Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bill Williams said:
You'll have to find the next Nencini-reference in his report for yourself!!!! Hoots! But I thank you for one thing.

Proving that the fake-Wiki is uselessly confirmation biased in presenting even what convicting courts actually said. They have to "spin" that too!

Why? Because to quote directly from things like the Nencini report, exposes it for the shameless work that it is.
Click to expand...

I cannot wait for you, Vixen, to pour through the primary document, Nencini's motivation report, to come up with the answer to the task I set for you.

This shows why it is absolutely ludicrous for you to be quoting from the fake-Wiki about the alleged "size 37 female shoe print" allegedly found in Meredith's room.

The answer to what Nencini says next about it?

It is this.

Nothing.

The next time Nencini mentions a size 37 shoe is when late in his document he follows up by mentioning that that is Knox's European shoe-size - and omits to make reverse reference to what he had said earlier in the document.

Earlier all he had said was: "the Court is not concerned at this stage to discuss whether or not they are attributable to Amanda Knox," and then he drops the subject - there is no "later stage" for this subject for him.

This is perhaps because subsequent to writing that part of his 2014 report, he bothered to read what the first convicting court, the Massei court, said in its 2010 motivations report:

Massei in 2010 said:
The Court, on this point, takes notice of the opposing conclusions without expressing a specific opinion. It cannot in fact be excluded that Guede alone tread on the cushion lying on the floor, to the exclusion of Knox (the smaller dimensions of the right foot can be explained by the characteristics of the underlying surface, the pillow, having a non-rigid structure and where the material of the pillow-slip may have been not perfectly straightened out, but, on the contrary, soft and as such determining the curvature), to whom [=Knox], actually, one [must] attribute moving herself about the murder scene essentially in bare feet, as shown in the part of the report that examines the genetic investigations that were done on certain biological traces and the positive Luminol prints.​
Click to expand...
In Massei's invention of a guilt scenario, he has Knox moving about in bare feet - miraculously leaving no foot-tracks of hers in blood in Meredith's room. Massei all but admits that all foot traces in Meredith's room are Guede's!

But this is not about Massei' guilt-factoids, it is about Nencini's. Nencini's factoids are what Marasca/Bruno annuled in 2015 because Nencini should never have convicted using them.

This Size 37 women's shoe track is case in point. Nencini specifically says, "the Court is not concerned at this stage to discuss whether or not they are attributable to Amanda Knox," and then there is no "later stage" for this subject for him.

Hoots!

A convicting judge goes 1/3 of the way to developing evidence that YOU say convicts Knox, then this judge simply drops the subject.

One poster upthread wanted to see the PIP discussion from 2014 about an alleged purposeful, badly written Nencini report so that the ISC later had no choice but to annul his verdict.

That theory has some support when you read how he mis-develops the Size 37 women's shoe factoid. It has even more support when one reads what Massei had said four years earlier about it.

All this is a conviction you trust!? Hoots! No wonder the fake-Wiki has to misrepresent even the convicting courts, to repair the issues as laid out by the likes of Nencini!
 
In short, Vixen, you should quit quoting from the fake-Wiki, and quote from original sources.

Neither of the convicting courts said they thought it was a Size 37 shoe belonging to Amanda Knox. Indeed, Massei's comments about it cannot be used to buttress a multiple attacker scenario at all.

But go ahead, keep quoting from the fake-Wiki. It tells us where your head is at.
 
Bill Williams said:
I cannot wait for you, Vixen, to pour through the primary document, Nencini's motivation report, to come up with the answer to the task I set for you.

This shows why it is absolutely ludicrous for you to be quoting from the fake-Wiki about the alleged "size 37 female shoe print" allegedly found in Meredith's room.

The answer to what Nencini says next about it?

It is this.

Nothing.

The next time Nencini mentions a size 37 shoe is when late in his document he follows up by mentioning that that is Knox's European shoe-size - and omits to make reverse reference to what he had said earlier in the document.

Earlier all he had said was: "the Court is not concerned at this stage to discuss whether or not they are attributable to Amanda Knox," and then he drops the subject - there is no "later stage" for this subject for him.

This is perhaps because subsequent to writing that part of his 2014 report, he bothered to read what the first convicting court, the Massei court, said in its 2010 motivations report:

​
In Massei's invention of a guilt scenario, he has Knox moving about in bare feet - miraculously leaving no foot-tracks of hers in blood in Meredith's room. Massei all but admits that all foot traces in Meredith's room are Guede's!

But this is not about Massei' guilt-factoids, it is about Nencini's. Nencini's factoids are what Marasca/Bruno annuled in 2015 because Nencini should never have convicted using them.

This Size 37 women's shoe track is case in point. Nencini specifically says, "the Court is not concerned at this stage to discuss whether or not they are attributable to Amanda Knox," and then there is no "later stage" for this subject for him.

Hoots!

A convicting judge goes 1/3 of the way to developing evidence that YOU say convicts Knox, then this judge simply drops the subject.

One poster upthread wanted to see the PIP discussion from 2014 about an alleged purposeful, badly written Nencini report so that the ISC later had no choice but to annul his verdict.

That theory has some support when you read how he mis-develops the Size 37 women's shoe factoid. It has even more support when one reads what Massei had said four years earlier about it.

All this is a conviction you trust!? Hoots! No wonder the fake-Wiki has to misrepresent even the convicting courts, to repair the issues as laid out by the likes of Nencini!
Click to expand...


Nencini didn't need to quote Massei as he was only dealing with the appealed issues. Massei, who IMV is a lot sharper than Nencini, simply let the matter lie, as it didn't add or detract to the overwhelming evidence. The rationale was 'the shoe was not found that matched the print'.

So, you see, Massei did bend over backwards for the kids. He was wise. He knew what was importnat and what not. He let the defence have their 'time police were rang', 'Nike prints are Rudy's' - despite police exact measurements showing a size 42 foot (Raff's), 'the tussle was led by Rudy'.

We know this, because neither was Rudy's shoe found, yet the same rule didn't apply as it did for Amanda. Massei was giving the defence as little to appeal against as possible. Like the police, all he needed was enough to come to a verdict, and to write up a watertight MR.
 
Vixen said:
Step forward LoJo - for it is he - who calculated it as 11.78" (aka 29cm)- in the first place. One of your lot.

Will you be laying into him?
Click to expand...


What?

And.... "one of your lot"?

<fx Cyndi Lauper track plays> "I see your truuuuue colors shining through......"
 
Bill Williams said:
In short, Vixen, you should quit quoting from the fake-Wiki, and quote from original sources.

Neither of the convicting courts said they thought it was a Size 37 shoe belonging to Amanda Knox. Indeed, Massei's comments about it cannot be used to buttress a multiple attacker scenario at all.

But go ahead, keep quoting from the fake-Wiki. It tells us where your head is at.
Click to expand...

It is an extremely good, comprehensive one, with over 3,500 documents added. It is obvious that the interpretations and summaries of the case are going to be a reflection of the writer's understanding. However, it is always backed up with facts and evidence. (See the wiki here: http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Main_Page

If i can tell what is opinion or interpretation, you ought to be able to, as well. Fact is, police DID find ladies size 37 shoe prints in blood.

Massei didn't pursue the issue as the shoe was not found.

There must surely be occasions you disagree with the interpretation of a PIP.
 
Vixen said:
Nencini didn't need to quote Massei as he was only dealing with the appealed issues. Massei, who IMV is a lot sharper than Nencini, simply let the matter lie, as it didn't add or detract to the overwhelming evidence. The rationale was 'the shoe was not found that matched the print'.

So, you see, Massei did bend over backwards for the kids. He was wise. He knew what was importnat and what not. He let the defence have their 'time police were rang', 'Nike prints are Rudy's' - despite police exact measurements showing a size 42 foot (Raff's), 'the tussle was led by Rudy'.

We know this, because neither was Rudy's shoe found, yet the same rule didn't apply as it did for Amanda. Massei was giving the defence as little to appeal against as possible. Like the police, all he needed was enough to come to a verdict, and to write up a watertight MR.
Click to expand...

Yeah everything any of the judges ever did in this case was done in the exact way and for the exact reason that matches up with your preconceived viewpoint of this case. It's not a sign of any sort of cognitive biases at work it's just a perfect 1000 batting average.

This reminds me of a guy on another comment site when I asked him isn't it strange that a sitting US senator strongly supported a girl who is supposedly a vicious psychopath rapist murderer? I don't remember too many sitting senators speaking out in favor of Ted Bundy and calling his trial a farce. His response was it was just to please the family but she didn't mean it and probably found her guilty.

The brain will instantly rationalize whatever it wants when you allow yourself to get caught up in these little delusional traps. The process is automatic.
 
bagels said:
Yeah everything any of the judges ever did in this case was done in the exact way and for the exact reason that matches up with your preconceived viewpoint of this case. It's not a sign of any sort of cognitive biases at work it's just a perfect 1000 batting average.

This reminds me of a guy on another comment site when I asked him isn't it strange that a sitting US senator strongly supported a girl who is supposedly a vicious psychopath rapist murderer? I don't remember too many sitting senators speaking out in favor of Ted Bundy and calling his trial a farce. His response was it was just to please the family but she didn't mean it and probably found her guilty.

The brain will instantly rationalize whatever it wants when you allow yourself to get caught up in these little delusional traps. The process is automatic.
Click to expand...

Ted Bundy didn't have Nathaniel Rich writing up a 'Ted Bundy was a sweet American kid railroaded by vicious third world pigs' in ROLLING STONE. Trump is just a common or garden racist. 'Boycott Italy!'

Judge Heavey's daughter went to school with Amanda and in the end she had to tell her pushy Pop to 'back off, and leave my name out of it.'
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Soz, I must be mistaken and it was one of your more knowledgeable mathematically able chums. Dan or whatever his name was.

<fx blast of colonel bogey plays>
Click to expand...


It appears that you believe a shared point of view on a particular subject (and a shared commitment to critical thinking, rationality and the scientific method) equates somehow to "chums" or "your lot". I realise that there are some weird choreographed campaigns among certain rabid pro-guilt commentators, but to the best of my knowledge - outside of the actual advocate groups (of which I am not a member in any way) - there's zero level of coordination or chorography among pro-acquittal commentators. None of them are my "chums", nor do I consider themselves "my lot". I hope that's clear.

Oh, and please remember your commitment to "rigorous and exhaustive research" before making incorrect assertions such as this again. You've made a number of embarrassing whoppers over the past few days - please try to get facts right, at least. OK?
 
LondonJohn said:
It appears that you believe a shared point of view on a particular subject (and a shared commitment to critical thinking, rationality and the scientific method) equates somehow to "chums" or "your lot". I realise that there are some weird choreographed campaigns among certain rabid pro-guilt commentators, but to the best of my knowledge - outside of the actual advocate groups (of which I am not a member in any way) - there's zero level of coordination or chorography among pro-acquittal commentators. None of them are my "chums", nor do I consider themselves "my lot". I hope that's clear.

Oh, and please remember your commitment to "rigorous and exhaustive research" before making incorrect assertions such as this again. You've made a number of embarrassing whoppers over the past few days - please try to get facts right, at least. OK?
Click to expand...


I quite understand your desire to distance yourself.
 
Vixen said:
Ted Bundy didn't have Nataniel Rich writing up a 'Ted Bundy was a sweet American kid railroaded by vicious third world pigs' in ROLLING STONE. Trump is just a common or garden racist. 'Boycott Italy!'

Judge Heavey's daughter went to school with Amanda and in the end she had to tell her pushy Pop to 'back off, and leave my name out of it.'
Click to expand...


Have you seriously never sat down and thought for even a minute why it might be that (proper, acclaimed) US investigative journalists never wrote exculapatory pieces about someone such as Ted Bundy, whilst several wrote about Knox?

Why don't you take a minute to think about why that might be, and after that minute has passed, I'll tell you the reason why.

Is the minute up? Good. Well, the reason is that all the evidence clearly proved - well beyond the BARD standard, and with extremely high reliability - that Bundy was a monster who, over many years and across many US states, captured, tortured and brutally killed numerous young women before dumping their bodies in remote locations, and who ended with a vicious spree killing in Florida. Whereas there's not one single credible, reliable piece of evidence that Knox (or Sollecito) was involved in any way in the Kercher murder, and all the reliable evidence (and the lack of evidence) points clearly to Guede as the sole killer. And with that in mind, it's an outrage that the police and prosecutors employed a toxic mix of gross incompetence, confirmation bias, tunnel vision, personal vanity and ego, and false moral certitude, to put Knox (and Sollecito) through an insanely long (and extremely expensive, and emotionally devastating) trials process; and it's a similar outrage that two lower courts in this case were so incompetent, beholden to the prosecution and irrational as to find Knox (and Sollecito) guilty and lock both of them away for over three years of their lives.

That's why decent investigative journalists wrote pieces in support of Knox. That's why the Netflix documentary concludes clearly that Knox (and Sollecito) were victims of a gross injustice, fuelled by the egotistical madman Mignini and disgusting sensationalist hacks such as Pisa who "sexed up" the story to the max in order to earn money. That's why the ECHR will almost certainly issue an utterly damning indictment of the disgraceful police interrogation of Knox on 5th/6th November 2007. And that's why those of us who've commented from a pro-acquittal/pro-innocence perspective for all of these years are correct. And why you are wrong.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
I quite understand your desire to distance yourself.
Click to expand...


Oh dear. There you go again. It speaks volumes for your critical thinking abilities when you are minded to infer from my saying "I don't consider XYZ to be my "chum"" that I therefore mean "I wish to distance myself from XYZ".

But I suppose I expect nothing more by now :)
 
Vixen said:
Ted Bundy didn't have Nathaniel Rich writing up a 'Ted Bundy was a sweet American kid railroaded by vicious third world pigs' in ROLLING STONE. Trump is just a common or garden racist. 'Boycott Italy!'

Judge Heavey's daughter went to school with Amanda and in the end she had to tell her pushy Pop to 'back off, and leave my name out of it.'
Click to expand...

We were talking about a very level headed democratic senator from Washington State, although I'm sure the PMF crew worked round the clock to create a 100 page file on her. You can spare me the copy/paste, I don't care if Maria Cantwell is secretly one of the lizard people that was recorded off mic saying "Knox is a ho lulz" because I don't give a crap what peoples opinion about some random girl are.

I brought the whole thing up because of the bizarre way the PGP compartmentalize everything instantly into a for/against box and then rationalize any opposing thought without question. Break free! You don't have to succumb to this stupid case!
 
Bill Williams said:
In short, Vixen, you should quit quoting from the fake-Wiki, and quote from original sources.

Neither of the convicting courts said they thought it was a Size 37 shoe belonging to Amanda Knox. Indeed, Massei's comments about it cannot be used to buttress a multiple attacker scenario at all.

But go ahead, keep quoting from the fake-Wiki. It tells us where your head is at.
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
It is an extremely good, comprehensive one, with over 3,500 documents added. It is obvious that the interpretations and summaries of the case are going to be a reflection of the writer's understanding confirmation biases. However, it is always backed up with facts and evidence. (See the wiki here: http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Main_Page

If i can tell what is opinion or interpretation, you ought to be able to, as well. Fact is, police DID claimed they find found a ladies size 37 shoe prints in blood.
Massei didn't pursue the issue as the shoe was not found.

There must surely be occasions you disagree with the interpretation of a PIP.
Click to expand...

I fixed two of your whoppers above.

The fact is - judicial fact, that is - that there was no ladies size 37 found in Meredith's room. They way you surf between what police said they found on the one hand, and judicial facts on the other is amazing.

One last time, because you'd obviously read the bizarre ramblings of the fake-wiki, rather than even the actual words of the convicting judges......

Massei in 2010 said:
The Court, on this point, takes notice of the opposing conclusions without expressing a specific opinion. It cannot in fact be excluded that Guede alone tread on the cushion lying on the floor, to the exclusion of Knox (the smaller dimensions of the right foot can be explained by the characteristics of the underlying surface, the pillow, having a non-rigid structure and where the material of the pillow-slip may have been not perfectly straightened out, but, on the contrary, soft and as such determining the curvature), to whom [=Knox], actually, one [must] attribute moving herself about the murder scene essentially in bare feet, as shown in the part of the report that examines the genetic investigations that were done on certain biological traces and the positive Luminol prints.​
Click to expand...

"..... It cannot in fact be excluded that Guede alone tread on the cushion lying on the floor....."

Please contact the purveyors of fiction at the fake-Wiki and tell them what even the convicting judges concluded about the factoid, size 37 ladies shoe.

I am sure for the sake of the Kerchers you'd want it to reflect an accurate record, rather than the factoids they seem to want to cling to.
 
LondonJohn said:
Have you seriously never sat down and thought for even a minute why it might be that (proper, acclaimed) US investigative journalists never wrote exculapatory pieces about someone such as Ted Bundy, whilst several wrote about Knox?

Why don't you take a minute to think about why that might be, and after that minute has passed, I'll tell you the reason why.

Is the minute up? Good. Well, the reason is that all the evidence clearly proved - well beyond the BARD standard, and with extremely high reliability - that Bundy was a monster who, over many years and across many US states, captured, tortured and brutally killed numerous young women before dumping their bodies in remote locations, and who ended with a vicious spree killing in Florida. Whereas there's not one single credible, reliable piece of evidence that Knox (or Sollecito) was involved in any way in the Kercher murder, and all the reliable evidence (and the lack of evidence) points clearly to Guede as the sole killer. And with that in mind, it's an outrage that the police and prosecutors employed a toxic mix of gross incompetence, confirmation bias, tunnel vision, personal vanity and ego, and false moral certitude, to put Knox (and Sollecito) through an insanely long (and extremely expensive, and emotionally devastating) trials process; and it's a similar outrage that two lower courts in this case were so incompetent, beholden to the prosecution and irrational as to find Knox (and Sollecito) guilty and lock both of them away for over three years of their lives.

That's why decent investigative journalists wrote pieces in support of Knox. That's why the Netflix documentary concludes clearly that Knox (and Sollecito) were victims of a gross injustice, fuelled by the egotistical madman Mignini and disgusting sensationalist hacks such as Pisa who "sexed up" the story to the max in order to earn money. That's why the ECHR will almost certainly issue an utterly damning indictment of the disgraceful police interrogation of Knox on 5th/6th November 2007. And that's why those of us who've commented from a pro-acquittal/pro-innocence perspective for all of these years are correct. And why you are wrong.
Click to expand...


Would this be the same netflix producer who wrote 'hate' articles about Nick Pisa and trolled anyone he disagreed with? See here, for example: http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/netflixliesbyomission

How many $$$ is he lining his pockets with in this Innocence Fraud? Fraud, because Curt Knox invested heavily in Gogerty-Marriott and then just David Marriott and the press has been swamped with Marriott PR. So how come Morse only mentions Nick Pisa, but not the zealous publicist hired by Amanda's father?
 
Last edited:
bagels said:
We were talking about a very level headed democratic senator from Washington State, although I'm sure the PMF crew worked round the clock to create a 100 page file on her. You can spare me the copy/paste, I don't care if Maria Cantwell is secretly one of the lizard people that was recorded off mic saying "Knox is a ho lulz" because I don't give a crap what peoples opinion about some random girl are.

I brought the whole thing up because of the bizarre way the PGP compartmentalize everything instantly into a for/against box and then rationalize any opposing thought without question. Break free! You don't have to succumb to this stupid case!
Click to expand...


LOL Maria Cantwell soon distanced herself.
 
Vixen said:
Would this be the same netflix producer who wrote 'hate' articles about Nick Pisa and trolled anyone he disagreed with? See here, for example: http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/netflixliesbyomission

How many $$$ is he lining his pockets with in this Innocence Fraud? Fraud, because Curt Knox invested heavily in Gogerty-Marriott and then just David Marriott and the press has been swamped with Marriott PR. So how come Morse only mentions Nick Pisa, but not the zealous publicist hired by Amanda's father?
Click to expand...

Not only do you need to quit reading the fake-Wiki, you REALLY need to stop reading Peter Quennell's conspiracy theories. You also have to stop insulting people you disagree with and accusing them of all sorts of nasty acts.
 
Vixen said:
Would this be the same netflix producer who wrote 'hate' articles about Nick Pisa and trolled anyone he disagreed with? See here, for example: http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/netflixliesbyomission

How many $$$ is he lining his pockets with in this Innocence Fraud? Fraud, because Curt Knox invested heavily in Gogerty-Marriott and then just David Marriott and the press has been swamped with Marriott PR. So how come Morse only mentions Nick Pisa, but not the zealous publicist hired by Amanda's father?
Click to expand...



1) Input of this one producer into the creative and editorial stance of the docufilm? Proof? (Hint: on a docufilm, the director(s) set the creative and editorial tone)

2) "Hate" article? Proof?

3) "Trolling"? Proof? (Hint: responding to tweets is not trolling.....)

4) "Curt Knox invested heavily in Gogerty Marriott and then just David Marriott"? Proof?

5) "The press has been swamped with Marriott PR"? Proof?


Oh dear. What's that you say? You don't have any proof of any of this? And you're aware, are you not, that TJMK (your "resource" here) is controlled by a clearly disturbed nutter with grandiose Walter Mitty fantasy issues and a no-holds-barred agenda to defend Mignini, (a carefully selected subset of) the Italian courts, and the overarching theory of Knox's/Sollecito's guilt?

Still, it's worth a hearty chuckle that this evangelical oddball leaps on the Knox documentary's director "liking" a tweet (almost certainly, incidentally, because he erroneously thought the "lies of omission" mentioned in the tweet was a reference to the failings in the judicial case against Knox/Sollecito) as (and I still hesitate to keep a straight face here): "Is Director Rod Blackhurst Jumping Ship Already?!"

The man (Quennell, that is) genuinely needs professional help. As do a fair few of those he selects as "contributors" to his deranged website. And those who consider his website to be a NPOV, balanced, objective, accurate source of information :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom