Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

........ and the guilters PR campaign continues.

Explain to me how Leslie Van Houten, Charles Manson murderer, has been turned down for parole twenty times, and more recently a few days ago, with the governor saying:

“Both her role in these extraordinarily brutal crimes and her willing participation in such horrific violence cannot be overlooked and lead me to believe she remains an unacceptable risk to society if released,” the governor wrote..
How does this differ from the Kercher crime?

Van Houten will never be released, as she is perceived as a psychopath who callously took the life of Sharon Tate, and others, yet Mez' murderers are walking free, claiming to be 'celebrities'?

Why is Amanda's book, Waiting to be Heard so full of lies, and blatant ones at that, diverging from court records drastically in many places?

It's as though she is proud of the crime on the one hand and wants everybody to know, whilst trying to evade justice on the other, with the most self-serving statements.

 

[LondonJohn]

Perhaps you and Analemma should post a photo of yourselves before calling Liz Houle 'an ugly troll'.

If anyone is interested, the new book, which deals with chapter 1 - 6 of Waiting to be Heard is available for download on amazon, now:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Manipulative-Memoir-Amanda-Knox-Critical-ebook/dp/B01J2T0R20/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1469576251&sr=8-3&keywords=liz+houle

It is an excellent critical analysis of Amanda's claims in her book, which barely match reality.

It's unadulterated crap.

And I didn't refer to her in those terms, in case you didn't notice. Notwithstanding that, ugliness can be a character trait as well as a physical one. I don't care what Houle looks like, but she certainly has an ugly, malign character.

 

[Vixen]

Uhhh....... wow. Quite some outburst.

You are aware that there was/is not one single piece of credible, reliable evidence showing that Knox or Sollecito participated in the Kercher murder, aren't you? And that the Massei court's verdict was eviscerated by the Supreme Court?

Sometimes you give the impression that you simply aren't aware of those facts. Which is odd.

It's odd you persistently overlook Bruno-Marasca's findings that Amanda was at the cottage during the murder, covered up for Rudy (yes, she covered up for Rudy, whom you wish was the sole killer), washed Mez' blood from her hands, Raff was almost certainly with her and the pair between them, 'lied on umpteen occasions'.

It is odd you never mention this, given it is spelt out large in the MR conclusions (Section 9, which Bill tries to camouflage as 'synoptic' and 'osmotic').

Or maybe it's not so odd, given your agenda.

 

[LondonJohn]

Explain to me how Leslie Van Houten, Charles Manson murderer, has been turned down for parole twenty times, and more recently a few days ago, with the governor saying:

“Both her role in these extraordinarily brutal crimes and her willing participation in such horrific violence cannot be overlooked and lead me to believe she remains an unacceptable risk to society if released,” the governor wrote..
How does this differ from the Kercher crime?

Van Houten will never be released, as she is perceived as a psychopath who callously took the life of Sharon Tate, and others, yet Mez' murderers are walking free, claiming to be 'celebrities'?

Why is Amanda's book, Waiting to be Heard so full of lies, and blatant ones at that, diverging from court records drastically in many places?

It's as though she is proud of the crime on the one hand and wants everybody to know, whilst trying to evade justice on the other, with the most self-serving statements.

BECAUSE KNOX (AND SOLLECITO) WAS CORRECTLY ACQUITTED OF THE KERCHER MURDER, AND THERE WAS ZERO CREDIBLE, RELIABLE EVIDENCE OF HER (THEIR) PARTICIPATION IN THE MURDER, AND THE EVIDENCE ACTUALLY STRONGLY SUGGESTS THAT GUEDE COMMITTED THE CRIME ALONE.

Whereas Van Houten was correctly convicted (on the basis of proof beyond a reasonable doubt) of participation in the LaBianca murders, and there's no doubt in law or ethics that she truly did participate.

Can you seriously not see the difference? Or are you deliberately feigning ignorance? It's fascinating to behold.

 

[Annella]

If Annella was hoping to libel me, then it's pretty pathetic as (a) I don't have a pet to lose*, (b) I have not recently broken up with a long-term (or even short-term) partner, (c) no lost children and, as to (d) 'failed', well, this is subjective, but last time I looked, the no 1 best seller that came out in 2011 is still below #150 on amazon.

How sad that one of the PIP's from New Zealand had to hack into my linkedin account - gleefully seized by LondonJohn hoping to find 'dirt' - all because of some grudge against Italian police, completely unconnected to the Kercher case.

Who mentioned pets? And I can assure you I have no idea on how to hack into anything, a good steak excluded.

 

[Vixen]

It's unadulterated crap.

And I didn't refer to her in those terms, in case you didn't notice. Notwithstanding that, ugliness can be a character trait as well as a physical one. I don't care what Houle looks like, but she certainly has an ugly, malign character.

Not like you and Analemma, eh?

 

[LondonJohn]

It's odd you persistently overlook Bruno-Marasca's findings that Amanda was at the cottage during the murder, covered up for Rudy (yes, she covered up for Rudy, whom you wish was the sole killer), washed Mez' blood from her hands, Raff was almost certainly with her and the pair between them, 'lied on umpteen occasions'.

It is odd you never mention this, given it is spelt out large in the MR conclusions (Section 9, which Bill tries to camouflage as 'synoptic' and 'osmotic').

Or maybe it's not so odd, given your agenda.

Nope. It's you who doesn't understand the Marasca report's reasoning on this matter. I don't really care whether that's through ignorance, low intellect or an overwhelming bias (or a combination of some or all of those), but it's probably worth your while learning and understanding what that legal ruling (and its accompanying narrative) actually means, if you intend to start discussing it. Just a hint.

 

[Vixen]

Who mentioned pets? And I can assure you I have no idea on know how to hack into anything, a good steak excluded.

You're from New Zealand...?

 

[LondonJohn]

Who mentioned pets? And I can assure you I have no idea on know how to hack into anything, a good steak excluded.

That was majorly weird, wasn't it....?

 

[Vixen]

Nope. It's you who doesn't understand the Marasca report's reasoning on this matter. I don't really care whether that's through ignorance, low intellect or an overwhelming bias (or a combination of some or all of those), but it's probably worth your while learning and understanding what that legal ruling (and its accompanying narrative) actually means, if you intend to start discussing it. Just a hint.

LOL As the kettle said to the pot.

 

[LondonJohn]

LOL As the kettle said to the pot.

Brilliant, erudite comeback! Well done!!!!!!

 

[Welshman]

Explain to me how Leslie Van Houten, Charles Manson murderer, has been turned down for parole twenty times, and more recently a few days ago, with the governor saying:

“Both her role in these extraordinarily brutal crimes and her willing participation in such horrific violence cannot be overlooked and lead me to believe she remains an unacceptable risk to society if released,” the governor wrote..
How does this differ from the Kercher crime?

Van Houten will never be released, as she is perceived as a psychopath who callously took the life of Sharon Tate, and others, yet Mez' murderers are walking free, claiming to be 'celebrities'?

Why is Amanda's book, Waiting to be Heard so full of lies, and blatant ones at that, diverging from court records drastically in many places?


It's as though she is proud of the crime on the one hand and wants everybody to know, whilst trying to evade justice on the other, with the most self-serving statements.

Vixen blatantly lies in her posts and has the hypocrisy to attack Amanda for lying.

 

[Bill Williams]

It's odd you persistently overlook Bruno-Marasca's findings that Amanda was at the cottage during the murder, covered up for Rudy (yes, she covered up for Rudy, whom you wish was the sole killer), washed Mez' blood from her hands, Raff was almost certainly with her and the pair between them, 'lied on umpteen occasions'.

It is odd you never mention this, given it is spelt out large in the MR conclusions (Section 9, which Bill tries to camouflage as 'synoptic' and 'osmotic').

Or maybe it's not so odd, given your agenda.

What? I tried to camouflage it as such? Have you read the report - that's what it says! It's not camouflaging anything to simply read the thing! So one more time.......

9.2 The aspects of the objectively contradictory nature [of evidence] can be, as shown below, illustrated for each defendant, in a synoptic presentation of the elements favourable to the hypothesis of guilt and of the elements against it, as they are shown, of course, by the text of the challenged ruling and of the previous ones.
9.3 During the analysis of the aforementioned elements of evidence, it is
certainly useful to remember that, taking for granted that the murder occurred on
via della Pergola, the alleged presence at the house of the defendants cannot, in
itself, be considered as proof of guilt. In the assessment of the problematic body of
evidence, as described by the judge of the second appeal, one cannot but bear in
mind the judicial concepts of merely not punishable connivance and of participation
in a crime committed by others and of the distinction between them, as established
by the indisputable teachings of the jurisprudence of legitimacy.
​

The "as shown below" is the part where the various parties' claims are assembled - and as such are shown to highlight the inherent contradictions of the Nencini court convicting - therefore the Nencini verdict was annulled. It is enlightening that you consider a plain-text reading of the report as an attempt to camouflage it..... that one was a hoot to read!!!

It reveals exactly how entrenched you are in the PR campaign for guilt - now a full 16 months post-exoneration by the B/M section of the Supreme Court of Italy - that you can call a quote from their judgement "camouflage".

Not well played, because it is so easily refuted. Of course now you're going to launch into how corrupt B/M were - Machiavelli was promising that everyone in Italy that contributed to proving AK/RS's innocence would be in jail by now. Hellmann. Zanetti. Vecchiotti. Conti. Marasca. Bruno. How's that going?

 

[Stacyhs]

Yeah, why do you think Amanda was on an adrenaline high? Psychologists designed a test to stimulate adrenaline in subjects to discover how they perceived each other. The subjects were placed on a bridge, and the persons who were led to believe they were in great danger (i.e., an adrenaline rush) later said they had stronger feelings towards the person who shared the 'danger' than neutral situation subjects.

IOW any attachment between Amanda and Raff is almost certainly due to negative reasons.

Your claim they light up in each other's company is not credible. Grinder was there, who has a fine objective eye, and he didn't see anything between them.

So now you have Amanda on an "adrenaline high"? Once again, you claim to know something you can't possibly know. You bend over and pull that factoid out of...well...we all know where you pulled it out from.
As I said, I can't help how Grinder interprets thing. I know what I saw and what others saw. But answer me this; if Raff and Amanda have no warm feelings for each other, just why would he stay with her family in Seattle, meet and hug in NYC, and why would Raff bother to Skype into the Seattle party? Because he harbors resentment toward Amanda? Let's see if your logic can figure that one out.

 

[Vixen]

So now you have Amanda on an "adrenaline high"? Once again, you claim to know something you can't possibly know. You bend over and pull that factoid out of...well...we all know where you pulled it out from.
As I said, I can't help how Grinder interprets thing. I know what I saw and what others saw. But answer me this; if Raff and Amanda have no warm feelings for each other, just why would he stay with her family in Seattle, meet and hug in NYC, and why would Raff bother to Skype into the Seattle party? Because he harbors resentment toward Amanda? Let's see if your logic can figure that one out.

It's all PR. We know Amanda was on a high because of her behaviour shortly after the body was found at the Questura. She was laughing, joking, pulling faces at Raff and sexually excited. No wonder the police, the housemates and the British girls were shocked.

We saw the same phenomena with Joanna Dehenny, female serial killer diagnosed psychopath and with the Manson girls. Like Amanda, the Manson girls thought the court was a great laugh.

 

[Annella]

It's all PR. We know Amanda was on a high because of her behaviour shortly after the body was found at the Questura. She was laughing, joking, pulling faces at Raff and sexually excited. No wonder the police, the housemates and the British girls were shocked.

We saw the same phenomena with Joanna Dehenny, female serial killer diagnosed psychopath and with the Manson girls. Like Amanda, the Manson girls thought the court was a great laugh.

WE know?? Who knew Vixen, about Amanda being 'on a high'? And once again you reveal yourself. 'Sexually excited'? Please explain. No dont. I am itching reading this skin crawling BS from you.
A question if I may. Do you actually follow any murder cases sans a sexual element? I know many of those you echo do, so...........

Get help. Post haste.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Every once in awhile, when a guilter becomes sufficiently emotionally dysregulated, the mask comes off and we get to see how they truly think. In this case, it looks like Annella's analysis of Vixen hit a little too close to home:

Poor Mez was forced onto her knees and was viciously stabbed in the neck, by, according to the Massei merits courts, Amanda Knox and five-day sex partner, Raffaele Sollecito, together with poor poor Rudy.

And the veil comes off. Poor, poor Rudy. The man everyone agrees was actually at the murder. The man all the forensic evidence points to alone. The man who was convicted by the Italian court system. The man who sexually assaulted a poor young woman and plunged a knife into her throat.

The man Vixen describes as "poor, poor Rudy". Poor defenseless Rudy. If only that witch Amanda hadn't taken control of Rudy from Raffaele's apartment with her witchcraft powers, Meredith may still be alive. Let's not go after the guy that actually killed Meredith, we've gotta get this Amanda Knox girl instead. She is pretty and makes Vixen feel like a loser, which is all that matters.

 

[Bill Williams]

WE know?? Who knew Vixen, about Amanda being 'on a high'? And once again you reveal yourself. 'Sexually excited'? Please explain. No dont. I am itching reading this skin crawling BS from you.
A question if I may. Do you actually follow any murder cases sans a sexual element? I know many of those you echo do, so...........

Get help. Post haste.

Every once in a while those posts get creepily sexualized for some reason which must exist offline.

Truly, I don't want to know why. It would be quite sad.

 

[LondonJohn]

Every once in a while those posts get creepily sexualized for some reason which must exist offline.

Truly, I don't want to know why. It would be quite sad.

I'm reasonably confident I know why it is. Regardless, it's certainly fascinating just how often pro-guilt "arguments" veer off into territories related to sex, sexualisation, sexual morality and sexual fantasy. Once again, I am pretty confident that a decent psychiatrist would reach for the terms "projection", "jealousy" and "unresolved sexual issues" to explain such behaviour.

Of course, the further irony is that so many pro-guilt "arguments" accuse those who hold a pro-acquittal/pro-innocence beliefs of harbouring improper, unhealthy feelings of sexual lust towards Knox. See the above paragraph for the most likely explanation.......

 

[Wilson85]

Massei states in his MR that both phones have been turned off at Raff's home. In the conclusion section he says it was a spontaneous, unplanned act. How is the fact that both turned off their mobile phones relevant for the case? What is the evidence here if at the moment they turned off their phone no murder was planned? Can a PGP explain?