Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[AmyStrange]

-

No. I remain horrified how the Kercher family had to cope in the media glare.

-

As I do, and the only thing that beats the hell the Kercher's went through is the way Meredith died. I think about it every now and then and I still get upset about it it.

It's why I give a pass to almost everything the Kercher's do, except for what their representative in court, Maresca, did by showing blown up nude photos of Meredith's dead body in a "supposedly" closed court. I don't care what Mach says about the legal behind it, it had no evidentiary value and was only used to shock the jurors into casting a guilty verdict.

If that's all the "evidence" you got to get someone found guilty, you would have one hell of a time finding another way to beat that as the worst way to disrespect a murder victim, and what about all that other evidence?

I still feel for the Kercher's though, they do deserve at least some of our sympathy,

d

-

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Like pasting the text from an Italian newspaper a few posts ago?

Like the dozens of factual errors I corrected over tha recent weeks and months? (control room... etc...)

Should I make a list?

-

Please do,

d

-

 

[Machiavelli]

Thanks for the confirmation of my post, though I couldn't recall who said it.

Is the transcript of Mignini's closing arguments or of this particular comment public?

This looks like a citation from Mignini's 2009 closing arguments.
The prosecutor was slightly more articulate.

First, draws a psychological picture of Knox as nurturing a feeling of humiliation/ wounded self because of Meredith's behaviour gradually cutting her out from friendship circle, and suggests Meredith being disturbed by some of Amanda's sexual behaviours, or Amanda feeling offended by Meredith's attitude, may have plaid a role. At least the sexual theme plaid a role as an a trigger of an argument, or somehow as an instrument in Knox's "revenge":

"Quando Mez si accorge che con Amanda e Raffaele vi è Rudy manifesta alla coinquilina il suo disappunto, l' ennesima presenza di un altro ragazzo che Amanda porta in casa. Meredith rinfaccia ad Amanda anche la mancanza di denaro che pure aveva a disposizione..."

Then Mignini draws a scenario where an argument between them degenerates, and this the context of the presence of Guede high on drugs and alcohol in a sexual ruse situation and Sollecito also high after using extensive drugs. Then draws a picture of what an instigation to sexual violence as a trigger moment could look like:

"(..) E' facile immaginare - continua Mignini - che Amanda adirata con la ragazza inglese per le sue crescenti critiche al suo comportamento disinvolto in materia sessuale abbia rinfacciato a Mez la sua riservatezza, l' abbia insultata e magari le abbia detto: "Facevi tanto la santarellina, ora te lo facciamo vedere noi, ora dovrai fare sesso per forza..."

Mgnini calls Knox's behaviour: "aggressione sessuale da rivalsa" ("a sexual aggression as a revenge"), also suggested Knox may have felt Meredith as "una smorfiosetta" ("prissy").
Mignii suggests Knox may have taken advantage of her abilty to manipulate Guede and Sollecito through the sexual attraction they were both feeling for her, and thus from their "competition" to please Amanda, especially in their condition of being unchained and uninhibited due to use of drugs.

I don't believe Mignini's scenario has any meaningful difference from Nencini's reasoning about motives. Both portray a situation that has a sexual element, but the sexual context is a minor component, only a context and not itself the main motive. Both point out that "motives" are complex, different from each participants and made of multiple reasons. All judges conclude that the crime builds up gradually as an escalation, from a smaller conflict or a smaller aggression and as a degeneration of an argument.

 

[Diocletus]

Fourth: without questioning the point that Knox's report of being hit, if taken in isolation, itself is reasonable, I must point out there are, however a few other factual elements attached to it, that have their legal value. A factual element is that Ms. Knox did not sublit any legal complaint about being hit, and another fact is that her own lawyers publicly denied she was hit. This is a problem in Knox's defence, since you cannot take the first report in isolation from the other elements, because of the rules of the game. If the victim doesn't complain, that has a value like expressing the position that her rights were not violated and factually bars the allegation from being investigated.
.

Granted, she did not file a complaint. However, this does not matter. No court is ever allowed to use, for any reason, any statement that is the product of inhuman and degrading treatment. Italy is guilty of such treatment, and further, is guilty of using against Knox the product of its illegal actions.

Bad, very bad. Echr won't like this one bit.

 

[Diocletus]

This looks like a citation from Mignini's 2009 closing arguments.
The prosecutor was slightly more articulate.

First, draws a psychological picture of Knox as nurturing a feeling of humiliation/ wounded self because of Meredith's behaviour gradually cutting her out from friendship circle, and suggests Meredith being disturbed by some of Amanda's sexual behaviours, or Amanda feeling offended by Meredith's attitude, may have plaid a role. At least the sexual theme plaid a role as an a trigger of an argument, or somehow as an instrument in Knox's "revenge":



Then Mignini draws a scenario where an argument between them degenerates, and this the context of the presence of Guede high on drugs and alcohol in a sexual ruse situation and Sollecito also high after using extensive drugs. Then draws a picture of what an instigation to sexual violence as a trigger moment could look like:



Mgnini calls Knox's behaviour: "aggressione sessuale da rivalsa" ("a sexual aggression as a revenge"), also suggested Knox may have felt Meredith as "una smorfiosetta" ("prissy").
Mignii suggests Knox may have taken advantage of her abilty to manipulate Guede and Sollecito through the sexual attraction they were both feeling for her, and thus from their "competition" to please Amanda, especially in their condition of being unchained and uninhibited due to use of drugs.

I don't believe Mignini's scenario has any meaningful difference from Nencini's reasoning about motives. Both portray a situation that has a sexual element, but the sexual context is mainly a context and not the real motive. Both point out that "motives" are complex, different from each participants and made of multiple reasons. All judges conclude that the crime builds up gradually as an escalation, from a smaller conflict or a smaller aggression and as a degeneration of an argument.

Let's face it: mig is a pervert.

 

[Diocletus]

I suppose it could have been Maresca. From what we are told he's only on a contingency, so maybe he felt he deserved the money. But I see it could have been Pacelli too, because he probably wasn't getting paid either. You've picked some possibles there, I'll give you that.

More to the point, since Italian trials take a decade, why do they not have some law that prevents dirtbags from doing this, to the prejudice if defendants?

 

[Diocletus]

The key point is that the courts can access the trial files: they don't need to go drink at the "posoned" well, they can connect directly with a pipe to the poison can.

I welcome them to do so.

 

[Numbers]

This from 'The Guardian':

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-highest-court-could-lead-to-new-legal-battle

But, is the hilite correct?

"If it does not uphold the conviction, the court could also decide to send one or both defendants back to trial, but it does not have the power to acquit Knox or Sollecito outright."
I think it does have that power.

The next bit is correct, which is one of the reasons why the trial was unfair. The use of this 'evidence' was illegal.

"The court’s latest conviction relied on a written confession Knox made – and then later retracted – after being questioned by police, in which she said she had been in the house when the murder occurred but not participated in the crime, and that her boyfriend was not there."

{Bold added to quote.}
Indeed, the CSC has the power to acquit outright. This power is granted to it in CPP Art. 620 Annulment without referral, para. 1 (l) which states: 1....the CSC shall deliver a judgment of annulment without referral: (l) in any other case in which the CSC believes the referral is superfluous or may proceed to the determination of the sentence or take the necessary decisions.

The Guardian article has several errors about law and extradition. Too bad, since IMO the Guardian is usually more accurate.

 

[Numbers]

No, that was Lumumba's lawyer, Pacelli, wasn't it?

But the disgraceful invention by Mignini of words put into Knox's mouth saying "You were such a little saint… now we are going to force you to have sex" is bad enough in and of itself, frankly. Disgusting, immoral and highly unethical.

I am not sure if there is ECHR case-law on this kind of prosecutorial misconduct (it would be considered a prejudicial statement in the US and probably result in a mistrial declared immediately by the judge - prosecutors are not allowed to make up inflammatory statements, which have no foundation) but it seems to me that it should. It may fall under equality of arms - since the defense cannot refute the prejudice introduced by this kind of statement. Furthermore, by the destruction of Amanda's and Meredith's computer hard drives, evidence of their friendship, such as photos of them at the chocolate festival in Perugia, were IIUC claimed by the defense to be destroyed.

 

[Bill Williams]

This looks like a citation from Mignini's 2009 closing arguments.
The prosecutor was slightly more articulate.

First, draws a psychological picture of Knox as nurturing a feeling of humiliation/ wounded self because of Meredith's behaviour gradually cutting her out from friendship circle, and suggests Meredith being disturbed by some of Amanda's sexual behaviours, or Amanda feeling offended by Meredith's attitude, may have plaid a role. At least the sexual theme plaid a role as an a trigger of an argument, or somehow as an instrument in Knox's "revenge":



Then Mignini draws a scenario where an argument between them degenerates, and this the context of the presence of Guede high on drugs and alcohol in a sexual ruse situation and Sollecito also high after using extensive drugs. Then draws a picture of what an instigation to sexual violence as a trigger moment could look like:



Mgnini calls Knox's behaviour: "aggressione sessuale da rivalsa" ("a sexual aggression as a revenge"), also suggested Knox may have felt Meredith as "una smorfiosetta" ("prissy").
Mignii suggests Knox may have taken advantage of her abilty to manipulate Guede and Sollecito through the sexual attraction they were both feeling for her, and thus from their "competition" to please Amanda, especially in their condition of being unchained and uninhibited due to use of drugs.

I don't believe Mignini's scenario has any meaningful difference from Nencini's reasoning about motives. Both portray a situation that has a sexual element, but the sexual context is a minor component, only a context and not itself the main motive. Both point out that "motives" are complex, different from each participants and made of multiple reasons. All judges conclude that the crime builds up gradually as an escalation, from a smaller conflict or a smaller aggression and as a degeneration of an argument.

This is a joke, right?

There is absolutely no evidence to support this.

"First, draws a psychological picture of Knox as nurturing a feeling of humiliation/ wounded self because of Meredith's behaviour gradually cutting her out from friendship circle", is absolute and complete fantasy. Did Mignini spend some time with Anna Donnino to help him recovery a memory of this?

For Nencini the motive is a dispute over rent money, the ONLY source of that being Rudy Guede, who related that in a story which included Rudy's claim for consensual sex with Meredith.

Does the PM get to assert things with no evidence? For Pete's sake, Machiavelli, even Judge Massei, the first convicting judge, rejected this fantasy from Mignini, and had to construct his own reasons for convicting - which were:

It is not possible, however, to know if Rudy went to Meredith’s room on his own
initiative, almost subjugated by the situation which he interpreted in erotic terms
(the two young lovers in their room and Meredith who was on her own in the room
right next to it) or, instead, he went to Meredith’s room at the urging of Amanda
and/or Raffaele.

This Court is inclined towards the first hypothesis.
It cannot see, in fact, the motive for such an invitation on the part of Amanda Knox
and/or of Raffaele Sollecito. Besides, Rudy does not seem to have needed to be
encouraged to make advances toward Meredith. Abukar Barrow [who was]
interrogated on 11 December 2007 (and whose testimony was acquired with the
consensus of the parties) testified that Rudy, above all when he was drunk or under
the effects of drugs, ‚bothered people, especially young women. He blocked them
off physically and tried to kiss them‛.​

If what you said Mignini said is at all accurate, Page 392 (ff.) is proof that even Massei's court thought Mignini was, at best, wrong.

And that is the best way one can view Massei's opinion. There is no "sexual aggression as revenge," In Massei or in ANY court decision.

 

[Numbers]

Absolutely not!

I dislike the pontification amongst some commentators, that our justice system <insert country of choice> is so much better that Italy’s.

Italy has jurisdiction, if Raffaele and Amanda convictions are confirmed as many here seem to believe they have the option to appeal to the ECHR where thank goodness the kind of bare face lobbying would be ignored.

ECHR also has and applies a consistent set of legal principles and precedents. They will first get a chance to judge whether Italy has violated the Convention rights of Amanda Knox for convicting her of calunnia, based on statements she made under a coercive interrogation without benefit of counsel, and her attempts to withdraw those statements in writings she made while in police custody without counsel.

 

[Numbers]

I knew the declaration was a farce and was very sure that Nixon'so resignation was typed using a standard typewriter, probably an IBM Selectric. So that was certainly a fraud. The comic sans-font probably was not seen in any mechanical fonts until the computer age.

ac,
Please, let's not confuse fraud with parody. Or does that work the other way around with the Italian police? Their comical actions are really a disguise for fraud.

 

[Numbers]

Clearly, I am speaking of UK jurisprudence.

In the UK Raffaele’s book would not have been published, TV interviews would not have happened. That being said, I get the distinct impression that there is still no groundswell of Italian public in support for Raffaele Sollecito, hence lobbying really only relates or applies across the pond.

In the US, Raffaele's and Amanda's books were published after they were acquitted. Acquittal = End of story. That is fairness.

What Italy has is trial by circus clowns. I've read somewhere (no cite offhand) that one of the Italian murder trials lasted 22 years.

And, by the way, during the whole sequence of trials in Italy, the defendants are to be considered innocent until final sentence is pronounced. This statement is in the Italian Constitution, that document much abused by the Italian police, prosecutors, and judicial system.

ETA: Italian Constitution, Art. 27 (relevant part)
Criminal responsibility is personal.
A defendant shall be considered not guilty until a final sentence has been passed.

 

[Numbers]

Calunnia is not categorized as "speech crime" by Italian jurisprudence, it is instead categorized among the "crimes of danger" (where the main endangered party is the State in the function of administration of justice) as well as of "malice" and within the category of crimes of obstruction of justice, and may not involve speech, however all this not important.
The point is that there can't be two categories of citizens, those who are free and those who are under questioning or in custody, with the latter category being immune from some crimes and not having to obey to the same laws. It would be manifestly unconstitutional, but above all - and this is especially true when you consider the situation of police questioning - it would be completely unreasonable, legally speaking, because that would mean that informants under police questionings would be immune from their actions no matter what they do within their roles as informants. That would create a privileged category under a legal shield protecting them from citizens' duties and with a license to commit damaging an dangerous actions, which are serious crimes for normal citizens, and that would basically cancel the activity of informants, destroy such investigation resource practically turning them into something worthless and dangerous. This so obviously damages humans rights or normal citizens as it undermines the basic functions of institutions pursueing justice.
Your attached inference that otherwise "police would have immunity to torture or otherwise coerce persons" is manifest nonsense. So are your statements about fascism and alleged laws of communist regimes.
Maybe you should consider that it's not the Italian judiciary those who are grossly incompetent; it might be your own interpretation of the 'Salduz principle' that is grossly incompetent in terms of basic principles of justice. Cases of Salduz, Ibrahim and Dayanan are obviously different from Knox's calunnia, this is something anyone can see. But the best thing would be to move towards a better comprehension of the overall set and structure of principles - all principles - of criminal justice and human rights.

{Highlighting added to quote.}

Sorry to see that you are continuing to argue points that make so little sense.
It is not important to the ECHR how Italy classifies "speech crimes". Italian law could call them equivalent to murder, but they would be considered under the Convention. Italy is a signatory to the Convention and must follow ECHR case-law as a solemn obligation. This may be a point you and the Italian police, prosecutors, and many judges do not grasp, which is unfortunate, especially for the citizens, residents, and visitors of Italy who fall into the quagmire of Italian jurisprudence.

I can only suggest that you read the ECHR case-law that has been cited by myself and others on the forum and educate yourself on the realities of the law that must be followed by Italy. Perhaps that kind of educational program will become a requirement for Italian police, prosecutors, and judges as a result of the ECHR judgment in the calunnia case. I believe that would be beneficial for everyone in Italy.

In terms of the parts of your quote that I highlighted, I did want to point out your logical fallacies.

First, persons under interrogation or in police custody are different than ordinary free citizens in their condition, that is obvious and is recognized by the ECHR. Such persons are entitled to certain rights, including the right to counsel, and when statements that they make without counsel are then used to convict them, the convictions are generally considered unfair and in violation of Convention Articles 6.3c with 6.1. The very few and unusual exceptions may be deduced from a careful reading of Ibrahim et al. v the UK.

Second, it is absurd for anyone to believe that a statement made by a person under interrogation or in police custody is dangerous. That is actually a hilarious statement for you to make, and I appreciate your adding that touch of humor, even if without intention. It certainly reinforces my view that the police and judicial system is based on dictatorial principles similar to those envisioned by Orwell in 1984. Whether the judicial dictatorship is communist or fascist or some other -ist I leave for experts in regimes that violate human rights to decipher.

 

[Numbers]

This is an active court case, Raffaele and Amanda are not convicted of Meredith Kerchers murder, right?

The case is active in Italy, not in the US. Also not in other countries, I would believe.

An Italian murder trial can drag on with no limit in time. These two individuals were wrongfully accused and wrongfully convicted and have now been acquitted. The CSC decision annuling their acquittal was an obvious violation of ECHR case-law, and thus of Italian law. Similarly, the Nencini court verdict and motivation report were obvious violations of Italian law, constitution, and ECHR case-law.

Amanda and Raffaele are free to publish as much as they wish in the US, in terms of US law and Constitution.

 

[kwill]

This is so absurd.

First, draws a psychological picture of Knox

What the heck is a psychological picture? Is is a diagnosis? Is it a fantasy?

as nurturing a feeling of humiliation/ wounded self

Where the heck does this part of the psychological picture come from? It's not based on anything Knox did or said. No burning with resentment emails. No shamed moments in the intercepted phone calls. No private confessions of torment in the stolen diary.

Oh, wait. I know. This is just Mignini making stuff up because it's what he does.

because of Meredith's behaviour gradually cutting her out from friendship circle,

Kind of a snotty thing to say about the victim. I don't think Meredith was nearly as catty and vicious as the rest of the English women turned out to be . . . or at least, again, there's no evidence that she ever did any such thing.

and suggests Meredith being disturbed by some of Amanda's sexual behaviours,

No, no, no. It was Mignini who was disturbed by Amanda's sexuality, or at least by his fantasy of Amanda's sexuality.

or Amanda feeling offended by Meredith's attitude,

Which, again, there is no evidence to support. Neither Meredith's attitude nor Amanda's taking offense. They were friends.

may have plaid a role.

This is too much. May have played a role? A dreamed up jealousy is supposed to be the whole reason for the murder. It's not supposed to be a minor, mealy-mouthed, possibility.

At least the sexual theme plaid a role as an a trigger of an argument,

What on earth is a sexual theme? These were two healthy, sexually active young women, both involved with healthy young men. There was no theme, sir. There was actual sex. Ordinary, vanilla, 20-something heterosexual sex. It doesn't trigger arguments among normal people. Why would Mignini ever think such a thing?

or somehow as an instrument in Knox's "revenge":

Revenge for what? Where is the smallest bit of evidence for Mignini's weird fantasy that Knox was angry at Meredith? Anything will do. Did someone overhear her complaining about Meredith? Criticizing her? Talking about her in even a remotely negative way?

This whole thing blossomed right out of Mignini's strange & disturbing soul. It has nothing to do with anybody but him. He needed to manufacture a reason for believing that Knox wanted Meredith dead, and this was what he came up with.

He's a demented human being. Maybe he has good qualities that are not on display in this case. Maybe he's admirable in other situations. In this one, though, the guy is a Grade A+ Pervert.

 

[Bill Williams]

This is so absurd.

First, draws a psychological picture of Knox

What the heck is a psychological picture? Is is a diagnosis? Is it a fantasy?

as nurturing a feeling of humiliation/ wounded self

Where the heck does this part of the psychological picture come from? It's not based on anything Knox did or said. No burning with resentment emails. No shamed moments in the intercepted phone calls. No private confessions of torment in the stolen diary.

Oh, wait. I know. This is just Mignini making stuff up because it's what he does.

because of Meredith's behaviour gradually cutting her out from friendship circle,

Kind of a snotty thing to say about the victim. I don't think Meredith was nearly as catty and vicious as the rest of the English women turned out to be . . . or at least, again, there's no evidence that she ever did any such thing.

and suggests Meredith being disturbed by some of Amanda's sexual behaviours,

No, no, no. It was Mignini who was disturbed by Amanda's sexuality, or at least by his fantasy of Amanda's sexuality.

or Amanda feeling offended by Meredith's attitude,

Which, again, there is no evidence to support. Neither Meredith's attitude nor Amanda's taking offense. They were friends.

may have plaid a role.

This is too much. May have played a role? A dreamed up jealousy is supposed to be the whole reason for the murder. It's not supposed to be a minor, mealy-mouthed, possibility.

At least the sexual theme plaid a role as an a trigger of an argument,

What on earth is a sexual theme? These were two healthy, sexually active young women, both involved with healthy young men. There was no theme, sir. There was actual sex. Ordinary, vanilla, 20-something heterosexual sex. It doesn't trigger arguments among normal people. Why would Mignini ever think such a thing?

or somehow as an instrument in Knox's "revenge":

Revenge for what? Where is the smallest bit of evidence for Mignini's weird fantasy that Knox was angry at Meredith? Anything will do. Did someone overhear her complaining about Meredith? Criticizing her? Talking about her in even a remotely negative way?

This whole thing blossomed right out of Mignini's strange & disturbing soul. It has nothing to do with anybody but him. He needed to manufacture a reason for believing that Knox wanted Meredith dead, and this was what he came up with.

He's a demented human being. Maybe he has good qualities that are not on display in this case. Maybe he's admirable in other situations. In this one, though, the guy is a Grade A+ Pervert.

I wonder if Machiavelli appreciates that this is a description of a pervert - from Machiavelli's own keyboard.

All this because Machiavelli wanted to defend Mignini inventing dialogue in Amanda's mouth, "we will make you have sex."

The only two people in the world who talk this way are Mignini and Machiavell.

Ick.

 

[Samson]

Really? You think justice totally separate from public oversight is a good thing? While I can certainly appreciate the idea that justice should be practiced in a vacuum, I know that public review of the courts can be the difference between wrongful convictions and true justce. For example, the Dreyfus Affair, the West Memphis and countless others.

Every case that has been reversed in New Zealand has been the result of dedicated work by unpaid volunteers, opposed every step of the way by the government the police and the judiciary.

Arthur Thomas. *
David Dougherty.
Peter Ellis.
Teina Pora.
Mark Lundy.

* Prime minister Muldoon did finally declare a pardon after an Australian commitee proved the planting of evidence by two police detectives.

 

[Samson]

More unsubstantiated, nonsense assertions from your quarter. The Italians I know - to a person, educated and ecumenical - completely disagree with you, and have been glued to the ongoing sensationalism like watching a train wreck.

The polling I have seen suggests that your friends are outliers (that spelling looks dreadful), or is there more a sense they don't dare disagree?
Lionking, from this forum, travelled extensively through Italy and found not one citizen, from university professors to taxi drivers who thought "the kids" were innocent. I could find the post if I tried hard enough, but little point.

ETA you may be familiar with this novel, that somehow Lionking made me recollect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Sentimental_Journey_Through_France_and_Italy

 

[codyjuneau]

This looks like a citation from Mignini's 2009 closing arguments.
The prosecutor was slightly more articulate.

First, draws a psychological picture of Knox as nurturing a feeling of humiliation/ wounded self because of Meredith's behaviour gradually cutting her out from friendship circle, and suggests Meredith being disturbed by some of Amanda's sexual behaviours, or Amanda feeling offended by Meredith's attitude, may have plaid a role. At least the sexual theme plaid a role as an a trigger of an argument, or somehow as an instrument in Knox's "revenge":



Then Mignini draws a scenario where an argument between them degenerates, and this the context of the presence of Guede high on drugs and alcohol in a sexual ruse situation and Sollecito also high after using extensive drugs. Then draws a picture of what an instigation to sexual violence as a trigger moment could look like:



Mgnini calls Knox's behaviour: "aggressione sessuale da rivalsa" ("a sexual aggression as a revenge"), also suggested Knox may have felt Meredith as "una smorfiosetta" ("prissy").
Mignii suggests Knox may have taken advantage of her abilty to manipulate Guede and Sollecito through the sexual attraction they were both feeling for her, and thus from their "competition" to please Amanda, especially in their condition of being unchained and uninhibited due to use of drugs.

I don't believe Mignini's scenario has any meaningful difference from Nencini's reasoning about motives. Both portray a situation that has a sexual element, but the sexual context is mainly a context and not the real motive. Both point out that "motives" are complex, different from each participants and made of multiple reasons. All judges conclude that the crime builds up gradually as an escalation, from a smaller conflict or a smaller aggression and as a degeneration of an argument.

Let's face it: mig is a pervert.

.
I don't believe Mignini is a pervert per se. I think he is torn by his own sexual desires, and how his strict Catholic upbringing allows him to think and behave.

He has created his own little version of Adam and Eve, where it is the woman's fault that men have lustful thoughts and do evil things. The men, Rudy and Raffaele are helpless hapless dupes who cannot resist the bewitching Eve Knox with her irresistible sexual beauty and guile.

Eve was even able to trick Migi into believing Patrick Lumumba was the killer. So dangerously cunning that little vixen.

Cody
.