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

[Vixen]

ETA: Yes, I know the forensic police came and carefully measured the room. I'm staring at those measurements right now. That's how I know what the images depict are wrong. But as usual, you're so invested in your belief that you can't see the forest for the trees.

To be clear, the following is the clip from the twenty-minute long forensically reconstructed video prosecutor Comodi showed the judges and jury, using only material presented in the evidence file. None of it is guesswork. RS is said to be standing to the left of AK. (The figures in the pic are anonymised as stock figures, possibly the police stand-ins.)




Source: Murder of Meredith Kercher com https://themurderofmeredithkercher.net/S-evidence-wounds.html

• 2009-05-27-Slides-Scientific-Police-UACV-model-assault-3D.pdf (WARNING: very graphic ~ Vixen)

 

[Jack by the hedge]

From Mignini's closing arguments:

Mignini's argument that there were two knives does not mean there were in fact two knives.

 

[Numbers]

To be clear, the following is the clip from the twenty-minute long forensically reconstructed video prosecutor Comodi showed the judges and jury, using only material presented in the evidence file. None of it is guesswork. RS is said to be standing to the left of AK. (The figures in the pic are anonymised as stock figures, possibly the police stand-ins.)


View attachment 61024

Source: Murder of Meredith Kercher com https://themurderofmeredithkercherdet/S-evidence-wounds.html

• 2009-05-27-Slides-Scientific-Police-UACV-model-assault-3D.pdf (WARNING: very graphic ~ Vixen)

"None of it is guesswork." However, it is a work of fiction, based on false inferences from a mixture of true and false data.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Look, when someone starts using a multiple-syllabled word as though they have only just discovered it, it becomes jarring to see it in their every second sentence.

Evasion noted. Further, can you quote a post of mine, other than the one with the examples from the BBC, where I used it in every second sentence? No, you can't, because you just made that up, as usual, to try to deflect with yet another bogus complaint.

A word also needs to be used correctly.

I have it correctly, as has everyone else who has used it to describe your dishonest recasting of others' statements and arguments, or of the facts of the case.

Yes, 'mischaracterise' is a politician-type word designed to sidestep difficult issues rather than confront them.

No. The fact that politicians sometimes falsely claim that their statements or actions have been mischaracterized does not mean that no claims of mischaracterization, by politicians or others, are ever well founded.

It is not a get-out-of-jail-card.

If you feel that you've been wrongly accused of mischaracterizing someone's argument, then you ought to be able to rebut the accusation. But you never do. You either attempt to handwave it away, or simply ignore it.

As you saw when the Orange One was pressed by persistent journalists.

See above.

 

[Vixen]

Mignini's argument that there were two knives does not mean there were in fact two knives.

Here's some of Mignini's summing up of the knife wounds.

"In summary it is a common household knife, with a sturdy structure with a quadrilateral handle that allows an easy power take-off, a sharp point and a very sharp blade even if not perfectly smooth, all features that allow to affirm its full usability in a violent action like that of the case of Meredith Kercher. The comparison between the type of wounds and the type of blade certainly make it possible to consider the former as fully compatible with the damaging action of the latter.

It should also be emphasized, in relation to some notations raised by one of the parties on the slight tortuosity and the presence of incisions of the greater wound that are referred to the action of the blade and also on the irregularity of the channel, referred to a multiple traumatized action, that the same characteristics can be attributed respectively to the plication of the cutaneous planes, very mobile with respect to the deep ones, in the neck region, and to the reciprocal movements of the aggressor and the victim in the agitation of aggression.

To conclude on this point, it is believed that the damage found is perfectly compatible with the damaging potential of the examined knife, therefore the judgment of "non incompatibility" expressed by the experts of the GIP should be more correctly read as a judgment of clear "compatibility". (see rel. on p. 16).

"The phenomenological interpretation of the complex of lesions allows us to affirm that the victim reported bruises and wounds from a point and cut during the aggression" The first for the presented characteristics refer to violent grasping, being therefore able to exclude the use of means blunt instruments other than hands. In particular, the ecchymoses present in the perioral region are compatible with a violent manual compressive action to which the damage on the mucous membrane of the lips deriving from the "clearing" of the soft tissues against the tooth surface and also reliably facilitated by the action of rubbing derived from the victim's movements. The ecchymoses in the mandibular region represent clear digitized fingerprints of a hand that grips this anatomical region with force.

Their overall evaluation makes it possible to believe that the victim suffered attempts at suffocation and strangulation, the latter of which can be inferred mainly from the ecchymoses typed in the mandibular-submandibular region. The fracture of the hyoid bone, although not, can be correlated with this phase and mode of aggression

being able to exclude absolutely, as pointed out by the experts, its derivation from the action of the cutting edge due to the characteristics (flute beak fracture with sharp edges).

The other ecchymotic lesions detected in the upper and lower limbs cannot but be attributed the meaning of attempts, by grasping to immobilize the victim. Next to the damaging painting of a contusive type is the one derived from the action of a pointed knife and with a single-cutting blade that caused, in at least two, a sufficiently deep passage to discontinue an arterial vessel (upper right thyroid artery) and the upper airway in the pharyngeal tract. ”(see CT on pp. 17 and 18).

He also says elsewhere in the closing submissions:

It is hardly necessary to add that there was no evidence to the contrary about the fact that the knife was in the availability of Sollecito and that it was used in the house of Via della Pergola 7, ie in that of Meredith. Also on this point, the decree of the First Section of the Supreme Court is now definitive and cannot be changed.

Speaking of the knife, it cannot fail to call attention to one of the stories found on Amanda Knox's blog when it tells of a kitchen knife taken from one of the characters, such as Edgar, from the kitchen of the house and secretly used by the same to self-harm.

.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Here's some of Mignini's summing up of the knife wounds.

That must be the compelling evidence which convinced the higher court to uphold the original convictions... Oh, wait.

 

[SpitfireIX]

I certainly don't 'mischaracterise'.

Not enough laughing dogs. More on this later.

I say what I mean and yes, it gets me into trouble, as people have seen.

That's because what you mean is frequently illogical, dishonest, and/or offensive.

I can't see the point in seeing clearly that something is a lie or an error and then pretending that it is not.

So how is it that whenever your numerous lies and errors are pointed out to you, you almost invariably refuse to admit them?

I get that others might not see this clearly but that is hardly my problem.

“And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”

--Matthew 7:3 (King James)

 

[Vixen]

"None of it is guesswork." However, it is a work of fiction, based on false inferences from a mixture of true and false data.

Given such serious crimes are carried out in stealth and great secrecy, with exhaustive efforts to conceal the crime, the best a prosecutor can do in many cases is to present the evidence and in the case of Italy where judges are expected to draw up detailed Motivational Reports (unlike in the US or UK) for the public domain, the exact sequence of events and what happened and what was said is always gong to be a best case attempt at explaining what happened. For example, in the A6 murder, for which James Hanratty was famously hanged in England, he always denied responsibility (and there was a huge innocence campaign). The survivor of the murder, whose partner was killed was a key witness who always knew it was him, and the prosecution knew it was Hanratty. But the public were not convinced...until they exhumed his grave and matched his DNA to the victim's. Like Sollecito, you could in theory claim Hanratty's DNA somehow found its way to the victims by some kind of mysterious contamination caused by a policeman not wearing latex gloves at all but disputes are t'was e'er the way in these cases.



.

 

[Vixen]

That must be the compelling evidence which convinced the higher court to uphold the original convictions... Oh, wait.

You forget they got off on a little used loophole of of 'insufficient evidence' proscoglimento, only ever used at the 'probable cause' preliminary stage. The MR still clearly sets out the pair were at the cottage during the murder and Knox did have Mez' blood on her hands which she washed off. A later Supreme Court (Masi) confirmed that this is with absolute certainty. You do understand the term 'absolute'?

This is an almost decisive element against Amanda regarding his presence on the crime scene the night between 1 and 2 November. As has been said, the blood stain found appears in a very visible way, on the faucet of the bathroom sink next to the crime room. The stain, evident to the naked eye, as ascertained by the Scientific Police Service of Rome, with the report dated 19.11.07, belongs to Amanda KNOX and, due to its size and positioning on the tap, may have been left following an epistaxis of the same as KNOX.

The visibility of the stain is such as to exclude, as has been said, that it may have been left in the days prior to the crime, as it would certainly have been washed. ~ Mignini closing statement

Stefanoni was of the opinion this was all from the knife dripping blood, but this opinion wasn't expressed in court. It was enough HER blood was mixed with MEZ' to prove she was there.



.

 

[Vixen]

Not enough laughing dogs. More on this later.


That's because what you mean is frequently illogical, dishonest, and/or offensive.


So how is it that whenever your numerous lies and errors are pointed out to you, you almost invariably refuse to admit them?


“And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”

--Matthew 7:3 (King James)

Let's return to the sum:

2 + 2 = 5
(For ease of illustration.)
Say, I can see it is an error. You claim that you and a list of people, whom you claim all back you up* all agree it is correct.
So, as I can see no point in pretending I think it correct, I say so. You then claim that I have 'mischaracterized' the thing as being wrong. You then resort to calling me various negative adjectives, as above.

So who is in the right? The person who can see the lie and the error (i.e., myself) and being bullied, called names and told they are illogical, dishonest, and/or offensive by you. So it is possible you and your said list of endorsers really cannot see the error or the lie. So I get called out with: 'You think you are smarter than everyone else', but if a person can see the 2 + 2 = 5 is wrong then why do you believe they should pretend they are just like you and can't see it's incorrect?


*appealing to the crowd being a logical fallacy resorted to by the scurrilous.

.

 

[Numbers]

You forget they got off on a little used loophole of of 'insufficient evidence' proscoglimento, only ever used at the 'probable cause' preliminary stage. The MR still clearly sets out the pair were at the cottage during the murder and Knox did have Mez' blood on her hands which she washed off. A later Supreme Court (Masi) confirmed that this is with absolute certainty. You do understand the term 'absolute'?



Stefanoni was of the opinion this was all from the knife dripping blood, but this opinion wasn't expressed in court. It was enough HER blood was mixed with MEZ' to prove she was there.

Vixen, there's a minimum of three (3) lies in your post. The first sentence is a lie of such absurdity it is striking, particularly because it has been shown repeatedly false in this forum - and years ago - in was 2015 when Knox and Sollecito were finally acquitted on the murder/rape charges. The acquittal was under Italian law CPP Article 530, paragraph 2. The MR showed there was no credible evidence that either Knox or Sollecito were involved in the murder or present in the room where Kercher was sexually assaulted and murdered. The Italian legal term proscoglimento is the heading of the section of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (Codice di procedura penale, CPP) that includes, among other provisions, CPP Article 530.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, there's a minimum of three (3) lies in your post. The first sentence is a lie of such absurdity it is striking, particularly because it has been shown repeatedly false in this forum - and years ago - in was 2015 when Knox and Sollecito were finally acquitted on the murder/rape charges. The acquittal was under Italian law CPP Article 530, paragraph 2. The MR showed there was no credible evidence that either Knox or Sollecito were involved in the murder or present in the room where Kercher was sexually assaulted and murdered. The Italian legal term proscoglimento is the heading of the section of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (Codice di procedura penale, CPP) that includes, among other provisions, CPP Article 530.

proscoglimento refers to Article 529

The term "proscioglimento" (=translates as "acquittal") is normally used if a case is "struck out" during a pre-trial hearing (Art. 529). The judges Marasca and Bruno used the term "proscioglimento" in their motivations report instead of "assoluzione" and that it is an acquittal per Art 530.2 cpp, the same as "proscioglimento": insufficient probable cause (or insufficient Reasonable Prospect of Success, the UK CPS criterion) - which of course, at the Supreme Court stage, is not about weighing up evidence. It is about ensuring everything has been done constitutionally and within the framework of the law, as per statute handed down by the government.


It is, of course, a self-evident absurdity and tautology to say that a case that has gone all the way up to Stage 3, Supreme Court, has 'insufficient evidence'.

Very obviously Bongiorno worked her backchannelling contacts here.


.

 

[Disbelief]

Let's return to the sum:

2 + 2 = 5
(For ease of illustration.)
Say, I can see it is an error. You claim that you and a list of people, whom you claim all back you up* all agree it is correct.
So, as I can see no point in pretending I think it correct, I say so. You then claim that I have 'mischaracterized' the thing as being wrong. You then resort to calling me various negative adjectives, as above.

So who is in the right? The person who can see the lie and the error (i.e., myself) and being bullied, called names and told they are illogical, dishonest, and/or offensive by you. So it is possible you and your said list of endorsers really cannot see the error or the lie. So I get called out with: 'You think you are smarter than everyone else', but if a person can see the 2 + 2 = 5 is wrong then why do you believe they should pretend they are just like you and can't see it's incorrect?


*appealing to the crowd being a logical fallacy resorted to by the scurrilous.

.

The problem here, is you are the one claiming that 2 + 2 = 5.

 

[Vixen]

The problem here, is you are the one claiming that 2 + 2 = 5.

Er, no! I am the one saying it is incorrect.

You do know how to follow a hypothesis..?

So, if you say, as a hypothetical proposition, that 'Homer is a man, therefore all men are Homer' and I say, no, wait. Are you seriously unable to follow the logic that if the proposition in question is faulty*, it remains faulty, no matter how much you or anyone else browbeats the person who can see the logic is false?

*You know, the false premise? The syllogistic logical fallacy?


Oh well, never mind.



.



.









.

 

[Disbelief]

Er, no! I am the one saying it is incorrect.

You do know how to follow a hypothesis..?

So, if you say, as a hypothetical proposition, that 'Homer is a man, therefore all men are Homer' and I say, no, wait. Are you seriously unable to follow the logic that if the proposition in question is faulty*, it remains faulty, no matter how much you or anyone else browbeats the person who can see the logic is false?

*You know, the false premise? The syllogistic logical fallacy?


Oh well, never mind.



.



.









.

Seriously, you are the one saying the incorrect things. Just because you fail to see it, does not make it less true.

 

[Stacyhs]

Vinci received a dressing down from the court for trying to forge a footprint to look like Guede's.

Bull. That has been a TJMK lie for a long time. Again, CITATION NEEDED.

Vinci was hired by the defence to put up 'an alternative theory'.

False. Vinci was hired to analyze the footprint. He was NOT 'hired' to fabricate anything. Yet again, this is another of your claims of defense experts being 'bent'.

The judges and jury preferred the expert prosecution witnesses.

Really? All the judges and juries? Not according to Hellmann:

In light of the different dimensional evaluation of the latter [print on the mat], based on the well-grounded findings of Professor Vinci, the dimensional elements of Guede’s foot are no longer incompatible with those left in Meredith’s blood on the fabric of the mat.

Marasca also found that the print could not be identified as Sollecito's:

9.4.2 Also the evidential picture about Mr. Sollecito, emerging from the impugned verdict, appears marked by intrinsic and irreducible contradictions. His presence on the murder scene, and specifically inside the room where the murder was committed, is linked to ONLY the biological trace found on the bra fastener hook (item 165/b), the attribution of which, however, cannot have any certainty,

Note he said ONLY to the bra hook. Therefore, it is not true that M-B court "preferred the expert prosecution witnesses."

We are not having a retrial here, so there is no point in your bringing up Hellmann or Vinci.

We are not having a retrial here, so there is no point in your bringing up Massei or Chieffi or Nencini or Rinaldi or Boemia.

 

[Stacyhs]

Look, when someone starts using a multiple-syllabled word as though they have only just discovered it, it becomes jarring to see it in their every second sentence.

Then I suggest you stop mischaracterizing events and what is said and we won't have to use the word.

A word also needs to be used correctly. Yes, 'mischaracterise' is a politician-type word designed to sidestep difficult issues rather than confront them.

Oh, good lord. Politicians do use the word because it's the correct word to use when a situation, event, or person has been wrongly described. Now you're arguing with the dictionary rather than admit you're wrong!

It is not a get-out-of-jail-card. As you saw when the Orange One was pressed by persistent journalists.

No, it's not a get-out-of-jail-card. But when you falsely describe something you ARE mischaracterizing it.

For example, these examples are only from pg. 98 to 103:

Vixen said:
Please don't argue that it is OK to kill your room mate 'because AK lives there, so all mixed DNA and footprints in blood should be disregarded'.

No one said anything of the sort.

Vixen said:
This is Florence Supreme Court saying we know you did it, and you ain't getting a penny.

The SC said no such thing. That is YOUR spin.

Vixen said:
As the next merits court via Nencini Appeal pointed out, C&V's report was riddled with so-called 'US standards',

Nope. "Oft-cited ≠ "riddled with" and "international standards ≠ "US standards".

Vixen said:
Knox had a history of hazing her colleagues. Staged burglaries for a laugh.

False. Knox had no history of "hazing" anyone and she staged ONE burglary on April Fool's Day along with her other roommates.

Vixen said:
Wrote short stories in which 'chicks' were raped.

Again, she wrote ONE story, not 'stories' in which a girl was raped and it was an ANTI-RAPE story about a brother's disgust at what his younger brother had done.

Vixen said:
Your making light of the murder is absolutely par for the course.

I did no such thing.

Vixen said:
The hair found gripped in Mez' hand and across her bag being that of one of Guedé's friends.

I never said that it belonged to one of Guede's friends. I only reported that a friend of his said he was dancing with a girl with long blonde hair the night before. I don't know who it belonged to but, as it wasn't dyed blonde hair, it couldn't belong to Amanda. Something you've repeatedly failed to acknowledge.

Vixen said:
This was pretty much how Mez was found, from RS' manga comic titled, Blood the Last Vampire, chapter 2.

As discussed, the only similarity is she was lying on the floor with her legs spread.

Vixen said:
Once again, you are failing to keep track. The thrust of the discussion was a poster announcing he was reading WTBH to get familiar with the case.

Nope. He said he had checked her book out of the library. He never said he wasn't familiar with the case.

Vixen said:
Please read more carefully in future. Chiacchiera did NOT confirm the magazines were 'all shrink-wrapped and unread',he was being non-committal - i.e., it was possible that some might have been - rather than fall in to Bongiorno's 'GOTCHA!'. (i.e., that none were.)

I never said he 'confirmed' the were 'all shrink-wrapped and unread'. I quoted and cited his exact testimony.

Vixen said:
Someone had either torn or cut off with a knife, the bra from the body. The bra claps with Sollecito's full DNA profile inside the bent hook was UNDER the body UNDER the pillow,

You completely omit that it was found 6 weeks later across the room under a dirty rug with no record of who or what it came in contact with. That's mischaracterizing the condition in which it was found and then tested.

Vixen said:
Please don't call me names, thanks.

Madame ≠ calling you "names".

You even mischaracterized what the word "mischaracterize" means !

 

[Vixen]

Then I suggest you stop mischaracterizing events and what is said and we won't have to use the word.


Oh, good lord. Politicians do use the word because it's the correct word to use when a situation, event, or person has been wrongly described. Now you're arguing with the dictionary rather than admit you're wrong!


No, it's not a get-out-of-jail-card. But when you falsely describe something you ARE mischaracterizing it.

For example, these examples are only from pg. 98 to 103:


No one said anything of the sort.


The SC said no such thing. That is YOUR spin.


Nope. "Oft-cited ≠ "riddled with" and "international standards ≠ "US standards".


False. Knox had no history of "hazing" anyone and she staged ONE burglary on April Fool's Day along with her other roommates.


Again, she wrote ONE story, not 'stories' in which a girl was raped and it was an ANTI-RAPE story about a brother's disgust at what his younger brother had done.


I did no such thing.


I never said that it belonged to one of Guede's friends. I only reported that a friend of his said he was dancing with a girl with long blonde hair the night before. I don't know who it belonged to but, as it wasn't dyed blonde hair, it couldn't belong to Amanda. Something you've repeatedly failed to acknowledge.


As discussed, the only similarity is she was lying on the floor with her legs spread.


Nope. He said he had checked her book out of the library. He never said he wasn't familiar with the case.


I never said he 'confirmed' the were 'all shrink-wrapped and unread'. I quoted and cited his exact testimony.


You completely omit that it was found 6 weeks later across the room under a dirty rug with no record of who or what it came in contact with. That's mischaracterizing the condition in which it was found and then tested.


Madame ≠ calling you "names".

You even mischaracterized what the word "mischaracterize" means !

You need to learn when something is a paraphrase (hint, there are no quotation marks). In addition, holding an opinion is NOT the same as 'mischaracterisation'.

And yes, please refrain from calling me 'Madame', if that is alright with you.



.


.

 

[Stacyhs]

I certainly don't 'mischaracterise'.

I've provided several examples of your mischaracterizations. Does anyone here, other than Vixen, disagree that any of the examples are not mischaracterizations?

I say what I mean and yes, it gets me into trouble, as people have seen.

If getting called out for wrongly presenting something is 'getting in trouble'.

I can't see the point in seeing clearly that something is a lie or an error and then pretending that it is not. I get that others might not see this clearly but that is hardly my problem.

 

[Stacyhs]

You need to learn when something is a paraphrase (hint, there are no quotation marks).

When I quote YOU, there are quotation marks. I see you've failed to address a single point I made.

In addition, holding an opinion is NOT the same as 'mischaracterisation'.

I agree. Then say 'IMO' instead of writing it as a fact when it's not.

And yes, please refrain from calling me 'Madame', if that is alright with you.

You must get offended a lot in France.