The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

[Stacyhs]

Not my finding, Guv, it's the court's finding.

*Read the court documents*.

*Provide the quote from the court documents*

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.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12574816#post12574816

 

[TomG]

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?

Drivel! It doesn't take two days of anything, it takes 2 minutes of commonsense. K&S were not in the murder room, there is no evidence. Raffaele's bloody footprint must have occurred in another dimension along with K&S's alleged presence at VDP.

Hoots

 

[TomG]

Not my finding, Guv, it's the court's finding.

*Read the court documents*.

Cite your own sources. I'm not going to sift through 10,000 pages of procedural pulp to substantiate your claims for you.

Hoots

 

[Welshman]

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 only objects to the defense being given more time as this worked in Amanda and Raffaele’s favour. If the prosecution had been given more time than the defense Vixen would not complain as this would work against Amanda and Raffaele.

 

[LondonJohn]

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?

Nope and nope. Once again, please read the ONLY court verdict and MR that counts in this case in respect of all murder related charges: the Marasca SC verdict and MR

Why do you have the need to do this (i.e. to carry on quoting from discredited and discarded court verdicts as if they actually carry any weight)?

Well, Vixen? Why?

 

[LondonJohn]

Oooh and Vixen: please give us the evidence to show that the Knox family engaged in a "$2 million PR campaign".

After all, you proudly state that all your claims are based on hard facts and reliable sources. So if that's true, you MUST have the hard facts and/or reliable sources to support this claim. Isn't that so, Vixen?

And at one point, you blithely wrote the two words "David Marriott", apparently meaning that Marriott himself was the source for your claim. So show us the evidence that Marriott was the source, Vixen.

At another, later, time, you seemed to claim that the Knox family itself was the source for your claim. So which is it, Vixen? And once again, where's the evidence?

You see, Vixen, an argument (and a connected series of arguments) only carries an acceptable level of intellectual honesty when it's supported by reliable evidence. And therefore when claims are thrown around and remain unsupported by any reliable evidence - in spite of numerous requests for that evidence - well, this kind of automatically eradicates any credibility not only for that particular claim, but also for all other unsupported claims. That's how it works, Vixen.

So: evidence please. Or retraction. OK?

 

[LondonJohn]

Not my finding, Guv, it's the court's finding.

*Read the court documents*.

Once again, you seem to inhabit a fantasy world in which the Massei court verdict and reasoning carries any weight.

News for Vixen: the Massei verdict was expunged. And not only that, it was excoriated by the Marasca SC panel, which (correctly) ruled that it had been incabable of assessing the evidence in accordance with the required law, and had been manifestly unfair.

So perhaps it's time for you to stop relying on what the Massei court decided and wrote about, Vixen. Its "reasoning" is literally worthless. OK?

 

[LondonJohn]

He's was caught out shall we say massaging his images so it is OK to call him a crook as a court of law demands honesty.

Ah so by the same measure, Stefanoni is one HECK of a crook, Vixen

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh dear. <sfx knock knock knock>.

If Rudy left the scene as soon as poss (his bloody footsteps trail leads straight out of the door) then who came back at 10:15??!!!


Remember: according to Rolfe, 'Mez was dead as soon as she walked in the door at nine'.


Do keep up.

Oh dear.

It's only YOU who keeps insisting that the evidence shows that Guede must have "left the scene as soon as possible", Vixen.

You appear incapable of assimilating the clearly-reasonable possibility that:

1) Guede confronted Kercher by around 9.05pm, and started an argument with her which then became physical, then

2) he stabbed Kercher by, say, 9.20pm, then

3) he hung around in the room for 10-20 minutes more (I'm of the belief that he may well, disgustingly, have continued some form of sexual activity as Kercher lay dying), then

4) at around 9.35pm he went to the small bathroom to wash the blood off himself and his clothing (which he himself admitted to doing, Vixen), then

5) at around 9.45pm he went back into Kercher's room to try to clean up and hide her body (being careful to avoid stepping in any blood), then

6) at around 9.55pm he went to the front door to leave, but found it still locked and with no key present (on account of Kercher having locked it with her key after arriving home, then placing her keys back into her bag), then

7) at around 9.55pm he went back into Kercher's room to find her keys, opening her bag to do so, and found & took her bank cards and two mobile handsets at the same time (turning off her Italian handset, but accidentally making two aborted calls from Kercher's stored numbers as he struggled and failed to turn off her UK handset), but he inadvertantly placed one shoe partly onto a bloody section of the floor at that time, then

8) at around 10.05pm he walked to the front door for the last time (leaving the faint one-foot bloody shoe print as he did so), unlocked the door and exited the flat.


Heaven only knows the type of poor thinking underpinning the "reasoning" that the faint trail of single-shoe bloody prints from Guede's shoe leading to the front door IN ANY WAY indicates that Guede must have exited the cottage immediately after (or, for that matter, even soon after) Kercher died.

 

[LondonJohn]

Think about it: either the call was made accidentally on speed dial due to the phone being knocked (we have all accidentally rang a number having forgotten to lock the phone in our pocket), for example, knocked on the floor in the struggle (most likely), or Mez tried to call for help, or the perp was ******* about with it.

Remember, Rudy according to Rolfe left at nine.

What?

How on Earth do you extract that utterly erroneous "inference" from Rolfe's posts on the matter?

Your incorrect inference here is the very epitome of poor thinking and total lack of logical reasoning

 

[TruthCalls]

Oh dear.

It's only YOU who keeps insisting that the evidence shows that Guede must have "left the scene as soon as possible", Vixen.

You appear incapable of assimilating the clearly-reasonable possibility that:

1) Guede confronted Kercher by around 9.05pm, and started an argument with her which then became physical, then

2) he stabbed Kercher by, say, 9.20pm, then

3) he hung around in the room for 10-20 minutes more (I'm of the belief that he may well, disgustingly, have continued some form of sexual activity as Kercher lay dying), then

4) at around 9.35pm he went to the small bathroom to wash the blood off himself and his clothing (which he himself admitted to doing, Vixen), then

5) at around 9.45pm he went back into Kercher's room to try to clean up and hide her body (being careful to avoid stepping in any blood), then

6) at around 9.55pm he went to the front door to leave, but found it still locked and with no key present (on account of Kercher having locked it with her key after arriving home, then placing her keys back into her bag), then

7) at around 9.55pm he went back into Kercher's room to find her keys, opening her bag to do so, and found & took her bank cards and two mobile handsets at the same time (turning off her Italian handset, but accidentally making two aborted calls from Kercher's stored numbers as he struggled and failed to turn off her UK handset), but he inadvertantly placed one shoe partly onto a bloody section of the floor at that time, then

8) at around 10.05pm he walked to the front door for the last time (leaving the faint one-foot bloody shoe print as he did so), unlocked the door and exited the flat.


Heaven only knows the type of poor thinking underpinning the "reasoning" that the faint trail of single-shoe bloody prints from Guede's shoe leading to the front door IN ANY WAY indicates that Guede must have exited the cottage immediately after (or, for that matter, even soon after) Kercher died.

What I think happened is very close to yours, but with one major difference. You have him leave the room, return to the room, step in blood, leave the room a second time. I reverse this order. I think he stepped in blood before leaving the room the first time. By the time he gets to the door the blood on his shoe is worn off and dried, so he leaves no prints when he returns. He only goes to the bed to get to her handbag, where he not only grabs her keys but also the phones, money and cards. Because he only went to the bed he doesn't step in more blood so he leaves no trail this time. That is how he was able to turn around and lock Meredith's door without leaving prints facing the door. He then leaves.

I think Vixen knows this is the likely scenario, consistent with all of the known facts and contradicted by nothing. This is why she needs to make such foolish statements such as Meredith dies at 9 or that Guede leaves immediately after. She's got to find a way to fit Amanda and Raffaele into the picture.

 

[bagels]

The main unknowns with this case were the precise sequence of events after Meredith got home, and after she was killed. Did she stop in the downstairs apartment first? Did Rudy go down there? How long did Rudy stay after the murder? Did he return to the crime scene later that night? Etc. At one point I was looking at all the available info to make a best guess, but there's not enough to go by from Rudy's unreliable statements, the cell phone records, and the shoddy evidence collection, some of which is potentially suppressed or mishandled.

The guilters have the typical Conspiracy Theory approach where every unknown or gap in information is where their conspiracy took place (IE Amanda and Raffaele arrive to help Rudy the neighborhood crook slaughter Meredith). And like all Conspiracy Theories theirs is less supported, answers fewer questions, and opens many more.

Actually the MK murder is probably better documented then 90% of solved and convicted cases.

 

[Matthew Best]

What?

How on Earth do you extract that utterly erroneous "inference" from Rolfe's posts on the matter?

Dead before 9, dead after 9, it's more or less the same thing, right?

 

[Bill Williams]

What?

How on Earth do you extract that utterly erroneous "inference" from Rolfe's posts on the matter?

Your incorrect inference here is the very epitome of poor thinking and total lack of logical reasoning

Vixen seems unable to glean the plain meaning of posts on this thread.

On what basis then is the humble lurker to this thread going to trust Vixen's account of what "the court documents" say? Because she asserts it? Remember, this is before even considering that Vixen regards the only true "court documents" to be those from the 2009 prosecution case. Every other court document, acc. to Vixen, is the result of bias, bribery, Masonic, American Media or Mafia influence.

Back to humble lurking.

 

[Bill Williams]

Vixen's inability to glean meaning from plain-text posts here makes me miss Machiavelli.

At least Machiavelli dealt in deep-dietrology, rather than simply skewing meaning for all to see.

Remember Judge Massei writing in 2010, in justifying his provisional-guilt verdict, that it was hard to fathom why two normal kids with a full life ahead of them would participate in, what he said was, Rudy's crime?

Massei said that the only way to make sense of that was that the kids had made an inexplicable "choice for evil", probably because of marijuana and being so far from the norms of home.

I told Machiavelli that that meant the even Judge Massei rejected any psychopathology in relation to AK or RS. It had been implied, right there in Massei's text.

Not so, said Machiavelli. Then Mach engaged in multiple paragraphs claiming a dietrological hidden understanding to what a Motivations Report following a trial was. Or some such thing.

The upshot was some convoluted reason why Machiavelli (and other guilter-nutters) felt quite comfortable spewing this psychobabble about Knox (less so about Sollecito, and not at all about poor poor Rudy). Even though Massei had implicitly rejected any talk about either psychopathology, jealousy, or satanic rituals as being part of the crime.

So much for "following court documents". Acc. to Machiavelli, one needed secret inside knowledge to know how to glean meaning from them.

Vixen, on the other hand, just outright lies about them.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

poor crime scene management

A few days ago, a question of forensics in this case came up. IMO the Italian police were neither great nor terrible in November. They did an adequate job finding and processing forensic evidence against Rudy Guede (IIRC Greg Hampikian pointed this out long ago); this stands in contrast to the forensic work in the Luke Mitchell case (Scotland) or the Jon Benet Ramsey case (United States). In both of these cases poor crime scene management made it much more difficult (perhaps impossible) to identify the perpetrator IMO (other cases could also be mentioned in this regard). Things took a turn for the worse in December when the Italian police went back to try to gather further evidence. Some but not all of the blame for that lies with Mignini's tunnel vision.

Nothing I have written above is meant to excuse the poor practices with respect to not changing gloves or failing to store the bra clasp in a manner that allowed its preservation. Nor is the problem of stepping in dried blood (which I recall Steve Moore's pointing out) something that one should ignore. My only points are (1) poor crime scene management can be a problem in any jurisdiction and (2) when it is coupled with a high-profile case (with its pressure to solve the crime), a bad situation can easily become worse, as Rolfe has persuasively argued in another thread. In other words, we should not hesitate to call out the poor practices of the Italian police, but neither should we imagine that the jurisdiction in which we live is incapable of messing things up.
EDT
The DNA profile that was claimed to be from the knife was in November. IMO this is more likely to be a failure of interpretation (in the sense of failing to acknowledge that low template DNA work requires special handling without which the chances of contamination are too large to ignore) than a failure of collection, although it is impossible to know with certainty.

 

[abaddon]

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?

More tedious "sfx" crap. Do you not realise that "sfx" is by definition not real? And thus you associate yourself with unreality every time you deploy it as an "argument"? Likely not.

 

[TomG]

Oh dear.

It's only YOU who keeps insisting that the evidence shows that Guede must have "left the scene as soon as possible", Vixen.

You appear incapable of assimilating the clearly-reasonable possibility that:

1) Guede confronted Kercher by around 9.05pm, and started an argument with her which then became physical, then

2) he stabbed Kercher by, say, 9.20pm, then

3) he hung around in the room for 10-20 minutes more (I'm of the belief that he may well, disgustingly, have continued some form of sexual activity as Kercher lay dying), then

4) at around 9.35pm he went to the small bathroom to wash the blood off himself and his clothing (which he himself admitted to doing, Vixen), then

5) at around 9.45pm he went back into Kercher's room to try to clean up and hide her body (being careful to avoid stepping in any blood), then

6) at around 9.55pm he went to the front door to leave, but found it still locked and with no key present (on account of Kercher having locked it with her key after arriving home, then placing her keys back into her bag), then

7) at around 9.55pm he went back into Kercher's room to find her keys, opening her bag to do so, and found & took her bank cards and two mobile handsets at the same time (turning off her Italian handset, but accidentally making two aborted calls from Kercher's stored numbers as he struggled and failed to turn off her UK handset), but he inadvertantly placed one shoe partly onto a bloody section of the floor at that time, then

8) at around 10.05pm he walked to the front door for the last time (leaving the faint one-foot bloody shoe print as he did so), unlocked the door and exited the flat.


Heaven only knows the type of poor thinking underpinning the "reasoning" that the faint trail of single-shoe bloody prints from Guede's shoe leading to the front door IN ANY WAY indicates that Guede must have exited the cottage immediately after (or, for that matter, even soon after) Kercher died.

I think you have Rudy with Meredith a little too long, remember he was downstairs too trying to find a change of clothing. You have him still in the top flat 40 minutes after killing. He would have had to have been certain that no-one else was going to arrive unexpectedly, I don't think that certainty existed in his mind. If he started an argument with Meredith, what was that 15 minute argument about? 15 minutes is an eternity in the circumstances.

Hoots

 

[Stacyhs]

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?

Once again, you misrepresent (to put it politely) what happened. On Wednesday, March 25, the court heard the defense. On the same day, the prosecutor presented his case. No court on Thursday. On Friday, March 27, the court heard Sollecito's attorney, Bongiorno.

Only Vixen can confuse one day with two days. Knox's and Sollecito's defense each had part of one day to present their cases as did the prosecution. Since there were two defendants, I fail to see how this is somehow unfair to the prosecution.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...urder-trial-italy-court-decision-live-updates

http://www.ansa.it/english/news/gen...nox_20ba12df-9886-4fb2-aca5-dd5ea84f4832.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-acquitted

(obviously in advance to give her five times the amount of hearing time than the others =legally unfair])

LOL! And this is based on what evidence? Is there any evidence that the prosecution was cut off, that they were not given the amount of time to present their case that they requested? Honestly, Vix, you slay me sometimes.

 

[Stacyhs]

I think you have Rudy with Meredith a little too long, remember he was downstairs too trying to find a change of clothing. You have him still in the top flat 40 minutes after killing. He would have had to have been certain that no-one else was going to arrive unexpectedly, I don't think that certainty existed in his mind. If he started an argument with Meredith, what was that 15 minute argument about? 15 minutes is an eternity in the circumstances.

Hoots

What are you talking about? There is no evidence Guede was ever downstairs the night of Nov. 1. I have never seen this claimed before.