Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

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.

A clue is in the date, 2013...? Cantwell quietly let it drop.

 

[Vixen]

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......

​

"..... 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.

Thank you for confirming the system works. The defence put forward a rather dubious submission that the ladies size 37 print 'could' be some kind of origami trick by Rudy (i.e., half a footprint longways). As this introduced 'reasonable doubt', Massei threw the defense a crumb of comfort, as he had more than enough to convict the pair on all other evidence as a whole, beyond any reasonable doubt.

One less thing for the defense to appeal against.

 

[Vixen]

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.

No, the pair having been accused, and fairly convicted in a fair trial, of aggravated murder, then decided attack would be their form of defence. Their supporters have done nothing but attack the police, the forensics, the judges and poor Nick Pisa of the DAILY MAIL. You note Amanda's defence team have been careful not to make claims she was beaten up by the police, starved, interrogated for 53 hours, with tag teams of twelve, as put out by the PR FOA machine, to all the national press and tv stations in the USA. Raff's defence team have not claimed brutality at all. They know better than to tell criminal lies.

We all know who the false accuser is.

 

[bagels]

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.

It's not really a big deal here because this is just our little enclave comprised of those of us still dumb enough to post about this case (myself included). But if you actually had to take this shoeprint stuff in front of a real audience and argue it you wouldn't even be aware how much you'd be embarrassing yourself.

I did a quick search of the archives of this thread, which until the final acquittal (Continuation 15?) was actually routinely populated with multiple PGP peeps. Anyway what I found was that, in those 15 continuations when other PGP were still posting, as far as I can tell, not one of them ever tried to bring up the "lady size 37 shoeprint" after the original cartwheel thread. The reason is because even by Amanda Knox Case standards, it's a totally obliterated piece of evidence. Trying to argue Rudy's clear Nike print belongs to a girl's shoe couldn't be more technically wrong, it's like saying the blue sky is green, you just can't get wronger.

You arguing in favor of it being a size 37 shoeprint actually undermines your whole argument. If somebody told me I had to convince people Amanda Knox was a killer or I would be killed, I would have to find a way to silence you, because you would be counterproductive to the cause with that crap.

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

................... and...............................

At the trials, even the two which convicted the pair, the status of the alleged Size 37 women's shoe track was:

1) Massei in 2010 summarized the evidence and specifically said his court had no opinion about the matter, because Rudy Guede himself could not be excluded as its owner; and

2) Nencini in 2014 brought up the Size 37 shoe track early in his report saying, "Even in relation to these footprints [orme] it is not of interest in this phase to expatiate whether they can or cannot be referred to Amanda Knox." Nencini, inexplicably, then never mentions it again.​

Yet you keep bringing up the shoe track as if it proof of something.

That's what I call a PR campaign.

 

[Vixen]

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......?

Do have a look at youtube where all the pro-Knox propaganda has been made available by her PR team.

See these articles here: http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index...n_robert_morse_has_been_originating/#comments

How producer Stephen Robert Morse has been attacking Mignini and Nick Pisa for years. So much for the claim of 'a balanced documentary'.

https://aklwei.wordpress.com/2016/0...rs-before-pisa-appears-in-morses-documentary/

Director Rod Blackwell was sending lovefest tweets declaring 'Free Amanda Knox' going back to 2011, so he has been less than frank about his claim of objectivity. Fellow director, Brian McGinn 'liked' them.

If Mignini had known this was a Friend of Amanda production I feel sure he would have declined to participate, given the level of misrepresentation. For example, he was asked, 'suppose they were innocent hypothetically, what would you say then?'

He made a comment he would hope they hadn't suffered, remaining 100% sure of their rightful conviction. The question was edited out to make Mignini look uncaring and reckless. He also stated that an 'unknown man' would not have covered Mez' body with the duvet. The filmakers left off the word 'unknown' in the subtitles (Mignini speaks no English) in order to give it a spin of Mignini being a sexist ****.

Mignini was moved to issue a public rebuttal to this act of patent dishonesty by the filmakers and their paid shill Judith (?) Bachrach - a prominent FOA - who made much of Mignini's supposed comments as above, in her VANITY FAIR review, brought out the same time as the premiere. I understand on the grapevine that Nick Pisa is none too pleased, either. He was talking about tabloid journalism in general terms and the filmakers spun it to make it seem he was specifically victimising Amanda.

You can see here, Morse had written 'hate' articles about Nick Pisa going back years, even before this project.

 

[Vixen]

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.

The judges did not have any doubt Nara heard the scream. It is within the judge's remit to dismiss any application, and any party is free to appeal any decision by a judge.

 

[Vixen]

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.

You have already been told several times, this topic came up for discussion before. It was asserted then that the diagonal was 11.78", by a PIP.

 

[LondonJohn]

You haven't figured out why the team behind the Knox documentary are making their online footprint private?

(Clue 1: obsessive pro-guilt nutters)

(Clue 2: Grahame Rhodes)

Any clearer now?

 

[Vixen]

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.

Expert witnesses for all parties were cross-examined by all parties and the judge over several days. The court then came to a determination after having seen and heard all of the evidence, that it was the murder weapon beyond reasonable doubt, all three perps were involved and that Amanda did deal the fatal 8cm wound.

Likewise, it was ruled it was beyond doubt it was Raff's DNA on the bra clasp, the luminol was evidence of their presence at the scene and Amanda's DNA was mixed in with Mez in five difference places and that Amanda herself was bleeding the same time as Mez.

It was upheld by the final supreme court that Amanda was there at the murder scene, did wash off Mez' blood, the burglary was indeed staged and Amanda did cover up for Rudy.

 

[Bill Williams]

No, the pair having been accused, and fairly convicted in a fair trial, of aggravated murder, then decided attack would be their form of defence. Their supporters have done nothing but attack the police, the forensics, the judges and poor Nick Pisa of the DAILY MAIL. You note Amanda's defence team have been careful not to make claims she was beaten up by the police, starved, interrogated for 53 hours, with tag teams of twelve, as put out by the PR FOA machine, to all the national press and tv stations in the USA. Raff's defence team have not claimed brutality at all. They know better than to tell criminal lies.

We all know who the false accuser is.

All?

You're the only one on this thread who knows this.

You still, Baghdad Bob style, say they were convicted. The Nencini conviction was annulled by the Supreme Court on the grounds that the evidence in front of him should have led to an acquittal. Apparently even in Italy one cannot be convicted on a hunch as Marasca said about the Nencini verdict.

 

[LondonJohn]

The judges did not have any doubt Nara heard the scream. It is within the judge's remit to dismiss any application, and any party is free to appeal any decision by a judge.

You really don't get it, do you?

There are LAWFUL ways in which to determine the reliability and credibility of evidence, and there are UNLAWFUL ways.

In the case of Cappezalli, for example, Massei's court's primary reason for affording her fairy story of the "scream of death" credibility and reliability appears to be that if such a scream hadn't actually happened, Capezzali wouldn't have claimed that she'd heard it happen.

It's that sort of bone-headed, improper "reasoning" that is the issue here. Just like an independent court-appointed expert report on the DNA evidence which concludes forcefully that the DNA evidence is junk and that Stefanoni was incompetent and mendacious in her dealings with the courts, but which was effectively ignored by the convicting Nencini court (despite, incredibly, it having been reinforced by testimony to the Nencini court from the Carabinieri forensic unit which was similarly scathing).

Fortunately, the Supreme Court had the power and the remit to look at these sorts of appallingly improper pieces of reasoning and judgement from the lower courts, and to (correctly and properly) overturn the lower courts on the obvious basis that unlawfully-improper assessment of key evidence had occurred.

 

[Vixen]

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.

The fact the final supreme court did not exonerate the pair, nor declare them innocent should inform you there was a very strong case. The supreme court had to resort to special pleading (pleading not being within their jurisdiction anyway) that it was 'the press' and 'flawed investigation' that were the cause of the acquittal without referral back.

 

[Bill Williams]

Expert witnesses for all parties were cross-examined by all parties and the judge over several days. The court then came to a determination after having seen and heard all of the evidence, that it was the murder weapon beyond reasonable doubt, all three perps were involved and that Amanda did deal the fatal 8cm wound.

Likewise, it was ruled it was beyond doubt it was Raff's DNA on the bra clasp, the luminol was evidence of their presence at the scene and Amanda's DNA was mixed in with Mez in five difference places and that Amanda herself was bleeding the same time as Mez.

It was upheld by the final supreme court that Amanda was there at the murder scene, did wash off Mez' blood, the burglary was indeed staged and Amanda did cover up for Rudy.

No, because the Supreme Court does not uphold evidence. It is bound by judicial facts, as per the last 20 times you tried to erroneously get your factoids like above into the thread.

Why do I fear there will be a 21st?

 

[Vixen]

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.

Read section 9: it's all there.

 

[Bill Williams]

You haven't figured out why the team behind the Knox documentary are making their online footprint private?

(Clue 1: obsessive pro-guilt nutters)

(Clue 2: Grahame Rhodes)

Any clearer now?

It's Vixen's claim that if Grahame Rhodes utters a death threat, that you shouldn't be concerned - it's only his opinion.

 

[Bill Williams]

Read section 9: it's all there.

Read Section 9.4. It's all there.

This may be the first time we agree on something!

 

[Vixen]

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.

The onus was on the state proscecutor to provide evidence, and this they did. There are over 10K pages of court documentation.

If anyone reading Welshman's comments doubts this, please refer to:
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Main_Page

where there is free access to over 3,500 documents, detailing all of the evidence, original transcriptions, police photos, witness statements and full written judgments for all three defendants.

 

[Vixen]

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.

The Hellmann report is like finding lost footage of the Cloverfield variety, aliens descending on Perugia and leaving just the silly bits behind.

 

[Bill Williams]

The onus was on the state proscecutor to provide evidence, and this they did. There are over 10K pages of court documentation.

If anyone reading Welshman's comments doubts this, please refer to:
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Main_Page

where there is free access to over 3,500 documents, detailing all of the evidence, original transcriptions, police photos, witness statements and full written judgments for all three defendants.

See.... Vixen's PR campaign.