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

[AmyStrange]

Whooosh! I was trying to explain in the simplest of terms why Taratanamo's girlfriend backing him up...oh, never mind...

Whooosh is right, but how about proving you're an adult and maybe get some credibility back by honestly answering this one from Welshman (and the others that follow), otherwise it just proves you never answered the questions, or have any answers at all, or maybe you're just plain lying:

If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was a slam dunk, why has Vixen been consistently unable to argue her case without resorting to lying.

Or these from Stacyhs:

Do ENFSI guidelines include

1. not changing gloves between handling items at the crime scene,

2. only changing gloves when something is obviously dirty, or when the item is wet,

3. handing evidence around to several others,

74. collecting evidence without tongs,

5. storing evidence so that it rots or rusts?

These are easy Yes or No questions.

Can you give any evidence of Knox or Sollecito ever having been accused of theft? Were they ever caught with stolen property?

Or, these from Bill Williams:

Why did Nencini say that the other three male-profiles on the bra-clasp, were NOT evidence of those males being in the room when the victim was murdered? Compare and contrast that with why Nencini found that RS's profile found on the bra-clasp WAS evidence of him in the room at the time of the murder?

Given that Nencini had just established a judicial-fact with those claims, why did he further say that those other three male profiles, were, acc. to him, from 'amica'? Girlfriends, who he claimed regularly handled the bra? Obstensively, handled it in another place at another time? Why did that reasoning not apply to RS's profile?

Or is contamination an easier explanation? If not, why not?

What is the role of an appeal's court (cf. the Marasca-Bruno ISC panel) when presented with judicial facts like that?

Or, this one from London John:

Vixen: why would Sollecito - if he had participated in Kercher's murder and would therefore have known that he washed off blood in the shower before stepping onto the bathmat - help Knox to direct the police to the print on the bathmat which he knew his foot had made?

Or, how about SpitfireIX's questions which you originally lied about:

Vixen, I asked you a question. Do you deny that there's blood on parts of the bath mat even where there aren't threads? Further, now that we've disposed of your ridiculous hard floor analogy, I renew my earlier question. If, as you contend, you can "see the truth" that this is Raffaele's footprint on the bathmat, and everyone else is deluding themselves, then why is there more than a centimeter in difference between the tip of the footprint and Raffaele's reference print?

If, as you contend, you can "see the truth" that the print on the bathmat was made by Raffaele's foot, then why is the yellow line that passes approximately through the tip of the big toe of the bathmat print more than one centimeter behind the tip of the big toe of Raffaele's reference print?

OR, are you afraid you'll debunk your opinions with real objective answers?

BTW, I have more if you care to see them.

 

[Stacyhs]

Dalla Vedova telling ECHR Knox retracted her accusation really doesn't have the same weight as the criminal court verdict that fancy prose didn't hide the fact she committed the crime, after a new trial weighing up the merits of her case and after hearing counsel from all parties. Knox wasn't the only party in this case. There is her victim, Lumumba, who also had a right to expect justice and for his human rights not to be falsely accused of rape and murder to be respected.

Right. The ECHR just accepted a lawyer's claim as fact with no further examination. Hmmm. Is that why they found a violation on the claim of degrading treatment, too? Oh, wait....

Honestly, Vixen, you do yourself no favors with comments like this.

 

[Stacyhs]

It doesn't follow that he is the only burglar in the village.

But he was the only burglar in possession of that stolen watch.
The fact his neighbor had also recently reported her gold watch stolen is just another one of those strange cowinky-dinks.

Thanks for finally acknowledging that Guede was a burglar.

 

[Stacyhs]

It's obvious he didn't realise he'd left it there. _DOH! Criminals who think they are clever, often find the forensic guys are even cleverer.

Really? After a minimum of 13+ hours in which you claim they were cleaning up evidence, both he and Knox didn't notice his own bloody footprint on the bathmat? Is that why they pointed it out to the police straightaway?

It doesn't take a "forensic guy" to see a visible bloody footprint on a rug.

 

[Vixen]

Whooosh is right, but how about proving you're an adult and maybe get some credibility back by honestly answering this one from Welshman (and the others that follow), otherwise it just proves you never answered the questions, or have any answers at all, or maybe you're just plain lying:




Or these from Stacyhs:




Or, these from Bill Williams:




Or, this one from London John:




Or, how about SpitfireIX's questions which you originally lied about:

OR, are you afraid you'll debunk your opinions with real objective answers?

BTW, I have more if you care to see them.

Please stop being vexatious. I responded to all of those posts.

 

[Vixen]

But he was the only burglar in possession of that stolen watch.
The fact his neighbor had also recently reported her gold watch stolen is just another one of those strange cowinky-dinks.

Thanks for finally acknowledging that Guede was a burglar.

Only in your imagination. You have had to construct an imaginary scenario to buoy up your 'belief' that AK and RS are completely innocent and were only convicted because of a villainous prosecutor. Your what-if world only works if Guede is the village burglar and who cares if he has never been convicted of burglary, you need to believe this desperately, otherwise you might have to face grim reality.

 

[Vixen]

But he was the only burglar in possession of that stolen watch.
The fact his neighbor had also recently reported her gold watch stolen is just another one of those strange cowinky-dinks.

Thanks for finally acknowledging that Guede was a burglar.

As I have patiently tried to explain before, being in possession of stolen property is a defined criminal offence. It is completely separate and different from theft, burglary and robbery.

 

[Vixen]

Really? After a minimum of 13+ hours in which you claim they were cleaning up evidence, both he and Knox didn't notice his own bloody footprint on the bathmat? Is that why they pointed it out to the police straightaway?

It doesn't take a "forensic guy" to see a visible bloody footprint on a rug.

Oooh, Leopold and Loeb couldn't have done it because they wouldn't have left behind their eyeglasses, nor could Jody Arias have left her DNA in a palm print of her murder victim's bathroom, nor would Kohberger have left his sheath behind, so he couldn't have done it. Do you see how ludicrous your would could should logic is?

 

[LondonJohn]

Oooh, Leopold and Loeb couldn't have done it because they wouldn't have left behind their eyeglasses, nor could Jody Arias have left her DNA in a palm print of her murder victim's bathroom, nor would Kohberger have left his sheath behind, so he couldn't have done it. Do you see how ludicrous your would could should logic is?

Did those people point out those items of evidence to the police? You're not very good at this, are you? I do admire your sheer chutzpah though, as your posts once again take a hammering all over this sceptics' forum. Must be quite tiring, huh?

 

[Numbers]

Please stop being vexatious. I responded to all of those posts.

The non-responsive responses, lies, mischaracterizations, hyperbole, and apparent failures of comprehension of forensic procedures and legal points of your posts reflect on the total vapidity of the guilter position. I suspect, however, that an Italian prosecutor such as Mignini or some of the Italian judges such as Massei, Chieffi, and Nencini would envy the logic and detail of your posts.

 

[gabeygoat]

Oooh, Leopold and Loeb couldn't have done it because they wouldn't have left behind their eyeglasses, nor could Jody Arias have left her DNA in a palm print of her murder victim's bathroom, nor would Kohberger have left his sheath behind, so he couldn't have done it. Do you see how ludicrous your would could should logic is?

Did any of those people point out the evidence to the police?

 

[Stacyhs]

That not what the Rome Scientific Police said.

Really? Then please provide evidence of them saying the disks were fried when they received them.

As previously provided, it was what Marco Trotta, Assistant Chief of the State police, Postal Police, Perugia said.
No prosecutor, including Mignini, ever claimed the laptop hard disks were fried before they were taken into custody. Not one. If they had been, you can be damn sure they'd have presented that as evidence of RS trying to hide something on them.

Why do you insist on lying about something so easily and repeatedly disproved?

 

[AmyStrange]

Please stop being vexatious. I responded to all of those posts.

Not until you prove it, and not with fantasy crap either, but with real honest answers based on facts and not opinions and lies.

Your credibility is at stake.

Thank you.

 

[Vixen]

Did any of those people point out the evidence to the police?

The context was, 'If they had done it, they would not have pointed it out'. The blood was so obvious, I am not sure what it proves. It certainly doesn't prove innocence.

 

[AmyStrange]

Not to a lame brain with no credibility anyway.

 

[Vixen]

Really? Then please provide evidence of them saying the disks were fried when they received them.

As previously provided, it was what Marco Trotta, Assistant Chief of the State police, Postal Police, Perugia said.
No prosecutor, including Mignini, ever claimed the laptop hard disks were fried before they were taken into custody. Not one. If they had been, you can be damn sure they'd have presented that as evidence of RS trying to hide something on them.

Why do you insist on lying about something so easily and repeatedly disproved?

Filomena Romanelli said hers was before she even handed it in. The others were seized by the police en scène.

 

[Vixen]

Not until you prove it, and not with fantasy crap either, but with real honest answers based on facts and not opinions and lies.

Your credibility is at stake.

Thank you.

Just go back to each of those posts and you will see I responded.

 

[Stacyhs]

There are many people convicted with no previous criminal record.

Have I ever said otherwise? You're just desperately avoiding acknowledging the long list that points to Guede as a thief even prior to the murder and the DNA evidence ON KERCHER'S PURSE.

In the Kohberger case, you accept the DNA left on the knife sheath as evidence he killed those students but not Guede's DNA in Kercher's blood on her purse as evidence he's the thief.

You keep getting hoist by your own petard, when you go on and on about Guede being a lazy layabout who couldn't hold a job yet you can't bear anyone to apply the same standards of scrutiny to your pets.

That pile of crap isn't even worth addressing.

You haven't answered my question: WHAT computer?

 

[AmyStrange]

Just go back to each of those posts and you will see I responded.

Nope. Wrong. You didn't respond, because none of your "responses" were based on facts, but instead on opinions, lies, and fantasy.

As a matter of fact, you even called most of them too frivolous to answer.

Go ahead, prove me wrong.

 

[Vixen]

Have I ever said otherwise? You're just desperately avoiding acknowledging the long list that points to Guede as a thief even prior to the murder and the DNA evidence ON KERCHER'S PURSE.

In the Kohberger case, you accept the DNA left on the knife sheath as evidence he killed those students but not Guede's DNA in Kercher's blood on her purse as evidence he's the thief.


That pile of crap isn't even worth addressing.

You haven't answered my question: WHAT computer?

Guede was in the room, he said so. A bag is not the same as a knife! It wasn't just DNA on the sheath it was all of Kohberger's attempts to find a replacement, his return to the scene, his super-efforts to conceal where he bought it from. You talk about Guede's DNA in the bag but you never mention the long hair across the bag and the one gripped in Mez' deceased hand. Nor the ladies size 37 trainer print on the pillow. You need to reevaluate why you are in denial.