• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 31

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
Judging others by your own standards I see. Someone who believes hurling abuse, childish name-calling and using lots of emojis is equivalent to reasoned debate.


Goodbye again.
Click to expand...

You literally do all of those things, far more than anyone else does them to you. Would you like me to get examples so you can ignore them again?
 
AnimalFriendly said:
And that's why she said she was in the kitchen, one room over from the "outsider", cowering & covering her ears? This was supposed to "detract" police? And it's "distract" not detract.

I guess she also thought the police wouldn't be "detracted" by her having let the outsider in the door. Or maybe the police were supposed to think Kercher let him in. It's hard to make any real sense of this blather.
Click to expand...

To detract police attention away from herself.

She thought she could play the damsel in distress not realising she had just confessed to being at the crime scene. Hearing the thud and harrowing scream other witnesses also reported.

Even in her 'gift' follow up letter to the police she claimed she had seen Patrik in blurry shades of green at the basketball court.


She thought Italian police would automatically nail the Black guy on her say so.
 
AnimalFriendly said:
How, not to mention why, on God's green earth would Knox "realise" that police had any particular person's DNA. Guede. Lumumba. Anybody.
Click to expand...

Knox had a belief that all she had to do was point to a Black guy. It didn't ever occur to her when she covered up for Guede, according to the final Marasca-Bruno, who state in their written reasons she named Lumumba just in case anyone saw the Black guy coming out of the cottage at the time, that in fervorously grabbing police chief Napoleoni by the arm and frogmarching her on arrival at the cottage to the toilet to point to the crap in the bog that (a) Guede's DNA was on the police database as he was an immigrant and (b) that fecal matter contains very little DNA as the bacteria degrades it rapidly.


Biology not her strongest subject at school.
 
LondonJohn said:
But I’d have thought that a first-class researcher, who’s been studying a criminal justice case for nigh on a decade, would obviously know what the word “testimony” means (and what it doesn’t mean). I imagine even an average 11-year-old who’s been studying a criminal justice case for that length of time would know that, right?
Click to expand...

What are you on about? Thanks for the compliment worded to sound as though I said it myself.
 
LondonJohn said:
So what role, pray, does Marasca (the presiding judge on that SC panel) play in your ridiculous conspiracy? Did Bongiorno, Bruno and the Sollecito crew “make him an offer he couldn’t refuse”?

I suggest you watch rather less of the Godfather movies and The Sopranos, and instead focus on the reliable evidence as it pertains to this case.
Click to expand...

Marasca was heard shouting at Bruno. Marasca who retired immediately after was a judge of high repute. The motivations report which was due out by June latest was mysteriously suddenly held back. Bruno claimed to have been taken ill. It came out three months late with a press release aimed at Fox News and the American audience. The guys in the USA never got to hear about Marasca-Bruno's damning indictment of the pair, with Knox washing off Mez' blood from her hands and being present. Pointing to Patrik to cover for Guede. It is defective because it resurrected Vecchiotti and Conti, who were shown to be dishonest, furtive and deceptive in their methods.
 
LondonJohn said:
And you’ll be able to support this claim with (reliable, trusted source) evidence, won’t you?

ETA: I just noticed you introduced the sleight-of-hand word “witness” - you do realise that a witness giving sworn statements is not the same person as the defendant….. don’t you?

So, Vixen: which of Sollecito’s signed police statements was a “witness statement”? And therefore which of Sollecito’s signed police statements constituted court testimony? I’ll wait…..
Click to expand...

A signed police witness statement in front of two witnesses is considered permissible legal evidence and has the weight of law in court.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
So innocent people cannot be coerced into telling the police whichever untrue things they want to hear? That should save a lot of time and money that's currently wasted on recording interviews and paying for lawyers to be present.
Click to expand...

Just because they can in theory does not mean they did in practice.

So give me a possible motivation for police forcibly making Sollecito lie instead of pursuing the 'real' murderers.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
You literally do all of those things, far more than anyone else does them to you. Would you like me to get examples so you can ignore them again?
Click to expand...

This is supposed to be a serious discussion thread. I understand that there are some individuals who are just here for the sport of trolling. I hope you are not one of them as I cannot think of anything more yawn-inducing.
 
Vixen said:
That is what a lawyer means by 'an apology'.
Click to expand...


It will obviously surprise you to learn that what a lawyer means by “an apology” is…. “an apology”.

What on the good earth made even you think that it’s some sort of coded lawyeresque for “a monetary payment”?

Your views on this case are so deluded by now that it almost seems bad sport to keep highlighting them.
 
Vixen said:
Prosecutor Mignini saw the crime scene himself personally. He interviewed Knox in the presence of her lawyers who tried to urge her to shut up. Detectives and seasoned police know when they have got their man. The problem is in building up a case. They can tell by body language - profuse sweating, avoidance behaviour, covering up, lying - that someone is a likely suspect.

Luckily for suspects, bleeding heart jurors are on their side. (cf OJ Simpson.)
Click to expand...

The highlighted part? The very definition of a suspect-centred investigation, rather than an evidence-based investigation. "She broke, and told us what we already knew."

Thanks for clearing that up, Vixen. Indeed, Mignini saw the crime-scene for himself. He proceeded to order that the victim's body temperature NOT be taken on site, thus denying investigators the opportunity to set time of death precisely.

So, seeing the crime-scene makes Mignini an expert?

But you did make eight posts in 23 minutes. That alone makes you an expert!
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
This is supposed to be a serious discussion thread. I understand that there are some individuals who are just here for the sport of trolling. I hope you are not one of them as I cannot think of anything more yawn-inducing.
Click to expand...

.... or to fill the thread with noise.
 
Vixen said:
Marasca was heard shouting at Bruno.
Click to expand...


I see. Who exactly “heard” this shouting (and I note the interesting use of the passive voice in your claim)? Where is the documentary evidence of this? Can the evidence, and the earwitness, be reasonably measured for credibility and reliability? What was the shouting actually about? How long did it last? What happened after it ended?



The guys in the USA never got to hear about Marasca-Bruno's damning indictment of the pair, with Knox washing off Mez' blood from her hands and being present. Pointing to Patrik to cover for Guede. It is defective because it resurrected Vecchiotti and Conti, who were shown to be dishonest, furtive and deceptive in their methods.
Click to expand...


Oh dear. You mean the American public - and the Italian public for that matter - never got to hear about the Marasca SC panel’s across-the-board acquittals of Knox and Sollecito on every single murder-related charge? And they never got to hear that court’s utterly damning condemnation of the PM/police investigation/prosecution of Knox/Sollecito, and its equally damning condemnation of the Massei and Nencini courts for multiple fundamental breaches of Italian law?

And as you’ve been informed too many times now to mention, the Marasca court was effectively obliged to shoehorn the Knox criminal slander narrative into its verdict/MR, otherwise there would have had to be an immediate revision trial on the criminal slander charge. Fortunately for justice though, a couple of years after Marasca adjudicated, the ECHR tore apart the Knox criminal slander conviction as a serious multiple breach of Knox’s right to a fair trial (notably in respect of the utterly disgraceful 5th/6th November interrogations). So we can now safely throw out all the parts of the Marasca MR which pertained to that conviction.

Oh and your last sentence is nothing more than fact-free, jurisprudence-free, analysis-free guilted claptrap.
 
Vixen said:
This is supposed to be a serious discussion thread. I understand that there are some individuals who are just here for the sport of trolling. I hope you are not one of them as I cannot think of anything more yawn-inducing.
Click to expand...


As I was just saying: if there’s anything which could be said to pass for “sport” in this thread, it’s the ease with which your increasingly bizarre claims can be held up to even the most cursory levels of proper analysis and fact-checking, and found wholly wanting.
 
Vixen said:
A signed police witness statement in front of two witnesses is considered permissible legal evidence and has the weight of law in court.
Click to expand...


I explained this properly a couple of posts further down. It will show you how you are wrong and I am right when it comes to the matter of “Sollecito’s testimony”. I suggest you read it.
 
Vixen said:
What are you on about? Thanks for the compliment worded to sound as though I said it myself.
Click to expand...


I’d have thought it was rather obvious as to what I was on about.

Clearly I’m still setting the bar too high though.
 
Vixen said:
Wow. Here we have a poster how thinks it is like a football match USA vs Italy.

No wonder they know not why they stumble.
Click to expand...


Enlighten us as to how you’ve managed to interpret, from the content of that post and any attendant implications, that the poster “thinks it is like a football match U.S.A. vs Italy”.
 
Bill Williams said:
Too bad it has been struck down. Nowhere in Nencini's motivations report does he question Hellmann's right to appoint independent experts, like Conti and Vecchiotti.

What Nencini tries to argue, even in conceding that C & V are experts in their own right, is that Nencini knows more about forensic DNA analysis than the experts do.

Or as Marasca-Bruno wrote in 2015, while exonerating the pair, while trying to explain the 'conflict' of findings of the scientific community over against 'the primacy of law and .... in deference to the rules of criminal procedure itself':


Nencini, with no formal training in forensic genetics, set himself up as a referee between Stefanoni and C&V, and on every issue chose Stefanoni - whose findings, by the way, M-B called 'in violation of international protocols'.

It was that process that Nencini chose, to have the judge make highly technical scientific decisions, which M-B said was anachronistic

While at the same time conceding that C&V were experts, and duly and legally appointed by Hellmann to review Stefanoni's work.
Click to expand...

A judge is paid to judge. It is ludicrous for Marasca-Bruno to claim that 'Nencini set himself up as a judge' when having heard from Vecchiotti & Conti, Novelli and Torrecelli and then the legal arguments from Bongiorno, Della Vedova and Crini (for the prosecution: Mignini wasn't even on the case at that point!) it was entirely within the remit of the sitting judges - of which there was a whole panel - to decide they preferred one side's argument over the other/s. That is the whole point of a hearing in front of judges.


As I keep saying, Hellmann broke legal protocol in not explaining WHY he appointed his own experts.
 
Vixen said:
A judge is paid to judge. It is ludicrous for Marasca-Bruno to claim that 'Nencini set himself up as a judge' when having heard from Vecchiotti & Conti, Novelli and Torrecelli and then the legal arguments from Bongiorno, Della Vedova and Crini (for the prosecution: Mignini wasn't even on the case at that point!) it was entirely within the remit of the sitting judges - of which there was a whole panel - to decide they preferred one side's argument over the other/s. That is the whole point of a hearing in front of judges.


As I keep saying, Hellmann broke legal protocol in not explaining WHY he appointed his own experts.
Click to expand...


Apart from wrong; wrong; wrong; and wrong… your analysis here is pretty spot on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom