The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 24

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
I perceive the world differently than most as I have a higher consciousness. I am awake. I can recognise truth, beauty and reality. I do not fudge wishful thinking with revising what I don't like.
Click to expand...
Wow. You must be very close to God, unlike the rest of us. And as for fudging wishful thinking, IMO it is exactly what you've been engaged in since joining this service
Vixen said:
You wish for the kids to be innocent. Fervent wishing cannot make it so. However, the reality is, every aspect of the kids behaviour and the evidence, shows tragically, the life of an innocent - extremely nice - young lady was terminated by the evil actions of cruel vindictive persons.
Click to expand...
This is exactly your wishful thinking.

To quote the court which exonerated the pair:

In other words, the use of logic and intuition cannot, in any way, compensate for the lack of evidence or the inefficiency of the investigations.

Faced with missing, insufficient or contradictory evidence, the judge should simply accept it and issue a verdict of acquittal, according to Article 530, section 2 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, even if he is really convinced of the guilt of the defendant.

There are, furthermore, patent [factual] errors in the reasoning of the ruling under examination. Along these lines, the assertion made on page 321, according to which, Sollecito’s DNA was found, along with Kercher’s, in the imperceptible striations on the knife deemed to be the murder weapon (Exhibit 36), is absolutely groundless.​
Click to expand...
8.1. An element of evidence of unchallengeable relevance - for the reasons explained hereinafter - is represented by the total absence of biological traces attributable with certainty to the two defendants in the murder room or on the body of the victim, whereas, instead, abundant traces surely attributable to Guede have been found.

This was an insurmountable monolithic barrier on the path taken by the fact-finding judge to arrive at the conviction of the present defendants, already acquitted previously for the murder by the Court of Appeals of Perugia.​
Click to expand...
 
Vixen said:
I perceive the world differently than most as I have a higher consciousness. I am awake. I can recognise truth, beauty and reality. I do not fudge wishful thinking with revising what I don't like.

Every now and then I meet people on a similar plane. For example, my orthdontist, who gave me a running commentary on Time, Newtonian physics, zen, paradoxes and lucid dreaming (he has a physics & genetics degree from Trinity, Dublin and is a famous kick boxer) whilst reconstructing my tooth. Most people never think about any of those things.


It's the difference between someone who is asleep (uses 10% of their consciousness) and someone who is aware. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king (HG Wells). A two-eyed person comes along and the one-eyed knows not what the two-eyed person sees. Perspective, dimension, acuity, the whole picture.

You wish for the kids to be innocent. Fervent wishing cannot make it so. However, the reality is, every aspect of the kids behaviour and the evidence, shows tragically, the life of an innocent - extremely nice - young lady was terminated by the evil actions of cruel vindictive persons.

We don't even need to be awake. We can look at science, and the Prisoners Dilemma predicts exactly how each perp will behave. And sure enough, Rudy, Amanda and Raff have lived up to mathematical expectation.

Your faith consists in 'Oh I hope to goodness they will never be found out as my entire belief system is founded on their getting away with it.'

Which is better? Purer?
Click to expand...

I am happy for you if your spiritual beliefs help you and make you content. I do not think they necessarily give you more insight into the case. I don't think anyone wants genuine criminals to get away with anything. Were new evidence to be produced that proved AK and RS to be guilty then it might be a bit awkward and embarrassing and this thread would end.
 
Bill Williams said:
You do not know any of this. I'd ask you to produce the receipt, but your side is satisfied with simply making the assertion.

And this is before even considering why she should not be reimbursed? But that question will simply enrage you.
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
We do know this, because I gave you the link.

Did she let CBSA know she was there in Canada to work (like Nigella was in the USA)?

You think she would do this for nothing? No way, José!
Click to expand...

You mean the link where a drop down list gives several payment amount choices including one where the speaker "DONATES" their time"? That one?

I notice you still refuse to answer my question regarding the TJMK, PMF, and TMofMK sites failing to produce a copy of Amanda's "US criminal record". This is typical of you; rather than admit they would if one exits, you either skirt the actual question and try diversion or just ignore it. So predictable.
 
acbytesla said:
All I see is wild speculation designed to support a preconceived idea. It's clear you don't know what probative evidence is. A collection of facts that can have a multiple explanations does not credibly prove anything.
Click to expand...

Not 'wild speculation': carefully presented and analysed evidence put forward by expert forensic witnesses.

It is not unusual for a woman to take a knife to a crime scene (cf Rachel Wade who carefully picked up a kitchen knife on her way out to confront her victim and stab her to death).

It is demonstrably true the burglary scene was staged. For example, it happened after the murder, with the killer trailing Mez' blood into Filomena's room. Mixed in with this blood was Amanda's DNA. Blood takes just 30" to dry and Massei, Nencini, Marasca and Masi all state in plain language in their MR's that Amanda was present at the murder.

The three perps covering up for each other, and then trying to push each other under the bus is exactly what Prisoners Dilemma game theory suggests.

We see it in a marked degree in Raff, who started playing the game at a very early stage.

You are deluded if you think the kids' conviction was just an accident, due to the cops being corrupt.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Not 'wild speculation': carefully presented and analysed evidence put forward by expert forensic witnesses.
Click to expand...

Who are these experts?

But the merry-go-round is STILL going around and we are back to this. There are NO experts who support Stefanoni's conclusions.

Eight of nine experts who testified at the Massei trial in 2009 (now 8 years ago!) said that a single attacker could not be ruled out - when the evidence is assessed.

Who are these experts which save you from the charge of "wild speculation"?

But around and around we go, just like last time you made the assertion above.....
 
Vixen said:
Not 'wild speculation': carefully presented and analysed evidence put forward by expert forensic witnesses.

It is not unusual for a woman to take a knife to a crime scene (cf Rachel Wade who carefully picked up a kitchen knife on her way out to confront her victim and stab her to death).

It is demonstrably true the burglary scene was staged. For example, it happened after the murder, with the killer trailing Mez' blood into Filomena's room. Mixed in with this blood was Amanda's DNA. Blood takes just 30" to dry and Massei, Nencini, Marasca and Masi all state in plain language in their MR's that Amanda was present at the murder.

The three perps covering up for each other, and then trying to push each other under the bus is exactly what Prisoners Dilemma game theory suggests.

We see it in a marked degree in Raff, who started playing the game at a very early stage.

You are deluded if you think the kids' conviction was just an accident, due to the cops being corrupt.
Click to expand...

You can think whatever you want. I see your beliefs to be absurd. Both in god and this case.
 
Vixen said:
1. The fact she is at the centre of the Venn diagram.

Amanda is the only one who knew all three of: Rudy, Raff and Mez.

Amanda did not "know" Guede. She had merely "met" him briefly. NO interaction between Guede and Amanda was found on phones or computers. Yet, somehow, Amanda chose this virtual stranger to join in a murder of a girl she had no problems with. Uh-huh.


2. The fact she failed to report the 'incident' at all.

She had no need to. Raff reported the break-in as would be logical as he spoke Italian and she was in the first stages of learning it. Or do you think it was more logical for her to have called the police?

3. The fact only she knew Mez had two phones.

So did Filomena. But knowing Meredith had two phones is irrelevant.

4. Only she knew where Mez kept her rent money, or that it was due.

The beginning of the month is the traditional time that rent is due. Just as Guede's was and which, being unemployed, he didn't have. Burglars rarely know exactly where money is kept. That's why they look through things. Like purses. You know. where his DNA was found. Not Knox's. Not Sollecito's.

5. Only she knew the cottage was empty apart from her and Mez for the entire weekend.

For the weekend, but after he threw the rock through the window, he knew no one was home at that time as there was no response. Looks like he learned after breaking into Tramontano's place when both the resident and his girlfriend were home.

6. The fact she tried to derail the police investigation away from herself by accusing Patrick of the crime.

LOL. Right... knowing there would be no evidence of him at the scene because he really wasn't there and knowing he had been at work that night at his bar with customers. Otherwise known as alibi witnesses.

7. The fact she covered up for Rudy.

As in leaving the bloody bathmat and Guede's shoeprints? As in removing all her and Raffaele's DNA and fingerprints but making sure to LEAVE his? That kind of covering up?

8. The fact she failed to report her lamp missing when asked and had to be asked several times in court whether it was hers.

Now that's a whopper! This is her testimony:

GM: Okay. Okay. Listen, another question. The lamp that was found in Meredith's room, a black lamp with a red button, that was found in Meredith's room, at the foot of the bed. Was it yours?

AK: I did have a lamp with a red button in my room, yes.

GM:So the lamp was yours.

AK:I suppose it was.

GM: Was it missing from your room?

AK:You know, I didn't look.

You mean that failure to report something she didn't know was missing and that having to be asked several times if I was hers?

9. The fact the cottage had been wiped clean of her fingerprints (including on her own lamp).

The prosecution's fingerprint expert,Giuseppe Privitera, testified he saw no signs of any intentional attempts to remove fingerprints.

10. The fact she deceived Filomena, the police and her readers in WTBH about the timing of her various phone calls.

How so? Give an example of how not knowing the exact time of a phone call is an intentional attempt to deceive?

11. Her fore knowledge of the crime scene.

You mean like saying Meredith was found in the closet? LOL

12. Ringing Mom for the first time, since she arrived in Europe, just prior to before the body was found.

How do you know she'd never called her mother before? And, if that is even true, it's irrelevant since she could Skype with her for free. Amanda calling her mother under the circumstances at that time would not be illogical or unexpected.

13. Her claim in her email to all that she knew Mez was behind the locked door 'hurt' which was why she was banging on it louder and louder and Raff 'tried to break it down' (stopping short of actually doing so).

That is false. She never said any such thing in her email. Read it again like I just did.

14. the fact of her DNA mixed in with Mez' blood.

Wow. Raff's and Amanda's DNA was mixed in samples from his apartment. When blood is dripped onto a sink, etc and then wiped up, it's not unusual for pre-existing DNA to be wiped up with it. But I think you really do know that and just don't want to admit it.

15. The simulated burglary to divert attention away from the house occupants.

It was never proved to be simulated. Filomena's testimony stated there was glass both above and below objects in her room. A recreation by an expert showed the rock (er...boulder) was thrown from outside, not inside.

16. Her footprints in Mez' blood in the hallway. The ladies size 37 trainer print under the body in Mez' blood.

1) Footprints were never identified as Amanda's. 2) They weren't in blood as TMB test were negative. 3) No such ladies shoeprint existed. It was another print of Guede's .

17. Her DNA on the murder weapon with Mez' DNA on the blade.

HIGHLY contested by C & V and never confirmed by a required confirmatory test (as stated by the RIS experts themselves). The consensus from several experts is that Stefanoni's analysis was faulty.

18. Raff's footprint on the bathmat and in the hallway.

Guede's footprint. Or do you think Raffaele and Amanda would just leave his bloody footprint there as evidence? AND point it out to the police? Really...use some logic.

19. Only Amanda knew where the downstairs keys were hung (downstairs was disturbed) and which key locked Mez' door.

1)Guede didn't have eyes? He couldn't see keys hanging somewhere? Nor was it ever shown Guede went downstairs that night. 2) Meredith probably had two keys; the front door and her bedroom. I'm sure it took him a long time to determine which was which.

20. Amanda, Rudy and Raff play Prisoners Dilemma together, as predicted by Game Theory.
Click to expand...

Oh, boy. That doesn't even deserve an answer.
 
Bill Williams said:
Who are these experts?

But the merry-go-round is STILL going around and we are back to this. There are NO experts who support Stefanoni's conclusions.

Eight of nine experts who testified at the Massei trial in 2009 (now 8 years ago!) said that a single attacker could not be ruled out - when the evidence is assessed.

Who are these experts which save you from the charge of "wild speculation"?

But around and around we go, just like last time you made the assertion above.....
Click to expand...

Vixen has a tendency to go from A to Z skipping all the letters in between. She talks about experts but the most world renowned detective and forensic DNA experts disagree with her. It's like people who deny evolution and instead believe Ken Hamm. Those people will always have their head in the sand.

Who does Vixen think she is persuading at this point? It's damn clear to me what happened. Rudy broke into the cottage just like he did the nursery, the law office and probably Ms. Diaz and Christian's apartment. He went from committing a burglary to committing sexual assault and murder. He panicked and fled the country. I see no real evidence of Amanda or Raffaele's involvement.

I think 90 percent of Vixen's posts range from logically challenged to false to downright ridiculous. This case is OVER. The kids were found not guilty and I believe them to be factually innocent as well. I'm still interested in the judicial process and whether Knox is exonerated of the ridiculous charge of Callunia mostly to see if full justice is ever attained.
 
acbytesla said:
Vixen has a tendency to go from A to Z skipping all the letters in between. She talks about experts but the most world renowned detective and forensic DNA experts disagree with her. It's like people who deny evolution and instead believe Ken Hamm. Those people will always have their head in the sand.

Who does Vixen think she is persuading at this point? It's damn clear to me what happened. Rudy broke into the cottage just like he did the nursery, the law office and probably Ms. Diaz and Christian's apartment. He went from committing a burglary to committing sexual assault and murder. He panicked and fled the country. I see no real evidence of Amanda or Raffaele's involvement.

I think 90 percent of Vixen's posts range from logically challenged to false to downright ridiculous. This case is OVER. The kids were found not guilty and I believe them to be factually innocent as well. I'm still interested in the judicial process and whether Knox is exonerated of the ridiculous charge of Callunia mostly to see if full justice is ever attained.
Click to expand...

That pretty much sums it up for me, too.

I just enjoy The Vixen Show. Watching how her brain works is fascinating.
 
Vixen said:
I perceive the world differently than most as I have a higher consciousness. I am awake. I can recognise truth, beauty and reality.
Click to expand...


Oh. My. God. (or not God....)

Well, this certainly explains rather a lot.
 
As I see it......... it is perfectly reasonable to discuss/debate an event such as a high-profile murder, and the criminal cases surrounding it, on internet forums.

As I see it......... it is also reasonable to provide information to the legal process if one thinks it is germane and relevant - but only via legal representatives.

As I see it......... it is reasonable for people who have a personal relationship with any of the protagonists to have ongoing contact with those particular protagonists (but not with other protagonists with whom they have no personal relationship).

As I see it.......... it is inappropriate, creepy and rather sinister for people to stalk private individuals with whom they have zero personal relationship - monitoring even the minutiae of those individuals' lives and attendances etc, trying to cause detrimental impacts upon those individuals' lives, and possibly even going to the length of contacting authorities to try to being about adverse impacts upon those individuals' lives.

There are some GODDAMN CRAZY people around out there. Sweepyface seemingly did not die in vain......... :(
 
LondonJohn said:
As I see it......... it is perfectly reasonable to discuss/debate an event such as a high-profile murder, and the criminal cases surrounding it, on internet forums.

As I see it......... it is also reasonable to provide information to the legal process if one thinks it is germane and relevant - but only via legal representatives.

As I see it......... it is reasonable for people who have a personal relationship with any of the protagonists to have ongoing contact with those particular protagonists (but not with other protagonists with whom they have no personal relationship).

As I see it.......... it is inappropriate, creepy and rather sinister for people to stalk private individuals with whom they have zero personal relationship - monitoring even the minutiae of those individuals' lives and attendances etc, trying to cause detrimental impacts upon those individuals' lives, and possibly even going to the length of contacting authorities to try to being about adverse impacts upon those individuals' lives.

There are some GODDAMN CRAZY people around out there. Sweepyface seemingly did not die in vain......... :(
Click to expand...

I don't think its crazy to talk about this case. I discuss all kinds of issues online. Many with people that disagree with me. I'm just tired of this case as well as discussing it with some who don't carry on the conversation in good faith. I stop in once in a while to see if there is something new to discover. It seems like a long time.

In the meantime D4.
 
Vixen said:
3. The fact only (Knox) knew Mez Meredith had two phones.
Click to expand...

Bill Williams said:
And around we go.

For the umpteenth time, there was no size 37 ladies shoe print, Filomena knew Meredith had two phones.....

So around we go.

One.

More.

Time!

Simply wait a couple of days and reassert!
Click to expand...

So - someone forwarded this from Filomena's testimony at court.

It is almost pointless these days to even refute Vixen's assertions. Vixen asserts, someone else tracks it down and finds that Vixen is plain wrong. It's not even an issue any more of what Vixen believes about this almost decade-old case.

Vixen asserts that Knox was the only one who knew that Meredith had two phones. Why make this false claim when it doesn't even participate in a guilt narrative? Why just make it up out f thin air?

Filomena DID know Meredith had two phones. She called both of them

DOMANDA – Ci sono state altre telefonate?
RISPOSTA – Sì, mi stavo preoccupando ed ho provato a chiamarla
e non mi rispose.
DOMANDA – Sempre di seguito?
RISPOSTA – Pochi minuti, 5 minuti, nemmeno perché sinceramente
mi sono iniziata a preoccupare tantissimo, ho chiamato
Meredith e non mi rispondeva al telefono, suonava ma non
mi rispondeva al telefono, provavo sia su quello…
Meredith aveva due numeri di telefono, provavo sia sul
numero italiano che sul in numero inglese e se non
sbaglio un numero suonò senza risposte e l’altro non
suonò nemmeno, provai, provai, dissi “Madonna…”.
PRESIDENTE – Scusi che significa non suonò, sentì la
segreteria telefonica?
RISPOSTA – Era staccato, cioè era chiuso, quando il telefono è
spento non suona.
PRESIDENTE – Lei fa il numero…
RISPOSTA – Ma non…
PRESIDENTE – E non sente nulla?
RISPOSTA – No, l’utente al momento non è raggiungibile
Click to expand...
Filomena DID know Meredith had two phones. She called Both of them

QUESTION - There have been other calls?
ANSWER - Yes, I was worried and tried to call
and he did not answer me.
QUESTION - Always in a row?
RESPONSE - In just a few minutes, five minutes, not because they genuinely
I started to worry a lot, I called
Meredith and did not answer the phone, but not sounded
She answered the phone, I felt both on the ...
Meredith had two phone numbers, felt both
Italian number that the English number and if you do not
wrong number rang unanswered and the other does not
even rang, I tried, I tried, I said "Madonna ...".
PRESIDENT - Excuse meaning rang, he heard the
voice mail?
RESPONSE - was removed, that was closed when the phone is
off does not sound.
PRESIDENT - She does the number ...
RESPONSE - But ...
PRESIDENT - he does not feel anything?
ANSWER - No, the user is not currently accessible
Click to expand...
 
Bill Williams said:
So - someone forwarded this from Filomena's testimony at court.

It is almost pointless these days to even refute Vixen's assertions. Vixen asserts, someone else tracks it down and finds that Vixen is plain wrong. It's not even an issue any more of what Vixen believes about this almost decade-old case.

Vixen asserts that Knox was the only one who knew that Meredith had two phones. Why make this false claim when it doesn't even participate in a guilt narrative? Why just make it up out f thin air?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that the second phone actually or previously belonged to Filomena. My memory is a little foggy, but I'm 90 percent sure of that.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom