Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kauffer]

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.

Your problem is they are innocent and free. The evidence, examined by the court process over multiple trials has reached that conclusion, and that one alone.

 

[Vixen]

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.

So it's mandatory, is it? So how come police found no fingerprints or DNA of Amanda or Raff at all, except on a cigarette butt and glass, and the five highly incriminating DNA samples of Amanda and Mez.

Science is objective. Don't tell me, the DNA evidence is all wrong and the luminol was unfair and contaminated when it came to the kids but spot on accurate for Rudy.

 

[Kauffer]

The video Bill likes to post shows an abbreviated version.

The video Bill and I posted is the same one and shows the frames you said were left out. We have proved you wrong. Watch the video!

 

[Vixen]

Your problem is they are innocent and free. The evidence, examined by the court process over multiple trials has reached that conclusion, and that one alone.

Don't lie, Kauffer. The Supreme Court did not conclude the kids were 'innocent'. On the contrary.

 

[Kauffer]

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.

If they had a shower to remove blood evidence, then they acquired the blood in Kercher's room. There is no evidence of their presence in blood in the room. Nothing. Additionally, there is not one trace of them outside the room that can be indisputably related to their presence in the room or the commission of the murder. Nothing.

 

[Vixen]

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.

Citation, please, that the lawyers' windows where permeated by someone launching a 4.4kg boulder from 12 feet below, or four metres across.

 

[Kauffer]

So it's mandatory, is it? So how come police found no fingerprints or DNA of Amanda or Raff at all, except on a cigarette butt and glass, and the five highly incriminating DNA samples of Amanda and Mez.

Science is objective. Don't tell me, the DNA evidence is all wrong and the luminol was unfair and contaminated when it came to the kids but spot on accurate for Rudy.

Yes it's mandatory. They didn't find any prints of Knox or Sollecito in Kercher's room. It was tested extensively. But the other spaces were not tested nearly as much. If they had tested everything, they would have found lots more. But, I guess finding samples of Knox in her own room or in other shared areas other than the small bathroom, they didn't think would help them convict her. Why do you think that samples of occupants are not incriminating in some rooms but necessarily incriminating in others? It's an incoherent argument.

There are no samples declared of Romanelli or Mezzetti for example. They didn't even take reference samples from them. If they had tested the larger bathroom they would have found mixed samples of the two and probably mixed samples with Kercher. In fact, if they had bothered to test the larger bathroom, they would have availed themselves of key evidence of the propensity of mixed samples in bathrooms of occupants as normal and uncontroversial. No mixed sample in this case is incriminating. No sample of Knox or Sollecito is incriminating. They only incriminating evidence comes from Guede.

The luminol was countermanded by a TMB test. Even Stefanoni admitted the luminol samples were not blood and she did not think it worth applying a further confirmatory test. The luminol evidence is no evidence at all.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

I was referring to all the big corporations who had a vested interest in the case: HarperCollins, Simon and Schuster (publishing MNC giants), all the US tv channels, Rolling Stone, Donald Trump, Richard Branson, etc., etc.

Thank you for the insider info Vixen.

I don't think anyone denies the people and entities you listed have "big money". However, what we are wondering, is what do these people have anything to do with Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito being acquitted by the Italian Supreme Court, and what do these people have to do with the long list of forensic scientists publishing results showing the physical evidence against them was bogus?

Like, for example, you mention Donald Trump was involved. Did Donald Trump wire money to the Italian Supreme Court judges? Did he cut a check to some of the top forensic scientists in the world and tell them to publish papers in support of this random girl from Seattle? Did you witness a secret handshake between him and someone Machiavelli told you was an Illuminati member? What happened exactly?

Also, as another example, you named Richard Branson. One problem that you did not address is that there is not a single professional scientist who has come out in support of the prosecution's evidence. Did Richard Branson team up with Donald Trump and give stock options to every forensic scientist on planet Earth with a note saying "you best not support Mignini if you know what's good for you." and put a horse head under their bedsheets while they were sleeping? That is a lot of forensic scientists to pay off. I wonder what kind of money we are talking about here? Do you have a number in mind?

Of course the other possibility is that you, having absolutely no knowledge of science, are simply wrong about the physical evidence, and it wasn't actually any good and didn't implicate Amanda and Raf. But we know that can't be right because Vixen is actually quite smart and not all that crazy. So Donald Trump and Richard Branson must have paid off every professional scientist in the world to not speak out against this travesty of justice, and this is why Amanda Knox is free. That's why no professional has supported your cause. Does that sound about right, Vixen?

 

[Kauffer]

No. (Where is Grinder when you need him?) The supreme court did not pass a 230 para 1 verdict.


It ruled 'insufficient evidence', legally the equivalent of the Scottish, 'not proven'.

No. They were acquitted of the murder, staging and theft, as follows:

"annuls the ruling under appeal without referral with respect to the crimes under charges A), D) and E) of the rubric because the appellants did not commit the act."
Everyone ultimately gets acquitted because of insufficient evidence, though this is not part of the ruling, contrary to your claim. In this case there was no evidence at all worthy of the name.

The court said they did not do it.

There is no "not proven" verdict in Italy.

 

[Kauffer]

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. You claimed that because there were traces of Rudy there and he said he was there, that proves he was the sole murderer. Thus, it is your moronic analogy, not mine, as by that logic, anyone present at a murder scene is guilty.

I speak four languages, but fluent moron is not one of them, so forgive me if I have difficulty in comprehending you.

That was not what Tesla was claiming. Instead he claimed, correctly, that there is only indisputable, time stamped evidence of Guede in connection with the assault and murder, which proves beyond any doubt whatsoever his culpability. He also demonstrated that there is no evidence of culpability of Knox or Sollecito or anyone else.

To go further, we would not need anything like the weight of evidence against Guede to convict Knox or Sollecito. We would need only one piece of irrefutable time stamped evidence of their presence in the room. Yet there is not even that. There is nothing.

Outside the room, Guede's bloody shoe prints make a trail down the hall and on to the exit door. Of Knox and Sollecito, there is no bloody trail.

 

[analemma]

So it's mandatory, is it? So how come police found no fingerprints or DNA of Amanda or Raff at all, except on a cigarette butt and glass, and the five highly incriminating DNA samples of Amanda and Mez.
Science is objective. Don't tell me, the DNA evidence is all wrong and the luminol was unfair and contaminated when it came to the kids but spot on accurate for Rudy.

Lies, lies, lies, and factoids again.
The DNA of Rudy Guede was indisputably found INSIDE the VAGINA of Meredith Kercher.
The hand print of Rudy Guede was outlined in the blood of Meredith Kercher above the spot where Rudy twice shoved a knife into her throat.
And this is not all the evidence identifying Rudy as the killer that was found.
And this was with the police intentionally suppressing the evidence that would have identified him as a rapist.

That sounds pretty "SPOT ON ACCURATE" to me.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

I hesitate to see any benefit or enlightenment to engaging with this increasingly hysterical, fantastical, and frankly unhinged nonsense. I've never really understood why educated rational people still choose to engage with, for example, the nutters who still claim that the NYC Twin Towers were brought down by a US Government conspiracy, or the nutters who still claim that there's an enormous dinosaur-type creature living in the depths of Loch Ness. Such people are either deluded, mentally ill, deeply lacking in self-esteem, irrationally anti-establishment (or anti-prevailing-viewpoint), seriously misguided in their assessment of their own intellects and reasoning/critical-thinking skills, or some or all of the above.

Vixen is wrong about pretty much everything in respect of Knox, Sollecito, Guede and the Kercher murder. That much is transparently obvious to anyone with decent analytical abilities, proper critical thinking skills, proper understanding of the facts of the case, and proper objectivity. And now we're reading hysterical claptrap with ludicrous (and, needless to say, entirely unsubstantiated) rants about "big money" payoffs, conspiracies with TV documentary makers, crazy and wholly-invented (but extremely telling) fantasies concerning jealous rages related to the relative "beauty" and character traits of Kercher and Knox, and long-discredited elements presented as "facts". It's all arrant nonsense.

And just as one could spend hours, days, weeks of one's time explaining patiently to a 9/11 conspiracy theorist exactly how and why the Twin Towers came to collapse, and who was directly (and indirectly) responsible, yet the nutters would simply suck it up and come back with more of the same old nonsense about "Thermite", "Big Oil", and so on and so on..... so one can spend waste hours, days, weeks of one's time arguing with the small band of over-invested, deluded individuals who still insist that Knox and Sollecito participated in Kercher's murder (and that there's "ample" evidence to prove it, and that the dissenting courts were "bought off", etc etc etc....).

It's just not worth it, and it's of no use form an educative or enlightening perspective (though I suppose there might be some argument to be made that it has some strange entertainment value). Those of us who for so long argued that the credible, reliable evidence clearly provided zero grounds to convict Knox or Sollecito for the murder, that pretty much all of the state's original "evidence" against Knox and Sollecito was actually fundamentally unreliable (and in some cases fabricated and/or wilfully misrepresented to courts), that all the credible, reliable evidence pointed extremely strongly to the conclusion that neither Knox nor Sollecito had anything whatsoever to do with the murder, and that all the credible, reliable evidence pointed to (and was wholly compatible with) Guede acting alone - those of us who for so long argued all of those things were CORRECT. It's over. There's as little point arguing with the pro-guilt crowd by now as there is arguing with a rabid 9/11 Truther.

Of course, there's a big caveat to all this. If any new real, credible, reliable evidence were ever to be found and presented which cast new light on the case, all rational observers of the case would be duty bound to consider it carefully. And if any such new evidence were to, for example, point towards the participation of Knox and/or Sollecito in the murder, any rational observer would naturally reassess his/her conclusions in that light. In exactly the same way, if a deep-water submersible vehicle in Loch Ness were to film the clear indication of a very large, moving/swimming non-mechanical object deep in the loch, any rational observer ought to re-evaluate his/her conclusions about the existence of the "Loch Ness Monster". But until/unless something like that happens, I will continue to hold the firm belief that there is no "Loch Ness Monster". Likewise, in the absence of any proper new reliable, credible evidence in respect of the Kercher murder, I will continue to hold the firm belief that neither Knox nor Sollecito had anything to do with the Kercher murder, and that beyond all doubt neither should ever have been found guilty in a criminal court of charges related to the murder.

It really, truly is time to disengage with pro-guilt commentators in respect of the murder - unless and until they might present any new, credible, reliable evidence pointing towards the participation of Knox and/or Sollecito. There's still some element of debate to be had about Knox's criminal slander conviction, though the game is pretty much up on that one too. Outside of that, I suggest that all rational pro-acquittal/pro-innocence commentators do what they might easily do with "US Govt Thermite brought down the Twin Towers" nutters - ignore the misguided and curiously-motivated rants of the pro-guilt community, while perhaps allowing yourself a wry smile at their delusion, ignorance and misplaced zeal.

 

[bagels]

Citation, please, that the lawyers' windows where permeated by someone launching a 4.4kg boulder from 12 feet below, or four metres across.

"LM: However this break in took place in this window, three/four meters high.

PB: More or less

LM: Did you find a ladder close by?

PB: No

LM: Did you find other tools?

PB: No.

PB: ... the glass of this window was broken with the aid of a piece of porphyry, a big rock that we found there at the spot....evidently the person or persons that entered with the help of this very heavy porphyry because a double glass had to be broken...

LM: Anyhow it was not easy to climb up.

PB: Absolutely not."

My favorite thing about this testimony is, without citing that it's from the law-office break-in, it could just as easily fit the description of the cottage break-in. How strange that two unusually distinct break-ins within days and blocks of each other are both directly connected to Rudy Guede. Wow. What an amazing coincidence.

 

[analemma]

Vixen is wrong about pretty much everything in respect of Knox, Sollecito, Guede and the Kercher murder. That much is transparently obvious to anyone with decent analytical abilities, proper critical thinking skills, proper understanding of the facts of the case, and proper objectivity.
It's all arrant nonsense.
It really, truly is time to disengage with pro-guilt commentators in respect of the murder - unless and until they might present any new, credible, reliable evidence pointing towards the participation of Knox and/or Sollecito. There's still some element of debate to be had about Knox's criminal slander conviction, though the game is pretty much up on that one too. Outside of that, I suggest that all rational pro-acquittal/pro-innocence commentators do what they might easily do with "US Govt Thermite brought down the Twin Towers" nutters - ignore the misguided and curiously-motivated rants of the pro-guilt community, while perhaps allowing yourself a wry smile at their delusion, ignorance and misplaced zeal.

LJ
I do not think that ignoring the PGP lies is a good idea.
The PGP still manage to contribute a considerable amount of lies and distraction into the media, such as those from the ugly troll from the Exami#er and Vixen.
I admit that the Vixen postings are easily disproved as obvious ranting nonsense and the nonsense from the ugly troll is being lost in a storm of "Knox Acquitted", "Knox Mistreated", "Knox beaten by Italian Police", "Europe Agrees that Italian Police Beat up Knox and Knox can Sue Italy" internet articles, I still think it is important refute these lies in a straightforward manner.
Although I admit that I do not respond to the ugly troll articles because I do not want to add to the "Google number of readers accessing" for the article(the ugly troll may not even allow comments any more).
Since Vixen and the ugly troll say the same things, I figure I can refute both of them on this blog.

 

[analemma]

LJ
I do not think that ignoring the PGP lies is a good idea.
Since Vixen and the ugly troll say the same things, I figure I can refute both of them on this blog.

I strongly believe that the PGP are actively manipulating the sequence of the Amanda Knox articles on the opening "non-News" internet pages by frantically clicking on the PGP favorable articles and bringing them to the first pages as a result of the "Google number of readers accessing" algorithm.
Note that there are two "Rdy Gude insists knox at murder scene" articles on the FIRST Google PAGE, which is certainly a case of manipulation.
The "Glaring Errors" articles do not appear until Page #2.
The articles "Amanda Knox has been acquitted of slander against Italian police" and "ECHR Right to Sue Italy" have been pushed to Page #3.
The PGP are winning this battle.
This may should silly, but we PIP should be doing the same as the PGP, after all, it does not take long to click a few favorable article.

 

[Bill Williams]

Vixen is wrong about pretty much everything in respect of Knox, Sollecito, Guede and the Kercher murder. That much is transparently obvious to anyone with decent analytical abilities, proper critical thinking skills, proper understanding of the facts of the case, and proper objectivity. And now we're reading hysterical claptrap with ludicrous (and, needless to say, entirely unsubstantiated) rants about "big money" payoffs, conspiracies with TV documentary makers, crazy and wholly-invented (but extremely telling) fantasies concerning jealous rages related to the relative "beauty" and character traits of Kercher and Knox, and long-discredited elements presented as "facts". It's all arrant nonsense.

< ..... sinister deletia ..... >​

It really, truly is time to disengage with pro-guilt commentators in respect of the murder - unless and until they might present any new, credible, reliable evidence pointing towards the participation of Knox and/or Sollecito. There's still some element of debate to be had about Knox's criminal slander conviction, though the game is pretty much up on that one too. Outside of that, I suggest that all rational pro-acquittal/pro-innocence commentators do what they might easily do with "US Govt Thermite brought down the Twin Towers" nutters - ignore the misguided and curiously-motivated rants of the pro-guilt community, while perhaps allowing yourself a wry smile at their delusion, ignorance and misplaced zeal.

Vixen posted two frames from the Channel 5 video, claiming intent to hoax from the FOA and PIP. The intent is to introduce new evidence. Even the most cursory look at it shows that the hoax-theory itself is a hoax in and of itself.

Vixen claims that the verdict chosen by the ISC to annul guilty verdicts, was itself the equivalent to a "not proven" decision, one that does not exist in Italy. That is also a new claim, in the sense that no one in Italy claims the same - indeed, it probably would need either the Constitutional Court or federal legislation to introduce such a verdict into their way of doing things.

One can only repeat - Boninsegna said as a "judicial fact" in his motivations report that the pair were exonerated.

Once again, the new evidence that Vixen introduces to counter all this is that Boninsegna is a lick-spittle. I'm convinced and now will undo everything I've typed about this.

LondonJohn and Kauffer - the question is, why won't you?

 

[acbytesla]

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?

Again, another lie. It is a fuzzy foot track that cannot be attributed to ANYONE. Keep up the lies Vixen. You're good at it.

 

[LondonJohn]

LJ
I do not think that ignoring the PGP lies is a good idea.
The PGP still manage to contribute a considerable amount of lies and distraction into the media, such as those from the ugly troll from the Exami#er and Vixen.
I admit that the Vixen postings are easily disproved as obvious ranting nonsense and the nonsense from the ugly troll is being lost in a storm of "Knox Acquitted", "Knox Mistreated", "Knox beaten by Italian Police", "Europe Agrees that Italian Police Beat up Knox and Knox can Sue Italy" internet articles, I still think it is important refute these lies in a straightforward manner.
Although I admit that I do not respond to the ugly troll articles because I do not want to add to the "Google number of readers accessing" for the article(the ugly troll may not even allow comments any more).
Since Vixen and the ugly troll say the same things, I figure I can refute both of them on this blog.

But consider for a moment the 9/11 analogy. All intelligent, reasonable, objective people realise full well that the Twin Towers (and the Pentagon, and the fourth aircraft that crashed in PA) were hit by aircraft that had been hijacked and seized control of by Islamist fanatics under the organisation of Al Qaeda (which in turn was very possibly sponsored and supported by certain wealthy and influential Saudi interests - but that's a whole other matter!), that all the impact damage, deaths and ultimate collapse of the Twin Towers was caused by nothing more or less than the impacts of these aircraft and subsequent high-temperature fires, and that the US authorities had (with, critically, the lack of benefit of hindsight) no reasonable way to have foreseen the attacks or done all that much more to deal with them once they started.

Yet there are still morons such as Dylan Avery and his ilk - as well as some who on paper would appear to be intelligent and intellectually-qualified - who insist otherwise: that the US Government either knew about and silently condoned the attacks, or that the US Government actually played an active role in the attacks (and the "cover up" afterwards).

My question to you (and other pro-acquittal/pro/innocence commentators) would be this: do you really care what the 9/11 Truthers continue to think and proselytise about loudly and frequently (though thankfully in increasingly dwindling frequency)? You surely must know that a) you know the correct conclusions to be drawn from the evidence, b) you know that the Truthers' "conclusions" are based on fundamentally erroneous, distorted, misrepresented or invented "evidence", c) you are right and the Truthers are wrong, d) you don't really care if any people still get persuaded by the Truthers' "arguments" - after all, you know that any such people must themselves be either incredibly ill-informed, incredibly naive and gullible, intellectually inept, ignorant, or have other pertinent issues (e.g. hatred of "big government", tendency to fantasy thinking, paranoia.....).

And with all that in mind, I invite you (and other pro-acquittal/pro-innocence commentators) to apply similar reasoning to the issue of the Knox/Sollecito trials process and the Kercher murder. Personally, I don't care what the pro-guilt crowd say - they're wrong, and they're demonstrably wrong. And anyone who's still inclined to buy into all the BS, distortions, misrepresentations and lies that they put about shouldn't be worth getting concerned about either.

 

[Vixen]

"LM: However this break in took place in this window, three/four meters high.

PB: More or less

LM: Did you find a ladder close by?

PB: No

LM: Did you find other tools?

PB: No.

PB: ... the glass of this window was broken with the aid of a piece of porphyry, a big rock that we found there at the spot....evidently the person or persons that entered with the help of this very heavy porphyry because a double glass had to be broken...

LM: Anyhow it was not easy to climb up.

PB: Absolutely not."

My favorite thing about this testimony is, without citing that it's from the law-office break-in, it could just as easily fit the description of the cottage break-in. How strange that two unusually distinct break-ins within days and blocks of each other are both directly connected to Rudy Guede. Wow. What an amazing coincidence.

Not really. To burgle a building, either a door or a window has to be accessed. Rudy was found with a lightweight aluminium glass-breaking hammer in his rucksack in Milan, so if he were to burgle, he would have used that. Professional burglars don't make unnecessary noise.

Your claim, oh, there were two burglaries where the burglar broke the window pane, is on a par with saying two lots of safe were blown open with dynamite, therefore it must have been the same gang, or two goals were scored by a football, therefore it must have been the same footballer.

Terrible logic.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

LondonJohn,
While I sympathize with your point, there are some important differences between 9/11 truthers and the "Amanda Knox is a demon" conspirators:

1) Knox and Sollecito were initially convicted by faulty analysis of DNA evidence. DNA is esoteric enough that you need to have some level of knowledge to understand why the experts are correct. A propaganda campaign, as waged by the PGP, designed to suppress expert professional opinion by any means necessary, combined with the lack of public understanding of molecular genetics (understandable obviously as the field is quite technical) could lead to people believing the physical evidence actually pointed to Knox and Sollecito. An ordinary person who watches CSI could hear "Knox's DNA was at the scene!!", not realize it was because she lived there and it wasn't even in the murder room, and think she did it. Then they gossip about it with a few of their friends and boom they think Amanda is guilty.

2) You may say "who cares if some people think she is guilty?" I kind of agree here. But there is a tipping point. The PGP are trying to systematically ruin the lives of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito via internet propaganda. Owing to the fact from 1) above (the DNA evidence not being straightforward to understand) a misinformation campaign, if all internet avenues are directed to the guilter fake wiki page and all expert opinion is suppressed by internet thuggery, can be quite effective at this.

Remember what happened initially when the PGP tried to systematically control the flow of information regarding this case on the internet? All expert molecular biology and forensic opinion was suppressed, dissenters were banned from all forums discussing the case because they took control of the moderation, and Amanda and Raffaele were in prison while nearly everyone thought they were guilty. I know I initially thought they were quite possibly guilty because the ONLY information I received was from PGP, and they were quite manipulative about what information people did/didn't see. I smelled a rat and it didn't seem quite right, but I still leaned guilt because their lies were a bit overwhelming.

The best way to combat lies and propaganda is with the truth. If we let the crazies have their way with everything again, they will just take over all sources of information in order to try to ruin Amanda's life (again). And that Raffaele guy too, when they actually care about "knife boy". JREF may seem innocuous, but you let it start to slip and all of a sudden the loonies have control of the moderators at 6 different forums, wikipedia, and every blog discussing the case again. The unfortunate thing is they seem to have an unlimited amount of free time to try to harm innocent people, and they don't seem to be willing to stop. If we constantly prove why every single thing they say is a lie, at least they look completely crazy to everyone when they continue to post.