The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 24

[Methos]

There are plenty of creeps on the PIP side. For example, the woman who sends the Kerchers pictures of vaseline jars and offers to supply highly sensitive and private autopsy pictures to people on twitter.
There is another chap who thinks it amusing to gloat over an incredibly nice lady who died of cancer, simply because she supported justice for Meredith Kercher, as well as publishing pictures of someone's young children in his mistaken belief over that particular person's identity.
I guess that is the type of person Amanda attracts as her supporters. The aforesaid woman can only have got these autopsy pictures from the Amanda and Raff's defence attorneys. How despicable to make them public.

How would you like it if it was someone in your family?

BUMP. Shouldn't BiWi, Stacyhs and acbytesla comment about this?

Or are they only 'outraged' selectively, when it suits their agenda.

Sources, please, especially for the second one since I know what the first one is about, care to have the courtesy to answer my post?

I will not be providing a link to a libellous cyberhate site.

I will not repeat libel.

So, no source? No back-up for your claim?

You can read about it here.

Please explain how that post on PMF (dated Dec 2015) you linked to - basically nothing more than speculation on a message board, based on an article written in May 2009 based on speculations, by someone known to be a cheerleader for the prosecution from the beginning - is in any way a back up or a source for the highlighted claims you made in the initial post?

 

[LondonJohn]

Well, there is all still a special blend of nonsense and vindictive bile on the part of what apparently constitutes the pro-guilt "argument" in this shire.........

The heavy irony underpinning everything, of course, is that "justice for Meredith Kercher" actually necessarily implies bringing her killer(s), and only her killer(s), to justice through the Italian criminal justice system.

And the only person against whom there exists more than sufficient credible, reliable evidence of guilt in the murder is Rudy Guede. What's more, all the known evidence (and lack of evidence) is wholly compatible with Guede, acting alone, wielding a knife whose outline matches the imprint on the sheet.

By contrast, there is zero credible, reliable evidence pointing to the participation of either Knox or Sollecito in the murder (or anything to do with it). In fact, there's precisely as much credible, reliable evidence of the participation of Knox or Sollecito than there is of the participation of, say, Vixen or me in Kercher's murder.

The pro-guilt commentators might care to bear that in mind. "Justice for Meredith Kercher" does not in any way imply the pursuit and vilification of two people who were subjected to a deeply, unlawfully flawed trial process, and who were ultimately justly acquitted and exonerated (and who, let nobody forget, were returned to precisely the same level of presumptive innocence as every single person in the world who cannot prove they didn't participate in the murder....). "Justice for Meredith Kercher" actually means understanding that it's a near-total certainty that Kercher was attacked and murdered by the only person against whom there is convincing evidence - Guede - and seeing that Guede is held properly accountable for his crime.

But, y'know, haters gonna hate hate hate hate hate hate.............................

 

[Bill Williams]

Well, this is what makes Vixen, Vixen.

For us, it's not acceptable to call conjecture, brought about by a theory which was the direct result of speculation which came about as the result of a civil case which was driven by statements inadmissible for a criminal trial and by a criminal trial which had no representation for those ultimately affected, anything other than what it is - conjecture. But for Vixen it's a "legal fact, an indisputable judicial fact set in stone"

For Vixen it is a "judicial fact", even when sandwiched between conditional/contingent language.

In their Sept 2015 motivations report, Marasca/Bruno say that the Sollecito appeal was correct in disagreeing with Nencini's finding, "that the establishment of Kercher’s exact time of death was irrelevant". Nencini called that a judicial fact, but M/B called it a "judicial error", and then wrote something to follow:

but the exact determination of Kercher’s time of death is an unavoidable factual prerequisite for the verification of the defendant’s alibi, in the form of an inquiry aimed at ascertaining the possibility of his alleged presence in the house on via della Pergola at the time of the murder. It is for this reason that an appropriate expert review was requested.​

But it is not just this. In preparing the reading for it's assemblage of the facts which Nencini thought of as such, M/B rightly prepared the reader for the contingent scenario in Section 9.3....

9.3 During the analysis of the aforementioned elements of evidence, it is certainly useful to remember that, taking for granted that the murder occurred in via della Pergola, the alleged presence at the house of the defendants cannot, in itself, be considered as proof of guilt. In the assessment of the problematic body of evidence, as described by the judge of the second appeal, one cannot but bear in mind the judicial concepts of merely not punishable connivance and of participation in a crime committed by others and of the distinction between them​

Then the offending facts are summarized. But in summing them up, Marasca-Bruno returned to their main thesis which patently was NOT sustaining Nencini's vies of judicial truth:

Any further and more meaningful value would be, in fact, resisted by the fact - which is decisive - that no trace leading to her was found at the scene of the crime or on the victim’s body, so that - if all the above is accepted - her contact with the victim’s blood would have occurred after the crime and in another part of the house.​

Even if "all the above is accepted" (the worse case scenario for guilt!):

her contact with the victim’s blood would have occurred after the crime and in another part of the house.​

I suppose now the word "if" will be found to be a typo. Or a figure of speech - because that's what Vixen does with plain-text renderings of things. Needless to say that Nencini regarded all this as judicial-fact, but Marasca-Bruno's "if"-language puts them into some other column with regards to it.

 

[Stacyhs]

Well, there is all still a special blend of nonsense and vindictive bile on the part of what apparently constitutes the pro-guilt "argument" in this shire.........The heavy irony underpinning everything, of course, is that "justice for Meredith Kercher" actually necessarily implies bringing her killer(s), and only her killer(s), to justice through the Italian criminal justice system.

And the only person against whom there exists more than sufficient credible, reliable evidence of guilt in the murder is Rudy Guede. What's more, all the known evidence (and lack of evidence) is wholly compatible with Guede, acting alone, wielding a knife whose outline matches the imprint on the sheet.

By contrast, there is zero credible, reliable evidence pointing to the participation of either Knox or Sollecito in the murder (or anything to do with it). In fact, there's precisely as much credible, reliable evidence of the participation of Knox or Sollecito than there is of the participation of, say, Vixen or me in Kercher's murder.

The pro-guilt commentators might care to bear that in mind. "Justice for Meredith Kercher" does not in any way imply the pursuit and vilification of two people who were subjected to a deeply, unlawfully flawed trial process, and who were ultimately justly acquitted and exonerated (and who, let nobody forget, were returned to precisely the same level of presumptive innocence as every single person in the world who cannot prove they didn't participate in the murder....). "Justice for Meredith Kercher" actually means understanding that it's a near-total certainty that Kercher was attacked and murdered by the only person against whom there is convincing evidence - Guede - and seeing that Guede is held properly accountable for his crime.

But, y'know, haters gonna hate hate hate hate hate hate.............................

They're just being "tongue in cheek", doncha know?

 

[Numbers]

Here are some numbers from the ECHR:

There were 87,850 applications pending before an ECHR judicial formation as of 28 February 2017.

Of the above total, 5850 applications against Italy were pending.

Of the 5850 pending applications against Italy, about 1290 were pending before a 7-judge chamber, the entry-level judging formation for significant cases, as of 01 January 2017.

Of the approximately 1290 applications pending before a chamber, 11 cases (applications) have been specifically identified as "noteworthy pending cases" with the name of the applicant, the application number, and a brief summary. These noteworthy pending cases have all been communicated to Italy and thus have passed preliminary review for admissibility by the ECHR. On such case is Amanda Marie Knox v. Italy 76577/13.

There is no certain date given for the judgment of Knox v. Italy, but its identification as a "noteworthy pending case" shows that the ECHR believes it is important from the viewpoint of human rights and anticipates producing a judgment in due course.

Here again is the summary of the complaint in Knox v. Italy from the ECHR Profile for Italy, updated March 2017.

"Case communicated to the parties in April 2016
This case concerns criminal proceedings in which Ms Knox was found guilty of making a false accusation. The offending statements were taken while she was being questioned in the context of criminal proceedings for the murder and sexual assault of her flatmate. The applicant was accused of implicating another person whom she knew to be innocent.
Ms Knox alleges that the criminal proceedings in which she was convicted were unfair, relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a) (right to a fair trial – right to be informed promptly of the charge), (c) (right to legal assistance), (e) (right to assistance from an interpreter), Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention."

Sources:

http://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=reports&c=
Link to PDF Pending cases 2017

http://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=press/factsheets&c=#n1347951547702_pointer
Link to Country Profile - Italy (PDF)

 

[Welshman]

Here are some numbers from the ECHR:

There were 87,850 applications pending before an ECHR judicial formation as of 28 February 2017.

Of the above total, 5850 applications against Italy were pending.

Of the 5850 pending applications against Italy, about 1290 were pending before a 7-judge chamber, the entry-level judging formation for significant cases, as of 01 January 2017.

Of the approximately 1290 applications pending before a chamber, 11 cases (applications) have been specifically identified as "noteworthy pending cases" with the name of the applicant, the application number, and a brief summary. These noteworthy pending cases have all been communicated to Italy and thus have passed preliminary review for admissibility by the ECHR. On such case is Amanda Marie Knox v. Italy 76577/13.

There is no certain date given for the judgment of Knox v. Italy, but its identification as a "noteworthy pending case" shows that the ECHR believes it is important from the viewpoint of human rights and anticipates producing a judgment in due course.

Here again is the summary of the complaint in Knox v. Italy from the ECHR Profile for Italy, updated March 2017.

"Case communicated to the parties in April 2016
This case concerns criminal proceedings in which Ms Knox was found guilty of making a false accusation. The offending statements were taken while she was being questioned in the context of criminal proceedings for the murder and sexual assault of her flatmate. The applicant was accused of implicating another person whom she knew to be innocent.
Ms Knox alleges that the criminal proceedings in which she was convicted were unfair, relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a) (right to a fair trial – right to be informed promptly of the charge), (c) (right to legal assistance), (e) (right to assistance from an interpreter), Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention."

Sources:

http://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=reports&c=
Link to PDF Pending cases 2017

http://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=press/factsheets&c=#n1347951547702_pointer
Link to Country Profile - Italy (PDF)

There was a poster here called RandyN who was very scathing towards the Italian justice system which he regarded as corrupt and dysfuctional. To support this view he pointed that Italy is at the top of the list of European countries with ECHR judgements against it.

 

[Vixen]

We have already discussed months ago the "autopsy pic" story that you brought up . I even posted the picture that you originally falsely claimed was a "naked" photo of Meredith but which was, in fact, highly edited to show nothing graphic. The picture that you claim came from "private autopsy photos" came from Frank Sfarzo's Perugia Shock blog and was available to the public. But you just keep on repeating otherwise. I'm sure you'll convince someone it's the truth eventually. Just not us.

As for the rest of your post, nothing that you mention even comes close to the threatening posts to "harm" Amanda that Rhodes has made.
I guess Rhodes is the type of person that TJMK, PMF, and TMofMK attracts.

I'd think anyone would be "outraged" by threats to harm someone, regardless of which side of this case they are on. Are you?

You are quite wrong. Duncan offered a selection of nude autopsy photos from a sock account, having previously been BANNED from twitter.

The pictures did not come from Frank Sfarzo, they came from a defense released (namely Papa Raff) bundle and sold/given to a Bari TV station.


How you can defend such an individual is mindboggling.

Even Bruce Fischer dropped this character from the Injustice In Pergugia (IIP) list of press contacts.


Graham Rhodes is a private individual. I am not sure why you think I have any control over him.

 

[Vixen]

Please explain how that post on PMF (dated Dec 2015) you linked to - basically nothing more than speculation on a message board, based on an article written in May 2009 based on speculations, by someone known to be a cheerleader for the prosecution from the beginning - is in any way a back up or a source for the highlighted claims you made in the initial post?

The war Amanda Knox in particular has declared on the Kercher family is unprecedented, or rather, her female entourage seems to be vicariously enjoying her crimes by revelling in the appalling harm done to the victim.


The tweet that got Duncan BANNED from twitter is as attached.

Then there is some slob who proposed marriage and sent Amanda poetry openly attacking the Kerchers and suggesting it as a policy.


As for the cyberhate crime chap, he is either mentally unbalanced or has criminal tendencies, or both. Yet he is a leading light in Bruce Fischer's campaign against injustice. Why does Bruce allow himself to associate with such loose cannons?*

Methos, what do you have to say about this?

Annella drove Lyle Kercher the brother of the murder victim to delete his twitter account.

I am guessing all of the PIP will remain eerily quiet about this abominable behaviour.

ETA Bruce Fischer himself attacks one of Amanda's victims, Patrick, accusing him of all sorts of heinous acts. Hello? This was a man dragged out of bed in the early hours, in front of his young family, and thrown into jail branded as the murderer and rapist of the victim - all because of Amanda Knox' criminal calumny in naming him persistently as the perp and she and her Mom, Edda, even openly willing to let him rot in jail whilst KNOWING he was entirely innocent.

 

[Bill Williams]

You are quite wrong. Duncan offered a selection of nude autopsy photos from a sock account, having previously been BANNED from twitter.

The pictures did not come from Frank Sfarzo, they came from a defense released (namely Papa Raff) bundle and sold/given to a Bari TV station.


How you can defend such an individual is mindboggling.
Even Bruce Fischer dropped this character from the Injustice In Pergugia (IIP) list of press contacts.

Graham Rhodes is a private individual. I am not sure why you think I have any control over him.

I'll take you distancing yourself from Rhodes as disapproval of his threats.

Yet there's still work...... see if you can spot the hypocrisy in your post.....

 

[TruthCalls]

For Vixen it is a "judicial fact", even when sandwiched between conditional/contingent language.

In their Sept 2015 motivations report, Marasca/Bruno say that the Sollecito appeal was correct in disagreeing with Nencini's finding, "that the establishment of Kercher’s exact time of death was irrelevant". Nencini called that a judicial fact, but M/B called it a "judicial error", and then wrote something to follow:

​

But it is not just this. In preparing the reading for it's assemblage of the facts which Nencini thought of as such, M/B rightly prepared the reader for the contingent scenario in Section 9.3....

​

Then the offending facts are summarized. But in summing them up, Marasca-Bruno returned to their main thesis which patently was NOT sustaining Nencini's vies of judicial truth:

​

Even if "all the above is accepted" (the worse case scenario for guilt!):

her contact with the victim’s blood would have occurred after the crime and in another part of the house.​

I suppose now the word "if" will be found to be a typo. Or a figure of speech - because that's what Vixen does with plain-text renderings of things. Needless to say that Nencini regarded all this as judicial-fact, but Marasca-Bruno's "if"-language puts them into some other column with regards to it.

It's amusing that Vixen claims it's a definitive fact that Amanda was at the cottage at the time of the murder. Neither Massei nor Nencini could come even close to narrowing down the TOD. I believe Massei left open a window of approximately eight hours, Nencini about six. So, given there was nothing that allowed the courts to place Amanda in a particular location (apartment, cottage, etc.) at a particular time and the courts can't get to anything more narrow than a six hour window for TOD, how would it be even possible for someone to declare definitively that Amanda was at the cottage when Meredith was killed? It is simply not possible. It's just more evidence of Vixen's callous disregard for validating conclusions (real or imagined) by applying logical analysis to verifiable evidence.

 

[Vixen]

It's amusing that Vixen claims it's a definitive fact that Amanda was at the cottage at the time of the murder. Neither Massei nor Nencini could come even close to narrowing down the TOD. I believe Massei left open a window of approximately eight hours, Nencini about six. So, given there was nothing that allowed the courts to place Amanda in a particular location (apartment, cottage, etc.) at a particular time and the courts can't get to anything more narrow than a six hour window for TOD, how would it be even possible for someone to declare definitively that Amanda was at the cottage when Meredith was killed? It is simply not possible. It's just more evidence of Vixen's callous disregard for validating conclusions (real or imagined) by applying logical analysis to verifiable evidence.

Er, you have read Amanda's own confessions? You do know blood dries within apx 30", so to be able to wash it off, you need to have been in contact.

Amanda described the scream, which was corroborated by Rudy and three independent witnesses (neighbours). Raff was totally unable to account for hers or his movements during that time. Both had turned off their phones in advance. The first call Amanda made when she turned on her phone was to Mez' disposed of phone.

Everything points to Amanda and Raff knowing in advance Mez' body lay behind the locked door. And how would they know....ah!

 

[Bill Williams]

It's amusing that Vixen claims it's a definitive fact that Amanda was at the cottage at the time of the murder. Neither Massei nor Nencini could come even close to narrowing down the TOD. I believe Massei left open a window of approximately eight hours, Nencini about six. So, given there was nothing that allowed the courts to place Amanda in a particular location (apartment, cottage, etc.) at a particular time and the courts can't get to anything more narrow than a six hour window for TOD, how would it be even possible for someone to declare definitively that Amanda was at the cottage when Meredith was killed? It is simply not possible. It's just more evidence of Vixen's callous disregard for validating conclusions (real or imagined) by applying logical analysis to verifiable evidence.

Exactly Marasca-Bruno's point. They said the largest judicial **error** Nencini committed was implying that nailing down TOD was not important. It made for a sliding-TOD depending on what other pseudo-evidence one was trying to slide into a timeline.

 

[abaddon]

You do know blood dries within apx 30", so to be able to wash it off, you need to have been in contact.

What on earth does that even mean?

 

[Numbers]

There was a poster here called RandyN who was very scathing towards the Italian justice system which he regarded as corrupt and dysfuctional. To support this view he pointed that Italy is at the top of the list of European countries with ECHR judgements against it.

I too have followed the relative position of Italy with respect to the number of cases or applications pending before the ECHR. Italy had been in fourth highest about two years ago; it is most recently (28 Feb 2017) sixth highest. The change is due to some decrease in the number of cases against Italy, but also a striking increase in cases against Hungary and Romania, which are now in 3rd and 4th place, respectively. Ukraine is in 1st place, with 18,850 cases; this may be due in part to the civil war there.

 

[Bill Williams]

Everything points to Amanda and Raff knowing in advance Mez' Meredith's body lay behind the locked door. And how would they know....ah!

This logic also implicates Filomena. She was the one who figured out that Meredith being without her phones meant something was wrong.

 

[Bill Williams]

Er, you have read Amanda's own confessions? You do know blood dries within apx 30", so to be able to wash it off, you need to have been in contact.

Amanda described the scream, which was corroborated by Rudy and three independent witnesses (neighbours). Raff was totally unable to account for hers or his movements during that time. Both had turned off their phones in advance. The first call Amanda made when she turned on her phone was to Mez' disposed of phone.

Everything points to Amanda and Raff knowing in advance Mez' body lay behind the locked door. And how would they know....ah!

This post has nothing true in it. I'll post links to prove that, when Vixen posts links to demonstrate that what she alleges is true!

There it sits. Welcome to the "International Skeptics Forum gossip column"!

 

[Numbers]

What on earth does that even mean?

An excellent question!

First, what does the symbol ["] mean in Vixen's post? And where is the information on the environmental factors, such as humidity and temperature, that influence the drying of blood or any aqueous suspension? And where's the citations?

Vixen has provided a meaningless post without context.

 

[acbytesla]

Er, you have read Amanda's own confessions? You do know blood dries within apx 30", so to be able to wash it off, you need to have been in contact.

Amanda described the scream, which was corroborated by Rudy and three independent witnesses (neighbours). Raff was totally unable to account for hers or his movements during that time. Both had turned off their phones in advance. The first call Amanda made when she turned on her phone was to Mez' disposed of phone.

Everything points to Amanda and Raff knowing in advance Mez' body lay behind the locked door. And how would they know....ah!

[SNIP]

Blood dries within 30"? Huh? 30 inches? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!

Amanda didn't describe a scream and only one neighbor said she heard a scream. One that would have been physically impossible to hear. Who were the two others Vixen?

Absolutely nuthin points to Amanda or Raffaele knowing that Meredith's (not Mez's) body lay behind the locked door.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed to comply with Rule 12 & Rule 0

 

[Stacyhs]

Vixen;11786645]You are quite wrong. Duncan offered a selection of nude autopsy photos from a sock account, having previously been BANNED from twitter.

What evidence of this do you have? If this is true, you can bet TJMK would have a copy of this tweet and display it prominently. Provide it.

The pictures did not come from Frank Sfarzo, they came from a defense released (namely Papa Raff) bundle and sold/given to a Bari TV station.

Again, what evidence of this do you have? You have provided none.

How you can defend such an individual is mindboggling.

I am not defending anyone. I am countering your accusations which are unsupported by evidence.
Accusations are easy to make but much harder to support with evidence. Frankly, you make false accusations all the time as we have seen on ISF.

Even Bruce Fischer dropped this character from the Injustice In Pergugia (IIP) list of press contacts.

That has nothing to do with this particular alleged incident.

Graham Rhodes is a private individual. I am not sure why you think I have any control over him.

I am not sure why you inferred that. I don't think you have any control over him. I doubt Rhodes has much control over himself.

As for the "For the Press" attachment, exactly where does this come from? TJMK? If so, it has zero credibility for accuracy.

 

[acbytesla]

I am not sure why you inferred that. I don't think you have any control over him. I doubt Rhodes has much control over himself.

There are definitely a few of the PGP that worries me but I think Rhodes is close to the top if not the top of that list. BR Mull also use to concern me but I think he gave up on this and moved on a few years ago.