The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 24

[Ergon]

Rebuttal

Could Ergon answer a question which Vixen has refused to answer. I have found that PGP often display gross hypocrisy. Amanda has been constantly and viciously attacked for lying by PGP. A PGP poster on this forum claims that Amanda told umpteen lies, a reviewer on Amazon called Amanda a pathological liar and PGP have portrayed Amanda as someone who lied on an industrial scale.

As can be seen from my post below, John Kercher wrote a book riddled with falsehoods and I provided three links to back my claim. The book received glowing five start reviews on Amazon and PGP have described the behaviour of John Kercher as dignified. This showed gross hypocrisy on the part of the PGP for the following reasons :-

• PGP attacked Amanda for lying but slavishly defended someone who wrote a book full of lies.

• Amanda was branded a liar when John Kercher wrote lies about Amanda.

• PGP attacked Amanda for lying but felt it was perfectly acceptable for John Kercher to spread lies about Amanda.

• PGP attack Amanda for being disrespectful to the Kerchers but felt it was perfectly acceptable to write a book filled with lies accusing Amanda of murder.

Can Ergon explain this hypocrisy.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11788659#post11788659

Thanks, but I'm not here to speak on behalf of anyone else but myself. And please try not to mix a question with a statement.

 

[Bill Williams]

I get that you'll just repeat your belief that Marasca ruled these things and that this somehow makes them indisputable facts, but it would be extremely refreshing to have you actually try to address these two questions with facts and logic.

If Vixen wants to repeat what she thinks Marasca/Bruno said in their Sept 2015 motivations report, then it bears repeating what THEY ACTUALLY SAID....

Nevertheless, even if attribution is certain, the trial element would not be
unequivocal as a demonstration of posthumous contact with that blood, as a likely
attempt to remove the most blatant traces of what had happened, perhaps to help
someone or deflect suspicion from herself, without this entailing her certain direct
involvement in the murder. 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 the attribution is certain..." "if all the above is accepted."

Even if what the lower court said was true, Marasca-Bruno say is is STILL IRRELEVANT TO THE MURDER BECAUSE:

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

We can quibble with whether or not M/B's recounting of the logic of what Nencini had had before him is true or not, but we cannot quibble with what they'd said.

Vixen thinks M/B ruled that they were indisputable facts. Do you ever notice that Vixen has never once provided a cite?

I know the reason why.

Because the cite is as per above.

Which part of "would have occurred after the crime" does Vixen not understand?

 

[Stacyhs]

Sigh....yet more "facts" being pulled directly out of a lower body orifice. Studies actually show the opposite is true:

"Researchers at the University of Iowa have found that when it comes to memory, we don't remember things we hear nearly as well as things we see or touch." (Science Daily February 26, 2014)

"Auditory recognition memory is inferior to visual recognition memory"
(Michael A. Cohena, Todd S. Horowitza,b and Jeremy M. Wolfe, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A.)



Really? Nara Capezalli also "remembered" being told about the murder on the morning of Nov 2 by some boys and seeing posters with the names of Knox, Sollecito, Guede, and Lumumba on Nov 3...neither of which were possible considering the murder hadn't been discovered on the morning of Nov 2 and no posters with either Guede or Lumumba's names existed on Nov 3.

People "remember" things that never happened. Things that they'd swear to in a court of law. That is a proven fact. They are called "false memories" for a reason. Why can't people "imagine" things that never happened?



LOL! An expert? REALLY? Police think they are experts at discerning lies due to experience when studies show they are no better at it than non-police. And yes, I can provide evidence of that if you insist because I've researched it before. Has it occurred to you that Amanda covered her ears because the police were yelling at her and she wanted it to stop? Nah...of course not. If it doesn't support guilt, it can't be true, right?




She may have heard A scream. After all, she did say hearing screams in that area was not unusual.

Is this your normal language?

Once again, rather than address my points, you resort to a snide comment. Why is that?

 

[Stacyhs]

The fear of what the dreaded "FOA" might "infer", prevents you from doing what one might assume you believe is the right thing. You really do believe the FOA to be this all knowing, all seeing, all powerful organization that can bend national judiciaries to its will.

Worse, you put that fear of inference above your regard for the Kerchers. Nice.



You're picking a fight with the wrong target. You are conflating the Kerchers, particularly Mr Kercher, with the "PGP", the latter of whom are represented very narrowly because of their campaign on the internet.

Mr Kercher wrote a book, a loving tribute to his daughter. The last part of his was, true, a misleading account of the case - but it is as he received it through his lawyer, Maresca. Maresca himself has just penned memoirs (which no one seems to have read!) Washed through Google translate, Maresca in 2016 still believes the twaddle the first prosecution way-back-when tried to selll.... but more to the point....

Why wouldn't Mr. Kercher believe his own lawyer? Esp. when the first court seemed to agree with the prosecution by convicting, and the third court also seemed to agree by overturning the subsequent acquittal?

It is unfair and completely unnecessary to hang this on Mr Kercher. But it is that last part which is the most true for these purposes, it is totally unnecessary to go after Mr Kercher to demonstrate that there still remains no credible evidence at all that tie either RS or AK to the crime involving his daughter.

Is it just me? Perhaps the only person I truly understand in all this is Mr. Kercher, and God forbid he and I changed places, I'm not sure what I'd be like.

But it is completely off base to accuse the man of losing some perspective. Just as it is a mystery why PGP think the things they say is a true credit to the Kerchers' silence, it is also a mystery why PIP need to accuse someone like Mr Kercher of lying. Leave the poor man (family) alone.

I agree. I do not fault the Kerchers. I understand their position. I just wish the PGP would give the same degree of understanding to the Knox/Mellas families and the Sollecitos. They were doing nothing but supporting their loved ones, whom they believe innocent, during the worst ordeal of their lives. Instead, they extend their hatred of Amanda and Raffaele to their families. It's unfair and unwarranted.

 

[Bill Williams]

I agree. I do not fault the Kerchers. I understand their position. I just wish the PIP PGP would give the same degree of understanding to the Knox/Mellas families and the Sollecitos. They were doing nothing but supporting their loved ones, whom they believe innocent, during the worst ordeal of their lives. Instead, they extend their hatred of Amanda and Raffaele to their families. It's unfair and unwarranted.

Ooooops! Now THAT'S a typo!

On the PGP side there has been too much talk, as in, "the family knows they're guilty, and...." etc.

 

[Stacyhs]

Ooooops! Now THAT'S a typo!

On the PGP side there has been too much talk, as in, "the family knows they're guilty, and...." etc.

Thanks, Bill. Yes, indeed a typo. I have corrected it.

 

[Welshman]

Thanks, but I'm not here to speak on behalf of anyone else but myself. And please try not to mix a question with a statement.

It is a pity that PGP are unwilling to answer my question. I was hoping to get an explanation for the gross hypocrisy of the PGP who attack Amanda for lying whilst supporting people who have lied and feel it is acceptable to spread lies about Amanda.

 

[acbytesla]

If Vixen wants to repeat what she thinks Marasca/Bruno said in their Sept 2015 motivations report, then it bears repeating what THEY ACTUALLY SAID....

​

"Even if the attribution is certain..." "if all the above is accepted."

Even if what the lower court said was true, Marasca-Bruno say is is STILL IRRELEVANT TO THE MURDER BECAUSE:

​

We can quibble with whether or not M/B's recounting of the logic of what Nencini had had before him is true or not, but we cannot quibble with what they'd said.

Vixen thinks M/B ruled that they were indisputable facts. Do you ever notice that Vixen has never once provided a cite?

I know the reason why.

Because the cite is as per above.

Which part of "would have occurred after the crime" does Vixen not understand?

I bet I've read Vixen saying "it is a fact' that Amanda was at the scene and washed Meredith's blood from her hands yet she always omits those words 'even if'.

I know they say America and England are two great nations separated by a common language, but 'even if' means the same thing on that side of the pond doesn't it?

 

[Stacyhs]

It is a pity that PGP are unwilling to answer my question. I was hoping to get an explanation for the gross hypocrisy of the PGP who attack Amanda for lying whilst supporting people who have lied and feel it is acceptable to spread lies about Amanda.

Don't hold your breath. I'm still waiting for answers as to

1) what forensic evidence supports that claim that Amanda washed her hands of Meredith's blood and that the DNA was derived from epithelial cells.

2) exactly who was wearing "skimpy shorts and vests" in court.

3) why, if Duncan was banned for the Vaseline tweet, she was only banned several months later.

4) why Capezalli could not have imagined such a horrible scream when she imagined two events that did not, in fact, happen.

5) exactly who said that Amanda was "good at dodging the bath at all other times, apart from the murder night."

These are just the latest questions that go unanswered.

 

[Bill Williams]

Don't hold your breath. I'm still waiting for answers as to

1) what forensic evidence supports that claim that Amanda washed her hands of Meredith's blood and that the DNA was derived from epithelial cells.

2) exactly who was wearing "skimpy shorts and vests" in court.

3) why, if Duncan was banned for the Vaseline tweet, she was only banned several months later.

4) why Capezalli could not have imagined such a horrible scream when she imagined two events that did not, in fact, happen.

5) exactly who said that Amanda was "good at dodging the bath at all other times, apart from the murder night."

These are just the latest questions that go unanswered.

Please keep this list and add to it. That's the antidote to "getting personal" which has caused the mod-hammer to descend.

Keep it off site and repost as additions come.

 

[Vixen]

Wrong. That's not what Marasca said. Simply repeating this does not make it true.

In Marasca/Bruno's "even if" paragraph, they say that even if that is true it still doesn't overcome the lack of evidence of either RS or AK in the murder room.

Please quit misrepresenting M/B and please quit with the familiar term for the victim.

I said the law courts:

In regard to Sollecito “The picture of the evidence which emerges from the impugned judgment is marked by intrinsic unresolved contradictions...It remains, nonetheless, a strong suspicion that he was actually present in the house at Via della Pergola on the night of the murder, but at a time, however, that cannot be determined. On the other hand, given the certainty of the presence of Knox in that house, it is hardly credible that he was not with her.” (Page 49 of the decision) If therefore the fact that Knox was in the house 7 Via della Pergola at the time when young Meredith Kercher was killed constitutes a fact of absolute and indisputable certainty; it is evident that the statements made by Sollecito that she was with him all evening on 1 November 2007 are false, and that one cannot believe his statements that he couldn't remember what he and Knox were doing from the evening of 1 November 2007 until the following morning.

Florence 22 January 2017
Presiding Judge
Dr. Silvia Martuscelli
Reporting Judge
Dr. Paola MASI

 

[Vixen]

Once again, rather than address my points, you resort to a snide comment. Why is that?

If you want an answer, ask nicely.

 

[Bill Williams]

I said the law courts:



Florence 22 January 2017
Presiding Judge
Dr. Silvia Martuscelli
Reporting Judge
Dr. Paola MASI

I fully concede this. The Italian judiciary has got a lot wrong..... they, apparently, didn't read the M.R. either!

 

[Vixen]

If Vixen wants to repeat what she thinks Marasca/Bruno said in their Sept 2015 motivations report, then it bears repeating what THEY ACTUALLY SAID....

​

"Even if the attribution is certain..." "if all the above is accepted."

Even if what the lower court said was true, Marasca-Bruno say is is STILL IRRELEVANT TO THE MURDER BECAUSE:

​

We can quibble with whether or not M/B's recounting of the logic of what Nencini had had before him is true or not, but we cannot quibble with what they'd said.

Vixen thinks M/B ruled that they were indisputable facts. Do you ever notice that Vixen has never once provided a cite?

I know the reason why.

Because the cite is as per above.

Which part of "would have occurred after the crime" does Vixen not understand?

You are cherry picking selectively as the Florence Appeal court has no doubt as to what the facts found were:

If therefore the fact that Knox was in the house 7 Via della Pergola at the time when young Meredith Kercher was killed constitutes a fact of absolute and indisputable certainty; it is evident that the statements made by Sollecito that she was with him all evening on 1 November 2007 are false


Florence 22 January 2017
Presiding Judge
Dr. Silvia Martuscelli
Reporting Judge
Dr. Paola MASI

It underpins its reports by dismissing Raff's application for compensation and ordering him to pay costs.

 

[Vixen]

I agree. I do not fault the Kerchers. I understand their position. I just wish the PGP would give the same degree of understanding to the Knox/Mellas families and the Sollecitos. They were doing nothing but supporting their loved ones, whom they believe innocent, during the worst ordeal of their lives. Instead, they extend their hatred of Amanda and Raffaele to their families. It's unfair and unwarranted.

I for one do not hate anybody so it would be interesting to know whom you are talking about.

 

[Vixen]

It is a pity that PGP are unwilling to answer my question. I was hoping to get an explanation for the gross hypocrisy of the PGP who attack Amanda for lying whilst supporting people who have lied and feel it is acceptable to spread lies about Amanda.

It is a finding of the law courts - including Marasca - that the kids told 'umpteen lies'. Official. Reason given for denying Raff any compensation.

I have never lied in court, nor to the police. Point me to a PGP who has lied to the police and lied in court.

Your accusations lack any foundation.

 

[Vixen]

I bet I've read Vixen saying "it is a fact' that Amanda was at the scene and washed Meredith's blood from her hands yet she always omits those words 'even if'.

I know they say America and England are two great nations separated by a common language, but 'even if' means the same thing on that side of the pond doesn't it?

Point me to where it says 'even if':

If therefore the fact that Knox was in the house 7 Via della Pergola at the time when young Meredith Kercher was killed constitutes a fact of absolute and indisputable certainty; it is evident that the statements made by Sollecito that she was with him all evening on 1 November 2007 are false

 

[Vixen]

Don't hold your breath. I'm still waiting for answers as to

1) what forensic evidence supports that claim that Amanda washed her hands of Meredith's blood and that the DNA was derived from epithelial cells.

2) exactly who was wearing "skimpy shorts and vests" in court.

3) why, if Duncan was banned for the Vaseline tweet, she was only banned several months later.

4) why Capezalli could not have imagined such a horrible scream when she imagined two events that did not, in fact, happen.

5) exactly who said that Amanda was "good at dodging the bath at all other times, apart from the murder night."

These are just the latest questions that go unanswered.

These questions have all been answered. Simply asking them over and over again, despite my going to the trouble to link you to sources and court documents, is vexatious. I doubt you even looked at the references or gave them a minute's consideration.

Heads up: I will come back to you about the Hellmann/Stefanoni TMB issue.

 

[Vixen]

"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

Did you not see the statistical probabilities as intricately calculated by Novelli in the Nencini report?

Establishing confidence levels and probabilities has long been standard in England & Wales, and by extension, Italy - all members of ENFSI - so it is good that it is now being introduced as a standard in the USA.

Your attempts to paint Italy as 'backward' is futile.

 

[acbytesla]

Point me to where it says 'even if':

Originally Posted by Marasca-Bruno
Nevertheless, even if attribution is certain, the trial element would not be
unequivocal as a demonstration of posthumous contact with that blood, as a likely
attempt to remove the most blatant traces of what had happened, perhaps to help
someone or deflect suspicion from herself, without this entailing her certain direct
involvement in the murder. 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.