Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[Bill Williams]

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..?

Right. You should read John Follain's account of the arrests. Follain relates how he viewed Knox as a liar. Then on the very next page Follain relates how Mignini had to arrest Lumumba because Knox accused him.

Right.

 

[Bill Williams]

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

So that's it. You're still embarrassed about lying about Raffaele's court testimony! You may get some fans of your own!

 

[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.

Just so you know, the average award of the ECHR is just €3.5K* and research shows even if a settlement is negotiated out of court, it is rarely more than what the court would have awarded.

No doubt, Amanda is locked in a negotiation dispute with Italy trying to demand €500K, which might explain the delay in the update.


*This refers to Article 6 claims (denied a fair trial).

Article 3 (Torture) commands a higher award, so no doubt, this is why Amanda has tried to claim torture.

 

[Vixen]

So that's it. You're still embarrassed about lying about Raffaele's court testimony! You may get some fans of your own!

Rubbish. It has been an oft-remarked fact by me* of Raff's refusal to take the witness stand and be cross-examined.

His statements to the police were indeed brought up as court testimony.


*Not something the PIP care to dwell on!

 

[Vixen]

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?

This Ada is easily identified as the same person who testified in a written witness statement to the court of the fact of Amanda whinging about not being able to get back some of her things in the cottage.

I will not divulge the current link to her identity here for reasons of her right to privacy.

What I will say is , it is the same Ada as in the blog. Russian name, Far Eastern ethnicity.

Thanks to Amanda's indiscreet disclosure (revenge for the negative slant of Ada's witness statement, perhaps?) poor Ada is now in danger of being arrested by Italian police for contempt of court for failing to turn up as summonsed. Now everybdoy knows she is to be found...living in Seattle.


Gee, thanks, Amanda. _NOT!

 

[bagels]

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...

Do they really have fans? The PGP seem to be keeping up with their post trial behavior more than the PIP.

Anyway I don't really see Amanda's pre-murder behavior as being particularly noteworthy. A slightly crass party student, at worst. The famous noise ticket is an interesting example. She answers the door, introduces herself as the owner and host of the party, takes responsibility and the ticket, and that's the end of it. Not exactly setting off alarm bells for flaky/anti-social behavior.

All of the PGP's psychological analysis of AK seems circular in nature, based on the starting assumption she's guilty of a brutal sex murder.

The problem with your theory of the crime is it isn't really supported by the evidence, and, worse yet, an alternative scenario is significantly more supported. The alternative scenario of course being that Rudy Guede committed the murder during a burglary gone bad. The evidence in favor of this is 1. Rudy Guede was spotted on CCTV alone snooping around the cottage before Amanda and Raffaele knew their prior engagements that evening would be free, connecting Rudy to the cottage without either of them. 2. The apparent break-in in the cottage is strikingly similar in style and method to another nearby break-in Rudy was connected to through criminal evidence. 3. All the primary evidence at the scene that could be time stamped to the exact time of the murder implicated Rudy. 4. The victim had three stab wounds and there was a bloody imprint of a knife, a forensic examination of all of these items was consistent with a single knife. 5. Rudy was recorded in secret speaking with his friend, and did not mention being invited to the cottage by Amanda and Raffaele, and admitted Meredith was killed by a single male attacker. 6. Rudy has a proven criminal record of being armed with a knife while committing crime. 7. There was no evidence or record of Amanda or Raffaele ever being in contact with Rudy, except Amanda once or twice being in his proximity due to their mutual acquaintance downstairs.

Given the above there was simply no way the case against the students was going to hold up, so it's no surprise they were acquitted.

 

[bagels]

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.

Charles Manson was more than a bit odd.

At any rate, it's funny you should bring this up. If Raff has "murder groupies" that admire him because they think he's a vicious killer, these people are technically PGP, and thus in your camp

 

[Vixen]

Do they really have fans? The PGP seem to be keeping up with their post trial behavior more than the PIP.

Anyway I don't really see Amanda's pre-murder behavior as being particularly noteworthy. A slightly crass party student, at worst. The famous noise ticket is an interesting example. She answers the door, introduces herself as the owner and host of the party, takes responsibility and the ticket, and that's the end of it. Not exactly setting off alarm bells for flaky/anti-social behavior.

All of the PGP's psychological analysis of AK seems circular in nature, based on the starting assumption she's guilty of a brutal sex murder.

The problem with your theory of the crime is it isn't really supported by the evidence, and, worse yet, an alternative scenario is significantly more supported. The alternative scenario of course being that Rudy Guede committed the murder during a burglary gone bad. The evidence in favor of this is 1. Rudy Guede was spotted on CCTV alone snooping around the cottage before Amanda and Raffaele knew their prior engagements that evening would be free, connecting Rudy to the cottage without either of them. 2. The apparent break-in in the cottage is strikingly similar in style and method to another nearby break-in Rudy was connected to through criminal evidence. 3. All the primary evidence at the scene that could be time stamped to the exact time of the murder implicated Rudy. 4. The victim had three stab wounds and there was a bloody imprint of a knife, a forensic examination of all of these items was consistent with a single knife. 5. Rudy was recorded in secret speaking with his friend, and did not mention being invited to the cottage by Amanda and Raffaele, and admitted Meredith was killed by a single male attacker. 6. Rudy has a proven criminal record of being armed with a knife while committing crime. 7. There was no evidence or record of Amanda or Raffaele ever being in contact with Rudy, except Amanda once or twice being in his proximity due to their mutual acquaintance downstairs.

Given the above there was simply no way the case against the students was going to hold up, so it's no surprise they were acquitted.

1. Rudy being spotted in cctv fits in with his claim he had arranged to meet here. This is further supported by the fact he went away and came back later. He did indeed go off and have a kebab, as he said. Funnily enough, Amanda turned up at the same time he came back.

2. There is no similarity. The lawyers office was accessed via the balcony. The balcony around the other side of the house, which Rudy would have known about, since he had visited downstairs at least twice, was a far easier point of entry for a burglar - and indeed, subsequent burglars used this location to get in.

3. The times also very much implicate Raff and Amanda in that both turned off their phones circa 20:45 - 21:00 and did not, in Raff's case turn them back on until 6:00-ish next morning, and in Amanda's circa midday, when her first action was to call Mez' two phones, before ringing Filomena. She kept quiet from Filomena she had already rung Mez when Filomena urged her to ring her. After the call, Amanda rang Mez' phone again for just 3 and four seconds each, as though 'just so there's a log'. In her book she lies about the sequence of these calls so we can assume she is trying to cover up her MO.

4. There were numerous knife wounds - at least 23 more than the two piercing her neck and the one under her chin - compatible with at least two different knives. There was a knick on her left cheek which indicates Mez having been taunted by her attackers, as well as knife flicks around her hand and forearms.

5. Rudy did not name Amanda and Amanda did not name Rudy. Prisoners dilemma classic.

6. Rudy did not have any criminal record as of the time. He did not enter the Milan nursery with a knife. the knife he had was one he found at the nursery. Raff carried a knife with him everywhere. He even took one to the questura and complained in the Netflix film of the police being 'very rude to me'. (What a moron.)

7. Rudy and Amanda chatted at Le Chic. After a friends birthday party in October, Rudy met with the boys downstairs on a corner - after a basketball game - and Amanda came along saying, 'I'm Amanda from Seattle', as he didn't recognise her from Le Chic. They all went to the boys' flat downstairs, with Amanda going to hers at ground (upper) level. She came down later, smoked a joint with the boys and Rudy claims she made eyes at him. Clearly she was attracted, to make the effort to come downstairs. Mez came down later, had one puff, and left to go to bed shortly after. Sure Rudy knew Amanda.

Both Amanda and Raff are evasive about what they did ont he afternoon of the murder, trying to conceal they went into the old town (in her Prison Diary, Amanda leaves that bit out). Strangely enough, Rudy was also in the Old Town at the same time. Kokomani was pinged there, too. (Cocaine smuggler from Albania, part of 'NDrangetha.) Raff told police he came home alone, surfed until 03:00 with Amanda coming home at 01:00.

No, it is not 'impossible' for Rudy to have joined up with the kids.

 

[Bill Williams]

1. Rudy being spotted in cctv fits in with his claim he had arranged to meet here. This is further supported by the fact he went away and came back later. He did indeed go off and have a kebab, as he said. Funnily enough, Amanda turned up at the same time he came back.

2. There is no similarity. The lawyers office was accessed via the balcony. The balcony around the other side of the house, which Rudy would have known about, since he had visited downstairs at least twice, was a far easier point of entry for a burglar - and indeed, subsequent burglars used this location to get in.

3. The times also very much implicate Raff and Amanda in that both turned off their phones circa 20:45 - 21:00 and did not, in Raff's case turn them back on until 6:00-ish next morning, and in Amanda's circa midday, when her first action was to call Mez' two phones, before ringing Filomena. She kept quiet from Filomena she had already rung Mez when Filomena urged her to ring her. After the call, Amanda rang Mez' phone again for just 3 and four seconds each, as though 'just so there's a log'. In her book she lies about the sequence of these calls so we can assume she is trying to cover up her MO.

4. There were numerous knife wounds - at least 23 more than the two piercing her neck and the one under her chin - compatible with at least two different knives. There was a knick on her left cheek which indicates Mez having been taunted by her attackers, as well as knife flicks around her hand and forearms.

5. Rudy did not name Amanda and Amanda did not name Rudy. Prisoners dilemma classic.

6. Rudy did not have any criminal record as of the time. He did not enter the Milan nursery with a knife. the knife he had was one he found at the nursery. Raff carried a knife with him everywhere. He even took one to the questura and complained in the Netflix film of the police being 'very rude to me'. (What a moron.)

7. Rudy and Amanda chatted at Le Chic. After a friends birthday party in October, Rudy met with the boys downstairs on a corner - after a basketball game - and Amanda came along saying, 'I'm Amanda from Seattle', as he didn't recognise her from Le Chic. They all went to the boys' flat downstairs, with Amanda going to hers at ground (upper) level. She came down later, smoked a joint with the boys and Rudy claims she made eyes at him. Clearly she was attracted, to make the effort to come downstairs. Mez came down later, had one puff, and left to go to bed shortly after. Sure Rudy knew Amanda.

Both Amanda and Raff are evasive about what they did ont he afternoon of the murder, trying to conceal they went into the old town (in her Prison Diary, Amanda leaves that bit out). Strangely enough, Rudy was also in the Old Town at the same time. Kokomani was pinged there, too. (Cocaine smuggler from Albania, part of 'NDrangetha.) Raff told police he came home alone, surfed until 03:00 with Amanda coming home at 01:00.

No, it is not 'impossible' for Rudy to have joined up with the kids.

Especially when you compose complete fiction about them.

 

[bagels]

1. Rudy being spotted in cctv fits in with his claim he had arranged to meet here. This is further supported by the fact he went away and came back later. He did indeed go off and have a kebab, as he said. Funnily enough, Amanda turned up at the same time he came back.

Rudy was spotted on CCTV near the cottage at a time when Amanda was still scheduled to be working all evening, and when Raffaele thought he was going to be driving his friend around town. It is entirely incompatible with a pre arranged meeting, but entirely compatible with him scouting a burglary target.

2. There is no similarity. The lawyers office was accessed via the balcony. The balcony around the other side of the house, which Rudy would have known about, since he had visited downstairs at least twice, was a far easier point of entry for a burglar - and indeed, subsequent burglars used this location to get in.

There is remarkable similarity. Once again I will link directly to the statements from the law office break-in victim: here. Without context, the statements could easily be mistaken as directly describing the cottage break-in. The window being chosen over the balcony does not erase the fact that both scenes feature a difficult climb aided by metal bars on the wall below, a broken window, and a large rock. These are striking similarities and pretending they aren't doesn't change that.

3. The times also very much implicate Raff and Amanda in that both turned off their phones circa 20:45 - 21:00 and did not, in Raff's case turn them back on until 6:00-ish next morning, and in Amanda's circa midday, when her first action was to call Mez' two phones, before ringing Filomena. She kept quiet from Filomena she had already rung Mez when Filomena urged her to ring her. After the call, Amanda rang Mez' phone again for just 3 and four seconds each, as though 'just so there's a log'. In her book she lies about the sequence of these calls so we can assume she is trying to cover up her MO.

An extremely weak piece of circumstantial evidence at best, and their phone activity is also entirely consistent with Raff and Amanda finally having an entire evening free, switching them off to not be bothered by another request for a ride, Raff's father's nightly calls, and Amanda's boss changing his mind.

4. There were numerous knife wounds - at least 23 more than the two piercing her neck and the one under her chin - compatible with at least two different knives. There was a knick on her left cheek which indicates Mez having been taunted by her attackers, as well as knife flicks around her hand and forearms.

None of this changes the simple forensic fact that nothing at the scene excluded a single knife, and, indeed, the police thought the murder weapon was a single small penknife until they had to construct the two knife theory only after the discovery of the huge kitchen knife.

5. Rudy did not name Amanda and Amanda did not name Rudy. Prisoners dilemma classic.

Rudy DID name Amanda, when he was arrested and faced with the murder charges. He didn't name her when he only thought he was speaking with his friend in confidence. This is the far from the prisoner's dilemma, it is evidence of their non involvement, even if you choose to discount it.

6. Rudy did not have any criminal record as of the time. He did not enter the Milan nursery with a knife. the knife he had was one he found at the nursery. Raff carried a knife with him everywhere. He even took one to the questura and complained in the Netflix film of the police being 'very rude to me'. (What a moron.)

He certainly had an arrest record at the time of the murder. Regardless of how he acquired the knife, he armed himself during a crime, and had no intention of using it for cooking, even by his own word.

7. Rudy and Amanda chatted at Le Chic. After a friends birthday party in October, Rudy met with the boys downstairs on a corner - after a basketball game - and Amanda came along saying, 'I'm Amanda from Seattle', as he didn't recognise her from Le Chic. They all went to the boys' flat downstairs, with Amanda going to hers at ground (upper) level. She came down later, smoked a joint with the boys and Rudy claims she made eyes at him. Clearly she was attracted, to make the effort to come downstairs. Mez came down later, had one puff, and left to go to bed shortly after. Sure Rudy knew Amanda.

The loosest of connections based mostly on happenstance proximity. Phone records or witness testimony would have greatly aided the prosecution here, but they had none, which is evidence of, and consistent with there being no real connection between these two.

No, it is not 'impossible' for Rudy to have joined up with the kids.

Nobody suggested it was. Your entire theory of the crime is based on Massei's line of reasoning, something is possible, therefore plausible.

 

[Bill Williams]

5. Rudy did not name Amanda and Amanda did not name Rudy. Prisoners dilemma classic.

Rudy DID name Amanda, when he was arrested and faced with the murder charges. He didn't name her when he only thought he was speaking with his friend in confidence. This is the far from the prisoner's dilemma, it is evidence of their non involvement, even if you choose to discount it.

Rudy "named" Amanda both times. The first time he named her - in what he thought was in confidence to his friend over skype from Germany - he said she had nothing to do with the murder.

Once back in the hands of police in Perugia he named her again. This time, once arrested, he named her as involved once he faced charges of his own.

This is hardly the "prisoner's dilemma", but it is consistent - it is consistent with Vixen pulling these terms out of thin air and ham-handedly applying it to her own construction of events.....

...... which don't line up with the actual record of events.

As you say, bagels, Vixen's theory has Amanda and Raffaele conspiring with Rudy when both of them thought they had other commitments for the evening.

One thing I'll give Vixen - unlike the other guilters who have graced these threads on JREF/ISF, she actually does give it a go, reconstructing the narrative to suit her theory. On the other hand, people like Machiavelli (when asked) steadfastly refused to reconstruct a narrative.

So I'll give Vixen that.

 

[Vixen]

Rudy was spotted on CCTV near the cottage at a time when Amanda was still scheduled to be working all evening, and when Raffaele thought he was going to be driving his friend around town. It is entirely incompatible with a pre arranged meeting, but entirely compatible with him scouting a burglary target.



There is remarkable similarity. Once again I will link directly to the statements from the law office break-in victim: here. Without context, the statements could easily be mistaken as directly describing the cottage break-in. The window being chosen over the balcony does not erase the fact that both scenes feature a difficult climb aided by metal bars on the wall below, a broken window, and a large rock. These are striking similarities and pretending they aren't doesn't change that.



An extremely weak piece of circumstantial evidence at best, and their phone activity is also entirely consistent with Raff and Amanda finally having an entire evening free, switching them off to not be bothered by another request for a ride, Raff's father's nightly calls, and Amanda's boss changing his mind.



None of this changes the simple forensic fact that nothing at the scene excluded a single knife, and, indeed, the police thought the murder weapon was a single small penknife until they had to construct the two knife theory only after the discovery of the huge kitchen knife.



Rudy DID name Amanda, when he was arrested and faced with the murder charges. He didn't name her when he only thought he was speaking with his friend in confidence. This is the far from the prisoner's dilemma, it is evidence of their non involvement, even if you choose to discount it.



He certainly had an arrest record at the time of the murder. Regardless of how he acquired the knife, he armed himself during a crime, and had no intention of using it for cooking, even by his own word.



The loosest of connections based mostly on happenstance proximity. Phone records or witness testimony would have greatly aided the prosecution here, but they had none, which is evidence of, and consistent with there being no real connection between these two.



Nobody suggested it was. Your entire theory of the crime is based on Massei's line of reasoning, something is possible, therefore plausible.

You are not hearing the FACTS. You are overriding FACTS with your half-baked opinion.

 

[Vixen]

Rudy "named" Amanda both times. The first time he named her - in what he thought was in confidence to his friend over skype from Germany - he said she had nothing to do with the murder.

Once back in the hands of police in Perugia he named her again. This time, once arrested, he named her as involved once he faced charges of his own.

This is hardly the "prisoner's dilemma", but it is consistent - it is consistent with Vixen pulling these terms out of thin air and ham-handedly applying it to her own construction of events.....

...... which don't line up with the actual record of events.

As you say, bagels, Vixen's theory has Amanda and Raffaele conspiring with Rudy when both of them thought they had other commitments for the evening.

One thing I'll give Vixen - unlike the other guilters who have graced these threads on JREF/ISF, she actually does give it a go, reconstructing the narrative to suit her theory. On the other hand, people like Machiavelli (when asked) steadfastly refused to reconstruct a narrative.

So I'll give Vixen that.

Come on, Bill, you know what is meant. Rudy did not name Amanda as an accomplice, just as Amanda carefully named Patrick instead of Rudy.


The pings show Amanda read Patrick's text message, 'don't come in' near the cottage and she and Raff switched off their phones shortly after that, so your 'other commitments' alibi falls flat. In addition, Raff falsely claims Amanda was standing by his side when his Papa rang circa 20:42.


Amanda tore out her diary page for the last days of October. No doubt detailing hers and Raff's plan for an 'extreme experience' as dreamt of by him and to fix Mez for her, for snubbing her and not inviting her at Halloween or the next afternoon. Amanda No-Friends and Flakey Raff and his porno manga off their heads on drugs.

 

[Welshman]

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

I urge you to read up on Bertrand Russell's "cosmic teapot" analogy - it will help you to understand the principle of the problem of unfalsifiable claims. In your trite example, it's ridiculously easy to prove with full certainty whether or not your claim that Mourinho is listed as the Man U manager on the Man U official website is true (or rather, that he WAS at the point when you made the claim, assuming he's not lost his job yet today).

However, how would you deal with my claim that "There's a new species of animal in Puerto Rico which is a simian-like creature with a body length of 4 feet, but with 15-foot-long arms; furthermore, it has evolved infra-red vision and can therefore hunt at night with ease"?

And it's the same "Russell's cosmic teapot" rule which can also be applied to certain "claims" about the Knox/Sollecito trial process and its aftermath. Just for example: the claim that Sollecito has been writing "disgusting misogynist filth" on a "private Facebook page"*, and "boasting about getting away with it (i.e. the murder of Meredith Kercher)".

Read about "Russell's cosmic teapot", and your understanding about unfalsifiable claims - and the resultant burden of proof - might improve.


* ETA: the only "information" about what may have been posted on this "private Facebook page" at the moment seems to be a combination of some selective screenshots done by a fringe Italian magazine, where context is impossible to divine, and some "commentary" by the same magazine which, on the face of it, appears to be somewhat partisan and agenda-driven in its interpretation. This is not therefore a claim which is capable of effective, reliable verification or falsification by any regular person - hence its inherent level of unfalsifiability.

I don’t agree it is difficult to establish if someone is telling falsehoods particularly when discussing a criminal case. There are several reasons for this :-
• A criminal case will produce a record in the form of court transcripts, documents submitted by the defence and prosecution and exhibits. You can establish if someone is telling a falsehood if their claims contradict the records. I have a post below which shows several falsehoods made by Vixen and I can tell they are falsehoods because the claims contradict the case records.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11430102#post11430102

Vixen claims there was a full profile of Meredith’s DNA on the knife. The knife did not match a blood imprint on the bed, did not match the wounds and was too big to have caused them, there was no blood or human biological material on the knife, the defence had no objection to the knife being opened whilst the prosecution opposed opening the knife. The characteristics of the knife makes it impossible for the knife to have stabbed Meredith or for there to be any DNA which shows Vixen’s claim about there being a full profile on the knife to be false. As you can see from the post Stefanoni was evasive in court and could not tell how much DNA was on the knife and the prosecution had to resort to suppressing evidence, using false documents and lying which the prosecution would not have to do if there was a full profile on the knife.
Vixen claims the defence agreed there was a full profile on the knife. There is no record of this in any documents . If the defence had agreed there was a full profile on the knife, this would be of immense benefit to the prosecution. There is no record of the prosecution saying the defence agreed there was a full profile on the knife.

Vixen claims there were 12 pieces of tissues on the knife. C&V said in their report the knife was negative for the human species and there is no record of the prosecution saying there was tissue or human biological material on the knife.

• If someone makes a claim which lacks credibility and is full of holes, this indicates the claim is a falsehood. I recall Vixen claiming Kurt Knox paid 2 million dollars to the PR firm used by Amanda’s family. There are numerous problems with this claim. How did a family of modest means find this money? The case lasted six years and there were three main trials. The Knox family had to fund legal costs. In addition as Amanda’s family came from the US and the trial was held in Italy, Amanda’s family had to be spend money on lodgings and airfares. How could the Knox family fund a defence in a foreign land over six years and pay 2 million dollars to the PR firm?
Vixen claims in another post she had evidence Hellman was bribed 500,000 dollars to find Amanda and Raffaele not guilty. Vixen lives in the UK. How does Vixen find a contact who says Hellman had been bribed? Vixen says nothing about going to the Italian authorities. If this allegation was true, why has Vixen not gone to the Italian authorities?

• If someone makes a claim but no can’t produce evidence to back this claim, it is safe to assume it is a falsehood. I recall Vixen was asked to produce evidence of the claim Kurt Knox had paid 2 million dollars to the PR firm and she was unable to do so. She couldn’t provide details as to how the money was raised when they had defence costs to pay for, when the money was paid or provide any evidence from the accounts of the PR firm this sum of money was paid by Kurt Knox.

• Vixen has made damming accusations and if these accusations were true, TJMK and the prosecution would have used them. If TJMK and the prosecution don’t use these allegations, it can be assumed the allegations are false. Vixen alleges that Hellman was bribed 500,000 dollars to find Amanda and Raffaele not guilty. If this was true, this would give the prosecution and TJMK a massive propaganda gift. Despite this Mignini and TJMK have said nothing about this.

 

[bagels]

You are not hearing the FACTS. You are overriding FACTS with your half-baked opinion.

Everything I listed is a hard fact. I didn't even bother to bring in the expert opinion on the DNA evidence and other contested evidence. I simply stated the uncontested facts of the case that by themselves raise substantial reasonable doubt.

Your opinion is, in spite of these facts, it is still technically possible AK & RS participated in the murder. I have no objection.

Here's a question I have for you. Let's take something we wildly disagree with, the break-in. For me I obviously believe that this break-in, while presenting a moderate physical challenge, was easily doable for Rudy, an athletic guy already connected with cat burglaries. You on the other hand believe that not only was the break-in not doable, the state of the scene is self evidently a staging and couldn't have been the result of anything but. This means from your point of view, not only am I mistaken, but my brain is so clouded by biased thinking that I'm incapable of seeing the simple truth, and instead rationalize an extremely implausible belief.

Well...that establishes something interesting, that you acknowledge it is possible for someone to be so overcome by bias that they cannot see clearly or interpret facts clearly. You concede this by default. So my next question for you would be, how do you know you aren't the one that is overcome by bias? How would you be able to tell? Clearly you wouldn't be able to trust your own reasoning, since it would be a product of biased influenced. What external cues could you use, if any? I think this topic is the only meaningful exchange a committed PGP and PIP could have.

 

[Vixen]

I don’t agree it is difficult to establish if someone is telling falsehoods particularly when discussing a criminal case. There are several reasons for this :-
• A criminal case will produce a record in the form of court transcripts, documents submitted by the defence and prosecution and exhibits. You can establish if someone is telling a falsehood if their claims contradict the records. I have a post below which shows several falsehoods made by Vixen and I can tell they are falsehoods because the claims contradict the case records.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11430102#post11430102

Vixen claims there was a full profile of Meredith’s DNA on the knife. The knife did not match a blood imprint on the bed, did not match the wounds and was too big to have caused them, there was no blood or human biological material on the knife, the defence had no objection to the knife being opened whilst the prosecution opposed opening the knife. The characteristics of the knife makes it impossible for the knife to have stabbed Meredith or for there to be any DNA which shows Vixen’s claim about there being a full profile on the knife to be false. As you can see from the post Stefanoni was evasive in court and could not tell how much DNA was on the knife and the prosecution had to resort to suppressing evidence, using false documents and lying which the prosecution would not have to do if there was a full profile on the knife.
Vixen claims the defence agreed there was a full profile on the knife. There is no record of this in any documents . If the defence had agreed there was a full profile on the knife, this would be of immense benefit to the prosecution. There is no record of the prosecution saying the defence agreed there was a full profile on the knife.

Vixen claims there were 12 pieces of tissues on the knife. C&V said in their report the knife was negative for the human species and there is no record of the prosecution saying there was tissue or human biological material on the knife.

• If someone makes a claim which lacks credibility and is full of holes, this indicates the claim is a falsehood. I recall Vixen claiming Kurt Knox paid 2 million dollars to the PR firm used by Amanda’s family. There are numerous problems with this claim. How did a family of modest means find this money? The case lasted six years and there were three main trials. The Knox family had to fund legal costs. In addition as Amanda’s family came from the US and the trial was held in Italy, Amanda’s family had to be spend money on lodgings and airfares. How could the Knox family fund a defence in a foreign land over six years and pay 2 million dollars to the PR firm?
Vixen claims in another post she had evidence Hellman was bribed 500,000 dollars to find Amanda and Raffaele not guilty. Vixen lives in the UK. How does Vixen find a contact who says Hellman had been bribed? Vixen says nothing about going to the Italian authorities. If this allegation was true, why has Vixen not gone to the Italian authorities?

• If someone makes a claim but no can’t produce evidence to back this claim, it is safe to assume it is a falsehood. I recall Vixen was asked to produce evidence of the claim Kurt Knox had paid 2 million dollars to the PR firm and she was unable to do so. She couldn’t provide details as to how the money was raised when they had defence costs to pay for, when the money was paid or provide any evidence from the accounts of the PR firm this sum of money was paid by Kurt Knox.

• Vixen has made damming accusations and if these accusations were true, TJMK and the prosecution would have used them. If TJMK and the prosecution don’t use these allegations, it can be assumed the allegations are false. Vixen alleges that Hellman was bribed 500,000 dollars to find Amanda and Raffaele not guilty. If this was true, this would give the prosecution and TJMK a massive propaganda gift. Despite this Mignini and TJMK have said nothing about this.

Give'em a chance, give 'em a chance. The info only came out last month about Hellmann, although the rumours have been persistent for a while.

Stefanoni's comments about finding twelve pieces of human material is n Darkness Descending as you have been told on numerous occasions, so the reader needs to ask who is the liar.

A near full profile of Mez was indeed found on the blade (15 -alleles) and a full-profile of Raff (17-allelles) on the bra clasp. Modern day methods test for a maximum 17 and Raff scored the maximum.

The defence accept that both the knife and the bra clasp DNA identify Mez and Raff, respectively.

The reader can judge whether Welshman is telling the truth about the defence opposing this positive ID.

We all know the defence accepted the DNA profiles were of Mez and Raff.

 

[Vixen]

Everything I listed is a hard fact. I didn't even bother to bring in the expert opinion on the DNA evidence and other contested evidence. I simply stated the uncontested facts of the case that by themselves raise substantial reasonable doubt.

Your opinion is, in spite of these facts, it is still technically possible AK & RS participated in the murder. I have no objection.

Here's a question I have for you. Let's take something we wildly disagree with, the break-in. For me I obviously believe that this break-in, while presenting a moderate physical challenge, was easily doable for Rudy, an athletic guy already connected with cat burglaries. You on the other hand believe that not only was the break-in not doable, the state of the scene is self evidently a staging and couldn't have been the result of anything but. This means from your point of view, not only am I mistaken, but my brain is so clouded by biased thinking that I'm incapable of seeing the simple truth, and instead rationalize an extremely implausible belief.

Well...that establishes something interesting, that you acknowledge it is possible for someone to be so overcome by bias that they cannot see clearly or interpret facts clearly. You concede this by default. So my next question for you would be, how do you know you aren't the one that is overcome by bias? How would you be able to tell? Clearly you wouldn't be able to trust your own reasoning, since it would be a product of biased influenced. What external cues could you use, if any? I think this topic is the only meaningful exchange a committed PGP and PIP could have.

I didn't say the burglary wasn't 'do-able'. As Rudy was known to Amanda and Mez and the guys downstairs, all he had to do was ring the bell, and indeed, the trial courts, Micheli, Massei and Nencini upheld that Rudy came in through the front door.

Your 'proof' - the breakin at the lawyers office - is a false one, as there is no similarity, aside from the smashed window (hello? Burglars smash windows, now there's a thing.). The lawyers themselves said they believed it an inside job as (a) a USB stick was specifically stolen, together with legal data of no interest for the black market, (b) whoever did it knew how to switch off the burglar alarm, which the lawyer himself said he would not know how to, and (c) various equipment was carted off, which required more than one person, and (d) they needed a getaway car to transport it away.

In addition, the 'cottage burglar' did not climb in via the balcony, so not Rudy's MO, then.

Further, three laptops at the cottage were ignored. Plus gold jewellery and a camera clearly visible. Nothing at all was stolen except personal items of Mez'. Micheli said the phones had no market value so were taken to delay detection of the crime, and that legally, specifically, they were not taken by Rudy. Mez' credit cards and rent money were taken, yet Amanda's rent money was untouched.

A random burglar had no motive to target Mez but not the other occupants. Rudy had no grudge against Mez. Amanda did.

The papers scattered around the crime scene were also scattered on top of the duvet covering the body which proves the murder came first.

There is zero trace of Rudy in the burglary room, but Amanda has trailed blood into it. We know this because her DNA is mixed in with Mez' blood speck in that room.

Rudy never removed his shoes, his footprints leave the cottage, but yet a shard from the broken window in Filomena's room is in the murder room, trailed in by Amanda. We can surmise this as Amanda's shoe print is on some of the papers scattered in Filomena's room, including a postcard by the window.


Plus there is no innocent reason for Raff and Amanda's footprints in Mez' blood in the hallway and small bathroom.

The fact that you ignore these FACTS as found by a court of law and upheld by even the bent Marasca-Bruno shows that YOU are in denial.

Face the facts, bagels.

 

[bagels]

I didn't say the burglary wasn't 'do-able'. As Rudy was known to Amanda and Mez and the guys downstairs, all he had to do was ring the bell, and indeed, the trial courts, Micheli, Massei and Nencini upheld that Rudy came in through the front door.

Your 'proof' - the breakin at the lawyers office - is a false one, as there is no similarity, aside from the smashed window (hello? Burglars smash windows, now there's a thing.). The lawyers themselves said they believed it an inside job as (a) a USB stick was specifically stolen, together with legal data of no interest for the black market, (b) whoever did it knew how to switch off the burglar alarm, which the lawyer himself said he would not know how to, and (c) various equipment was carted off, which required more than one person, and (d) they needed a getaway car to transport it away.

In addition, the 'cottage burglar' did not climb in via the balcony, so not Rudy's MO, then.

Further, three laptops at the cottage were ignored. Plus gold jewellery and a camera clearly visible. Nothing at all was stolen except personal items of Mez'. Micheli said the phones had no market value so were taken to delay detection of the crime, and that legally, specifically, they were not taken by Rudy. Mez' credit cards and rent money were taken, yet Amanda's rent money was untouched.

A random burglar had no motive to target Mez but not the other occupants. Rudy had no grudge against Mez. Amanda did.

The papers scattered around the crime scene were also scattered on top of the duvet covering the body which proves the murder came first.

There is zero trace of Rudy in the burglary room, but Amanda has trailed blood into it. We know this because her DNA is mixed in with Mez' blood speck in that room.

Rudy never removed his shoes, his footprints leave the cottage, but yet a shard from the broken window in Filomena's room is in the murder room, trailed in by Amanda. We can surmise this as Amanda's shoe print is on some of the papers scattered in Filomena's room, including a postcard by the window.


Plus there is no innocent reason for Raff and Amanda's footprints in Mez' blood in the hallway and small bathroom.

The fact that you ignore these FACTS as found by a court of law and upheld by even the bent Marasca-Bruno shows that YOU are in denial.

Face the facts, bagels.

If I haven't come around to your view of the case yet, it's obvious I'm not going to. That's why I think a discussion about how we can figure out if we're the one drowning in delusional bias to be a more interesting and potentially more fruitful one.

From my point of view, you are the one who ignores substantial evidence in favor of your preferred theory.

One cue we can look to is the final result. My view that the case was weak and more than met any sensible standard for reasonable doubt is consistent with an acquittal. Your view requires the belief in the mafia calling in their favors on the supreme court, all to free some unimportant psycho twerp.

We should look more at this type of evidence, on the periphery. Could be interesting IMO.

 

[Bill Williams]

The pings show Amanda read Patrick's text message, 'don't come in' near the cottage and she and Raff switched off their phones shortly after that, so your 'other commitments' alibi falls flat.

Theres9no point in talking to you if you simply make things up. No one ever claimed before this that Amanda’s phone pinged near the cottage. Not even the fake-wiki. Maybe you should add this factoid to it!

 

[Vixen]

Theres9no point in talking to you if you simply make things up. No one ever claimed before this that Amanda’s phone pinged near the cottage. Not even the fake-wiki. Maybe you should add this factoid to it!

Oh dear. Please look at the phone logs - all available as part of the court records. Amanda was by the basketball courts when she read Patrick's message.