The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

[Vixen]

Yeah.... you STILL don't (or perhaps you still refuse to) understand that the Marasca SC pannel anulled Nencini and Massei - in fact, anulled and tossed out everything to do with the murder charges - on grounds of law.

The British Library is BOUND to have some good books about the scope and remit of Supreme Courts in general and the Italian Supreme Court in particular. I recommend the coffee in that place next to the first reading room.

Nencini and Marasca were never on trial, were never convicted or sentenced and thus, were never 'annulled'.

 

[Vixen]

But you forget the part in that Knox quote above where she explicitly writes: "I wouldn't have been able to write this memoir without......."

I strongly suspect (from the available evidence, obviously) that Kulman acted as an editor and sounding board for Knox, but that (aside from from minor text and structure alterations - which is something that regular publishing editors frequently do anyhow) the text on the page was Knox's.

No she was not an editor. She wrote the book. 'As told to' Linda Kulman.

 

[Vixen]

Yes. You are right. I am watching Black Mirror at the same time so am not really concentrating.

Black Summer is quite good.

 

[Vixen]

Stacy: is that still you've shown here DEFINTELY from the bathroom in the lower cottage (i.e. the one in which the chair had been placed)?


ETA: I've now found the actual video to which you were referring, and yes I can see that it's the bathroom.

However I'm interested in the whitewashed wall and door that can be seen (in semi-lighting) out of that window. This would imply that there was actually a building opposite that part of the larger house structure, and it would further imply that the car port effectively formed the roof of such a building. I'll try to find daytime exterior photographs which show what lies opposite that part of the large house structure and underneath the car port.

Also, the chair in question is not within the bathroom when that crime-scene video is being filmed (it's clearly visible outside the door to the bathroom). So was the chair truly within the bathroom when the police initially entered the lower cottage? If so, it would appear to be extremely lax of the police to have moved the chair before they recorded the condition of the lower cottage on video (but of course, nothing would really surprise me about the sloppiness of Stefanoni and her "crack" team of (largely unqualified) scene of crime team.....)

You can see all of the 'cat' blood marks here, together with the crime scene photos. The chair was not moved. It is photographed exactly how it was found.

 

[Vixen]

Besides the irregularities pointed out in Nigel Scott's article, there are other factors which indicate Amanda was lied to she had HIV. Numerous abuses were comitted by the police/prosecution. Amanda and Raffaele were denied access to lawyers, their interrogations were not taped, false information was fed to the media, evidence was supressed and destroyed and the prosecution committed perjury. Lying to Amanda she had HIV is exactly the sort of dirty trick you would expect from corrupt police/prosecutors. Why there is no evidence a genuine HIV test was carried out and details such as when and where was Amanda's blood tested don't exist and no documentation has emerged showing a test was carried out.

I find it utterly repulsive that Amanda is the victim of the most disgusting lie possible but is attacked by Vixen and other PGP for lying. If the prosecution had a mountain of evidence and a slam dunk case against Amanda and Raffaele, why would they need to resort to dirty tricks like lying to Amanda she had HIV?

Given Amanda Knox' lifestyle choices, which in her own words was to sleep with as many guys as possible to gain sexual experience and was actually sleeping with a convicted cocaine drug dealer almost ten years older, it was to her benefit to have been tested for HIV as the earlier it is diagnosed the better the prognosis.

The claim she was told she had a positive HIV test out of sheer victimisation is disgraceful defamation of the doctor concerned without any foundation.

Any doctor who agrees to work in a prison amongst all sorts, prostitutes, drug addicts, thieves and murderers, etc, is more likely to be a caring type than the ones who prefer rich private patients only.

 

[Vixen]

Another interesting thing I noted was that the chair in the bathroom was not in the same place in the video as in the still photo. It had been moved to the side of the sink. This is visible at 8:21. The clothing on the floor had also been moved. The still photos do not have a time stamp so I don't know when they were taken. What was the original position of the chair? Was it moved by the police to the center of the room or did was it there when they arrived? TMoMK says labels ALL the pictures as taken on Nov. 2, but no pictures at all taken on Nov. 3. I don't know if this is accurate or not.

This is a police photo of the downstairs bathroom window. Notice it is open.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_716695d7999dedf326.jpg[/qimg]

ETA: notice the blood drop is on the outside of the casement rather than the inside. It makes more sense that this would be left there by an injured cat passing through the open window rather than being left by a person.

Nothing was moved. It was likely just shot from a different angle.

 

[bagels]

What? It acted correctly in deferring it back to the lower court that erred. However, as the lower court concerned (Hellmann) had been so egregious and defective in a fatally devastating way, it was remitted to a completely new court (Nencini) in a completely different region, away from the corrupt influences of the offending court.

Ya they telegraphed what they wanted the Nencini court to do (find her guilty). I think what they didn't realize, in their brief glance before rubber stamping the prosecution's appeal and rewording it into their motivation report, is that the case against Knox was actually garbage and Hellmann wasn't wrong.

Either that or I'm delusional and M&B overturned Nencini because of the mafia. One or the other right?

 

[Vixen]

Ya they telegraphed what they wanted the Nencini court to do (find her guilty). I think what they didn't realize, in their brief glance before rubber stamping the prosecution's appeal and rewording it into their motivation report, is that the case against Knox was actually garbage and Hellmann wasn't wrong.

Either that or I'm delusional and M&B overturned Nencini because of the mafia. One or the other right?

That's what higher courts do. They direct the lower court to correct its legal error by reassessing the issue in question.

 

[RoseMontague]

That is not a window that is a sealed unused door.

Yep, I agree. Does look like the top half is glass however. Should be easy to see through...

 

[RoseMontague]

Appears to be the same type of door that had the glass kicked in on the other side.

 

[Vixen]

Appears to be the same type of door that had the glass kicked in on the other side.

Even if there was a clear view from that door, there is little to zero view of who or what is approaching from the cottage's main entrance, which leads first to a car parking space.

It is too far back.

 

[RoseMontague]

No she was not an editor. She wrote the book. 'As told to' Linda Kulman.

I don't see that quote on my copy.

 

[RoseMontague]

Even if there was a clear view from that door, there is little to zero view of who or what is approaching from the cottage's main entrance, which leads first to a car parking space.

It is too far back.

It's a better angle from the door, with a better line of sight, in my opinion.

 

[RoseMontague]

yep, much better....

https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article1785721.ece/ALTERNATES/s1227b/Amanda%20Knox%20and%20Raffaele%20Sollecito%20to%20face%20retrial%20.jpg

 

[LondonJohn]

Sorry, are you denying Amanda Knox ever claimed she was forced to list her sex partners and this meme was picked up by her supporters?

What are you on about now??

Let me make it easier for you to understand, by summarising the flow of events on this matter. Ready? OK:


1) You claimed that "Knox supporters" were putting it about that Knox "was forced to list all her sexual partners" in prison after the first HIV positive test:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12816280#post12816280


2) Stacy asked you - twice - for the evidence to support your claim in (1) above:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12816759#post12816759

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12816799#post12816799


3) You replied, not with the evidence to support your claim in (1) above, but rather to accuse Stacy of trolling:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12816803#post12816803


4) I replied to that post of yours, to point out that Stacy was most assuredly NOT "trolling" - rather, she was asking you to provide evidence to support your claim in (1) above:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12817032#post12817032


5) You then "responded" to my post above with the post quoted at the top here, which attempted (unsuccessfully) to reverse the burden of proof:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12817484#post12817484


See, Vixen: it was YOU who made the claim that "Knox supporters" were putting it about that Knox had been "forced" to list her sexual partners.

And in the world of critical thinking, Vixen, the onus is therefore entirely upon you to present evidence to support your claim, or to withdraw your claim. You don't get to turn the tables, Vixen.


So...... either present on this thread some reliable evidence to support your claim - this could be, for example, in the form of anything published (or indeed anything written online by someone from the pro-acquittal/pro-innocence community) where it was stated that Knox was "forced" to list her sexual partners....

....or withdraw the claim.


Put up or shut up, Vixen. It's your choice.


(PS: please be sure to let me know if you need it explained in even further simplicity)

 

[LondonJohn]

This has been discussed on the forum before so please do a search on the name Frank Sfarzo.

I'm talking about reliable evidence, Vixen.

Not "something that Peter Quennell and his mythical "team of lawyers"" introduced out of thin air.

Not "it's been said that....."

Not "Seattle is abuzz with....."

And not "Google Frank Sfarzo", Vixen.


Actual, reliable, documentary evidence, Vixen.


How is it that you still appear unable to comprehend the way it works: you make a claim, you have the burden of proof to reliably support that claim (or else to withdraw it).

So: reliable evidence please, that Frank Sfarzo (I assume it's him that you're accusing here) attempted to sell "dirty photos of Knox" to the tabloids.



(Not to mention the question of how Sfarzo would ever have got hold of such photos in any case..... But let's tackle the initial question first, eh?)

 

[LondonJohn]

Nencini and Marasca were never on trial, were never convicted or sentenced and thus, were never 'annulled'.

Oh dear oh dear.

I am talking about their verdicts (obviously), Vixen. Not the people themselves.

SMH (as I believe the internet initials go....)

 

[LondonJohn]

You can see all of the 'cat' blood marks here, together with the crime scene photos. The chair was not moved. It is photographed exactly how it was found.

Where is that chair in the crime scene video, Vixen?

(Please take the trouble to actually watch that video before attempting a response....)

 

[LondonJohn]

Nothing was moved. It was likely just shot from a different angle.

You're obviously joking, right?

Please watch the crime scene video. It shows the entirety of the floor of the bathroom. And it shows the way into the bathroom. And in that video, Vixen, the chair is most certainly NOT in the bathroom - it's outside the bathroom door.

Watch the video. Then figure it out for yourself.

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't see that quote on my copy.

That's because Vixen simply made it up, to try to support her own beliefs. It's a lie.

Again, nothing new under the Sun......