Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[LondonJohn]

In addition to true unfalsifiability, there is also a significant issue related to the burden of proof when it comes to claims which are unreasonably difficult to falsify. For example, suppose I claim that there is only one place in the whole of the King James English translation of The Bible where the letters "p" "a" and "f" occur one after the other. Now, someone wanting to check this claim could, of course, go through the whole of the King James Bible looking for those three letters in sequence, and check whether they occurred once and only once. In that sense, the claim is falsifiable. But it's unreasonable to make that claim and then to expect anyone questioning/challenging the claim to have to try to falsify it themselves.

And a similar (though obviously less extreme) example, as applied to the Knox/Sollecito trial process, might be a claim that "It came out in the (e.g. Massei) trial that Knox was overheard in a bar, two days before the murder, discussing with Sollecito how much she hated Kercher". If one were to make that claim, then anyone seeking to check or falsify it would have to search through a great proportion of (huge) transcript of the evidence/testimony section of that trial to see whether any witness ever made that statement in the trial. It would be possible to do, but unreasonable.

In both the Bible example and the trial testimony example, any reasonable person would see that the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim - even though the claim technically is falsifiable in both instances.

 

[Methos]

[...]
FYI A woman submitted a witness statement to the court and was in Seattle during the trial.

Testimony can be verbal or in writing.

[...]

[...]
Who?
[...]

Ada of Kazakhstan.

Just for the record "Ada" indeed "submitted a witness statement" to the police on Nov 15th, 2007... but when the case came to trial no one, not even Volturno was able to find her

Vixen, you seem to mix up the above "witness not found" documents with this post from Amanda Knox's blog...
I wonder, why?

 

[Bill Williams]

Raff has always seemed a bit odd and aloof to me making some stupid comments over the years. But I don't think it's the PIP's job to babysit or cheerlead him.

Sollecito wrote in his book, Honor Bound, some of the stupid stuff he did while in prison. Even though the tenor of the time there was trying to stay unnoticed, he admitted to participating in a bout of bullying with others, so as not to be bullied himself. He wrote that that had not been a proud moment for him.

He was up front about the mistakes he had made in his first appearance in front of a judge. The lawyer who he'd just met advised him to stay quiet, yet he spoke up - and as always seems to happen, people unfamiliar with any court process who insist on speaking inadvertently make matters worse. Always.

What's the weird part, though, is the worldview nutter-guilters have constructed - that PGP regard him as "the PIP hero". Guilters have constructed a truly nutty version of why people say "they are innocent of the crimes originating at the house on Nov 1 2007", by constructing some silly hero-worship; rather than discussing particulars of evidence.

The point is that both these kids were ordinary in the most excruciatingly-ordinary sense of the word - in other words, they could be you or me. Kids do stupid things. Kids say stupid things. Heck, everyone on this thread has said stupid things. Some aren't even kids. (Except for me, I've never said anything stupid. A claim I would never have made when Grinder was on the watch!)

The point of the thread here is "Who killed Meredith Kercher?", not who is stupid, or stupider than someone else. It is mind boggling that once acquitted, and two years after a full and definitive acquittal, and a week after Rudy's revision trial is denied.....

..... a revision trial that those same nutty-guilters said would end with a reopening of those definitive acquittals of AK and RS ....

...... that they simply spin into a gossip sheet's version of what Raffaele may or may not have said on Facebook. With hardly a how-do-you-do, all of a sudden they forget they'd predicted the revision trial would spell doom, and spin effortlessly to a gossip sheet as if they'd not made complete fools of themselves over the revision trial.

If he said those things, then shame on him - but what the heck does that have to do with this thread? That he's stupid?

We already knew that! He admitted as such in his book and even volunteered examples.

 

[Numbers]

Sollecito wrote in his book, Honor Bound, some of the stupid stuff he did while in prison. Even though the tenor of the time there was trying to stay unnoticed, he admitted to participating in a bout of bullying with others, so as not to be bullied himself. He wrote that that had not been a proud moment for him.

He was up front about the mistakes he had made in his first appearance in front of a judge. The lawyer who he'd just met advised him to stay quiet, yet he spoke up - and as always seems to happen, people unfamiliar with any court process who insist on speaking inadvertently make matters worse. Always.

What's the weird part, though, is the worldview nutter-guilters have constructed - that PGP regard him as "the PIP hero". Guilters have constructed a truly nutty version of why people say "they are innocent of the crimes originating at the house on Nov 1 2007", by constructing some silly hero-worship; rather than discussing particulars of evidence.

The point is that both these kids were ordinary in the most excruciatingly-ordinary sense of the word - in other words, they could be you or me. Kids do stupid things. Kids say stupid things. Heck, everyone on this thread has said stupid things. Some aren't even kids. (Except for me, I've never said anything stupid. A claim I would never have made when Grinder was on the watch!)

The point of the thread here is "Who killed Meredith Kercher?", not who is stupid, or stupider than someone else. It is mind boggling that once acquitted, and two years after a full and definitive acquittal, and a week after Rudy's revision trial is denied.....

..... a revision trial that those same nutty-guilters said would end with a reopening of those definitive acquittals of AK and RS ....

...... that they simply spin into a gossip sheet's version of what Raffaele may or may not have said on Facebook. With hardly a how-do-you-do, all of a sudden they forget they'd predicted the revision trial would spell doom, and spin effortlessly to a gossip sheet as if they'd not made complete fools of themselves over the revision trial.

If he said those things, then shame on him - but what the heck does that have to do with this thread? That he's stupid?

We already knew that! He admitted as such in his book and even volunteered examples.

It's not a crime to be stupid. Certainly not in the US, nor even in Italy.

Imagine how many of us would be in prison if it were.

 

[Lothian]

Unfortunately you've used a trite example, and have totally failed to understand the true philosophical issue here..........

Unfortunately, you have totally failed to understand my point despite my using a really basic example to explain it.
Given the alleged high standards of skepticism that are supposed to exist in this thread I would have thought people would realise that contrary to Welshman's claim, it is possible for something to be true even when no Internet links are provided. Oh well, I guess I will head back to the less intellectual part the forum.

 

[Bill Williams]

Given the alleged high standards of skepticism that are supposed to exist in this thread

Oh well, I guess I will head back to the less intellectual part the forum.

Who's ever said this?

 

[LondonJohn]

Unfortunately, you have totally failed to understand my point despite my using a really basic example to explain it.
Given the alleged high standards of skepticism that are supposed to exist in this thread I would have thought people would realise that contrary to Welshman's claim, it is possible for something to be true even when no Internet links are provided. Oh well, I guess I will head back to the less intellectual part the forum.

Oh dear.

I understand your "point" perfectly, thanks.

Contrary to your revisionist claim above, Welshman was not in any way claiming that "it's not possible for something to be true even when no internet links are provided". Welshman actually wrote this:

"The accusation (that Sollecito was bragging on a Facebook page that he got away with murder) is clearly a falsehood because Vixen has not provided a link to the facebook page where Raffaele was supposedly making this boast."

So Welshman was referring to a very specific claim, and was in no way making a general claim about verifiability or falsifiability - contrary to your attempted misdirection. Welshman did not write "...because Vixen has not provided a link to the evidence". The fact that this allegation came from words that Sollecito (allegedly) wrote on a private Facebook page is fundamentally important to the matter.

And in this specific instance, Welshman was absolutely correct in principle (though IMO he should not really have used the phrase "is clearly a falsehood", but rather might have written something such as "is unsupported and very difficult to falsify, and therefore should be considered as a falsehood"). This specific claim was/is extremely difficult for anyone else to verify or falsify, since the alleged words of Sollecito's were written on a private Facebook group. Furthermore, the way in which these allegations were brought to light was through an activist writing an article for an Italian magazine, in which there was a) clearly an agenda at work, and b) only a montage of screenshots, and zero proper context supplied.

So someone making such a bold claim as "Sollecito boasted about how he got away with killing Meredith Kercher" - when there would clearly be implications and repercussions if the claim were to be wholly true, but where it's very hard for anyone reading the claim to verify or falsify it - really must be asked to verify the claim properly, otherwise it should be considered false.

You were stating that someone making an easily-checkable/verifiable/falsifiable claim should not necessarily be requested to prove their claim. And I pointed out that we were dealing here not with easily-checkable/verifiable/falsifiable claims, but rather with obtuse claims that are often very hard indeed to falsify. And in those instances, different rules apply: the onus is on the one making the claim to provide verification.

But by all means, please do head back the "less intellectual part of the forum" - I presume you mean areas such as the FMF baiting,agitation and pile-on threads, or the "compliment the previous poster" threads in Community? Adios!


(I will also point out that, as I've already written recently in this thread, this is clearly not a matter for moderator intervention. Unfalsifiable claims (or claims that are very difficult to falsify or verify accurately) are not the domain of mods or the rules of this forum, so Welshman should not have been appealing to the mods at all. However, that's not what we were discussing here, so....)

 

[Vixen]

You are the true deceiver. Most of your posts are some combination of disingenuous half truths and total lies. Every one here KNOWS what day Raffaele was referring to. That you feel the need to keep distorting that point is just one example of your campaign of nonsense.

FYI: YOU LOST. Get over it. The world KNOWS they are innocent. The case is over. Going on 2 years since the FINAL Exoneration. All that is left is the ECHR decision on the violation of Knox's rights and Italy's capitulation.

No, chum. Raff's claim he cannot vouch for Amanda between 20:45 and 01:00 on the night of the murder stands to this day and his police testimony was court evidence. My syntax has nothing at all to do with this FACT.

I know you have often stated how proud you are of Raff. However, the comments made by Raff on Facebook are his, together with appalling content.

These include a picture of Amanda Knox holding up a placard with 'The Black did it' in Italian. Someone asks Raff about this and he responds, you'll have to ask F. about the black and refer to 118 about Amanda'.

'118' is an Italian reference to insanity. Rather like in the UK we refer to 'sectioned' in reference to Section XYZ of the Mental Health Act.

So Raff thinks his fragrant Italian perfumed 'fairy tale' lay, er, great love of his life, is insane, and jokes about it in public, albeit it on a secret invitation-only FB page.


There is a photo-shopped picture of Amanda

Edited by Agatha: 

removed breach of rule 9

and Raff chuckles about his great love, that the complexion of the head doesn't match the body.


Another picture shows Raff brandishing a knife over a plate of meat with a photoshopped picture of a beaming Patrick Lumumba leaning towards him. Raff has a series of emojios showing clapping hands, and three black thumbs up and the comment, this is how we cut Rudy's black meat.


Someone asks him how to get rid of traces of a dead body, he replies we **** all over it.

Someone asks if he never goes to the beach as he looks so pale and he responds, I know how to make people go pale.

Some asks him not to be too painful if he kills her and he replies, I'll kill you gently.

He jokes when he went into a shop to buy some pans, he asks the shop assistant, do you have a copper set and she replies, you have to go next door, assuming he means knives.*

So this kid you are so proud of, you would be happy to have him for your own son, makes douchebag jokes about Mez -which proves he has never seen her as a real person - and drools over porno pics of his dear ex-girlfriend on a site devoted to killing women and hate acts.

Well, it takes all sorts...


*source: http://www.grandecocomero.com/ammaz...tro-una-donna-questa-volta-corre-su-facebook/

 

[Vixen]

Proof, please, that:

a) the site on which Sollecito has been posting is a "misogynist hate site";

b) the posts written by Sollecito have in any way espoused misogynist views (or have even been written in the reasonable understanding that they were contributing to a misogynist debate).

Thanks in advance

http://www.grandecocomero.com/ammaz...tro-una-donna-questa-volta-corre-su-facebook/

 

[Vixen]

Proof, please, of the actual words posted by Sollecito. Specifically, proof that they are "disgusting misogynist filth", that the FB page in question is "full of perverts graphically discussing their hate fantasies", and that Sollecito's actual words were "using Mez' Mez's Kercher's name to make the crudest suggestions on how to hide a body or cut it up" (I assume from your grammar that you're ascribing this last accusation to Sollecito rather than to others on the FB page - though of course it may be the case that your grammar is poor).

Again, thanks in advance!

http://www.grandecocomero.com/ammaz...tro-una-donna-questa-volta-corre-su-facebook/

 

[Vixen]

If Vixen only tells falsehoods in her posts, other members of the forum can point them out. The issue goes further than this. Vixen constantly accuses Amanda and Raffaele of telling numerous lies. If Vixen tells falsehoods in her posts and then accuses people of lying, there is a double standard. In addition, Vixen tells falsehoods about Amanda and Raffaele. The most recent one was saying Raffaele was boasting on Facebook he had got away with murder. To attack someone for lying and then spread lies about them shows a massive double standard. I feel Vixen has an obligation to explain these double standards.

Vixen constantly boasts about all the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele and how strong the case. Vixen should explain why she needs to resort to using falsehoods in her posts if there was a slam dunk case against Amanda and Raffaele.

A moderator asked how I can tell if Vixen is using falsehoods in her posts. Vixen makes accusations with no evidence to back them up. For instance, Vixen claims Raffaele boasted on Facebook he had got away with murder. Vixen provides no link to a Facebook page and this claim has not been mentioned anywhere else. If Raffaele had made such a claim, TJMK would without doubt have used it but this claim has not been used on TJMK. Bear in mind the authors of this website have a virulent hatred of Amanda and Raffaele and have attacked them relentlessly. If Raffaele had made such a claim there is no way TJMK would not have used it.

Er, it has been reported in several reputable Italian newspapers and on radio programmes and even the INDEPENDENT took up the story.


A smirking Raff denies it, but unfortunately, several persons took screenshots of his bragging posts. As a person in the public eye, he must have anticipated this, even on a private hate group.


No doubt Welshman will twist this around as usual to claim I am defaming his great hero.

http://www.grandecocomero.com/ammaz...tro-una-donna-questa-volta-corre-su-facebook/

 

[Vixen]

If errors makes others liars in the PGP then your error is a lie as well. Goose and gander. You should hold yourself to the standards you demand of others.

....and you didn't have a herd of police thumping an answer out of you when you told your lie...ummmm, error.

I have never been arrested, and never will be.

 

[Vixen]

Totally accurate.

When one looks at those 5/6 Nov police interrogations of Sollecito and Knox in the proper context, I believe it's abundantly clear that the police (most probably with the knowledge and cooperation of the PM) thought Sollecito actually had nothing to do with the murder, but that he was lying to protect Knox by falsely (in the police/PM opinion at that time) stating that Knox had been with him in his apartment that night. Remember that at that point in time, the police and PM thought they'd expertly figured it all out: Knox had met up with another man* and taken him to the cottage where he had attacked, sexually assaulted and murdered Kercher, and Knox had subsequently staged a break-in to try to divert police and turn suspicion away from herself; Sollecito knew Knox had left his apartment to participate in the murder, but he (Sollecito) was covering up for Knox out of misguided loyalty/love/fear of abandonment/etc.


And therefore (IMO), as of the night of 5/6 Nov, the police and PM were planning to "persuade" Sollecito to "come clean" and finally admit that Knox had left his apartment on the night of the murder. I therefore very strongly suspect that, at that moment in time, the police and PM planned to use Sollecito (once he'd "turned" on Knox) as a prosecution witness in the subsequent trial of Knox and Lumumba. And that's why (IMO) they got the signed statement out of Sollecito and then arrested him and isolated him: they believed that Sollecito would become a fully cooperative witness once he was "free" of Knox, and once the police/PM carefully threatened him with charges of lying to the police (in his previous claims to the police that Knox was with him in his apartment on the murder night) if he didn't play ball.

Effectively, on the night of 5/6 Nov, (IMO) the key to the first part of the police/PM plan was nothing more than to get Sollecito to "buckle" and give them a statement to the effect that Knox actually did leave his apartment on the night of the murder. In effect, the sole purpose of eliciting that statement from Sollecito was so that they could then confront Knox with it - the plan then was that Knox would "buckle" in turn once she learned that her boyfriend had "told the truth" about her leaving his apartment. As of the night of 5/6 Nov, it was Knox and the "other man" that the police and PM were really after, IMO - and not Sollecito.

As such, I thing the police and PM actually weren't concerned at all with the lawfulness (or otherwise....) of the eliciting of Sollecito's statement, since the sole use of it (at that point) was to confront Knox with it. And if they never ended up charging Sollecito with a criminal offence (and as I write above, I believe the police/PM had no plan to bring charges against Sollecito at that point in time), then his 5/6 Nov statement would lawfully stand as a witness statement to be used against Knox. And once they'd had time to work on Sollecito and remove Knox from the equation (since she'd be locked away too), they could quietly release Sollecito from custody with the confidence that he'd testify in court to the effect that Knox left his apartment that night (especially with the threat of charges related to lying to the police hanging over his head if he didn't cooperate properly).

So, in summary..... I believe that, as of the night of 5/6 Nov 2007, the police/PM believed they truly had solved the murder. The step-by-step plan for the interrogations on that night was as follows: 1) get Sollecito in for interrogation, and get him to "admit" that Knox really had left his apartment that night; 2) pull Knox in for interrogation**, confront her with Sollecito's statement, and "persuade" her to "admit" to the "truth" in turn: that she'd met with Lumumba and taken him to the cottage where he'd assaulted and killed Kercher; 3) pull Lumumba in for interrogation.

There's (IMO) one other point of note about these interrogations and their legal ramifications. As I argue above, I think the police/PM weren't at all worried about any ramifications regarding Sollecito's interrogation and statement, since they expected (at that point in time) to be using Sollecito as a witness against Knox (and not charging him with any crime). But the situation with Knox was different. They needed Knox to "buckle" and tell them "the truth" in her interrogation - but they also expected to be charging and trying Knox for participation in the murder.

So the question of when/if Knox became a "suspect" was a very important one - the police and PM would have known that it would be massively unlikely that Knox's 1.45am police statement would ever be allowed to be used in a trial of her (and Lumumba), owing to the way in which it was procured. I believe the police and PM knew the situation full well, and that they (thought they) knew a cunning way around it. Their way round it was the insertion of PM Mignini into the situation, and his anodyne (and seemingly totally inconsequential) asking of Knox to repeat to him what she'd told the police. I believe Mignini (and the police) knew all too well what was happening here: Mignini was cunningly eliciting a "copy" of Knox's incriminating and incriminatory police statement, but - crucially - this time it could be construed as a "spontaneous declaration" by Knox to the PM - meaning it would be allowed as evidence in a trial of Knox (and Lumumba).

I think this was a carefully orchestrated (and possibly (probably?) well-practised piece of sleight-of-hand on the part of Mignini and the police. Fortunately the SC saw it for what it was, and disallowed the so-called "spontaneous declaration" from being used in the subsequent trial. But of course the egregiously bad decision was then made by Micheli and Massei to run the Lumumba criminal slander trial in the same court as the Knox/Sollecito murder-related trial - meaning that those trying the murder charges got to see/hear Knox's 1.45am statement in full anyhow.......


* the man with whom she'd exchanged the texts on the murder night - we still cannot know for sure whether the police/PM had already identified that man as Lumumba.

** I actually do believe that the plan as originally devised was for Sollecito to come into the police HQ on his own (without Knox), and then once Sollecito "buckled" and "admitted" that Knox had left his apartment on the murder night, the police would then summon Knox in. I suspect that the police and PM would have preferred Knox to have been nowhere near the police HQ when they were in the process of "persuading" Sollecito to change his story - since they were concerned that Sollecito was in Knox's thrall. But when Knox arrived at the police HQ together with Sollecito, it didn't really matter all that much in terms of the plan - Knox was just sequestered under close watch in a waiting room while Sollecito was interrogated.

Nice conspiracy theory.

 

[Vixen]

Your scenario may be indeed what the police and prosecutor had intended.

But at the conclusion of the interrogation, they arrested Sollecito as well as Knox. And of course, they then went and arrested Lumumba.

From the arrest warrant, it appears that the evidence providing reasonable suspicion against Sollecito, in the viewpoint of the police, were alleged differences between his earlier and current statements, his shoes (the soles were "compatible" with the prints found in the cottage - the police did not claim a match - had they already known that the number of rings in Sollecito's shoe soles did not match those of the cottage prints?) and that he possessed a pocket knife that "in the abstract could be compatible" with Kercher's wounds (meaning there was no evidence of blood on the knife and the police knew it wasn't the murder weapon). Here's the section of the arrest warrant relating to Sollecito:

Regarding the elements against SOLLECITO, there are numerous incongruities verified in his first declarations in respect to his latest and the fact that, from preliminary observations, the shoe print of the shoe worn by SOLLECITO appears compatible in form with that found at the scene of the crime. Furthermore, the fact that KNOX declares to not remember what happened between the scream of the victim and her reawakening in the morning in Sollecito's bed who, furthermore, was found to have in his possession a pocket knife that could in the abstract be compatible, in type and dimensions (full length 18cm, of which 8.5cm being the blade), with the object that produced the most severe wound in the neck of the victim.

Source: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/case-files-reports/
Declaration of Arrest, Nov. 6, 2007

Um, they arrested Raff becuase he withdrew his alibi for Amanda saying, 'I just told you a crock of ****'.

They arrested Amanda because she confessed to being at the scene of the crime. She told the police she took Patrick to the cottage for sex with Mez and that she heard Mez screaming.

They arrested Patrick because Amanda told them he raped and murdered Mez. Amanda put on a magnificent act of being frightened of Patrick.

So the police had no right to arrest any of them..?

 

[Vixen]

Diary of a chronic denier;

"Yet both Raff and Amanda are adamant they did not awake until 10:00-ish and Raff had a lie-in until midday, and testified to this effect in court."

"It is the statement Raff gave to the police about his wheareabouts on the night of the murder.."

"It was testified by the police. It forms part of the court documents."

"When he signed his police statement, that became a witness statement. A witness statement is court testimony if used in court, which it was."

"You, LoJo and Stacy are not familiar with the passive tense? I said, 'as testified in court'."

"You knew perfectly well what I meant.


Meanwhile, Vixen was asked for a cite regarding her "autodownload" claim and, as expected, came up with nothing.

The autodownload of Naruto is well documented in court records. Do read the court records instead of relying on the Friends of Amanda party line.

 

[Vixen]

With regards to the interrogation, we see Vixen's double standards on display. She accuses the supreme court of breaking Italian law but defends corrupt prosecutors who broke Italian law by denying access to lawyers, not taping the interrogations and not explaining Amanda and Raffaele their rights during the interrogations.

They did record interrogations.

As of the time Amanda made her outrageous allegations against Patrick, her kind, gentle boss, who gave her a job, she was just an ordinary visitor to the questura who attended of her own accord and offered to help list persons who frequented the cottage. Noone asked her to turn up.

As a an ordinary person off the street reporting a crime, they had no obligation to record her. As soon as she made her allegation, the conversation was terminated as she was now a suspect, by her own account. As of that point, she was recorded.

Amanda offered them a voluntary witness statement which she insisted on writing and which she insisted on handing in, calling it a 'present'.

We all have to take responsibility for our own actions.

 

[Vixen]

Do you think maybe Raff did it with Rudy and tried to blame Amanda?

Raff, Rudy and Amanda definitely did it, IMV. I believe Raff and Amanda coldly planned it, and Rudy was an unwitting participant to murder, from what was initially, for him, a party context with Amanda inviting him to the cottage for sex and drugs with either her or Mez.

Amanda obviously has psychogender issues and anger issues from childhood (see her short stories pre-Italy). No doubt Mez stirred up feelings of rejection and inferiority.

What is really chilling is Raff. We cannot see what Mez had ever done to him for him to act so coldbloodedly. His permanent smirk is disconcerting.

I believe that if Amanda had not met Raff, this would never have happened. They enabled each other. Her psychological seething anger facilitated Raff's fantasy of 'extreme experiences'. He was a regular drug user of cocaine, LSD and marijuana. His father had threatened to put him into rehab.


It calls to mind the Erin Caffey killing wherein 16-year old Caffey got her boyfriend and pal to slaughter her entire family, including 8-year old brother desperately trying to hide in a closet, and the teenage murder in Spalding where a 14-year old girl got her 15 year old boyfriend to kill her mum and 11-year old sister.


After the murder, the pair listened to grunge rock - including Nirvana and Dust Brothers' Fight Club - certainly not the sedate orchestral strings as suggested by Hellmann (iirc) at 5:30 am.

The Spalding teenager and her boyfriend watched Twilight, had sex and ate icecreams. Caffey was on an adrenalin high having killed her brothers and Mom, saying 'Holy ******" as she went off to her boyfriend's trailer park shack for sex.

Post-murder, Amanda and Raff couldn't get enough 'wild sex' even making out in the questura with Amanda wriggling about on his lap and their pulling faces at each other.

To think these coldblooded scumbags have fans...

 

[Vixen]

Not only does Raffaele accurately describe events/movements that took place on the night of Halloween, but it is also proven those events/movements could not have taken place the following night because an eyewitness places Amanda at Raffaele's at a time when Raffaele said she wasn't there.

Vixen is not an idiot so I'm sure she gets it but she has also shown a complete inability to admit she is wrong about anything. Therefore, whether it's admitting she was wrong about testimony vs evidence, "," vs ".", autodownload or that Raffaele was describing events from Halloween, I seriously doubt she'll ever admit to being wrong about any of it.

Why would Raff tell police investigating a murder, rape and mise en scene burglary what he was doing on Halloween, when it is obvious they were asking him about his girlfriend's roommate murder on the night after?

He has never retracted this statement - if indeed, as you and LoJo claim was just an error - and in fact, got Bongiorno to call a press conference jsut before the Nencini appeal to reiterate Raff could not vouch for Amanda's movements on the night of the crime.

Forget about my syntax - concentrate on the lies of the kids.

 

[Bill Williams]

The

Amanda obviously has psychogender issues and anger issues from childhood (see her short stories pre-Italy). No doubt Mez stirred up feelings of rejection and inferiority.

Obviously?

There's only one thing obvious about this stupid post of yours.

Really? You can diagnose "psycho-gender" issues? Wow, you must be famous!

Eta - 12 posts in a row! You must be really famous!

 

[Vixen]

Raff has always seemed a bit odd and aloof to me making some stupid comments over the years. But I don't think it's the PIP's job to babysit or cheerlead him.

I hear Charles Manson was a 'bit odd'.


And yet, here is the staggering thing. Charles Manson (and Tex Watson) still has a substantial band of fans.


What is it that makes these people attractive...?


It's as though their victims never existed.