Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

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

So NO. you have no citation. Nothing changes about your posts, fabrications, obfuscation and sophistry. In the meantime life goes on and the CONSENSUS of the world is that Knox and Solve it were wrongly accused, prosecuted and incarcerated.

I notice that the UK Guardian agrees with that fact in an article out today.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/sep/24/netflix-amanda-knox

 

[Vixen]

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.

I have no control over what you haven't read. I informed you the topic had been discussed and the diagonal calculated as 29cm.

You and Wilson85 claimed that the boulder had never been measured - as averred by Raff in an interview - and you accused The Murder of Meredith Kercher.com of lying about it.

Methos then provided the measurements from the police photo file which stated the boulder was 20cm x 16cm x 11cm. From pythagaros we get 25.62cm.

So it's 3.48cms difference (about 1"). Stop quibbling. The matter is settled.

 

[Vixen]

[/HILITE]

Evidence of this?

Yes, there is, otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it.

 

[Vixen]

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.

It is common knowledge and freely in the national press Curt Knox hired a PR company. I can only imagine you are being obtuse that you are unable to google this, and that your claim to know nothing about it is untruthful.

 

[LondonJohn]

So NO. you have no citation. Nothing changes about your posts, fabrications, obfuscation and sophistry. In the meantime life goes on and the CONSENSUS of the world is that Knox and Solve it were wrongly accused, prosecuted and incarcerated.

I notice that the UK Guardian agrees with that fact in an article out today.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/sep/24/netflix-amanda-knox

The crazy brigade have already got to work on that article's author.

I'm pretty certain I'd delete/privatise my online footprint if I ever made any vaguely pro-acquittal contributions under my own name. I suspect that the likes of Chris H (of this parish) and Michael Krom feel the same after their employers were contacted, and I suspect that Charlie Lyne (the author of the Guardian review) is currently wondering just what breed of nutters are "researching" him online, doubtless with a view to some form of agitation.

 

[Vixen]

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.

It was entirely compatible as being the murder weapon. Amanda herself in her book writes, re the search in the knife drawer, 'One of these was murder weapon'.

 

[LondonJohn]

It is common knowledge and freely in the national press Curt Knox hired a PR company. I can only imagine you are being obtuse that you are unable to google this, and that your claim to know nothing about it is untruthful.

1) How much money (USD amount, or equivalent) did Curt Knox pay to Gogerty Marriott and/or David Marriott?

2) What exact PR activities and services did Gogerty Marriott and/or David Marriott provide for Amanda Knox (or Curt Knox or anyone connected to the Knox/Sollecito trials process), and to what extent?

Thanks in advance..............................................


(Hint: it's the "invested heavily in...." part of your claim that is being challenged. Thankfully this is now explicitly clear to you)

 

[bagels]

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

Hellmann: This witness told the police right after the crime when his memory would be freshest that he didn't see Amanda Knox, the girl in the photo the police were holding in front of his face, in his shop. He later claimed he never remembered this encounter with the police even though we're supposed to believe his memory is so good he can remember seeing a girl briefly in his shop one year later - that he originally denied seeing but then remembered again just in time for trial. I find this witness unreliable.

PGP: woah what a crazy judge

Chieffi: This witness may have originally said he didn't see Amanda in his shop and decided a year later that he did, but when he saw her in court he says he became certain of her blue eyes, that's like really good proof he's reliable or whatever not just random useless trivia anyone could say.

PGP: Genius sensible analysis wow promote this judge to Chief Galactic Justice.

 

[Bill Williams]

It was entirely compatible as being the murder weapon. Amanda herself in her book writes, re the search in the knife drawer, 'One of these was murder weapon'.

Since when is compatibility "proof"? Judge Massei in 2010 said the Size 37 shoe track was compatible with one which may have been left by Rudy Guede; all of a sudden you drop "compatibility" as proof on that!

And you keep making up quotes about what people may or may ot have written, and don't nearly provide enough context so that the six words you cite can be meaningfully assessed.

In other words, that post is so "Vixen".

 

[LondonJohn]

It was entirely compatible as being the murder weapon. Amanda herself in her book writes, re the search in the knife drawer, 'One of these was murder weapon'.

No.

It's compatible with one of the neck wounds. It is explicitly incompatible with the other major neck wound - that knife physically could not have caused that wound.

Hence the prosecution's ridiculous sleight of hand in proposing that more than one knife was held to the victim's throat.

Whereas..... all the neck wounds are, in fact, wholly compatible with a single knife, of the size and shape of the knife whose bloody imprint was found on the bedsheet. Only one knife was used on the victim. That knife was owned by, and held by, Guede. That knife has never been found.

 

[Vixen]

................... 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.

A shoe or footprint is something that the dumbest of persons can recognise, despite Amanda's claim she had no idea it was a footprint on the bathmat even though it is immediately obvious, before she got in the shower (she claims). The police saw the shoeprint under the body, the heel is nicely rounded and it looks exactly like...a shoeprint.

All this Emperors New Clothes sophistry of,' oh, it's Rudy's footprint' is obviously barmy.

 

[LondonJohn]

A shoe or footprint is something that the dumbest of persons can recognise, despite Amanda's claim she had no idea it was a footprint on the bathmat even though it is immediately obvious, before she got in the shower (she claims). The police saw the shoeprint under the body, the heel is nicely rounded and it looks exactly like...a shoeprint.

All this Emperors New Clothes sophistry of,' oh, it's Rudy's footprint' is obviously barmy.

It's Rudy's shoe print. Clearly. End of.

(And you'd have thought the "dumbest of persons" would be able to count the number of rings on a trainer sole print. Unfortunately, the Italian State Police's "experts" appear to have been dumber than the dumbest of persons in this respect - it took a pre-teen girl to point out their extraordinary incompetence to them)

 

[Vixen]

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?

Oh nonsense. The filmakers were acting furtively and with a lack of transparency (a) in order to get their biased documentary agitprop into the Toronto International Film Festival, a prestigious endorsement, and (b) to sneak it onto netflix, where they can expect it to earn $$$'s in film streaming revenues.

It is unethical.

 

[Bill Williams]

................... 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.

A shoe or footprint is something that the dumbest of persons can recognise, despite Amanda's claim she had no idea it was a footprint on the bathmat even though it is immediately obvious, before she got in the shower (she claims). The police saw the shoeprint under the body, the heel is nicely rounded and it looks exactly like...a shoeprint.

All this Emperors New Clothes sophistry of,' oh, it's Rudy's footprint' is obviously barmy.

You simply cannot track a conversation. I'll give you a hint - no one was talking about the bathmat footprint. I will take your sudden change of topic as proof that you have conceded about the Size 37 shoe track proportedly in Meredith's room.

The point - to keep us on track - is that Massei had no opinion about it, and (as highlighted above - Nencini's words verbatim) he says he will not "at this phase" make the track "refer to Amanda Knox".....

..... then he never brings it up again in his motivations report.

This is what happens when:

1) one provides a citation

2) stays on subject​

So it becomes exceedingly evident why you need to change the subject.

But you managed to say, "Emperors New Clothes sophistry" in a sentence. Good job!

 

[Vixen]

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.

Au contraire, it is the defence stance that is irrational. 'All the witnesses are all liars out to get the kids locked up for no reason'.

 

[Bill Williams]

Oh nonsense. The filmakers were acting furtively and with a lack of transparency (a) in order to get their biased documentary agitprop into the Toronto International Film Festival, a prestigious endorsement, and (b) to sneak it onto netflix, where they can expect it to earn $$$'s in film streaming revenues.

It is unethical.

Why didn't you tell us they had to "sneak" it on to Netflix! I am a shareholder of that company, and I find it repugnant that senior programmers allow topics to be "sneaked" (snuck) by them!?

I am outraged. Je me souviens.

 

[Bill Williams]

Au contraire, it is the defence stance that is irrational. 'All the witnesses are all liars out to get the kids locked up for no reason'.

When Stefanoni told the court that she could not remember if she'd touched the bra-clasp with her dirty forensic glove, was she trying to get the pair locked up "for no reason"? You tell us!

 

[Vixen]

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

Grahame Rhodes is a tongue-in-cheek character. The discussion was about Amanda's 'article' 'Rituals' so hence the topic of death came up. As Voltaire said, what a fuss about an omelette.

It is a pity you are not concerned about innocence fraud where killers get away with having murdered good, decent people, much loved by the families and who contributed to society.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh nonsense. The filmakers were acting furtively and with a lack of transparency (a) in order to get their biased documentary agitprop into the Toronto International Film Festival, a prestigious endorsement, and (b) to sneak it onto netflix, where they can expect it to earn $$$'s in film streaming revenues.

It is unethical.

1) What "transparency" did/do you demand from the film makers? And why?

2) Did the film makers ever state that they held no prior opinions on this case before making the film?

Thanks again in advance.

 

[Vixen]

So NO. you have no citation. Nothing changes about your posts, fabrications, obfuscation and sophistry. In the meantime life goes on and the CONSENSUS of the world is that Knox and Solve it were wrongly accused, prosecuted and incarcerated.

I notice that the UK Guardian agrees with that fact in an article out today.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/sep/24/netflix-amanda-knox

That's because the reviewer in the GUARDIAN has been wilfully misled by the filmakers into believing it is a true fair objective documentary, without realising it is more of a commercial break, selling Amanda.

I'll dig out the Cantwell citation.