• 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.

Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32

Vixen said:
These points have been argued many many times. Honestly, 'debating' with the PIP is like scientists arguing Darwin's Theory with Jehovah's Witnesses. Even with the evidence of the luminol, DNA, blood, strands of fair hair, one such tightly gripped in the deceased hand in rigor mortis, the locked door from the outside, the phones switched off from 8:45 through to 5:00am, the all-night cleaning, the still warm washing machine, the cottage mop going back and forth between the residences, the phone-call to Mom in US early hours before the door was even kicked down, the footprint on the bathmat, Her DNA on the knife hilt, Mez' on the blade, bloody fingerprint on the light swtich, mixed blood on cotton bud box and in the toilet bowl and on the tap, Mez' missing rent money, HER lamp under Mez' bed. But the 'true believers' are convinced that this is the master work of one all-powerful prosecutor.
Click to expand...


You obviously haven't read anyone's responses to those lies, but "Hey, look, a squirrel!"


-
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Nobody said it 'proves' anything. Just a fact* that this shoeprint was found at the scene int he victim's blood.


*Fact meaning:
Law
the truth about events as opposed to interpretation.
Click to expand...


Finally, an honest answer.


-
 
Sigh, arguing with a guilter is like arguing with a dead squirrel, and I apologize to all squirrels for that. They're obviously more intelligent than a guilter.


-
 
Last edited:
AmyStrange said:
How does that "prove" they were made from Amanda's shoes?

That's what I want to know, and not more ASSumptions and opinions instead of facts.


-
Click to expand...
Vixen had previously written.... Well someone was there who took size 37 ladies trainer.

Vixen erroneously claims that Amanda's shoe-print was in the murder room...... apologies if that is not what Vixen is asserting, because if she's not, then that STILL leaves NO EVIDENCE, NONE AT ALL of either RS's or AK's presence in the murder room, which the final ISC panel used as proof that they should never have been convicted in the firs place.

But look how Vixen's reasoning 'evolved'. Now, it is not a claim that they were even Amanda's shoes, just 'someone's' shoes. The reality is, those shoes were never used in evidence against Knox. Yet Vixen just chucks them into the thread as if they proved something, which now even Vixen concedes didn't prove anything to begin with.

Why is it, then, that so many complain that it simply is a waste of time to even respond!?
 
Vixen said:
Sorry, I thought you were talking about what the final Supreme Court written reasons says as a legal fact. The conversation was about whether Mignini thinks she is innocent. I was responding to that issue.


Sure, in any murder trial people come up with 'alternative explanations' outside of the courtroom. Your theory reads very much like fiction writer Doug Preston's theory. Preston has a long-running grudge against Mignini because Mignini warned him to stay away from Italy because Preston was actively involving himself in a live police investigation. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Monster of Florence case, you have to admit that people with grudges may not be altogether reliable in their character assessment of the person they hold a grudge against. Preston hates Mignini. That is between him and Mignini. Nothing at all to do with the Kercher case.


.
Click to expand...
"Mignini warned him to stay away from Italy because Preston was actively involving himself in a live police investigation."

Bull. There had been an open investigation going on for years in the unsolved M of F murders (1974-1985) and Mario Spezi was an expert on the case. In 2001, Preston and Spezi began researching the case for a book which was to be published in April 2006 in Italy. It was highly critical of Mignini and the investigation.

Preston went to Tuscany on Feb. 14, 2006 with his family on vacation and some last minute work on the book with Spezi. On Feb. 22, Mignini had Preston brought into his office where he and 3 police officers interrogated him for 3 hours. Preston wrote of his experience:
Mignini then proceeded to play back telephone conversations I had had with Spezi, which they had wiretapped. He played the same passages again and again, demanding to know what we were "really" talking about, demanding that I explain the "real meaning" behind every casual word we had exchanged. They had also recorded conversations we had had in Spezi's car, which had been broken into and bugged -- Spezi found the bug yesterday. When I asked if I was being accused of a crime, Mignini said he believed I had committed not one but several serious felonies -- to whit: planting evidence to frame an innocent man, obstruction of justice, and being an accessory to murder -- all utterly false accusations.

Despite answering their questions fully and truthfully, in the end they charged me with "reticenza" and "false testimonianze" -- two serious crimes of perjury -- but said the charges would be suspended to allow me to leave Italy, to be reinstated later. In other words, it seems their goal was to get me out of Italy -- never to return
Click to expand...
The timing of this is not surprising. Our book will be published on April 19. The police had earlier obtained a draft of the book which they had seized in a search of Spezi's apartment, and so Mignini and Giuttari know well what we have written about him. This was a naked attempt to use the power of the state to intimidate and silence two journalists, and it may be a prelude to a legal action in Italy to block publication of the book.
Click to expand...

After Preston fled Italy with his family,
They also broke into Spezi's car and planted a microphone, which he later found. Following that, the police apparently leaked details of their investigation to the press, and articles in Corriere della Sera, La Nazione, and Il Giornale, about my interrogation and the search and seizure of Spezi's papers. The police also leaked out the information that Spezi was suspected of involvement in several murders and that he may be connected to the Satanic sect which the police believe was behind the Monster of Florence serial killings.
Click to expand...

Mignini had Spezi arrested on April 7, just about a week before the book was to be published, and held him for 23 days without a lawyer on trumped up charges. A judge finally ordered his release on the grounds that his arrest had been illegal and without ample evidence of committing a crime.

You can do the usual and expected Mignini defending, but the fact is, he's a narcissist who considers himself a super-sleuth, Italian Sherlock Holmes who can't admit he was wrong, including that Knox and Sollecito had nothing to do with Kercher's murder. He's not the only narcissist who can't admit that, either.
 
Bill Williams said:
Vixen had previously written.... Well someone was there who took size 37 ladies trainer.

Vixen erroneously claims that Amanda's shoe-print was in the murder room...... apologies if that is not what Vixen is asserting, because if she's not, then that STILL leaves NO EVIDENCE, NONE AT ALL of either RS's or AK's presence in the murder room, which the final ISC panel used as proof that they should never have been convicted in the firs place.

But look how Vixen's reasoning 'evolved'. Now, it is not a claim that they were even Amanda's shoes, just 'someone's' shoes. The reality is, those shoes were never used in evidence against Knox. Yet Vixen just chucks them into the thread as if they proved something, which now even Vixen concedes didn't prove anything to begin with.

Why is it, then, that so many complain that it simply is a waste of time to even respond!?
Click to expand...
Perhaps the motivation for all of the repetitive posts about settled issues - settled in favor of the innocence of Knox and Sollecito in respect to the murder/rape of Kercher - is that it is easier to argue about the past than it is to envision the future.

There are two unsettled issues: 1. the alleged violations of the rights of Sollecito by the Italian judicial system denying him compensation for unjust detention and claiming after he was finally acquitted, that he was involved in the crimes against Kercher, and 2. the final re-conviction of Knox for calunnia against Lumumba despite the violations of Convention Articles 6.1 with 6.3c and 6.1 with 6.3e found by the ECHR in the judgment Knox v. Italy.

Here are some predictions:

1. In the next year or two, the ECHR will issue a judgment against Italy in the case Sollecito v. Italy. The ECHR will hold that Italy violated Convention Articles 6.1 (unfair trial) and 6.2 (violation of presumption of innocence) in the CSC rulings that denied him compensation for unjust detention.

With the time limit imposed by Italian law, Sollecito will ask for a rehearing of his request for compensation by the Italian judiciary, in compliance with Italian law. The Italian courts will allow that rehearing, and the chance of those courts violating Italian and international law by again denying Sollecito compensation will be about 50% or more.

2. Possibly in the next 3 months, or probably within 2025 (since Italian courts tend to view procedural laws as not binding upon them), the CSC will forward the motivation report from its final re-conviction of Knox for calunnia against Lumumba to her and her lawyers. Following their receipt of the MR Knox and her lawyers within 4 months (the ECHR's time limit) will file an application to the ECHR claiming that Italy violated Knox's rights under Convention Article 6.1 and possibly other articles, for example, Article 46 (binding force and execution of ECHR judgments). Within perhaps 1 or 2 years (at best), the ECHR will communicate the new case to Italy. Perhaps within 5 years the ECHR will find Italy violated Knox's rights in Knox v. Italy (number 2) and Knox and her lawyers will resume the process of seeking a retrial. It's anyone's guess what the Italian courts would do in the case; their major options would be to dismiss (the legally correct procedure) or re-convict again (the unlawful method of saving face).
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
These points have been argued many many times. Honestly, 'debating' with the PIP is like scientists arguing Darwin's Theory with Jehovah's Witnesses. Even with the evidence of the luminol, DNA, blood, strands of fair hair, one such tightly gripped in the deceased hand in rigor mortis, the locked door from the outside, the phones switched off from 8:45 through to 5:00am, the all-night cleaning, the still warm washing machine, the cottage mop going back and forth between the residences, the phone-call to Mom in US early hours before the door was even kicked down, the footprint on the bathmat, Her DNA on the knife hilt, Mez' on the blade, bloody fingerprint on the light swtich, mixed blood on cotton bud box and in the toilet bowl and on the tap, Mez' missing rent money, HER lamp under Mez' bed. But the 'true believers' are convinced that this is the master work of one all-powerful prosecutor.


.
Click to expand...
I asked you specifically about, and which you typically ignored, your claim that:
2. " [Mignini]knows all about the evidence that was disallowed"

Exactly WHAT evidence was disallowed? You're implying, without evidence, that there was inculpatory evidence that he knows about but no one else does.
Click to expand...
Can't anwer that, can you?
I also pointed out that there was no scientific evidence ever presented in any court that Knox "washed her hands of Meredith's blood" or had "Meredith's blood on her hands" as you wrote. Which is why neither you nor anyone else ever presented any evidence of it. It's just another one of those pesky actual vs. 'legal' facts that you ignore while continuing to claim it's true.

Honestly, debating with the PGP is like trying to have a conversation with an advanced Alzheimer patient.
 
Stacyhs said:
"<snip off topic element>

You can do the usual and expected Mignini defending, but the fact is, he's a narcissist who considers himself a super-sleuth, Italian Sherlock Holmes who can't admit he was wrong, including that Knox and Sollecito had nothing to do with Kercher's murder. He's not the only narcissist who can't admit that, either.
Click to expand...


That is a syllogistic fallacy. Logic not your strong point?


Let's concentrate on the Kercher murder instead trying to absurdly claim that Knox was framed by Mignini.

Yes, we know police can be nasty, inefficient, bumbling, etc. etc. and that Italy is an authoritarian state. It doesn't cancel out the crimes people commit.

Please quit the 'All Coppers Are Bastards' line.




.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
That is a syllogistic fallacy. Logic not your strong point?


Let's concentrate on the Kercher murder instead trying to absurdly claim that Knox was framed by Mignini.

Yes, we know police can be nasty, inefficient, bumbling, etc. etc. and that Italy is an authoritarian state. It doesn't cancel out the crimes people commit.

Please quit the 'All Coppers Are Bastards' line.
Click to expand...


We will when you quit this Amanda-and-Raffaele-are-guilty-because-of-all-this-fake-evidence-that-I made-up line.


-
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
I asked you specifically about, and which you typically ignored, your claim that:

Can't anwer that, can you?
I also pointed out that there was no scientific evidence ever presented in any court that Knox "washed her hands of Meredith's blood" or had "Meredith's blood on her hands" as you wrote. Which is why neither you nor anyone else ever presented any evidence of it. It's just another one of those pesky actual vs. 'legal' facts that you ignore while continuing to claim it's true.

<snip offensive material>
Click to expand...


How criminal law works: in the numerous pre-hearings and directions before a trial, the court and the parties decide which of the 500 exhibits - in the Kercher case - will be weighed up during the trial (if ALL evidence is heard, such a trial could take years) so the parties and the court agree which exhibits will be entered into the trial based on the issues in dispute.


Your comments are excruciatingly pathetic and actually highlights you are not interested in debate; you just want to bully people into your echo chamber, not dissimilar to a fan club. So I am out.



.
 
Vixen said:
That is a syllogistic fallacy. Logic not your strong point?


Let's concentrate on the Kercher murder instead trying to absurdly claim that Knox was framed by Mignini.
Yes, we know police can be nasty, inefficient, bumbling, etc. etc. and that Italy is an authoritarian state. It doesn't cancel out the crimes people commit.

Please quit the 'All Coppers Are Bastards' line.




.
Click to expand...

Vixen, you seem to be unaware of or choose to ignore the final ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy as well as the final Italian CSC judgment of acquittal of Knox and Sollecito on the charges of the murder/rape of Kercher. Note that the violation of Knox's rights to a lawyer during the interrogation was also found by a judgment of the CSC early in the case.

The significant violations of Knox's rights by the police and prosecutor are consistent with an intent to frame - falsely implicate - a person.
 
Vixen said:
How criminal law works: in the numerous pre-hearings and directions before a trial, the court and the parties decide which of the 500 exhibits - in the Kercher case - will be weighed up during the trial (if ALL evidence is heard, such a trial could take years) so the parties and the court agree which exhibits will be entered into the trial based on the issues in dispute.


Your comments are excruciatingly pathetic and actually highlights you are not interested in debate; you just want to bully people into your echo chamber, not dissimilar to a fan club. So I am out.
Click to expand...


Good, although, that's probably fake too.


-
 
Numbers said:
Vixen, you seem to be unaware of or choose to ignore the final ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy as well as the final Italian CSC judgment of acquittal of Knox and Sollecito on the charges of the murder/rape of Kercher. Note that the violation of Knox's rights to a lawyer during the interrogation was also found by a judgment of the CSC early in the case.

The significant violations of Knox's rights by the police and prosecutor are consistent with an intent to frame - falsely implicate - a person.
Click to expand...


Not so, the acquittal was an extremely rare use of 'insufficient evidence' and this is how we can determine that the acquittal was a political one, because:

  1. Italian Courts are advised not to use the subsection of 'insufficient evidence'
  2. The only other cases of a similar acquittal I could find were:
    • Andreotti
    • Berlesconi
    • Members of the so-called Bologna Bombings.
As all three were political cases, and - in the case of the two very high-up government figures - very obviously a corrupt get-out card being who they were and being able to exert influence on the judiciary.

As you may recall, the verdict was surprisingly delayed by some months, again breaching Italy's criminal code protocols and we heard stories of Massei rowing noisily with Bruno.





.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom