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

Stacyhs said:
Under Italian law, IF Knox had been proven to have "[removed] the most visible traces of what had happened" to "help cover up for someone" or even to "steer away suspicion from herself" that would have been a crime in itself for which she could have been charged. But she wasn't. Why?
IF Knox had cleaned up to divert attention from herself, why on Earth would she have left her own blood on the faucet and "Sollecito's" bloody footprint in the bathroom and pointed them out to police instead of just removing them? It also makes zero sense to leave the mat with the footprint but wash the floor of any other prints. It's completely illogical.

How could Knox have stepped in enough of Kercher's blood to the extent that she left a full "bloody footprint" (according to Massei and the PGP) if "her contact with the victim’s blood happened in a subsequent moment and in another room of the house"? The only other places Kercher's blood was found in the house were Guede's shoeprints in the corridor/kitchen floor and on the bathroom rug. As Vixen is fond of pointing out, blood dries quickly and if Knox had stepped in a dried shoeprint, it would not have transferred enough blood for her to leave an entire bloody footprint. If she stepped on one of Guede's shoeprints while the blood was still wet, it would have smeared the shoeprint instead of leaving them intact as they were.
Click to expand...
Would could should. You might just as well ponder why would Kohberger leave the sheath behind. Therefore, he can't have done it because he wouldn't have done that. A court finds facts. It's not a debating society. There is only one truth and no amount of would-could-should what-iffing can cover it up.
 
TruthCalls and I are still waiting for Vixen to 1) provide evidence we said what she claims we did, or 2) to admit we did not say what she claims.

Vixen said:
BTW you claim any DNA collected after 46 days is not permissible. Says who? You?
Click to expand...
Vixen said:
Truth Calls claims that the evidence must reach his personal standards of criteria is just a ruse to deny the full DNA profile of Sollecito on Kercher's bra clasp; on the inner bend of the the clasp. Waffling about RFU's doesn't fool the Italians.
Click to expand...

“It takes guts and humility to admit mistakes. Admitting we're wrong is courage, not weakness.” ― Roy T. Bennett, The Light in the Heart

“You should never be ashamed to admit you have been wrong. It only proves you are wiser today than yesterday.” — Jonathon Swift
 
Vixen said:
Would could should. You might just as well ponder why would Kohberger leave the sheath behind. Therefore, he can't have done it because he wouldn't have done that. A court finds facts. It's not a debating society. There is only one truth and no amount of would-could-should what-iffing can cover it up.
Click to expand...
None of that addresses my points. It's yet another attempted diversion because you can't give a logical counterargument.
 
Stacyhs said:
TruthCalls and I are still waiting for Vixen to 1) provide evidence we said what she claims we did, or 2) to admit we did not say what she claims.




“It takes guts and humility to admit mistakes. Admitting we're wrong is courage, not weakness.” ― Roy T. Bennett, The Light in the Heart

“You should never be ashamed to admit you have been wrong. It only proves you are wiser today than yesterday.” — Jonathon Swift
Click to expand...
I haven't responded because my perception is you are just being vexatious. You know perfectly well what I was referring to.
 
Stacyhs said:
None of that addresses my points. It's yet another attempted diversion because you can't give a logical counterargument.
Click to expand...
Your claim that it can't be Sollecito's footprint on the bathmat because he wouldn't have left it there childlike logic is hilarious. It's his footprint alright. Measured by forensic engineering draughtsmen (=technical drawing experts) to the smallest nano-millimetre, complete with his hammer toe thrown in! Oh dear.
 
Vixen said:
I haven't responded because my perception is you are just being vexatious. You know perfectly well what I was referring to.
Click to expand...

And it's my perception that this is what you do: You make a false allegation that someone said something, and when challenged to provide the proof for it, you can't so you just ignore it or make a rubbish retort like the above.
I do know what you were referring to which I already quoted and cited for you already:
The sheath was not collected 46 days after the crime with numerous people tramping through the house and bedroom.
Click to expand...

And I clarified what I was saying once already for you:

That's pointing out that there was far less probability of Kohberger's DNA on the knife sheath being from contamination than Raffaele's DNA on the bra hook being from contamination.
Click to expand...

Now just admit I never said any "evidence collected after 46 days is not permissible". Take some responsibility.
 
Vixen said:
Your claim that it can't be Sollecito's footprint on the bathmat because he wouldn't have left it there childlike logic is hilarious. It's his footprint alright. Measured by forensic engineering draughtsmen (=technical drawing experts) to the smallest nano-millimetre, complete with his hammer toe thrown in! Oh dear.
Click to expand...
LIes, lies and more lies.
 
Vixen said:
You don't understand human rights law nor the purpose of ECHR or how it works. Treating at as a cashpoint machine is not going to work.
Click to expand...
I repeat: The Hamza case is not relevant to the Knox case. YOU brought it up. YOU are the only one claiming anyone thinks it's a "cashpoint machine".
 
Stacyhs said:
And it's my perception that this is what you do: You make a false allegation that someone said something, and when challenged to provide the proof for it, you can't so you just ignore it or make a rubbish retort like the above.
I do know what you were referring to which I already quoted and cited for you already:


And I clarified what I was saying once already for you:



Now just admit I never said any "evidence collected after 46 days is not permissible". Take some responsibility.
Click to expand...
For crying out loud. The comparison was NOT Knox versus Kohberger, the comparison was laboratory scientists in a university ~vs~ forensic crime scene scientists. Sheee-eeesh! And it is perfectly permissible to collect forensic evidence any time a forensic police officer sees fit. Your faux arguments that Sollecito's full profile DNA on the bra clasp cannot be accepted because of some criterion you have just pulled out of the air, is risible and then you have the temerity to demand I explain why to you. It is all a big joke to you. Well have fun!
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
How is Hamza relevant to this case?
Click to expand...
You must be new to this thread as Article 6 and Article 3 of the HRA have been discussed exhaustively. AK and RS have tried claiming under these articles to the ECHR. Perhaps explain why it's OK for others to quote cases, perhaps to demonstrate you are not being personal.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Your claim that it can't be Sollecito's footprint on the bathmat because he wouldn't have left it there childlike logic is hilarious.
Click to expand...
Nope. I don't think it's his footprint for two reasons:
1. Vinci's powerpoint presentation which highlighted Rinaldi and Boemia's mistakes,
2. Guilty people do NOT deliberately leave and point out to the police evidence against themselves....especially when it's also claimed they cleaned up evidence of themselves. To think otherwise is just plain stupid.

What's hilarious childlike logic is to claim they do so in order to 'put one over on the police'.

Vixen said:
It's his footprint alright. Measured by forensic engineering draughtsmen (=technical drawing experts) to the smallest nano-millimetre, complete with his hammer toe thrown in! Oh dear.
Click to expand...
So now Rinaldi and Boemia are "forensic engineering draughtsmen (=technical drawing experts)"? I'd ask for evidence but we both know you'll just ignore it. Oh, dear.

Funny how Marasca doesn't agree with you or R & B. Accepting the bloody footprint as RS's would have proved an attempted clean up which Marasca specifically rejects.
 
Stacyhs said:
Nope. I don't think it's his footprint for two reasons:
1. Vinci's powerpoint presentation which highlighted Rinaldi and Boemia's mistakes,
2. Guilty people do NOT deliberately leave and point out to the police evidence against themselves....especially when it's also claimed they cleaned up evidence of themselves. To think otherwise is just plain stupid.

What's hilarious childlike logic is to claim they do so in order to 'put one over on the police'.


So now Rinaldi and Boemia are "forensic engineering draughtsmen (=technical drawing experts)"? I'd ask for evidence but we both know you'll just ignore it. Oh, dear.

Funny how Marasca doesn't agree with you or R & B. Accepting the bloody footprint as RS's would have proved an attempted clean up which Marasca specifically rejects.
Click to expand...
That's the difference between you and me. You tell yourself you believe in lies and you have no problem with it. I am the opposite. Truth is preferable to me even if it is hard to take. What is the point in believing in a lie?
 
Vixen said:
For crying out loud. The comparison was NOT Knox versus Kohberger, the comparison was laboratory scientists in a university ~vs~ forensic crime scene scientists. Sheee-eeesh!
Click to expand...
Sigh. MY statement had nothing to do with "the comparison was laboratory scientists in a university ~vs~ forensic crime scene scientists." MY statement was about the probability of Kohberger's DNA on the sheath being from contamination verses Sollecito's DNA on the bra hook being from contamination. I've explained that to you twice now.

You are trying to redirect from the fact that you falsely claimed I said something I never did.

Vixen said:
And it is perfectly permissible to collect forensic evidence any time a forensic police officer sees fit.
Click to expand...
Have I said otherwise? No. But I think even you would concede that forensic evidence should be collected ASAP and all anti-contamination protocols should be followed. Or do you not?

Vixen said:
Your faux arguments that Sollecito's full profile DNA on the bra clasp cannot be accepted
Click to expand...
Yet another false claim. Are you going for a record? I have never denied his DNA is on the bra hook. It's HOW it got there that is important. Sheeeeee-eeeesh!
Vixen said:
because of some criterion you have just pulled out of the air, is risible
Click to expand...
You mean the ENFSI specified criteria for how to collect evidence that includes:

  • Prevent Contamination: Employ rigorous cleaning protocols for equipment and surfaces, wear protective gear, and avoid actions that could contaminate the evidence.
Click to expand...
Vixen said:
and then you have the temerity to demand I explain why to you. It is all a big joke to you. Well have fun!
Click to expand...
LOL! I haven't demanded you do any such thing. What I've demanded is that you either prove I said "no evidence collected after 46 days is permissible" or admit I didn't. This entire exchange is just your inability to do either.

By the way, you're resorting to the "when you have no defense, go on the offense" tactic.
 
Vixen said:
How is it any different from the numerous cases quoted by Numbers? I'll get into my listening pose.
Click to expand...
Because Numbers' case quotes are relevant to the Knox case. Hamza's is not. Hint: when you go into a listening pose, that requires actually listening.
 
Vixen said:
That's the difference between you and me.
Click to expand...
Oh, there are A LOT of differences between you and me. One is that I actually address the points in a post which I notice you did not do...again.
Vixen said:
You tell yourself you believe in lies and you have no problem with it. I am the opposite. Truth is preferable to me even if it is hard to take. What is the point in believing in a lie?
Click to expand...
roflmao.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom