• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
You do know there is more evidence against the pair than 'just the bra-clasp and knife', don't you?
Click to expand...



None that puts them in the victim's bedroom. It's sort of hard to murder someone from the hallway or another room, don't you think ?

 
Vixen said:
You do know there is more evidence against the pair than 'just the bra-clasp and knife', don't you?
Click to expand...

sept79 said:
None that puts them in the victim's bedroom. It's sort of hard to murder someone from the hallway or another room, don't you think ?
Click to expand...

Ah yes, "all the other evidence". For the umpteenth time, this claim of "all the other evidence" was one made by Peter Quennell as the DNA evidence was falling apart at the 2011 trial. It was a claim that virtually conceded that the DNA evidence was gone.

It's bizarre that anyone in 2016 would be falling back on that. The 2015 exoneration by The Supreme Court was based on an attempt to assemble "all the other evidence" into a narrative which made sense. At the end of Section 9 of the Supreme Court report, they said no coherent narrative of guilt could be assembled from the evidence in front of the lower court, the Nencini convicting court. The Italian Supreme Court ruled that **on the law** a conviction cannot be based on a cacophony of evidence that does not lead anywhere.

Further, as the Supreme Court said, a fact-finding judge cannot substitute his own opinion, biases or hunch for the evidence either.

That should have ended the matter. As later on it was NAMED as ended by Judge Boninsegna, who wrote that it was a judicial fact that the pair had been exonerated. (Vixen's rebuttal to that was that Boninsegna was a pipsqueak. This comment proves that there is no substantive rebuttal to the judicial fact of the pair's innocence.)

This case is an easy one to figure out. They didn't do it. There's no evidence, really, to suggest they did - other than hunches of prosecutor's and guesses of convicting judges.

It turns out that even in Italy, you can't be convicted if that's all there is, opinion and hunch.
 
Vixen said:
I have worked with a lot of these brash cockney types in the City, an easy commute from the East End and Essex. Their parents were not posh public school types with polished manners and a refined veneer. They are crude, vulgar and open. They say exactly what they think.

One came up to me at someone's leaving do in a bar and shouted in my face, 'You are right up your own arse!' (meaning he thought I was 'stuck up'). We fell out, but now we are the best of friends.

And do you know what? Whilst I was often offended and shocked by their rudeness and crassness (for example, I once asked one of these cockney traders, 'Did you have a nice weekend?' and got back an extremely filthy reply about what he did to his wife, and I never asked again), their transparent honesty was refreshing. Best working years of my life, the nighclubs and the wine bars.

The Wolf of Wall Street was exactly like it is and whole teams of City traders went to see the film in party outfits. I saw it four times, it was so accurate.

Nick Pisa was simply telling it how it was. He's only the messenger.
Click to expand...


Ahh Walter Mitty rides again!

Did you work for an investment bank, stockbroker, commodities broker or forex trader in the city? Because if you didn't (and I suspect I know the answer already....), then you have precisely zero idea of what The Wolf of Wall Street was "really like", and you're full of bat guano as ever.
 
Bill Williams said:
LOL!

You have obviously not seen the documentary. He says, plain as day, he did not fact-check. He even offers the reason why he could not fact-check, and still get paid for his pieces.

He admits at the end he got it wrong, and says the reason he got it wrong was because of his "sources".

You really do need to see the documentary, so you can at least offer some intelligent comment.
Click to expand...


"Intelligent comment". Hahahahahahahahah!

Well, I suppose hope springs eternal. Or "springs eternal hope".
 
LondonJohn said:
Ahh Walter Mitty rides again!

Did you work for an investment bank, stockbroker, commodities broker or forex trader in the city? Because if you didn't (and I suspect I know the answer already....), then you have precisely zero idea of what The Wolf of Wall Street was "really like", and you're full of bat guano as ever.
Click to expand...

Yes, I did, indeed. How bloody rude of you!

LOL I even did the crawling home on my hands and knees, completely unable to walk...
 

Attachments

  • leonardo crawl.jpg
    leonardo crawl.jpg
    34.6 KB · Views: 1
Last edited:
analemma said:
As the documentary showed, the Kerchers were lied to by Mignini, his leaks to the media(as explained by Piso), and Rudys lawyer, all of whom had an agenda for framing the American witch.
Click to expand...

Stop reading off Marriott's crib sheet.

Read the trial transcripts and court documents for yourself.
 
Bill Williams said:
Ah yes, "all the other evidence". For the umpteenth time, this claim of "all the other evidence" was one made by Peter Quennell as the DNA evidence was falling apart at the 2011 trial. It was a claim that virtually conceded that the DNA evidence was gone.

It's bizarre that anyone in 2016 would be falling back on that. The 2015 exoneration by The Supreme Court was based on an attempt to assemble "all the other evidence" into a narrative which made sense. At the end of Section 9 of the Supreme Court report, they said no coherent narrative of guilt could be assembled from the evidence in front of the lower court, the Nencini convicting court. The Italian Supreme Court ruled that **on the law** a conviction cannot be based on a cacophony of evidence that does not lead anywhere.

Further, as the Supreme Court said, a fact-finding judge cannot substitute his own opinion, biases or hunch for the evidence either.

That should have ended the matter. As later on it was NAMED as ended by Judge Boninsegna, who wrote that it was a judicial fact that the pair had been exonerated. (Vixen's rebuttal to that was that Boninsegna was a pipsqueak. This comment proves that there is no substantive rebuttal to the judicial fact of the pair's innocence.)

This case is an easy one to figure out. They didn't do it. There's no evidence, really, to suggest they did - other than hunches of prosecutor's and guesses of convicting judges.

It turns out that even in Italy, you can't be convicted if that's all there is, opinion and hunch.
Click to expand...


Glad you agree with the Marasca MR, because then it means you would have to agree with their summary rulings that Amanda and Raff were at the murder scene, Amanda did wash Mez' blood off and did cover up for Rudy.

As Amanda covered up for Rudy, does this mean that you are now going to do the same?
 
Bill Williams said:
LOL!

You have obviously not seen the documentary. He says, plain as day, he did not fact-check. He even offers the reason why he could not fact-check, and still get paid for his pieces.

He admits at the end he got it wrong, and says the reason he got it wrong was because of his "sources".

You really do need to see the documentary, so you can at least offer some intelligent comment.
Click to expand...

Nick Pisa is a red top hack!!! A tabloid hack...behaves like a hack.

What is so hard to understand.

Do you think the SUN and the DAILY HORRORMAIL are going to stop publishing and bring out moral tracts instead?

It's big business. When I was in the paper industry we sold £6m worth of raw newsprint to News International each week.
 
Vixen said:
Glad you agree with the Marasca MR, because then it means you would have to agree with their summary rulings that Amanda and Raff were at the murder scene, Amanda did wash Mez' blood off and did cover up for Rudy.

As Amanda covered up for Rudy, does this mean that you are now going to do the same?
Click to expand...

Please give up this campaign of yours.

Compare the way Boninsega summarizes judicial truths, with the way the ISC in 2015 summarized useless evidence.
 
Vixen said:
Er, Hellmann was shown to be corrupt and immediately pensioned off. You are advocating belief in a corrupt official????
Click to expand...

For normal people, an appellate court spending a year on the case and coming to the conclusion that the charges were without merit is a sign of weaknesses in case, regardless of what happens next.

If they dig a little deeper they see that Chieffi overturned Hellmann for reasons such as Quintavalle is a reliable witness because he recognized Amanda had blue eyes in court. They might contrast this with Hellmann's reasoning, which was that Quintavalle was held a picture of Amanda in front of his face by the police, and specifically asked if he saw her in his shop, just days after the murder when his memory would be the most fresh - and Quintavalle said he didn't see her.

The reaction most people would have to that is, oh, Hellmann's reasoning is better and Chieffi's is a bit ****.

I mean that's just the normal standard reaction. I know for the hardcore PGP, the dozen or so of them still out there, they see it all as a mafia or masonic coverup or whatever. But it's just not the normal reaction.

The historical reality of this case is that it was weak, to say the least. That's how it will always be viewed.
 
Vixen is on page one of this thread extension. Is there anything of substance in the entire 83 pages? Or just Vixen, saying, "she did it, she did it" over and over again?
 
Caper said:
Vixen is on page one of this thread extension. Is there anything of substance in the entire 83 pages? Or just Vixen, saying, "she did it, she did it" over and over again?
Click to expand...

The slander acquittals and ECHR acceptance were semi-recent developments of substance in this thread, can't remember if that was this continuation or the last one. Without Vixen we would be on continuation 15 or so with no posts for weeks in between the few remaining case developments. With Vixen we get to relive the first year of this thread over and over again cause we're too dumb to stay away.
 
bagels said:
The slander acquittals and ECHR acceptance were semi-recent developments of substance in this thread, can't remember if that was this continuation or the last one. Without Vixen we would be on continuation 15 or so with no posts for weeks in between the few remaining case developments. With Vixen we get to relive the first year of this thread over and over again cause we're too dumb to stay away.
Click to expand...

I'm a bit surprised Vixen comes here. Usually, they like an echo chamber and avoid places the over and over again destroy their beliefs.
 
Vixen said:
You remind me of the type of person who writes graffiti on toilet walls.
Click to expand...

Why? Because it's true? Or because you don't like it? Your entitled to waste as much of your life tilting at this windmill as you please. But be assured, it is a windmill. The cause is lost. In fact it was lost 18 months ago. As I said then, over time the world will come to the conclusion that they are and always were innocent. 98 percent what is written about Raffaele and Amanda today is that they were wrongly accused.

This isn't OJ or Casey Anthony who most of the world believed got away with murder. No, the consensus while not unanimous is still overwhelmingly that Amanda and Raffaele were JUSTLY ACQUITTED. And that opinion has grown and will continue to grow. And 2 more years of posts by you will not change that.
 
Vixen said:
Er, Hellmann was shown to be corrupt and immediately pensioned off. You are advocating belief in a corrupt official????
Click to expand...

If you truly believe this wild theory, you are living in a fantasy world. Proof, please.
 
acbytesla said:
Why? Because it's true? Or because you don't like it? Your entitled to waste as much of your life tilting at this windmill as you please. But be assured, it is a windmill. The cause is lost. In fact it was lost 18 months ago. As I said then, over time the world will come to the conclusion that they are and always were innocent. 98 percent what is written about Raffaele and Amanda today is that they were wrongly accused.
This isn't OJ or Casey Anthony who most of the world believed got away with murder. No, the consensus while not unanimous is still overwhelmingly that Amanda and Raffaele were JUSTLY ACQUITTED. And that opinion has grown and will continue to grow. And 2 more years of posts by you will not change that.
Click to expand...

From Wrap:

From Wrap: '“Amanda Knox” was talked about 67.5 percent negatively. However, the firm added that the negative mentions don’t mean people responded negatively to the documentary itself, but rather were concerned about the subject matter.'
Click to expand...
http://www.thewrap.com/luke-cage-far-more-media-mentions-than-westworld-amanda-knox/

This is based on statistical market research figures and seems to suggest you and Casper are deluded if you think you are the 'majority' opinion.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom