The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 24

[Vixen]

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.

Rudy was enabled and assisted by Amanda.

Marasca Supreme Court ruled she committed calunnia 'to cover up for Rudy'.

Ask yourself why the heck would she do that, except as self-protection?

 

[Stacyhs]

Oh dear. Can no gallant PIP help Stacyhs master the quotation function?

Thank you for confirming the defence offered is hilariously BAD!

That is the best response you can muster? That's okay. It says it all.

 

[Vixen]

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.........

LoJo is back making strawman arguments again.

Help is available,

 

[Vixen]

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?

Her mum knew she had two phones, her dad knew, Giacomo knew.

You know perfectly well I was referring to "of the three alleged perps only Amanda knew Mez had two phones". The one in her jeans pocket and in her bag were stolen.

Micheli ruled the two phones were not stolen for gain, but to prevent their use by the victim. Rudy was never charged with stealing the phones. Amanda was charged. (Charge later dropped.)

 

[Bill Williams]

Rudy was enabled and assisted by Amanda.

Marasca Supreme Court ruled she committed calunnia 'to cover up for Rudy'.

Ask yourself why the heck would she do that, except as self-protection?

No need to ask. The Hellmann court convicted Knox for calunnia on the grounds, so they said, that Knox wanted to get out of an intense interrogation.

Isn't it a sign of it being an unsafe conviction when the courts can't agree on major issues?

I don't expect you to answer.

 

[Stacyhs]

Rudy was enabled and assisted by Amanda.

Marasca Supreme Court ruled she committed calunnia 'to cover up for Rudy'.

Ask yourself why the heck would she do that, except as self-protection?

She sure has an odd way of "covering up" for Guede. She leaves the bloody bathmat with the bloody footprint on it and points it out to the police. And whether it was Guede's or Sollecito's, it makes no sense to do that if she's covering for either one. She doesn't flush the toilet with his feces in it. In fact, she points it out to the police. She cleans up her and Sollecito's fingerprints, DNA, etc. but leaves all that physical evidence of Guede behind. So, 4 days later, after leaving all this evidence deliberately behind of Guede, she accuses another man whom she knows was working at the time of the murder in a bar with corroborating witnesses just to "cover up" for Rudy? Is that it?

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't think its crazy to talk about this case.

I agree totally. As I explicitly wrote:

"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."

I discuss all kinds of issues online. Many with people that disagree with me. I'm just tired of this case...

I agree with this too. Regarding "being tired of this case", I agree up to a point, in that nearly all of it (including the most important matters) is now settled. In my view, the only other issues of note - and thus worthy of ongoing/future debate - are: 1) Knox's application to the ECHR and its outcome; 2) the ultimate effect of the ECHR outcome upon Knox's criminal slander conviction (if it's an adverse (to Italy) ECHR ruling, then in practice Italy will have no option but to annul the conviction without retrial (or to remove itself from the European Convention on Human Rights)); 3) The outcome of Sollecito's appeal on his request for compensation (and the prospect of Sollecito himself applying to the ECHR if his appeal is denied); 4) any potential revision of the Marasca MR if Knox's criminal slander conviction were to be annulled following the ECHR ruling (Marasca imported various res judicata "facts" from Knox's criminal slander conviction into his own verdict and MR, meaning that those "facts" ought to be struck out and the verdict/MR altered accordingly if the criminal slander conviction were annulled...).

...as well as discussing it with some who don't carry on the conversation in good faith.

Couldn't agree more.

I stop in once in a while to see if there is something new to discover. It seems like a long time.

True. If anyone - whether pro-acquittal or pro-guilt - were to be coming up with genuine, sincere new insights into the case, there'd certainly be more to discuss and debate pending the other loose-end judicial matters related to this trial process. Unfortunately, all that's ever happening is pro-guilt "argument" that's wholly reliant on misdirection, mischief and partisan invention/distortion of facts.... and pro-acquittal posts dealing with that sort of mendacious BS. But there ya go...........

 

[Vixen]

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.

How disgusting do you think it is that the person* at the scene of the crime who knew Mez had two phones removed them to prevent this injured, dying young girl from calling for help or saying,'Goodbye'; to her family.

You are filled with admiration for such a person, you claim.

*Massei, Nencini, Marasca and Masi all definitively state Amanda Knox was CERTAINLY at the murder scene.

 

[LondonJohn]

Her mum knew she had two phones, her dad knew, Giacomo knew.

You know perfectly well I was referring to "of the three alleged perps only Amanda knew Mez had two phones". The one in her jeans pocket and in her bag were stolen.

Micheli ruled the two phones were not stolen for gain, but to prevent their use by the victim. Rudy was never charged with stealing the phones. Amanda was charged. (Charge later dropped.)

1) Evidence, please, that one of Kercher's two phones was in her jeans pocket and the other in her bag at the moment when she was confronted and attacked.

2) Even if that were the case (and I already know there's zero evidence to indicate it), if one considers that the murderer took the phones to prevent use (actually, more likely to prevent them from ringing inside Kercher's room from behind the locked door, and thereby alerting anyone outside the door to the very strong suspicion that Kercher herself were also inside the room), then why on earth is it in any way implausible to suppose that the murderer (Guede) might have looked in Kercher's jeans pockets and her bag - two places where any person might reasonably think that phones, keys or valuables (Kercher's credit cards and keys were also taken - or had you forgotten/overlooked that?) might be kept?


In summary: yet again, you got nothin'. (Nothing, that is, except an ongoing willingness/need to distort facts and invent reasons why Knox and/or Sollecito must have played pivotal roles in the Kercher murder.....)

 

[Stacyhs]

Her mum knew she had two phones, her dad knew, Giacomo knew.

You know perfectly well I was referring to "of the three alleged perps only Amanda knew Mez had two phones". The one in her jeans pocket and in her bag were stolen.Micheli ruled the two phones were not stolen for gain, but to prevent their use by the victim. Rudy was never charged with stealing the phones. Amanda was charged. (Charge later dropped.)

Right. And Guede, when taking Meredith's jeans off, would not have discovered the one in her pocket, right? And when going through her purse looking for money and/or the keys to the front door, he wouldn't have seen that phone either. Uh-huh.

Micheli ruled a lot of things. It doesn't make them true. How on earth would he know what Guede's reasons for taking the phones were? Guede never admitted to taking them in the first place.

 

[Vixen]

1) Evidence, please, that one of Kercher's two phones was in her jeans pocket and the other in her bag at the moment when she was confronted and attacked.

2) Even if that were the case (and I already know there's zero evidence to indicate it), if one considers that the murderer took the phones to prevent use (actually, more likely to prevent them from ringing inside Kercher's room from behind the locked door, and thereby alerting anyone outside the door to the very strong suspicion that Kercher herself were also inside the room), then why on earth is it in any way implausible to suppose that the murderer (Guede) might have looked in Kercher's jeans pockets and her bag - two places where any person might reasonably think that phones, keys or valuables (Kercher's credit cards and keys were also taken - or had you forgotten/overlooked that?) might be kept?


In summary: yet again, you got nothin'. (Nothing, that is, except an ongoing willingness/need to distort facts and invent reasons why Knox and/or Sollecito must have played pivotal roles in the Kercher murder.....)

Read Micheli, who explains it well.

Whatever the reason for the removal of the phones - and Micheli having heard the evidence at a hearing definitively ruled it was NOT Rudy who removed them - only a callous person could fail to be utterly disgusted that Mez was not even allowed to say Goodbye to her beloved Mum and Dad.

 

[Stacyhs]

How disgusting do you think it is that the person* at the scene of the crime who knew Mez had two phones removed them to prevent this injured, dying young girl from calling for help or saying,'Goodbye'; to her family.

You are filled with admiration for such a person, you claim.

*Massei, Nencini, Marasca and Masi all definitively state Amanda Knox was CERTAINLY at the murder scene.

How disgusting do you think it was that the person who admitted he was in Meredith's bedroom when she was still alive but fatally injured, knew she had at least one phone which he discovered when he pulled her jeans down, then failed to use one of them to call for help and went dancing instead?

No one is filled with admiration for Guede.

 

[LondonJohn]

How disgusting do you think it is that the person at the scene of the crime who knew Mez had two phones removed them to prevent this injured, dying young girl from calling for help or saying,'Goodbye'; to her family.

You are filled with admiration with such a person, you claim.

WHAT??????

Firstly, ac's post was about one of the phones having belonged to Romanelli - it had nothing at all to do with the hysterical "response" you posted.

Secondly, Kercher died within 10 minutes or so of the fatal stabs to her throat. Guede himself stayed - by his own admission - much longer than this within the cottage and within sight/touch of Kercher (and, if you were to be believed, Knox and Sollecito stayed far longer as well). Therefore, whoever took the phones (i.e. Guede, but I'll humour you on this one for a moment....) would have been able to see/hear/observe clearly that Kercher had stopped breathing and had died by the time they left the cottage. Therefore it's highly unlikely to be the case that whoever took the phones took them to prevent Kercher using them - and far less, given the horrific and highly-visible state of her wounds, using them to "say goodbye to her family": that, I'm afraid, is yet more deliberately hyperbolic (and evidence-free) appeal to emotion on your part. Shame on you.

Thirdly, yes it is horrible that whoever took Kercher's phones did so. That person was Guede. Direct your manufactured outrage at him, please.

 

[Bill Williams]

Her mum knew she had two phones, her dad knew, Giacomo knew.

