Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

Wrong again. ContI and Vecchiotti were court appointed and paid by the state. I have no idea where they sat when they were in court and neither do you.



I thought you said you were neutral? That clearly wasn't true. Now was it? There isn't a shred of any evidence,.not any at all that this wild absurd claim is true. But feel free to provide your citation. Don't have any? Don't worry about it. We knew you didn't.

I am neutral. However, after a several hundred messages later, not one person has given me a clear solid reason or alibi that proves Raf and Amanda innocent.

The police trashing Raf's laptop is not proof.

Why? Does no friends Amanda have noone to vouch for her? Even boyfriend Raf of a few days, whom she slept with within hours of meeting him, and during the week's fling, she had sex someone else, as well as sending billets doux to boyfriend from home, DJ, in China, has taken public steps backwards as not wanting to be associated with her alibi, that she was with him.

What is the problem guys, over the alibi?

Truth is, Amanda was recklessly making herself vulnerable with wanton association with shady criminal drugdealers and sleeping with almost anybody, in turn putting her house mate Mez in a highly dangerous position, and she paid with her life.

 

[Kauffer]

They were seen embracing and shaking hands with the Sollecitos.

No! The evidence I asked for was to support your statement that Conti and Vecchiotti had been paid by the defence!

Who do you think your fooling?

 

[Dan O.]

Please highlight the retraction you are referring to.

Are you trying to present yourself as a blind troll? The retraction, Raffaele's actuall words transcribed by the court and not some text invented by Mignini was posted and even quoted by you.

 

[Vixen]

Especially considering she has not even read Hellman. No matter, Vixen has at least read all the books on the case (but declines to list them).

I have read the translation of Hellmann, as referred to me by Carbo, on the IIP site.

Was that it???

I presume huge swathes are missing (untranslated?) as it tells us sweet Fanny Adams as to his reasoning for acquittal and declaration of "innocent".

 

[Vixen]

They can't keep Patrick unless they also take his alibis. They already started fitting Usi with a video appearance near the cottage and if the swiss professor says he was with Patrick all evening then he must have been in on it too. And then there are all the students that say they were at his bar... How did they all fit in that tiny bedroom?

The judge and seven others all fit in together without any problem, when they paid a visit to the crime scene.

 

[anglolawyer]

I am neutral. However, after a several hundred messages later, not one person has given me a clear solid reason or alibi that proves Raf and Amanda innocent.

snip.

Oh, that's what you are expecting! Well, why didn't you just say so? The burden of proving their non-involvement is on them/us. Right? Is there a reason why in this case the burden of proof must be reversed? There have been so many guilters, before you, who have sought to lay out the rules of the discussion in this unfair and illogical fashion that I wonder whether it is some kind of cognitive contagion that goes with belief in guilt.

 

[anglolawyer]

I have read the translation of Hellmann, as referred to me by Carbo, on the IIP site.

Was that it???

I presume huge swathes are missing (untranslated?) as it tells us sweet Fanny Adams as to his reasoning for acquittal and declaration of "innocent".

A link would help me understand what you are referring to. Hellman has been completely and very expertly translated. You can read the whole thing here, in full. If it's this document you have read but you are still claiming he does not set out his reasons than I am having serious trouble with the Mensa claim.

 

[Vixen]

As I understand it, Vixen is of your demograph, gender and country.

What I am reflecting on is that what appears to be the toss of a coin confers or deprives legitimacy here.

Who among posters here have not almost forgotten that the Vixens would be crowing and condescending, and proclaiming the well intentioned students of the case as being on the wrong side of history.
I know only too well in my tiny corner that the acquittals saved me from being regarded as an eccentric, and conferred street credibility, so I am listened to on the next case.
Yet the acquittals had nothing to do with the facts.

ETA that last sentence is not quite what I meant to say.

It was Mike1711 who raised the issues of demographics by saying in his country, South Africa, Blicks are responsible for violent burglaries leading to murder. Implying, done and dusted, this was the case here.

 

[lonepinealex]

It was Mike1711 who raised the issues of demographics by saying in his country, South Africa, Blicks are responsible for violent burglaries leading to murder. Implying, done and dusted, this was the case here.

He did no such thing, and did not mention race at all. As you know. This is simply trolling from start to finish. Either that or you are severely deficient in reading comprehension.

Either way, it is a waste of time engaging with you.

 

[Kauffer]

It was Mike1711 who raised the issues of demographics by saying in his country, South Africa, Blicks are responsible for violent burglaries leading to murder. Implying, done and dusted, this was the case here.

Guede wasn't just a random put upon black. He was a burglar, associated with rocks and knives in the commission of burglaries - there is evidence for this. He has convictions for stolen goods, was trying to sell the booty from a Perugian burglary in Milan and his evidence is all over Kercher's room and in her vagina together with his bloody shoe prints in the hallway.

You think we are prejudiced against him? Poor Rudy!

 

[Vixen]

You only fool yourself. That clip is from dsc_0188 from the case file. There is another from Dec 18 showing the box in the corner between the radiator and the patio door.

Your claim is another lie. I already referenced the actual photo that I posted in relation to the "hickey". If you bothered to look you would have seen the full photo with the timestamp printed in red showing that the photo was taken prior to this case even existing. My clip of that photo delibrately left a fragment of the time stamp visible to assist those that choose to research the photos origin. The caption originally posted with that photo was "here is what the "scratch" looked like 4 days later when Amanda was arrested". A side by side comparison of the hickey photo and the police photo taken upon Amanda's arrest shows the virtually identical characteristics of the marks thus making my statement true.

OK, thanks for the clarification.

 

[acbytesla]

Even compulsive liars tell the truth sometimes. Strengthens their lies, half-truths and omissions.

While I agree with this, it is amusing as always that you accept RG's self serving statements like " a stranger let me in" as opposed to not believing him when he says the murder took place around 9:30. As has been pointed out, Rudy admits being there so why lie about the time?

 

[Vixen]

Oh, that's what you are expecting! Well, why didn't you just say so? The burden of proving their non-involvement is on them/us. Right? Is there a reason why in this case the burden of proof must be reversed? There have been so many guilters, before you, who have sought to lay out the rules of the discussion in this unfair and illogical fashion that I wonder whether it is some kind of cognitive contagion that goes with belief in guilt.

I have not said there should be a shift in the burden of proof. I was all ears wanting a bone I could grip my teeth into so that I could say, here indeed, is a grave injustice.

I am still here, so please, someone, throw me a line.

 

[Dan O.]

I am neutral.

You have proven here that you are solidly entrenched in the guilters camp. The claim of neutrality is just another lie.

However, after a several hundred messages later, not one person has given me a clear solid reason or alibi that proves Raf and Amanda innocent.

Have you never heard of the concept of "burden of proof"? In a criminal case it is the prosecution's burden to proove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants did commit the crime. That you cannot come up with a reasonable scenario consistent with the known evidence that involves Amanda and or Raffaele committing this crime is sufficient proof that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent.

Why? Does no friends Amanda have noone to vouch for her? Even boyfriend Raf of a few days, whom she slept with within hours of meeting him, and during the week's fling, she had sex someone else, as well as sending billets doux to boyfriend from home, DJ, in China, has taken public steps backwards as not wanting to be associated with her alibi, that she was with him.

Your English is slipping much like Machavelli's does when he gets flustered. Have you got proof of any of these allegations or are you just copying crap from the hate sites?

Truth is, Amanda was recklessly making herself vulnerable with wanton association with shady criminal drugdealers and sleeping with almost anybody, in turn putting her house mate Mez in a highly dangerous position, and she paid with her life.

There has been no causal relation shown linking Amanda's behavior to Meredith's murder except that Amanda had been out of the cottage that night. If she had been home it could have been Amanda that was killed and Meredith's sex life would now be under the microscope. You should be ashamed of yourself for sluttifying the victim of this murder.

 

[Sonia]

Diddly squat.

It is easier to go to the railway station or the pub - or even a shop [in England, we have shops that will "unlock" stolen mobiles and laptops for you] - and buy your cheapo laptop there.

No income tax. No VAT.

No questions asked.

Look, I am not saying Rudy did not steal the laptop himself. However, there is no compelling reason to reasonably believe he did.

I worked at a place where overnight, burglar s broke in and stole all the computers, hacking off cumbersome cables. It is a very common crime. It is a huge logic fallacy to boldly assert, "Rudy was responsible for all the laptop thefts in Perugia."

Nobody is asserting that.

Did you know that one of Spanish students who befriended Rudy noted that his very small apartment was full of computers? She found their presence surprising because he had no Internet service. Rudy explained the presence of all the computers by saying that he worked in IT for Armani, preparing computers for presentations and fairs.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/rudy-guede-murderer-perugia/

Of course, Rudy hadn't really a job since he lost his Milan cafe job in the Spring of 2007. The wife of his former benefactor felt sorry for him and helped him rent his apartment in Perugia as a final favor. She was not paying his rent. So how did he make a living all summer long and through the months of September and October?

 

[acbytesla]

It's just my personal opinion. There are two leading theories as to the reason for the acquittals:

1. Mafia intervention (bribery and corruption)*
2. US State intervention

As no new evidence was introduced at the appeal stage, nor new legal points not already argued at trial, we can conclude the annulment was nothing to do with the evidence and facts found by Massei and Nencini.

*This theory includes Hellmanns intervention.

Leading theories among who?

BTW, there was no new evidence presented to ISC, the first time around and the only new evidence introduced at the Nencini trial were the results from the RIS lab in Rome which went entirely in favor of the defendants.

Your arguments don't have any logic.

 

[Vixen]

Guede wasn't just a random put upon black. He was a burglar, associated with rocks and knives in the commission of burglaries - there is evidence for this. He has convictions for stolen goods, was trying to sell the booty from a Perugian burglary in Milan and his evidence is all over Kercher's room and in her vagina together with his bloody shoe prints in the hallway.

You think we are prejudiced against him? Poor Rudy!

By the same token you could argue Amanda has police tickets for wild partying and encouraging her guests to throw rocks at passing traffic, making cars swerve. This is far more dangerous than being in possession of a stolen laptop, which is all Rudy had been charged with, prior to the murder. It is a mercy none of these drivers crashed and suffered injury and fatalities, some with young children as passengers, possibly.

Nobody here seems the slightest bit horrified by this behaviour, yet fixate on a stolen laptop as proof Rudy was lone perpetrator.

Raf, too, had a conviction for being in possession of drugs. Some would argue, buying illegal drugs - associated with serious organised crime - is equally as bad as someone buying stolen goods, if not more so.

Yet we only ever hear about one of the alleged perps. At Rudy's trial and at Massei and Nencini, it was not judged Rudy was the actual killer, nor that there was a burglary, other than the murder perps stealing Mez' cash, credit cards and mobile phones (x 2), strangely, for MO cat burglar Rudy, leaving the laptop completely behind.

 

[carbonjam72]

Ideals die hard...

The US State Department cannot exert direct or indirect influence over the Italian judiciary.

I imagine that State did indeed have discussions with representatives of the Italian Executive, pointing out that if the convictions were confirmed, the US would be minded not to extradite Knox (and remember, extradition is a political process governed by the executive, not the judiciary).

But the Italian Supreme Court, I can guarantee you, jealously (and correctly) protects its independence - whether from other arms of the Italian Government, or from foreign governments of any sort. In the same way, the US Supreme Court (and, for that matter, every federal and state court in the US) operates entirely independent from any influence - whether from any other branch of US federal/state government, any foreign government, or any outside interests of any sort.

There's only one reasonable, rational explanation for the Italian SC's decision to acquit in this case: the SC concluded that a) there was in fact no credible, reliable evidence pointing to guilt, and b) the combined lower courts got things badly wrong. Now, one can argue whether or not the SC was competent in its judgement (and I of course would argue that - at last - it was wholly competent), but I really don't think one can coherently argue that the SC was "nobbled" by any sort of outside interests.

Sad to say, but the ideal of an independent judiciary often is not the case in reality, not just in Italy, but wherever judges live in a society where a climate of opinion can settle in and take hold.

Judge Hellman said he was ostracized after the acquittals, yet there was never any evidence to support even an arrest, much less a conviction. At what point do the ideals of a just court materialize? Hellman convicted Knox of calunnia, clearly feeling the pressure to find some face saving gesture for the authorities. And so far as we know at this time, cassation has upheld that conviction.

(It is my own personal conceit that cassation will take the opportunity of its motivation report to nullify Knox's calunnia conviction. I don't know if that is technically possible, but I can see them wanting to clean house on this fiasco, since they know full well ECHR will just stick it in their face a few years from now anyway, better to get it all done now. Just MOO).

 

[Dan O.]

It was Mike1711 who raised the issues of demographics by saying in his country, South Africa, Blicks are responsible for violent burglaries leading to murder. Implying, done and dusted, this was the case here.

No. There you go with another lie. Her is what Mike said in his only post on this forum:

I live in a country with one of the highest murder rates in the entire world...South Africa. It is absolutely common for a single attacker to inflict multiple wounds on multiple victims at a single murder scene. One person can murder an entire family (google farm murders in South Africa) in the most vicious and torturing way without any sign of resistance from the victims. Multiple attackers it may have been but to rule out a single attacker is utterly idiotic.

It is unfortunate that you have driven him away by emphasizing race and biggotry when nobody else here sees it as relavent.

 

[acbytesla]

Ask Nina Burleigh, it's all there in her dirt digging campaign to deflect blame away from her client, Amanda, whose pay she is/was in.

Now you are saying that Nina was being paid by Amanda Knox? This is priceless. Lmao.

I'll give you this. You have a very vivid and creative imaginstion. I thought you had come here to argue the case and the evidence? Instead, you have suggested that Hellman, Conti and Vechiotti, and now Nina Burleigh was on the Knox payroll. Not that you have presented a shred of evidence.

But of course, this is typical. I mean why present actual facts when outrageousclaims and innuendo works? Right?