The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

[TruthCalls]

My posts are based on what is reflected in court documents. Facts that have been found by proper means via a level-playing field merits court. Tried, examined and tested in a court of law.

PR bores me stiff. You can keep lying about Mignini, Stefanoni and the police and lap up Knox' lies as per her films, books and interviews but I am afraid what she has to say bores me to tears.

She should emulate Raff and just do one. And as advised by Hellmann.

Both Massei and Nencini accepted Curatolo's statement as evidence of Amanda and Raffaele being by the basketball court on the night of the murder. Except Curatolo was adamant that he witnessed them on the night of great celebration, with people in costume boarding large buses heading off to the main discos. This is definitive proof he saw 'someone' he thought to be Amanda and Raffaele on the night prior to the night in question. So how does the ruling of Massei or Nencini reflect a "fact"?

 

[Stacyhs]

I remember Vixen telling us all about the 'blonde hair' found in Kercher's room as if that was somehow evidence of Knox's (oh, sorry...Knox') presence in the room. Yet, when asked why that was never introduced in court and that dyed hair (as was Knox's) is easily determined under a microscope, we got crickets. That seems to happen a lot when answers cannot be given.

 

[Stacyhs]

Both Massei and Nencini accepted Curatolo's statement as evidence of Amanda and Raffaele being by the basketball court on the night of the murder. Except Curatolo was adamant that he witnessed them on the night of great celebration, with people in costume boarding large buses heading off to the main discos. This is definitive proof he saw 'someone' he thought to be Amanda and Raffaele on the night prior to the night in question. So how does the ruling of Massei or Nencini reflect a "fact"?

Vixen provided Koko 'seeing' Knox hiding behind the bins in front of the cottage on the night of Nov. 1 as evidence of her involvement. Trouble is, even Massei disregards Koko. Nonetheless, Vixen's posts "are based on what is reflected in court documents."

 

[whoanellie]

Then how can you write your own posts?



Hoots

Standing?

 

[Stacyhs]

Standing?

 

[Matthew Best]

Then how can you write your own posts?

Hoots

She can write them OK, she just can't bear to read them afterwards.

 

[Mr Fied]

I am rarely wrong as my assertions are based on well-founded facts or sources.

Hmmm.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

My posts are based on what is reflected in court documents.

I mean, let's be honest here. Your posts are actually based on what's reflected in the 2007 tabloids and TJMK/PMF filtering and interpretation of the court documents. You know that right?

Or have you not noticed that the European Court of Human Rights, the Italian Supreme Court, and more than a dozen or so world class experts who have studied this case in depth have the complete opposite conclusion as you on everything?

Facts that have been found by proper means via a level-playing field merits court. Tried, examined and tested in a court of law.

Have you noticed that the higher courts of law have all found Amanda and Raffaele innocent? So you actually just mean "things that incorrectly found Amanda and Raffaele guilty"... right? You definitely DON'T mean "court of law" because the "courts of law" all found them innocent.

PR bores me stiff.

What did you think of the PR campaign painting Amanda Knox as a pagan she devil sex whore? Man that was a doozy! Or the one saying that Raffaele had connections to the mob? I mean, people were posting random pictures of literally nothing, and saying it "proves" these things (when the pictures had literally nothing to do with the assertion), as a PR tactic to try to manipulate public opinion. Super crazy right? Lots of crazy divorced (ex) housewives that can't maintain a relationship with nothing better to do except stir up drama on the internet and try to ruin the reputation of people far better looking and more successful than themselves. PR indeed!

 

[Bill Williams]

My posts are based on what is reflected in court documents.

I mean, let's be honest here. Your posts are actually based on what's reflected in the 2007 tabloids and TJMK/PMF filtering and interpretation of the court documents. You know that right?

Or have you not noticed that the European Court of Human Rights, the Italian Supreme Court, and more than a dozen or so world class experts who have studied this case in depth have the complete opposite conclusion as you on everything?

The big shock to everyone, in my view, was that the Massei 2010 motivations report did not include much, if not contradicted most, of the stuff that the PMF-loonies, or the tabloids had banged on about previous to its publication. Devoid of Massei's "reasons for judgment", all those people simply assumed that the Dec 2009 conviction had vindicated all that the tabloids had printed.

It turned out that acc. to Massei's own words, only available about 4 months after the conviction, that most, if not all, of Mignini's prosecutorial theories had been rejected. Massei simply had invented a whole new case - things like conceding that the crime had not been premeditated, but then Massei had been stuck inventing a reason out of whole cloth as to why Knox had been innocently carrying that knife that night.

Also, rather than Knox being the prime mover and instigator of the crime - out of presumed jealousy towards the victim - Massei wrote that Rudy Guede had been the sole instigator. Acc. to Massei, Knox and Sollecito had simply stumbled upon Rudy's attack against the victim, and instead of stopping it AK and RS made an inexplicable "choice for evil" to join in. (I wrote a list of about 13 of these items, things in the Massei report that guilter-nutters NEVER admit to, which had never been advanced by Mignini.)

Once the Massei motivations report had been released, the sand under the conviction started to erode. Yet it is true, Vixen is now one of the last to believe TJMK and the 2007-2008 tabloid accounts of the crime. Everything past April 2010 tends to acquit the pair - until March 2015 when the Italian Supreme Court formally conceded that there actually had been nothing to convict them to begin with.

 

[Stacyhs]

I mean, let's be honest here. Your posts are actually based on what's reflected in the 2007 tabloids and TJMK/PMF filtering and interpretation of the court documents. You know that right?

Or have you not noticed that the European Court of Human Rights, the Italian Supreme Court, and more than a dozen or so world class experts who have studied this case in depth have the complete opposite conclusion as you on everything?



Have you noticed that the higher courts of law have all found Amanda and Raffaele innocent? So you actually just mean "things that incorrectly found Amanda and Raffaele guilty"... right? You definitely DON'T mean "court of law" because the "courts of law" all found them innocent.


What did you think of the PR campaign painting Amanda Knox as a pagan she devil sex whore? Man that was a doozy! Or the one saying that Raffaele had connections to the mob? I mean, people were posting random pictures of literally nothing, and saying it "proves" these things (when the pictures had literally nothing to do with the assertion), as a PR tactic to try to manipulate public opinion. Super crazy right? Lots of crazy divorced (ex) housewives that can't maintain a relationship with nothing better to do except stir up drama on the internet and try to ruin the reputation of people far better looking and more successful than themselves. PR indeed!

To be accurate, not all the upper courts found them innocent. Remember that Chieffi, who overturned Hellmann, did everything but come straight out and tell the Nencini court to convict them, which it did.

The rest of your post is spot on. The PGP criticize the mythological Marriott $2 million PR campaign but see nothing wrong with the PR campaign the prosecution and the tabloid media waged against Amanda. Indeed, they not only approved of it, they waged their own campaign...and some sad sacks still are. All for Meredith.

 

[Stacyhs]

I am rarely wrong as my assertions are based on well-founded facts or sources.

Lessee here....you claimed that "for not having committed the act" was a 'clerical error' on the Marasca MR. And yet:

(annuls)
paragraph a), d) and e) of the rubric for having not committed the act.

(Marasca Bruno MR)

 

[Vixen]

You should stop posting them then.

Remember this that you posted?



Yes/No?

Remember how you insisted that cell phone masts acted like tail gunners?

Were you wrong then?

And I could give many more examples.

Did you admit you were wrong then?

Well, let us ask the question.

Do you, Vixen, still think that cell phone antennae swivel around the place to intercept your cell phone signal? Yes or no?

Are you really "rarely wrong" or is that a mischaracterisation of "mostly wrong"?

As you have been told, I meant 'antennae' not 'mast'.

Antennae can and do move, in fact, they are designed to be flexible.

 

[Vixen]

I remember Vixen telling us all about the 'blonde hair' found in Kercher's room as if that was somehow evidence of Knox's (oh, sorry...Knox') presence in the room. Yet, when asked why that was never introduced in court and that dyed hair (as was Knox's) is easily determined under a microscope, we got crickets. That seems to happen a lot when answers cannot be given.

Unfortunately, the long blond hair found gripped in Mez' hand was lost but it almost certainly wasn't Rudy's hair.

 

[Vixen]

I mean, let's be honest here. Your posts are actually based on what's reflected in the 2007 tabloids and TJMK/PMF filtering and interpretation of the court documents. You know that right?

Or have you not noticed that the European Court of Human Rights, the Italian Supreme Court, and more than a dozen or so world class experts who have studied this case in depth have the complete opposite conclusion as you on everything?



Have you noticed that the higher courts of law have all found Amanda and Raffaele innocent? So you actually just mean "things that incorrectly found Amanda and Raffaele guilty"... right? You definitely DON'T mean "court of law" because the "courts of law" all found them innocent.



What did you think of the PR campaign painting Amanda Knox as a pagan she devil sex whore? Man that was a doozy! Or the one saying that Raffaele had connections to the mob? I mean, people were posting random pictures of literally nothing, and saying it "proves" these things (when the pictures had literally nothing to do with the assertion), as a PR tactic to try to manipulate public opinion. Super crazy right? Lots of crazy divorced (ex) housewives that can't maintain a relationship with nothing better to do except stir up drama on the internet and try to ruin the reputation of people far better looking and more successful than themselves. PR indeed!

The pair were not found innocent. I am certainly not a 'crazy divorced (ex) housewives that can't maintain a relationship with nothing better to do except stir up drama on the internet and try to ruin the reputation of people far better looking and more successful than themselves.'.

I hope you are not personalising your post.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

The pair were not found innocent.

Honestly for you to continue to state this, as plain fact, at this point in time after the Italian Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights rulings makes it seem you are completely disconnected from reality and are in need of professional help. I used to think you were trolling and playing along, but you didn't continue this time with any crazy made-up nonsense that could get people riled up -- you just stated it as if it were fact. That worries me, and makes it appear that in some ways you aren't just trolling and actually believe what you say. Have you talked to anyone about this?

I am certainly not a 'crazy divorced (ex) housewives that can't maintain a relationship with nothing better to do except stir up drama on the internet and try to ruin the reputation of people far better looking and more successful than themselves.'.

I hope you are not personalising your post.

Err no. What makes you think I was talking about you? I have no idea who you are. I'm just making a general comment about the kinds of people one interacts with on the internet who are into this kind of thing -- slandering people over their looks and sexual proclivities, spreading lies/misinformation/gossip about them to make them "look bad", joining hate communities, etc. How many successful people do you know who do that kind of thing? My answer is a flat zero.

I'm sure you are intelligent enough to see how spreading misinformation over the internet far and wide in the social media age is negative PR, which you claim "bores you stiff". Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't you, for example, talked about Amanda's personal life on here once or twice? (but just once or twice, certainly no more than that)

 

[Stacyhs]

As you have been told, I meant 'antennae' not 'mast'.

Antennae can and do move, in fact, they are designed to be flexible.

Donald...er...Vixen, once again, rather than simply admit you were wrong, you try and spin what you said. This is your original post on the matter:

The mast swivels round from side to side.

ISF part 23, #3059

Whether you meant mast or antennae, you were still wrong. Cell mast antennae do not swivel, rotate, move, etc.

Three ISF continuations later, you tried to defend your 'fact' that antennae 'move' with this:

Originally Posted by Vixen
Nooooooo! Not ******* antennae again.

Sure, you are a doctor of electronics and communications, worked for MI5 and MI6 and you can aver hand on heart 'antennae are always fixed and rigid'.

Any fule kno' the term 'antennae' adopted by early engineers was drawn from the animal kingdom. An ounce of common sense tells you that for antennae to be effective, they have to be sensitive to the conditions around them, they have to be able to detect sound waves or solid objects around them or in front of them. IOW antennae are invariably flexible and moveable and not necessarily fixed and rigid at all. Quite the reverse.

(ISF part 28 #3122)

 

[Stacyhs]

Unfortunately, the long blond hair found gripped in Mez' hand was lost but it almost certainly wasn't Rudy's hair.

No one said it was Guede's. But it could have come in on him. After all, according to Carolina, the Spanish girl who lived above Guede, he was dancing with a girl with long, blonde hair at Domus the morning of Nov. 2, the day he later killed Meredith.

The hair was 'lost'? What citation do you have for that? If it were, then the police were very careless with evidence, wouldn't you agree? If there is no citation for it being 'lost', then I'd suggest it proved of no value and was merely never entered into evidence. You do know that hair dye can be identified to its manufacturer? If it could be matched to Amanda's hair dye (if it was even a dyed hair), it would have been of great importance, possibly putting Amanda in the murder room.

ETA: Please find that citation that shows Marriott was the source of the "$2 million PR campaign" cost. As you said yourself:

"If you want to make an allegation, the onus is on you to prove it, or at least show probable cause."
(ISF part 28, #2443)

 

[Stacyhs]

The pair were not found innocent. I am certainly not a 'crazy divorced (ex) housewives that can't maintain a relationship with nothing better to do except stir up drama on the internet and try to ruin the reputation of people far better looking and more successful than themselves.'.

I hope you are not personalising your post.

Correct. There is no "innocent" finding in Italian law. There is only "acquitted". Which they were.

 

[LondonJohn]

As you have been told, I meant 'antennae' not 'mast'.

Antennae can and do move, in fact, they are designed to be flexible.

Oh boy this is several more flavours of wrong.

You're clearly blissfully unaware that there are all sorts of antennae, depending on their purpose and employment. The nonsense you've just written is akin to writing:

"Motor vehicles can and do accelerate 0-60mph in under 5 seconds, in fact they are designed to accelerate 0-60mph in under 5 seconds".

Yes, SOME motor vehicles - expensive sports cars, for example - are indeed designed to accelerate this fast. But many (most, in fact) are not. And for some motor vehicles, this level of acceleration would be a positive drawback (e.g. agricultural tractors).

And it's the same with antennae. And (as you clearly do not know) cellular telephony base station antennae are expressly designed NOT to be flexible. To be flexible would actually be a disadvantage to such antennae, since they are carefully aligned and fixed to point in extremely precise directional sectors.

You. Do. Not. Know. What. You're. Talking. About. On. This. Matter. And you're simply demonstrating your ignorance more and more with every attempt to "correct" your previous levels of ignorance. Tell you what: go outside the next time you're in any urban area, and look around and above you. You'll quickly and easily discover several nearby cellular base station masts and antennae. They're everywhere in urban areas. Then take a good look at them. And you might see how ignorantly incorrect you've been.

Or just don't present "knowledge" about things when in fact you don't know the first thing about them. Either way....

 

[LondonJohn]

No one said it was Guede's. But it could have come in on him. After all, according to Carolina, the Spanish girl who lived above Guede, he was dancing with a girl with long, blonde hair at Domus the morning of Nov. 2, the day he later killed Meredith.

The hair was 'lost'? What citation do you have for that? If it were, then the police were very careless with evidence, wouldn't you agree? If there is no citation for it being 'lost', then I'd suggest it proved of no value and was merely never entered into evidence. You do know that hair dye can be identified to its manufacturer? If it could be matched to Amanda's hair dye (if it was even a dyed hair), it would have been of great importance, possibly putting Amanda in the murder room.

ETA: Please find that citation that shows Marriott was the source of the "$2 million PR campaign" cost. As you said yourself:

"If you want to make an allegation, the onus is on you to prove it, or at least show probable cause."
(ISF part 28, #2443)

My own view is that this hair could just as easily have come from Kercher herself - and arguably it's much more likely that this was the case. It's visibly clear (from photos taken just the evening before) that Kercher had dyed the very front portion of her hair blonde.

And on top of that, as you say, if the "crack" (HAHAHAHA) forensic clowns were so lax as to lose this (alleged) hair, then what ever it was or was not carries virtually zero probative value anyhow.