You know perfectly well I was referring to "of the three alleged perps only Amanda knew Mez had two phones". The one in her jeans pocket and in her bag were stolen.

Micheli ruled the two phones were not stolen for gain, but to prevent their use by the victim. Rudy was never charged with stealing the phones. Amanda was charged. (Charge later dropped.)

OIC - another "You know perfectly well I was referring to....." excuses.

You continually neglect that every reader here has the facility to go back and trace the convo. Obviously more than one reader did not "know perfectly well" because of the stuff I'm getting from people reading here.

Rudy's forensic presence was found in Meredith's room, and on her purse. The fact that Rudy wasn't charged is a strawman, no one is arguing that he was.

Indeed, Knox was acquitted of all charges related to the murder itself. Both RS and AK were ** charged ** with that, so why is it important to make a post with a nuance that they were charged, when they were acquitted? What spin are you trying to achieve by referring to a charge but not the disposition?

Did you not read the acquittal court's opinion that the case was flawed in its investigation from the beginning?

 

[acbytesla]

Rudy was enabled and assisted by Amanda.

Marasca Supreme Court ruled she committed calunnia 'to cover up for Rudy'.

Ask yourself why the heck would she do that, except as self-protection?

Koo Koo.

 

[Stacyhs]

Read Micheli, who explains it well.

Whatever the reason for the removal of the phones - and Micheli having heard the evidence at a hearing definitively ruled it was NOT Rudy who removed them - only a callous person could fail to be utterly disgusted that Mez was not even allowed to say Goodbye to her beloved Mum and Dad.

Right. On the very logical evidence that only HIS DNA was actually found on Meredith's purse.

Only a callous person would leave a dying woman lying in her own blood to go out freaking DANCING. Give me a break.

 

[Vixen]

Right. And Guede, when taking Meredith's jeans off, would not have discovered the one in her pocket, right? And when going through her purse looking for money and/or the keys to the front door, he wouldn't have seen that phone either. Uh-huh.

Micheli ruled a lot of things. It doesn't make them true. How on earth would he know what Guede's reasons for taking the phones were? Guede never admitted to taking them in the first place.

Mez' jeans were at the forefront of both Amanda's and Raff's mind when interviewed by the police. Both mentioned Mez' jeans. So we can guess - having been removed after death - who removed them, for them to figure so vividly in the minds of Amanda and Raff.


Micheli has the small advantage over you, in that he got to SEE and HEAR evidence and testimony form all interested parties before coming to his verdict.

Rudy was caged for the hearing, so there was no feeling of tenderness towards Rudy by Micheli.

It was Amanda who, having switched off her phone 8:45 the evening of the murder, switched it back on at midday next day...to ring Mez' phones to test them.

 

[acbytesla]

LoJo is back making strawman arguments again.

LoJo is doing just fine.

Help is available,

I'm glad you're aware of it. Perhaps it might be time for you to seek some?

 

[Bill Williams]

Read Micheli, who explains it well.

Please explain why Micheli should be definitive here? Please explain the presentation of evidence, including the full right of cross-examination which had been available at the Micheli hearing. Please explain the amount of time RS's and AK's lawyers had to confer with their clients in order to make full answer.

Citing Micheli's findings in a case which was described as flawed by the final judiciary arbiter is rather...... ah, er, biased don't you think?

If you think otherwise, please have a crack at the questions as poses in the last paragraph.

 

[LondonJohn]

Read Micheli, who explains it well.

Whatever the reason for the removal of the phones - and Micheli having heard the evidence at a hearing definitively ruled it was NOT Rudy who removed them - only a callous person could fail to be utterly disgusted that Mez was not even allowed to say Goodbye to her beloved Mum and Dad.

No. You tell me the evidence to support the claim that Kercher had one phone in her jeans pocket and one phone in her bag when she was confronted and attacked. While you're at it, tell me how anyone outside of Kercher and the person who took the phones could ever even know where the two phones were at the time when Kercher was confronted and attacked*.

You can't? Oh right, I thought that would be the case. So you'll withdraw the claim, I'm assuming?


* Nobody outside of Kercher and the person who took the phones will ever, ever know where those two phones were at the time they were taken. Perhaps Kercher had placed both phones on her bedside table just after she came into the cottage and went into her room. We'll never know. Perhaps Kercher had one phone in her hand and one in her jeans pocket when she was attacked. We'll never know. Perhaps she had one phone in either pocket of her jeans. We'll never know. Perhaps she had both phones in her bag. We'll never know. Perhaps she had placed both phones on her desk intending to plug them in to charge. We'll never know. The point is.... it's absolutely, categorically impossible to state that Kercher had one phone in her jeans pocket and the other phone in her bag at the moment when she was confronted. Impossible.