Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Methos]

It's called logic. Raff is often quoted as saying, 'Only one person did it, and that was Rudy.'

Amanda asserts the same, although how they definitively know 'Only Rudy did it', when all the courts, pathologists and forensic experts (aside from the defence flunkeys, paid to challenge) conclude and uphold, 'There was more than one perpetrator.'

Thus, if Raff + Amanda claim 'Rudy did it alone', and the law says he did not deal the fatal stab wound, and that Amanda and Raff were at the murder scene (as decreed in perpetuity by the Supreme Court) we can only logically conclude Amanda and Raff were there in order to be able to confidently assert, 'Only Rudy was there and he did it'.

After all, they should know who was there, and they are hardly going to admit to their own presence, although Amanda did put it in large in her gift letter to the police that she was there and heard Mez scream and heard a thud.

In her prison intercept with Mom, Edda, she says, 'It's not every day you witness a murder' (paraphrase).

LOL, just for the record (stolen from IA with permission) :
The "countless" forensic experts.
This is from Barbie Nadeau's Newsweek/Daily Beast article The Italian Job

One of the most complicated aspects of Kercher's tragic death is how the murder itself played out. The prosecution believes that Knox, Sollecito, and Guede taunted Kercher in a sex game that quickly escalated to violence and ended in murder. Countless forensic experts, including those who performed the autopsies on Kercher's body, have testified that more than one person killed her based on the size and location of her injuries and the fact that she didn't fight back—no hair or skin was found under her fingernails.

Doing a little copy/paste here:
Let's see, what Judge Massei has to say on this matter:

He excluded, finally, that the biological data alone could indicate the presence and action of several people against the victim.

As for the dynamic of the homicide, with particular reference to whether the action was performed by one or more persons, Dr. Liviero ruled out the existence of scientific elements that would allow us to formulate a response to this question.

He indicated that the biological data did not allow for a determination of whether the injuries were caused by one person or by several people, claiming they were compatible with both possibilities

All this led to the conclusion that one single person could not have carried out all the harmful actions which had occurred in this case.

He also stated that the action was that of a single attacker.

He maintained that " in any case there is nothing there which could lead me to think that there was more than one attacker"

He was unable to provide an explanation for such a disproportion, which he held to be compatible with the presence of more than one person, but also with the action of a sole person who acts in a progressive manner

So it's:
4 for "can't say"
2 for "one assailant"
1 for "more than one assailant" (and that one was the "consultant for the civil party")
So it's only one oft the experts, who definitely said, that Meredith was killed by more than one person. Of course 1 count('s)less, than 2 or 4...

 

[Planigale]

It's called logic. Raff is often quoted as saying, 'Only one person did it, and that was Rudy.'

Amanda asserts the same, although how they definitively know 'Only Rudy did it', when all the courts, pathologists and forensic experts (aside from the defence flunkeys, paid to challenge) conclude and uphold, 'There was more than one perpetrator.'

Thus, if Raff + Amanda claim 'Rudy did it alone', and the law says he did not deal the fatal stab wound, and that Amanda and Raff were at the murder scene (as decreed in perpetuity by the Supreme Court) we can only logically conclude Amanda and Raff were there in order to be able to confidently assert, 'Only Rudy was there and he did it'.

After all, they should know who was there, and they are hardly going to admit to their own presence, although Amanda did put it in large in her gift letter to the police that she was there and heard Mez scream and heard a thud.

In her prison intercept with Mom, Edda, she says, 'It's not every day you witness a murder' (paraphrase).

You keep on quoting this factoid. The courts that tried Guede and found him guilty of aggravated murder, were clear. The case about whether Guede stabbed the victim was never put to them by the prosecution, (and not surprisingly nor by the defence), since the case was not put the courts could not rule on it. I have previously posted the part of the court ruling where the judge said this. That you continue to think and say this despite being corrected and shown the quotation shows that you at best have a mind closed to the truth or actively ignore the truth to propagate falsehoods.

It is not true that only the defence pathologists said the murder could have been committed by one or more persons. Indeed even Massei said that the forensic pathology evidence could not determine whether one or more persons committed the murder, the reasons for concluding more than one person must have participated was based on the personality of the victim. Because a feisty though petite woman could not be the victim of a single much bigger athletic man. (This legal ruling is on a par with the ruling in Italy that a woman wearing tight jeans cannot be raped.) That you propagate the falsehood (that you have previously been told and corrected on) shows that you are dishonest in your writing. This is not a matter of opinion or interpretation. You can go and read the pathologists opinions, who they represent, and the judges opinion. Making demonstrably false statements to support you opinion only leads to the impression that your conclusion must be false.

GIGO

 

[Planigale]

LOL, just for the record (stolen from IA with permission) :
The "countless" forensic experts.
This is from Barbie Nadeau's Newsweek/Daily Beast article The Italian JobDoing a little copy/paste here:
Let's see, what Judge Massei has to say on this matter:
So it's:
4 for "can't say"
2 for "one assailant"
1 for "more than one assailant" (and that one was the "consultant for the civil party")
So it's only one oft the experts, who definitely said, that Meredith was killed by more than one person. Of course 1 count('s)less, than 2 or 4...

Thank you for the detail. So the only person who specified more than one assailant was the paid consultant of the civil parties. Parties with a financial interest in the outcome as the only persons with resources to pay damages were Knox and in particular Sollecito. So by Vixen's own rules we must not believe this paid consultant. The prosecutions own pathologists and the judges who would not be favouring the defence said that one could not conclude if one or more persons participated.

So Vixen in future will you post that the conclusion that more than one person was involved cannot be supported because it was a paid shill?

 

[Welshman]

There was a poster here called RandyN who was outspoken over what he saw as Amanda and Raffaele being represented by ineffective defense lawyers. Do you feel this criticism was valid or do you feel Amanda and Raffaele's defense lawyers did a good job.

 

[Annella]

There was a poster here called RandyN who was outspoken over what he saw as Amanda and Raffaele being represented by ineffective defense lawyers. Do you feel this criticism was valid or do you feel Amanda and Raffaele's defense lawyers did a good job.

I miss RandyN's input. As it turns out, he was right about pretty much everything but in his lessons he sure did know how to step on certain peeps toe's. Ouch!

xx Randy.

 

[Bill Williams]

22 continuations? We're going to get to the bottom of this mystery. Something tells me if we can find out who left the 16 bloody footprints around and near the body, and the bloody palm print next to the body, we may be able to crack this case. There were signs of a sexual assault, did they manage to retrieve any DNA from the rapekit? That could also yield clues.

Let's make this one the last.....

I am sure that Amanda would not mind being forget with respect to this. . . . .

It's hard to fathom that 10 of the 22 continuations have been since the exoneration in March 2015. True, there were other threads.... but still.

Ten of the 22 continuations have been when there's been only one "guilter" poster, with occasional cameos by Machiavelli - the latter of whom will not talk about one aspect of what's happened in this case since the exoneration - the private citizen who went to court in Florence with a complaint against the Masonic-led judges who perverted the course of Italian justice.

Every other "guilter" has abandoned the field, gone behind the wall at .ORG, or gone lurker following Ergon's observations at .NUT. Aside from ECHR, it looks like I'm going to have to take the pledge - again!

 

[Desert Fox]

I think since they have been exonerated, the vast majority of my posts on ISF have been not related to Amanda Knox.

I think the poster in question would have been banned by now on other skeptic forums that I am on. Just too much making crap up.

 

[bagels]

I just find it weird that none of the PGP care about what I would care about if I thought Amanda had gotten away with murder.

Why did the police not record the interrogation? A proven record of her supposed lies.

Why did the police/prosecutor not work harder to get information out of Rudy and/or cut a deal with him? The evidence nails him to the wall, they had infinite leverage.

Why didn't they collect all the useful forensic evidence the first day?

These are all pro-guilt positions that not one of the pro guilt people take. I find it incredibly bizarre. There is a difference between AK PGP and say, Casey Anthony PGP. I think part of the brain of the AK PGP must know there is no case against her, and guards against working that out consciously.

 

[Bill Williams]

I think since they have been exonerated, the vast majority of my posts on ISF have been not related to Amanda Knox.

I think the poster in question would have been banned by now on other skeptic forums that I am on. Just too much making crap up.

I have said this repeatedly. The mods here seem not willing to protect the brand.

 

[Desert Fox]

I think since they have been exonerated, the vast majority of my posts on ISF have been not related to Amanda Knox.

I think the poster in question would have been banned by now on other skeptic forums that I am on. Just too much making crap up.

I have said this repeatedly. The mods here seem not willing to protect the brand.

On the Skeptics Guide forums, global warming deniers who just make up stuff and Holocaust who just make up stuff as well have been banned. I probably would just have to tag the posts involved and send to the moderator that the poster is not involved in honest debate.

That is one item I thought important to skeptic, honest debate.

 

[Vixen]

Thank you for the detail. So the only person who specified more than one assailant was the paid consultant of the civil parties. Parties with a financial interest in the outcome as the only persons with resources to pay damages were Knox and in particular Sollecito. So by Vixen's own rules we must not believe this paid consultant. The prosecutions own pathologists and the judges who would not be favouring the defence said that one could not conclude if one or more persons participated.

So Vixen in future will you post that the conclusion that more than one person was involved cannot be supported because it was a paid shill?

Not one expert said, 'It is impossible there was more than one perp'.

Massei came to his conclusion after hearing ALL the evidence from 360 degrees. The number of perps was just one tiny focus. The defense experts came up with some of the most ridiculous 'expert opinion', for example: 'Mez threw herself onto the one sliver of glass, and that caused the wounds found on her arms and hands'.

Or, what about: Mez had stripped down to her underpants, getting ready for bed, when Rudy entered the room and was overcome with uncontrollable lust', to explain how Mez could have been stripped without any sign of a struggle from her.

IOW the defense guys had to dream up the most ludicrous scenarios to explain the lack of any defense wounds, and to explain how a single attacker could change knives, and change hands, pick up a different knife, grip Mez' lower face and attempt strangulation with his hand, all the while, never letting go of his grip of Mez' arms, so we have testimony such as, 'Oh those aren't knife wounds, it was Mez falling onto the sliver of glass.'

It's no good having four defense 'experts' (?) claiming, 'There might not have been more than one perpetrator', when they come up with such very silly 'explanations'', out-Raffing Raff, himself, in an attempt to explain why the glass of water and pile of postcards on Mez' desk were hardly disturbed at all. The fracas started from near the door and moved anti-clockwise around the room to in front of the wardrobe, near the window, without any disturbance to Mez' effects.

So, Massei ruled, 'more than one perp' becuase no sane person would believe a scenario where a viciously enraged perp would stop to change hands, change knives, grab Mez' face and neck, tear off her bra and jeans, etc., all the time not letting go of his grip of Mez' hands behind her back, and forcing her into a kneeling position, and at the same time grabbing her hair to pull her face back to expose her neck to the deadly stab that came from front right. The stab wound from the left came from front left.

We know Raff uses his knife left-hand, from all his posed smirking knife shots.

Rudy said the man he confronted at the scene held his knife in his left hand. A fact only a witness would have known Raff did exactly this.

Not to mention Raff precluding the knife wounds on Mez' hands and arms by explaining the knife might have Mez DNA on it, 'because I accidentally pricked the back of her hand whilst cooking.' He then over-eggs the pudding by adding, 'I then immediately apologised to her'.

So, not even the excuse, 'Oh, it was a confusedly vague thought in my head which I saw in blurry images, and that's my best truth,' his mate Amanda is so fond of, to wriggle out of a sticky situation.

 

[Methos]

Not one expert said, 'It is impossible there was more than one perp'.

Right, but that wasn't the point...

Massei came to his conclusion after hearing ALL the evidence from 360 degrees.

You might want to re-read his reasosing again. His argument was (all experts be damned) that it would have been against Meredith Kercher's character to be overwhelmed by a single assailant...

The number of perps was just one tiny focus.

Nope, as I wrote, re-read Massei.. (preferably in Italian...)

The defense experts came up with some of the most ridiculous 'expert opinion', for example: 'Mez threw herself onto the one sliver of glass, and that caused the wounds found on her arms and hands'.

Source please, and from the case files, please, I'm done with "newspaper articles presented as evidence.."

Or, what about: Mez had stripped down to her underpants, getting ready for bed, when Rudy entered the room and was overcome with uncontrollable lust', to explain how Mez could have been stripped without any sign of a struggle from her.

Source please, and from the case files, please, I'm done with "newspaper articles presented as evidence.."

IOW the defense guys had to dream up the most ludicrous scenarios to explain the lack of any defense wounds, and to explain how a single attacker could change knives, and change hands, pick up a different knife, grip Mez' lower face and attempt strangulation with his hand, all the while, never letting go of his grip of Mez' arms, so we have testimony such as, 'Oh those aren't knife wounds, it was Mez falling onto the sliver of glass.'

Source please, and from the case files, please, I'm done with "newspaper articles presented as evidence.."

It's no good having four defense 'experts' (?) claiming, 'There might not have been more than one perpetrator', when they come up with such very silly 'explanations'', out-Raffing Raff, himself, in an attempt to explain why the glass of water and pile of postcards on Mez' desk were hardly disturbed at all. The fracas started from near the door and moved anti-clockwise around the room to in front of the wardrobe, near the window, without any disturbance to Mez' effects.

It looks like you haven't even read the post of mine planigale quoted...

So, Massei ruled, 'more than one perp' becuase no sane person would believe a scenario where a viciously enraged perp would stop to change hands, change knives, grab Mez' face and neck, tear off her bra and jeans, etc., all the time not letting go of his grip of Mez' hands behind her back, and forcing her into a kneeling position, and at the same time grabbing her hair to pull her face back to expose her neck to the deadly stab that came from front right. The stab wound from the left came from front left.

No, Massei explained his ruling in his report, it really looks like you have to re-read it, I've explained his line of reasoning above...

We know Raff uses his knife left-hand, from all his posed smirking knife shots.

Rudy said the man he confronted at the scene held his knife in his left hand. A fact only a witness would have known Raff did exactly this.

Not to mention Raff precluding the knife wounds on Mez' hands and arms by explaining the knife might have Mez DNA on it, 'because I accidentally pricked the back of her hand whilst cooking.' He then over-eggs the pudding by adding, 'I then immediately apologised to her'.

So, not even the excuse, 'Oh, it was a confusedly vague thought in my head which I saw in blurry images, and that's my best truth,' his mate Amanda is so fond of, to wriggle out of a sticky situation.

LOL. So holding something in your left hand makes someone a"lefty", really?
...and you trust Rudy Guede, because: ?
Sollecito's diary entry is explainable and has been discussed ad nauseam here and elsewhere...


ETA: There are two places to go for "sources":
the PGP file library on TMoMK and the the "documents" section of the PIP amandaknoxcase.com

 

[NotEvenWrong]

It's called logic.

You say "logic", but I kinda sorta think you don't know what that means. For example, saying something really wrong and/or stupid and labeling it "logic" does not make it "logic".

Raff is often quoted as saying, 'Only one person did it, and that was Rudy.'

Yeah, ok.

Amanda asserts the same, although how they definitively know 'Only Rudy did it', when all the courts, pathologists and forensic experts (aside from the defence flunkeys, paid to challenge) conclude and uphold, 'There was more than one perpetrator.'

Well, I kinda think you are asserting incorrect facts here as Methos points out. Only one out of 7 experts asserted it was more than one perpetrator. 2 said one assailant (and two is greater than one). 4 experts said there wasn't enough info to conclude either way. So... you are essentially wrong in every way possible. I can't say that I am surprised.

As for how they "know" 'only Rudy did it' -- that is the same reason the Italian Supreme Court, the top forensic scientists in the world, and all the non-crazy people "know" 'only Rudy did it'. He admits he was there, evidence of him was everywhere, and there was zero properly analyzed evidence showing anyone else was there. And since Amanda and Raf know they were at Raf's apartment, they know they couldn't have also been at the scene of the murder. QED they know it was just Rudy. Problem solved Vixerino! (that, my friend, is what you call logic)

Thus, if Raff + Amanda claim 'Rudy did it alone', and the law says he did not deal the fatal stab wound, and that Amanda and Raff were at the murder scene (as decreed in perpetuity by the Supreme Court) we can only logically conclude Amanda and Raff were there in order to be able to confidently assert, 'Only Rudy was there and he did it'.

The problem here, Vixen, is that you are committing a logical fallacy and calling it "logic". You are appealing to authority. And an incorrect authority at that. The highest legal authority (if you really want to appeal to authority) is the Italian Supreme Court and they have concluded unequivocally that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent of the murder. QED.

If you don't want to appeal to authority, and want to actually use your brain and real "logic", you can examine the evidence and come to the obvious conclusion that Rudy acted alone and Amanda and Raffaele could not have been there since there was no evidence of them being there. QED.

If you want to double-check your work on the above, you can look at the published literature on the matter. Peter Gill, the founding father of forensic genetics, would be a good place to start. He has unequivocally stated the evidence used to convict Amanda and Raffaele in the lower courts (the ones beneath the Italian Supreme Court) was faulty and fraudulent. So that confirms our above proof that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent -- we have backed our sound logic with expert opinion. QED.

After all, they should know who was there, and they are hardly going to admit to their own presence, although Amanda did put it in large in her gift letter to the police that she was there and heard Mez scream and heard a thud.

The police abused and manipulated her into giving a false statement. You know what the hallmark of a false "confession" is Vixen? Getting all the facts wrong. Like saying Patrick was there when he wasn't.

You are right that they "should know" who was there, because any reasonably intelligent person who is familiar with the evidence in this case "should know" that only Rudy was there.

In her prison intercept with Mom, Edda, she says, 'It's not every day you witness a murder' (paraphrase).

LOL at Vixen "paraphrasing". A "Vixen paraphrase" = use manipulative wording to completely distort the original intended meaning. TJMK and PMF in a nutshell. Whoever can come up with the most wrong and ridiculous interpretation of something wins.

 

[Vixen]

Right, but that wasn't the point...


You might want to re-read his reasosing again. His argument was (all experts be damned) that it would have been against Meredith Kercher's character to be overwhelmed by a single assailant...
Nope, as I wrote, re-read Massei.. (preferably in Italian...)


Source please, and from the case files, please, I'm done with "newspaper articles presented as evidence.."


Source please, and from the case files, please, I'm done with "newspaper articles presented as evidence.."


Source please, and from the case files, please, I'm done with "newspaper articles presented as evidence.."


It looks like you haven't even read the post of mine planigale quoted...


No, Massei explained his ruling in his report, it really looks like you have to re-read it, I've explained his line of reasoning above...


LOL. So holding something in your left hand makes someone a"lefty", really?
...and you trust Rudy Guede, because: ?
Sollecito's diary entry is explainable and has been discussed ad nauseam here and elsewhere...


ETA: There are two places to go for "sources":
the PGP file library on TMoMK and the the "documents" section of the PIP amandaknoxcase.com

Methos, the various pathologists' theories are all there in Massei's report in the relevant section. IIRC it was professor (?) 'Itrona' who dreamt up the 'fell on the glass shard' idea.

Sure, Rudy is a pathological liar when it comes to his own actions. However, his testimony and claims have always been consistent. If it turns out in the future that events happened roughly as he said they did, it would surprise me far less than if it turned out the other perps were not Amanda and Raff. You have to ask why they keep changing their story, how come they lost their memory, why they've dreamt up ready made 'explanations' (e.g. the ridiculous mop saga) and why they have lied so prolifically. The answer is not a happy one.

 

[Vixen]

You say "logic", but I kinda sorta think you don't know what that means. For example, saying something really wrong and/or stupid and labeling it "logic" does not make it "logic".



Yeah, ok.



Well, I kinda think you are asserting incorrect facts here as Methos points out. Only one out of 7 experts asserted it was more than one perpetrator. 2 said one assailant (and two is greater than one). 4 experts said there wasn't enough info to conclude either way. So... you are essentially wrong in every way possible. I can't say that I am surprised.

As for how they "know" 'only Rudy did it' -- that is the same reason the Italian Supreme Court, the top forensic scientists in the world, and all the non-crazy people "know" 'only Rudy did it'. He admits he was there, evidence of him was everywhere, and there was zero properly analyzed evidence showing anyone else was there. And since Amanda and Raf know they were at Raf's apartment, they know they couldn't have also been at the scene of the murder. QED they know it was just Rudy. Problem solved Vixerino! (that, my friend, is what you call logic)



The problem here, Vixen, is that you are committing a logical fallacy and calling it "logic". You are appealing to authority. And an incorrect authority at that. The highest legal authority (if you really want to appeal to authority) is the Italian Supreme Court and they have concluded unequivocally that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent of the murder. QED.

If you don't want to appeal to authority, and want to actually use your brain and real "logic", you can examine the evidence and come to the obvious conclusion that Rudy acted alone and Amanda and Raffaele could not have been there since there was no evidence of them being there. QED.

If you want to double-check your work on the above, you can look at the published literature on the matter. Peter Gill, the founding father of forensic genetics, would be a good place to start. He has unequivocally stated the evidence used to convict Amanda and Raffaele in the lower courts (the ones beneath the Italian Supreme Court) was faulty and fraudulent. So that confirms our above proof that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent -- we have backed our sound logic with expert opinion. QED.



The police abused and manipulated her into giving a false statement. You know what the hallmark of a false "confession" is Vixen? Getting all the facts wrong. Like saying Patrick was there when he wasn't.

You are right that they "should know" who was there, because any reasonably intelligent person who is familiar with the evidence in this case "should know" that only Rudy was there.



LOL at Vixen "paraphrasing". A "Vixen paraphrase" = use manipulative wording to completely distort the original intended meaning. TJMK and PMF in a nutshell. Whoever can come up with the most wrong and ridiculous interpretation of something wins.

All I can say is that it's a shame Gill didn't bother to turn up and be crss-examined at the merits trial. He felt so strongly about the couple's innocence, he immediately did...nothing.

"One of these days he's going to let fly the most enormous f**t, and that will be his undoing." ~ Peter Cook

 

[NotEvenWrong]

All I can say is that it's a shame Gill didn't bother to turn up and be crss-examined at the merits trial. He felt so strongly about the couple's innocence, he immediately did...nothing.

"One day he'll let fly the most enormous fart, and that will be his undoing." ~ Peter Cook

This is the most nonsensical thing ever written. Was he asked to testify? Was he even aware of the trial at the merits stage? Do you think every DNA expert in the world just buys tickets like a sporting event to testify at every international murder trial? Did you take an unusually large bump on the head recently?

 

[Dougm]

You have to ask why they keep changing their story, how come they lost their memory, why they've dreamt up ready made 'explanations' (e.g. the ridiculous mop saga) and why they have lied so prolifically. The answer is not a happy one.

Following that logic, what are we to make of your track record of posts here? Is the answer to why you post prolific lies and "dream up ready made explanations" out of nothing, a "happy one"?

 

[Welshman]

Methos, the various pathologists' theories are all there in Massei's report in the relevant section. IIRC it was professor (?) 'Itrona' who dreamt up the 'fell on the glass shard' idea.

Sure, Rudy is a pathological liar when it comes to his own actions. However, his testimony and claims have always been consistent. If it turns out in the future that events happened roughly as he said they did, it would surprise me far less than if it turned out the other perps were not Amanda and Raff. You have to ask why they keep changing their story, how come they lost their memory, why they've dreamt up ready made 'explanations' (e.g. the ridiculous mop saga) and why they have lied so prolifically. The answer is not a happy one.

Could Vixen explain how can she be in a position to attack Amanda and Raffaele for lying when she constanlty lies in her posts and there are numerous instances when Vixen and other PGP have lied, condoned and ignored the lies of other as detailed from my post on Amazon below :-

In view of how the haters constantly accuse Amanda and others of lying, the record of the haters in lying and defending the lies of other should be exposed.

* The prosecution told numerous lies which can be found on http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-media-lies/ and http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html. The prosecution released false information to the media about the purchase of bleach receipts, the washing machine running, Amanda showering in a bloody bathroom, a missing Harry Potter book . The prosecution lied in court. Stefanoni lied about the amount of picograms on Raffaele's knife, Comodi lied in court about the time Amanda called her mother, Stefanoni lied about changing gloves and prosecutor Crini lied saying that Raffaele's knife matched the imprint on Meredith's bed. The haters slavishly defenend corrupt prosecutors who told numerous lies.

* The haters have spread lies about Amanda and Raffaele's supporters. Below is an extract from the chapter "The Truth About the Hate Campaign Against Amanda Knox" Finding Justice in Perugia about the lies the haters have spread about Candace Dempsey :-

Ganong claims that Candace lied about her age on her Linked In account when in fact it was a typo. Candace's age was listed as 20 years younger than it actually was. Who would attempt to shave 20 years off their age? Ganong knows it was a typo but the truth is of little importance. Ganong‘s friend Andrea Vogt asked Candace about the Linked In error while they were both covering the case in Italy. There is no doubt that Vogt relayed the information about the typo back to Ganong.

Ganong often repeats her claim that Candace lied about working at the Spokesman-Review early in her career; when in fact Candace was a summer intern, working all the beats, including courts and police. The lie claim began when Monica Guzman of the Seattle PI interviewed Candace about her book deal in 2008. Guzman asked Candace where she got her training and she said, "At the Spokesman-Review." End of story. Peggy has been calling her a liar ever since. This despite the fact that the Spokesman-Review itself interviewed Candace for her book a year later and said she was a summer intern there.

* Books, documentaries and films about the case are often riddled with falsehoods. The following are examples :-

John Kercher's book Meredith. The falsehoods are detailed on http://groundreport.com/amanda-knox...arable-damage-caused-by-wrongful-convictions/ http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-media-lies/ http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=1870&sid=82fc62b3185cbd71f41e0c2cd6559958

The lifetime move the falsehoods are detailed in chapter 2 of finding justice in Perugia.

Barbara Nadeu's book Angel Face. As with John Kercher's book the falsehoods are detailed on http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-media-lies/ and the chapter Injustice in Perugia on the media.

A documentary on British Television is Amanda Knox guilty the rebuttal can be found by searching "is Amanda Knox guilty youtube rebuttal"

John Follain's book which are detailed

The haters have never complained about the falsehoods in the items listed above. In fact, John Kercher's book Meredith received glowing 5 star reviews on Amazon.

* The haters spread lies in the comments sections of articles about the case and Amazon reviews.

Heiress Amazon review WTBH - "For starters was found cleaning the place with bleach when the police arrived". Truth: Amanda was not caught cleaning when the police arrived.

Bejamin Fletcher "BRFC are back" Amazon review WTBH - "They've found Meredith's blood on a knife in his apartment". Truth: There was no blood on Meredith's knife.

Christina comments page 7 Amazon review WTBH - "whose is the female fooprint who applied female sized bruises on MK's neck in strangulation" Truth: There were no female footprints in Meredith's room or female thumbprints on Meredith's neck.

JF Rodrigue Amazon review WTBH - " She was doing cartwheels in the police station." Truth: It has been proved Amanda did not do cartwheels.

Wendy Murphy in her blog - "pro Amanda forces forget to note the knife was found hidden in a shoebox far back inside a coset at Sollecitito's apartment and that the knife had been scrubbed with bleach." Truth:The knife was found in Raffaele's kitchen drawer and the knife had not been cleaned with bleach.

* The haters have set up a fake themurderofmeredithkercher.com which is full of falsehoods. These falsehoods are detailed here . The haters have lied saying their wiki is based on court documents when in fact their website contains claims which do not appear in court documents. For instance the website claims one of Meredith's friends was so concerned aboout Amanda's behaviour she went to the police. This never happened and does not appear in court documents. The wiki lies about the contents of court documents. The wiki claims the knife tested for Meredith's biological material when in fact C&V wrote in their report the knife tested negative for the human species.

* The haters have on TJMK have lied about Amanda's father saying he used to beat Amanda and her mother. No evidence has emerged Kurt Knox beat Amanda or her mother.

* TJMK has often used the claims of people who lied about their credentials. For instance, TJMK promoted Ellie Ewing a woman who created a blog "lies my mother told me" where she represented herself as a psychologists with many years of experience when dicussing the murder of Meredith Kercher. The reaility was Ellie Ewing had no experience or qualifications as a psychologist.

* There were instances of witnesses lying in this case. Hekuran Kokomani claimed he saw Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy together on the night of the murder. Kokomani was proved to have lied because he said Amanda had gaps in her teeth and an Italian uncle. Fabio Gioffredi said he saw Amanda, Raffaele, Meredith and Rudy on the October 30th 2007 between 4.30 and 5.30 pm. Raffaele's computer shows itense activity from 5.30 pm to 6.30 pm which proved Fabio had lied. The haters have never criticsed these witnesses for lying. The shop owner initially said he did not see Amanda in his shop the morning after the murder and then changed his story a year later to say he had seen Amanda in his shop. The fact the shop owner changed his story proved he has lied at least once. The haters have defended the shop owner.

* Rudy Guede lied about having a date with Meredith and someone else attacked Meredith. The haters have never attacked Rudy for lying. In fact, many haters support and defend Rudy.

* The Chiefi report written to annull the Hellman aquittal and the Nenci motivation report were full of falsehoods. The falsehoods can be found by searching "Injustice anywhere forum Nenci stupid errors" and "Injustice Anywhere forum Chieffi report errors". The haters never complained about these the falsehoods in these reports.

The haters accuse Amanda and Raffaele of lying but lie themselves and have condoned and ignored the lies of others. The mind boggles at this hypocrisy.

 

[Methos]

Methos, the various pathologists' theories are all there in Massei's report in the relevant section. IIRC it was professor (?) 'Itrona' who dreamt up the 'fell on the glass shard' idea.

I know where to find the testimony, you might want to point me to the quote in Massei or the testimony of Prof Introna "dreaming up the 'fell on the glass shard' idea."...
"IIRC" is just another way to say "Find the quote I'm building my point on, yourself!", and it's not very polite...

Sure, Rudy is a pathological liar when it comes to his own actions. However, his testimony and claims have always been consistent.

Really? You might want to re-read "his testimony" (and the related stuff like the skype conversations and his "diary") and re-think...

If it turns out in the future that events happened roughly as he said they did, it would surprise me far less than if it turned out the other perps were not Amanda and Raff.

Sorry, but this doesn't make sense. IF Guede's ever changing SODDI story would somehow "turn out to be roughly what really happened", (How do you think this would be? Another interview or a facebook post from his new "friends"?) it would surprise me a lot more if his "other dudes who did it" were indeed Knox and Sollecito.

You have to ask why they keep changing their story, how come they lost their memory, why they've dreamt up ready made 'explanations' (e.g. the ridiculous mop saga) and why they have lied so prolifically. The answer is not a happy one.

The answer is easy, if you go with the case files instead of the Daily Mail and especially the Mirror when it comes to Sollecito, the "Daily Beast" also isn't a place to look for answers...

BTW. You still haven't answered, why I should trust Stefanoni, who lied in court and falsified documents for the court at worst, or is completely incompetent at best...

 

[Vixen]

I know where to find the testimony, you might want to point me to the quote in Massei or the testimony of Prof Introna "dreaming up the 'fell on the glass shard' idea."...
"IIRC" is just another way to say "Find the quote I'm building my point on, yourself!", and it's not very polite...


Really? You might want to re-read "his testimony" (and the related stuff like the skype conversations and his "diary") and re-think...


Sorry, but this doesn't make sense. IF Guede's ever changing SODDI story would somehow "turn out to be roughly what really happened", (How do you think this would be? Another interview or a facebook post from his new "friends"?) it would surprise me a lot more if his "other dudes who did it" were indeed Knox and Sollecito.


The answer is easy, if you go with the case files instead of the Daily Mail and especially the Mirror when it comes to Sollecito, the "Daily Beast" also isn't a place to look for answers...

BTW. You still haven't answered, why I should trust Stefanoni, who lied in court and falsified documents for the court at worst, or is completely incompetent at best...

p 136 of the translation (the pathology reports start from circa p 117)

As for the wounds on the right and left hands of the victim, Professor Introna
expressed strong doubts about the fact that these might be defence wounds. The
wounds are extremely tiny, whereas defence wounds are wounds caused by an
instinctive action by which the victim being stabbed stops the blade of the knife with
the hand and thus suffers enormous cuts. He advance the hypothesis that the victim
had received the wounds to the hands by falling onto all fours and encountering tiny
fragments of glass on the floor, and in regard to this, he noted that during the
137
inspection, the video of the Scientific Police showed a fragment of glass near a
footprint.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Massei_Report_(English)

-In the public domain.
(You might need to type 'Massei' into the search function.)

The reader might want to note Itrona was hired by Raff, who no doubt was extremely anxious to dispel any notion that these 'small pricks' to Mez's hands were caused by his knife. Thus, we are immediately fascinated by his urge to draw our attention to it.