The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 24

[Vixen]

What nonsense. In other words You don't have a damn pit of evidence to backup a single claim. God forbid you even try to prove something.

I have quoted Stefanoni and Garofano (_sp?) extensively. Stacyhs is simply not interested in the evidence.

 

[Vixen]

Oh, I have. They give NO scientific evidence to support this claim. NONE. Which is why YOU can't.

I can't keep doing your research for you. I have provided you with information many times.

All you can do is keep repeating, oh but she lives there.

As if that is an extenuating circumstance.

 

[Stacyhs]

I can't keep doing your research for you. I have provided you with information many times.

All you can do is keep repeating, oh but she lives there.

As if that is an extenuating circumstance.

LOL! Garofano's claim has been refuted several times by forensic scientists and Stefanoni said the origin if Amanda's DNA could NOT be determined.

You have simply repeated the same disproven nonsense over and over again.

 

[acbytesla]

I have quoted Stefanoni and Garofano (_sp?) extensively. Stacyhs is simply not interested in the evidence.

This is not evidence. It is simply a biased opinion about what may have happened.

 

[Vixen]

It did!? Please provide a list of exhibits and quote from testimony that **that** court heard to come to this conclusion!

What!? You can't? I would have thought you could.

It was an appeal court tasked at determining whether Raff was entitled to any compensation. The only 'exhibits' the closed court will have looked at were the submissions from the appellant and the prosecution.

You can read their findings in full here:

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/File:Sollecito_Compensation_Refusal.pdf

 

[Vixen]

This is not evidence. It is simply a biased opinion about what may have happened.

It is all discussed in the court documents. You need to refer to Massei and Nencini, if you want to refer to where Marasca got the fact of Amanda washing off Mez' blood. As I have said at least twice before, it relates to the vigorous rubbing off of epthelial (_sp?) cells, and bleeding in copious quantity.

 

[Numbers]

Agreed. I have always been of this opinion. No one set out to "frame" Knox and Sollecito.

I do think the police did intentionally lie, though, about the interrogation of Nov 5/6. They broke the law and they knew it. They had to lie or face possible firing or official reprimands.

The police and prosecutor intentionally set out to deny Knox, Sollecito, and Lumumba "due process" (US usage) - that is, there was an intent to deny them their basic defense rights and procedural guarantees that are rightfully provided by the authorities under the Italian Constitution and Italian law.

I don't wish to get into an argument in semantics, but such official misconduct is, in my opinion, the very essence of "framing". Had there been no intent by the police to develop the case through misconduct, the interrogations would have been fully documented, for example, by video recording or the taking of minutes. Knox and Sollecito would have been provided with lawyers in accordance with CPP Article 63; let us recall that the Gemelli CSC panel stated that CPP Article 63 had been violated, and that is why Knox's statements could not be used against her for the murder/rape case. Her hand-written Memoriale 1 was used as justification by Gemelli to introduce Knox's interrogation statements as evidence against her in the calunnia case.

Others may view this differently, but I believe there is strong evidence to demonstrate intentional police misconduct, and which in this case, I believe should be called "framing". I think in any other case where a false statement was coerced from an individual by police to be used against that person in court, and in which there was an intentional misinterpretation of evidence (Knox's phone message to Lumumba) by a prosecutor, there would be general agreement that the authorities had "framed" the accused.

 

[acbytesla]

It was an appeal court tasked at determining whether Raff was entitled to any compensation. The only 'exhibits' the closed court will have looked at were the submissions from the appellant and the prosecution.

You can read their findings in full here:

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/File:Sollecito_Compensation_Refusal.pdf

You don't ever answer a god damn question to your make believe nonsense. Do you? You just give us a link to nowhere. Why do people bother knowing this is all bull feces?

 

[Vixen]

What nonsense. In other words You don't have a damn bit of evidence to backup a single claim. God forbid you even try to prove something.

The evidence is in the legal reality of the courts written reasons of the facts found at the merits trial.

Anyway, isn't Trump Russia a far more exciting development for you?

 

[Vixen]

You don't ever answer a god damn question to your make believe nonsense. Do you? You just give us a link to nowhere. Why do people bother knowing this is all bull feces?

If it's cow dung, it's Marasca Supreme Court cow dung.

 

[Stacyhs]

It is all discussed in the court documents. You need to refer to Massei and Nencini, if you want to refer to where Marasca got the fact of Amanda washing off Mez' blood. As I have said at least twice before, it relates to the vigorous rubbing off of epthelial (_sp?) cells, and bleeding in copious quantity.

Oh, sweet Jesus. Once again, there is NO scientific evidence that Amanda washed her hands the night of the murder in her bathroom sink nor that the DNA source was epithelial cells! Stefanoni testified the SOURCE OF HER DNA COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED. What part of that are you not getting? Show me a single forensic test that established the DNA in the mixed samples was from epithelial cells. You can't because it doesn't exits. Nor can you show that Amanda was bleeding "copiously". The ONLY person who claims this was Garofano and NO other forensic scientist has agreed with that. Only a couple small drops of Amanda's blood was found so exactly WHERE is all this "copious" blood? Sheesh

 

[Bill Williams]

Oh, sweet Jesus. Once again, there is NO scientific evidence that Amanda washed her hands the night of the murder in her bathroom sink nor that the DNA source was epithelial cells! Stefanoni testified the SOURCE OF HER DNA COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED. What part of that are you not getting? Show me a single forensic test that established the DNA in the mixed samples was from epithelial cells. You can't because it doesn't exits. Nor can you show that Amanda was bleeding "copiously". The ONLY person who claims this was Garofano and NO other forensic scientist has agreed with that. Only a couple small drops of Amanda's blood was found so exactly WHERE is all this "copious" blood? Sheesh

Reading page 301-303 of the Massei report is like reading fiction. The source of DNA could be established, it's just that the "when" should remain a question - and stunningly, Massei makes that very point and then proceeds to ignore it.

Why? Because Amanda herself had said that the bathroom had been clean prior to the murder.

But not just any clean - Massei assumes this observation on Knox's part rendered the bathroom forensically sterile, ready to receive forensic material which could only be dated/timed to the night of the murder.

In a bathroom the two of them shared.

Equally stunningly, Massei assumes that Amanda had stepped in the victim's blood. Yet, there is no evidence at all of Amanda's foottrack in the murderroom itself!

And without stretching this out too long - it is painful reading Massei's reasoning here... read how Massei justifies not ruling out blood, even though blood had not been found!

In considering these specimens, one must also consider the possibility that they arose from other sources and are irrelevant to the investigation. But it must be noted that the negative result for blood does not necessarily indicate that no blood was present. The result may have been negative because there was not sufficient material to indicate the presence of blood.​

Instead of proving that blood had been there, Massei assumes there was and leaves it up to someone else to prove that there hadn't been any. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

That, folks, was the 2009 case against RS and AK.

But Stefanoni had not said that it was impossible to determine the source of DNA, but.....

While it is not possible to use the genetic scientific data (Dr. Stefanoni explained the impossibility of determining the date, the succession or the simultaneity in the depositing of the components of the mixed trace specimen and the impossibility of attributing the haematological component to one or the other of the contributors), the information previously put forward provides answers which are entirely consistent with the circumstantial evidence that has emerged and which the Court considers convincing.​

Although it is safe to say that the blood was the victim's because Massei says that Amanda had not been wounded - at all.

 

[TruthCalls]

An example of confirmation bias. You, yourself, introduced the meme of "PIP being proud of themselves", and than blamed the PIP for "being proud of themselves....

​

You started the meme, then assumed the meme.

Worse still, Vixen has never provided any evidence that Amanda "evaded Canadian border guards" or that her calunia conviction in Italy would be considered a crime that would prevent her from entering Canada. Vixen has never bothered to determine if Amanda filed the appropriate paperwork to get approval to enter if such approval were indeed necessary.

There isn't a single aspect of this line of....ahem, 'thought' ... that makes sense or has any validity to it. Not surprising it all comes from Vixen.

 

[TruthCalls]

Reading page 301-303 of the Massei report is like reading fiction. The source of DNA could be established, it's just that the "when" should remain a question - and stunningly, Massei makes that very point and then proceeds to ignore it.

Why? Because Amanda herself had said that the bathroom had been clean prior to the murder.

But not just any clean - Massei assumes this observation on Knox's part rendered the bathroom forensically sterile, ready to receive forensic material which could only be dated/timed to the night of the murder.

In a bathroom the two of them shared.

Equally stunningly, Massei assumes that Amanda had stepped in the victim's blood. Yet, there is no evidence at all of Amanda's foottrack in the murderroom itself!

And without stretching this out too long - it is painful reading Massei's reasoning here... read how Massei justifies not ruling out blood, even though blood had not been found!

​

Instead of proving that blood had been there, Massei assumes there was and leaves it up to someone else to prove that there hadn't been any. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

That, folks, was the 2009 case against RS and AK.

But Stefanoni had not said that it was impossible to determine the source of DNA, but.....

​

Although it is safe to say that the blood was the victim's because Massei says that Amanda had not been wounded - at all.

And Massei, like the PGP, also prefer to ignore that the majority of those Luminol prints also did not contain any of Meredith's DNA.

It is a near certainty that the three prints in Amanda's room, which were TMB negative, negative for Meredith's DNA (but positive for Amanda's DNA so the traces didn't suffer DNA death rays) were not made with Meredith's blood yet they were found with Luminol. Neither Massei or Nencini tried to address this, and we know Vixen can't. She'll deflect and evade, take something out of context, argue figures of speech and typos, and then, some pages later repeat the Luminol traces as evidence against Amanda.

The most hysterical part of this is Vixen's claim of being unbias, open and fair minded and that she actually started out believing Amanda innocent. This, of course, is an obvious lie because virtually no one did given the bogus claims by the police and the heavily anti-Amanda media right from the start. Unless you knew Amanda personally there was no reason to think she was innocent.

 

[Numbers]

Worse still, Vixen has never provided any evidence that Amanda "evaded Canadian border guards" or that her calunia conviction in Italy would be considered a crime that would prevent her from entering Canada. Vixen has never bothered to determine if Amanda filed the appropriate paperwork to get approval to enter if such approval were indeed necessary.

There isn't a single aspect of this line of....ahem, 'thought' ... that makes sense or has any validity to it. Not surprising it all comes from Vixen.

One would think that a poster holding these views - which apparently derive from other anonymous internet posters - would provide some evidence. Apparently the statements are all based on speculations, and, as typical of guilter speculations and those of certain Italian judges such as Massei and Nencini, if one can speculate that something is true, and it agrees with one's biases, it is therefore true.

There is no evidence anyone has posted that Knox has or has not satisfied the formalities of notifying the Canadian authorities, the CBSA, of her conviction in Italy for calunnia. "Simple" calunnia itself, based on the elements of the crime, does not meet the definition of "public mischief", a crime in Canada. The elements of the definition of the Canadian crime, "public mischief", does match the elements of the Italian crime of "aggravated calunnia", and Knox was acquitted by the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation (Marasca panel) of the crime of "aggravated calunnia".

Since Canada has a law against "blasphemous libel" which is not very well defined, but leads to a maximum two year prison sentence, it's possible that many Americans seeking to enter Canada should be registering with the CBSA as having committed actions that are a crime in Canada.

Sources:

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...-trial-a-warning-against-smugness-walkom.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemous_libel

 

[Numbers]

Getting back to another peripheral issue - how houses and apartments are typically purchased in the US, and why seemingly high purchase prices are managed by those with sufficient income, such as law professors (median salary in 2016, about $130,000/year, with the maximum about $250,000/year) and don't indicate some need for such upper middle income persons to "chase ambulances" or pursue "innocence fraud".

In the US, and (probably) many other countries, houses and apartments may be purchased using a mortgage, a kind of loan financed by a bank or other financial institution, sometimes with terms of repayment of 15 or 30 years. The purchaser gives a down payment to the seller, possibly 20% of the stated price, and the remainder is provided by the bank. The purchaser then makes periodic (typically monthly) payments of principal and interest to the bank to repay the mortgage loan. The purchaser must, according to law, satisfy the lender of his potential income flow.

 

[Welshman]

Vixen claims that Amanda was bleeding heavily, left her blood in the bathroom and washed Meredith’s blood off her hands. If this was true this would be damming and slam dunk evidence. If this was true, how do you explain the conduct of the prosecution and the methods they had to resort to? Why did the prosecution have to resort to the below if they had solid and damming evidence at their disposal :-

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contamination-labwork-coverup/

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredith-kercher-perjury-corruption/

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/evidence-destroyed/

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/milani-report/

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/bra-clasp-contamination/

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html

Vixen has used falsehoods in her posts and the posts below are just a small example of these falsehoods. Why do PGP need to constantly to lie to argue their case if there was solid evidence against Amanda and Raffaele?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11598412#post11598412

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11430102#post11430102

 

[Vixen]

Worse still, Vixen has never provided any evidence that Amanda "evaded Canadian border guards" or that her calunia conviction in Italy would be considered a crime that would prevent her from entering Canada. Vixen has never bothered to determine if Amanda filed the appropriate paperwork to get approval to enter if such approval were indeed necessary.

There isn't a single aspect of this line of....ahem, 'thought' ... that makes sense or has any validity to it. Not surprising it all comes from Vixen.

Think about it. Had she properly and legally applied for the TRP, which AIUI takes months to process by CBSA, then she is admitting she is a convicted felon. IOW she is going to the Innocence Conference under false pretences knowingly, having declared she is convicted of a serious crime (i.e, >three years custody).

Is it ethical to mislead young undergraduate law students at Windsor Uni Law School that she was 'wrongfully convicted' and 'wrongfully imprisoned' for four years, when her conviction is perfectly sound and upheld even by Hellmann and underlined by Marasca.

Would you want YOUR kid to be photographed unknowingly with a properly convicted person, which his or her law school has defrauded him or her into thinking, 'this is an innocent person and a typical wrongfully convicted case'.

It's teaching him or her that a lack of ethics (integrity) is OK and normal conduct.

 

[Bill Williams]

Think about it. Had she properly and legally applied for the TRP, which AIUI takes months to process by CBSA, then she is admitting she is a convicted felon. IOW she is going to the Innocence Conference under false pretences knowingly, having declared she is convicted of a serious crime (i.e, >three years custody).

Is it ethical to mislead young undergraduate law students at Windsor Uni Law School that she was 'wrongfully convicted' and 'wrongfully imprisoned' for four years, when her conviction is perfectly sound and upheld even by Hellmann and underlined by Marasca.

Would you want YOUR kid to be photographed unknowingly with a properly convicted person, which his or her law school has defrauded him or her into thinking, 'this is an innocent person and a typical wrongfully convicted case'.

It's teaching him or her that a lack of ethics (integrity) is OK and normal conduct.

Sooner or later you were bound to accuse the University of Windsor of fraud.

 

[Bill Williams]

Worse still, Vixen has never provided any evidence that Amanda "evaded Canadian border guards" or that her calunia conviction in Italy would be considered a crime that would prevent her from entering Canada. Vixen has never bothered to determine if Amanda filed the appropriate paperwork to get approval to enter if such approval were indeed necessary.

There isn't a single aspect of this line of....ahem, 'thought' ... that makes sense or has any validity to it. Not surprising it all comes from Vixen.

She went for dinner at this house, entering on the south side. Clumsy girl left by the north door!