Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

In my opinion there is no solution of the MO conflict that could include Zionism and the Palestinian identity. They are ideological opposites. One is the denial of the other. A "two state solution" with mutual recognizing is a delusion. This is my opinion, but doesn't belong to this forum thread.

Intellectual Israelis are trying hard to find a solution. Lots of good books on amazon on this topic.

 

[Machiavelli]

Have it your way.

Once again, I can only repeat.... the Italian-language media in your country seems to beg to differ. They seem to "get" the message, and are ignoring the stuff which interests you. They are actually writing about how this case was marked by a rush to judgement by incompetent, amnesiac prosecutors, etc. You know the drill. I simply cannot believe you've not read any of the coverage.

I truly believe that the Marasca report means it when it writes that Ak and RS are innocent.

ETA - even the police union representing the Perugian cops is blaming the prosecutors, rather than citing Marasca for inconsistencies. Sheesh.

The Marasca report does not write that AK and RS are innocent.

What you write simply makes no sense. In your rationalization mode, what you fabricate is a theory that the press can know and say things that the Cassazione cannot say, and is obligated to veil besides inconsistencies, and that the Cassazione is "forced" to write things under the tacit agreement that the press shall omit it.
It's very strange the way you "attribute" things to people, like non-existing contents or statements. This has always been your modus operandi as a poster.

 

[Vixen]

Have it your way.

Once again, I can only repeat.... the Italian-language media in your country seems to beg to differ. They seem to "get" the message, and are ignoring the stuff which interests you. They are actually writing about how this case was marked by a rush to judgement by incompetent, amnesiac prosecutors, etc. You know the drill. I simply cannot believe you've not read any of the coverage.

I truly believe that the Marasca report means it when it writes that Ak and RS are innocent.

ETA - even the police union representing the Perugian cops is blaming the prosecutors, rather than citing Marasca for inconsistencies. Sheesh.

Not so. In an appeal, the duty of the court is to uphold one side or the other. Having upheld the defense, it's no wonder the MR is potty, as it's a hotch-potch of Bongiorno ramblings.

 

[Vixen]

In my opinion it's not seminal fluid. Unfortunately my guess cannot be verified. I think it's vaseline (petroleum jelly).
There are reasons why I think so. One of the reasons is that Meredith had an empty vaseline tub on her table. Now, I just don't think she would keep an empty tub. The vaseline must be somewhere.
Petroleum jelly is typically luminescent under UV light.




I've seen much more than this about this case. The video doesn't tell anything.

I've seen a lot about the physical murder scene, what I've seen has lead me to the solid conclusion about multiple perpetrators. I think there no single-perpetrator scenario possible that could be built based on the physical scene.

Could be. In her requested interview with PM Mignini, Amanda told him Mez "was covered in vaseline". Given Amanda's fixation with vaseline and anal sex, we have to wonder what she was revealing about the murder here.

 

[Machiavelli]

Intellectual Israelis are trying hard to find a solution. Lots of good books on amazon on this topic.

I know. There are many books.

This is maybe the most recent one:


http://www.amazon.it/The-Two-State-Delusion-Palestine-Narratives/dp/0670025054

There is always a solution to conflicts. So a solution will exist, after all. After studying the issue deeply, I just came to the conclusion the solution of the ME conflict cannot be a "two state solution". I belive the intellectuals who pursue solutions inspired to the values of Zionism ("two state" solutions) will fail. I repeat this is my personal opinion after analyzing the issue. Certainly I cannot solve the issue on this forum

 

[carbonjam72]

In my opinion it's not seminal fluid. Unfortunately my guess cannot be verified. I think it's vaseline (petroleum jelly).
There are reasons why I think so. One of the reasons is that Meredith had an empty vaseline tub on her table. Now, I just don't think she would keep an empty tub. The vaseline must be somewhere.
Petroleum jelly is typically luminescent under UV light.




I've seen much more than this about this case. The video doesn't tell anything.

I've seen a lot about the physical murder scene, what I've seen has lead me to the solid conclusion about multiple perpetrators. I think there no single-perpetrator scenario possible that could be built based on the physical scene.

You mean seeing only one set of footprints in Meredith's wet blood, causes you to believe there was more than one person who participated in the murder?

You previously explained this apparent discrepancy as Amanda and Raf immediately running out of the room after the stabbing. And you acknowledge that had there been more people in the room then just Rudy Guede, there would had to have been various footprints, also in meredith's wet blood, all over that tiny room.

But just one set of footprints in Meredith's wet blood. Rudy's footprints. But rather than believe the obvious, you have to invent a total fantasy to fit your preconceived notion of guilt.

If you allowed the evidence to guide your beliefs, instead of allowing your beliefs to guide your interpretation of the evidence, I think you would have a more reliable outcome.

 

[Machiavelli]

Could be. In her requested interview with PM Mignini, Amanda told him Mez "was covered in vaseline". Given Amanda's fixation with vaseline and anal sex, we have to wonder what she was revealing about the murder here.

The interesting thing is that actually, it was Sollecito who made the comment.
Other witnesses reported of hearing Sollecito's comment about vaseline (Altieri or Zaroli) and they felt appalled by it.

 

[acbytesla]

The Marasca report does not write that AK and RS are innocent.

Of course it does. Silly Rabbit. Trix are for kids.

Have you heard of this river in Egypt Machiavelli? It's called DENIAL.

 

[Machiavelli]

You mean seeing only one set of footprints in Meredith's wet blood, causes you to believe there was more than one person who participated in the murder?

Actually, I see multiple sets of footprints.
But that's not the factor I am talking about.

You previously explained this apparent discrepancy as Amanda and Raf immediately running out of the room after the stabbing.

No. I was not talking about discrepancies. There are no "discrepancies" about shoeprints actually.

In fact there is just one half-shoe print attributable to Rudy Guede, which repeats itself only in the area of the room near the exit, obviously linkable to only one trail, from the last moment when Guede is walking towards the exit. So the only trail of prints from Guede in blood is those that he picks up and leaves while he is going out.

But there is no shoeprint of Guede in the area where Meredith was stabbed (that is on the other corner of the room, by the wardrobe door).

And you acknowledge that had there been more people in the room then just Rudy Guede, there would had to have been various footprints, also in meredith's wet blood, all over that tiny room.

There is actually nobody's footprint from someone while they were killing Meredith.

But just one set of footprints in Meredith's wet blood. Rudy's footprints. But rather than believe the obvious, you have to invent a total fantasy to fit your preconceived notion of guilt.

The bathmat prints, in diluted blood (isolated, with no trail coming from them or going to them; even with different sizes) themselves tell another story.

The luminol prints also tell another story.

If you allowed the evidence to guide your beliefs, instead of allowing your beliefs to guide your interpretation of the evidence, I think you would have a more reliable outcome.

You are leaving the evidence out.

 

[Machiavelli]

Of course it does. (...)

It says seven or eight times that there are resons of "great suspicion" on them.

Where is the line where it says they are innocent?

 

[bagels]

The luminol prints also tell another story.

That they stepped in Meredith's blood and tracked it around without disturbing Rudy's 8 bloody prints in the bedroom and managed to clean them below the threshold detectable by TMB but not leaving any streaking and without the aid of bleach which produces a strong unmistakable odor nobody noticed?

A likely story

 

[acbytesla]

It says seven or eight times that there are resons of "great suspicion" on them.

Where is the line where it says they are innocent?

1. Suspicion ISN'T PROOF. I understand them being suspects.

2. THE PART THAT SAYS THEY ARE ACQUITTED.

 

[Machiavelli]

Mach, serious question: how do you tell which of your judicial decisions is the result of political chicanery or just, detached and reasonable deliberation?

Based on its quality on points of low, referred to jurisprudence standards.

For example: the Bruno-Marasca verdict says (I paraphrase): "the fact that there has been an acquittal among the trial instances, is a proof that the evidence must be contradictory".
Statements like this one belong to nursery school more than to Judiciaries of a Supreme Court. It's diotic - from jurisprudence view point - to assert that a null decision contains a proof of something.
A problem with the Bruno-Marasca decision is made of this kind of considerations. The illogical or false statements are so many that it's almost impossible to comment. It is full of points of merits that should be just inadmissible and are impossible to discuss for a Cassazione panel. There is also a patent violation of art. 628 cpp.

But, I don't know if I can render something. In p. 45 there is an unequivocal statement that it is a proven fact that Knox was inside the murder house when Meredith was killed, and the Court even emphasizes their belief as they cite Knox's statement describing herself covering her ears and other elements. In p. 47 there is a paragraph saying that it is not absolutely sure with "tranquillizing certainty" that Knox's alibi is false, maybe there is a possibility that she was at Sollecito's place. Then, at p.49 it states again that it is certain that Knox was in the murder apartment during the killing, only it is not completely sure if Sollecito was there (albeit, the court says, he was probably there).

Not even an imbecile could write something like that.

It's not evan a writing, in my opinion. It looks like a copy-paste work of paragraphs from Bongiorno's "reasons for appeal", inserted within a verdict that confirms Nencini. Intertwined with some superficial bar comments.

 

[Machiavelli]

Ah, the PGP mind. There is an obvious semen stain near the body of a raped and murdered woman. The fact that it wasn't tested is the defense's fault.

Situation normal in PGP land.

No, it's slightly different.
In "my land", I don't care whose fault it was. Btw, in "my land" procedure decisions/events are never the consequence of the choices of one party alone.
In "my land", it basically makes no difference whose "fault" it was of any procedure events, as for the decision about the accused's innocence or guilt, and in "my land" the process outcome does not consist in an assessment about possible "faults" in procedure by the parties.

An unexplained action by the prosecution that could have absolutely proved their case against Sollecito, could have proved the prosecutor's contention that there were multiple murderers or just provided more evidence to the case that Guede brutally raped and murdered Kercher by himself and it doesn't cause even a moment for reflection on how ridiculous this is.

There are multiple false assumptions in your statement above. Among them, there is the fact that you don't seem to consider the trial from the view point of someone (like a prosecutor or a judge) who sees the evidence as already sufficient for a finding of guilt beyond reasoable doubt.

In normal people land, it is pretty clear that either somebody tested that stain and the results weren't reported or Mignini chose not to test that stain because he knew Sollecito was innocent.

In "my land", such "logical" passage is completely idiotic.

And in "my land" (but also on a few forensic-themed sites), DNA testing of semen stains requires the cutting of the fabric, therefore the destruction of the item.

Either way Mignini chose not to release evidence about the semen stain because it didn't support the sick fantasy that he was pushing.

In "my land", it was Manuela Comodi who was dealing with the piece of evidence.
And in "my land", the finding of semen belonging to anyone may have well actually supported any possible theory against Amanda Knox.

 

[Mary_H]

In my opinion it's not seminal fluid. Unfortunately my guess cannot be verified. I think it's vaseline (petroleum jelly).
There are reasons why I think so. One of the reasons is that Meredith had an empty vaseline tub on her table. Now, I just don't think she would keep an empty tub. The vaseline must be somewhere.
Petroleum jelly is typically luminescent under UV light.<snip>

Could be. In her requested interview with PM Mignini, Amanda told him Mez "was covered in vaseline". Given Amanda's fixation with vaseline and anal sex, we have to wonder what she was revealing about the murder here.

The interesting thing is that actually, it was Sollecito who made the comment.
Other witnesses reported of hearing Sollecito's comment about vaseline (Altieri or Zaroli) and they felt appalled by it.

Any citations for this gossip? Let me guess.....

 

[Bill Williams]

It says seven or eight times that there are resons of "great suspicion" on them.

Where is the line where it says they are innocent?

1. Suspicion ISN'T PROOF. I understand them being suspects.

2. THE PART THAT SAYS THEY ARE ACQUITTED.

Rats. You beat me to it.

Of course there was "forte sospetto". Why would Mignini have done what he did without "forte sospetto"?

Once again, why is it that nearly all, if not all, Italian media is seeing the Marasca report for what it is? A damning indictment of an amnesiac, incompetent, media-fueled myopic prosecution with a judiciary mainly co-conspirators!

Machiavelli is allowed his point of view. But he cannot escape that he is making a case at the far end of a spectrum, where there simply is not a lot of people - no one in Italy, really, willing to say what he's saying.

And he's not even saying it in Italy, much less in Italian (unless he wants to reprint his Porta a Porta tweets here....)

 

[bagels]

And in "my land", the finding of semen belonging to anyone may have well actually supported any possible theory against Amanda Knox.

Lol, well, yeah. We know dude.

 

[Bill Williams]

Could be. In her requested interview with PM Mignini, Amanda told him Mez "was covered in vaseline". Given Amanda's fixation with vaseline and anal sex, we have to wonder what she was revealing about the murder here.

I thought you'd cured yourself of this. Turns out you haven't. You simply cannot pass up a chance to say something slutty.

 

[bagels]

I thought you'd cured yourself of this. Turns out you haven't. You simply cannot pass up a chance to say something slutty.

Anyway, wasn't it Mignini or the police asking her all the questions about Vaseline and anal sex. Amanda didn't even make the connection and thought the vaseline was in reference to lips.

The vaseline seemed to be a big clue to them at the time. Perhaps moreso than the lamp.

 

[Bill Williams]

Not so. In an appeal, the duty of the court is to uphold one side or the other. Having upheld the defense, it's no wonder the MR is potty, as it's a hotch-potch of Bongiorno ramblings.

Ok, we've got your opinion on it. Duly noted.