Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

Status
Not open for further replies.
No. Know I. Backed up with ample evidence. And if you don't know the difference between a morgue attached to a university hospital and the academic medico-legal department of a university, then there's not much more I can do.

But to flip the coin one moment: you are the one making the assertion that Vecchiotti was either in charge of or in employment at the premises shown in those photos. Therefore it's entirely on you to support that assertion. So, how about it? Want to pony up some actual evidence which clearly and reliably links Vecchiotti to those photos (either in terms of responsibility or employment presence)?

Nope. Thought not. Strike yet another one out.

Do read Crini's comments in Nencini about Vecchiotti, and even in Hellmann she was asked about her scandalous negligence - some believe, crooked - in another case.

I think I believe the Italian national press over you.
 
Really? With the math of the rito abbreviato in mind, why do you think PM Mignini appealed against judge Massei's mitigating circumstances, basing the appeal when it comes to Knox on an online article of the Daily Mail, insisting that the punishment has to be ergastolo + solitary confinement? Do you really think that he would have gone for anything less than ergastolo even if Knox had been stupid enough to go "fast-track" and had given up her right to be defended properly?

It's his job to argue for the maximum sentence for the charges filed. This is what prosecutors do the world over. The pair were charged with aggravated murder, which could have been a lesser charge had they not persisted in lying about their involvement.
 
Your objectivity and ability to remain rational is completely obscured by your jaundiced eye. Curatalo was assessed by the court to be a credible witness. His lifestyle is his choice. He saw Amanda and Raff that evening and an independent witness corroborated that he was there when he said he was.


Compare and contrast to Amanda and Raff's Star Witnesses: Alessi, child killer, who kidnapped a little boy for ransom and killed him by hitting him over the head with a shovel, and petty mafioso Aviello where even a solemn judge in court was moved to joke that he had five versions of every lie.

These serious criminals were Amanda and Raff's alibi - in fact, their only alibi! Raff got Aviello to claim that it was his brother and an Albanian, 'what done it'. Aviello claimed - like Kokomani -that Bongiorno had offered him £100K to pervert justice. Bongiorno threatened to sue, but surpise! suprise! she never did. At least Curatalo seems like a nice guy next to this pair.


And, just as expected, you took the "Aviello" part and ran with it in a totally opposite direction to that related to that actual issue here. Well done indeed!

Seriously, do you not realise that "Curatolo (being) assessed by the (Massei and Nencini) courts to be a credible witness" is at the heart of the matter here?

I'll write the following out in bold block capitals so that you won't miss it:

CURATOLO WAS NOT A RELIABLE OR CREDIBLE WITNESS UNDER THE STANDARDS LAID DOWN IN LAW FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE IN COURT.

Do you get that now? That's at the heart of the Marasca SC ruling. The Massei and Nencini courts were wrong in law to have assessed Curatolo's evidence as credible or reliable.

Please, please, please do some proper research before trying to contribute. It would be good to have reasoned, well-founded arguments to consider, rather than this claptrap. Thanks.
 
No one except the killer knows - thanks to the Italian police, medical crime labs and courts, no one will ever know unless the murderer comes out and admits it or dies and something that proves they did it is found in what they leave behind. All the discussion here and elsewhere is so much wasted electrons and human time!!! Enjoy!!!
 
Do read Crini's comments in Nencini about Vecchiotti, and even in Hellmann she was asked about her scandalous negligence - some believe, crooked - in another case.

I think I believe the Italian national press over you.


Nice misdirection.

Again. Show me credible, reliable evidence linking Vecchiotti to those photos. Can you do that or can you not do that? If you cannot do that, then your assertion can safely be thrown out as unfounded and intellectually dishonest. If you can do that, then let's see it.

Thanks in advance. (Actual evidence, remember. Not misdirectional crap.)
 
And, just as expected, you took the "Aviello" part and ran with it in a totally opposite direction to that related to that actual issue here. Well done indeed!

Seriously, do you not realise that "Curatolo (being) assessed by the (Massei and Nencini) courts to be a credible witness" is at the heart of the matter here?

I'll write the following out in bold block capitals so that you won't miss it:

CURATOLO WAS NOT A RELIABLE OR CREDIBLE WITNESS UNDER THE STANDARDS LAID DOWN IN LAW FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE IN COURT.

Do you get that now? That's at the heart of the Marasca SC ruling. The Massei and Nencini courts were wrong in law to have assessed Curatolo's evidence as credible or reliable.

Please, please, please do some proper research before trying to contribute. It would be good to have reasoned, well-founded arguments to consider, rather than this claptrap. Thanks.


Same to you with brass knobs on. Your verbiage doesn't detract from the fact Curatalo was considered a reliable witness. He witnessed Amanda and Raff surveilling the cottage from a distance.
 
No one except the killer knows - thanks to the Italian police, medical crime labs and courts, no one will ever know unless the murderer comes out and admits it or dies and something that proves they did it is found in what they leave behind. All the discussion here and elsewhere is so much wasted electrons and human time!!! Enjoy!!!


That's not true. Many people, including the police and the forensic scientists, know beyond any reasonable doubt who the killers are.
 
Same to you with brass knobs on. Your verbiage doesn't detract from the fact Curatalo was considered a reliable witness. He witnessed Amanda and Raff surveilling the cottage from a distance.


Oh Jesus Christ.

Curatolo was INCORRECTLY considered a reliable witness by certain lower courts. Their assessment of him as reliable was UNLAWFUL. What part of this do you not understand???

Read the Marasca SC ruling again and educate yourself. Please. PLEASE.
 
That's not true. Many people, including the police and the forensic scientists, know beyond any reasonable doubt who the killers are.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

(Quite apart from an embarrassing fundamental inability to understand the philosophical point being made here, this is unintentionally hilarious in so many other different ways! Awesome!! And with that, I'm off to watch a bit of Mighty Boosh on GOLD :D)
 
I never get bored watching Vixen twist herself into a pretzel trying to defend what has clearly been disproved.
 
Mary_H said:
How about some citations supporting these claims? Oh, wait. There aren't any, because you are just making stuff up.

Do read Marasca's reasoning.

I have. There aren't any citations supporting your claims. But otherwise it is sound to ask people to read it.

Why don't you?
 
Nothing Aviello or Alessi testified was accepted as a fact by the court as they were both found to be unreliable witnesses.


Curatalo was found to be a reliable witness.

No, Curatolo was found to be an unreliable witness.

From the 2015 Italian Supreme Court motiviations report:

Curatolo (an enigmatic personality: a vagrant, drug addict and drug pusher) - apart from the lateness of his statements and the fact that he was not new to judicial protagonism in cases under the media spotlight - was however disproved by reference to groups of young people leaving that evening in coaches for discotheques in the area, it being proven that on the night of the murder, the bus service was not running; also the reference to masks and practical jokes which he claimed to have witnessed that evening; that would lead to a conclusion that it was Halloween, 31 October, and not 1 November, the date of the murder. This contradicts the balanced assessment - but always in a context of uncertainty and ambiguity - of the witness referring (regarding the context where he saw the two accused together) to the day before he saw (in the afternoon) unusual movements of police and Carabinieri and, in particular, men wearing white overalls and headgear (they looked almost like aliens) enter the house on via della Pergola (evidently 2 November, after the body was found).​
 
Do read Crini's comments in Nencini about Vecchiotti, and even in Hellmann she was asked about her scandalous negligence - some believe, crooked - in another case.

I think I believe the Italian national press over you.

You can believe anyone you wish. You obvious do.

Vecchiotti had nothing to do with the morgue.
 
<snip>It is a fact Amanda's blood on the faucet/tap was fresh from the night of the murder. She said so herself. There is no getting away from the fact Amanda and Mez were almost certainly bleeding at the same time, and Amanda in quite copious quantity that there was more of her DNA than Mez' in the mixed sample.

In addition, why do think Marasca found she washed her hands of Mez' blood? Shedding DNA that only comes from intense friction (rubbing of hands together). No, contrary to Conti's Netflix assertion, DNA does not fly around like dust.

How about some citations supporting these claims? Oh, wait. There aren't any, because you are just making stuff up.

Do read Marasca's reasoning.

Well, certainly, why don't all the rest of us read all the motivation reports, all the media articles, and all the information from all the websites, and get back to you on them, while you simply make claims without having to do any work except transcribe what the guys on TJMK tell you to write?

Aren't you the least bit embarrassed to make the following claim? You are being misled to an absurd length. Nay, you are being taken for a ride. It's downright frightening:

It is a fact Amanda's blood on the faucet/tap was fresh from the night of the murder.


Incidentally, DNA does fly around like dust. What do you think dust is made of?
 
Last edited:
No one except the killer knows - thanks to the Italian police, medical crime labs and courts, no one will ever know unless the murderer comes out and admits it or dies and something that proves they did it is found in what they leave behind. All the discussion here and elsewhere is so much wasted electrons and human time!!! Enjoy!!!

So on that basis, do you think it is right for people to run a PR Campaign on the internet to sell the guilt of Knox and Sollecito?

By the way. No one doubts the guilt of Rudy Guede for this crime.
 
So on that basis, do you think it is right for people to run a PR Campaign on the internet to sell the guilt of Knox and Sollecito?

By the way. No one doubts the guilt of Rudy Guede for this crime.

Not considering right or wrong. Pointing out it is a pointless waste of their time. Absent heavily verifiable proof/evidence and an entre' into the Italian justice system. Which I have no doubt they will never achieve.
 
Same to you with brass knobs on. Your verbiage doesn't detract from the fact Curatalo was considered a reliable witness. He witnessed Amanda and Raff surveilling the cottage from a distance.

If Curatolo were a reliable witness, they wouldn't have killed him let him die in prison. How do I know? I surveilled his cell from a distance.
 
So on that basis, do you think it is right for people to run a PR Campaign on the internet to sell the guilt of Knox and Sollecito?

By the way. No one doubts the guilt of Rudy Guede for this crime.

Oddly, some do. Have you read his support FB page? I've read many posts claiming he was just a victim of racism. "Poor Rudy". Never underestimate the stupidity of people.
 
That's not true. Many people, including the police and the forensic scientists, know beyond any reasonable doubt who the killers are.

Wow. Now that's a sweeping statement considering that so many forensic scientists have come out in support of Conti and Vecchiotti and have condemned Stefanoni's collection and analysis of the DNA. Are "the" police all police? No police think they're innocent? How long did it take you to interview "the" police and "the forensic scientists" to determine your claim?

I think the testimony of many forensic scientists at the trials contradict your claim.

Do read their testimonies.
 
Last edited:
Not considering right or wrong. Pointing out it is a pointless waste of their time. Absent heavily verifiable proof/evidence and an entre' into the Italian justice system. Which I have no doubt they will never achieve.

No problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom