are happy with what Marasca had to say, eh, Bill?

Is this an Alford deal situation (cf West Memphis Three) whereby the kids are happy to not be found innocent, but all that matters to them and the FOA is that they evade prison. Who cares if Marasca upholds the pair where at the murder.

Sigh.

No one disputes that AK and RS were at the cottage. That was Marasca's point. Read Section 9 of his report.

The timeline he cites includes before the arrival of the Postal Police which was ( acc. to Massei) just before 1 pm on the 2nd.

Marasca's point is that it is pointless to say AK and RS were at the cottage, because even they admit they were.

The only person who argues differently is you! Hoots!

 

[Stacyhs]

You are a master at changing context. I can see why you are not a barrister.

And your attempts at spin and avoiding answering questions are very obvious. No wonder you are not a barrister.

And once again you avoid addressing the issues.

Please explain how I changed the context. And give exact quotes supporting your allegation. This should be interesting.

 

[Bill Williams]

Was Raffaele at the cottage at the time of death?

This is Judge Marasca's reasoning for implying that Raffaele Sollecito could not have been at the cottage at the time of death.

It has to do with Marasca accepting, "incontrovertible factual data." That data was with regard to the cellphone activity on the night of Nov 1.

It's all there in Section 6.2 of Marasca's report. It starts with Marasca ruling that Nencini erred, "in the finding that the establishment of Kercher’s exact time of death was irrelevant."

As a finding of law in a circumstantial case, the T.O.D. is more than relevant, it is crucial, so says Marasca. Read on in Section 6.2.....

The Sollecito defence is right to object in pointing out the need for investigation of this point and all its implications, especially in a circumstantial case like this one. Not only that, but the exact determination of Kercher’s time of death is an unavoidable factual prerequisite for the verification of the defendant’s alibi, in the form of an inquiry aimed at ascertaining the possibility of his alleged presence in the house on via della Pergola at the time of the murder.​

Marasca then goes on the deplore the shoddy investigation, where T.O.D should have been at the top of the list, rather than leaving it to Nencini to say (wrongly) 6 years later that the finding of an exact T.O.D. was irrelevant.

After going through the science with regard to stomach contents and T.O.D., Marasca rules that Nencini erred in not accepting the Sollecito teams objections:

The appellant’s defence has offered a much more reliable analysis in this respect, one anchored to incontrovertible factual data.

Indeed, examination of telephone traffic has revealed that, after saluting her English friend at 9 o’clock, the young woman had vainly attempted to call her relatives in England, as had been her daily habit, while a final contact was recorded at 10.13 pm, so that the timeline was restricted further to the range of 9.30/10.13 pm or thereabouts.​

In presenting this incontrovertible data - one either proves that Raffaele was at the cottage prior to 10:13 pm on Nov 1st, or he has an incontrovertible alibi on that point alone.

Nencini had ruled that T.O.D. didn't matter. Nencini was wrong. For circumstantial cases like this, that alone is grounds for reversing a guilty verdict.

Then in Section 7 Marasca tackles the issue of Nencini placing himself as judge as superior to scientific experts when it comes to scientific data.

But all this is to set up Marasca's synpotic amalgam of the case, as he does in Section 9 of his report - an amalgam which (acc. to Maraesca) shows how the "connective tissue" of any guilt finding falls apart.

My wish for Vixen is that she would read ALL of Marasca's report, including Section 6.2 where Marasca specifically discusses how Nencini erred in saying T.O.D was not important, because T.O.D. spoke directly to the possibility of Raffaele's alleged presence during the murder.

Therefore - acquittal. Vixen would rather cherry pick from Marasca.

 

[Stacyhs]

Stacyhs claims she can see every single hair on Amanda's head, even the back, from some hazy photo.

She is either deluded or thinks a glib 'explanation' passes as legal standard defence.

Just as you ignored Planigale's use of the word "putative" to misquote her, you also ignore my use of the words "It looks pretty much the same color all over to me with a bit of grow out at the roots." Just where do I claim to see "every single hair" on her head, "even the back"? Dr. Vixen, Spin Doctor. But, speaking of the back, do you think Amanda only dyed the front and sides of her hair, leaving the back undyed? Is that what you are claiming?

Just what do you think the odds are that only undyed hairs would be left behind? Wait! Maybe she found all the dyed ones and only cleaned those up, leaving the non-incriminatory undyed ones behind! Pure genius!

You remind me of the kid who gets caught with Oreo crumbles all around his mouth and keeps insisting he didn't get into the cookie jar.

 

[Stacyhs]

This is Judge Marasca's reasoning for implying that Raffaele Sollecito could not have been at the cottage at the time of death.

It has to do with Marasca accepting, "incontrovertible factual data." That data was with regard to the cellphone activity on the night of Nov 1.

It's all there in Section 6.2 of Marasca's report. It starts with Marasca ruling that Nencini erred, "in the finding that the establishment of Kercher’s exact time of death was irrelevant."

As a finding of law in a circumstantial case, the T.O.D. is more than relevant, it is crucial, so says Marasca. Read on in Section 6.2.....

​

Marasca then goes on the deplore the shoddy investigation, where T.O.D should have been at the top of the list, rather than leaving it to Nencini to say (wrongly) 6 years later that the finding of an exact T.O.D. was irrelevant.

After going through the science with regard to stomach contents and T.O.D., Marasca rules that Nencini erred in not accepting the Sollecito teams objections:

​

In presenting this incontrovertible data - one either proves that Raffaele was at the cottage prior to 10:13 pm on Nov 1st, or he has an incontrovertible alibi on that point alone.

Nencini had ruled that T.O.D. didn't matter. Nencini was wrong. For circumstantial cases like this, that alone is grounds for reversing a guilty verdict.

Then in Section 7 Marasca tackles the issue of Nencini placing himself as judge as superior to scientific experts when it comes to scientific data.

But all this is to set up Marasca's synpotic amalgam of the case, as he does in Section 9 of his report - an amalgam which (acc. to Maraesca) shows how the "connective tissue" of any guilt finding falls apart.

My wish for Vixen is that she would read ALL of Marasca's report, including Section 6.2 where Marasca specifically discusses how Nencini erred in saying T.O.D was not important, because T.O.D. spoke directly to the possibility of Raffaele's alleged presence during the murder.

Therefore - acquittal. Vixen would rather cherry pick from Marasca.

Excellent post. I still say that Marasca was hampered by previous "confirmed" ISC verdicts that limited their disagreeing with those "judicial truths" that Vixen is so fond of (when it suits her purpose).

 

[js202]

I will argue to the death that it's just as normal to write "sequitur non" as "non sequitur". Latin is an inflected language, you see. You're so ignorant!!

But anyhow, all this is something of a sequitur non in itself, I suppose. Back to the Mez Kercher murder discussion!

Yes, just . That is all. Ah, well, if you put it that way, perhaps including a .

As you were.

 

[js202]

Just as you ignored Planigale's use of the word "putative" to misquote her, you also ignore my use of the words "It looks pretty much the same color all over to me with a bit of grow out at the roots." Just where do I claim to see "every single hair" on her head, "even the back"? Dr. Vixen, Spin Doctor. But, speaking of the back, do you think Amanda only dyed the front and sides of her hair, leaving the back undyed? Is that what you are claiming?

Just what do you think the odds are that only undyed hairs would be left behind? Wait! Maybe she found all the dyed ones and only cleaned those up, leaving the non-incriminatory undyed ones behind! Pure genius!

You remind me of the kid who gets caught with Oreo crumbles all around his mouth and keeps insisting he didn't get into the cookie jar.

In this case, suffices nicely, I must say.

 

[acbytesla]

What about fruitcake? You likee fruitcake, too?

No, I hate fruitcake. I hate fruitcake know it alls who are actually moronically stupid. People who think they know better than world class experts. I really hate it when they are judgmental fools. Especially, when they spend a better part of two years trying to convince...I'm not sure who ??? Somebody, please tell me. That two young people who were EXONERATED by the Italian courts 16 months ago are somehow guilty. The whole world has moved on and this one person keeps posting lie after lie after lie. I really despise fruitcakes like that.

There's a reason I haven't been posting and that is I don't suffer fools.or in this case one fool very well.

But we don't know anyone who fits that description. So, I don't hate anyone.

 

[Planigale]

In a court of law chronology is important. I stated that Amanda did not mention the bath mat shuffle until she was appraised by her lawyers of what forensics had found, and the story of the bathmat shuffle was born. Planigale demanded a primary source and I pointed to Amanda's own email home.
Amanda did deny she rang her mother. Another claim that was disproved by phone logs, yet Amanda insisted in repeating the lie in Waiting to be Heard.

Your problem is that you think dreaming up clever 'counter arguments' in knee-jerk fashion passes as sound logic, when in fact, it's meaningless. A court wants the objective facts and it will be the best judge as to what the motives, attributions and thoughts are.

Excellent. I ask for a primary source for your post, "She concocted her bathmat story later, after being apprised by her lawyers police had found the strange evidence of someone shuffling around on a cloth to avoid leaving prints...". In particular I asked for the primary source for police finding evidence of someone shuffling around on a cloth.

Vixen's primary source for this factoid is an email from Knox in which she does not mention the bathmat!

Now we begin to understand Vixen's meaning of primary source. One picks a statement where the subject is not mentioned allowing one to draw any conclusion one wants.

Vixen to be clear as you obviously do not understand the meaning of a primary source. What is needed is testimony or a report written by a police officer reporting findings which lead to the conclusion that 'someone was shuffling round on a cloth'.

Even if we go to the highly partisan source themurderofmeridithkercher they say.
"This use of the bathmat was a late addition to Amanda's story. Knox added the bathmat shuffle in a letter to her lawyer just before the hallway was going to be tested by the forensic police. When Luminol was applied to the hallway it revealed both Knox and Sollecito's footprints and DNA testing discovered Amanda and Meredith's DNA in a mixed sample in one of the footprints. It seems pretty obvious that no one would use a bathmat with blood on it the way Knox describes and that she fabricated this story in an effort to explain the anticipated results of the forensic tests."
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.c...unt_of_the_Morning_of_Nov_2_Sound_Believable?
Highlighting mine.

So even here
1) Knox reported the shuffle prior to the police finding any evidence.
2) No evidence of the shuffle was reported.

Knox reported this shuffle on Dec 17 2007.
Vinci did not find the evidence supporting Knox's testimony until 2008.

Even if the police had found the evidence you claim they did, why would Knox need to report the bathmat shuffle? What i find interesting is Knox reported this detail in 2007, evidence to support this was only found in 2008. The shuffle might explain very faint prints made in highly dilute blood found in the hall. That there is evidence to support this detail of Knox's testimony which only became apparent subsequently suggests her testimony was accurate.

 

[Annella]

Stacyhs claims she can see every single hair on Amanda's head, even the back, from some hazy photo.

She is either deluded or thinks a glib 'explanation' passes as legal standard defence.

Interestingly...it is the very same ' hazy' photo from which you determined Amanda's hair looked dirty!
Duh.

 

[Vixen]

This is Judge Marasca's reasoning for implying that Raffaele Sollecito could not have been at the cottage at the time of death.

It has to do with Marasca accepting, "incontrovertible factual data." That data was with regard to the cellphone activity on the night of Nov 1.

It's all there in Section 6.2 of Marasca's report. It starts with Marasca ruling that Nencini erred, "in the finding that the establishment of Kercher’s exact time of death was irrelevant."

As a finding of law in a circumstantial case, the T.O.D. is more than relevant, it is crucial, so says Marasca. Read on in Section 6.2.....

​

Marasca then goes on the deplore the shoddy investigation, where T.O.D should have been at the top of the list, rather than leaving it to Nencini to say (wrongly) 6 years later that the finding of an exact T.O.D. was irrelevant.

After going through the science with regard to stomach contents and T.O.D., Marasca rules that Nencini erred in not accepting the Sollecito teams objections:

​

In presenting this incontrovertible data - one either proves that Raffaele was at the cottage prior to 10:13 pm on Nov 1st, or he has an incontrovertible alibi on that point alone.

Nencini had ruled that T.O.D. didn't matter. Nencini was wrong. For circumstantial cases like this, that alone is grounds for reversing a guilty verdict.

Then in Section 7 Marasca tackles the issue of Nencini placing himself as judge as superior to scientific experts when it comes to scientific data.

But all this is to set up Marasca's synpotic amalgam of the case, as he does in Section 9 of his report - an amalgam which (acc. to Maraesca) shows how the "connective tissue" of any guilt finding falls apart.

My wish for Vixen is that she would read ALL of Marasca's report, including Section 6.2 where Marasca specifically discusses how Nencini erred in saying T.O.D was not important, because T.O.D. spoke directly to the possibility of Raffaele's alleged presence during the murder.

Therefore - acquittal. Vixen would rather cherry pick from Marasca.

That really is nonsense, because in effect Marasca is saying perps who manage to delay the discovery of a body rendering estimating the exact time of death as extremely difficult should be acquitted.

Marasca did not have the jurisdiction to come to an opinion on Time of Death. If it had concerns, it should have remitted it back to the lower courts to try the issue again. However, there is no legal reason to retry it as there was no new evidence presented by the defence and thus no legal grounds for appeal on this point. Massei and Nencini's preference for a particular pathologist's testimony, out of a range of pathologists form all parties, is well within a judge's remit. Marasca fails to pinpoint a lack of reasonableness in the courts' decision. Judges have wide-ranging powers and there is no error of law in Massei or Nencini's decision in this.

The is no logical reason, 'Mez must have been killed as soon as the last call at 10:15 was made'.

What is more compelling is the collaborative evidence of at least five independent witnesses noting a flurry of activity and sounds at around 10:30.

Even then, Rudy is alleged by the defence to have pottered around the cottage for at least 1'40" since purportedly arriving at circa 8:45. Mez' false imprisonment, torture and restraint could have been stretched out for far longer than the estimated agonisingly long ten minutes it took her to die from her final fatal wound.


Marasca saying Nencini erred, errs itself. It is exactly like the Hellmann court, abjectly illogical, piecemeal and intellectually dishonest. It is so embarrassingly defective, both judges have been taken off the judiciary.

Bruno has been given a fancy job title to avoid his suing for compo, but he is now on a desk job, as it were. The equivalent of a top detective being moved to traffic duties.

 

[Vixen]

Bwwaahaahaaaa! No, that is not what I said at all. You either have a reading comprehension problem or, far more likely, this is yet another one of your attempts at spin. What I did say multiple times is that Amanda's hair is dyed which is easily identified under a microscope. The hairs found in Meredith's bedroom were never identified as being dyed. If they had been, it would have been incriminatory and presented in court as circumstantial evidence. It wasn't. Now do you understand or are you going to try and spin that into something else?

Interestingly, it is even possible now to identify the brand of dye used on hair.

How do you know? They were never found to come from a llama, either.

Hair isn't good forensic material as it is difficult to timestamp how long it's been there, only the follicle is useful for DNA analysis. Fact is though, a long fair hair WAS found across the bag, another clutched in Mez' hand in rigor mortis and down below.

It certainly was NOT Rudy's hair.

 

[Vixen]

Just as you ignored Planigale's use of the word "putative" to misquote her, you also ignore my use of the words "It looks pretty much the same color all over to me with a bit of grow out at the roots." Just where do I claim to see "every single hair" on her head, "even the back"? Dr. Vixen, Spin Doctor. But, speaking of the back, do you think Amanda only dyed the front and sides of her hair, leaving the back undyed? Is that what you are claiming?

Just what do you think the odds are that only undyed hairs would be left behind? Wait! Maybe she found all the dyed ones and only cleaned those up, leaving the non-incriminatory undyed ones behind! Pure genius!

You remind me of the kid who gets caught with Oreo crumbles all around his mouth and keeps insisting he didn't get into the cookie jar.

Your claim someone who dyes their true hair colour will never leave hair strands of their original behind, is fallacious, because many hair dyes, especially home dyes, do not cover hair 100%.

Take grey hair. No amount of dying will cover this type of hair 100% in some cases.

 

[Vixen]

Excellent. I ask for a primary source for your post, "She concocted her bathmat story later, after being apprised by her lawyers police had found the strange evidence of someone shuffling around on a cloth to avoid leaving prints...". In particular I asked for the primary source for police finding evidence of someone shuffling around on a cloth.

Vixen's primary source for this factoid is an email from Knox in which she does not mention the bathmat!

Now we begin to understand Vixen's meaning of primary source. One picks a statement where the subject is not mentioned allowing one to draw any conclusion one wants.

Vixen to be clear as you obviously do not understand the meaning of a primary source. What is needed is testimony or a report written by a police officer reporting findings which lead to the conclusion that 'someone was shuffling round on a cloth'.

Even if we go to the highly partisan source themurderofmeridithkercher they say.
"This use of the bathmat was a late addition to Amanda's story. Knox added the bathmat shuffle in a letter to her lawyer just before the hallway was going to be tested by the forensic police. When Luminol was applied to the hallway it revealed both Knox and Sollecito's footprints and DNA testing discovered Amanda and Meredith's DNA in a mixed sample in one of the footprints. It seems pretty obvious that no one would use a bathmat with blood on it the way Knox describes and that she fabricated this story in an effort to explain the anticipated results of the forensic tests."
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.c...unt_of_the_Morning_of_Nov_2_Sound_Believable?
Highlighting mine.

So even here
1) Knox reported the shuffle prior to the police finding any evidence.
2) No evidence of the shuffle was reported.

Knox reported this shuffle on Dec 17 2007.
Vinci did not find the evidence supporting Knox's testimony until 2008.

Even if the police had found the evidence you claim they did, why would Knox need to report the bathmat shuffle? What i find interesting is Knox reported this detail in 2007, evidence to support this was only found in 2008. The shuffle might explain very faint prints made in highly dilute blood found in the hall. That there is evidence to support this detail of Knox's testimony which only became apparent subsequently suggests her testimony was accurate.

Hello? Her lawyers kept her updated on forensic developments and her letters to the lawyer, made public, are obviously an attempt to explain away potentially incriminating forensic evidence.

It is clear that at some point after the murder, Amanda was moving around the cottage on such a cloth to avoid leaving footprints. Unfortunately, her foot slipped in places here and there and these were what was highlighted by luminol.

The defence had the task of explaining this to the court.

Enter the Bathmat Shuffle.

Perhaps a new dance craze for Bill. Cue a series of pip's queuing up to say, they, too, shuffle about their homes on a bathmat.

 

[Vixen]

Yes, just . That is all. Ah, well, if you put it that way, perhaps including a .

As you were.

Spare us from franglais experts, like LondonJohn, who believe all languages are spoken just like English.

The ignorance is hilarious.