Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[bagels]

Marasca states that it definitively was not a 'murder by a burglar'. In addition, it underlines that the burglary was staged.

Interesting.

BTW Amanda Knox would probably be in prison right now as we speak if Rudy Guede did not exist. So it looks like my original point stands and yours was irrelevant.

 

[Bill Williams]

Marasca states that it definitively was not a 'murder by a burglar'. In addition, it underlines that the burglary was staged.

After summarizing the points of appeal from both the Knox and then the Sollecito lawyers, the 2015 ISC exonerates the pair beginning with this reason why the Nencini court, its reasonings and the way it handled evidence was flawed from the beginning:

The 2015 ISC is saying that the most basic error of the Nencini court is that it believed it was directed by the 2013 ISC to find the pair guilty.

That belief was at the heart of why it made errors in judgement that the 2015 ISC, from 4.0 onwards, reports.

In short, the Nencini court was flawed from start to finish. The 2015 ISC, therefore, did not simply say that the two were exonerated because of insufficient evidence, but that the whole process against them had been flawed.

And this is BEFORE the 2015 ISC addressed the flaws of the media and of the original investigation.​

As both you and others have pointed out - endlessly - the ISC does not rule on the veracity of any single piece of evidence; this means.....

That every time you claim that the 2015 ISC upheld a "fact" you are whistling into the wind. You do this endlessly - and then inexplicably, try to claim that the 2015 ISC "found" some item as factual, or sustained some factoid as factual.

The 2015 underlines nothing if it is a statement on the veracity of any one piece of evidence. Quit saying that it does. The ISC is not a fact finding court. Nor is it a fact-confirming court.

And in annuling the Nencini decision, it is annuling everything to do with it. It said that the reason why it annuled the decision, and exonerated (l'assoluzione) the pair was because Nencini should have acquitted with what was before that court.

This has been repeated to you endlessly. We have posted the relevant sections of the 2015 ISC's motivations report endlessly. In response, you simply repeat your unsubstantiated stuff....... endlessly.

 

[Vixen]

No. No it doesn't. Care to back up your assertion?

Following on from a discussion that Rudy did not do it alone and after giving its reasons for this view, having described Rudy's actions during the crime, it writes:

<snip of Rudy’s actions during the crime>
Such finding is even less compatible with the theory of the intrusion of an unknown thief inside the house, if we consider that, within the course of ordinary events, while it is possible that a thief is taken by an uncontrollable sexual urge leading him to assail a young woman when he sees her, it’s rather unlikely that after a physical and sexual aggression he would also commit a gratuitous murder, especially not with the fierce brutality of this case, rather than running away quickly instead.

Unless, obviously, we think about the disturbed personality of a serial killer, but there is no trace of that in the trial findings, since there are no records that any other killings of young women with the same modus operandi were committed in Perugia at that time.

- Marasca


Do familiarise yourself with the reasoning before spouting off.

 

[Vixen]

Perhaps you ought to consider that the (deliberately pejorative, from a biassed source) "he has the same status as a pretrial detainee that he had in 2005 before his case began in October of that year." is EXACTLY EQUIVALENT to saying:

"He is currently considered innocent of the charges, unless and until he is ever convicted in a fair trial".

You really, truly, have no idea about all this. Again, I implore you to educate yourself by reading about the presumption of innocence in law and ethics in modern liberalised democracies, and the concept of being considered innocent in law and ethics (and morality, for that matter) unless and until one stands convicted by a competent court in a fair trial.

<fx shakes head once more in a mixture of disbelief and wry amusement at the ignorance and low intellect on display>

Don't do yourself down. I am always happy to enlighten you.

If Ferguson was actually exonerated, he could not be tried again fair or otherwise.


Penny dropped?

 

[bagels]

Don't do yourself down. I am always happy to enlighten you.

If Ferguson was actually exonerated, he could not be tried again fair or otherwise.


Penny dropped?

Using this definition, Damien Echols is more exonerated than Ryan Ferguson.

Maybe you should quit while you're behind?

 

[LondonJohn]

Using this definition, Damien Echols is more exonerated than Ryan Ferguson.

Maybe you should quit while you're behind?

It's both disturbing and amusing to think that one (imagined and invented) definition of "exoneration" is seemingly inexorably linked to whether or not the person can ever be retried for the same crime again. I expected a higher intellectual plane. But, as we have all found out recently, you can't always get what you want.........

 

[Vixen]

It's both disturbing and amusing to think that one (imagined and invented) definition of "exoneration" is seemingly inexorably linked to whether or not the person can ever be retried for the same crime again. I expected a higher intellectual plane. But, as we have all found out recently, you can't always get what you want.........

There, there, you did your best. Keep trying and you'll get there.

 

[Numbers]

If anyone is seeking a definition of "exoneration", here are some:

1.
In general, an exoneration occurs when a person who has been convicted of a crime is officially cleared based on new evidence of innocence.

A more precise definition follows.

Exoneration—A person has been exonerated if he or she was convicted of a crime and later was either: (1) declared to be factually innocent by a government official or agency with the authority to make that declaration; or (2) relieved of all the consequences of the criminal conviction by a government official or body with the authority to take that action. The official action may be: (i) a complete pardon by a governor or other competent authority, whether or not the pardon is designated as based on innocence; (ii) an acquittal of all charges factually related to the crime for which the person was originally convicted; or (iii) a dismissal of all charges related to the crime for which the person was originally convicted, by a court or by a prosecutor with the authority to enter that dismissal. The pardon, acquittal, or dismissal must have been the result, at least in part, of evidence of innocence that either (i) was not presented at the trial at which the person was convicted; or (ii) if the person pled guilty, was not known to the defendant, the defense attorney and the court at the time the plea was entered. The evidence of innocence need not be an explicit basis for the official action that exonerated the person.

Exoneree—A person who was convicted of a crime and later officially declared innocent of that crime, or relieved of all legal consequences of the conviction because evidence of innocence that was not presented at trial required reconsideration of the case.

Source: https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/glossary.aspx

2.
Exoneration occurs when the conviction for a crime is reversed, either through demonstration of innocence, a flaw in the conviction, or otherwise.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoneration

3.
To show or state that someone or something is not guilty of something:
The report exonerated the crew from all responsibility for the collision.

Source: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/exonerate
(under the "British" usage)

4.
exoneration
noun

1 The action of officially absolving someone from blame; vindication:
‘the defendants' eventual exoneration’

Source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/exoneration

 

[Samson]

Damien Echols and Ryan Ferguson tour the country and the media claiming to be 'exonerees', yet those who know better, know their convictions were merely 'vacated'. They were happy just to get out of jail.

Damien Echols was obeying the aged principle, 50% of something is better than 100% of nothing.
Damien Echols is a truly remarkable man, these experiences shape him, Amanda and Raffaele. They are plucked from obscurity like lotto jackpot winners to narrate tales in which they never expected to be protagonists.
Damien Echols is also a surprisingly gifted writer, I read his book quickly, Life after Death, profoundly impressed, imagining a strong ghost writing presence, but no. It is all his own work.
Amanda Knox will be just as impressive, she has 12 years to go.

 

[Samson]

Professor Guede holds court in a fine dining Italian restaurant.
He is explaining again how after consensual sex with dear Meredith, he retired to the WC, and while there Raffaele, under instruction from Amanda, seized Meredith's bra from behind so Amanda could stab her.
Then heroically he staunched the blood flow before panicking and leaving. How he rues that, he could have helped the authorities to nail those vicious perpetrators.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nd-picked-food-allowed-prison-restaurant.html

Who killed Meredith Kercher indeed. No mystery, eh Rudy.

 

[Planigale]

It doesn't change the fact Vecchiotti was blatantly lying when she claimed she could not test the remaining knife DNA as she would then make the 'same mistake as Stefanoni'. By 2011 there WAS the technology to analyse to a high degree of signifcance LCN DNA, which of course, the Rome RIS laboratory then carried out for Nencini to find the DNA was that of Amanda Knox, and not 'rye starch' as claimed by the crooked quack.

That the technology existed does not mean that Vecchiotti possessed it. If she had tested a LCN sample then she would have made the same mistake as Steffanoni.

The DNA tests have nothing to do with the starch grains. This represents Steffanoni's poor microscopy skills. Steffanoni thought she saw red blood cells, in fact they were starch grains. (Which is why she did not get a positive test for haemoglobin). Steffanoni never objected to the identification of the starch grains being correct.

Knox's DNA on the knife that she used to slice bread at her boyfriend's flat has no probative value (nor would the presence of her fingerprints on the knife).

 

[Vixen]

That the technology existed does not mean that Vecchiotti possessed it. If she had tested a LCN sample then she would have made the same mistake as Steffanoni.

The DNA tests have nothing to do with the starch grains. This represents Steffanoni's poor microscopy skills. Steffanoni thought she saw red blood cells, in fact they were starch grains. (Which is why she did not get a positive test for haemoglobin). Steffanoni never objected to the identification of the starch grains being correct.

Knox's DNA on the knife that she used to slice bread at her boyfriend's flat has no probative value (nor would the presence of her fingerprints on the knife).

Mez' DNA on the blade had every probative value. 15 alleles. Tested in front of defence forensic expert witnesses. No complaints at the time.

 

[Vixen]

The authorities disagree with you. Go tell them they are wrong.

ETA: Unless you live in Finland from whose site you ripped that directly.

http://www.finemb.org.uk/public/default.aspx?nodeid=44488&contentlan=2&culture=en-GB

Do you reside in Finland? And hold a Finnish passport?

Why did you provide that quote with no attribution?

Assume makes an ASS of U and ME.

 

[Vixen]

Damien Echols was obeying the aged principle, 50% of something is better than 100% of nothing.
Damien Echols is a truly remarkable man, these experiences shape him, Amanda and Raffaele. They are plucked from obscurity like lotto jackpot winners to narrate tales in which they never expected to be protagonists.
Damien Echols is also a surprisingly gifted writer, I read his book quickly, Life after Death, profoundly impressed, imagining a strong ghost writing presence, but no. It is all his own work.
Amanda Knox will be just as impressive, she has 12 years to go.

Ian Brady is a very clever chap, as was Graham Young the poisoner. Lots of cold sadistic killers are very clever.

What about those three little boys sexually assaulted, strangled and drowned by your hero?

 

[Samson]

Ian Brady is a very clever chap, as was Graham Young the poisoner. Lots of cold sadistic killers are very clever.

What about those three little boys sexually assaulted, strangled and drowned by your hero?

You know Vixen, there is a thread for the case.
I see parallels with the Knox Sollecito case of course, younger groups of people being accused of crimes committed by older solo men.
Terry Hobbs is the Rudy Guede of West Memphis. He had no alibi, had a history of violence, and compatible trace dna was at the scene, while excluded were Jessie Miskelley, Jason Baldwin and Damien Echols.

And the KNIFE, that celebrated star in these shows.
Like Mignini, prosecutor Fogleberg brandished a knife that was supposed to have created injuries that were in fact caused by snapping turtles.
Like Mignini he brandished a plant. The knife had been tossed in the sinister swamp 6 months before the kids were killed. That is not challenged by anyone.

Thank you for playing.

Now. I have a host of golden daffodils for attempting relevance in this thread.
Please continue here.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=217142

 

[Vixen]

You know Vixen, there is a thread for the case.
I see parallels with the Knox Sollecito case of course, younger groups of people being accused of crimes committed by older solo men.
Terry Hobbs is the Rudy Guede of West Memphis. He had no alibi, had a history of violence, and compatible trace dna was at the scene, while excluded were Jessie Miskelley, Jason Baldwin and Damien Echols.

And the KNIFE, that celebrated star in these shows.
Like Mignini, prosecutor Fogleberg brandished a knife that was supposed to have created injuries that were in fact caused by snapping turtles.
Like Mignini he brandished a plant. The knife had been tossed in the sinister swamp 6 months before the kids were killed. That is not challenged by anyone.

Thank you for playing.

Now. I have a host of golden daffodils for attempting relevance in this thread.
Please continue here.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=217142

The common thread in all of these cases is confession. Dassey confessed, Knox confessed, Miskelly confessed and the WM3 guy confessed.

And do you know what? I believe them. Sure, the police conduct in the Avery/Dassey case left a few things to be desired, but there is no doubt all of these people are guilty, as charged.

 

[Samson]

The common thread in all of these cases is confession. Dassey confessed, Knox confessed, Miskelly confessed and the WM3 guy confessed.

And do you know what? I believe them. Sure, the police conduct in the Avery/Dassey case left a few things to be desired, but there is no doubt all of these people are guilty, as charged.

Well no, Teina Pora Jessie Miskelly and Brendan Dassey are triplets in uncanny parallel, age, iq, and complete poverty of information about time and the crime scenes.
Knox was a bit older and a lot more intelligent, but language got her to create the deficit. Very similar in context.
4 youngsters in jail, 4 innocent and hoodwinked without lawyers, 4 RELEASED and EXONERATED.
Yep. I know these cases backwards, nothing better to do with my spare time.

 

[LondonJohn]

To say Knox "confessed" is misleading at best, and downright mendacious and unbalanced at worst.

Knox was, by all reasonable accounts (and backed up by the damning testimony of interpreter Donnino and the triumphalist remarks of Perugia police chief de Felice) put under intense pressure in her interrogation of 5th/6th November 2007 to "confirm" to the police "what they already knew": that Lumumba was Kercher's killer, and that Knox had arranged to meet with him that evening and took him to the cottage where he carried out the attack, sexual assault and murder. The police told Knox she would face severe judicial consequences if she didn't now "tell them the truth", and that she would also be at personal risk from the evil and dangerous Lumumba. They went on to "suggest" to Knox that the reason she couldn't remember all this was due to "traumatic amnesia" (with a helpful example provided by the interpreter!).

 

[Welshman]

It's hard not to reply to this.

First Vixen claims that the Italian Supreme Court (March 2015) did not exonerate the pair - even when shown repeatedly that subsequent Italian courts cited as judicial fact that the 5th Panel of the ISC had said "l'assoluzione".

Now Vixen utters a mistruth about what the Nencini court in 2014 had confirmed.

The one thing that the Nencini court did not do was confirm that the original DNA police forensic analyst, Patrizia Stefanoni, had given control samples to the court. Any of the courts who heard this.

We've gone over this countless times. We last went over this when I challenged Vixen to name one, just one, DNA forensic analyst/scientist who agrees with Stefanoni's work.

Vixen had cited Professor Novelli, who had testified at an earlier court.

What did Nencini say about Novelli? Nencini at least recorded that Novelli agreed that Stefanoni did not follow international protocols.

That there should have been a show stopper. But it showed why the 2015 ISC reversed Nencini's conviction - see the part in the 2015 motivations report where a lower-court judge should not substitute his own opinion (or even hunch) for the evidence, and most assuredly not substitute those things for a lack of evidence.

The lack being that with Stefanoni, as confirmed by Novelli? Stefanoni did not follow international protocols.

That should have ended it. But that, apparently, was not a problem for Nencini who went on to quote Novelli that sometimes protocol's lack can be made up by the experience of the operator - except that both Nencini and Novelli failed to say one way or the other if Stefanoni should be regarded as that operator!!!!!!

Be that as it may, did Nencini confirm that Stefanoni had deposited those negative controls into the court record?

No, Nencini did not. Nencini cited Novelli who claims to have seen them, simply by requesting them directly from Stefanoni, not from the court. Not the court, but from Stefanoni.
Nencini then goes and slaps Conti and Vecchiotti for not asking Stefanoni. (As an aside, what law requires Stefanoni to hand over controls to individuals.... they ARE supposed to be handed to "the court", which Nencini implies did not happen.)

What had Stefanoni done in the past when the defence had requested to see them? Stefanoni's record was to refuse to release them on their request. Stefanoni even asked one of the lower courts to defend her on this issue, because she thought of it as insulting that they had wanted to check her work!

Indeed, that lower judge defended Stefanoni hanging on to them by daring the defence to, in essence, charge Stefanoni with some sort of crime or make some sort of accusation against her - which would be difficult, given that you'd only know if she'd put her thumb on the scale by viewing the negative controls!!!!

So - if the pair's guilt is obvious, if it is as Vixen claims (throw out the bra-clasp evidence and there's still 100s of condemning issues against them).....

Why does Vixen need to misrepresent what Nencini claimed about the negative controls? Why lie?

Another poster here tracks this far better. In short, if the case is so overwhelming against the pair and if the 2015 Italian Supreme Court is corrupt in exonerating them, why lie at all?

I don't get it.

I have been going through Vixen's post and building and compiling a list of the lies Vixen has said in her posts.

 

[abaddon]

Assume makes an ASS of U and ME.

Evasion noted.

How about answering the question?