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

[Vixen]

Ahem...try reading what I said again only more slowly:

"And yet, M-B still stands 10 years later. You can make this claim over and over, but you cannot provide any evidence to support it. Like I said, Chieffi did not rule on the murder. M-B did not 'reinstate Hellmann'. If they had, it would now be a judicial fact that the burglary was not staged."

Note the word "not".

Since M-B is still in effect after 10 years, and there's no effort to overturn it, I'd say that your "opinion" that's it's a "legal error" is not based on anything but your own inability to accept the final acquittal.

Yes because you twisted my words that C&V had been reinstated to falsely claiming that I said Hellmann's MR had been reinstated.


Please choose your words more carefully because there is a big difference between Conti & Vecchiotti and Hellmann. If you weren't aware of this then I was right to point out your error in speciously claiming that the burglary had also been reintroduced when we were discussing DNA.


.

.

 

[Stacyhs]

If police found a receipt and this was reported, how was it a lie?

Because they said it was for cleaning products which it wasn't. It was a PIZZA receipt. Stop acting like you don't know that.

As of 19 Nov 2007, the pair had not been charged with any crime.

Oh, please. Just stop. They had been held in prison for 2 weeks on suspicion of murder when it was reported that the police found "receipts from a shop near his flat for bleach, bought on the morning after the murder and allegedly used to clean an 8in kitchen knife and Mr Sollecito’s Nike trainers. The first receipt was timed at 8.30am on November 2, and the second 45 minutes later, suggesting that the first container of bleach had not been sufficient."

None of that is true and you know it.

 

[Vixen]

Because they said it was for cleaning products which it wasn't. It was a PIZZA receipt. Stop acting like you don't know that.


Oh, please. Just stop. They had been held in prison for 2 weeks on suspicion of murder when it was reported that the police found "receipts from a shop near his flat for bleach, bought on the morning after the murder and allegedly used to clean an 8in kitchen knife and Mr Sollecito’s Nike trainers. The first receipt was timed at 8.30am on November 2, and the second 45 minutes later, suggesting that the first container of bleach had not been sufficient."

None of that is true and you know it.

The fact it didn't make the evidence list is not proof of anything. There was a receipt but the police did not feel it presented relevant evidence for a trial. In building a case for trial not every piece of evidence is used or considered meaningful.

As you know Sollecito claimed to be asleep in bed until 10:00am next morning so how come he managed to pop out for a pizza (he claims) at 8:30am?

Once again, how is publishing something in an English newspaper prejudicing a trial in a completely different country? As an example in a recent rial in England re a serial nurse babykiller, a foreign newspaper Washington Post IIRC published a long article challenging the courts. The UK authorities blocked it from being viewed in the UK whilst the trial was in progress.

Owen for the TIMES simply publishing police progress gossip in England really isn't the same as Friends of AK writing articles in Italian media libelling Mignini as 'mentally unbalanced' in an effort to subvert justice. Mez was English so of course the English press are going to express bias in her favour.


..



.

 

[Vixen]

Long on words, short on substance.

I really don't know how I can explain it more simply.


.

 

[Stacyhs]

Marsi as a police officer was authorised personnel.

Which was exactly my point and why he wasn't ushered out by Battistelli like you claimed.

There is no way he passed any information about cause of death on to bystanders at the scene as you falsely imply he did.

Why do you insist on making claims so easily disproved? I never said or implied Marsi passed on any information. I quoted and cited his testimony how and when he knew Kercher's throat had been cut.

Altieri said after a while one of the two doctors, I think, from this Red Cross patrol car, it wasn't an ambulance, came out of the inspection, let's say, inside the house, turning to one of the Carabinieri who was outside he described to him a little what had happened, saying referring both to the fact that her throat had been cut and the fact that she had also fought.'

Note he says "carabinieri" NOT "postal police" which Marsi was.

Zaroli never mentioned Marsi, either: " "who said this?", "it seems to me Battistelli, I honestly don't know, but someone said it, I heard it, Luca or maybe Battistelli..."

He never mentioned Marsi.

For all your horrible profanity, yes cause of death is a specific medical issue, and Mez did not die " due to her throat being gashed" as you put it with relish so charmingly.

Clutch those pearls, Vixen! Clutch them with both hands!

"The cause of death was listed as a ''combined mechanism of asphyxiation and hemorrhaging'' caused by a ''cut wound to the carotid artery''.
That ain't a stroke, a heart attack, septicemia, a gunshot, or appendicitis: it's suffocating on her own blood and loss of blood from having her throat cut.

 

[Stacyhs]

You do realise you are just being a bully?

He has you dead to rights and you cry bully.

 

[Stacyhs]

By the way here is what the crime scene looked like from the door. Your claim that bystanders could see that the victim had died due to a 'gashed throat' is a shocking lie.

Sigh. This is classic Vixen. I never said "bystanders could see that the victim had died due to a 'gashed throat'". Zaroli and Altieri never saw the body, but Marsi did: "I saw her when the staff of 118 arrived and noted the death by lifting the duvet."
What part of "lifting the duvet" is confusing for you? Do your photos show them lifting the duvet?

And please, learn how to resize photos. It's very simple.

View attachment 60472


View attachment 60473


The head is lying at the far corner of the room.

Meredith Kercher case- crime scene photos, videos and surveys

This page has all the files related to crime scene evidence, including crime scene surveys, photos and videos of the cottage, Sollecito's apartment, Guede's apartment, villa Sperandio and Perugia. Meredith Kercher case file library archive.

themurderofmeredithkercher.net

 

[Stacyhs]

The term, 'It cannot be ruled out' honestly does not mean 'it is confirmed'. Please read legal notices carefully.

Read this again:





Herein lies where Marasca-Bruno err. Chieffi gave Hellmann stick for his 'Anything is possible' line. The job of a court is to come to a decision.

So, for example, man takes a paternity test. Hellmann, Marasca and Bruno decide, "He could be the father but it is not ruled out that he is not. Anything is possible!"

Do you see the legal hiccough there?

M-B accepted that contamination occurring was more likely than not BARD which is why they threw out the hook and knife as inculpatory evidence. You can be pedantic, you can distort, you can pretend, but you cannot ignore the fact that M-B definitively acquitted the pair of murder. Suck it up. All your tilting at windmills isn't going to change that fact.

 

[Vixen]

Which was exactly my point and why he wasn't ushered out by Battistelli like you claimed.

Why do you insist on making claims so easily disproved? I never said or implied Marsi passed on any information. I quoted and cited his testimony how and when he knew Kercher's throat had been cut.

Altieri said after a while one of the two doctors, I think, from this Red Cross patrol car, it wasn't an ambulance, came out of the inspection, let's say, inside the house, turning to one of the Carabinieri who was outside he described to him a little what had happened, saying referring both to the fact that her throat had been cut and the fact that she had also fought.'

Note he says "carabinieri" NOT "postal police" which Marsi was.

Zaroli never mentioned Marsi, either: " "who said this?", "it seems to me Battistelli, I honestly don't know, but someone said it, I heard it, Luca or maybe Battistelli..."

He never mentioned Marsi.

Clutch those pearls, Vixen! Clutch them with both hands!

"The cause of death was listed as a ''combined mechanism of asphyxiation and hemorrhaging'' caused by a ''cut wound to the carotid artery''.
That ain't a stroke, a heart attack, septicemia, a gunshot, or appendicitis: it's suffocating on her own blood and loss of blood from having her throat cut.

I very clearly said only authorised personnel were present when the body was examined. Yet you brought in Marsi, quoting him to somehow be in exactly the same category as Altieri and Grande. Please read more carefully instead of inserting your own words. But I think what you were really trying to do was to convey an impression that 'anyone could see how Mez had died' by using your intellectually dishonest example of Marsi. Do you really believe that your claim everyone knew how Mez died the same time she was discovered becomes true just because you provided false testimony, whether in error because you did not know who Marsi was and his rank as an authourised officer, or you were trying to manipulate people into believing a lie.

Why you would want to convince people that everyone present knew how Mez died is a mystery to me as to what you think the deception achieves.


BTW the medical term "asphyxiation and hemorrhaging'' caused by a ''cut wound to the carotid artery'" translates as drowning in her own blood, or as Dr. Lalli the pathologist put in layman's terms, 'She died with lakes of blood in her lungs'. You DO know that drowning is a form of asphyxiation? Don't you?


.
.



.

 

[Stacyhs]

The fact it didn't make the evidence list is not proof of anything. There was a receipt but the In building a case for trial not every piece of evidence is used or considered meaningful.

What's mindboggling is how you can say that with a straight face, because it certainly made me laugh. The prosecution put Quintavalle on the stand to convince the jury Knox had bought bleach/a cleaning product the morning of Nov. 2. But you seriously want us to believe, if they had a receipt for those cleaning products, they wouldn't enter it as evidence?

As you know Sollecito claimed to be asleep in bed until 10:00am next morning so how come he managed to pop out for a pizza (he claims) at 8:30am?

Sigh. He never said he got a pizza at 8:30. The false report by Owens claimed that. There was NO receipt for bleach or any cleaning product. Period. The pizza receipt was not for Nov. 2, but for Nov. 4 at 18:26 pm.

Once again, how is publishing something in an English newspaper prejudicing a trial in a completely different country? As an example in a recent rial in England re a serial nurse babykiller, a foreign newspaper Washington Post IIRC published a long article challenging the courts. The UK authorities blocked it from being viewed in the UK whilst the trial was in progress.

Owen for the TIMES simply publishing police progress gossip in England really isn't the same as Friends of AK writing articles in Italian media libelling Mignini as 'mentally unbalanced' in an effort to subvert justice. Mez was English so of course the English press are going to express bias in her favour.


..



.

 

[Vixen]

M-B accepted that contamination occurring was more likely than not BARD which is why they threw out the hook and knife as inculpatory evidence. You can be pedantic, you can distort, you can pretend, but you cannot ignore the fact that M-B definitively acquitted the pair of murder. Suck it up. All your tilting at windmills isn't going to change that fact.

As a matter of legal fact:

• (2) The final verdict is not “assoluzione” meaning acquittal or innocence but simply “proscioglimento”

The final judgment makes it very clear Guede acted in conjunction with others. Who the others are becomes clear when it names Knox as definitely being there as of the time of the murder and Sollecito almost certainly.

In effect, whilst it got the pair out of prison, it didn't exonerate them. Whilst getting out of prison might be great in the short term, in the long term the MR of Marasca-Bruno pretty much damns them for life, in that Knox is said to have covered for Guede by naming Lumumba, that the burglary was staged, she washed Mez' blood off her hands and that the pair lied and lied and lied.


Is it real freedom or is it just an evasion of justice?



.

 

[Stacyhs]

Yes because you twisted my words that C&V had been reinstated to falsely claiming that I said Hellmann's MR had been reinstated.

Quote and cite me twisting your words. Otherwise, please refrain from more false allegations.

Please choose your words more carefully because there is a big difference between Conti & Vecchiotti and Hellmann.

Exactly where did I conflate them?

If you weren't aware of this then I was right to point out your error in speciously claiming that the burglary had also been reintroduced when we were discussing DNA.

Nice try at gaslighting there.
I said, " M-B did not 'reinstate Hellmann'. If they had, it would now be a judicial fact that the burglary was not staged."
For those who can read, that is NOT "claiming that the burglary had also been reintroduced", it's saying it would have been if Hellmann had been reinstated. Which it wasn't.

 

[Vixen]

What's mindboggling is how you can say that with a straight face, because it certainly made me laugh. The prosecution put Quintavalle on the stand to convince the jury Knox had bought bleach/a cleaning product the morning of Nov. 2. But you seriously want us to believe, if they had a receipt for those cleaning products, they wouldn't enter it as evidence?


Sigh. He never said he got a pizza at 8:30. The false report by Owens claimed that. There was NO receipt for bleach or any cleaning product. Period. The pizza receipt was not for Nov. 2, but for Nov. 4 at 18:26 pm.

Whatever trivia you are trying to illustrate, it has no corollary to the smear campaign as conducted against Mignini. That is what we were discussing, not oneupmanship, which is what you seem to think it is about. If you do not understand the legal principle, I am sure Numbers can explain under with section of the Italian Criminal Code Mignini filed charges under.



.



.

 

[Vixen]

Quote and cite me twisting your words. Otherwise, please refrain from more false allegations.


Exactly where did I conflate them?

Nice try at gaslighting there.
I said, " M-B did not 'reinstate Hellmann'. If they had, it would now be a judicial fact that the burglary was not staged."
For those who can read, that is NOT "claiming that the burglary had also been reintroduced", it's saying it would have been if Hellmann had been reinstated. Which it wasn't.

Zzzzzzz YAWN. The subject matter was DNA and C&V. You do enjoy your non sequitur style of debate.

So I am out as discussing this issue with you is like trying to plait live eels in a pail.



.

 

[Vixen]

Thanks for confirming, by your lack of providing any citation, that the alleged 360-page report by Gill does not exist. The claim that there was such a report is a fabrication originated by you or some other person(s).

There is a brief article by Peter Gill titled "Analysis and implications of the miscarriages of justice of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito" in the journal Forensic Science International: Genetics 23 (2016) 9-18. It's 10 pages long.

See: https://www.themurderofmeredithkerc...nalysis-implications-miscarriage-jusstice.pdf

I will try and find the reference for you. But here is an illustration of how M-B erred in accepting Bogniorno introducing Gill at all.

Swansea Jack contacted Gill and received this reply:

TJMK poster Swansea Jack on 28 June 2014.

Thanks for your email.

I cant control how people interpret my comments. I am not getting involved in a debate that specifically addresses the ulitmate issue of innocence/guilt of individuals since that is the purpose of the court. I can only comment on the probative value of the DNA evidence. I dont know definitively how the DNA was transferred - I simply make a list of all of the possibilities. I dont comment on the non-DNA evidence.

Regards, Peter

So, Gill, for the defence, contrary to the instructions of Chieffi directing expert witnesses to spell out the route of the claimed 'possible' contamination (given the defence had a very eminent expert witness present at the testing and had raised no concerns) didn't bother outlining the claimed proposed route of contamination.



.

 

[Vixen]

He has you dead to rights and you cry bully.

Er, some guy objects to another person having a different opinion from his own or interests different from his own, or perhaps it's that Simonton Gulf again where Mr. Man in the Street cannot fathom why anyone would want to watch the news or read a book. So anyone who does is relentlessly bullied.



.

 

[Stacyhs]

As a matter of legal fact:

• (2) The final verdict is not “assoluzione” meaning acquittal or innocence but simply “proscioglimento”

Citation needed.

From what I've found from an Italian legal site:

L’imputato non ha commesso il fatto​

Si utilizza la formula dell'”imputato non ha commesso il fatto” quando il reato sussiste sia sotto il profilo dell’elemento oggettivo che soggettivo ma chi l’ha commesso non coincide con l’imputato.

Riprendendo l’esempio del paragrafo precedente, il giudice assolve l’imputato per non aver commesso il fatto se l’omicidio si è verificato ma è stato commesso da persona diversa.

Translation

The defendant did not commit the act
The formula “the defendant did not commit the act” is used when the crime exists both in terms of the objective and subjective elements but the person who committed it is not the defendant.

Resuming the example in the previous paragraph, the judge acquits the defendant for not having committed the act if the murder occurred but was committed by a different person.

If it the murder was committed by a different person, then that is exonerating the accused.

The final judgment makes it very clear Guede acted in conjunction with others.

They could not find otherwise because Guede's confirmed sentence in 2010 made it a judicial fact there were multiple killers.

Who the others are becomes clear when it names Knox as definitely being there as of the time of the murder and Sollecito almost certainly.

Then why did they definitively acquit them and not send the case back down to an appellate court?

Just as M-B could not contradict Giordano's "judicial fact" of multiple participants, they could not contradict Chieffi's "judicial truth" created with the confirmation of the calunnia charge.

In effect, whilst it got the pair out of prison, it didn't exonerate them.

In effect, it did exonerate them:

"How does absolution work for not committing the fact?

The acquittal for not having committed the fact is pronounced by the judge whenever the crime has been committed, but not by the accused.

This is the case, for example, of the classic "exchange of persons", in which one subject is wrongly accused instead of another.

In conclusion: the acquittal for not having committed the fact completely exonerates the accused, who has nothing to do with the crime being tried.

Precisely because this type of absolution enshrines the total innocence of the accused from all guilt, it is said that it falls within the hypothesis of "absolution with full formula". "

Whilst getting out of prison might be great in the short term, in the long term the MR of Marasca-Bruno pretty much damns them for life, in that Knox is said to have covered for Guede by naming Lumumba, that the burglary was staged, she washed Mez' blood off her hands and that the pair lied and lied and lied.

What a pile. I refer you back to Giordano and Chieffi "judicial truths".

In the long run, all anyone will remember is that they were definitively acquitted.

Is it real freedom or is it just an evasion of justice?

Nice try. You will continue to believe what you need to believe, even if it requires denying scientific fact and critical thinking.
You can keep arguing their guilt for the next ten years, but it won't change the fact they were exonerated any more successfully than the last 10 years of whining has done.

 

[Stacyhs]

Whatever trivia you are trying to illustrate, it has no corollary to the smear campaign as conducted against Mignini.

Classic Vixen. YOUR claim regarding the receipts is proved to be false so instead of just acknowledging that, you resort to the above which has NOTHING to do with your receipt claim.

That is what we were discussing, not oneupmanship, which is what you seem to think it is about.

No, what WE were discussing was YOUR claim about the receipt.

If you do not understand the legal principle, I am sure Numbers can explain under with section of the Italian Criminal Code Mignini filed charges under.

I don't care what CCP the charges were filed under. What matters is the CCP code they were definitively acquitted under.

No matter how many times you argue their guilt, the fact of the matter is they were exonerated of the murder.

 

[Stacyhs]

I really don't know how I can explain it more simply.

It's not that I don't understand; it's just nonsense.

 

[Stacyhs]

Zzzzzzz YAWN. The subject matter was DNA and C&V. You do enjoy your non sequitur style of debate.

Typical. You can't quote and cite where I conflated Hellmann and C&V so you try and turn the tables. Didn't work.

So I am out as discussing this issue with you is like trying to plait live eels in a pail.

Not surprising you're bowing out of a debate you aren't winning.