The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 24

[Vixen]

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.

By trying the case in the comfort of your armchair on a chat forum, you fail to realise that you miss what those in the court room saw. Body language. Demeanour. Witnesses in person. Physical exhibits. Highly detailed, intricate, complex presentations.

People who believe Dassey was forced into a false confession didn't see his 14 year old cousin in the court witness box live (as on the Netflix film) where she sobbed and was visibly lying when she said she retracted her statement to the police that she had noticed Dassey was extremely depressed in the weeks after Theresa Halbach's disappearance, and when she asked him why, he confided in her. Whilst her words were a flat out denial, her autonomous nervous system let her down. She was blushing, trembling, perspiring. It wasn't difficult, even on a subconscious level, for a juror to reject her claim, based on 'seeing is believing'. (Lie detectors work on the principle of stress causing the skin to perspire and we have no control over it, although there are some techniques that can fool the test, such as holding your breath).

When I first saw the news, I assumed it was typical tabloid sexist rubbish, designed to sell papers with salacious prurient content and ipso facto unfairly painting a suspect in a bad light simply by virtue of the stereotypying of women who kill being infinitely 'more wicked' than a man who does the same. We have seen it all before. And I like to make my own mind up.

I followed the court case and unfortunately, began to realise that if anything, the truth is probably even worse than the lurid picture painted in the papers. Even Marasca cannot avoid the whiff of iniquity in the kids' behaviour.

When you say everything in Massei and Nencini is a result of their failure to understand the evidence, you are way off the mark. They understand the evidence only too well! As for typos, this is inevitable. The judges do not actually write the reports, it is is dictated and typed up by legal secretaries. Being a verbal judgment, it is bound to contain lots of figures of speech, not all of which will be ironed out and getting people's name's wrong or seeming to contradict itself.

If they preferred the evidence of one witness over another, then there is a reason for it. They saw the witness visually and heard them aurally. Their senses do not lie. They may come to the wrong decision now and then, of course they do, we all do, but if you are say, a teacher, you know when one of your pupils is lying and when they are innocent, even if what they say is different.

The judgment of Massei and Nencini is sound. And fair. Even if we do not necessarily agree with all of their reasoning all of the time.

 

[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

I am 100% confident 'hate preachers' are not welcome in Canada.

You seem to have a weird belief that the idea is absurd.

 

[Vixen]

1) Apparently, you are not aware that "the Innocence Project does not use legal technicalities to challenge convictions; the Project accepts only cases in which newly discovered scientific evidence can potentially prove that a convicted person is factually innocent."


2) "Bandwagon"? More of your hyperbole. She is speaking as a MURDER exoneree, not as a person convicted of calumny.

3) Wrong again! The Innocence Project is a pro-bono organization. They do not "take a handsome chunk of any compensation on a contingency basis" or, in fact, any payment. Stop posting lies.

Pro-bono refers to free advocacy. However, people like Kellner and Scheck, whilst they might claim to be pro-bono, really mean 'contingency fee' or 'no win/no fee'. This is why it is not worth their while taking on a case, pro-bono or not - unless there is a possibility of a handsome payout, of which they will make sure their engagement letter sets out how much they will take as their share of any successful proceeds.

Don't believe me? So how come Zellner only takes on high-profile cases, such as Stephen Avery, Ryan Ferguson or Mario Cascarios?

Well, take a look at her Revenues. Big $$$'s for her.

 

[Vixen]

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

I would question its judgement. It has invited a properly convicted person to come and deliver a talk as an 'exoneree' 'wrongfully convicted' with the carrot of 'credit to your undergraduate module'. Of course people will attend, maybe even write a report to get the accreditation.

It is totally immoral to invite a convicted criminal posing as an 'exoneree' and encourage 18-year old law students into believing , 'anything goes'.

 

[Vixen]

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

It was slam dunk evidence. Thanks to masonic machinations - rife in Italy - and there is even a police wire tap which has Papa Raff saying, we've got Bongiorno, she cans swing things in high places for us - the pair were acquitted, but the word 'innocent' appears nowhere.


On the contrary, Marasca emphasises the pair's mischievousness.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

It was slam dunk evidence. Thanks to masonic machinations - rife in Italy - and there is even a police wire tap which has Papa Raff saying, we've got Bongiorno, she cans swing things in high places for us - the pair were acquitted, but the word 'innocent' appears nowhere.


On the contrary, Marasca emphasises the pair's mischievousness.

Vixen,
Have you been able to figure out yet why the entirety of the field of forensic science, including some of the elite in the field, have systematically refuted the forensic evidence in this case? Like, literally everyone who has looked has shown it was faulty.

The only people who think it was reliable work were a few corrupt officials working for the prosecution and... um, I think there are 4 of you left?... guilter nutters obsessed with Amanda.

What do you feel the more likely explanation for this is? I can think of two possibilities: 1) Amanda Knox isn't really a pagan sex sorceress and the reason Rudy is the only one who left evidence of himself is because he did it alone... or 2) the vast far reaching Masonic conspiracy has paid off every single forensic DNA expert on the planet. This is why *not a single one* has come out in support of the prosecution's evidence. Not one.

I am guessing you are going to go with (2) here, but thought I'd ask lol.

 

[Bill Williams]

I would question its judgement. It has invited a properly convicted person to come and deliver a talk as an 'exoneree' 'wrongfully convicted' with the carrot of 'credit to your undergraduate module'. Of course people will attend, maybe even write a report to get the accreditation.

It is totally immoral to invite a convicted criminal posing as an 'exoneree' and encourage 18-year old law students into believing , 'anything goes'.

No, you accused them of fraud.

You keep repeating the rest, without offering one iota of evidence to support it.

You also said that if people attended and even mentioned Lumumba, that'd they'd be unceremoniously escorted from the meeting and probably get a failing grade for the course. ...... for even mentioning Lumumba!

So now you not only accuse the U of Windsor of fraud, you're accusing them of immorality. Just how far does this international conspiracy go?

It is only you and your intrepid band of merry-nutters who believe this.

 

[Bill Williams]

I would question its judgement. It has invited a properly convicted person to come and deliver a talk as an 'exoneree' 'wrongfully convicted' with the carrot of 'credit to your undergraduate module'. Of course people will attend, maybe even write a report to get the accreditation.

It is totally immoral to invite a convicted criminal posing as an 'exoneree' and encourage 18-year old law students into believing , 'anything goes'.

Vixen - it seems you are right. I just tried to get an e-mail address for the U of Windsor Law School so that you can complain......

But it seems their website has crashed!

I'm sorry I doubted you. The fraudulent, immoral Law School has probably had to fold - they've probably been forced to close by Canadian Border Services. No doubt duped law students banded together for a class action lawsuit because of threats made to them for grade-reduction for even mentioning Patrick Lumumba.

I apologize for doubting you.

 

[Vixen]

No, you accused them of fraud.

You keep repeating the rest, without offering one iota of evidence to support it.

You also said that if people attended and even mentioned Lumumba, that'd they'd be unceremoniously escorted from the meeting and probably get a failing grade for the course. ...... for even mentioning Lumumba!

So now you not only accuse the U of Windsor of fraud, you're accusing them of immorality. Just how far does this international conspiracy go?

It is only you and your intrepid band of merry-nutters who believe this.

Learn to distinguish rumination from assertion.

 

[Welshman]

It was slam dunk evidence. Thanks to masonic machinations - rife in Italy - and there is even a police wire tap which has Papa Raff saying, we've got Bongiorno, she cans swing things in high places for us - the pair were acquitted, but the word 'innocent' appears nowhere.


On the contrary, Marasca emphasises the pair's mischievousness.

Vixen never disappoints in her inability to understand things and the response to my post is yet another example. If the prosecution had solid evidence such as Amanda leaving blood in the bathroom, why is that the methods the prosecution had to resort to clearly indicated the prosecution had a weak case and a lack of evidence. If there was solid evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, why do PGP have to resort to lying to argue their case. Having to lie to argue your case indicates a weak case, a lack of evidence and the facts don't support your case.

In my post I had links to two posts which gave examples of falsehoods Vixen has used. Vixen tells a falsehood in her post there is a wire tap of Raffaele's father saying Bongiorno can influence the court. Vixen tells a malicious falsehood about Raffaele's father and then constantly attacks Raffaele for lying. This is hypocrisy on a grand scale. I would like to ask Vixen is there a hypocrite of the year award running somewhere and have PGP entered it. Does this explain the industrial scale hypocrisy we see from PGP on this forum. If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was such a slam dunk as Vixen constantly claims why is that a decade after Meredith's PGP have to resort to lying about what Raffaele's father said in a phone conversation.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen - it seems you are right. I just tried to get an e-mail address for the U of Windsor Law School so that you can complain......

But it seems their website has crashed!

I'm sorry I doubted you. The fraudulent, immoral Law School has probably had to fold - they've probably been forced to close by Canadian Border Services. No doubt duped law students banded together for a class action lawsuit because of threats made to them for grade-reduction for even mentioning Patrick Lumumba.

I apologize for doubting you.

Windsor Law School Canada: ranking 15 out of 16. That one?

 

[Vixen]

Vixen never disappoints in her inability to understand things and the response to my post is yet another example. If the prosecution had solid evidence such as Amanda leaving blood in the bathroom, why is that the methods the prosecution had to resort to clearly indicated the prosecution had a weak case and a lack of evidence. If there was solid evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, why do PGP have to resort to lying to argue their case. Having to lie to argue your case indicates a weak case, a lack of evidence and the facts don't support your case.

In my post I had links to two posts which gave examples of falsehoods Vixen has used. Vixen tells a falsehood in her post there is a wire tap of Raffaele's father saying Bongiorno can influence the court. Vixen tells a malicious falsehood about Raffaele's father and then constantly attacks Raffaele for lying. This is hypocrisy on a grand scale. I would like to ask Vixen is there a hypocrite of the year award running somewhere and have PGP entered it. Does this explain the industrial scale hypocrisy we see from PGP on this forum. If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was such a slam dunk as Vixen why is that a decade after Meredith's PGP have to resort to lying about what Raffaele's father said in a phone conversation.

If Tom Kington of the GUARDIAN is 'telling a malicious falsehood about Raffaele's father', why isn't Raff's father suing the GUARDIAN?

Perhaps, because 'truth' is a fair defence against libel.

 

[TruthCalls]

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.

OK, so lets think about this, as you suggest.

1. She was not convicted to ">3 years" so not a "serious crime" per your own comment above.

2. You have no idea if she contacted them and was immediately advised her crime did not rise to the level of requiring a TRP. I would imagine, given her being such a high profile individual, that it is entirely possible her review was expedited and she was cleared (or deemed in need of a TRP but immediately granted)

3. Her contacting them does not represent an admission of anything. It would mean she knows she has a conviction for simple calunia, which is under appeal to the ECHR, and she would like to know if that was grounds for refusal of entry or not.

4. Her calunia conviction and the sentence served is not the subject of her wrongful conviction - it was her conviction for murder, which was rightly overturned by the ISC, that is. So no one is misleading anyone.

5. The whole of your last paragraph is just typical Vixen nonsense. Not only was she wrongfully convicted of murder, but the courts misused her calunia conviction and the interrogation statements in the process. So the circumstances of the interrogation, the statements she signed and how they illegally made their way into her wrongful conviction of murder is extremely relevant. Absolutely, I would be perfectly fine with my child being photographed with, speaking with, and spending time with someone like Amanda. In the world of wrongful convictions Amanda's experience is as good as it gets.

 

[acbytesla]

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.

I have to give you credit......for nothing.

1. Let's start with Amanda's invitation. Do you think the University of Windsor wasn't ALREADY familiar with the details of the case? Their opinion is the case was a cautionary tale for budding prosecutors about the damage the law can inflict on others. There is nothing misleading as Knox was WRONGFULLY prosecuted and WRONGFULLY convicted on ALL charges.
2. Only you think you're making sense. The rest of the world thinks your posts mean it's time to take your meds.
3. My guess is Amanda didn't apply for a TRP because she is innocent and NOBODY cares including the Canadian government.

 

[Vixen]

OK, so lets think about this, as you suggest.

1. She was not convicted to ">3 years" so not a "serious crime" per your own comment above.

2. You have no idea if she contacted them and was immediately advised her crime did not rise to the level of requiring a TRP. I would imagine, given her being such a high profile individual, that it is entirely possible her review was expedited and she was cleared (or deemed in need of a TRP but immediately granted)

3. Her contacting them does not represent an admission of anything. It would mean she knows she has a conviction for simple calunia, which is under appeal to the ECHR, and she would like to know if that was grounds for refusal of entry or not.

4. Her calunia conviction and the sentence served is not the subject of her wrongful conviction - it was her conviction for murder, which was rightly overturned by the ISC, that is. So no one is misleading anyone.

5. The whole of your last paragraph is just typical Vixen nonsense. Not only was she wrongfully convicted of murder, but the courts misused her calunia conviction and the interrogation statements in the process. So the circumstances of the interrogation, the statements she signed and how they illegally made their way into her wrongful conviction of murder is extremely relevant. Absolutely, I would be perfectly fine with my child being photographed with, speaking with, and spending time with someone like Amanda. In the world of wrongful convictions Amanda's experience is as good as it gets.

Like Nigella Lawson...?

 

[acbytesla]

If Tom Kington of the GUARDIAN is 'telling a malicious falsehood about Raffaele's father', why isn't Raff's father suing the GUARDIAN?

Perhaps, because 'truth' is a fair defence against libel.

Perhaps because some things don't matter much.

 

[Vixen]

I have to give you credit......for nothing.

1. Let's start with Amanda's invitation. Do you think the University of Windsor wasn't ALREADY familiar with the details of the case? Their opinion is the case was a cautionary tale for budding prosecutors about the damage the law can inflict on others. There is nothing misleading as Knox was WRONGFULLY prosecuted and WRONGFULLY convicted on ALL charges.
2. Only you think you're making sense. The rest of the world thinks your posts mean it's time to take your meds.
3. My guess is Amanda didn't apply for a TRP because she is innocent and NOBODY cares including the Canadian government.

She is NOT innocent of Calunnia. This is an extremely serious crime for Patrick and his family - whose wife and little boy had to see him being arrested in the early hours for rape and murder - and put into custody on Amanda's malicious word.

Thank goodness for Patrick his Austrian friend was able to give him an alibi or - thanks to Amanda and Mom Edda - the poor guy would be a GENUINE victim of 'wrongful imprisonment'.

It is the height of cheek for Amanda to claim this epithet for herself.

 

[Vixen]

Perhaps because some things don't matter much.

It matters very much to Welshman, who as you can see is having a hissy fit about it and demanding I be branded a 'hypocrite' for simply quoting a respectable and highly regarded GUARDIAN journalist.

 

[TruthCalls]

By trying the case in the comfort of your armchair on a chat forum, you fail to realise that you miss what those in the court room saw. Body language. Demeanour. Witnesses in person. Physical exhibits. Highly detailed, intricate, complex presentations.

People who believe Dassey was forced into a false confession didn't see his 14 year old cousin in the court witness box live (as on the Netflix film) where she sobbed and was visibly lying when she said she retracted her statement to the police that she had noticed Dassey was extremely depressed in the weeks after Theresa Halbach's disappearance, and when she asked him why, he confided in her. Whilst her words were a flat out denial, her autonomous nervous system let her down. She was blushing, trembling, perspiring. It wasn't difficult, even on a subconscious level, for a juror to reject her claim, based on 'seeing is believing'. (Lie detectors work on the principle of stress causing the skin to perspire and we have no control over it, although there are some techniques that can fool the test, such as holding your breath).

When I first saw the news, I assumed it was typical tabloid sexist rubbish, designed to sell papers with salacious prurient content and ipso facto unfairly painting a suspect in a bad light simply by virtue of the stereotypying of women who kill being infinitely 'more wicked' than a man who does the same. We have seen it all before. And I like to make my own mind up.

I followed the court case and unfortunately, began to realise that if anything, the truth is probably even worse than the lurid picture painted in the papers. Even Marasca cannot avoid the whiff of iniquity in the kids' behaviour.

When you say everything in Massei and Nencini is a result of their failure to understand the evidence, you are way off the mark. They understand the evidence only too well! As for typos, this is inevitable. The judges do not actually write the reports, it is is dictated and typed up by legal secretaries. Being a verbal judgment, it is bound to contain lots of figures of speech, not all of which will be ironed out and getting people's name's wrong or seeming to contradict itself.

If they preferred the evidence of one witness over another, then there is a reason for it. They saw the witness visually and heard them aurally. Their senses do not lie. They may come to the wrong decision now and then, of course they do, we all do, but if you are say, a teacher, you know when one of your pupils is lying and when they are innocent, even if what they say is different.

The judgment of Massei and Nencini is sound. And fair. Even if we do not necessarily agree with all of their reasoning all of the time.

More misdirection by you, Vixen. Whether the Luminol traces were made from Meredith's blood has NOTHING to do with " Body language. Demeanour. Witnesses in person. Physical exhibits. Highly detailed, intricate, complex presentations." It is entirely based on science.

Here are five key questions to ask;

1. Did Massei & Nencini consider the Luminol traces as evidence of Amanda tracking Meredith's blood?

2. Were three of these samples taken from Amanda's bedroom?

3. Did all three traces test negative for blood using TMB?

4. Did all three traces test negative for Meredith's DNA?

5. Did all three traces test positive for Amanda's DNA?

The answer to ALL of the above is a resounding YES. (if you disagree then please advise which ones).

So then here is the one question that you and every other PGP for the past 9+ years have avoided answering.

How can those traces be Made from Meredith's blood given the answer to #'s 3, 4 and 5 above are all YES?

Can you answer that? Yeah, didn't think so.

And here's something I KNOW about you. You will once again avoid the question because you CAN NOT answer the question. You KNOW those traces could not have been made from Meredith's blood but to admit that means you know Massei and Nencini's conclusion was wrong - something you will NEVER admit to. What a quandary for you!

If I had to guess, you will come back with one of the following;

1. You will remind everyone that this is what Massei and Nencini ruled while entirely ignoring the impossibility of their conclusion based on the science.

2. You'll ask "if not blood, what". This is not an answer. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, especially when the science confirms it is not Meredith's blood.

 

[acbytesla]

She is NOT innocent of Calunnia. This is an extremely serious crime for Patrick and his family - whose wife and little boy had to see him being arrested in the early hours for rape and murder - and put into custody on Amanda's malicious word.

Thank goodness for Patrick his Austrian friend was able to give him an alibi or - thanks to Amanda and Mom Edda - the poor guy would be a GENUINE victim of 'wrongful imprisonment'.

It is the height of cheek for Amanda to claim this epithet for herself.

Nobody gives a crap Vixen.

I don't blame Amanda for Patrick being arrested I blame the same arrogant inept morons that put Amanda and Raffaele through hell.