The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

[Vixen]

Rinaldi had this to say about that print (on page 47 of the report):

Just for the record

Criminal law is based on statistically probability so matches in forensics, eg., fingerprints, DNA, etc, are expressed in terms of probabilities against (using the scientific null hypothesis).

At this juncture it might be apposite to remind ourselves that the DNA found on the bra clasp, which was under the body, under the sheet, the body itself covered by a duvet and sprinkled with scattered paper supposedly from the burglary (found to be fake and established as legal fact) has a negative comparison of 1/>3bn that it is NOT Raff's DNA. Thus it is beyond reasonable doubt it is his.

 

[Vixen]

I'm assuming you're being tongue in cheek when you say "Vinci was paid by the defense, so of course he's going to find in favor of the defense."

Yes, it would have been compatible with many feet, including perhaps MK's ..ahem..'boyfriend', Giacomo Silenzi.

"If we go by what the defense claims, we might as well say AK and RS are innocent because they say so."

Can you clarify what you mean by this? I've read it several times and it makes no sense to me.

You don't get forensics, do you?

 

[Vixen]

Ahem, just saying....

That's great as academic theory. However, trials tend to remain very basic with the simple criteria of whether your peers think you guilty or innocent.

That's all there is.

 

[Vixen]

Of course Rinaldi's opinion on the 'ladies size 37" was admitted into the court because that was his finding. It doesn't mean the court accepted it as correct. In fact, Massei apparently did not accept Rinaldi's finding because he does not list it in his MR as evidence against Knox. He doesn't even mention it.

Rinaldi was not charged with perjury or submitting false evidence because he neither committed perjury nor knowingly submitted false evidence; he was simply wrong in his professional opinion. There's nothing illegal about not being very good at your job.

On the other hand, I will say that I believe Stefanoni committed an ethical violation (withholding vital information) at the very least when she failed to report all the negative TMB results and kept referring to the 'luminol revealed' footprints. It's my firm belief that she did not "forget" those extremely important to the case results but consciously chose not to reveal them until she was confronted with her own SAL cards.

Stefanoni acted 100% in accordance with correct court procedure.

If you let the camel's nose into the tent, soon the camel is in the tent.

No court allows 'fishing expeditions'. Requests for materials have to be relevant and specify exactly why it is requested.

Nencini confirmed Stefanoni DID deposit the raw data with the courts.

The defence demanding ever more and more is not reasonable. Next it will be demanding the contents of her waste bin and demanding an expedition to the landfill site so that defence lawyers can root through it looking desperately for anything that might cast doubt on the guilt of their client.

 

[Vixen]

We have several examples in this case of the prosecution allowing witnesses to commit obvious perjury or submit false evidence:

-Vulcano Gerardo Pasquale
-Officer Battistelli
-Antonio Curatolo
-Marco Quintavalle

Just to name the obvious and self evident ones. There is no integrity in this court with regards to the witnesses brought to testify in it. I don't see why it should be any different for the defense. Amanda is innocent because the evidence we can independently verify for ourselves proves who committed the crime and who did not. Not because of defense witness testimony.

Wow. You're like the proud parent watching little Johnny marching past in a parade.

'Look! Everybody is out of step, except my little Johnny!'

 

[Vixen]

Lol is contriving bs "something" now?

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/taATMMM.jpg[/qimg]

You can look at the print with your eyes and see it is a perfect match for Rudy's shoes. Turning this into a lady's shoeprint, because it's convenient for your employer's findings, is bordering on perjury/submitting false evidence.

Photoshop.

Rudy is size 45.

No way could he cram his foot into a size 37 ladies (=narrower than a man's trainer).

 

[Vixen]

I disagree. You are assuming the prosecution KNEW the above were lying. While common sense tells us Curatolo and Quinatavalle were not credible, look at how many PGP totally believe them. Both Curatolo and Quintavalle may have actually believed what they said. It's not unusual for the prosecution to put witnesses on the stand who are later, during cross examination, shown to not be credible or mistaken. It doesn't mean they were intentionally lying. Think of witnesses who make an identification only to later be shown they were wrong. And that includes a rape victim who mistakenly identifies the wrong man as her attacker.

Curatolo and Quintavalle had no reason to lie. They were disinterested independent witnesses who were there at the time.

It's within the court's remit to accept or reject an eye witness testimony. They accepted both.

There is no appeal against a court accepting an eye witness account.

 

[Vixen]

When Quintavalle told Det. Volturno he had not seen Knox or Sollecito just following the murder, he was not under oath so he committed no perjury. IMO, he was telling the truth then...he had not. However, when he did go to the police, at the urging of a reporter over a year later, he may well have believed he did see Knox that morning. It's amazing how people's memories can become influenced after getting information from the media. OR he may well have been lying thinking to get free publicity for his store. Either way, that does not mean the prosecutors KNEW he was lying. They could only go on what he told them. How would they KNOW he was lying about seeing them versus having lied about NOT seeing them a year earlier (not under oath)?

How would the prosecutors KNOW Battestelli was lying about not going into Kercher's bedroom unless he told them he was lying? It was his word against Filomena's and (I think) her boyfriend's. They would hope the judges would believe a policeman over the other two or they may even have been unaware that F and her boyfriend woud testify otherwise under cross examination.

Volturno asked the wrong question. To his credit, he went from shop to shop.

However, he asked, 'did this person buy anything from you?'

He should have used an open-ended question which didn't just have a 'yes/no' answer.

 

[Vixen]

I don't believe Quintavalle. I think he saw an opportunity to get free publicity for his store. But that doesn't mean that the prosecution didn't believe him. And it doesn't matter whether they did or not....it's what they thought the judges would believe. And from the Massei MR, they clearly believed him.

Wow. Cynical, much? Judging others by your own standards?

 

[Vixen]

My impression of the Massei court motivation report is that it is a logical disaster of suspect-centered assumptions, hypotheses, and illogical inferences turned into a wrongful judgment of guilt BARD (the BARD standard is required for a guilty verdict under Italian law, CPP Article 533).

Do you believe that the Massei court (which consisted of the court president, Massei; the second judge, Cristiani; and six lay judges [each a "giudice popolar" or "people's judge"] as named on the MR front page) was incompetent?

Or did it have an agenda, perhaps because of the influence of the Italian judicial tradition and culture based on the inquisitorial system, of creating "judicial truth" based on "logical" arguments that largely accepted the prosecution's case as "necessarily true" while largely discounting the defense's counter-case as "self-interested falsehoods"?

The defence argued it was 'suspect-centric' (Tagglibriachhi _ sp?). This was cross-examined and assessed in detail and the court verdict was that it was not.

Having already been settled as res judicata and finalised by Supreme Court Chieffi, it is legally defective for Marasca-Bruno to overturn this ruling of the merits courts and Supreme Court.

 

[Stacyhs]

Perhaps you'd like to present some evidence that Rolfe (or anyone here) has a "crush on the likes of Jeremy Bamber or Damien Echols"?

No? Didn't think so.

So many people just don't get that psychopathic killers are not wired like the rest of us.

They see the likes of Echols, Avery, Sutcliffe, Huntley, etc languishing in prison...and their hearts bleed for them. They pour out all of their sympathies for these cold blooded killers (three eight-year-old boys in the case one one, hog-bound, naked and sexually assaulted), write letters to them in prison, campaign for their release, plead for their innocence, slander and libel the police who put them there, and yet, did any of these monsters give a passing darn about thier victim/s?

If you had met one of these on a dark night in a dark alley do you think they would have had even a glimmer of sympathy for you as they perform their evil deeds.

Thanks to the misguided busybody do-gooders, these characters get to make a mockery of Innocence Projects, write books, make films, get tv interviews and piss on their victims from a great height.

In short, no... you don't have any evidence that Rolfe or anyone else here "has a crush on the likes of Jeremy Bamber or Damien Echols".


Wow! EIGHTEEN posts in a row in just over an hour. Going for a new record, Vix?

I don't think Rolfe, or any one else here, fails to understand that psychopaths are 'wired differently'. That's what makes them psychopaths. But what has that got to do with RS and AK as they are not psychopaths?

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs
Perhaps you'd like to explain why Meredith would be ******* about with her own phone in a manner indicating she didn't know how to make a phone call to England. She calls her bank in England but doesn't include the required prefix. Then, when it doesn't go through, instead of saying to herself "Oops, forgot the prefix," she doesn't call back. She suddenly doesn't need to call her bank for whatever reason she had just tried to call it for?
Massei's conjecture of her lying about on her bed playing with her phone and making accidental calls is ludicrous. It's a classic example of trying to make the evidence fit a conclusion instead of the evidence leading to a logical conclusion.

Hang on, wasn't she supposed to be 'dead by nine', an ad hoc alibi dreamt up by Rolfe, who tries to claim she is an expert so therefore, if she says so it must be true.

I'm not Rolfe so I suggest you direct your post above to him. Instead, why don't you address my points?

 

[Vixen]

I'm not Rolfe so I suggest you direct your post above to him. Instead, why don't you address my points?

When I address your points with great patience, forbearing and diligence, for some reason the response always seems to be, 'Oh no it does not', or, 'oh no she didn't'/did not/could not/should not/would not' accompanied by a whooshing sound as it goes right over your head. For example, I state that in the latin countries there is a specific legal status of 'suspect'. Your response? 'Ah but I just looked up Merriam Webster and it says it means all sorts of things beside'

Yet I never seem to learn. <sigh>

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs
Perhaps you'd like to present some evidence that Rolfe (or anyone here) has a "crush on the likes of Jeremy Bamber or Damien Echols"?

No? Didn't think so.

All the people she advocates for all seem to be handsome young men (in the eyes of some).

1. How do you know Rolfe is female?

2. Exactly who are "all" the people Rolfe allegedly "advocates" for? In an earlier post, Rolfe asked who Jeremy Bamber is so is obviously not advocating for him, handsome or not.

 

[Vixen]

In short, no... you don't have any evidence that Rolfe or anyone else here "has a crush on the likes of Jeremy Bamber or Damien Echols".


Wow! EIGHTEEN posts in a row in just over an hour. Going for a new record, Vix?

I don't think Rolfe, or any one else here, fails to understand that psychopaths are 'wired differently'. That's what makes them psychopaths. But what has that got to do with RS and AK as they are not psychopaths?

Fulfil Hare's Diagnostics.

Compulsive liar
No conscience
No remorse
History of anti-social behaviour
Contempt for authority
Need instant gratification
Lack of thought for the consequences of their behaviour
Uses people / manipulative
Only true emotion capable of, is rage
Con artists
Have learnt to mimic other people's body language to convey false affect

 

[Vixen]

1. How do you know Rolfe is female?

2. Exactly who are "all" the people Rolfe allegedly "advocates" for? In an earlier post, Rolfe asked who Jeremy Bamber is so is obviously not advocating for him, handsome or not.

How strange, I could have sworn Rolfe has contributed to the Bamber thread.

Perhaps there are two of them, each oblivious of the other.

 

[Stacyhs]

When I address your points with great patience, forbearing and diligence, for some reason the response always seems to be, 'Oh no it does not', or, 'oh no she didn't'/did not/could not/should not/would not' accompanied by a whooshing sound as it goes right over your head. For example, I state that in the latin countries there is a specific legal status of 'suspect'. Your response? 'Ah but I just looked up Merriam Webster and it says it means all sorts of things beside'

1. Wow. The Vixen Trot in full steam....dance around the subject until you think you've successfully distracted us enough. Sorry, Charlie...you didn't. YOU STILL HAVE NOT ADDRESSED MY POINTS.

2. Would you care to actually present my post where I referred to a dictionary in regards to what a 'suspect' is? If not, you know the old saying "Put up or shut up" , don't you?

What I DID do was post this in response to your "suspect" post:

Regarding the first highlighted part, the Italian Supreme Court in 2008 and the ECHR disagree with you. Her rights to a lawyer during the interrogation were violated. I know you don't want to accept that, but you don't get everything you want in life.

Regarding the second highlighted part, I know it's hard for you to understand that Marasca annulled the Nencini conviction and also acquitted Knox and Sollecito as it clearly stated in the MR and which has been quoted for you.

(page 54 #2143 current part)

If you can identify where in that post I referred to Merriam Webster, or any dictionary, please do so.

Yet I never seem to learn. <sigh>

On this we agree; you never seem to learn.

 

[Stacyhs]

Fulfil Hare's Diagnostics.

Compulsive liar
No conscience
No remorse
History of anti-social behaviour
Contempt for authority
Need instant gratification
Lack of thought for the consequences of their behaviour
Uses people / manipulative
Only true emotion capable of, is rage
Con artists
Have learnt to mimic other people's body language to convey false affect

Well, Dr. Vixen, perhaps you'd like to produce an actual psychologist or psychiatrist who has examined Knox ... or even hasn't examined her... and found her to be a psychopath. Miss Represented from TJMK does not qualify as she turned out to be a complete liar much to Pete Quennell's embarrassment.

 

[Stacyhs]

1. How do you know Rolfe is female?

2. Exactly who are "all" the people Rolfe allegedly "advocates" for? In an earlier post, Rolfe asked who Jeremy Bamber is so is obviously not advocating for him, handsome or not.

How strange, I could have sworn Rolfe has contributed to the Bamber thread.

Perhaps there are two of them, each oblivious of the other.

You have still failed to answer either of my two questions. Can you please stop all the misdirection and just answer questions that are put to you? It's become quite a bad habit of yours.

Oh, there is someone who is oblivious but it's not Rolfe.

 

[Stacyhs]

As for the rest of your posts, they're directed at other members and you've had it all explained to you several times before. But, as you so correctly stated a few posts up, you just never seem to learn.