Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mike1711 said:
Vixen:
There are so many unanswered questions from others requesting that you provide authentic source material in this case for a host of (false?) accusations that you have thrown around in your numerous posts. Is it too much to ask of you to back up your claims or back down from them and admit you're wrong?
It may have been you (in an earlier post) who asked my opinion of a fellow South African, Van Der Leek? He is an unknown entity in South Africa and has no credibility as a recognised writer. His claim to being a friend of Reeva Steenkamp would seem to be grossly exaggerated. In the court trial of Pistorius which was televised live in its entirety he was never present at the case as far as I know and he has never been mentioned in the South African press as a friend of Reeva's. Two possibilities would seem likely. A) He was Reeva's friend but too much of a "nobody" to have been included in her list of "celebrity" friends, or B) He wasn't Reeva's friend but was too much of a "nobody" to have attracted attention for this false claim.
I wouldn't bother too much with his lies in his Amazon cyber-scribblings.
Click to expand...

There is a dominant theme linking the Steenkamp and Kercher deaths - an unnatural and unhealthy obsession with dead young women who become the personification of perfectedness. On Twitter, one of the most notorious "haters" says "Goodnight" to Kercher every night! In Welsh! Sometimes he adds a heart symbol. She's been dead for nearly eight years and he never knew her! What's wrong with these people? - Leek included.
 
acbytesla said:
I'm a cheerleader for innocence. I tried for a while to keep an open mind about whether they were innocent or guilty. Mostly because understanding the DNA evidence was not easy.

But at the beginning it was sifting through the factoids I'd read from both sides trying to get at the truth. It was worse than listening to politicians. Eventually a consistent pattern started to form. And that was much of what I heard from the PGP wasn't true or was equivocal.

Also, the PGP seemed to just want to talk about Amanda's sex life or her hygiene. "Amanda was a dirty slut" they said. Personally I could have cared less about whether Amanda was getting any. I certainly didn't think it had anything to do with Meredith's murder. The idea that this killing was a sex orgy gone awry was about the dumbest thing I have ever heard...maybe right behind the idea that it was a satanic ritual.

I made up my mind when I started getting a grasp on the dates. When Amanda first met Meredith. When and how she met Rudy and then when she met Raffaele. She met Meredith for the first time 43 days before the murder. I think she met Rudy 12 days earlier, and Raffaele 9 days earlier.

People like Vixen will say, this is irrelevant. I think that is stupid and ignorant. These people didn't know each other. Why would they kill? And more importantly in my mind, why would the kill with 2 people that they had met less than 2 weeks earlier? My guess is that Vixen will say she was drugged out But of course there is nothing that backs this up. No positive drug tests. Not a credible source anywhere that could say that either Amanda or Raffaele had ever taken anything harder than cannabis.

The only piece of evidence that ever made me pause was Raffaele's DNA was supposedly found on Meredith's bra clasp. I never bought that the cooking knife had anything to do with the murder. But the actions of Stefanoni and the prosecution was abominable. Stefanoni refusing to provide the electronic files. Her testimony as it regards to the Luminol was dishonest.

Eventually if you have half a brain you realize that this was a farce.
Click to expand...


Just because a crime doesn't make sense, it doesn't mean it didn't happen. From the hard physical evidence, we know Raff and Amanda were at the scene of the crime. If Rudy was sole perp, there is no explanation for Raff and Amanda's presence, the later clean up (which they were doing an awful lot that night!), the staged rape and the staged burglary. The kids were not covering up for Rudy, for sure.

Some girl shot her class peers because, "I don't like Mondays".

For a sociopath no deep reason required.
 
sept79 said:
Is Vixen trying to say that a Mensa, because of his/her intellect, has no compulsion to conform to grammatically correct English ?
Click to expand...

English is a highly irregular language. It is the Americans - for whom many, English was not their first language - who became obsessed with rules. For example, you should not put a preposition at the end of a sentence.

I can only echo Winston Churchill when he remarked on the matter:

"Up with which I will not put."
 
acbytesla said:
Hey


I thought you had admitted to the fact that Amanda's texts had not been ignored since this had been pointed out to you by others sourcing court documents? Are you reverting to your earlier tactics and ignoring the facts?

It's also nonsense that Meredith would have sent texts with kisses just because Amanda wasn't invited. Also, you should notice that Meredith had sent many texts to Amanda with kisses. She also attended a concert and the chocolate festival with Amanda, tanned with her and drew a tattoo on her skin. All of these actions show a certain amount of intimacy. Much more than you would expect from someone who barely tolerated Amanda.

What is clear is that Meredith liked Amanda or she was a 2 faced bitch. Of course the latter couldn't be true since Meredith never said a bad word about anyone.
Click to expand...

Whatever the fact of the matter, Amanda was not invited to her Halloween party, nor the dinner with friends next day.
 
Kauffer said:
You're not still defending the nonsense you wrote about the text messages are you?

Yesterday it was Amanda sending "text after text". Now, she's being ignored by Kercher?

You make these claims, post no evidence, have the evidence which proves you are wrong posted against you and come back for more.

Where are these ignored text messages? You state that "all" of Amanda's previous messages were ignored by Kercher. Well, post the evidence! Demonstrate the truth of your propositions. Problem is - You cannot.
Click to expand...

Source: Andrew Hodges, as cited. His source: WTBH.
 
Sergei Walankov said:
For Vixen and others like her, it ought to be enough for Amanda Knox to be a murderer. But as we all know, that's not the case -- she has to be the murderer of the purest and most beautiful soul that ever graced our planet. Only thus can they scratch the psychological itch that caused them to conjure up the Amanda Knox of their diseased imaginations in the first place. Hence Vixen's entirely irrational unwillingness to allow that, by her own logic, Meredith Kercher was kind of a two-faced phony.
Click to expand...

Sergei, please get a grip. If there are tensions between you and your roommate, the easiest way to deal with it is to avoid him or her. There is no reason to be uncivil and fight them. Mez was a very nice kind girl and she politely avoided Amanda in the kindest and politest way possible.

Amanda "no friends" found herself all dressed up and nowhere to go.
 
Vixen said:
Source: Andrew Hodges, as cited. His source: WTBH.
Click to expand...

There's the problem right there. Hodges is a charlatan, putting a meaning to what is in WTBH that is not remotely reasonable.

But thank you for citing your sources. Hopefully you'll do more of that.
 
Vixen said:
Just because a crime doesn't make sense, it doesn't mean it didn't happen. From the hard physical evidence, we know Raff and Amanda were at the scene of the crime. If Rudy was sole perp, there is no explanation for Raff and Amanda's presence, the later clean up (which they were doing an awful lot that night!), the staged rape and the staged burglary. The kids were not covering up for Rudy, for sure.

Some girl shot her class peers because, "I don't like Mondays".

For a sociopath no deep reason required.
Click to expand...

The "hard physical evidence" exonerates both Amanda and Raffaele. So it's not about what "we" know. Because you don't know anything. There is not one scintilla of evidence, which proves the presence of either in the apartment that night. In Kercher's room, where the murder took place, a brutal stabbing murder with prolific exsanguination, anyone present in the room would have left evidence of themselves in quantity. The actual perpetrator of the stabbing would have been soaked in blood too. You should consult a forensic scientist or CSI. But be prepared, for they will laugh at your claims of what you think you know.

But be my guest. Try to explain the crime, consistent with the known evidence that has all three perpetrators in the room and Amanda as the close quarters knifer. Where does the blood go? But don't come here and make unreferenced comments about what is known. They have no value.
 
acbytesla said:
It makes me wonder why people who claim to be Mensa members don't get it? I see them grasping at straws trying to explain it. What they usually come up with are simpleton answers or none at all. It's Amanda is a psycho or its drugs, not that they have any evidence of either. But even if that were true it doesn't explain both Raffaele and Rudy's involvement. Three crazies just happen to meet up and killed Mez? Two of which show every sign of being quality and well balanced people.

Hmm mm
Click to expand...

ISPE member. Look up Joanna Dennehy: a severe personality disorder led to her wild abandonned behaviour. She had two or even three male friends happy to help her in her raged murders (Stretch).
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Source: Andrew Hodges, as cited. His source: WTBH.
Click to expand...

Post the actual evidence! How difficult is that?

Show each text message, the person who sent it, the time it was sent and the content if you can find it. You've stated it exists, so show us.

I'll give you some help - WTBH is not a source for your version, or Hodges' version.
 
Mike1711 said:
Vixen:
There are so many unanswered questions from others requesting that you provide authentic source material in this case for a host of (false?) accusations that you have thrown around in your numerous posts. Is it too much to ask of you to back up your claims or back down from them and admit you're wrong?
It may have been you (in an earlier post) who asked my opinion of a fellow South African, Van Der Leek? He is an unknown entity in South Africa and has no credibility as a recognised writer. His claim to being a friend of Reeva Steenkamp would seem to be grossly exaggerated. In the court trial of Pistorius which was televised live in its entirety he was never present at the case as far as I know and he has never been mentioned in the South African press as a friend of Reeva's. Two possibilities would seem likely. A) He was Reeva's friend but too much of a "nobody" to have been included in her list of "celebrity" friends, or B) He wasn't Reeva's friend but was too much of a "nobody" to have attracted attention for this false claim.
I wouldn't bother too much with his lies in his Amazon cyber-scribblings.
Click to expand...

AIUI after Reeva's murder, Nick discovered by chance she was a FB friend. He became intrigued by the murder, as did millions of ppl around the world.
 
Kauffer said:
There is a dominant theme linking the Steenkamp and Kercher deaths - an unnatural and unhealthy obsession with dead young women who become the personification of perfectedness. On Twitter, one of the most notorious "haters" says "Goodnight" to Kercher every night! In Welsh! Sometimes he adds a heart symbol. She's been dead for nearly eight years and he never knew her! What's wrong with these people? - Leek included.
Click to expand...

Maybe therein lies your answer. You have a callous attitude towards a wholly innocent young woman just setting out on her life and you prefer to play with the truth to defend what you must know is the indefensible.
 
Kauffer said:
The "hard physical evidence" exonerates both Amanda and Raffaele. So it's not about what "we" know. Because you don't know anything. There is not one scintilla of evidence, which proves the presence of either in the apartment that night. In Kercher's room, where the murder took place, a brutal stabbing murder with prolific exsanguination, anyone present in the room would have left evidence of themselves in quantity. The actual perpetrator of the stabbing would have been soaked in blood too. You should consult a forensic scientist or CSI. But be prepared, for they will laugh at your claims of what you think you know.

But be my guest. Try to explain the crime, consistent with the known evidence that has all three perpetrators in the room and Amanda as the close quarters knifer. Where does the blood go? But don't come here and make unreferenced comments about what is known. They have no value.
Click to expand...


No blood was found on Lizzie Borden. Remember, Amanda and Raff had all night. They didn't even bother to call the police until early afternoon when the police were already there. Amanda and Raff both state in writing Ananda took an empty bag for clothes to the cottage. Where is the bag? What happened to it?

It was a freezing cold November morning. What happened to Amanda's coat?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Maybe therein lies your answer. You have a callous attitude towards a wholly innocent young woman just setting out on her life and you prefer to play with the truth to defend what you must know is the indefensible.
Click to expand...

Kercher is dead. The callousness is exhibited by you and the crew you run with - and indeed - "towards a wholly innocent young woman just setting out on her life...".

Who is playing with the truth? Not me. You're the one who comes here and posts false information about the case, who cannot back up her claims with reference to the primary sources available to you (look at what you've done with the text messages) and maintains it is possible to stab someone multiple times, to a brutal, blood soaked death and leave no physical evidence in the room in which it occurred or take anything away.

That's indefensible.
 
Vixen said:
No blood was found on Lizzie Borden.. Remember, Amanda and Raff had all night. They didn't even bother to call the police until early afternoon when the police were already there. Amanda and Raff both state in writing Ananda took an empty bag for clothes to the cottage. Where is the bag? What happened to it?

It was a freezing cold November morning. What happened to Amanda's coat?
Click to expand...

Where are the shoe prints, hand prints, finger prints in blood, as there are for Guede? Where is the DNA, as for Guede? There is nothing. It is an impossibility that there would be nothing. Why such evidence for Guede and nothing for Amanda? Explain the dynamics of the attack on Kercher that can accommodate the absence of this evidence and the absence of any transfer evidence.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom