The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

[Rolfe]

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?

This "talking past each other" has pervaded much of this thread. Vixen constantly berates the other posters for (apparently knowingly) defending vicious, evil, psychopathic murderers. Everyone else patiently explains that we don't believe these people actually committed the crimes.

Whether it's the Kercher murder or any of the other murders discussed in this subforum, I think we all agree that these were appalling, horrific crimes and that whoever actually committed them should be dealt with by the full force of the law and preferably never see the outside of a prison ever again.

If we thought the people we were defending had actually committed the crimes, we wouldn't be defending them! Indeed, even if we thought it was possible they had committed the crimes, I don't think the advocacy would be particularly strong.

I note in cases (such as the Gilroy case) where there might actually be a sliver of doubt about the conviction but the balance of probabilities is still heavily in favour of guilt, we don't see strong advocacy groups springing up. "Well yes he might have done it indeed it's quite likely he did it but this was not proved BRD so let him go" is a very rare (if not nonexistent) call.

Advocacy groups are almost invariably found in cases where the evidence for factual innocence is strong-to-compelling. Nobody campaigns for the release of someone they believe to have committed the crime, or even to have probably committed the crime.

So give it a rest Vixen. You may sincerely believe that Knox and Sollecito and the other people you mentioned are guilty (though I confess to some doubts about this, this thread could be the longest piece of performance art in history), but get it into your skull that the rest of us do not, and quit with the offensive characterisation of other posters as psychopath-lovers.

 

[bagels]

You might have noticed a common thread: all those who tubthump that Knox and Sollecito are 'innocent',

The Italian appellate courts, the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation, the US State Department, every noteworthy legal commentator except like Ann Coulter, every forensic scientist that has ever expressed an opinion on the case, everyone that isn't a regular at the Daily Mail comment section, etc

also claim the same for Echols, Dassey, Avery, Bamber, et al, worship the ground Sunny Jacobs walks on,

Nope.

 

[bagels]

Photoshop.

Rudy is size 45.

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

So your argument is readily available pictures of the crime scene are all photoshopped to make it look like Rudy's Nike's made the print on the pillow?

I would like to admit this statement into evidence your honor. Not even Vixen believes the prosecution witness could have, in good faith, tried to claim the image I posted above could be anything but Rudy's Nike's. I rest my case.

 

[bagels]

Nice try.

The footprint was objectively measured from all sides by qualified engineers and forensic experts with its parameters matched on a graph and modelled on a computer. This conclusively excluded Knox and Guede and matched Sollecito 98%.

It was Raff's bloodstained footprint on that bathmat.

No amount of sophistry can take that away.

A scene from Moneyball comes to mind, with Brad Pitt responding to a scout giving a long spiel about how great a player supposedly is, "If he's a good hitter, then why doesn't he hit good?"

If it's Raff's footprint then why does it look like Rudy's

 

[TomG]

Nice try.

The footprint was objectively measured from all sides by qualified engineers and forensic experts with its parameters matched on a graph and modelled on a computer. This conclusively excluded Knox and Guede and matched Sollecito 98%.

It was Raff's bloodstained footprint on that bathmat.

No amount of sophistry can take that away.

However M/B states:
"There is also no certainty to be reached regarding the attribution to Sollecito of the footprints found in the house on via della Pergola, as the technical analysis did not go beyond a conclusion of “probable identity” to one of certainty (ff. 260/1)."

Its clear that M/B does not put K&S in the murder room since there is no evidence whatsoever of them being there. Which begs the question how did Raffaele get enough blood on his foot to constitute a footprint on the blue mat if his presence at the source of the blood is ruled out?

Hoots

 

[Bill Williams]

Vinci - hired by the defence - was a crook. Used photoshop to try to make the footprint Guede's size 45 when it was always Raff's size 42, complete with his rare hammer toe.

You have no evidence that this assertion of yours is true. None. Other than that the foottrack more like a size 45.

There's a name for using your conclusion as the basis for making allegations.

 

[Bill Williams]

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

.... and of course you have actual evidence that any of this applies to either AK or RS!? I thought not.

Other than the conclusion you have drawn, I mean. There's a name for using your conclusion for sifting through what you then claim are reasonable assertions! Lessee, I had that term here somewhere.....

But here's the deal, Vixen, now given to you for the 173rd time. Even if all that had been true about AK and/or RS, it still doesn't put them in the murder room. Which is conclusive.

Gee - that has been written about somewhere. Lessee, oh yes, it was what the Italian Supreme Court wrote in acquitting the pair.

Four.

And.

One.

Half.

Years.

Ago.

 

[TomG]

Vinci - hired by the defence - was a crook. Used photoshop to try to make the footprint Guede's size 45 when it was always Raff's size 42, complete with his rare hammer toe.

For anyone to claim that any image is Photoshopped they need to come up with the original to make the comparison and substantiate the claim. Either that or provide proof from a technical expert that the image has been tampered with. Otherwise it's baloney as usual.

Hoots

 

[TruthCalls]

Vinci - hired by the defence - was a crook. Used photoshop to try to make the footprint Guede's size 45 when it was always Raff's size 42, complete with his rare hammer toe.

I notice you fail to mention Vinci used the actual bathmat to take his measurements, whereas the prosecution experts used crime scene photographs, and used photoshop to adjust the photos because the original perspective was wrong (i.e., was not a photo from directly above).

You call Vinci a "crook" solely because you don't like his conclusion. However, Vinci was more professional in his analysis than the prosecution's "qualified engineers and forensic experts" in as much as he used the actual bathmat and the prosecution did not.

 

[whoanellie]

If Meredith Kercher was 'dead as soon as she arrived home circa 9:00pm', how was she making calls on her mobile one and a half hours later?

You assume Meredith made the phone calls, draw conclusions based solely on your assumption, and believe you are being logical.

Yesterday I learned a new word - mumpsimus. I immediately thought of our one and only.

 

[Stacyhs]

This "talking past each other" has pervaded much of this thread. Vixen constantly berates the other posters for (apparently knowingly) defending vicious, evil, psychopathic murderers. Everyone else patiently explains that we don't believe these people actually committed the crimes.

Whether it's the Kercher murder or any of the other murders discussed in this subforum, I think we all agree that these were appalling, horrific crimes and that whoever actually committed them should be dealt with by the full force of the law and preferably never see the outside of a prison ever again.

If we thought the people we were defending had actually committed the crimes, we wouldn't be defending them! Indeed, even if we thought it was possible they had committed the crimes, I don't think the advocacy would be particularly strong.

I note in cases (such as the Gilroy case) where there might actually be a sliver of doubt about the conviction but the balance of probabilities is still heavily in favour of guilt, we don't see strong advocacy groups springing up. "Well yes he might have done it indeed it's quite likely he did it but this was not proved BRD so let him go" is a very rare (if not nonexistent) call.

Advocacy groups are almost invariably found in cases where the evidence for factual innocence is strong-to-compelling. Nobody campaigns for the release of someone they believe to have committed the crime, or even to have probably committed the crime.

So give it a rest Vixen. You may sincerely believe that Knox and Sollecito and the other people you mentioned are guilty (though I confess to some doubts about this, this thread could be the longest piece of performance art in history), but get it into your skull that the rest of us do not, and quit with the offensive characterisation of other posters as psychopath-lovers.

Very well said, Rolfe. Vixen's ridiculous claim that we are all knowingly defending two murderers is so far beyond silly that it's just pathetic. One has to wonder how anyone can actually say it with a straight face.

 

[Stacyhs]

However M/B states:
"There is also no certainty to be reached regarding the attribution to Sollecito of the footprints found in the house on via della Pergola, as the technical analysis did not go beyond a conclusion of “probable identity” to one of certainty (ff. 260/1)."

Its clear that M/B does not put K&S in the murder room since there is no evidence whatsoever of them being there. Which begs the question how did Raffaele get enough blood on his foot to constitute a footprint on the blue mat if his presence at the source of the blood is ruled out?

Hoots

I think the most logical inference one can draw from this lack of consensus between experts is that it is more likely not RS's footprint for one very glaring reason: if it had been RS's footprint, the pair would certainly NOT have pointed it out to the police. They would have either washed the mat or removed it. But, in order to explain this extremely illogical behavior, Vixen has asserted that the two were trying to put one over on the police for kicks. Somehow, in her mind, that makes some kind of sense.

how did Raffaele get enough blood on his foot to constitute a footprint on the blue mat if his presence at the source of the blood is ruled out?

Obviously he had to have cleaned up his bloody footprints between MK's bedroom and the mat in the bathroom in order to hide his participation...but then left his bloody print on the mat in order to show the police that he could get away with it. Vixen Logic 101. How can you not see that?

 

[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.

The above is what I asked Vixen. Below is the answer I received, which, unsurprisingly, had absolutely nothing to do with what she was asked:

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.

You assume Meredith made the phone calls, draw conclusions based solely on your assumption, and believe you are being logical.

Yes, she believes it logical that MK would not know a prefix was required to call her bank in England even though she called England at least once every day. Then, when the call fails to go through, it's also logical that she wouldn't just redial because suddenly the reason for calling her bank in the first place no longer exists. Makes much more sense than Guede messing about with her phone!

Yesterday I learned a new word - mumpsimus. I immediately thought of our one and only.

I can't kemo sabe why you'd make the connection!

 

[TruthCalls]

What?


If Meredith Kercher was 'dead as soon as she arrived home circa 9:00pm', how was she making calls on her mobile one and a half hours later?

Do you just not pay attention to anything? Didn't LJ, just yesterday, point out the calls were made around 22:00, so it's only one hour. And here you are, the very next day repeating the same "one and a half hours" lie.

Perhaps you're missing the point... Meredith would NOT have made the mistakes in dialing, which proves Meredith was not doing the dialing, which means Meredith was already dead by 22:00. So much for the prosecution's claim of the murder happening after 23:00.

We know Guede left straight away as his shoeprints in blood lead directly from her room towards the front door.

You know no such thing. All that means is he stepped in blood before heading for the door. He could have spent 45 mins in Meredith's bedroom before he decided to leave, and left the trail then.

We know Knox and Sollecito do not have an alibi. In fact, Sollecito dreamt up a false alibi. Changed his story FIVE times.

No, we know they do have an alibi, you just choose to pretend otherwise. Their alibi is they spent the evening alone at Raffaele's apartment, and there is computer evidence - accepted by the prosecution - that puts them there at least until 21:26.

And no, they had one - and only one - alibi. We've dismantled the nonsense at the fake wiki numerous times. Congratulations on the police confusing Raffaele on what day of the week something took place and got him to tell them of the night of Halloween (and there is NO doubt that is what he did) which couldn't possibly have been the events of the night of the murder. If the police actually cared about the truth they could have easily determined he had the wrong day, but that wasn't their objective, now was it. Otherwise, the alibi has always been the same.

Wthdrew his alibi for Knox. To this day he refuses to claim she was with him at the salient time frame.

He never withdrew his alibi for Knox, and to this day he still says they spent the evening alone, together, in his place. Where do you come up with this crap?

What does a phone mast have to do with this? A telecommunications expert testified the call was made from the cottage.

But of course, you know better.

It matters because we KNOW it is not possible to narrow the location of where someone made a call to a cottage. Typically they can triangulate and get within a few blocks, but in this case all they did was look to see what mast handled the call attempts. That mast would easily handle the area near Lana's garden. So no, it is not proven the calls were made from the cottage. But even if they were, that does not mean it wasn't Guede, in the cottage, making the calls. That is, unless you have some evidence that Guede left the cottage before 22:00.

 

[Stacyhs]

Do you just not pay attention to anything? Didn't LJ, just yesterday, point out the calls were made around 22:00, so it's only one hour. And here you are, the very next day repeating the same "one and a half hours" lie.

Perhaps you're missing the point... Meredith would NOT have made the mistakes in dialing, which proves Meredith was not doing the dialing, which means Meredith was already dead by 22:00. So much for the prosecution's claim of the murder happening after 23:00.

This is exactly why Vixen has refused to address my post regarding the failure to use the prefix for England. She can't. When Vixen can't address something with any reasonable explanation, she ignores the question and hopes we don't notice. We do.

(Vixen)
We know Guede left straight away as his shoeprints in blood lead directly from her room towards the front door.

You know no such thing. All that means is he stepped in blood before heading for the door. He could have spent 45 mins in Meredith's bedroom before he decided to leave, and left the trail then.

Exactly. This would also explain why MK's body was covered. If he had left immediately after killing her, he would not have bothered covering her. It's logical that he would have stayed for some time while he tried to figure out what to do but he didn't want to look at what he'd done so he covered her.

Cue Vixen telling us MK was covered by Amanda because only a woman would cover a body.

 

[TomG]

I think the most logical inference one can draw from this lack of consensus between experts is that it is more likely not RS's footprint for one very glaring reason: if it had been RS's footprint, the pair would certainly NOT have pointed it out to the police. They would have either washed the mat or removed it. But, in order to explain this extremely illogical behavior, Vixen has asserted that the two were trying to put one over on the police for kicks. Somehow, in her mind, that makes some kind of sense.



Obviously he had to have cleaned up his bloody footprints between MK's bedroom and the mat in the bathroom in order to hide his participation...but then left his bloody print on the mat in order to show the police that he could get away with it. Vixen Logic 101. How can you not see that?

Another way of looking at it is that while M/B struggles to make sense of the washed blood theory it inherited from Massei by stating that "- her contact with the victim’s blood would have occurred after the crime and in another part of the house." the same logic has to be applied to the bloody footprint on the blue mat. Since K&S were 100% NOT in the murder room, the footprint (even if it were hypothesised to be Raffaele's) his "contact with the victim’s blood would have occurred after the crime and in another part of the house." However, since there is absolutely nowhere else in the house that had enough blood to constitute the bloody footprint on the mat the caveat doesn't work so it must be Rudy's footie.

Hoots

 

[Rolfe]

This is your reminder about that call. I understand this was Meredith's home phone, so it wasn't set up to dial British numbers as international ones (i.e. with the +44 prefix). The "bank" was what was previously known as the Abbey National Building Society, which became a bank some time when these moves were popular. Abbey.

Numbers were stored in these phones in alphabetical order. If you hit the button for the contacts list, the one at the top would be the one highest up the alphabet. In the phone I had at that time the top number was listed as "Andrea". Andrea died of brain cancer in the summer of 2006 and several times in the months afterwards I upset myself by accidentally dialling the top number on the list and suddenly heard Andrea's voicemail answer as from beyond the grave.

The time of that call would have been about 9 pm in England. Why on earth would Meredith have wanted to call her bank at that time. It's well past the end of normal banking hours. I don't even know if you could do anything by automatic no-human-on-the-line banking at that time. I think the likelihood that Meredith had some pressing balance transfer she needed to organise is very slight, indeed nonexistent.

Accidentally calling the top alphabetical contact number when fiddling with your phone isn't hard. Doing that when it's not even your phone and you're trying to figure out how it works is very easy. I think it's beyond reasonable doubt that the Abbey number was called by mistake, by someone who was trying to do something else with the phone but hit the contacts list and hit call by mistake.

Was that person Meredith, or someone else? What do you think? The existence of that call is certainly no sort of proof that the phone was in Meredith's hands at the time, or indeed that the phone was even inside the cottage (mobile phone cells being a fair bit wider than a single house).

 

[Vixen]

This "talking past each other" has pervaded much of this thread. Vixen constantly berates the other posters for (apparently knowingly) defending vicious, evil, psychopathic murderers. Everyone else patiently explains that we don't believe these people actually committed the crimes.

Whether it's the Kercher murder or any of the other murders discussed in this subforum, I think we all agree that these were appalling, horrific crimes and that whoever actually committed them should be dealt with by the full force of the law and preferably never see the outside of a prison ever again.

If we thought the people we were defending had actually committed the crimes, we wouldn't be defending them! Indeed, even if we thought it was possible they had committed the crimes, I don't think the advocacy would be particularly strong.

I note in cases (such as the Gilroy case) where there might actually be a sliver of doubt about the conviction but the balance of probabilities is still heavily in favour of guilt, we don't see strong advocacy groups springing up. "Well yes he might have done it indeed it's quite likely he did it but this was not proved BRD so let him go" is a very rare (if not nonexistent) call.

Advocacy groups are almost invariably found in cases where the evidence for factual innocence is strong-to-compelling. Nobody campaigns for the release of someone they believe to have committed the crime, or even to have probably committed the crime.

So give it a rest Vixen. You may sincerely believe that Knox and Sollecito and the other people you mentioned are guilty (though I confess to some doubts about this, this thread could be the longest piece of performance art in history), but get it into your skull that the rest of us do not, and quit with the offensive characterisation of other posters as psychopath-lovers.

Lovely grandstanding. However, you either haven't read the court documents, which clearly establish Mez was almost certainly killed around about the time her phone was cut off, 10:20-ish, the same time more than a few witnesses heard load thuds, screams and shouts, so your off the hoof claim 'she died at nine' comes across as mischievous and an attempt to move the time to when you believe Knox had an alibi.

Why do you have the need to do this?

 

[Vixen]

However M/B states:
"There is also no certainty to be reached regarding the attribution to Sollecito of the footprints found in the house on via della Pergola, as the technical analysis did not go beyond a conclusion of “probable identity” to one of certainty (ff. 260/1)."

Its clear that M/B does not put K&S in the murder room since there is no evidence whatsoever of them being there. Which begs the question how did Raffaele get enough blood on his foot to constitute a footprint on the blue mat if his presence at the source of the blood is ruled out?

Hoots

Oh dear. <sfx knocks on a solid block of wood> Marasca-Bruno heard Bongiorno, Raff's counsel, for over the course of two days. What you see on their MR are Bogniorno's prattle, for it is her word they decided to accept (obviously in advance to give her five times the amount of hearing time than the others =legally unfair]). The party the judges accept gets to be quoted on the MR.

Have you not noticed M-B is all over the place?

 

[Vixen]

You have no evidence that this assertion of yours is true. None. Other than that the foottrack more like a size 45.

There's a name for using your conclusion as the basis for making allegations.

Vinci's testimony was not accepted by the court. He was so obviously a paid defence shill and he took it so far they struck him out.