• 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.

Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bill Williams said:
Now that the PMF brand is collapsing and most don't dare post their factoids on this side of their iron curtain, Vixen may have gone rogue from them.

The purpose can be gleaned from what is actually posted. In series, he's simply reposting long-since discredited factoids. It's like points from Edward McCall's wiki in miniature.

Speaking of that - did you read Edward McCall's opinion as to why Conti & Vecchiotti are not to be trusted? One element of that mistrust, acc. to EMcM, was that Maresca (the Kercher lawyer) once wondered outloud if C&V were working for the Sollecitos. Wondering, esp. verbal speculation (aka. muttering) within earshot of others is stuff you can take to the bank, apparently.

That struck me as a rather "thin" proof.....
Click to expand...


Are you paranoid*, Bill? You have been told numerous times I have no connection to PMF or any other site.

V&C's labs were closed down.

*Step outta line
the Man come
and take you away. ~ Stephen Stills FWIW
 
analemma said:
PUUULEEEESSSSSE
This is the Mach sock puppet.
Mach made the same outrageous accusations.
Get rid of him: His statements are poluting the Forum.
Make him come back and play nice.
Click to expand...

I don 't know who Machiavelli is - but have read a couple of his articles with interest.

It could just be a straightforward case of, "Great minds think alike."
 
Vixen said:
Are you paranoid*, Bill? You have been told numerous times I have no connection to PMF or any other site.

V&C's labs were closed down.

*Step outta line
the Man come
and take you away. ~ Stephen Stills FWIW
Click to expand...

It's hard to believe anything you post. I don't care what you claim. You are a random factoid generator, from the PMF -approved list of factoids.

Although I will give you one original: "Raff's DNA on the knife was a Nencini typo."

I'd not heard that before.
 
Sergei Walankov said:
Umm ... what does this mean, sorry? Is the suggestion here that he was included on a list of "sex contacts" because he was an intravenous drug user? And not because he was a, you know, "sex contact"?
Click to expand...

You'll need to ask Amanda why she wrote those words next to his name on the list of sex contacts she gave to the police.

The meaning is clear to me.
 
Bill Williams said:
Can you then explain why even the postal police saw the same thing, and similarly were not alarmed?

I thought not. You keep wanting to make this about Amanda even after she's exonerated.
Click to expand...

The Postales even had the added information that Meredith's phones had been discarded some distance away from the cottage.
 
Vixen said:
You'll need to ask Amanda why she wrote those words next to his name on the list of sex contacts she gave to the police.

The meaning is clear to me.
Click to expand...

In which case, I did indeed misunderstand you. I'm not aware of what Amanda might have written next to his name on the note.
 
Vixen said:
Que? The front door was swinging open, there was blood on the bathmat, ew, Mez' door was locked, but when looking through the keyhole, there was no key in the lock from within, and, after banging frantically on the door and inching along the ledge (or so Amanda claims) there is no forewarning?

Even though no reply on Mez' two phones? Even though she only ever slept in her own bed? Amanda was alarmed enough to ring her mum, Edda.
Click to expand...

Amanda goes back to her flat, notices one or two things out of place and shortly after starts to notice more. She gradually becomes alarmed, checks with her mother, with Romanelli and Raffaele, testing her growing sense of unease. All of her actions are consistent with Amanda responding appropriately to the gradual unfolding of the evidence as she encounters it.

For example, coming home to an open front door given the problem with the latch was, I suggest, appropriately interpreted at first sight. Similarly, the very small amount of blood she encountered was also fairly interpreted. When she sees the feces in the large bathroom, her unease grows. The rest, we all know.

One of the problems with the pro guilt people's position is that they expect from Amanda the knowledge and skills of a seasoned detective. They expect from her, perfect recall. Then, they decide how she should have acted - what her grief would have looked like if it were real. Any variance from the prescription is evidence of guilt. But of course, it's evidence of nothing.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
My stance is that here we have a highly-stylised murder involving torture of the victim. The person/s responsible are deranged degenerates.
Click to expand...

Having just watched Amelie, Amanda and Raffaele, naturally enough, got it into their heads to act out a scene from Natural Born Killers. It happens to me all the time.
 
Vixen said:
Anyone can upload a movie, or leave the telly on, and then go out for the night.

It is no proof anyone was watching it.
Click to expand...

Your expected level of proof is quite high then?

What would be the proof of someone having committed a stabbing murder at close quarters with the loss of probably 2 litres of blood, spilled and aspirated, in a 12x9 room with 3 other people in that room with her?

What would you expect to find, as evidence of presence in that room? What would proof look like to you?
 
Vixen said:
Psychotropic drugs, ...
Click to expand...

analemma said:
PUUULEEEESSSSSE
This is the Mach sock puppet.
Mach made the same outrageous accusations.
Get rid of him: His statements are poluting the Forum.
Make him come back and play nice.
Click to expand...

acbytesla said:
While you might be right, about the best we can do is ignore him/her. As long as Vixen doesn't make personal attacks she is welcome to stay. Vixen's posts are nonsense but of course so is the entire argument for guilt.
Click to expand...

I agree much more with acbytesla here. IMO, Vixen is more than welcome. Vixen is mostly presenting evidence that she bases her views on. And that kind of discussion is one of the principle draws of this forum.

I have been confused a bit by some of Vixen's posts in that they at times seem to be coming from a place where Vixen is arguing that AK/RS are factually guilty and were provably so beyond a reasonable doubt and at other time Vixen makes arguments that at best support the notion that there is some plausibility to the idea that they are guilty that would be irrelevant if one were arguing for guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And Vixen mixes in procedural arguments. And all of this is done while Vixen jumps from topic to topic without ever concluding any subject which I think reasonably lead to the whack a mole comparison that somebody made above. On the other hand Vixen is alone in this thread with the views Vixen holds and that can't be an easy thing for anybody.

As to whether Vixen posts in the style of Machiavelli: I don't see it, but apparently more than one person has posted under the name Machiavelli here and perhaps there is some similarity to the posts made by one of the alternate Machiavelli's.
 
acbytesla said:
I wish I could say that the knife was the most absurd evidence that the prosecution presented in this case. It's up there, but there is so much to choose from. It's a joke. And even more so when it applies to the charge against Amanda of transporting a weapon.

How does ANYONE beyond a reasonable doubt conclude that Amanda transported this knife from Raffaele'so apartment to and from the cottage? Is there testimony from anyone that Amanda transported this knife or any knife? Even if it was determined to be the murder weapon, (Which it wasn't) how does anyone determined who transported it?
Click to expand...

Massei just postulated that Amanda felt she needed protection in her neighborhood and kept a kitchen knife (!?!) in her bag for several days. Thus the kitchen knife being in her bag was unrelated to any murderous impulses. He went from that being 'possible' to it becoming 'probable' without any evidence or argument supporting it.

(FYI: There is really no evidence that supports that this was the murder weapon. It had no blood on it, the knife didn't match the wounds on Meredith or the blood stain on her sheet.
Click to expand...

Not only that, it's also damned curious that was the knife the polizia di stato plucked randomly from Raffaele's drawer when they took him back to his place to get his computers. Raffaele claims one of them said 'this will do' which gains greater credence when it's realized that by 'collecting' that one knife and no others at that time they acted like that one knife 'would do' for their purposes. What on earth were they doing taking that one knife and no other at that time? Why not wait and let the Polizia Scientifica collect it properly with everything else in a few days time?

A few days later Stefanoni will claim to have found Meredith's DNA on that knife, which she would later have to lie about and hid the particulars of, especially when it was revealed the knife tested negative for blood and even the prosecution's own forensic expert would say of the only two wounds capable of identifying or excluding a certain knife that one of them could not have been made by the kitchen knife and the other he understood why other experts would exclude it but he thought it barely possible if it was at the right angle.

Both wounds were the same depth (The knife went in the same length --within a millimeter) and both left hilt bruises meaning it was the same knife that made both wounds, or two with identical parameters.
 
I'm not getting an English-as-a-second-language vibe from Vixen, so the speculation that s/he might be Machiavelli seems rather silly to me. We should leave the Scooby Doo-standard detective work to the PGers.
 
davefoc said:
I agree much more with acbytesla here. IMO, Vixen is more than welcome. Vixen is mostly presenting evidence that she bases her views on. And that kind of discussion is one of the principle draws of this forum.

I have been confused a bit by some of Vixen's posts in that they at times seem to be coming from a place where Vixen is arguing that AK/RS are factually guilty and were provably so beyond a reasonable doubt and at other time Vixen makes arguments that at best support the notion that there is some plausibility to the idea that they are guilty that would be irrelevant if one were arguing for guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And Vixen mixes in procedural arguments. And all of this is done while Vixen jumps from topic to topic without ever concluding any subject which I think reasonably lead to the whack a mole comparison that somebody made above. On the other hand Vixen is alone in this thread with the views Vixen holds and that can't be an easy thing for anybody.

As to whether Vixen posts in the style of Machiavelli: I don't see it, but apparently more than one person has posted under the name Machiavelli here and perhaps there is some similarity to the posts made by one of the alternate Machiavelli's.
Click to expand...

Deciphering PMF-factoids is fairly straight forward. They mostly make an assertion and then move on. All the questions people have asked requesting the PMF-er supply - what's the word, lessee, oh yes - evidence is simply ignored and they move on.

Machiavelli's posts have verged on Kremlinology in contrast. Vixen has taken up Machiavelli's talking points, and simply asserted them without the Kremlinology behind it.

Vixen is obviously welcome there. There have been no personal attacks, and aside from mild trolling and mild flooding, is perhaps well-within ISF MA's.

I just wish he'd answer questions - like the one asked about Hellmann and the one about the books he's read. But not answering is not against the MA!
 
Bill Williams said:
Can you then explain why even the postal police saw the same thing, and similarly were not alarmed?

I thought not. You keep wanting to make this about Amanda even after she's exonerated.
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
Why would they be alarmed? They were just there to return a couple of found phones.
Click to expand...

You obviously missed the "saw the same thing" part.
 
Vixen said:
Anyone can upload a movie, or leave the telly on, and then go out for the night.

It is no proof anyone was watching it.
Click to expand...

So you are suggesting that this was a premeditated murder.That they thought ahead, trying to create some kind of alibi?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom