The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 24

[acbytesla]

And yet, the link you provided said "The shutters to the window for the purported point of entry were closed..."

Battistelli's testimony:
" Asked about the shutters Battistelli described them as ajar with the right one slightly more open." (TMofMK)

So, how exactly is it that Amanda " must have seen the broken window on the approach to the cottage"? X-ray vision?

Let me ask this: if Amanda could "see the broken window on approach to the cottage", what does this indicate? If she were responsible for the broken window, she'd have known of it before approaching the cottage.

I await the demolition of your "boulder" physics nonsense by those more learned than I (or you) here. Unlike you, I know when I don't know something.

It's a joke to suggest that Amanda had to notice that the window was broken. People often miss the most obvious things particularly when they are not at eye level. Just today, I spent 5 minutes looking for my computer tablet only to find it on the coffee table right in front of the sofa I was sitting at before I started looking for it.

This is just another one of the many absolutely meaningless points that Vixen tries to suggest it means that Amanda was involved. Like turning off their phones just had to mean that Amanda were hiding murderous intent. Vixen's entire approach is backwards thinking. She starts with the premise that Knox and Sollecito were involved and then interprets everything as nefarious when in fact there are mundane reasonable explanations for everything.

 

[Stacyhs]

A few pages ago, Vixen posted this:

(but Mez' blood and Amanda's DNA were mixed together (reps 176 and 177).

Ummm... no. Both these samples tested negative for blood. But why let the facts get in the way of what you need to believe, right?

 

[Stacyhs]

It's a joke to suggest that Amanda had to notice that the window was broken. People often miss the most obvious things particularly when they are not at eye level. Just today, I spent 5 minutes looking for my computer tablet only to find it on the coffee table right in front of the sofa I was sitting at before I started looking for it.

This is just another one of the many absolutely meaningless points that Vixen tries to suggest it means that Amanda was involved. Like turning off their phones just had to mean that Amanda were hiding murderous intent. Vixen's entire approach is backwards thinking. She starts with the premise that Knox and Sollecito were involved and then interprets everything as nefarious when in fact there are mundane reasonable explanations for everything.

Exactly! Confirmation bias at its worst.

 

[acbytesla]

Exactly! Confirmation bias at its worst.

The turning off the phones is an example of not only confirmation bias but down right ridiculous confirmation bias. But it demonstrates very clearly the problems for the PGP to account for the evidence. If you really believe that absurd cooking knife was the murder weapon you have to explain it being transported to the cottage and back which means it was a premeditated murder planned by Knox and Sollecito. An idea that none of the courts believed.

 

[Stacyhs]

The turning off the phones is an example of not only confirmation bias but down right ridiculous confirmation bias. But it demonstrates very clearly the problems for the PGP to account for the evidence. If you really believe that absurd cooking knife was the murder weapon you have to explain it being transported to the cottage and back which means it was a premeditated murder planned by Knox and Sollecito. An idea that none of the courts believed.

Oh, but don't you know that Raffaele made her carry that absurdly large open bladed knife for "protection" in her (entirely cut/slash free) cloth school bag rather than a protected switchblade type knife ? And, of course, a murderer always puts the murder weapon back in his own kitchen drawer! Murder 101.

 

[acbytesla]

Oh, but don't you know that Raffaele made her carry that absurdly large open bladed knife for "protection" in her (entirely cut/slash free) cloth school bag rather than a protected switchblade type knife ? And, of course, a murderer always puts the murder weapon back in his own kitchen drawer! Murder 101.

I do know that's their moronic story. But if you drop this stupid story, there isn't any physical evidence that links Amanda to the crime.

That's the PGP dilemma. Either there is no evidence or you have to make up bizarre stories trying to make sense of it.

 

[Welshman]

If I say I have a degree in psychology then I do. I am straight.

They were all taking selfies. If you think that is appropriate behaviour in a sombre murder trial there is something amiss. To imagine it is a reference to sex is astounding.

AIUI the judge reprimanded the skimpiness of their clothing, so not my value judgement. They ought to know this without being told.

I have asked this question before, can Vixen provide evidence that members of Amanda's family wore skimpy clothing or took selfies in the court or is this another falsehood. Has this been mentioned on TJMK. TJMK has relentlessly villified Amanda and her family. If members of Amanda's family had done what Vixen described in court, you can guarantee TJMK would have used it.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen's very good at saying things with absolutely no proof. Although sometimes she does offer quotes from other nutters to back up her wild claims.

It's common knowledge the family took frivolous selfies of each other in court, the judge did indeed eject the skimpily dressed family member and Curt did blow his top and yell at press.

Compare and contrast to the hugely dignified and courageous Kerchers, who never once lost their cool, and treated the courts with respect and decorum.

 

[Vixen]

I have asked this question before, can Vixen provide evidence that members of Amanda's family wore skimpy clothing or took selfies in the court or is this another falsehood. Has this been mentioned on TJMK. TJMK has relentlessly villified Amanda and her family. If members of Amanda's family had done what Vixen described in court, you can guarantee TJMK would have used it.

Do a google. I am sure you will find it.

 

[acbytesla]

It's common knowledge the family took frivolous selfies of each other in court, the judge did indeed eject the skimpily dressed family member and Curt did blow his top and yell at press.

Compare and contrast to the hugely dignified and courageous Kerchers, who never once lost their cool, and treated the courts with respect and decorum.

Common knowledge? I never heard this before.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited breach of rule 0

 

[acbytesla]

Do a google. I am sure you will find it.

You're the one saying it. Be responsible for the crap you spout.

 

[LondonJohn]

"The sustained campaign of hate (aimed at the Kercher family) by Amanda and her fans"


What a load of crap and nonsense. To accuse Knox of conducting a "sustained campaign of hate" against the Kerchers is as offensive as it is utterly incorrect. It's a risible and pathetic claim. And while it's true that there have been an extremely small number of views posted online by an extremely small proportion of pro-acquittal commentators which have been unpleasant towards the Kercher family, it's a total drop in the ocean when taken as a proportion of pro-acquittal commentary and commentators as a whole.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited breach of rule 0

 

[Bill Williams]

"The sustained campaign of hate (aimed at the Kercher family) by Amanda and her fans"


What a load of crap and nonsense. To accuse Knox of conducting a "sustained campaign of hate" against the Kerchers is as offensive as it is utterly incorrect. It's a risible and pathetic claim. And while it's true that there have been an extremely small number of views posted online by an extremely small proportion of pro-acquittal commentators which have been unpleasant towards the Kercher family, it's a total drop in the ocean when taken as a proportion of pro-acquittal commentary and commentators as a whole.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited breach of rule 0

Before Ergon hijacked one of the pro-guilt websites, the, then, administrator (Michael) made a mysterious post - something to the effect that there was going to be a sea-change in the way people viewed this case. We all waited, because at the time he did not tell us what it was.

It turned out that someone had opened another website, this one a genuine memorial to Meredith - but which also give readers the opportunity to donate because (IIRC) the UK government gave no funding to the Kerchers for their own many expenses - including travel to Italy, things like that.

This was the perfect opportunity for the guilt-sites to go all out in, "all for Meredith." To my knowledge, none of those sites contributed anything, except for further vilification of Knox, and to a lesser extent Sollecito - as if vilifying the accused somehow propped up the Kercher's dignity.

One of the Kercher brothers said it best (paraphrase), "obviously we do not want the wrong people convicted," or even after the convictions, "this is not a time for celebration," things like that. The Kerchers started a scholarship fund in Meredith's memory for a student in Perugia, and did not use those occasions to slag on people - they truly did uplift the memory of the one they hold near and dear.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited breach of rule 0

 

[Numbers]

"The proposals that will be put to a vote on 10 April {by the US National Commission on Forensic Science, an expert panel convened by the Department of Justice and NIST} lay out how forensic analysts should testify about evidence such as shoeprints, bullet ballistics, blood spatter and glass shards. Analysts must explain how they examined evidence and what statistical analyses they chose. They must also describe inherent uncertainties in their measurements. Most importantly, experts must never claim with certainty that anything found at a crime scene is linked to a suspect, and they must always try to quantify the probability that observed similarities occurred by chance."

Did Stefanoni and the other prosecution forensic experts explain her results taking into account the uncertainties pointed out by the above excerpt?

Source of excerpt: http://www.nature.com/news/label-th...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

[Vixen]

A few pages ago, Vixen posted this:



Ummm... no. Both these samples tested negative for blood. But why let the facts get in the way of what you need to believe, right?

Once again, you are factually incorrect.

I can confirm that reps 176-184 (luminol revealed blood stains in the hall and Romanelli's bedroom) were NOT tested with TMB or human specific antigen. So it's not true they were "TMB negative".

 

[Agatha]

Despite a recent modbox, and despite all of you knowing perfectly well not to personalise your arguments, the last couple of pages are little more than an exercise in rule 0 and rule 12 breaches.

If you want to argue with no holds barred, I don't doubt that another forum will accommodate that. If you want to debate here, you must adhere to the MA to which you agreed. I will be doing a bit of a clean-out, and you may expect cards and/or suspensions for the more egregious breaches.

May I suggest that you all, no matter how strongly you feel attached to your POV, strive much harder to be more dispassionate and less personal in your arguments. The MA does not concern itself with who is right or wrong; only with the way you express yourselves. Please remember that.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[Stacyhs]

Once again, you are factually incorrect.

I can confirm that reps 176-184 (luminol revealed blood stains in the hall and Romanelli's bedroom) were NOT tested with TMB or human specific antigen. So it's not true they were "TMB negative".

Once again, you are factually incorrect. Hellmann reported otherwise in his MR pages 100-196:

"The prints are of bare feet, detected in Romanelli’s room (176 and 177), in Knox’s room (178, 179, 180), in the corridor (184, rectius*[Latin: “more correctly”] 183).
According to the indications in the SAL [Stato Avanzamento Lavori,*“State of Work Progress”] files of the genetic lab of the Scientific Police, the generic test for blood was performed on these footprints, which gave a negative response.

 

[Numbers]

Looking to future events resulting from the trials of Knox and Sollecito, one remaining issue is Knox's claim that Italy violated her rights under the European Convention of Human Rights, which is now, according to the ECHR in its Country Profile for Italy, a “noteworthy pending case” called Knox v. Italy 76577/13 (communicated 29/04/2016).

The claims in Knox v. Italy are related to ECHR case law that are, in part, recently summarized in Ibrahim and others v. the United Kingdom [GC] 50541/08 ….

Here is an excerpt from Ibrahim and others v. the UK [GC] illustrating some of that ECHR case law (inline citations omitted for clarity):

267. It is important to recognise that the privilege against self‑incrimination does not protect against the making of an incriminating statement per se but, as noted above, against the obtaining of evidence by coercion or oppression. It is the existence of compulsion that gives rise to concerns as to whether the privilege against self-incrimination has been respected. For this reason, the Court must first consider the nature and degree of compulsion used to obtain the evidence. The Court, through its case-law, has identified at least three kinds of situations which give rise to concerns as to improper compulsion in breach of Article 6. The first is where a suspect is obliged to testify under threat of sanctions and either testifies in consequence* or is sanctioned for refusing to testify. The second is where physical or psychological pressure, often** in the form of treatment which breaches Article 3 of the Convention, is applied to obtain real evidence or statements. The third is where the authorities use subterfuge to elicit information that they were unable to obtain during questioning.
____
* This includes cases where the suspect is interviewed supposedly as a witness - meaning the warnings of the right to remain silent etc. are not given - but the police and prosecution use a statement obtained as evidence against the person to convict him.

The relevance for Knox v. Italy is that Knox was interrogated under the pretense that she was a witness, and not given the necessary warnings according to Italian law (CPP Article 63); this violation was acknowledged by the Gemelli CSC panel and the Boninsegna court.

** Note that ECHR uses the word "often", meaning that there are cases where the physical or psychological pressure does not breach Article 3, but the treatment by the police still amounts to a compulsion which renders use of the evidence or statement to obtain a conviction a violation of Article 6.

The relevance is that whether or not the ECHR finds that the police treatment of Knox during the interrogation was a breach of Article 3, the ECHR, relying on the Hellmann and Boninsega courts' motivation reports, would have grounds to conclude that Knox had been pressured during the interrogation to make her statements against Lumumba.

 

[Stacyhs]

Do a google. I am sure you will find it.

The onus is not on us to find evidence supporting your claim. The onus is on you, the person making the claim.

 

[Ergon]

Rebuttal

Before Ergon hijacked one of the pro-guilt websites, the, then, administrator (Michael) made a mysterious post - something to the effect that there was going to be a sea-change in the way people viewed this case. We all waited, because at the time he did not tell us what it was.

It turned out that someone had opened another website, this one a genuine memorial to Meredith - but which also give readers the opportunity to donate because (IIRC) the UK government gave no funding to the Kerchers for their own many expenses - including travel to Italy, things like that.

This was the perfect opportunity for the guilt-sites to go all out in, "all for Meredith." To my knowledge, none of those sites contributed anything, except for further vilification of Knox, and to a lesser extent Sollecito - as if vilifying the accused somehow propped up the Kercher's dignity.

One of the Kercher brothers said it best (paraphrase), "obviously we do not want the wrong people convicted," or even after the convictions, "this is not a time for celebration," things like that. The Kerchers started a scholarship fund in Meredith's memory for a student in Perugia, and did not use those occasions to slag on people - they truly did uplift the memory of the one they hold near and dear.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited breach of rule 0

Hello, Bill,
Please substantiate your claim "Ergon hijacked one of the pro-guilt websites". It seems to be a meme carried over from a pro-Knox website, so I ask, do you have any proof? For the record, Michael's still the owner of the website, and he, Nell, and I are all listed on the member's list as administrators.

As to the project for Meredith, you really don't know what we contributed or how, or do you have any information otherwise?