The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 25

[Vixen]

Of course you'd keep calm. Running around in a panic screaming would be a rather odd reaction. No, the logical action would simply be to redial the dropped call. After all, whatever reason you had for making the call in the first place still exists. You'd redial.



He was where the physical evidence and or his testimony shows he was; the larger bathroom, the hallway, the little bathroom, Kercher's room. And most likely Laura's room from his past history.

Please point out where I presented any such scenario as a possibility. I suggest you read what I wrote again before posting.

Back to "boulders", I see. For some reason you think that Amanda or Raffaele are capable of "lobbing 10 lb. boulders" across a room, but not Guede. Sheesh.

How weird there is no sign of 'Travellin' Man Rudy' at all in the small bathroom, yet we have a humunguous footprint on the bathmat belonging to Raff in Mez' blood and Amanda proven to have washed off Mez' blood from her hands and feet. (That you claim traces of Rudy were found in the small bathroom proves you to be less than frank and a stranger to the truth.)

Perhaps he has the power to make himself invisible as well. Or maybe he can hover over surfaces.

 

[Bill Williams]

How weird there is no sign of 'Travellin' Man Rudy' at all in the small bathroom, yet we have a humunguous footprint on the bathmat belonging to Raff in Mez' blood

No it is not Raffaele's foottrack. This thread has covered this a thousand times.

and Amanda proven to have washed off Mez' blood from her hands and feet.

No, you yourself undercut the forensic proof of this. Judge Massei, in 2010 and the source of this claim, explicitly said that there is no forensic proof, and that he surmised it (guessed) on other grounds. (As per above, posted three or four times now, about which you have not replied except to repeat your original stuff.)

 

[Stacyhs]

Read the court documents.

From Massei, quoting Stefanoni (Dr Stefanoni to you):



and



and



So, we see, the (dead) victim's blood is all over the small bathroom and the diluted blood indicates the purpose was to clean it off. Stefanoni in Darkness Descending believes the drips were from the knife.

As to method of collection and how it was concluded that the DNA mix happened on the same night:



In effect, the mixed samples came from similarly diluted 'rivulets' of pink liquid (water + blood). = Deposited the same time at the same event.

For the completeness of Stefanoni's evidence, as presented to the court and accepted:



And:



Massei thus sums up and concludes:



The Massei court adjudged:




Are you SURE there is 'no evidence' of Amanda Knox rubbing her hands of Meredith Kercher's blood?

So Stacyhs knows better than Massei, Marasca and Martucelli and more recently, the latest Supreme court ruling 28 June 2017.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH - <pause for breath> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. No one has ever denied that Amanda's DNA was mixed with Meredith's blood. No one. No one has ever denied that someone tried to wash up in the sink and bidet. No one has ever denied that there was diluted blood. Guede even admits his pants were wet...not bloody...wet. But there is no evidence that Amanda's DNA was deposited AT THE TIME OF THE MURDER since she lived there and had used the bathroom that very morning. There is a reason the police video of the sample collection in the bathroom drew laughter from the court. Even you know that swiping the sink in large and/or several areas with the same paper is going to pick up whatever DNA is there regardless of when it was left and by whom.

In effect, the mixed samples came from similarly diluted 'rivulets' of pink liquid (water + blood). = Deposited the same time at the same event.

This is Stefanoni's opinion, one that leading forensic scientists completely disagree with. IIRC, you've been asked before to present any forensic experts who agree with Stefanoni on this and have failed to do so. On the other hand, several leading and highly respected experts have openly disagreed with her and given their reasons for doing so.

In the end, there exists NO FORENSIC evidence that Knox washed her hands of Meredith's blood. The source of her DNA has never been identified as epithelial.

 

[bagels]

How weird there is no sign of 'Travellin' Man Rudy' at all in the small bathroom...

Except for his own direct testimony of course.

 

[Stacyhs]

How weird there is no sign of 'Travellin' Man Rudy' at all in the small bathroom, yet we have a humunguous footprint on the bathmat belonging to Raff in Mez' blood and Amanda proven to have washed off Mez' blood from her hands and feet. (That you claim traces of Rudy were found in the small bathroom proves you to be less than frank and a stranger to the truth.)Perhaps he has the power to make himself invisible as well. Or maybe he can hover over surfaces.

Read what I said again:

He was where the physical evidence and or his testimony shows he was; the larger bathroom, the hallway, the little bathroom, Kercher's room. And most likely Laura's room from his past history.

He testified he was in the small bathroom. Try reading a bit more carefully.

And remember that no other forensic evidence of Sollecito was found in the small bathroom either even if you believe it was his bloody footprint. If it's possible for Sollecito to have left that print without leaving any other forensic evidence, then it must also be true for Guede.

 

[TruthCalls]

How weird there is no sign of 'Travellin' Man Rudy' at all in the small bathroom, yet we have a humunguous footprint on the bathmat belonging to Raff in Mez' blood and Amanda proven to have washed off Mez' blood from her hands and feet. (That you claim traces of Rudy were found in the small bathroom proves you to be less than frank and a stranger to the truth.)

Perhaps he has the power to make himself invisible as well. Or maybe he can hover over surfaces.

Except we know Guede was in the small bathroom because he said he went in there. I guess it just proves what everyone already knows... you don't always leave a DNA trail and/or forensic technicians don't always find what was there.

It was not possible to identify the print as both sides agreed there was insufficient detail and it could only be used to exclude people. Claiming it was Raffaele's only serves to prove that you are bias and evidence is irrelevant to you.

Then, as if on queue, Vixen once again copy/pastes large sections of motivation reports which display speculation by the judges, not facts. There is no evidence of Amanda washing blood off her hands. None. There is nothing in the evidence that disproves Amanda's DNA was already there when Meredith's diluted blood was deposited. It's beyond my comprehension to understand why someone would waste so much of their time making claims that they surely know are not supported by the evidence. I assume Vixen thinks she is fooling someone but she's got the wrong audience for that.

And interestingly, I see that Vixen has expanded her story to include Amanda's feet now. What an imagination.

 

[Bill Williams]

I assume Vixen thinks she is fooling someone but she's got the wrong audience for that.

And interestingly, I see that Vixen has expanded her story to include Amanda's feet now. What an imagination.

Are there any lurkers out there who can enlighten us if Vixen is convincing anyone?

 

[Thitical Crinker]

Are there any lurkers out there who can enlighten us if Vixen is convincing anyone?

I hate to admit that I have lurked from the very beginning. I have read every post in this massive thread. I have read all the relevant books and watched most of the shows. I followed the pro guilt sites for years but gave them up with the final acquittals.

I, like a lot of people assumed guilt, but after looking at the so-called evidence, it was easy for me to see it was a classic case of tunnel vision which led to wrongful convictions.

Anyway, I broke my lurker status to say that the only thing Vixen convinces me of is that she is blinded by hate and will never admit she is wrong. It is actually fascinating to watch but sad at the same time.

 

[Vixen]

Except we know Guede was in the small bathroom because he said he went in there. I guess it just proves what everyone already knows... you don't always leave a DNA trail and/or forensic technicians don't always find what was there.

It was not possible to identify the print as both sides agreed there was insufficient detail and it could only be used to exclude people. Claiming it was Raffaele's only serves to prove that you are bias and evidence is irrelevant to you.

Then, as if on queue, Vixen once again copy/pastes large sections of motivation reports which display speculation by the judges, not facts. There is no evidence of Amanda washing blood off her hands. None. There is nothing in the evidence that disproves Amanda's DNA was already there when Meredith's diluted blood was deposited. It's beyond my comprehension to understand why someone would waste so much of their time making claims that they surely know are not supported by the evidence. I assume Vixen thinks she is fooling someone but she's got the wrong audience for that.

And interestingly, I see that Vixen has expanded her story to include Amanda's feet now. What an imagination.

ROFL. Suddenly you believe what Rudy says when it suits you. He said he fetched towels. Said nothing about lingerin' over no sink.

Judges do not speculate. They are telling you what the law says. They are the law.

Massei made a decision the pair were guilty of aggravated murder, based on all of the evidence put before it during the trial, inluding that of the two defences.

Massei mentioned the feet in the bidet. Read it again. Only an American could think a bidet was for washing feet. LOL.

 

[Bill Williams]

I hate to admit that I have lurked from the very beginning. I have read every post in this massive thread. I have read all the relevant books and watched most of the shows. I followed the pro guilt sites for years but gave them up with the final acquittals.

I, like a lot of people assumed guilt, but after looking at the so-called evidence, it was easy for me to see it was a classic case of tunnel vision which led to wrongful convictions.

Anyway, I broke my lurker status to say that the only thing Vixen convinces me of is that she is blinded by hate and will never admit she is wrong. It is actually fascinating to watch but sad at the same time.

Thanks. As much as this is appreciated, it would also be interesting to hear from anyone who finds Vixen's approach convincing.

 

[Vixen]

I hate to admit that I have lurked from the very beginning. I have read every post in this massive thread. I have read all the relevant books and watched most of the shows. I followed the pro guilt sites for years but gave them up with the final acquittals.

I, like a lot of people assumed guilt, but after looking at the so-called evidence, it was easy for me to see it was a classic case of tunnel vision which led to wrongful convictions.

Anyway, I broke my lurker status to say that the only thing Vixen convinces me of is that she is blinded by hate and will never admit she is wrong. It is actually fascinating to watch but sad at the same time.

How peculiar. Strange you say you are a lurker when you wrote the following.

You even confessed to being a member of Bruce Fischer's Amanda Knox Fan Club, er, Injustice Anywhere, which is populated by rabid pro-Knoxers.

I guess that's a kinda 'best truth' for some.

Fancy that! Someone tried to pass him- or herself off as neutral. LOL.

Pro-Knoxers will stop at nuthin'. It's a kinda desperation to give an appearance of 'appealing to the crowd' logical fallacy.

 

[Stacyhs]

ROFL. Suddenly you believe what Rudy says when it suits you. He said he fetched towels. Said nothing about lingerin' over no sink.

Please don't be so blatantly hypocritical. You believe what he says when it suits you. You believe Guede when he says that Amanda and Raff were there...after saying they weren't. He didn't say anything about rinsing off his pants either, yet he says they were "wet"....not bloody...wet.

Judges do not speculate. They are telling you what the law says. They are the law.

Oh, really? Is that why Massei speculated that the footprints were Amanda's when no DNA identified them as such nor were they even compared to the other 3 roommates? Or that they were "in blood" when the TMB test were negative?

Judges are not the law. The law is the law. Judges interpret the legal norms and evaluate facts and evidence.

Massei made a decision the pair were guilty of aggravated murder, based on all of the evidence put before it during the trial, inluding that of the two defences.

Massei was overturned. His decision means nothing.

Massei mentioned the feet in the bidet. Read it again. Only an American could think a bidet was for washing feet. LOL.

The footprint belonged to a man by its size, not a woman. It was not Amanda's. Therefore, it belonged to either Raffaele or Guede. Neither of whom are American. Oops.

 

[Bill Williams]

How peculiar. Strange you say you are a lurker when you wrote the following.

You even confessed to being a member of Bruce Fischer's Amanda Knox Fan Club, er, Injustice Anywhere, which is populated by rabid pro-Knoxers.

I guess that's a kinda 'best truth' for some.

Fancy that! Someone tried to pass him- or herself off as neutral. LOL.

Pro-Knoxers will stop at nuthin'. It's a kinda desperation to give an appearance of 'appealing to the crowd' logical fallacy.

Thanks for so quickly proving Thitical Crinker's point.

Where did Thitical Crinker say she/he was neutral?

 

[Stacyhs]

I hate to admit that I have lurked from the very beginning. I have read every post in this massive thread. I have read all the relevant books and watched most of the shows. I followed the pro guilt sites for years but gave them up with the final acquittals.

I, like a lot of people assumed guilt, but after looking at the so-called evidence, it was easy for me to see it was a classic case of tunnel vision which led to wrongful convictions.

Anyway, I broke my lurker status to say that the only thing Vixen convinces me of is that she is blinded by hate and will never admit she is wrong. It is actually fascinating to watch but sad at the same time.

How peculiar. Strange you say you are a lurker when you wrote the following.

That post is from March 2013, four years ago. Reading the thousands of posts here for four years without making a comment makes him a lurker. Sheesh.

You even confessed to being a member of Bruce Fischer's Amanda Knox Fan Club, er, Injustice Anywhere, which is populated by rabid pro-Knoxers.

"Confessed"? Is it a crime to belong to IA? Of course you would never "confess" to belonging to any group of rabid anti-Knoxers, right?

I guess that's a kinda 'best truth' for some.

At least he's forthcoming about what group he belongs to. I can't say the same for some.

Fancy that! Someone tried to pass him- or herself off as neutral. LOL.

Hmmm. Exactly where did he try and do that? I see no such claim. In fact, he clearly says

I, like a lot of people assumed guilt, but after looking at the so-called evidence, it was easy for me to see it was a classic case of tunnel vision which led to wrongful convictions.

Nothing "neutral" about that.

Pro-Knoxers will stop at nuthin'. It's a kinda desperation to give an appearance of 'appealing to the crowd' logical fallacy.

There is certainly desperation here, but it's not from Thitical Crinker.

 

[Stacyhs]

I hate to admit that I have lurked from the very beginning. I have read every post in this massive thread. I have read all the relevant books and watched most of the shows. I followed the pro guilt sites for years but gave them up with the final acquittals.

I, like a lot of people assumed guilt, but after looking at the so-called evidence, it was easy for me to see it was a classic case of tunnel vision which led to wrongful convictions.

Anyway, I broke my lurker status to say that the only thing Vixen convinces me of is that she is blinded by hate and will never admit she is wrong. It is actually fascinating to watch but sad at the same time.

It is fascinating and what keeps me coming back. It's like watching a certain political figure; just when you think he can't get any more ludicrous, he manages to surprise you. Or maybe it's more like a car wreck. You don't want to look but, somehow, you just can't help yourself.

 

[Vixen]

Please don't be so blatantly hypocritical. You believe what he says when it suits you. You believe Guede when he says that Amanda and Raff were there...after saying they weren't. He didn't say anything about rinsing off his pants either, yet he says they were "wet"....not bloody...wet.



Oh, really? Is that why Massei speculated that the footprints were Amanda's when no DNA identified them as such nor were they even compared to the other 3 roommates? Or that they were "in blood" when the TMB test were negative?

Judges are not the law. The law is the law. Judges interpret the legal norms and evaluate facts and evidence.

Massei was overturned. His decision means nothing.



The footprint belonged to a man by its size, not a woman. It was not Amanda's. Therefore, it belonged to either Raffaele or Guede. Neither of whom are American. Oops.

Nota Bene: In Italy judges do NOT interpret law. They are not allowed to. In Italy, lawyers have to learn the Italian Penal Code off by heart. Unlike in England & Wales, where judges can accept references to previous case law and interpret accordingly, according to precedent, an Italian judge CANNOT.


Massei's decision still stands as the legal outcome of the trial.

Marasca breaching the scope of their remit does not cancel out the facts found at the trial.

 

[bagels]

How peculiar. Strange you say you are a lurker when you wrote the following.

You even confessed to being a member of Bruce Fischer's Amanda Knox Fan Club, er, Injustice Anywhere, which is populated by rabid pro-Knoxers.

I guess that's a kinda 'best truth' for some.

Fancy that! Someone tried to pass him- or herself off as neutral. LOL.

Pro-Knoxers will stop at nuthin'. It's a kinda desperation to give an appearance of 'appealing to the crowd' logical fallacy.

There's lots of PGP accounts at IA. They don't ban for dissent unlike some places...

 

[TruthCalls]

ROFL. Suddenly you believe what Rudy says when it suits you. He said he fetched towels. Said nothing about lingerin' over no sink.

Judges do not speculate. They are telling you what the law says. They are the law.

Massei made a decision the pair were guilty of aggravated murder, based on all of the evidence put before it during the trial, inluding that of the two defences.

Massei mentioned the feet in the bidet. Read it again. Only an American could think a bidet was for washing feet. LOL.

Guede said he went into the small bathroom and got some towels... towels were found in Meredith's room. Should I assume he said he did that when someone else did?

Massei and Nencini both SPECULATED (ASSUMED if you prefer) the Luminol traces were made from Meredith's blood when science said they were not. That is, unless you can scientifically explain how a trace made from Meredith's blood can be both TMB negative AND not have Meredith's DNA.

Why do you have such a predilection for irrelevant things? Massei was overturned, and rightfully so. When judges start contradiction expert witnesses and science in order to rule as they wish then they deserve to be overturned. And only Massei could be stupid enough to come up with such a 'bidet' theory.

 

[TruthCalls]

How peculiar. Strange you say you are a lurker when you wrote the following.

You even confessed to being a member of Bruce Fischer's Amanda Knox Fan Club, er, Injustice Anywhere, which is populated by rabid pro-Knoxers.

I guess that's a kinda 'best truth' for some.

Fancy that! Someone tried to pass him- or herself off as neutral. LOL.

Pro-Knoxers will stop at nuthin'. It's a kinda desperation to give an appearance of 'appealing to the crowd' logical fallacy.

So, four years ago someone asks about the status of IA and that somehow invalidates that person as a lurker on this website? Do you even know what being a lurker means? From your comment it would appear you think it means to be neutral, which is obviously very wrong. How embarrassing to write such a childish, sarcastic quip and then be so wrong. Ouch.

Admit it, you're just upset that you're convincing anyone with your biased, unsubstantiated rhetoric.

 

[TruthCalls]

Nota Bene: In Italy judges do NOT interpret law. They are not allowed to. In Italy, lawyers have to learn the Italian Penal Code off by heart. Unlike in England & Wales, where judges can accept references to previous case law and interpret accordingly, according to precedent, an Italian judge CANNOT.


Massei's decision still stands as the legal outcome of the trial.
Marasca breaching the scope of their remit does not cancel out the facts found at the trial.

Oh my, that's hilarious!!! Pssst, you might want to get up with the Italian Supreme Court and let them know because I'm pretty sure they're under the impression that their ruling was final.

You know, I keep waiting for some writer, some journalist, some scholar, some lawyer, some judge or some politician to say something - anything - to prove your idol Quennell correct on this one but for two years now the only source of such conjecture I can find is.... Quennell. So here's a little tip for you; until such time that Italy decides the Marasca court violated some aspect of Italian law and declares a new trial, it is the Marasca ruling that stands as the legal outcome of the case.

As Thitical Crinker said, you will never admit you are wrong.