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

[Vixen]

As far as I'm aware, the standard pro-guilt fantasy regarding this piece of evidence is the very same fantasy concocted by Guede himself - that he was quietly relieving himself in the large bathroom when Knox and Sollecito burst in and stabbed Kercher; Guede then (per the fantasy) came out of the bathroom to find Sollecito barging past him shouting a racist accusation, and then he (Guede) went into Kercher's room to try to help her (getting his bloody handprint on the pillowcase in the process).

Of course this is all a pile of self-serving bollocks, on the part of both Guede and the Guilters. Even worse IMO is the epithelial PCR-volume DNA of Guede's founf on/in Kercher's genitals at autopsy, and Guede's disgusting attempts to claim that he and Kercher had had a pre-arranged "hook up" which had involved genital touching (prior, of course, to Guede finishing that portion of the evening and going off to take a dump).

Guede never denied being there. He now asserts that the racist epithet was something that played in his head at the time. Yes, Guede is a liar as far as his own involvement is concerned but his claim Knox attacked Mez because she confronted her about her missing rent money does seem to provide a logical progression of the ensuing violence, especially given the pair - AK and RS - switched off their phones together for the duration of the murder (I note Kohberger and Arias did exactly the same) had fantasies of 'extreme experiences', enacting her rape fantasy short stories and continuation of her penchant for bullying roommates back in Washington State - one said Knox appeared in a ski mask frightening the life out of them - with Sollecito's similar urges. So provoke the victim as an excuse to commence the prolonged torture and sadistic thrill kill. Were it just a bog standard theft, the mugger or burglar would just pick up the bag and sort out its contents later, not feel in Mez' back jean pocket for her second phone (which only Knox would have been aware of) and leave your hair across the top of the bag and your hair gripped in the corpse's fist. Not to mention YOUR ladies size 37 ASIC trainer print on the cushion. And YOUR lamp on HER floor. Pretending you had no idea it was missing from your room in the twilight when you claim to have needed a shower. Going back to undress the body further and pose the body to look like a stranger rape. If Guede is disgusting how disgusting are Knox and Sollecito.

 

[TruthCalls]

Defence soundbites. Even Kohberger's lawyer had those lined up, had it gone to trial.

You refuse to admit the SP committed massive forensic blunders, despite clear and obvious evidence that they did. Honesty is just not part of who you are. Disgusting.

 

[Numbers]

I provided the exact Nencini quote a couple of weeks ago. Are you suggesting a senior judge at Florence Court is being willfully fraudulent with the aim of subverting justice?h

1. You are withholding your alleged proof from the current discussion. Therefore, your proof does not exist.
2. The Nencini Court of Appeal MR is full of false statements. So are some of the other Italian court MRs in this case, including the Massei Court MR. Both of those provisional verdicts were overturned (quashed) by higher courts, largely because they contained false statements, illogical reasoning, and other serious violations of Italian law. The statements, reasoning, and legal positions of those judgments must be understood to be defective as pointed out by the higher courts that quashed the judgments.

 

[TruthCalls]

Another one who doesn't do logic. How many people can you see in this police reconstruction?
View attachment 62214
Don't tell us: "IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!!"

Oh my, you think a cartoon depicting Mignini's wet dream actually offers insight into the crime. How embarrassing for you!

 

[Vixen]

Oh my, you think a cartoon depicting Mignini's wet dream actually offers insight into the crime. How embarrassing for you!

Not a 'cartoon'. A video presentation to the court by prosecutor Comodi* (IIRC) which cost >€100K. Only a couple of frames have been released to the public domain. *Heh, you thought Mignini was the only prosecutor. How sweet.

 

[Vixen]

You refuse to admit the SP committed massive forensic blunders, despite clear and obvious evidence that they did. Honesty is just not part of who you are. Disgusting.

Sorry, I can only go by what was tested and proved in court.

 

[Vixen]

1. You are withholding your alleged proof from thecurrent discussion.
2. The Nencini Court of Appeal MR is full of false statements. So are some of the other Italian court MRs in this case, including the Massei Court MR. Both of those provisional verdicts were overturned (quashed) by higher courts, largely because they contained false statements, illogical reasoning, and other serious violations of Italian law. The statements, reasoning, and legal positions of those judgments must be understood to be defective as pointed out by the higher courts that quashed the judgments.

No, the reasons for the quashing were explicitly about how the DNA relating to Sollecito was gathered and some rambling about media interference. And some stuff about Gallileo thrown in for good measure.

 

[Numbers]

No, the reasons for the quashing were explicitly about how the DNA relating to Sollecito was gathered and some rambling about media interference. And some stuff about Gallileo thrown in for good measure.

You very clearly have not kept up with the discussions here and appear not to have understood the contents of the MRs quashing the Massei and Nencini courts' verdicts.

 

[AmyStrange]

"It really doesn't cancel out IDENTIFIED DNA as being the FULL DNA PROFILE of Sollecito on the bra clasp."


More of the same crap from someone who obviously doesn't know a thing about women and their bras, proving once again that I'm correct.


-

 

[TruthCalls]

Not a 'cartoon'. A video presentation to the court by prosecutor Comodi* (IIRC) which cost >€100K. Only a couple of frames have been released to the public domain. *Heh, you thought Mignini was the only prosecutor. How sweet.

A CARTOON, and it depicts Mignini's theory of the crime. And as I recall, it cost over €200K.

*Um, no, not everyone is clueless about this case as you.

 

[TruthCalls]

Sorry, I can only go by what was tested and proved in court.

So are you claiming....

- That they collected the clasp on 2 Nov, when it was first found, given a number and photographed?
- That they did NOT wait 46 days, until the bedroom had been completely emptied of it's content, before it was collected?
- That the clasp was not picked up with visibly dirty gloves?
- That she did NOT rub the hook with her dirty glove?
- That she did NOT pass the clasp onto others so they could handle it and look it over?
- That she then put it back down on the floor and photographed it?
- That she actually amplified the sample more than once, in compliance with ENFSI standards?
- That she didn't improperly store the clasp, and that the clasp is still in pristine condition and can be tested further?

All of these pointed were proven in court, so why are you having such a hard time acknowledging them?

I'll answer that... if you were honest (chuckle...) you'd have to admit they violated numerous forensic protocols that govern evidence collection and testing, and that as a result, any results obtained can not be considered reliable, and you're rather suffer through six root canals than admit that.

You do realize this is NOT how someone who is "impartial, neutral and entirely objective" behaves, right?

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh dear. Do have a look at the following two statements: (1) The full DNA profile of Raffaele Sollecito was found on the murder victim's underwear. (2) The DNA on the bra clasp might have got there by contamination; for example, a transfer of Sollecito's DNA trace on the door frame via the latex glove of a forensic police officer. Think about it. Now, which one of these is based on (a) hard, objective, neutral, scientific, measurable, observable fact, and as witnessed by a genetic expert defence witness? And which one of these statements is pure conjecture, and an abstract hypothethical what-if imaginary scenario? Got it?

Your various recent responses appear to be so flustered and full of rather ludicrous hyperbole, that your "response" to me here has/had nothing to do with the post of mine to which you were "responding". May I recommend that you organise your thoughts a bit more before wasting my time? Maybe read my post again, for comprehension this time?

 

[LondonJohn]

A CARTOON, and it depicts Mignini's theory of the crime. And as I recall, it cost over €200K.

*Um, no, not everyone is clueless about this case as you.

It's extremely telling of Vixen's POV in this case that she actually presented this ludicrous cartoon animation - which was entirely plucked from the lurid imaginations of the prosecutors, and which wasn't even supported by the prosecution's improper and unlawful evidence from the Massei trial - as some sort of evidence in and of itself that the murder was a three-way endeavour on the part of Guede, Knox and Sollecito. Truly embarrassing.

 

[LondonJohn]

You very clearly have not kept up with the discussions here and appear not to have understood the contents of the MRs quashing the Massei and Nencini courts' verdicts.

Yes. Vixen: do read the Marasca MR, together with the adjudication of the ECHR. You might just learn something germane to this case.

 

[LondonJohn]

No, the reasons for the quashing were explicitly about how the DNA relating to Sollecito was gathered and some rambling about media interference. And some stuff about Gallileo thrown in for good measure.

Judging from your posts, it seems like this whole critical thinking lark might be well beyond you. As, it would appear, is pretty much all of the scientific background required to understand this case properly - which, considering it is high-school science knowledge at most, is I suppose rather impressive in itself.

Which reminds me: do "educate" us once again in your high-school-level ballistics analysis related to the throw of the rock (by Guede) against Romanelli's window. Go on - indulge us, just for old times' sake!

 

[LondonJohn]

Guede never denied being there. He now asserts that the racist epithet was something that played in his head at the time. Yes, Guede is a liar as far as his own involvement is concerned but his claim Knox attacked Mez because she confronted her about her missing rent money does seem to provide a logical progression of the ensuing violence, especially given the pair - AK and RS - switched off their phones together for the duration of the murder (I note Kohberger and Arias did exactly the same) had fantasies of 'extreme experiences', enacting her rape fantasy short stories and continuation of her penchant for bullying roommates back in Washington State - one said Knox appeared in a ski mask frightening the life out of them - with Sollecito's similar urges. So provoke the victim as an excuse to commence the prolonged torture and sadistic thrill kill. Were it just a bog standard theft, the mugger or burglar would just pick up the bag and sort out its contents later, not feel in Mez' back jean pocket for her second phone (which only Knox would have been aware of) and leave your hair across the top of the bag and your hair gripped in the corpse's fist. Not to mention YOUR ladies size 37 ASIC trainer print on the cushion. And YOUR lamp on HER floor. Pretending you had no idea it was missing from your room in the twilight when you claim to have needed a shower. Going back to undress the body further and pose the body to look like a stranger rape. If Guede is disgusting how disgusting are Knox and Sollecito.

LOL. Each and every one of these guilter talking points has been thoroughly refuted by accurate analysis, various disproving of the prosecution "analysis", and various disproving of lurid tabloid media reports. Please try to keep up, Vixen - we're not in 2008 any longer.

 

[TruthCalls]

LOL. Each and every one of these guilter talking points has been thoroughly refuted by accurate analysis, various disproving of the prosecution "analysis", and various disproving of lurid tabloid media reports. Please try to keep up, Vixen - we're not in 2008 any longer.

What's ironic is that she literally just responded to my listing of court proven facts regarding the clasp by saying "Sorry, I can only go by what was tested and proved in court.". Never mind that everything I listed WAS proven in court, the irony here is everything she just wrote was DISproven in court, or never even made it to court because it was false. Vixen is nothing if not dishonest.

 

[Vixen]

LOL. Each and every one of these guilter talking points has been thoroughly refuted by accurate analysis, various disproving of the prosecution "analysis", and various disproving of lurid tabloid media reports. Please try to keep up, Vixen - we're not in 2008 any longer.

No, they have never been refuted or disproved. The annulment of the sentences was 100% based on a what-if speculation that Sollecito;s DNA 'might have been there by accident'. It was never demonstrated that RS' full DNA was there on the bra clasp in error. It remains a fact of 'absolute certainty' that Knox was at the cottage when Kercher was killed, and that Sollecito 'was almost certainly there with her'. (Marasca-Bruno, 2015; Masi-Martuscelli, 2017). All you have are sad jibes but no proof.

 

[Vixen]

Judging from your posts, it seems like this whole critical thinking lark might be well beyond you. As, it would appear, is pretty much all of the scientific background required to understand this case properly - which, considering it is high-school science knowledge at most, is I suppose rather impressive in itself.

Which reminds me: do "educate" us once again in your high-school-level ballistics analysis related to the throw of the rock (by Guede) against Romanelli's window. Go on - indulge us, just for old times' sake!

Too much of a Simonton gap.

 

[LondonJohn]

No, they have never been refuted or disproved. The annulment of the sentences was 100% based on a what-if speculation that Sollecito;s DNA 'might have been there by accident'. It was never demonstrated that RS' full DNA was there on the bra clasp in error. It remains a fact of 'absolute certainty' that Knox was at the cottage when Kercher was killed, and that Sollecito 'was almost certainly there with her'. (Marasca-Bruno, 2015; Masi-Martuscelli, 2017). All you have are sad jibes but no proof.

Like I said: do go back and read the Marasca SC verdict again, along with the ECHR adjudication. And perhaps read them properly this time?