Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

This is so tedious, Vixen. It is a strawman to claim that "FOA" or "PIP" altered a Channel 5 recreation. It is typical strawman to say the "FOA" and "PIP "know" that the clip has been altered.

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsQLKWDskhA

The demonstration of the ease of the climb starts at the 5:50 mark.

This "hoax" you claim has been around the merry-go-round about a dozen times.

Logical fallacy: the non sequitur. Answer the question, Billy Boy, is it or is it not deception?

 

[bagels]

It's the PIP and the FOA who are the biggest hoaxers. If they truly believed in the kids' innocence, why did they need to edit the rock climber video to deceive viewers into thinking the lanky skilled climber did it with 'no hands'?

There is no innocent answer to this blatant fraud. It proves they know it is a deliberate calculated falsehood that 'anyone can do it, therefore Rudy did it'.

Attached is a frame that was left out and not included in the C5 video. I wonder why it was left out? Could it be because the long tall rock climbing expert hauled himself up by the upper window bars.

As you know, those bars were not there as of the date of the murder.

How do you feel about this confidence trick, and would you agree that the producers of the video are con merchants who set out to knowingly and perversely try to trick the public, little better than the two-bit scammers who try to get you to send funds to Nigeria because one of your distant relatives died and they are holding several million pounds in trust for you, if you'd like to wire over a few £'000's, to 'release the funds'.

Let's have direct answer: is it or is it not one big con?

Vixen, the original climb Rudy did is no longer possible, as there are now bars blocking you from getting a good grip from inside the window. You can literally see later in the video when he shows how he would do it without bars, the bars block his momentum that would otherwise carry him in to grab the inside.

I think it's insane to see Rudy's clear traces all over the cottage with the rock smashed window above climbable bars downstairs, knowing that he just got done breaking into another building a few blocks away by bashing the window with a rock and climbing up bars below, and not make the obvious connection or even acknowledge the astonishing astounding coincidence you believe by default.

 

[Bill Williams]

Logical fallacy: the non sequitur. Answer the question, Billy Boy, is it or is it not deception?

You are very tedious. You actually think this kind of response improves your post. You are not only obsessed, you're sinking to grade 3 taunts. Yessiree, that helps your image here!

Of course it's not a hoax. It is a factoid-hoax you've invented because you realize that the Channel 5 demonstration sinks your case - so you have to do something. Your method is clear - if something/one shows/believes in innocence, or if a court finds for innocence, there's a conspiracy. You offered that it was the "PIP" who did the hoax, or that "FOA" did it, when it was Channel 5 who must be the hoaxers - in your conspiratorial world.

So lessee - it's Channel 5 in on your conspiracy, as are Judges Marasca, Bruno, Boninsenga, Hellmann and Zanetti. As must be Wladimiro De Nunzio who was the president of the Perugian Court of Appeal in 2010. As must be Dr. Peter Gill, the top Forenic DNA journal in the world, as well as John Douglas, the inventor of FBI's method of criminal profiling.

You live in a strange world.

 

[acbytesla]

Nonsense. Raff was just another one-night stand, that went on for five days. She wasn't even faithful to him.

Wow! You make more stuff up than Wolfgang Puck. KOO KOO!! One night stand that lasted 5 days? LOL...LMAO. Do you hear yourself when you think this nonsense up? Amanda had been in Perugia all of a month and 5 of those days she had been with Raffaele.

"She wasn't even faithful"? And you know this how? Not that she had to be as they weren't married or engaged. But again you know this how? You don't. Why use the actual available evidence when you can make it all up eh Vixen?

Why did Amanda tear out the pages of her diary relating to 31 Oct?

An absence of a page in a diary proves NOTHING. Filling in the blanks with wild speculation is Intellectually dishonest wouldn't you say? I would

The 'bag lady' personna is no doubt a cynical attempt to wring out extra compo for all her suffering. She has never shown one iota of regret or remorse, nor ever shed one little bitty tear for her 'friend'.

More amateur psychology and wild speculation, eh Vixen? Bag lady? Yet according to Liz Houle, Amanda is a 15 million dollar woman. Also there were reports of Amanda sobbing after Meredith's death so I guess you made that up as well. Why let the truth get in the way of smearing someone, right?

You do know Vixen that judges and juries are supposed to consider actual evidence not draw conclusions based on conjecture and wild speculation?

That's the difference between us Vixen. I don't draw conclusions from ignorance. What I don't know is what I don't know. There is no evidence of a God, so I am an athiest. There is no evidence of Amanda or Raffaele's involvement in Mez's murder so I don't believe in their involvement. You on the other hand have not only condemned Amanda of murder based on the flimsiest of cases, you have concocted out of thin air a bizarre description of Amanda as a whore, a drug fiend, wildly envious, psychotic, etc. etc. etc.

Seriously, what is wrong with concluding you don't know and have no way of knowing?

 

[Kauffer]

Rudy was certainly there and was certainly an accessory to murder. It is a basic logical fallacy to move from that to, 'this means Raff and Amanda were not there'.

A ladies size 37 footprint in Mez' blood was left by the body, both Rudy and Amanda's DNA were on the bra fabric, according to defense 'expert' Vinci, Raff's solid DNA imprint was on the bra clasp, three long strands of fair - non-brunette - hair were found, one across the top of Mez' bag, one gripped in her hand in rigor mortis and another in a private place. A shard of glass from Filomena's window was nearby the body. As it is a fact the burglary happened after the murder, it was certainly left by someone who entered Filomena's room to stage the burglary scene. The same person whose DNA was mixed with Mez blood, in a trail leading into the room: Amanda Knox.

There is no evidence of Knox in Kercher's room. Everything you state in relation to this is pure fabrication - no 37 shoe print and no hair belonging to Knox. Nor was Knox's DNA found on the bra.

The fabrications you perpetuate, if true, necessarily require contact with Kercher, in the form of a struggle resulting in Knox stabbing Kercher to death, thus soaking herself in blood. Yet there is no evidence of this at all. There is no DNA in the room - at all. But Guede's is there in abundance. How?

With regard to the glass shard in Kercher's room, firstly, there is no evidence that the break in occurred after the murder, but, let's test for a moment an assumption that this is true and that Knox did it, as a thought experiment. What would have to have happened?

Firstly, Knox, soaked in blood, must exit Kercher's room and walk down the hall and into Romanelli's room, leaving, minimally, shoe prints in blood in Kercher's room, in the hallway and in Romanelli's room. Next, Knox must fake the break in from inside Romanelli's room, breaking the glass to make it look as if it were broken from the outside and turning the room over, leaving multiple bloody traces in Romanelli's room, on clothes and on the floor. Then she must have exited Romanelli's room, walked down the hallway and re-entered Kercher's room, leaving a further trail of bloody shoe prints in all areas she traverses until she picks up yet more blood on her shoes in Kercher's room, leaving yet more prints, where the glass shard finally falls out of her shoe.

Yet, there is no evidence - evidence that must be there for the hypothesis to be true.

We are looking for just one piece of indisputable evidence of Knox's presence in the cottage that night. Just one piece that can be time stamped, that could not be there or could not be explained in any other way, if she were innocent. Yet, as we can see, the scenario you describe requires multiple sites where clear and unequivocal evidence literally stamped in blood must exist. She did much more than Guede according to you, yet only Guede leaves irrefutable evidence of his presence. For Knox, there is nothing of the kind. There should be; there must be, if she was there.

So, if you must persist in your delusional fantasy, you should try to reconstruct the crime in the form of a narrative that has Knox struggling with Kercher, stabbing her to death, leaving to fake the burglary and returning to the murder room where she deposits the shard, which accounts for the absence of evidence time stamped irrefutably in blood. You cannot do it, because such a thing is impossible.

 

[Kauffer]

It's the PIP and the FOA who are the biggest hoaxers. If they truly believed in the kids' innocence, why did they need to edit the rock climber video to deceive viewers into thinking the lanky skilled climber did it with 'no hands'?

There is no innocent answer to this blatant fraud. It proves they know it is a deliberate calculated falsehood that 'anyone can do it, therefore Rudy did it'.

Attached is a frame that was left out and not included in the C5 video. I wonder why it was left out? Could it be because the long tall rock climbing expert hauled himself up by the upper window bars.

As you know, those bars were not there as of the date of the murder.

How do you feel about this confidence trick, and would you agree that the producers of the video are con merchants who set out to knowingly and perversely try to trick the public, little better than the two-bit scammers who try to get you to send funds to Nigeria because one of your distant relatives died and they are holding several million pounds in trust for you, if you'd like to wire over a few £'000's, to 'release the funds'.

Let's have direct answer: is it or is it not one big con?

Nothing was left out of the C5 video. The frames you posted are part of the video!

The climber merely used the bars for convenience. He was challenged by the hosts of the TV show as to whether it would have been a problem 'irrespective' of the bars and even if the shutters had been closed. He immediately demonstrates that it is not a problem. He opens the shutters and shows how the broken glass can be cleaned from the window frame and how a burglar could enter the room through the window, without any assistance from the bars whatsoever.

The climber is also asked if only a professional climber could accomplish the break in. He says emphatically that this is not true. Guede would have made the climb easily in seconds.

Here's the video - watch for yourself from 5:50.

http://youtu.be/UsQLKWDskhA

Before this, the ballistics expert demonstrates how the rock must have been thrown from the outside based on the distribution of glass in the room.

You've really got this so badly wrong, it's laughable.

 

[acbytesla]

Rudy was certainly there and was certainly an accessory to murder. It is a basic logical fallacy to move from that to, 'this means Raff and Amanda were not there'.

A ladies size 37 footprint in Mez' blood was left by the body,

Nope. Not there, that was another of Rudy's shoe prints.

both Rudy and Amanda's DNA were on the bra fabric, according to defense 'expert' Vinci,

Another outright lie.

Raff's solid DNA imprint was on the bra clasp,

Again no. this of course was the contaminated test that had 4 different male's DNA on it.

three long strands of fair - non-brunette - hair were found, one across the top of Mez' bag, one gripped in her hand in rigor mortis and another in a private place.

Where are they? We're they tested for DNA and who did they attribute it to? Guess, they didn't exist or offered no probative value.

A shard of glass from Filomena's window was nearby the body. As it is a fact the burglary happened after the murder, it was certainly left by someone who entered Filomena's room to stage the burglary scene. The same person whose DNA was mixed with Mez blood, in a trail leading into the room: Amanda Knox.

And how do you draw the conclusion of when the shard of glass was deposited? Did the shard come with an electronic time stamp like the CCTV? Seriously,

THAT is as pure an example of confirmation bias as you could possibly provide.

 

[Kauffer]

Schoolboy drivel. There were several hundred people present at JFK's assassination. According to acbytesla's Law, 'they all did it', therefore.

No, actually, see, Oswald was 265 feet away from Kennedy when Kennedy was shot. According to you, Knox was up close and personal, stabbing Kercher to death after a struggle.

So, Tesla's evidence list is absolutely relevant. Plenty of evidence of Guede and no evidence of Knox. Even you should be able to work it all out from that.

You cannot stab someone to death and not leave evidence of yourself behind, just as Guede did! Duh!

 

[acbytesla]

No, actually, see, Oswald was 265 feet away from Kennedy when Kennedy was shot. According to you, Knox was up close and personal, stabbing Kercher to death after a struggle.

So, Tesla's evidence list is absolutely relevant. Plenty of evidence of Guede and no evidence of Knox. Even you should be able to work it all out from that.

You cannot stab someone to death and not leave evidence of yourself behind, just as Guede did! Duh!

You would think that even Vixen would understand how moronic her analogy is. Maybe not.

 

[Planigale]

Rudy was certainly there and was certainly an accessory to murder. It is a basic logical fallacy to move from that to, 'this means Raff and Amanda were not there'.

A ladies size 37 footprint in Mez' blood was left by the body, both Rudy and Amanda's DNA were on the bra fabric, according to defense 'expert' Vinci, Raff's solid DNA imprint was on the bra clasp, three long strands of fair - non-brunette - hair were found, one across the top of Mez' bag, one gripped in her hand in rigor mortis and another in a private place. A shard of glass from Filomena's window was nearby the body. As it is a fact the burglary happened after the murder, it was certainly left by someone who entered Filomena's room to stage the burglary scene. The same person whose DNA was mixed with Mez blood, in a trail leading into the room: Amanda Knox.

There is no argument or quote that will alter Vixen's conviction. There are two eye witnesses that Knox was not present (i.e. could not have participated) yet Vixen will persist minor holes in the defence argument are magnified and great gaps in the prosecution case are denied.

Yet for the prosecution to have brought a case against Sollecito / Knox was not irrational. Back at the beginning we have the police told by the forensic service that
1) there was a bloody shoe print that matched Sollecito's shoe.
2) that the bloody footprint on the mat matched Sollecito
3) that a knife found at Sollecito's had the victim's DNA on the blade
4) that Sollecito's DNA was on the victim's bra hook.
5) Sollecito listened to Marilyn Manson (a sure sign of being a murderer), read Manga (hugely more dangerous than e.g. Stephen King novels), collected knives (well he had a couple), and had watched a pornographic movie (which male hasn't? The human centipede was actually on late night TV definite horror porn).

Yet this fell apart; why?

The forensic scientists are police officers. They are not civilians working in the police service. There is inevitably an unconscious desire to support your colleagues. It became evident point 1) was wrong, they counted the rings incorrectly and the print did definitively NOT match Sollecito's shoe, also Sollecito's shoe had no blood on it (I suspect that at some point someone asked how come there was no blood on the shoes if they left bloody prints - someone answered they could have been bleached - although direct inspection of the shoes shows the sole is dirty not bleached). The same people who cannot correctly count the rings on the shoes claimed that there was a size 37 print (although there were no shoes of Knox to match - and none with blood on them). Subsequently the team that correctly counted rings also showed the alleged size 37 print was a construct from overlaid prints of the single shoe print present. All the courts have accepted the interpretation as correct.

Why did the Forensic science service get it so wrong? My suspicion is that the construct evidence against the suspect. If the police have got the guilty person, the guilty person will tend to believe they left evidence behind. Massaging the evidence to make it better, is believable. It may result in the suspect opting for a fast track trial, they can still claim to be innocent but get the benefits of entering a guilty plea in terms of a reduction of sentence. The thing about a fast track trial is that the defence cannot challenge the evidence. This worked with Guede. However since Sollecito knew he was never there he knew the shoe prints could not be his and he was proved right. The same argument applies to point 2) the match to Sollecito is as scientifically rigorous as the match of his shoe print.

Point 3) low level of DNA from Sollecito and others was found on the bra clasp. There are a variety of mechanisms that trace DNA may be transferred it does not prove direct touch. If it does then it has to for all. NO Knox DNA was found one the bra hook.

Point 4) There are significant procedural defects in the handling of the knife. Breach in chain of evidence failure to document processes, failure to have negative controls. Lack of replication. No blood, and lack of fit to most wounds.

Vixen will not accept it but there is a clear pattern of construction evidence.

 

[Vixen]

You are very tedious. You actually think this kind of response improves your post. You are not only obsessed, you're sinking to grade 3 taunts. Yessiree, that helps your image here!

Of course it's not a hoax. It is a factoid-hoax you've invented because you realize that the Channel 5 demonstration sinks your case - so you have to do something. Your method is clear - if something/one shows/believes in innocence, or if a court finds for innocence, there's a conspiracy. You offered that it was the "PIP" who did the hoax, or that "FOA" did it, when it was Channel 5 who must be the hoaxers - in your conspiratorial world.

So lessee - it's Channel 5 in on your conspiracy, as are Judges Marasca, Bruno, Boninsenga, Hellmann and Zanetti. As must be Wladimiro De Nunzio who was the president of the Perugian Court of Appeal in 2010. As must be Dr. Peter Gill, the top Forenic DNA journal in the world, as well as John Douglas, the inventor of FBI's method of criminal profiling.

You live in a strange world.

Nicely side-stepped. Again. Answer the question: is it or is it not deception?

Do the Harlem Shuffle.

 

[Kauffer]

Nicely side-stepped. Again. Answer the question: is it or is it not deception?

Do the Harlem Shuffle.

What is wrong with you? You've had the video shown to you, which you claim shows certain frames you posted as having been left out. They weren't. There is no deception.

Additionally, the climber demonstrated that the bars put on Romanelli's window were not a factor in permitting his ability to make the climb.

So, no deception, whatsoever.

Do keep up. If you can't be bothered to review the evidence you are given before continuing to make stupid claims, then you will be able to understand nothing.

Here's the video again. Watch it from 5:50 and you will see your stuff is nonsense.


http://youtu.be/UsQLKWDskhA

 

[Vixen]

There is no evidence of Knox in Kercher's room. Everything you state in relation to this is pure fabrication - no 37 shoe print and no hair belonging to Knox. Nor was Knox's DNA found on the bra.

The fabrications you perpetuate, if true, necessarily require contact with Kercher, in the form of a struggle resulting in Knox stabbing Kercher to death, thus soaking herself in blood. Yet there is no evidence of this at all. There is no DNA in the room - at all. But Guede's is there in abundance. How?

With regard to the glass shard in Kercher's room, firstly, there is no evidence that the break in occurred after the murder, but, let's test for a moment an assumption that this is true and that Knox did it, as a thought experiment. What would have to have happened?

Firstly, Knox, soaked in blood, must exit Kercher's room and walk down the hall and into Romanelli's room, leaving, minimally, shoe prints in blood in Kercher's room, in the hallway and in Romanelli's room. Next, Knox must fake the break in from inside Romanelli's room, breaking the glass to make it look as if it were broken from the outside and turning the room over, leaving multiple bloody traces in Romanelli's room, on clothes and on the floor. Then she must have exited Romanelli's room, walked down the hallway and re-entered Kercher's room, leaving a further trail of bloody shoe prints in all areas she traverses until she picks up yet more blood on her shoes in Kercher's room, leaving yet more prints, where the glass shard finally falls out of her shoe.

Yet, there is no evidence - evidence that must be there for the hypothesis to be true.

We are looking for just one piece of indisputable evidence of Knox's presence in the cottage that night. Just one piece that can be time stamped, that could not be there or could not be explained in any other way, if she were innocent. Yet, as we can see, the scenario you describe requires multiple sites where clear and unequivocal evidence literally stamped in blood must exist. She did much more than Guede according to you, yet only Guede leaves irrefutable evidence of his presence. For Knox, there is nothing of the kind. There should be; there must be, if she was there.

So, if you must persist in your delusional fantasy, you should try to reconstruct the crime in the form of a narrative that has Knox struggling with Kercher, stabbing her to death, leaving to fake the burglary and returning to the murder room where she deposits the shard, which accounts for the absence of evidence time stamped irrefutably in blood. You cannot do it, because such a thing is impossible.

Riight. Massei, Chiefi and Nencini are delusional whilst Kauffer sitting in front of his PC pounding away at his keyboard is the true oracle.

 

[Vixen]

Wow! You make more stuff up than Wolfgang Puck. KOO KOO!! One night stand that lasted 5 days? LOL...LMAO. Do you hear yourself when you think this nonsense up? Amanda had been in Perugia all of a month and 5 of those days she had been with Raffaele.

"She wasn't even faithful"? And you know this how? Not that she had to be as they weren't married or engaged. But again you know this how? You don't. Why use the actual available evidence when you can make it all up eh Vixen?


An absence of a page in a diary proves NOTHING. Filling in the blanks with wild speculation is Intellectually dishonest wouldn't you say? I would



More amateur psychology and wild speculation, eh Vixen? Bag lady? Yet according to Liz Houle, Amanda is a 15 million dollar woman. Also there were reports of Amanda sobbing after Meredith's death so I guess you made that up as well. Why let the truth get in the way of smearing someone, right?

You do know Vixen that judges and juries are supposed to consider actual evidence not draw conclusions based on conjecture and wild speculation?

That's the difference between us Vixen. I don't draw conclusions from ignorance. What I don't know is what I don't know. There is no evidence of a God, so I am an athiest. There is no evidence of Amanda or Raffaele's involvement in Mez's murder so I don't believe in their involvement. You on the other hand have not only condemned Amanda of murder based on the flimsiest of cases, you have concocted out of thin air a bizarre description of Amanda as a whore, a drug fiend, wildly envious, psychotic, etc. etc. etc.

Seriously, what is wrong with concluding you don't know and have no way of knowing?

You don't? Yet you have Rudy as some kinda spiderman climber who prefers to scale sheer 12 foot walls like a latter-day James Bond instead of ringing the doorbell, who is overcome with uncontrollable lust whilst in the middle of his professional burglary, despite no convictions, who manages to implicate the poor innocent kids who obviously had nothing to do with it, but those racist Italian pigs were intent on framing the Ugly American and middle-class, er, Italian, er, um...

We have a satirical character in the UK in the satirical PRIVATE EYE called Dave Spart, and you remind me of him.

 

[Vixen]

No, actually, see, Oswald was 265 feet away from Kennedy when Kennedy was shot. According to you, Knox was up close and personal, stabbing Kercher to death after a struggle.

So, Tesla's evidence list is absolutely relevant. Plenty of evidence of Guede and no evidence of Knox. Even you should be able to work it all out from that.

You cannot stab someone to death and not leave evidence of yourself behind, just as Guede did! Duh!

As you keep saying, all the evidence the kids did leave behind 'Is because she lives there'.

Now, the killer, who pulled out the knife, after the slaying, would have been drenched in blood, as little was found on the nearby upholstery.

Whose great big footprint in a massive splodge of blood do we see on the bathmat? Raff's.

What does that tell you?

 

[Kauffer]

Riight. Massei, Chiefi and Nencini are delusional whilst Kauffer sitting in front of his PC pounding away at his keyboard is the true oracle.

They were truly delusional. But none of them claims what you claim.

So, disprove me. Do what I suggested. Give a narrative for the crime that has Knox struggling with and stabbing Kercher, staging the burglary, returning to Kercher's room and not leaving an irrefutable piece of time stamped evidence in blood of her presence in the cottage at the time of the murder.

You can't do it, but you maintain that Knox is a murderer.

 

[Vixen]

There is no argument or quote that will alter Vixen's conviction. There are two eye witnesses that Knox was not present (i.e. could not have participated) yet Vixen will persist minor holes in the defence argument are magnified and great gaps in the prosecution case are denied.

Yet for the prosecution to have brought a case against Sollecito / Knox was not irrational. Back at the beginning we have the police told by the forensic service that
1) there was a bloody shoe print that matched Sollecito's shoe.
2) that the bloody footprint on the mat matched Sollecito
3) that a knife found at Sollecito's had the victim's DNA on the blade
4) that Sollecito's DNA was on the victim's bra hook.
5) Sollecito listened to Marilyn Manson (a sure sign of being a murderer), read Manga (hugely more dangerous than e.g. Stephen King novels), collected knives (well he had a couple), and had watched a pornographic movie (which male hasn't? The human centipede was actually on late night TV definite horror porn).

Yet this fell apart; why?

The forensic scientists are police officers. They are not civilians working in the police service. There is inevitably an unconscious desire to support your colleagues. It became evident point 1) was wrong, they counted the rings incorrectly and the print did definitively NOT match Sollecito's shoe, also Sollecito's shoe had no blood on it (I suspect that at some point someone asked how come there was no blood on the shoes if they left bloody prints - someone answered they could have been bleached - although direct inspection of the shoes shows the sole is dirty not bleached). The same people who cannot correctly count the rings on the shoes claimed that there was a size 37 print (although there were no shoes of Knox to match - and none with blood on them). Subsequently the team that correctly counted rings also showed the alleged size 37 print was a construct from overlaid prints of the single shoe print present. All the courts have accepted the interpretation as correct.

Why did the Forensic science service get it so wrong? My suspicion is that the construct evidence against the suspect. If the police have got the guilty person, the guilty person will tend to believe they left evidence behind. Massaging the evidence to make it better, is believable. It may result in the suspect opting for a fast track trial, they can still claim to be innocent but get the benefits of entering a guilty plea in terms of a reduction of sentence. The thing about a fast track trial is that the defence cannot challenge the evidence. This worked with Guede. However since Sollecito knew he was never there he knew the shoe prints could not be his and he was proved right. The same argument applies to point 2) the match to Sollecito is as scientifically rigorous as the match of his shoe print.

Point 3) low level of DNA from Sollecito and others was found on the bra clasp. There are a variety of mechanisms that trace DNA may be transferred it does not prove direct touch. If it does then it has to for all. NO Knox DNA was found one the bra hook.

Point 4) There are significant procedural defects in the handling of the knife. Breach in chain of evidence failure to document processes, failure to have negative controls. Lack of replication. No blood, and lack of fit to most wounds.

Vixen will not accept it but there is a clear pattern of construction evidence.

Reminds me of the old Stalinist revisionist historians in the former USSR who rewrote everything to suit themselves. Thus, all the major inventions were, they taught their kids, invented by Russians. Mendel's Law became Ivan Ivanovic's Law.

It all seemed very plausible.

Your problem is, all of the evidence was examined in minute detail by the merits courts - including the defence's - and each of the merits courts, bending over backwards for the kids - had no choice but to rule 'guilty' as charge, based on the evidence.

 

[Vixen]

They were truly delusional. But none of them claims what you claim.

So, disprove me. Do what I suggested. Give a narrative for the crime that has Knox struggling with and stabbing Kercher, staging the burglary, returning to Kercher's room and not leaving an irrefutable piece of time stamped evidence in blood of her presence in the cottage at the time of the murder.

You can't do it, but you maintain that Knox is a murderer.

Oh come off it. Raff's footprint on the bathmat, and the feint, smaller, female footprint nearby, tells you clearly, the pair had a shower. Amanda describes her three howers in 36 hours in minute detail, except she lies about its time and location, wherein Raff scrubbed her ears with a cotton bud, no doubt getting rid of every last speck of blood. Obviously, they washed before setting up the mise en scene. We know this as the other half of the footprint has been cleaned off the bathroom floor.

 

[Kauffer]

As you keep saying, all the evidence the kids did leave behind 'Is because she lives there'.

Now, the killer, who pulled out the knife, after the slaying, would have been drenched in blood, as little was found on the nearby upholstery.

Whose great big footprint in a massive splodge of blood do we see on the bathmat? Raff's.

What does that tell you?

The 'kids' left no evidence behind of any involvement in the murder. Traces of people in their own living spaces are not unusual. They are mandatory. What you need as evidence is time stampable - something that is entirely and irrefutably inconsistent with innocence.

The only person for whom this applies is Guede.

If it could be proven that Sollecito's print in Kercher's blood was on the bathmat, he would be in prison right now.

Where are his bloody shoe or foot prints in Kercher's room? If his blood was on his foot so as to make a print on the mat then evidence of his presence in Kercher's room in blood would also have been found. Whoever left the print on the mat was in the room. The only person with time stamped evidence of his presence there was Guede.

 

[Vixen]

What is wrong with you? You've had the video shown to you, which you claim shows certain frames you posted as having been left out. They weren't. There is no deception.

Additionally, the climber demonstrated that the bars put on Romanelli's window were not a factor in permitting his ability to make the climb.

So, no deception, whatsoever.

Do keep up. If you can't be bothered to review the evidence you are given before continuing to make stupid claims, then you will be able to understand nothing.

Here's the video again. Watch it from 5:50 and you will see your stuff is nonsense.


http://youtu.be/UsQLKWDskhA

The video Bill likes to post shows an abbreviated version.