Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

And if a presumed semen stain can be found under a murder victim where there is suspicion of sexual assault, I don't see how you cannot test the stain.

Did you read Judge Massei's reason? That reason alone should get Massei thrown off the bench.

It's pure conjecture it's a semen stain. One can claim anything once the trial is over. Raff was advised by Bongiorno to keep schtum about it, in case it turned out to be Raff's!

 

[Vixen]

Only you would correct Mike when he was correct. Then you suggest that the police thought something that I have never heard. The FACTS are not what the police "thought" was in the mind of the killer but where the body was which is NOT where Amanda said it was but in fact somewhere else. So in fact Amanda DIDN'T have accurate info about the crime scene.

You're not arguing the evidence or the facts of the case but your own incorrect delusions.

Forget the semantics game. Mez was murdered by the wardrobe. At the questura Amanda claimed special knowledge the body was found in the wardrobe.

Forensic police discovered the killers had moved the body half a yard away from the wardrobe in a sheet, which made police suspect the aim was to hide the body.

Now do you understand why Amanda made herself the focus of suspicion?

 

[LondonJohn]

OK, soz, I couldn't find the reference in Nick's book,DOUBT, which reads:

Ummm..... hold on. Is that you saying Sorry: you were wrong to ever state that Knox had sent Kercher a barrage of begging text messages verging on stalking on the evening of 31st October?

And that in fact the text exchange which I posted (consisting of a text from Knox, a response from Kercher, and a re-response from Knox) was indeed the full extent of the text activity between the two that evening?

And that you were therefore incorrect and totally out of order to address my posting of those three text messages with this:

"Someone's lying by omission. Candace? IA? Amanda sent Mez a whole series of desperate texts. But then, you knew that, didn't you? We all know you've omitted half of it. What does it say about you that you have done so?"?

Can you clarify all of that for me? Thanks in advance.

 

[carbonjam72]

So we should take Mike1711's word for it, "Nick Van Der Leek is a nobody".

I see.

Actually, his written work speaks for itself.

 

[carbonjam72]

That's the "barrage of desperate texts"?

Consider the source.

 

[acbytesla]

Forget the semantics game. Mez was murdered by the wardrobe. At the questura Amanda claimed special knowledge the body was found in the wardrobe.

Forensic police discovered the killers had moved the body half a yard away from the wardrobe in a sheet, which made police suspect the aim was to hide the body.

Now do you understand why Amanda made herself the focus of suspicion?

Nonsense We keep catching YOU in lies and then you try and dance around it.

Why do you feel the need to incessantly lie about this case?

 

[Grinder]

Didn't someone outline the Lundy case as an example?

IMV if someone claims to be an eyewitness to a murder, I don't see how you can refuse to hear their testimony.

Who was an eyewitness to a murder in this case?

No reasonable system allows anybody to testify just because they make claims. The defense certainly has the right to protest and the judge must be reasonably sure the testimony has merit or the case may be prejudiced. A vision challenged heroin addict who when interviewed in days after the murder and saw nothing shouldn't be allowed to testify and certainly not when days and events were clearly confused.

Lundy? Doesn't meet the requirements and what was contended has been challenged.

The prosecution's case was also based on a speck of body tissue found on one of Lundy's polo shirts; the shirt was found along with other clothes and miscellaneous items on the back seat of his car. Although New Zealand pathologists could not identify it as Christine's brain tissue, a pathologist from Texas did. The prosecution argued the only way this brain tissue could have got on the shirt was if Lundy himself was the murderer. Later reports and tests by others experts cast doubt upon the identification of the material as brain tissue[15]

No weapon was ever found, but paint found in the hair of victims matched the paint Lundy used to mark the tools in his toolshed.​

There has never been a case where the murder knife tested negative for blood and positive for the victims DNA. I'm sure Vander Leak would have found one in his extensive research.

What time must the kids have an alibi? When was Meredith murdered?

 

[Vixen]

Ummm..... hold on. Is that you saying Sorry: you were wrong to ever state that Knox had sent Kercher a barrage of begging text messages verging on stalking on the evening of 31st October?

And that in fact the text exchange which I posted (consisting of a text from Knox, a response from Kercher, and a re-response from Knox) was indeed the full extent of the text activity between the two that evening?

And that you were therefore incorrect and totally out of order to address my posting of those three text messages with this:

"Someone's lying by omission. Candace? IA? Amanda sent Mez a whole series of desperate texts. But then, you knew that, didn't you? We all know you've omitted half of it. What does it say about you that you have done so?"?

Can you clarify all of that for me? Thanks in advance.

In case you haven't seen it, I added the following remark:

ETA However, the reference does come from a reliable source, for example, John Follain also refers to "a series of texts" from Amanda to Mez, which Mez ignored, but answered at just after 7:00pm, as above.

I expect Nick got the abridged version from a pro-Knox report, to disguise the act of desperate bombardment by Amanda that day.

Whatever, it is clear Mez was avoiding her, despite the blatant begging by Amanda that day, who, as you know, went on to spend Halloween at a loss in her cat costume and nowhere to go.

A sad story, indeed.

 

[Grinder]

It's pure conjecture it's a semen stain. One can claim anything once the trial is over. Raff was advised by Bongiorno to keep schtum about it, in case it turned out to be Raff's!

Let's say you are correct. How can the prosecution, especially one seeking the truth, not test a stain found in a place under the victim that could be sperm or maybe sputum of the killer or an accomplice?

Though difficult, try to imagine Raf didn't kill or take part in the killing and knew the knife had never left his place, yet the ICSI had "found" the DNA. Wouldn't that worry you as what DNA they'd find in the stain?

Can you come up with a better excuse than it would destroy the "print" on the pillow case?

 

[Vixen]

Nonsense We keep catching YOU in lies and then you try and dance around it.

Why do you feel the need to incessantly lie about this case?

Logical fallacy: resort to ad hominem. Are you disputing Mez was killed by the wardrobe, or that the body was moved in a sheet away from it by the killers? Or that Amanda bragged at the questura Mez' body was found in the wardrobe?

Which is the lie?

 

[acbytesla]

In case you haven't seen it, I added the following remark:

ETA However, the reference does come from a reliable source, for example, John Follain also refers to "a series of texts" from Amanda to Mez, which Mez ignored, but answered at just after 7:00pm, as above.

I expect Nick got the abridged version from a pro-Knox report, to disguise the act of desperate bombardment by Amanda that day.

Whatever, it is clear Mez was avoiding her, despite the blatant begging by Amanda that day, who, as you know, went on to spend Halloween at a loss in her cat costume and nowhere to go.

A sad story, indeed.

Only you could say someone else was lying and then after being badgered for days to prove this and then after having discovered that it was you that was fabricating would suggest that your original premise was correct. That takes some serious cajones.

 

[Bill Williams]

It's pure conjecture it's a semen stain. One can claim anything once the trial is over. Raff was advised by Bongiorno to keep schtum about it, in case it turned out to be Raff's!

Yet another lie.

Raffaele's lawyer initially balked at the idea of requesting its testing because they saw how the bra-clasp had been handled. Still, it is a monstrous miscarriage of justice to the Kercher's that the cops didn't test it even before Sollecito was arrested!

That one was a whooper told by another guilter, that at the scene of the murder on Nov 2nd, that the "defence" had blocked the testing of the stain.

So, of course, you are correct.... at this point, 8 years later, it remains a conjecture.

 

[acbytesla]

Logical fallacy: resort to ad hominem. Are you disputing Mez was killed by the wardrobe, or that the body was moved in a sheet away from it by the killers? Or that Amanda bragged at the questura Mez' body was found in the wardrobe?

Which is the lie?

There is nothing ad hominem about it. This was and is one of the lies you keep spreading about this case, Such as the barrage of desperate texts, such as Amanda is a psychopath.

The FACT is she was not in the wardrobe as she said. BTW, we're talking about around a 10 foot by 10 foot room. Everything was next to the wardrobe including her bed.

 

[Vixen]

Let's say you are correct. How can the prosecution, especially one seeking the truth, not test a stain found in a place under the victim that could be sperm or maybe sputum of the killer or an accomplice?

Though difficult, try to imagine Raf didn't kill or take part in the killing and knew the knife had never left his place, yet the ICSI had "found" the DNA. Wouldn't that worry you as what DNA they'd find in the stain?

Can you come up with a better excuse than it would destroy the "print" on the pillow case?

If Raff "knew" the knife never left his apartment, how come both Amanda and Raff were desperately worried by the knife? Did they have clairvoyant powers Stefanoni would find Mez and Amanda's DNA on it, or that they would be arrested?

Amanda told Edda she was worried about the knife found, and had a nervous breakdown when shown the knife drawer at the cottage. Raff wrote in his prison diary, which he knew the cops would read, that he had pricked the back of Mez' hand whilst cooking, unaware Amanda had already confirmed Mez had never been to his apartment.

No matter how crooked a police scientist might be, there is no way they can construct an individual's DNA from scratch, although these days we do have sheep cloning and stem cell cloning. Wow, are you seriously claiming POLICE OFFICER Stefanoni had the ability to fake Raff's bodily fluids? Especially with the mandatory defence expert science witness in observation of it all?

 

[Vixen]

Only you could say someone else was lying and then after being badgered for days to prove this and then after having discovered that it was you that was fabricating would suggest that your original premise was correct. That takes some serious cajones.

It is possible, because we discussed this issue in detail before. I didn't say LondonJohn was lying. Only a scoundrel uses ad hominem in a debate. I questioned his motive in claiming there were only three texts exchanged when it's established Amanda texted/rang Mez throughout the day and Mez did not answer until 8:00 ish, to give Amanda the clear brush-off.

Perhaps he thinks he's rescuing his princess, or something.

 

[acbytesla]

Delete

 

[Vixen]

Yet another lie.

Raffaele's lawyer initially balked at the idea of requesting its testing because they saw how the bra-clasp had been handled. Still, it is a monstrous miscarriage of justice to the Kercher's that the cops didn't test it even before Sollecito was arrested!

That one was a whooper told by another guilter, that at the scene of the murder on Nov 2nd, that the "defence" had blocked the testing of the stain.

So, of course, you are correct.... at this point, 8 years later, it remains a conjecture.

It is written by Raff himself in his own book, Honor Bound. That's my source. Are you calling "Seven Alibis" Raff, a liar?

 

[Vixen]

There is nothing ad hominem about it. This was and is one of the lies you keep spreading about this case, Such as the barrage of desperate texts, such as Amanda is a psychopath.

The FACT is she was not in the wardrobe as she said. BTW, we're talking about around a 10 foot by 10 foot room. Everything was next to the wardrobe including her bed.

Now you are being evasive. Mez was murdered in front of the wardrobe.

 

[Bill Williams]

It is written by Raff himself in his own book, Honor Bound. That's my source. Are you calling "Seven Alibis" Raff, a liar?

No, I am calling you a liar. What he wrote in his book is as outlined. By the time of the Nencini trial, Raffaele, through Bongiorno, requested that the stain be tested both for its composition and ownership. Nencini denied the request.

 

[LondonJohn]

Only you could say someone else was lying and then after being badgered for days to prove this and then after having discovered that it was you that was fabricating would suggest that your original premise was correct. That takes some serious cajones.

Yeah - what the hell is Vixen on about? She now seems to be suggesting that her go-to secondary source, van der Leek's excrable "book", chose to use a biased and incorrect primary source on this issue (for inexplicable reasons), and that somehow Follain's rendition supports her thesis instead.

It's truly pathetic, and deeply unedifying. And flat-out wrong and very telling.

In passing, it's apparent that many accounts of the Halloween text exchange (which, remember, consisted solely and exclusively of two texts from Knox and one from Kercher) make a 1-hour time slip error in the timing of Knox's texts - probably on account of errors related to the end of DST the previous weekend (just as the clown police crime scene video camera had the wrong time stamp). Perhaps this added to the incompetent and incorrect interpretation and analysis of these text messages. In reality, all three took place just before and just after 7pm.

On this point, it's perhaps worth pointing out just how farcically wrong Follain gets it, when the evidence for the time error is right in front of his eyes. He writes the following nonsense:

She (Knox) asked Meredith about her plans. Just after 7pm, Meredith replied: "I'm going to a friend's house for dinner. What are your plans?". Almost an hour later, just before 8pm, Amanda again texted Meredith: "What are you doing this evening? Want to meet up? Got a costume?". Less than ten minutes later, Amanda texted Meredith yet again: "I'm going to Le Chic and after who knows? Maybe we'll meet up later? Call me?""

Even an idiot (sorry, Follain ) would immediately recognise that there is a 1-hour error of synchronisation taking place here. In fact, Knox's two text messages need to be moved back by one hour - instead of them being sent at just before and just after 8pm (as Follain incorrectly thought), they were actually sent just before and just after 7pm. And when they are properly repositioned in time, a natural exchange of three consecutive texts between Knox and Kercher can clearly be seen:

Just before 7pm (rather than just before 8pm per Follain)
Knox to Kercher: What are you doing this evening? Want to meet up? Got a costume?

Just after 7pm
Kercher to Knox: I'm going to a friend's house for dinner. What are your plans?

About 7.10pm (rather than about 8.10pm per Follain)
Knox to Kercher: I'm going to Le Chic and after who knows? Maybe we'll meet up? call me?


Follain is an idiot in his reporting on this subject.