Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

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

You want proof? Well - newsflash! - it seems Rod Blackhurst was himself part of the PR Friends of Amanda Brigade, as revealed by this tweet:

https://twitter.com/pataz1/status/779494019923664896

So much for his ruse of being a 'neutral independent' film director.

 

[bagels]

You want proof? Well - newsflash! - it seems Rod Blackhurst was himself part of the PR Friends of Amanda Brigade, as revealed by this tweet:

https://twitter.com/pataz1/status/779494019923664896

So much for his ruse of being a 'neutral independent' film director.

Lol. This isn't the Ramsey case where there's scant ambiguous evidence. People can't help if they look at a crystal clear footprint of a crystal clear tread pattern exactly matching Rudy's Nike outbreak and they don't immediately have a momentary schizotypal lapse in reality processing and suddenly see a girl's asics shoe or w/e. "Neutral" in this case is more along the lines of not suggesting the police or prosecution acted criminally.

 

[acbytesla]

LOL Maria Cantwell soon distanced herself.

When did Cantwell distance herself? Do you have a citation for that? I'm convinced you are wrong as usual about that.

I'm aware that Senator Cantwell sent 3 letters to Italy in 2008 to 2009. She also held a United States Senate hearing on the case late in 2013. I have NEVER read a statement EVER where she "distanced" herself from Knox.

 

[Bill Williams]

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?

This is laughable. It's no wonder there's about a dozen people in all of creation who even bother to read Quennell, much less lend credence to him even by bothering to refute him.

Still - you and Quennell accuse, accuse, accuse, accuse....

And never do anything other much less offer a site or proof.

You would do well to read something other than Quennell, the fake-wiki, and 6 year old tabloids.

 

[Bill Williams]

When did Cantwell distance herself? Do you have a citation for that? I'm convinced you are wrong as usual about that.

I'm aware that Senator Cantwell sent 3 letters to Italy in 2008 to 2009. She also held a United States Senate hearing on the case late in 2013. I have NEVER read a statement EVER where she "distanced" herself from Knox.

Cantwell probably liked a tweet.

Emptor caveat.

 

[LondonJohn]

You want proof? Well - newsflash! - it seems Rod Blackhurst was himself part of the PR Friends of Amanda Brigade, as revealed by this tweet:

https://twitter.com/pataz1/status/779494019923664896

So much for his ruse of being a 'neutral independent' film director.

Did you have reading comprehension difficulties over the allegations of yours for which I was requesting proof? Shall I repeat them again? I shall:

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?


So, where's your proof for these five accusations please? After all, it's you who asserted these things, so it's wholly up to you to back them up with compelling evidence.

By the way, you're aware that the director of "12 years a slave" has long had a very strong anti-slavery position......?

 

[Welshman]

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.

If Massei bents over backwards for Amanda and Raffaele as Vixen claims why were defence requests rejected. Nara claimed she heard a scream coming from the cottage. The defense wanted tests to see if screams could be heard from the cottage to her flat. This request was turned down.

 

[Welshman]

Nature of the evidence part 1

It has pointed out on this thread there is no reliable evidence against Amanda and Raffaele. Almost a decade after Meredith’s murder I feel there is a very important point which needs to be made about the evidence used against Amanda and Raffaele which completely destroys the notion Vixen and others have made the prosecution had a mountain of solid evidence and a strong case against Amanda and Raffaele. I have divided my post into two.

I will look at two items of evidence used against Amanda and Raffaele, the knife/DNA and the testimony of Curalto.

The knife/DNA was the main piece of evidence against Amanda and Raffaele. The knife/DNA had numerous problems :-
• During the interrogation Amanda and Raffaele were never accused of stabbing Meredith and the statements the police prepared statements for Amanda and Raffaele which said nothing about Amanda and Raffaele stabbing Meredith. How do you explain this if Amanda and Raffaele had stabbed Meredith? This is something which is often overlooked about the knife.
• The circumstances surrounding the collection of the knife are highly suspect. Only one knife was taken from Raffaele’s apartment and no knives were taken from the cottage. Below is Inspector Finzi’s testimony about the knife. As can be seen Inspector Finzi’s says he had not seen the wounds. Inspector Finzi had no data on the size of the knife wounds and there is no record the prosecution measured the knife to compare with the knife wounds. In view of this how was Inspector Finzi able to tell this was the knife used in the murder?
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/frequently-asked-questions/
• The knife did not match a bloody imprint on the bed.
• The knife did not match the wounds and was too big to have caused the wounds.
• There was no blood on the knife.
• When C&V tested the knife it was negative for the human species which meant there was no human biological material on the knife.
• Vixen and other PGP like to claim two knives were used. The problem with this argument is that when Inspector Finzi gave his testimony regarding the collection of the knife, he said nothing about two knives and that Raffaele’s knife had only caused one of the wounds. If the two knife theory was valid, why did the prosecution not claim this from the start?
• The defence teams had no objection to the knife being opened whilst the prosecution opposed opening the knife. If the knife had been used to stab Meredith, there was a possibility that blood would enter the area between the blade and handle which can’t be washed off. Why did the defence teams have no objection to the knife being opened when there was a possibility there might be blood in the area between the blade and handle which would be damming evidence. Why did the prosecution oppose opening the knife if they were so certain the knife had been used by Amanda or Raffaele to kill Meredith?
• When Stefanoni tested the knife the results kept coming back too low and this continued after she switched to LCN. The result of too low indicates there was no DNA on the knife.
• The prosecution had to resort to the massive suppression of evidence, lying and falsifying documents as detailed below. When I asked Vixen why the prosecution had to resort to these tactics if the DNA on the knife was valid and the prosecution had a strong case, she refused to answer.
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredith-kercher-perjury-corruption/

• The defence teams of Amanda and Raffaele wanted independent experts to examine Stefanoni’s work. How do you explain this if Amanda and Raffaele had used the knife to stab Meredith and they knew Meredith’s DNA was on the knife?
If the testimony of Curalto is to be accepted, he has them away from the cottage at the time of the murder providing Amanda and Raffaele with an alibi.

 

[Welshman]

Problems with the evidence part 2

As can be seen the knife/DNA has no credibility whatsoever and is full of holes. As the testimony of Curalto gives Amanda and Raffaele an alibi for the time of the murders, his testimony is damaging to the prosecution. What kind of prosecutors use evidence which undermine their case?

The nature of the evidence used against Amanda and Raffaele clearly indicates the prosecution had a weak case. The prosecution had a severe lack of evidence against Amanda and Raffaele. Besides the dubious DNA on the bra clasp there were no forensic traces of Amanda and Raffaele in Meredith’s room. There is no CCTV of Amanda and Raffaele going to and from the cottage. No reliable witnesses saw them going to and from the cottage. Amanda and Raffaele left no blood traces such as bloody fingerprints, palms prints and footprints, there was no blood on their clothing or blood found in Amanda’s room or Raffaele’s apartment. There were no cuts on Amanda and Raffaele’s hands which stabbing someone would cause. Nothing incriminating was said in their tapped phone calls. The prosecution had such a lack of evidence, they had to resort to using evidence with no credibility. Having to rely on evidence with no credibility is a sign of desperation. The prosecution had such a lack of evidence they were desperate enough to use the testimony of someone who provided Amanda and Raffaele with an alibi at the time of the murders and was damaging to their case. How do you explain this if the prosecution had such a strong case?

If the prosecution have a slam dunk case the evidence should be solid, reliable and credible. The evidence against Guede detailed below is an example of this
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/rudy-guede/

If the prosecution have a strong case and solid evidence, they should not have to use evidence with no credibility. Imagine the prosecution in Guede’s case used the testimony of a prisoner who said Guede confessed to him that he killed Meredith whilst Guede was in prison. It is found the prisoner was in a different prison from Guede which means the testimony has no credibility. Would people not find it strange the prosecution would use evidence with no credibility when they have a mountain of solid, credible and irrefutable evidence against Guede. Imagine if the prosecution used the testimony of someone who said Guede was away from the cottage at the time of the murders and provided Guede with an alibi. Would people not find it odd that the prosecution would resort to using evidence which undermined their case when they have a mountain of solid and damming evidence against Guede.

If the prosecution had a mountain of hard evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, why did the prosecution have to resort to using the knife as evidence which had zero credibility and was full of holes? The prosecution have had six years and three trials to argue their case. If the prosecution had such a mountain of hard damming evidence against Amanda and Raffaele and a slam dunk case, why is that with all the time available to them a piece of evidence with zero credibility is the best the prosecution can come up with? If the prosecution had a mountain of hard evidence, why did the prosecution have to resort to using the testimony of someone who provided Amanda and Raffaele with an alibi for the time of the murders and was harmful to the prosecution’s case? In view of this, it is beyond me how can PGP boast about the overwhelming evidence against Amanda and Raffaele and the case against them was strong.

The fact the prosecution had to resort to using with no credibility and evidence which undermined their case clearly shows the prosecution had a weak case and lack of evidence against Amanda and Raffaele. I am surprised other PIP have not made this argument.

 

[Bill Williams]

If the prosecution had a mountain of hard evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, why did the prosecution have to resort to using the knife as evidence which had zero credibility and was full of holes? The prosecution have had six years and three trials to argue their case. If the prosecution had such a mountain of hard damming evidence against Amanda and Raffaele and a slam dunk case, why is that with all the time available to them a piece of evidence with zero credibility is the best the prosecution can come up with? If the prosecution had a mountain of hard evidence, why did the prosecution have to resort to using the testimony of someone who provided Amanda and Raffaele with an alibi for the time of the murders and was harmful to the prosecution’s case? In view of this, it is beyond me how can PGP boast about the overwhelming evidence against Amanda and Raffaele and the case against them was strong.

The fact the prosecution had to resort to using with no credibility and evidence which undermined their case clearly shows the prosecution had a weak case and lack of evidence against Amanda and Raffaele. I am surprised other PIP have not made this argument.

Even when PGP back in the middle of 2011 conceded that the DNA evidence was falling apart, they promised us, "all the other evidence".

Turned out, there was none. Read Section 10 of the Marasca/Bruno report again, it's all there.

 

[Welshman]

Even when PGP back in the middle of 2011 conceded that the DNA evidence was falling apart, they promised us, "all the other evidence".

Turned out, there was none. Read Section 10 of the Marasca/Bruno report again, it's all there.

It puzzles me how PGP can describe the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele as strong when the evidence had no credibility and was full of holes. Having to resort to using evidence with no credibility is something the defense should have pointed out.

 

[Bill Williams]

It puzzles me how PGP can describe the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele as strong when the evidence had no credibility and was full of holes. Having to resort to using evidence with no credibility is something the defense should have pointed out.

But there is "all the other evidence" once even PGPs concede that the DNA evidence is junk.

Take all this other evidence one by one. Assemble it into an amalgam that theoretically matches one of the motives proffered.

Start with the claim that there was a Size 37 women's shoe track found in the murder room. Ooooooops, both convicting judges either refuse to take a position on it, or raise the issue promising to get back to it and then never does.

And on and on. Assemble it all into an amalgam, and the one thing such things do not add up to is justification for a guilty verdict.

The current small crop of PGP PR types can only make their case by appealing to factoid evidence that no court, even the convicting ones, support.

Which is why some are stuck with quoting the fake-wiki or TJMK when the original sources are there for all to read.

 

[Welshman]

But there is "all the other evidence" once even PGPs concede that the DNA evidence is junk.

Take all this other evidence one by one. Assemble it into an amalgam that theoretically matches one of the motives proffered.

Start with the claim that there was a Size 37 women's shoe track found in the murder room. Ooooooops, both convicting judges either refuse to take a position on it, or raise the issue promising to get back to it and then never does.

And on and on. Assemble it all into an amalgam, and the one thing such things do not add up to is justification for a guilty verdict.

The current small crop of PGP PR types can only make their case by appealing to factoid evidence that no court, even the convicting ones, support.

Which is why some are stuck with quoting the fake-wiki or TJMK when the original sources are there for all to read.

My point was that was that having to resort using evidence with no credibility and evidence which was damaging to the prosecution's case was a sign the prosecution had a lack of evidence. PGP didn't understand this and used there was other evidence besides the knife/DNA argument.

 

[bagels]

It puzzles me how PGP can describe the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele as strong when the evidence had no credibility and was full of holes. Having to resort to using evidence with no credibility is something the defense should have pointed out.

Their delusion was allowed to fester because of Cheiffi. That report and decision was like taking a schizophrenic into Area 51 and showing them the aliens and all the stations monitoring their thoughts with the mind probes.

 

[Stacyhs]

I did explain it. If you know a rectangle is 20 cm by 20cm, you can calculate the diagonal by mathematics, and that's what I did.The 20cm is the width.

I know what a boulder is. We have plenty of them.

My hand is 7 1/4 nches. I understand Stefanoni is tall for an Italian, so how do you know her hand wasn't similarly long fingered?

That is a silly way to measure anything.

It is a fact the boulder is 4.5 kg and has a diagonal of 29 cm. Not sure why you think it's debatable.

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?

Hmmmmm...and here you said "If you know a rectangle is 20 cm by 20cm, you can calculate the diagonal by mathematics, and that's what I did.
Nowhere here did I ever read anyone but you claim it had a 29 cm diagonal measurement. Perhaps this is true and was in one of the previous 21 continuations, but you declared it as a "fact" and not "debatable" here.

 

[Stacyhs]

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>

Until, and unless, you can provide evidence that anyone but you came up with that diagonal measurement, it's going in the ever-growing assfact file.

 

[Stacyhs]

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.'

Evidence of this?

 

[Stacyhs]

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?

Resorting to past unsubstantiated claims are you? You were asked to present evidence of this multiple times which you failed to do. I'd have thought you'd have learned from that. But no.

 

[Welshman]

The knife clearly could not have been used to stab Meredith. If the prosecution have to resort to using something as evidence which could not have been used in Meredith's murder, this shows how weak their case was.

 

[Vixen]

Lol. This isn't the Ramsey case where there's scant ambiguous evidence. People can't help if they look at a crystal clear footprint of a crystal clear tread pattern exactly matching Rudy's Nike outbreak and they don't immediately have a momentary schizotypal lapse in reality processing and suddenly see a girl's asics shoe or w/e. "Neutral" in this case is more along the lines of not suggesting the police or prosecution acted criminally.

The police reported the footprint and forensic police experts Rinaldi and Boemia identified the prints as a ladies size 37 - ladies as it had a narrow heel.

Re the other shoe prints police identified as size 42 and thus compatible with Raff; Raff's forensic representative at the time protested strongly that, 'The print is indistinguishable and therefore, it was not possible to make any assertion.'

Suddenly, under Vinci, the print became miraculously 'Rudy's' and it was photoshopped to fit Rudy's size 44 (?). Massei accepted this argument for a quiet life and he didn't want to have to go to the trouble of explaining how Amanda went from being shod in the murder room, to barefoot in the hallway and in her own room - where her footprints were identified from luminol. Nota Bene luminol is used the world over to identify the invisible presence of blood at crime scene, there is nothing controversial about it at all, as some like to pretend.

Sorry, the forensic scientific evidence of Raff and Amanda at the murder scene is strong. Of course, it is not conclusive, of itself, that's why defendants have the right of a trial.