Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[NotEvenWrong]

On the one hand Vixen is saying Amanda was so short of money she had resort to stealing Meredith's rent money and on the other hand Amanda's family had two million dollars available to pay a PR firm.

Well, Welshman, as you know, since Amanda is a pagan she devil sex murderess we know she stole money from Meredith and that was her motive for murder. Oh and the whole sex game thing. Take your pick.

On the other hand, we know that since Amanda is a pagan she devil sex murderess, there is no way all of these world class forensic scientists, internet commenters, and the American public actually believe she is innocent (after all, who needs evidence to convict pagan she devil sex murderesses), and to cover the costs there HAD to be a two million dollar payment to this PR firm.

Some people may see a contradiction here (Amanda and her family being both super rich and super poor at the same time), but you are ignoring the core fact here -- we know Amanda is a pagan she devil sex murderess. And since we are talking about demonology here and we are in a moral panic, logic does not apply. Think of the children!

 

[Bill Williams]

Bunking or debunking

Meanwhile, back in reality, the Marasca-Bruno panel annulled the convictions thusly:
Don't you live the way that Marasca-Bruno ridiculed both Stefanoni AND Nencini by referring to the striations as "imperceptible"!?

Why you keep on going, simply cycling back to long-since debunked factoids, is beyond me.

But here we go again. You will probably repost that picture of the first-floor window, below Filomena's second floor window. You should have it on file. You know - the one you said did not have bars on the window, when the bars were there for all to see.

Rather than continue with your nonsense above - why not present one forensic-DNA expert who sides with Stefanoni. One will do.

Marasca did not 'debunk' the evidence. They threw out the DNA evidence, but upheld all the rest; extremely strong evidence even were you to ignore one third of it.


Their MR is defective and they err on major legal points.

You really must stop your furious photoshopping hobby to at least try to follow an argument. Why? Because you have offered a response to my post which has nothing at all to do with the merits (good or ill) of the post.

My post had nothing to do with Marasca either debunking or bunking the evidence. This is where you continually go wrong - esp. when you claim that Marasca confirmed guilt-sounding evidence.

Debunking and bunking is not what the ISC is about. Marasca/Bruno wrote that Nencini improperly convicted because his court illegally assessed the DNA evidence from a legal point of view.

Marasca annulled the Nencini convictions. Why? Because of Nencini's legal errors. You should read the Marasca/Bruno report (other than Section 9.44ff).

Marasca did not debunk the DNA evidence, per se. Marasca said that Nencini illegally inserted his own judicial opinions and feelings for expert and independent forensic-DNA analysis. In short, Conti-Vecchiotti had debunked Stefanoni, and Nencini failed to show - by further appeal to some other independent analysis - why C/V was wrong. Nencini erred in just (on a hunch) accepting that Stefanoni was right.

I know you're not going to read it, much less understand it much less cease the miserable photoshopping campaign you are on, but here is Marasca/Bruno's reasoning why Nencini was wrong in law to convict on the DNA evidence.......

in that case, the paraphrase is far more challenging, and requires an appropriate and pertinent motivation explaining the reasons for which the alternative scientific proposition cannot be accepted (cf. Sec. 6, n. 5749 of 2014-01-09, Homm, Rv. 258630, according to which the judge who decides to adhere to the conclusions of the court expert, against those of a party consultant, while not being burdened with the obligation to provide an independent demonstration of the scientific correctness of the former and the erroneousness of the others, “is however bound” to demonstrating the fact that the expert conclusions were assessed “in terms of reliability and completeness”, and that the consultant’s arguments were not ignored).

This Court considers that this delicate problem, inasmuch as the present case is concerned, must find its solution in the general rules that inform our legal system and not, indeed, aliunde [from elsewhere], in an abstract insistence on the primacy of science over law or vice-versa. Scientific proof cannot, in fact, aspire to an unconditional credit of self-referential trustworthiness in the trial setting, by the very fact that a criminal trial renounces all notion of legal proof. Furthermore, it is known to all that there does not exist [only] one single science, bearer of absolute truths immutable over time, but rather many sciences or pseudosciences, including those that are “official” and those that have not been validated by the scientific community, insofar as they are expressions of research methods that are not universally recognised.

So, the solution to the question cannot but pass through a recalling of principles and rules that regulate the acquisition and formation of evidence in criminal trials, and then, to criteria which govern the manner in which it is to be evaluated.​

You'll note that Marasca/Bruno does something you NEVER do. They provide a citation for the relevant law.

Nencini ignored the "principles and rules that regulate the acquisition and formation of evidence in criminal trials", and thus needed to have his convictions annulled. Why? Because what remained was a case with no "connective tissue" pointing to guilt - the connective tissue of which just happened to be the reason why the Chieffi ISC panel in 2013 annulled the Hellmann convictions..... remember, Chieffi asked the subsequent Nencini court to evaluate all the evidence osmotically!

For some reason in Italian courts, this business of "connective tissue" of the evidence, the way it is "osmotically" or "synoptically" assembled plays big. Why? I haven't a clue.

But rest your tired heart - and quit your disgusting photoshopping - and deal with the fact that neither Chieffi nor Marasca after him debunked - or bunked for that matter - anything.

 

[Stacyhs]

It is a fact Curt Knox invested US$2m in Gogerty-Marriott to PR for his sprog.


Now all the convicted murderers are doing it and calling it an 'innocence project'.

Bwaaahaahaaahaaaa! Well of course he did! Where do you think G-M got the money to pay all of us? It just ticks me off, though, that Helllmann, Zanetti, Marasc, Bruno, Conti, Vecchiotti, and Gill probably got a lot more than I did.

 

[Stacyhs]

Well, Welshman, as you know, since Amanda is a pagan she devil sex murderess we know she stole money from Meredith and that was her motive for murder. Oh and the whole sex game thing. Take your pick.

On the other hand, we know that since Amanda is a pagan she devil sex murderess, there is no way all of these world class forensic scientists, internet commenters, and the American public actually believe she is innocent (after all, who needs evidence to convict pagan she devil sex murderesses), and to cover the costs there HAD to be a two million dollar payment to this PR firm.

Some people may see a contradiction here (Amanda and her family being both super rich and super poor at the same time), but you are ignoring the core fact here -- we know Amanda is a pagan she devil sex murderess. And since we are talking about demonology here and we are in a moral panic, logic does not apply. Think of the children!

You forgot witch. How else could she talk Raff, whom she'd known for a week, into brutally attacking and murdering a girl he'd met a couple of times? I suspect she was dosing his chianti with a magic potion.
It was revealed on TJMK, and confirmed by Nick van der Leek, that Amanda has a 666 on her scalp hidden by her hair, too. Why this was not brought out by Mignini is mind boggling. Oh, wait...Amanda put a spell on them.

 

[acbytesla]

The actual fact is, Amanda and Raff were there and were involved directly in the murder.

You know Vixen. You can repeat this over and over and over and for the most part the world views that opinion as fringe and as just another nobody shouting in some corner of the Internet.

It's been 18 months since they were unequivocally and decisively EXONERATED. 95 percent of every article written about the two will say EXONERATED and WRONGFULLY PROSECUTED or WRONGFULLY CONVICTED.

What are you trying to accomplish? Can't you tell that you have failed? Have you noticed the very tiny number of people who visit this thread and NOBODY in many many months has supported or agreed with you?

 

[Mike1711]

You have been referred numerous times to Mignini's closing submissions.
As you can see below, the footprint highlighted by luminol, which is several hundred thousand times more sensitive to blood than TMB and which in no way can have been 'contaminated' or 'fixed' by the police, matches Amanda very well.

You have been told several times the authority for the matching of the footprints are forensic dactyloligist Rinaldi and senior forensic police detective Boemia, who reported, as below, and who surely have better things to do with their time than 'frame innocent kids'.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Luminol_Traces

I do understand that a quasi top criminologist tapping his or her keyboard claiming biochemistry lab tech credentials would like to imagine he or she knows better.

Your theory about the bathmat shuffle really happening on 2 Nov 2007 as described by Amanda is fascinating. Unfortunately, it falls at the first hurdle as Amanda's footprint faces Mez's door directly, when according to Amanda and Amanda-champion planigale (for it is he/she) she was headed for her room to get a towel.

It doesn't explain luminol highlighting footprints identified by forensic experts as Raff's, also padding around in Mez' blood, when his alibi is, 'I wasn't there, Mia Lud'.

Do you understand the difference between a submission by a prosecutor and proof? Mignini's mad theories are not evidence nor proof of anything...other than Mignini's fertile and mad mind.

 

[Mike1711]

That is beside the point. The point being made is that fingerprint identification is considered legally valid.

Ditto footprint identification.

It is concluded that the print on the bathmat is definitely not Amanda's or Rudy's id est 'incompatible' and 'compatible (=legally identifies, and the trial judge ruled it is so) with Raff's.

In her email to the world 3 Nov 2007, Amanda sets out in great detail, their shower together, wherein he cleaned her ears and hair.

Right event, wrong venue.

Vixen, even you know that this is not only a lie but an outrageous one.

 

[Stacyhs]

Right event, wrong venue.

Vixen, even you know that this is not only a lie but an outrageous one.

I pointed out to Vixen almost a week ago when she made this claim that Amanda referred to that event in her Nov 6 statement to the police, not in the Nov 4 (not 3rd) email home. I also quoted the statement in which Amanda said she was not sure what night that event had taken place. So Vixen knows she is repeating a falsehood...yet again.

""However, I admit that this period of time is rather strange because I am not quite sure. I smoked marijuana with him and I might even have fallen asleep. These things I am not sure about and I know they are important to the case and to help myself, but in reality, I don't think I did much. One thing I do remember is that I took a shower with Raffaele and this might explain how we passed the time. In truth, I do not remember exactly what day it was, but I do remember that we had a shower and we washed ourselves for a long time. He cleaned my ears, he dried and combed my hair. "

 

[Bill Williams]

Do you understand the difference between a submission by a prosecutor and proof? Mignini's mad theories are not evidence nor proof of anything...other than Mignini's fertile and mad mind.

This is the essence of what always threw off the early PGP. Andrea Vogt gave same day submissions from the court for the 2009 trial - and guilters could not tell the difference between prosecutor theory vs. fact.

It's the problem with both Vixen as well as the fake wiki. It's as if Mignini's word should just be taken as is.

 

[Vixen]

Bwaaahaahaaahaaaa! Well of course he did! Where do you think G-M got the money to pay all of us? It just ticks me off, though, that Helllmann, Zanetti, Marasc, Bruno, Conti, Vecchiotti, and Gill probably got a lot more than I did.

All your quips about amazon and starbucks vouchers doesn't change the fact Curt Knox ploughed his life savings into PR with Gogerty-Marriott. If only he'd paid child maintenance all those years ago... What if Curt and Papa Raff had given their spawn more attention, instead of having extra-marital affairs with their mistresses, then perhaps their kids would not have grown up into amygdala-challenged enraged thugs desperate for 'extreme experiences'.

It's one thing advertising soap powder and brainwashing the population into buying your product, or getting people to 'place products' with their social media ("Gee, I really love Smarties"), barely ethical in itself IMV, when Coca-Cola, a plain brown liquid flavoured with koala nut and orange zest, earns net profits greater that Mexico's entire GDP and loan deficit combined.

How much more unethical and corrupt is it to bypass the courts completely and assault public opinion with knowingly false claims about your client's guilt and innocence? To really rub in the chutzpah, submit an appeal claiming press coverage prevented a fair trial, when - hullo? - you are the source of that deliberate prejudice to the case.

The police, prosecutors, courts and witnesses aren't a carefully organised commercial enterprise to pervert justice, although of course there is in all cultures an element of courts scratching the backs of police and vice versa - after all, it is the establishment that makes the law and the establishment that enforces it.

Because of the weight of oppression of the justice system on a potentially innocent person, of course there have to be genuine avenues of appeal and freedom of the press and the public to campaign. However, this is a big departure from a cynical commercial attempt to portray guilty persons as innocent by preying on people's predisposition towards kindness and a horror of injustice, together with a resistance to state opression.

This is why shilling is unethical and wrong on all levels.

Whislt not every 'innocenti' will be a shill - of course not: in the court of public opinion, many people will hold fair opinion based on their situation, even if one strongly disagrees; I will defend anybody's right to hold an opinion and express it as long as it harms no-one in an unacceptable way - but if you are a shill you are no better than your early C20 namesakes, i.e., the timeshare sharks who plant enthusiastic shills in the audience, the three-card tricksters in Oxford Street, pretending to be a part of the crowd, winning the game and encouraging unsuspecting passersby to punt (and lose). In all, it is deception, and that is why it is wrong.

 

[bagels]

Shill for hire here. I'll take either side.

 

[Vixen]

I pointed out to Vixen almost a week ago when she made this claim that Amanda referred to that event in her Nov 6 statement to the police, not in the Nov 4 (not 3rd) email home. I also quoted the statement in which Amanda said she was not sure what night that event had taken place. So Vixen knows she is repeating a falsehood...yet again.

""However, I admit that this period of time is rather strange because I am not quite sure. I smoked marijuana with him and I might even have fallen asleep. These things I am not sure about and I know they are important to the case and to help myself, but in reality, I don't think I did much. One thing I do remember is that I took a shower with Raffaele and this might explain how we passed the time. In truth, I do not remember exactly what day it was, but I do remember that we had a shower and we washed ourselves for a long time. He cleaned my ears, he dried and combed my hair. "

Given Amanda's great problems with her memory, by her own account, it is amusing you give Amanda any credence at all that this shower within a five -day shag most certainly could not have happened post-murder on the night of 2 November 2007.

 

[Vixen]

This is the essence of what always threw off the early PGP. Andrea Vogt gave same day submissions from the court for the 2009 trial - and guilters could not tell the difference between prosecutor theory vs. fact.

It's the problem with both Vixen as well as the fake wiki. It's as if Mignini's word should just be taken as is.

It is his job to act as prosecutor?

 

[Vixen]

On the one hand Vixen is saying Amanda was so short of money she had resort to stealing Meredith's rent money and on the other hand Amanda's family had two million dollars available to pay a PR firm.

Whoever stole Mez' rent money, did victimise Mez alone, as Amanda's rent money remained intact, together with her laptop, Filomena's laptop, gold jewellery and camera.

Not much of a burglar was Rudy, eh?

 

[Vixen]

Did you draw on your astrology background to come up with this nonsense?

Heh, you need to ask Nigel where he gets his codswallop from. Maybe it was a full moon and the tiles were loose.

 

[Vixen]

You really must stop your furious photoshopping hobby to at least try to follow an argument. Why? Because you have offered a response to my post which has nothing at all to do with the merits (good or ill) of the post.

My post had nothing to do with Marasca either debunking or bunking the evidence. This is where you continually go wrong - esp. when you claim that Marasca confirmed guilt-sounding evidence.

Debunking and bunking is not what the ISC is about. Marasca/Bruno wrote that Nencini improperly convicted because his court illegally assessed the DNA evidence from a legal point of view.

Marasca annulled the Nencini convictions. Why? Because of Nencini's legal errors. You should read the Marasca/Bruno report (other than Section 9.44ff).

Marasca did not debunk the DNA evidence, per se. Marasca said that Nencini illegally inserted his own judicial opinions and feelings for expert and independent forensic-DNA analysis. In short, Conti-Vecchiotti had debunked Stefanoni, and Nencini failed to show - by further appeal to some other independent analysis - why C/V was wrong. Nencini erred in just (on a hunch) accepting that Stefanoni was right.

I know you're not going to read it, much less understand it much less cease the miserable photoshopping campaign you are on, but here is Marasca/Bruno's reasoning why Nencini was wrong in law to convict on the DNA evidence.......

​

You'll note that Marasca/Bruno does something you NEVER do. They provide a citation for the relevant law.

Nencini ignored the "principles and rules that regulate the acquisition and formation of evidence in criminal trials", and thus needed to have his convictions annulled. Why? Because what remained was a case with no "connective tissue" pointing to guilt - the connective tissue of which just happened to be the reason why the Chieffi ISC panel in 2013 annulled the Hellmann convictions..... remember, Chieffi asked the subsequent Nencini court to evaluate all the evidence osmotically!

For some reason in Italian courts, this business of "connective tissue" of the evidence, the way it is "osmotically" or "synoptically" assembled plays big. Why? I haven't a clue.

But rest your tired heart - and quit your disgusting photoshopping - and deal with the fact that neither Chieffi nor Marasca after him debunked - or bunked for that matter - anything.

All judges are expected to cite case law in their written reasons, albeit judiciously, although I note Bruno, the junior judge, aged 81 (?), piles on case law thick, as though listing case names is a substitute for proper reasoning.

Osmosis is a biological act so someone must have translated badly as law is not 'osmotic', it is a set of rules that have to be learnt off by heart and case law referred to. 'Synoptic' is simply a back-to-back account of the same situation. As law is a set of rules governed by government legislature (parliament and the House of Lords in the UK and Congress in the US) it really should not be possible that a court should operate with a different set of rules to another.

Think of taxation. This operates on the same principles. If IR says your personal allowance according to the rules is CA$ XXX (Grinder said you were a 'Canuke'???) then another tax office will come to the same computation.

There is nothing 'synoptic' or 'osmotic' about it. Bruno has blinded you with jargon to disguise the paucity of the reasoning.


Keep searching. But take my advice: quit trying to find any meaning in that MR.

 

[Stacyhs]

All your quips about amazon and starbucks vouchers doesn't change the fact Curt Knox ploughed his life savings into PR with Gogerty-Marriott. If only he'd paid child maintenance all those years ago... What if Curt and Papa Raff had given their spawn more attention, instead of having extra-marital affairs with their mistresses, then perhaps their kids would not have grown up into amygdala-challenged enraged thugs desperate for 'extreme experiences'.

It's one thing advertising soap powder and brainwashing the population into buying your product, or getting people to 'place products' with their social media ("Gee, I really love Smarties"), barely ethical in itself IMV, when Coca-Cola, a plain brown liquid flavoured with koala nut and orange zest, earns net profits greater that Mexico's entire GDP and loan deficit combined.

How much more unethical and corrupt is it to bypass the courts completely and assault public opinion with knowingly false claims about your client's guilt and innocence? To really rub in the chutzpah, submit an appeal claiming press coverage prevented a fair trial, when - hullo? - you are the source of that deliberate prejudice to the case.

The police, prosecutors, courts and witnesses aren't a carefully organised commercial enterprise to pervert justice, although of course there is in all cultures an element of courts scratching the backs of police and vice versa - after all, it is the establishment that makes the law and the establishment that enforces it.

Because of the weight of oppression of the justice system on a potentially innocent person, of course there have to be genuine avenues of appeal and freedom of the press and the public to campaign. However, this is a big departure from a cynical commercial attempt to portray guilty persons as innocent by preying on people's predisposition towards kindness and a horror of injustice, together with a resistance to state opression.

This is why shilling is unethical and wrong on all levels.Whislt not every 'innocenti' will be a shill - of course not: in the court of public opinion, many people will hold fair opinion based on their situation, even if one strongly disagrees; I will defend anybody's right to hold an opinion and express it as long as it harms no-one in an unacceptable way - but if you are a shill you are no better than your early C20 namesakes, i.e., the timeshare sharks who plant enthusiastic shills in the audience, the three-card tricksters in Oxford Street, pretending to be a part of the crowd, winning the game and encouraging unsuspecting passersby to punt (and lose). In all, it is deception, and that is why it is wrong.

The only two things that need addressing in your rant are the two hilighted sections.

1) You have no evidence whatsoever that Curt Knox "ploughed his life savings into PR with Gogerty-Marriott," nor that he paid "$2 million as you previously stated.

2) You have no evidence whatsoever that any PIP is a "paid shill".

When you do, come back and we'll talk. Until then, they're just more arsefacts.

 

[Bill Williams]

Osmosis is a biological act so someone must have translated badly as law is not 'osmotic', it is a set of rules that have to be learnt off by heart and case law referred to. 'Synoptic' is simply a back-to-back account of the same situation. As law is a set of rules governed by government legislature (parliament and the House of Lords in the UK and Congress in the US) it really should not be possible that a court should operate with a different set of rules to another.

<..... sinister deletia .....>​

There is nothing 'synoptic' or 'osmotic' about it. Bruno has blinded you with jargon to disguise the paucity of the reasoning.

Keep searching. But take my advice: quit trying to find any meaning in that MR.

I think you revel in being wrong.

"Osmosis" was the English word translated by the PMF translating team FROM THE CHIEFFI MOTIVATIONS REPORT.

You know absolutely nothing about this case, do you?

The outcome of such an osmotic assessment will be decisive, not only to demonstrate the presence of the two defendants at the crime scene, but to possibly delineate the subjective positions of those who acted with Guede, before the range of situations which might be hypothesized​

 

[Bill Williams]

Shill for hire here. I'll take either side.

If Vixen can make me an offer for sufficient, I'll switch sides!

 

[Stacyhs]

Given Amanda's great problems with her memory, by her own account, it is amusing you give Amanda any credence at all that this shower within a five -day shag most certainly could not have happened post-murder on the night of 2 November 2007.

You do have a reading comprehension problem, don't you? Neither she nor I ever said it " could not have happened post-murder on the night of 2 November 2007". She said she didn't know which night it happened. Raffaele never said they showered the night of Nov 1.

Yet another example of you putting words into my mouth I never said. Quelle surprise.