• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
Not even the bent Marasca-Bruno court cleared the pair; it had to opt for a 'paragraph 2' get out clause so loved by dodgy Italian politicians (Berlusconi and Andreotti, for example) spouting 'insufficient evidence'.

In other words it didn't care if the pair were caught red-handed it still not 100% BEYOND ALL DOUBT they took part. Why, they could have just been passing through by accident.
Click to expand...



LMAO. You have no idea what you're talking about. And you clearly also have no idea about a) the ways in which Italian law acquits (and why), and b) the generlised concept in jurisprudence of acquittal in a criminal trial. Again, no suprise there really.
 
Stacyhs said:
It's posts like this that say so much about how you think. It's rather sad.

You see BARD as a "get out clause" to be used by 'bent' judges to benefit 'dodgy' politicians. Apparently, you don't think that proving a case 'beyond a reasonable doubt' due to insufficient/lack of evidence is necessary. I wouldn't be surprised if you'd have been a huge Tomas de Torquemada fan in the day.
Click to expand...




Yep. Vixen doesn't have the first idea what she's talking about. Sad really. It would be good to be able to have at least an informed, educated, properly-reasoned debate from a pro-guilt perspective (even though I am extremely confident that no reasonable argument can be made for guilt...). But instead we're stuck with this pile of bat guano.
 
Vixen said:
YOU, yourself said that if the key from inside the door was left in the lock, another housemate had to ring the bell, as the only way to ensure the faulty door was locked was to lock it from the inside. Amanda Knox and the other housemates confirmed this, so it is NOT hearsay, 'based on what Guede said'. If Guede broke in through the window (haha) how the heck would he even know about the faulty door?
Click to expand...



Erm, because he tried to exit using the door and found it locked with no key present?

The whole point is that whoever locked the door from the inside would have taken the key out of the door (and probably kept it with them). Otherwise nobody, even if they had a key, would have been able to unlock the door from outside and enter the house, if a key was already in the lock from the inside.

Sheesh.
 
Vixen said:
My word. Your deliberate omission of key facts informs us you know perfectly well the pair did it.
Click to expand...



L. M. A. O.

What is with this bizarre pro-guilt-commentator (seeming) obsession with the idea that pro-acquittal/pro-innocence commentators actually "know they did it", but somehow choose to argue and debate otherwise?

Is it that pro-guilt commentators need to believe this nonsense, in order to shore up their own misguided beliefs? I truly cannot understand the psychology here. Just as I'd find it ludicrous to accuse pro-guilt commentators of "knowing the pair are innocent".......
 
Vixen said:
You are so ignorant of forensic science you believe a 17-allele high RFU sample of DNA is an accident of random contamination which managed to somehow replicate it self out of nowhere, as Raff had never been in the room prior to the murder.

Knox' blood is mixed in with Mez' blood (hello? a murder victim's blood) both diluted at the same time and in exactly the same straight line in the sink and bidet.

So truly hignorant.


Or perhaps you are just a troll.
Click to expand...



Oh the irony!
Or perhaps you are just a troll......
 
Vixen said:
Unfortunately for you, Massei and Nencini, partly, were a merits trial in which facts were established from the evidence presented from all parties. It is commonly accepted that trial by a highly qualified judge (=fifteen years' practice as a successful barrister) plus twelve of your peers (in Italy there is a whole panel of judges, tribunal style as well as the jury) is the fairest possible way to weigh up guilt or innocence with the bar for 'guilty' for serious crime so high, it is difficult to ever get a conviction (for example only about 2% of rape trials succeed and in the UK two out of three persons standing trial can expect the jury to find them 'not guilty' and walk, to the despair of the police). Italy was hugely sympathetic to these two youngsters yet it could find no other verdict but GUILTY AS CHARGED.

The Supreme Court is not a merits court it is simply a 'paper work' court.

The Hellmann and Marasca ones were obviously as bent as an eleventy pence piece.

ETA: It was proven Raff gave a false alibi. He claimed to be surfing the net all evening. A blatant lie.
Click to expand...



I suggest you actually educate yourself properly as to the role and remit of the Supreme Court in Italy, rather than your wholly invented and incorrect interpretation. The British Library will almost certainly have book which will be able to inform you accurately, if you care to learn.
 
Vixen said:
Hello? The legal standard in a criminal court is 'beyond all reasonable doubt'.

In a civil court you only needed to show a 51-49% probability weighting to win your case.

In a murder trial, the level or BARD will be something like 99.9% to 0.01% residual doubt, on the assumption no-one but the killer/s was/were present at the crime so we'll never know the 100% truth.

You don't really believe the pair were found guilty because Guede claimed the lock on the door was faulty. (Which it was, actually.) Seriously?
Click to expand...



*sigh*

Oh dear.
 
Vixen said:
Only someone seriously deluded or a troll would think you can be convicted of murder by a judge and jury in civilised Europe for once having thrown a riotous party.

Grow up, please.
Click to expand...



What on Earth are you talking about? Nobody came close to suggesting or even implying such a thing. Do you have reading comprehension issues?

"Grow up please" HAHAHAHAHAHA.
 
Vixen said:
In your heart you know it. We can tell because of your systematic denial or revision of established facts.
Click to expand...



Does it actually make you feel somehow better to believe this bat crap about pro-innocence commentators "knowing in their hearts" that Knox and Sollecito actually participated in the Kercher murder, Vixen? What's your reasoning behind it? I'm very interested to find out.
 
Vixen said:
OUTED. You are not 'an expert biological chemist' as you have tried to present yourself.

You are actually HIGNORANT.
Click to expand...



Erm.... WHAT????

(And I suggest you take care. Oh no, wait..... actually I don't care at all in that respect)
 
Vixen, sweetheart, while we acknowledge you are a world-class scientist and scholar, doesn't it make you scratch your head a bit that every professional scientist that has looked at the forensic evidence has unequivocally stated it was flawed and that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent? Like, we're talking something around ~10-20 world class forensic scientists and geneticists that have spoken out against the evidence and even published scientific literature.

Like, shouldn't you have at least one scientist on your side...? Just one?
 
NotEvenWrong said:
Vixen, sweetheart, while we acknowledge you are a world-class scientist and scholar, doesn't it make you scratch your head a bit that every professional scientist that has looked at the forensic evidence has unequivocally stated it was flawed and that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent? Like, we're talking something around ~10-20 world class forensic scientists and geneticists that have spoken out against the evidence and even published scientific literature.

Like, shouldn't you have at least one scientist on your side...? Just one?
Click to expand...

Now, now...she has 'Dr.' Stefanoni on her side. You know, the 'Dr.' who didn't even bother to mention the several negative TMB results on extremely important evidence she kept referring to in her testimony. The 'Dr.' who claimed to find MK's DNA in a scratch on the knife neither she nor anyone else could ever find again. The 'Dr.' who claimed she only needed to change gloves between handling pieces of evidence if it was 'wet'. Who can argue with that?

Besides, all those other experts are 'bent' and/or trying to 'cash in' by 'prostituting' their names.
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
Now, now...she has 'Dr.' Stefanoni on her side. You know, the 'Dr.' who didn't even bother to mention the several negative TMB results on extremely important evidence she kept referring to in her testimony. The 'Dr.' who claimed to find MK's DNA in a scratch on the knife neither she nor anyone else could ever find again. The 'Dr.' who claimed she only needed to change gloves between handling pieces of evidence if it was 'wet'. Who can argue with that?

Besides, all those other experts are 'bent' and/or trying to 'cash in' by 'prostituting' their names.
Click to expand...




The "Dr" Stefanoni who consciously decided to store a critical piece of physical evidence - the bra clasp - in a liquid solution within a plastic tast tube, thus ensuring that it rusted and deteriorated to the extent that it could never again be examined or tested.

The "Dr" Stefanoni who consciously decided to "protect" a potentially critical piece of evidence - a mop found at the girls' cottage - by wrapping it up in giftwrapping paper that itself was the property of one of the cottage's residents and which even an idiot child could determine might itself have been a source of contamination.

The "Dr" Stefanoni who either consciously or unconsciously (ie through gross negligence) left the bloody towels found in Kercher's room in a wet pile, thus ensuring that they developed various moulds and fungi and became entirely useless for attempting testing (which could well have been important evidence).


No wonder Mignini - who obviously didn't fancy her at all, nosireee - described "Dr" Stefanoni as "world class"........ :rolleyes:
 
Vixen said:
OK, I stand corrected.
Click to expand...

What an interesting chain of posts.

Vixen, where did you originally get Peter Gill's age from? Did you entirely fabricate his age in an attempt to discredit him and his scientific expertise, hoping that no one would check?

Also, here you acknowledge your mistake. Generally, you do not, and keep repeating the same incorrect claims over and over again. In general, how do you determine what is a mistake or misunderstanding on your part, and what is a Masonic conspiracy perpetrated at the highest levels of Government and bankrolled by the Amanda Knox PR supertanker to free the girl from Seattle and her boyfriend?

Like, couldn't someone in the PR campaign have paid a Freemason hacker to infiltrate Peter Gill's web page and change the birth date on his resume?

Surprisingly, this is a serious question. I'm wondering how your brain works. How do you decide "oops guess I didn't understand this and made a mistake" vs. "Donald Trump paid off all the scientists in the the forensic science community to support Amanda Knox".
 
Vixen may have admitted she was wrong about Gill's age*, but she has yet to admit that her claim that I "completely revised what the merits court found as a fact regarding the blood in the bathroom" was entirely false.

Vixen has yet to disprove, with evidence, one thing that NotEvenWrong said. Not only has she failed to disprove it, she has not even attempted to do so.

*a minor admission regarding Gill's age which is relevant to exactly nothing in the case, but a rare event, nonetheless.
 
Stacyhs said:
Vixen may have admitted she was wrong about Gill's age*, but she has yet to admit that her claim that I "completely revised what the merits court found as a fact regarding the blood in the bathroom" was entirely false.
Click to expand...

Vixen, nor any of the guilter-nutters have addressed ANY of the issues Peter Gill raised in his peer reviewed article, an article which completely trashes the prosecution's original DNA "expert".

See: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2016.02.015
 
Bill Williams said:
Vixen, nor any of the guilter-nutters have addressed ANY of the issues Peter Gill raised in his peer reviewed article, an article which completely trashes the prosecution's original DNA "expert".

See: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2016.02.015
Click to expand...

That's because he's bent and "prostituted himself out as a gun for hire" as Vixen has contended. Exactly why a man of his stature in the forensic world would do so is not exactly clear but I'm sure Vixen would be happy to clarify that for us. Or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom