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

[Numbers]

This just shows the unreliability of AI, but the ECHR also ruled it was a retraction. Regardless, the Nov. 7 memoriale leaves no ambiguity:

"I didn’t lie when I said I thought the killer was Patrick. I was very stressed at the time and I really did think he was the murderer. But now I remember that I can’t know who the murderer was because I didn’t return back to the house."

I agree that it's more important that it's ambiguous and even contradictory. The only thing she wrote that could even be considered a confirmation is the "And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events" part, but even that is very much weakened by the remaining part of the same sentence, "that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me than what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house." Its exclusion reeks of intellectual dishonesty. The vast majority of the Nov. 6 memoriale is questioning those "memories" as real or her imaginings and she even states that she's " very doubtful of the veritity [sic] of my statements."

The over-positive publicity around AI may lead some to accept AI results without verification, which can lead to accepting false information as true - an especially serious problem in, for example, legal cases.*

In the case of Knox's conviction and re-conviction for calunnia, it's important to understand the relevant actual facts, laws, and legal principles.

*See, for example:

Study Finds That AI Search Engines Are Wrong an Astounding Proportion of the Time​

Study Finds That AI Search Engines Are Wrong an Astounding Proportion of the Time

New research found that AI models gave the wrong answer in search results more than 60 percent of the time.

futurism.com

Court Sanctions Attorneys for Submitting Brief with AI-Generated False Citations

Court Sanctions Attorneys for AI-Cited Fake Cases—Rule 11 Violati

Highlights

natlawreview.com

Hallucination (artificial intelligence)​

Hallucination (artificial intelligence) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Stacyhs]

I only use AI as a starting point for information. For example, I use it to find if something is mentioned in an untranslated court document. Then I ask for an actual quote or page where the info is located and confirm from there. It's very helpful that way.

 

[bagels]

Just popping in to say it's really funny that despite Vixen's 100,000 posts or whatever she's up to now the most powerful argument for Amanda's guilt is this: Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is an Amanda Knox supporter. It's almost enough to make one rethink reality.

BTW I am the same age as Meredith Kercher, she would be turning 40 just like me if Rudy hadn't brutally murdered her for no reason. Time marches on for everyone, but not for her. But we will keep her memory alive in this thread by once and for all figuring out who killed the girl surrounded by the bloody handprints of knife wielding crook Rudy Guede.

 

[Stacyhs]

"...the most powerful argument for Amanda's guilt is this: Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is an Amanda Knox supporter."

There's a flaw in that: he was a supporter until she didn't vote for him in 2016. Now she's a horrible, disloyal person because he claims he donated to her legal fund, so she then 'owed' him her vote.

 

[Vixen]

Just popping in to say it's really funny that despite Vixen's 100,000 posts or whatever she's up to now the most powerful argument for Amanda's guilt is this: Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is an Amanda Knox supporter. It's almost enough to make one rethink reality.

BTW I am the same age as Meredith Kercher, she would be turning 40 just like me if Rudy hadn't brutally murdered her for no reason. Time marches on for everyone, but not for her. But we will keep her memory alive in this thread by once and for all figuring out who killed the girl surrounded by the bloody handprints of knife wielding crook Rudy Guede.

It can be hard to look reality in the face but trying to rewrite history doesn't actually change reality. Reality stares you in the face. That is why all three were convicted. That people lack the imagination to realise Knox' and Sollecito's input - as was proven in the merits court - is the reason they keep looking for get-out clauses and rationalisations such as 'would could or should' which, as can be seen in this multiple-hundred-page thread, runs incessantly along the lines of 'if RS or AK had done this that or the other, they would not have or could not have done it because they would have could have X, Y and Z instead'. It's hilarious. How many times do Knox and Sollecito have to spell out they did it and they were there? There is no undoing what was done.

 

[Vixen]

"...the most powerful argument for Amanda's guilt is this: Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is an Amanda Knox supporter."

There's a flaw in that: he was a supporter until she didn't vote for him in 2016. Now she's a horrible, disloyal person because he claims he donated to her legal fund, so she then 'owed' him her vote.

Trump is typical of many AK supporters. Trump believes that if he says a thing, it becomes true.

 

[Vixen]

Knox has spelt it out in writing that she met 'Patrick' in the basketball court. She even demonstrates Kercher's scream by placing her hands over her ears whenever she talks about it. "I cannot lie I was there."

Look at the footprint on the bathmat. The one size 42 with a hammer toe...just like...well, you figure it out. The guy who lied and lied and lied about what he did that evening. Even lying about switching off his phone. About the U-band in his sink falling off of its own accord.

When someone tells you who they are, believe, them...the first time. Stop making excuses for them. Let people take ownership of what they did.

 

[Stacyhs]

Trump is typical of many AK supporters.
Trump believes that if he says a thing, it becomes true.

You really don't get the irony in that coming from you, do you?

 

[Stacyhs]

It can be hard to look reality in the face but trying to rewrite history doesn't actually change reality. Reality stares you in the face.

Your grasp of the reality of this case is tenuous at best.

That is why all three were convicted.

That's why Knox and Sollecito were exonerated. And please, don't tell me they weren't exonerated or I'll just have to quote and cite the Italian law site that says they were...again.

That people lack the imagination to realise Knox' and Sollecito's input - as was proven in the merits court - is the reason they keep looking for get-out clauses and rationalisations such as 'would could or should' which, as can be seen in this multiple-hundred-page thread, runs incessantly along the lines of 'if RS or AK had done this that or the other, they would not have or could not have done it because they would have could have X, Y and Z instead'. It's hilarious. How many times do Knox and Sollecito have to spell out they did it and they were there? There is no undoing what was done.

All you have is your imagination and a keyboard.

 

[Stacyhs]

Knox has spelt it out in writing that she met 'Patrick' in the basketball court.

Knox has spelt it out in writing that she spent the night with Raffaele and never went to her apartment that night in her Nov. 7 memoriale. You know, the one she wrote and not the police.

She even demonstrates Kercher's scream by placing her hands over her ears whenever she talks about it.

Whenever she talks about it? Another assfact, Vixen. You can't cite a single example of her doing this. Knox never said she put her hands over her ears due to Kercher's screaming; it was prosecution who came up with that story.

"I cannot lie I was there."

Another classic example of your willful ignoring of facts. Even your beloved "merits trial" Massei understood she was referring to Raffaele's apartment. Not even Nencini bothered trying to contort it into meaning the cottage. Not one court agrees with your delusion on that.

Look at the footprint on the bathmat. The one size 42 with a hammer toe...just like...well, you figure it out. The guy who lied and lied and lied about what he did that evening. Even lying about switching off his phone. About the U-band in his sink falling off of its own accord.

Yadda, yadda, yadda. We have looked at all of that and so have the courts. The final decision: Sollecito was not involved in Kercher's murder. Suck it up. buttercup

When someone tells you who they are, believe, them...the first time. Stop making excuses for them. Let people take ownership of what they did.

Oh, we believe you! You've told us exactly who you are and we believe you! I suggest you take your own advice and admit ownership of what you've done and continue to do: defame two innocent people by pushing mis/disinformation and outright lies.

 

[Vixen]

You really don't get the irony in that coming from you, do you?

You don't seriously think insults changes the facts found...? Insult away! The facts and reality remain what they are.

 

[Vixen]

Your grasp of the reality of this case is tenuous at best.

That's why Knox and Sollecito were exonerated. And please, don't tell me they weren't exonerated or I'll just have to quote and cite the Italian law site that says they were...again.

All you have is your imagination and a keyboard.

They were acquitted on a 'technicality' dreamt up by a couple of rogue judges spoonfed by mafia-friend Bongiorno. The facts found at the fact-finding trial, which was lengthy and fair and a level playing field, remain proven.

BTW Einstein said true intelligence was having imagination, not knowledge. So thanks for the (unintended) compliment.

 

[Vixen]

Knox has spelt it out in writing that she spent the night with Raffaele and never went to her apartment that night in her Nov. 7 memoriale. You know, the one she wrote and not the police.

Whenever she talks about it? Another assfact, Vixen. You can't cite a single example of her doing this. Knox never said she put her hands over her ears due to Kercher's screaming; it was prosecution who came up with that story.

Another classic example of your willful ignoring of facts. Even your beloved "merits trial" Massei understood she was referring to Raffaele's apartment. Not even Nencini bothered trying to contort it into meaning the cottage. Not one court agrees with your delusion on that.

Yadda, yadda, yadda. We have looked at all of that and so have the courts. The final decision: Sollecito was not involved in Kercher's murder. Suck it up. buttercup


Oh, we believe you! You've told us exactly who you are and we believe you! I suggest you take your own advice and admit ownership of what you've done and continue to do: defame two innocent people by pushing mis/disinformation and outright lies.

You can keep doing the Dale Carnegie 'every day in every way' you believe the pair innocent 'in every way' but the fact is, the merits courts found the prosecution case proven, These two people you have decided to champion, are not your friends or relatives, and I doubt they will even thank you for your support. All Dale Carnegie does is coach people in how to deceive themselves by repeating statements over and over until you come to actually tell yourself you believe in them. Come on, Stacyhs you know they did it. Face it.

 

[Disbelief]

You don't seriously think insults changes the facts found...? Insult away! The facts and reality remain what they are.

Facts and reality say they were exonerated, contrary to your fantasy land.

 

[Stacyhs]

You don't seriously think insults changes the facts found...? Insult away! The facts and reality remain what they are.

Yes, they do. Facts and reality: Knox and Sollecito were exonerated in 2015. Deal with it.

 

[Stacyhs]

You can keep doing the Dale Carnegie 'every day in every way' you believe the pair innocent 'in every way' but the fact is, the merits courts found the prosecution case proven, These two people you have decided to champion, are not your friends or relatives, and I doubt they will even thank you for your support. All Dale Carnegie does is coach people in how to deceive themselves by repeating statements over and over until you come to actually tell yourself you believe in them. Come on, Stacyhs you know they did it. Face it.

Nothing but a failed attempt to divert attention from the fact that you cannot provide a single example of your claimed Knox "even demonstrates Kercher's scream by placing her hands over her ears whenever she talks about it." Nor can you dispute that not a single court, including Massei and Nencini, found that Knox was referring to anywhere but Sollecito's apartment when she said "I was there. I can't lie about this".

 

[Stacyhs]

They were acquitted on a 'technicality' dreamt up by a couple of rogue judges spoonfed by mafia-friend Bongiorno. The facts found at the fact-finding trial, which was lengthy and fair and a level playing field, remain proven.

BTW Einstein said true intelligence was having imagination, not knowledge. So thanks for the (unintended) compliment.

Ah, there it is! The "bent judges and mafia reference" rubbish again. What? No Trump and Clinton interference accusations? You're slipping.
BTW, I was being generous when I said 'imagination'. 'Unreality' is more accurate.

 

[TruthCalls]

They were acquitted on a 'technicality' dreamt up by a couple of rogue judges spoonfed by mafia-friend Bongiorno. The facts found at the fact-finding trial, which was lengthy and fair and a level playing field, remain proven.

BTW Einstein said true intelligence was having imagination, not knowledge. So thanks for the (unintended) compliment.

As the appellate courts in Italy are trial de novo, Hellmann would also be considered a fact finding trial, and they completely disagreed with the 'facts' as outlined by Massei.

Nearly 60% of all major crime verdicts from the first instance are reformed in the second instance court. So like the majority of cases, Massei was reformed by Hellmann, which not only looked at all the evidence again, but also allowed independent experts to review the DNA work performed by Stefanoni, which exposed a plethora of mistakes, omissions and lies by her.

I would disagree that the 'facts' found at the first instance trial remain proven. Quite a few were proven false, and that doesn't even begin to touch on the speculation and assumptions so heavily embraced by Massei and the pro-guilt community. But not to worry, most everyone has learned this, so there may still be hope for you, though after 18 years the odds seem to be shrinking.

 

[Vixen]

Facts and reality say they were exonerated, contrary to your fantasy land.

This statement underlines the point I was making. Think hard about your need to call a simple acquittal 'an exoneration'. Either you are fooling yourself or trying to deceive others. Or both. Or you believe stating a lie makes it magically true. In which case, you consider your readers stupid, which still doesn't reflect well on you.

 

[Vixen]

Yes, they do. Facts and reality: Knox and Sollecito were exonerated in 2015. Deal with it.

Q.E.D :: Game set and match.

 

[Vixen]

View attachment 65338

Nothing but a failed attempt to divert attention from the fact that you cannot provide a single example of your claimed Knox "even demonstrates Kercher's scream by placing her hands over her ears whenever she talks about it." Nor can you dispute that not a single court, including Massei and Nencini, found that Knox was referring to anywhere but Sollecito's apartment when she said "I was there. I can't lie about this".

You haven't the imagination to realise Knox did knife Mez in the neck, as did Sollecito tortured Mez with his numerous knife flicks and ripping off her bra. Keep frantically trying to think of 'alternative explanations' because you will never be given live CCTV footage of the incident.

 

[Vixen]

Ah, there it is! The "bent judges and mafia reference" rubbish again. What? No Trump and Clinton interference accusations? You're slipping.
BTW, I was being generous when I said 'imagination'. 'Unreality' is more accurate.

Well, Bill Clinton appears to be your role model when he famously and consistently averred, ""I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky," Like yourself, he really seemed to believe that if he kept saying it then it somehow became true! Knox believes if she keeps saying, "I did not kill Meredith," it becomes a magic mantra that converts history into a new reality if enough people swallow the deception. Clinton also used to claim he never inhaled. Think hard as to whether sensible people believed his nonsense. Don't be like Trump or Clinton; just tell it like it is.

 

[Vixen]

As the appellate courts in Italy are trial de novo, Hellmann would also be considered a fact finding trial, and they completely disagreed with the 'facts' as outlined by Massei.

Nearly 60% of all major crime verdicts from the first instance are reformed in the second instance court. So like the majority of cases, Massei was reformed by Hellmann, which not only looked at all the evidence again, but also allowed independent experts to review the DNA work performed by Stefanoni, which exposed a plethora of mistakes, omissions and lies by her.

I would disagree that the 'facts' found at the first instance trial remain proven. Quite a few were proven false, and that doesn't even begin to touch on the speculation and assumptions so heavily embraced by Massei and the pro-guilt community. But not to worry, most everyone has learned this, so there may still be hope for you, though after 18 years the odds seem to be shrinking.

Hellman was laughed out of court by his contemporaries.

 

[Numbers]

They were acquitted on a 'technicality' dreamt up by a couple of rogue judges spoonfed by mafia-friend Bongiorno. The facts found at the fact-finding trial, which was lengthy and fair and a level playing field, remain proven.

BTW Einstein said true intelligence was having imagination, not knowledge. So thanks for the (unintended) compliment.

Your statement that they (Knox and Sollecito) were acquitted (of the murder/rape charges) on a "technicality" is ambiguous, because you have not defined what you mean by a "technicality". I suggest you consult a dictionary (for example, the Britannica) to find out the generally used meanings of the terms "technical" and "technicality". I further suggest you then consult a discussion of the term "legal technicality" in Wikipedia. The following quote is from the Wikipedia article (superscript citation numbers omitted; italic bolding added for emphasis).

The term legal technicality is a casual or colloquial phrase referring to a technical aspect of law. The phrase is not a term of art in the law; it has no exact meaning, nor does it have a legal definition. In public perception, it typically refers to "procedural rules that can dictate the outcome of a case without having anything to do with the merits of that case." However, as a vague term, the definition of a technicality varies from person to person, and it is often simply used to denote any portion of the law that interferes with the outcome desired by the user of the term.

In objective fact, Knox and Sollecito were acquitted on the merits; there was no reliable, credible evidence of their guilt. Thus, they could not lawfully be found guilty, because a guilty verdict in Italy by law must be supported by proof beyond a reasonable doubt (CPP Article 533). When there is no such proof, the accused must be acquitted according to Italian law (CPP Article 530).

Your reference to a quote by Albert Einstein was incomplete and thus somewhat a distortion. According to one source, he included curiosity as one of his traits. I suggest that the intelligent person, such as Einstein, couples imagination, knowledge of empirical reality, and curiosity. He would not have been able to formulate his revolutionary theories without a firm foundation in the known physical science of his time.

“The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination. I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious.”​

Sources:

Technicality Definition & Meaning | Britannica Dictionary

TECHNICALITY meaning: 1 : a small detail in a rule, law, etc., and especially one that forces an unwanted or unexpected result; 2 : something that is understood by experts but usually not by other people usually plural often + of

www.britannica.com

Legal technicality - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A quote by Albert Einstein

The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination. I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious.

www.goodreads.com

 

[Stacyhs]

This statement underlines the point I was making. Think hard about your need to call a simple acquittal 'an exoneration'. Either you are fooling yourself or trying to deceive others. Or both. Or you believe stating a lie makes it magically true. In which case, you consider your readers stupid, which still doesn't reflect well on you.

It appears I do have to provide this again:

"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". "

Therefore, under Italian law, Knox and Sollecito were found to be legally "innocent/exonerated", not just "not guilty".

Now, if you'd like to present your credentials in Italian law and evidence the above Italian lawyer* who wrote it is wrong, please do so.

*
Mariano Acquaviva
After earning his master's degree in Law with honors from the University of Salerno in 2011, he subsequently enrolled in the School of Specialization for Legal Professions at the same university, also obtaining top marks. He currently practices law as a registered attorney at the Salerno Bar Association and collaborates with several law firms, focusing primarily on criminal and civil law.

 

[Stacyhs]

Q.E.D :: Game set and match.

So Italian lawyer Mariano Acquaviva is either lying or stupid and you know Italian law better. Got it.

 

[Stacyhs]

You haven't the imagination to realise Knox did knife Mez in the neck, as did Sollecito tortured Mez with his numerous knife flicks and ripping off her bra. Keep frantically trying to think of 'alternative explanations' because you will never be given live CCTV footage of the incident.

Nothing but a failed attempt to divert attention from the fact that you cannot provide a single example of your claimed Knox "even demonstrates Kercher's scream by placing her hands over her ears whenever she talks about it." Nor can you dispute that not a single court, including Massei and Nencini, found that Knox was referring to anywhere but Sollecito's apartment when she said "I was there. I can't lie about this".

Unlike you, I don't base my opinion on 'imagination' or 'alternative explanations': I base my opinion on the forensic science, expert opinion, testimonies, and logic. You should try it.

 

[Stacyhs]

Well, Bill Clinton appears to be your role model when he famously and consistently averred, ""I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky," Like yourself, he really seemed to believe that if he kept saying it then it somehow became true!
Knox believes if she keeps saying, "I did not kill Meredith," it becomes a magic mantra that converts history into a new reality if enough people swallow the deception. Clinton also used to claim he never inhaled. Think hard as to whether sensible people believed his nonsense. Don't be like Trump or Clinton; just tell it like it is.

LOL! I've never brought up Bill Clinton in regard to this case. I was referring to the usual PGP lie that Sec. of State Hillary Clinton somehow forced Italy to overturn Knox's 2011 acquittal. But, you know that. Bringing up Bill Clinton is just a silly and obvious red herring.

Speaking of Trump, you're the one who keeps dragging him into this case as if his donating to her defense fund is evidence of....something.

 

[Stacyhs]

Hellman was laughed out of court by his contemporaries.

Hellmann had the last laugh when Marasca-Bruno pretty much upheld what he ruled and slapped Nencini red like a Napoli fishwife.

 

[Stacyhs]

Your statement that they (Knox and Sollecito) were acquitted (of the murder/rape charges) on a "technicality" is ambiguous, because you have not defined what you mean by a "technicality". I suggest you consult a dictionary (for example, the Britannica) to find out the generally used meanings of the terms "technical" and "technicality". I further suggest you then consult a discussion of the term "legal technicality" in Wikipedia. The following quote is from the Wikipedia article (superscript citation numbers omitted; italic bolding added for emphasis).



In objective fact, Knox and Sollecito were acquitted on the merits; there was no reliable, credible evidence of their guilt. Thus, they could not lawfully be found guilty, because a guilty verdict in Italy by law must be supported by proof beyond a reasonable doubt (CPP Article 533). When there is no such proof, the accused must be acquitted according to Italian law (CPP Article 530).

Your reference to a quote by Albert Einstein was incomplete and thus somewhat a distortion. According to one source, he included curiosity as one of his traits. I suggest that the intelligent person, such as Einstein, couples imagination, knowledge of empirical reality, and curiosity. He would not have been able to formulate his revolutionary theories without a firm foundation in the known physical science of his time.



Sources:

Technicality Definition & Meaning | Britannica Dictionary

TECHNICALITY meaning: 1 : a small detail in a rule, law, etc., and especially one that forces an unwanted or unexpected result; 2 : something that is understood by experts but usually not by other people usually plural often + of

www.britannica.com

Legal technicality - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A quote by Albert Einstein

The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination. I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious.

www.goodreads.com

Vixen seems to think the prosecution failing to prove guilt BARD is a "technicality". Maybe Finnish law is different? Oh, wait...no, it's not:

"In criminal cases, the prosecution bears the burden of proof. The standard is beyond reasonable doubt (ei jää varteenotettavaa epäilystä).

 

[Vixen]

Nothing but a failed attempt to divert attention from the fact that you cannot provide a single example of your claimed Knox "even demonstrates Kercher's scream by placing her hands over her ears whenever she talks about it." Nor can you dispute that not a single court, including Massei and Nencini, found that Knox was referring to anywhere but Sollecito's apartment when she said "I was there. I can't lie about this".

Unlike you, I don't base my opinion on 'imagination' or 'alternative explanations': I base my opinion on the forensic science, expert opinion, testimonies, and logic. You should try it.

Er, so how come you seem oblivious to Knox' DNA on the murder knife with MK's DNA on the blade, a knife Sollecito himself said she carried in her bag from his apartment, together with HIS DNA firmly implanted on the bra clasp, inner side of the hook.

Go on, perform convoluted acrobatics as to how the DNA flew in from under the LOCKED* door when your hero feebly tried to force it open**.

*We know only one person present that night would have had the key to lock it.

**Most likely, he tried to force it open when the pair realised they had left AMANDA KNOX' lamp on the floor next to Mez' bed.

 

[Vixen]

Your statement that they (Knox and Sollecito) were acquitted (of the murder/rape charges) on a "technicality" is ambiguous, because you have not defined what you mean by a "technicality". I suggest you consult a dictionary (for example, the Britannica) to find out the generally used meanings of the terms "technical" and "technicality". I further suggest you then consult a discussion of the term "legal technicality" in Wikipedia. The following quote is from the Wikipedia article (superscript citation numbers omitted; italic bolding added for emphasis).



In objective fact, Knox and Sollecito were acquitted on the merits; there was no reliable, credible evidence of their guilt. Thus, they could not lawfully be found guilty, because a guilty verdict in Italy by law must be supported by proof beyond a reasonable doubt (CPP Article 533). When there is no such proof, the accused must be acquitted according to Italian law (CPP Article 530).

Your reference to a quote by Albert Einstein was incomplete and thus somewhat a distortion. According to one source, he included curiosity as one of his traits. I suggest that the intelligent person, such as Einstein, couples imagination, knowledge of empirical reality, and curiosity. He would not have been able to formulate his revolutionary theories without a firm foundation in the known physical science of his time.



Sources:

Technicality Definition & Meaning | Britannica Dictionary

TECHNICALITY meaning: 1 : a small detail in a rule, law, etc., and especially one that forces an unwanted or unexpected result; 2 : something that is understood by experts but usually not by other people usually plural often + of

www.britannica.com

Legal technicality - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A quote by Albert Einstein

The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination. I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious.

www.goodreads.com

A poster said I had imagination, unwittingly handing me a compliment and admitting envy of it. The technicality is that the whole thing was declared an acquittal owing to 'insufficient evidence' because Bruno - Marasca allowed themselves to be browbeaten by Bongiorno waving a lenghty paper written by third party academic Peter Gill, using notes from Conti-Vecchiotti, a weirdo friend of the guilty with a wet belief in USA innocent Project campaigners.

As for Einstein, he could see clearly that the speed of light was relative to where one is standing.

 

[Disbelief]

This statement underlines the point I was making. Think hard about your need to call a simple acquittal 'an exoneration'. Either you are fooling yourself or trying to deceive others. Or both. Or you believe stating a lie makes it magically true. In which case, you consider your readers stupid, which still doesn't reflect well on you.

No, you continuously lie about the situation and you have been proven wrong time and again (as Stacyhs has done so again). You very, very rarely admit to the simplest of errors, so I have no expectation that you will admit you are wrong if in the face of Stacyhs' cite.

Face the facts, you are the only one in this thread who constantly lies about things around this case. All you are doing now is another fringe reset to continue peddling your lies.

 

[Vixen]

No, you continuously lie about the situation and you have been proven wrong time and again (as Stacyhs has done so again). You very, very rarely admit to the simplest of errors, so I have no expectation that you will admit you are wrong if in the face of Stacyhs' cite.

Face the facts, you are the only one in this thread who constantly lies about things around this case. All you are doing now is another fringe reset to continue peddling your lies.

Read the court papers for yourself instead of soaking up propaganda.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Look at the footprint on the bathmat.

We have, repeatedly, and again just recently. Fringe resets are yet another play from the guilter/CT/woo playbook. Also, what part of "I'm qualified to evaluate the work of the prosecution's 'experts', and you're not," was unclear?

The one size 42 with a hammer toe...just like...well, you figure it out.

Do you think that continually repeating these lies will somehow make them true? It's obvious from Vinci's CrimeScope photo that the first and second toe prints are touching, a fact which the prosecution's 'experts' failed to notice, presumably due to their only working with visible-light photographs of the bathmat, rather than the actual mat itself enhanced under infrared light. This caused them to mismeasure the width of the big toe and wrongly to assert that only four toe prints were visible. Because this is so obvious from the CrimeScope photo, you and other guilters are forced to lie and claim that Vinci was reprimanded/accused of using Photoshop, despite the fact that you have no evidence of this. So why did you lie about it?

Further, when I asked you to account for the obvious large discrepancies between the bathmat print and Raffaele's reference print, your ridiculous excuse was that the cotton thread pile pattern would have somehow acted as a hard surface and prevented part of the foot from contacting the mat and imprinting it with diluted blood. When I pointed out the absurdity of this, you fell back to your go-to defense, namely, parroting the first-instance court's ruling on the matter, as if that were some sort of infallible holy writ, even though that ruling is clearly erroneous.

 

[Numbers]

A poster said I had imagination, unwittingly handing me a compliment and admitting envy of it. The technicality is that the whole thing was declared an acquittal owing to 'insufficient evidence' because Bruno - Marasca allowed themselves to be browbeaten by Bongiorno waving a lenghty paper written by third party academic Peter Gill, using notes from Conti-Vecchiotti, a weirdo friend of the guilty with a wet belief in USA innocent Project campaigners.

As for Einstein, he could see clearly that the speed of light was relative to where one is standing.

There are at least two false statements in your post quoted above. The false statements are apparently the result (or associated with) exercises of imagination uncoupled from any knowledge of reality. It's your apparent lack of knowledge, together with your failure to investigate (perhaps due to a lack of curiosity or desire) the known facts in adequate detail, that leads to the absurd failures - that is, lack of correspondence to reality - of your imagined scenarios. Here are brief comments giving the realities:

1. The Marasca CSC panel verdict, as stated in its MR, found that there was no credible, reliable evidence of Knox and Sollecito being guilty of the murder/rape of Kercher. It found that the failures of the investigators including the scientific police to follow the standards of a reliable investigation in evidence collection and testing of evidence, including the critical DNA evidence, meant that the prosecution's alleged critical evidence was totally unreliable and thus not credible. The Marasca CSC panel apparently relied upon the report (not merely notes) of the court-appointed experts, Conti and Vecchiotti. Your allegations of impropiety by the Marasca CSC panel lacks is not supported by any credible evidence; your imagination (or that of Guilter partisans) cannot replace reliable evidence.
:
2. Your statement that "Einstein, he could clearly see that the speed of light was relative to where one is standing" is also an absurdly false statement. It does demonstrate that you have imagined incorrectly some principle of science, found from empirical evidence and sound logic, apparently the result of a failure to sufficiently investigate or to comprehend facts and ideas. Rather than diverting the thread, I refer the interested reader to these Wikipedia articles:

Theory of relativity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Special relativity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

General relativity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Stacyhs]

Er, so how come you seem oblivious to Knox' DNA on the murder knife with MK's DNA on the blade,

Er, so how come you ignore the report that found MK's DNA on the blade was "scientifically unreliable" and that Knox's DNA on a knife she used to cook with is completely normal? Or do you think your DNA isn't highly likely to be on your own kitchen cutlery? Are you of the opinion that DNA is only left during the commission of a crime?

a knife Sollecito himself said she carried in her bag from his apartment,

Quote and cite where he does so. If you can't, then I'll consign it to the assfact bin.

together with HIS DNA firmly implanted on the bra clasp, inner side of the hook.

You mean the one the SC found to most likely by from contamination due to the sloppy work of the police and the fact it had the DNA of other men on it? How did that get there, Vixen? Did those other men touch that bra hook, too?

Go on, perform convoluted acrobatics as to how the DNA flew in from under the LOCKED* door when your hero feebly tried to force it open**.

You're knowingly and dishonestly implying the DNA was left on the hook on Nov. 2. You conveniently (and dishonestly) ignore the 46 days before its collection wherein unrecorded multiple people went in and out of the bedroom with no record of what, if any, anti-contamination protocols were violated. Violations that are recorded on Dec. 18 by the police themselves. Go on, perform convoluted acrobatics as to how the clasp moved from its first photographed site next to Kercher's body several feet across the room in a pile of debris. Did it fly? Walk itself?

*We know only one person present that night would have had the key to lock it.

Yes, Guede who took Kercher's keys so he could get out the locked front door.

**Most likely, he tried to force it open when the pair realised they had left AMANDA KNOX' lamp on the floor next to Mez' bed.

Why not use the key you insist they had?
Additionally, if they KNEW they had left Knox's lamp in the bedroom and were trying to retrieve it but failed, why would they not have had an explanation ready for the police as to why it was there? Something as easy and plausible as "When we saw her here this afternoon, she asked if she could borrow it for her desk as I was staying with Raffaele and not using it." But no, instead she says she doesn't know how it got to Kercher's bedroom. You think they are so smart that they can remove all evidence of her from the bedroom, but they can't make up a plausible reason for the lamp being there? They're incredibly smart when you need them to be but incredibly stupid when you need them to be. You want to have it both ways.

 

[Stacyhs]

A poster said I had imagination, unwittingly handing me a compliment and admitting envy of it.

Sigh. "All you have is your imagination and a keyboard," is not a compliment and claiming that I 'admitted envy of it' is yet more evidence of your imagination. I think 'delusions' might have been a more accurate word than 'imagination'.

The technicality is that the whole thing was declared an acquittal owing to 'insufficient evidence'

Nope. You are falsely claiming that Art. 530, chapter 2 of the code of criminal procedure under which they were exonerated is a 'technicality'.

because Bruno - Marasca allowed themselves to be browbeaten by Bongiorno waving a lenghty paper written by third party academic Peter Gill, using notes from Conti-Vecchiotti, a weirdo friend of the guilty with a wet belief in USA innocent Project campaigners.

Some posts don't even deserve a reply. That's one of them.

As for Einstein, he could see clearly that the speed of light was relative to where one is standing.

Clearly you can't see the forest for the trees from where you are standing.

 

[Numbers]

Sigh. "All you have is your imagination and a keyboard," is not a compliment and claiming that I 'admitted envy of it' is yet more evidence of your imagination. I think 'delusions' might have been a more accurate word than 'imagination'.

Nope. You are falsely claiming that Art. 530, chapter 2 of the code of criminal procedure under which they were exonerated is a 'technicality'.

Some posts don't even deserve a reply. That's one of them.

Clearly you can't see the forest for the trees from where you are standing.

The "imagination" in guilter posts is somewhat similar to the "hallucinations" that can occur in artificial intelligence: a word salad with falsehoods.

 

[Stacyhs]

Vixen has still failed to give a single example of when Knox "even demonstrates Kercher's scream by placing her hands over her ears whenever she talks about it." Nor has she provided "a single court that found that Knox was referring to anywhere but Sollecito's apartment when she said "I was there. I can't lie about this".

Two more assfact accusations from her that she will never admit are false even though she cannot back them up with any evidence. Pretty much par for the course.