Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

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?

​

OSMOSIS

Osmosis is the spontaneous net movement of solvent molecules through a semi-permeable membrane into a region of higher solute concentration, in the direction that tends to equalize the solute concentrations on the two sides. (Google)

Do explain how Nencini was supposed to assess the case by osmosis.

 

[Vixen]

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

I am 100% corruption proof, so there shall be no offer.

 

[Vixen]

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.

As Mandy Rice-Davies put it, "S/he would say that, wouldn't she?"

It was important enough to feature in her email to the world the day after in her account of 'how i found my housemate murdered.'

So, at the forefront of her mind.

 

[Stacyhs]

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?

I'd suggest you ask Maria del Prato. Guede had her kitchen knife in his backpack and she was missing some money. Or maybe Guede's neighbor who reported a missing gold watch. Was it just a coincidence that Guede also had a woman's gold watch in his backpack? Or maybe the Perugia lawyer who had a cell phone and laptop stolen from his office that just (coincidentally) ended up in Guede's backpack, too. Or maybe you'd like to ask Tramontano who caught Guede in his house and had some credit cards and money stolen before being threatened with a knife by the burglar. Nah, he wasn't "much of a burglar".

Of course, it's completely illogical to think that Guede's "bad kebobs" made him have to hit the toilet before he could start stuffing his backpack, right?

 

[Stacyhs]

As Mandy Rice-Davies put it, "S/he would say that, wouldn't she?"

It was important enough to feature in her email to the world the day after in her account of 'how i found my housemate murdered.'

So, at the forefront of her mind.

What part of "it was not in the email but in the Nov 6 handwritten statement she gave to the police" are you not understanding? Why can't you even admit to being wrong about that when it's there for anyone to see? It's right here in your beloved TMOMK:

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Amanda_Knox's_handwritten_statement_to_police_(Nov_6,_2007)

You do realize that perpetuating this proven falsehood does nothing to support your credibility, don't you?

 

[Bill Williams]

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?

OSMOSIS

Osmosis is the spontaneous net movement of solvent molecules through a semi-permeable membrane into a region of higher solute concentration, in the direction that tends to equalize the solute concentrations on the two sides. (Google)

Do explain how Nencini was supposed to assess the case by osmosis.

This is priceless. It's posts like this where I think YOU are the paid shill from the Gogerty-Marriott supertanker to make guilters look stupid.

Read what I wrote again. It was the Chieffi panel in 2013 which directed the Nencini court to look at the matter Osmotically.

Do you even know what the Chieffi court told the Nencini court to do?

LOL! This is priceless. (The penny will drop for you, Vixen, that you're being stupid, and you'll come up with some excuse.....)

 

[Vixen]

This is priceless. It's posts like this where I think YOU are the paid shill from the Gogerty-Marriott supertanker to make guilters look stupid.

Read what I wrote again. It was the Chieffi panel in 2013 which directed the Nencini court to look at the matter Osmotically.

Do you even know what the Chieffi court told the Nencini court to do?

LOL! This is priceless. (The penny will drop for you, Vixen, that you're being stupid, and you'll come up with some excuse.....)

You said you agreed with Marasca that Nencini had failed to act osmotically as ordered by Chieffi.

Can you please now explain what is meant by 'osmotic', or do you not have the foggiest idea, as I suspect.

 

[Bill Williams]

You said you agreed with Marasca that Nencini had failed to act osmotically as ordered by Chieffi.

Can you please now explain what is meant by 'osmotic', or do you not have the foggiest idea, as I suspect.

Nice try. But your own goal still counts.

You asked, "Do explain how Nencini was supposed to assess the case by osmosis."

You need to ask that question of Chieffi. It was Chieffi who tasked Nancini's court so. Sometimes I truly believe you cannot lay things out on a timeline.

Chieffi came before Nencini. Marasca after. If you want to know why Marasca did not think Nencini had accomplished the task set out for him - READ MARASCA! I've quoted it four or five times in this thread.

For pete's sake, you used to be better in making excuses for lame posts.

 

[bagels]

You said you agreed with Marasca that Nencini had failed to act osmotically as ordered by Chieffi.

Can you please now explain what is meant by 'osmotic', or do you not have the foggiest idea, as I suspect.

Osmotic means all the evidence is crap, but Amanda clearly has evil eyes in this one tabloid photo I saw, thus the evidence magically becomes good and proves her guilt.

I think that's what Chieffi was going for anyway.

 

[Bill Williams]

You said you agreed with Marasca that Nencini had failed to act osmotically as ordered by Chieffi.

Can you please now explain what is meant by 'osmotic', or do you not have the foggiest idea, as I suspect.

"Nencini had failed to act osmotically......."

You're kidding, right!?

No one, not me not Chieffi not Marasca not even the most unhinged guilter has interpreted Chieffi's use of the word/concept as a call for the (then) new 2nd grade court to "act osmotically."

You can't be this dumb - this must be deliberate, and you must be having a great laugh at our expense, that you can go on and on with such inanity and we fall for it every time.

 

[Matthew Best]

http://www.people.com/article/ryan-ferguson-on-amanda-knox-friendship

"In 2013, after nearly 10 years behind bars, the court vacated Ryan Ferguson's conviction in the 2001 killing of a Missouri journalist. His plight has pushed him to seek justice for others and build friendships with those whose lives were also turned upside down by wrongful convictions – including Amanda Knox."

 

[Vixen]

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.

These are common knowledge facts, as acknowledged by Curt Knox himself.

Instead of making knee jerk denials to anything that sounds dodgy, why not just face reality?

 

[Vixen]

I'd suggest you ask Maria del Prato. Guede had her kitchen knife in his backpack and she was missing some money. Or maybe Guede's neighbor who reported a missing gold watch. Was it just a coincidence that Guede also had a woman's gold watch in his backpack? Or maybe the Perugia lawyer who had a cell phone and laptop stolen from his office that just (coincidentally) ended up in Guede's backpack, too. Or maybe you'd like to ask Tramontano who caught Guede in his house and had some credit cards and money stolen before being threatened with a knife by the burglar. Nah, he wasn't "much of a burglar".

Of course, it's completely illogical to think that Guede's "bad kebobs" made him have to hit the toilet before he could start stuffing his backpack, right?

Did Rudy immediately rape and kill Maria del Prato? He was plugged into his personalised stolen laptop, which he claims he bought on the black market - no burglar hangs onto property they have stolen themself, so this has a ring of truth - when she arrived and he explained he had stayed there overnight to crash, after a party. It is a fact that one of the staff there had given him access to the nursery and she was sacked because of it.

Gold watches are ten a penny. The lady who had a gold watch stolen was some five years before the murder (2002, when Rudy would have been fifteen and living with his rich foster family). If Rudy was a 'neighbour' then so was Raff, yet I note you don't point the finger at him, so I expect you have a baggage of racist stereotypes.

Taramontano did not bother reporting the so-called Rudy intruder to the police, so no surprise the court gave little credence to it. So the intruder had a knife. You'd be shocked if you knew just how many people carry around a knife.

Your linking the fact Rudy had a knife and a gold watch = therefore this is conclusive evidence he was the sole burglar/rapist/ killer is tenuous, to say the least.

 

[Vixen]

More like boredom. Refuting one single crazy person of her delusions just doesn't do it for me anymore. There was at least a perceived purpose years ago when I argued with the PGP. It's just not there anymore.

I don't care about your misunderstandings of cellular communications, Luminol, finger and footprint analysis, DNA, forensic science and the law. I KNOW that you are wrong. I also KNOW it doesn't matter that you're wrong.

So go on continue howling at the moon. It won't change a thing.

As they say in your neck of the woods, "cheerio luv".

Very good. I like it.

 

[Vixen]

http://www.people.com/article/ryan-ferguson-on-amanda-knox-friendship

"In 2013, after nearly 10 years behind bars, the court vacated Ryan Ferguson's conviction in the 2001 killing of a Missouri journalist. His plight has pushed him to seek justice for others and build friendships with those whose lives were also turned upside down by wrongful convictions – including Amanda Knox."

ROFL LOL. If only Ryan didn't already have a gf then I am sure Amanda would move in on him, as evidenced by the two moms snuggling up to each other at 'innocence' conferences.

All that compo to come.

 

[Matthew Best]

ROFL LOL. If only Ryan didn't already have a gf then I am sure Amanda would move in on him, as evidenced by the two moms snuggling up to each other at 'innocence' conferences.

All that compo to come.

More about Ryan's new show here:

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture...truth-inside-mtvs-new-true-crime-show-w435997

 

[Bill Williams]

This might help take your mind off it.

I can appreciate that you wish to divert the thread from the incredibly dumb remark you made, suggesting that the Chieffi ISC panel had instructed the subsequent Nencini court to "act osmotically".

If you want me to summarize this mini-thread I will. Chieffi's ISC panel annulled the Hellmann acquittals in 2013, partly because of the claim that:

In conclusion, the ruling under appeal must be annulled due to the multiple shortcomings, contradictions and clear failures of logic indicated above. The new judge will therefore have to remedy the argumentative aspects subject to criticism, in his or her broadest powers of assessment, carrying out a global and uniform examination of the circumstantial evidence, an examination by means of which it will have to be determined whether the relative ambiguity of each pieces of evidence can be resolved, since in the overall assessment each piece of evidence is to be added to and integrated with the others. The outcome of such an osmotic assessment will be decisive......​

The ruling under appeal was the Hellmann acquitals. The "new judge" referred to above turned out to be Nencini. Quite incredibly, you asked ME what "osmotic" meant, when Chieffi's definition of it is implied in what he wrote. It's there for you to read. (But you don't do sources, do you.)

Some people argue that Nencini interpreted those words as a directive to convict. Chieffi readily admits to the "relative ambiguity of each pieces of evidence," and tasks the new, lower court to remedy it.

Nencini thought he did. When the Nencini court's conviction was in turn appealed to the ISC, the new panel, the Marasca/Bruno panel said that the "connective tissue" of these ambiguous "pieces of evidence" did not justify a conviction. Marasca/Bruno even assembled their own synoptic representation of these "pieces of evidence" to demonstrate that even if true, they still were not enough to convict.

Osmosis. Connective tissue. Synoptic. Why is this sort of thing important? The short answer is because the Chieffi panel said it was.

And what the Marasca panel concluded (upon the reexamination of the Nencini trial) a conviction was not warranted.

Indeed, courts subsequent to the Marasca/Bruno annulment of the convictions interpret that action as an exoneration of Sollecito and Knox.

No wonder you want to keep people's minds off of this, given your PR/photoshopping campaign. Your contribution to this is to completely boot a concept - Chieffi did not task Nencini's court to "act osmotically". That's just dumb. It means you don't understand even the most basic aspect of this case.

Why don't you just admit it and then we'll move on.

 

[Vixen]

I can appreciate that you wish to divert the thread from the incredibly dumb remark you made, suggesting that the Chieffi ISC panel had instructed the subsequent Nencini court to "act osmotically".

If you want me to summarize this mini-thread I will. Chieffi's ISC panel annulled the Hellmann acquittals in 2013, partly because of the claim that:

​

The ruling under appeal was the Hellmann acquitals. The "new judge" referred to above turned out to be Nencini. Quite incredibly, you asked ME what "osmotic" meant, when Chieffi's definition of it is implied in what he wrote. It's there for you to read. (But you don't do sources, do you.)

Some people argue that Nencini interpreted those words as a directive to convict. Chieffi readily admits to the "relative ambiguity of each pieces of evidence," and tasks the new, lower court to remedy it.

Nencini thought he did. When the Nencini court's conviction was in turn appealed to the ISC, the new panel, the Marasca/Bruno panel said that the "connective tissue" of these ambiguous "pieces of evidence" did not justify a conviction. Marasca/Bruno even assembled their own synoptic representation of these "pieces of evidence" to demonstrate that even if true, they still were not enough to convict.

Osmosis. Connective tissue. Synoptic. Why is this sort of thing important? The short answer is because the Chieffi panel said it was.

And what the Marasca panel concluded (upon the reexamination of the Nencini trial) a conviction was not warranted.

Indeed, courts subsequent to the Marasca/Bruno annulment of the convictions interpret that action as an exoneration of Sollecito and Knox.

No wonder you want to keep people's minds off of this, given your PR/photoshopping campaign. Your contribution to this is to completely boot a concept - Chieffi did not task Nencini's court to "act osmotically". That's just dumb. It means you don't understand even the most basic aspect of this case.

Why don't you just admit it and then we'll move on.

I am not running a photoshopping campaign; you must have me confused with someone else. Calm down.

I'll take that as a, "No, I have no idea what Chieffi/Marasca mean by 'osmotically'".

 

[Bill Williams]

I am not running a photoshopping campaign; you must have me confused with someone else. Calm down.

I'll take that as a, "No, I have no idea what Chieffi/Marasca mean by 'osmotically'".

You can take it for whatever you wish. You still sound dumb for thinking that the 2013 Chieffi court instructed the subsequent Nencini court to "act osmotically." Chieffi himself gave the meaning in what I quoted.

 

[Bill Williams]

I am not running a photoshopping campaign; you must have me confused with someone else. Calm down.

I'll take that as a, "No, I have no idea what Chieffi/Marasca mean by 'osmotically'".

What we can do so that both of us don't look like idiots, is to agree that it is not what you think and it is not what I think that is important. This is why one goes to sources. If one wants to know what Chieffi (in 2013) or Marasca (in 2015) means by "osmotic" or "synoptic", it really is quite easy.

All we have to do is read and quote from them!!! See, it's easy. I'll highlight for you key terms they use to help the reader.

In conclusion, the ruling under appeal must be annulled due to the multiple shortcomings, contradictions and clear failures of logic indicated above. The new judge will therefore have to remedy the argumentative aspects subject to criticism, in his or her broadest powers of assessment, carrying out a global and uniform examination of the circumstantial evidence, an examination by means of which it will have to be determined whether the relative ambiguity of each pieces of evidence can be resolved, since in the overall assessment each piece of evidence is to be added to and integrated with the others. The outcome of such an osmotic assessment will be decisive......​

You see, Chieffi in setting out the task for the subsequent Nencini court did nothing of the sort of tasking him with, "acting osmotically". That comment shows an embarrassing unfamiliarity, even with the documents you claim condemn the pair. (Much less the issue that the ISC though were important.)

The ISC once again, the next time in 2015, evaluated the fact-finding judgments on that "osmotic" measure. This is what the ISC concluded that Nencini SHOULD have found, if Nencini had listened to Chieffi on the "osmotic" measure:

9.1 The intrinsically contradictory ensemble of the body of evidence, whose objective uncertainty is already emphasised by the previously highlighted wavering progress of the proceedings, does not therefore allow [us] to be satisfied to the standard of [beyond a] reasonable doubt, whose establishment is an achievement of legal culture that must, always and in any case, be upheld since it is the expression of fundamental constitutional values​

9.2 The aspects of the objectively contradictory nature [of evidence] can be, as shown below, illustrated for each defendant, in a synoptic presentation of the elements favourable to the hypothesis of guilt and of the elements against it, as they are shown, of course, by the text of the challenged ruling and of the previous ones.​

9.3 During the analysis of the aforementioned elements of evidence, it is certainly useful to remember that, taking for granted that the murder occurred in via della Pergola, the alleged presence at the house of the defendants cannot, in itself, be considered as proof of guilt. In the assessment of the problematic body of evidence, as described by the judge of the second appeal, one cannot but bear in mind the judicial concepts of merely not punishable connivance and of participation in a crime committed by others and of the distinction between them, as established by the indisputable teachings of the jurisprudence of legitimacy.​

9.4.3. It can easily be observed that the conclusion that there was a lack of an evidentiary framework consistent and sufficient to support the prosecution’s hypothesis regarding the more serious case of murder...​

10. The intrinsic contradictory nature of the evidence, emerging from the text of the appealed verdict, in essence undermines the connective tissue of the same, leading to its annulment.

In fact, in the presence of a scenario marked by many contradictions, the referral judge should not have come to a verdict of guilt....​

You see, Vixen, it is not what you or I believe which is important. It is clear that you think Nencini merely was tasked with "acting osmotically". I wish you would admit your error and simply move on.

It is what the ISC judges thought it meant. When quoting from them as original sources fails to move you, I'm not sure what else can be said.