• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh dear.

... 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."

Oh dear indeed.

Whether the accusation is a falsehood or not, it is not clearly a falsehood because Vixen has not provided a link.

If you can not accept this because you agree with the logic expressed by Welshman, it is truly sad.

If, as I suspect, you can not accept it because you can not bring yourself to agree with me, it is even sadder.

Either way your statement

And in this specific instance, Welshman was absolutely correct

:dl:
 
So you have no comments about Raff's behavior: lying to the police, refusing to take the stand in court, saying he couldn't vouch for Amanda between 20:45 to 01:00 - in a weaselly attempt to shift suspicion away from himself - and now he is posting disgusting mysogynist filth on a private FB page full of perverts graphically describing their hate fantasies, and using Mez' name to make the crudest suggestions on how to hide a body or cut it up, such as 'We ********** the body'.

And you are only interested in the poster.

No surprise, given the awful antics of your hero.

Innocent defendants are usually advised to stay away from courtroom testimony in their own case. (...and guilty people often testify to try lie their way into a better position).

Innocent defendants can be undermined by a skilled a prosecutor who will try to elicit a (seemingly innocuous) response from a defendant under cross examination which could undermine the case of a perefectly innocent person.

It's pretty obvious that a sleeping person cannot testify as an alibi. Doing so would undermine their credibility for obvious reasons.

I can repeat the BS from plenty of websites and doing so doesn't make the BS less so. I could even start by quoting the BS of Mr Quennell but I don't believe anybody with an IQ anywhere near half Mensa status would swallow this utter crap.
 
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.

You are inventing that. I note you yourself do not give a link to the logs. When someone is foolish enough to go on this wild goose chase and finds out the logs say no such thing you'll fall back on your well weathered.....

"You knew what I meant."

Such is your commitment to accuracy. But here we go, around Vixen's merry-go-round.......

One. More. Time!
 
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...

As highlighted, this is a particularly bizarre theory.
 
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.

There is.

The knife did not match a blood imprint on the bed, did not match the wounds and was too big to have caused them,

It matches the blood imprint(s) perfectly. And it matches very well the main wound.

there was no blood or human biological material on the knife,

False. There was human DNA. Which implies human biological material.

the defence had no objection to the knife being opened whilst the prosecution opposed opening the knife.

Also the civil parties objected, but it's completely pointless.
The objection was founded on the fact that C&V were violating their mandate, since they were ordered to carry on a limited mission and were ordered to let the judge decide before carrying on any further action nor previously agreed.
Supreme Court established that Conti & Vecchiotti were "intellectually dishonest" based on the evidence of their behaviour - because they did not do what they were ordered to (while doing things they were not allowed to).

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 for charachteristics of knife it is only your opinion, and is wrong. That the full profile was there it is a fact, acknowledged even by C&V.

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.

Absolutely false. This is the pro-Knox supporters' world. It's a delusional trip.
(prosecution never suppressed any evidence, never lied, never used false documents)

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.

It would have been completely pointless to the prosecution whether the defence "agreed" or not.
Actually, in fact all courts agreed Meredith's DNA was found on the blade.
As for trial documents, the defence even claimed there was DNA compatible with Amanda Knox on the Bra Clasp.

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?

I don't know about the pieces of tissues, but Vixen is correct about the other claims.

• If someone makes a claim but no can’t produce evidence to back this claim, it is safe to assume it is a falsehood.

Actually, it is not. It depends on the claim.

(...)
 
You are inventing that. I note you yourself do not give a link to the logs. When someone is foolish enough to go on this wild goose chase and finds out the logs say no such thing you'll fall back on your well weathered.....

"You knew what I meant."

Such is your commitment to accuracy. But here we go, around Vixen's merry-go-round.......

One. More. Time!

I would have thought someone like yourself claiming to be a pro-innocenter leading light would be familiar with the basic details of the case. We have discussed this often enough.

Here's the link, although I am not sure what stops you from looking it up yourself.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.c...s/2007-11-06-Log-cellphone-Vodaphone-Knox.pdf
 


Yeah. I asked for proof of your very specific claims 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).


Your link doesn't provide proof of either of these things. It is link to an article which is discussing an article in another magazine which in turn is discussing stupid and immature remarks made by Sollecito, having been egged on by others, in a private FB group.

Once again, show me proof that this private FB page was a "misogynist hate site", and that Sollecito's actual words espoused misogynist views. Have another go. Thanks in advance :)
 
Innocent defendants are usually advised to stay away from courtroom testimony in their own case. (...and guilty people often testify to try lie their way into a better position).

Innocent defendants can be undermined by a skilled a prosecutor who will try to elicit a (seemingly innocuous) response from a defendant under cross examination which could undermine the case of a perefectly innocent person.

It's pretty obvious that a sleeping person cannot testify as an alibi. Doing so would undermine their credibility for obvious reasons.

I can repeat the BS from plenty of websites and doing so doesn't make the BS less so. I could even start by quoting the BS of Mr Quennell but I don't believe anybody with an IQ anywhere near half Mensa status would swallow this utter crap.


...Or guilty ones.

A good analysis is here:

By the time of his trial, Sollecito elected not to give evidence in his own defence and none of the parties requested him to be questioned. The only available testimony, which was of limited value, was the spontaneous declaration made by him at the Matteini hearing plus that of witnesses such as Robyn Carmel Butterworth (one of Meredith’s English girlfriends) who declared that while they were together at Police Headquarters on the afternoon of November 2, Sollecito said in her presence that Amanda Knox was with him on the night between November 1 and 2.

Two preliminary observations can be made. First, Sollecito’s decision not to give evidence at his trial was curious given the forensic evidence which the prosecution had marshalled against him. The prosecution asserted it proved his presence at Via della Pergola 7 at the material time when Meredith Kercher was murdered. Sollecito ran the risk that the Court would draw an adverse inference from his refusal to give evidence. As we shall see from the trial Court’s findings (outlined later), the tribunal had no difficulty in concluding that Sollecito’s limited declarations, such as they were, coupled with Knox’s accounts, were false and, that the totality of the evidence proved they were guilty of being complicit, inter alia, in the digital rape and murder of Meredith Kercher.

Secondly, the disparate and changing accounts of Sollecito, which in part contradicted Knox’s explanation for what they were doing together on the evening of 1st November into November 2, 2007, led the authorities, to suspect that they had been complicit in the murder of Meredith Kercher. This suspicion reached a climax with the results of the biological and forensic tests highlighted later in this article.

https://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Brutal-Killing-Meredith-Kercher-–-Part-3
 


Yeah. Once again, simply posting a link to this article does not address my requests. Please will you provide proof that Sollecito's words on this FB group page are "disgusting misogynist filth", that the FB page in question is "full of perverts graphically discussing their hate fantasies" (rather than, say immature young men and women messing around in an inappropriate manner), 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". Those were your very specific and explicit accusations. Can you now please back them up with verbatim quotes from Sollecito, or I'll consider them withdrawn.

Thanks again in advance :D
 
Yeah. I asked for proof of your very specific claims 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).


Your link doesn't provide proof of either of these things. It is link to an article which is discussing an article in another magazine which in turn is discussing stupid and immature remarks made by Sollecito, having been egged on by others, in a private FB group.

Once again, show me proof that this private FB page was a "misogynist hate site", and that Sollecito's actual words espoused misogynist views. Have another go. Thanks in advance :)


You have been given ample links. Now go do your own research.
 
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...


It's a near-certainty that neither Knox nor Sollecito was involved in the murder of Meredith Kercher. It's a total certainty that not one piece of credible, reliable evidence of their participation in that murder ever existed. You do KNOW that by now, don't you......?
 

Looks interesting let's see....

As for Knox and Sollecito, as set out in this entire section: “Analysis and Evaluation – the forbidden reasoning”, Micheli’s finding that Meredith’s murder must have been committed by two or more persons is rejected. Further, that the totality of the circumstantial evidence, did not combine to demonstrate Knox and Sollecito’s complicity and did not create a comprehensive and complete framework without gaps or incongruities (in contradistinction to the remarks of the Massei Report outlined earlier). And finally, the Massei Court’s finding (ante) that it was first Sollecito, with a pocket knife, followed by Knox, who stabbed Meredith with the Double DNA Knife, is, to say the least, a misconceived theory. This finding is critically analysed and evaluated in section 7 (b) infra.

(To be continued next week.)

About the author
F.G. Davies BA (Hons), Barrister

Oh....
 
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.


Oh mannn. Let me spell it out in the simplest terms I can think of.

1) The police and PM become convinced, by around 3-4 Nov, that they know what "really happened" in respect of the murder.

2) What they think "really happened" was that Knox met up with the man with whom she exchanged text messages that night, and took him to the cottage whereupon he attacked and killed Kercher. Knox then staged the break-in the following morning to cunningly try to misdirect investigators away from a keyholder (i.e. herself).

3) At that point, both Knox and Sollectito were adamantly telling the police that they spent the whole of the evening and night together alone in Sollecito's apartment.

4) Because the police "knew" what had happened, they in turn "knew" that Knox and Sollecito "had" to be lying about Knox's whereabouts/movements on the murder night.

5) The police/PM surmised that Knox had persuaded Sollecito to lie and corroborate her claim of being with him in his apartment, and that Sollecito had agreed to do so out of loyalty/love/fear/whatever.

6) Therefore, the first part of the police/PM plan on the "interrogation night" of 5/6 Nov was to bring Sollecito in and *persuade* him to stop lying to protect Knox - and to tell them the "truth" that Knox had left his apartment that night.

7) They brought Sollecito and started putting heavy pressure on him. They told him that he could get into massive trouble if he kept lying to protect Knox, that Knox was evil for even getting him to lie on her behalf, that they (the police) already knew for sure what had happened, and that Knox had been present at the murder, so there was no mileage for Sollecito in keeping up his lie that she'd been with him at home all evening/night. They told him that if he "fessed up" now and told them the truth - that Knox had actually left his apartment for a sizeable period of time on the night of the murder - then he (Sollecito) would likely not be in any further trouble. They told him it was time to abandon the bitch Knox.

8) Sollecito got into a befuddled and confused state amidst all of this. He remembered a night on which Knox HAD gone out while he stayed at home, but he had thought that was the previous night. He asked the police for a calendar, because he thought that would clarify his memory. They police refused to provide him with one.

9) In the face of the simultaneous threats and "carrots" from the police, in the face of the police's claims that they had solid evidence that Knox was present at the murder, and by now in a thoroughly confused state about dates, Sollecito came to an internal resolution that the date on which Knox had gone out in the night and left him alone in his apartment MUST have been the date of the murder, since this was the only explanation which fit with what the police were telling him.

10) However, Sollecito was wrong. The evening he described to the police was, in fact, a description of movements of Knox and Sollecito which provably took place the previous evening to that of the murder - the evening/night of Halloween, 31 Oct. But Sollecito had become so confused by the police and so convinced of the idea that the police already "knew" Knox had been present at the murder, he convinced himself that events which actually took place on Halloween night took place on the night of the murder.

11) The police (and PM), having had the goal of getting Sollecito to "admit" that Knox had left his apartment on the night of the murder, enthusiastically took his (actually false) statement, since they could now use it in phase two of their plan: to confront Knox with the news that Sollecito had "abandoned" her alibi, and to get her in turn to "buckle" and "tell them what they already knew to be correct".


Hope that makes it easier to understand.
 
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 and Tex Watson had victims.

Knox and Sollecito don't have victims (they were acquitted and exonerated in respect of the Kercher murder, and they almost certainly were not involved at all in it).

That might be the difference. I dunno.......... :rolleyes:
 
There is.



It matches the blood imprint(s) perfectly. And it matches very well the main wound.



False. There was human DNA. Which implies human biological material.



Also the civil parties objected, but it's completely pointless.
The objection was founded on the fact that C&V were violating their mandate, since they were ordered to carry on a limited mission and were ordered to let the judge decide before carrying on any further action nor previously agreed.
Supreme Court established that Conti & Vecchiotti were "intellectually dishonest" based on the evidence of their behaviour - because they did not do what they were ordered to (while doing things they were not allowed to).



As for charachteristics of knife it is only your opinion, and is wrong. That the full profile was there it is a fact, acknowledged even by C&V.



Absolutely false. This is the pro-Knox supporters' world. It's a delusional trip.
(prosecution never suppressed any evidence, never lied, never used false documents)



It would have been completely pointless to the prosecution whether the defence "agreed" or not.
Actually, in fact all courts agreed Meredith's DNA was found on the blade.
As for trial documents, the defence even claimed there was DNA compatible with Amanda Knox on the Bra Clasp.



I don't know about the pieces of tissues, but Vixen is correct about the other claims.



Actually, it is not. It depends on the claim.

(...)

Good to see you. Any thoughts on how pending lawsuits in Florence are going, claiming judicial misconduct in this case?

Any thoughts on Andrea Vogt's observations about armchair detectives who are trying to further Kercher misery in this case?
 
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.

Rudy claimed she made eyes at him. LOL! He also claimed Meredith invited him over and wanted to have sex but he stopped for lack of a condom. Such a considerate gentleman!

It's amusing, but oh so typical, that you claim Amanda was "clearly" attracted to him and came downstairs just for him. Yep, it couldn't have been because she was invited and wanted to smoke some weed with the boys and Meredith. Perhaps Meredith was also "clearly attracted" to Guede since she came downstairs too, but had to settle for Silenzi when she saw Guede and Amanda were "clearly" attracted to each other. Oh, wait...no one testified to even seeing the two of them talking to each other that night.

Exactly how did Amanda and Raff get in touch with Rudy to let him know she wasn't going to work that night and Raff wasn't taking his friend to the station? There were no phone calls between them, no text messages, no emails. Did they just meet him on their way to the cottage? Why would Amanda even think of including Guede in anything at all, much less inviting him to her place with Raff who had never met Guede ? It's illogical to think she did.
 
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!


No. Once again: Sollecito's police statements were not "brought up as court testimony".

It's been explained to you several times now what testimony is (in the context of a criminal trial and law enforcement) and how it differs from, say, documents submitted into evidence in court.

Sollecito's police statements were entered into evidence. That's not testimony. You made an ignorant mistake using the word "testimony". End of.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom