The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 24

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stacyhs said:
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.
Click to expand...

It is disgusting. And isn't it disgusting the person who stole Mez' phones, rang them the next day to test them?
 
Vixen said:
Mez' Meredith's 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.
Click to expand...
Why are you guessing?

Vixen said:
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' Meredith's phones to test them.
Click to expand...

It was to see if Meredith would answer.
 
Vixen said:
LoJo is back making strawman arguments again.

Help is available,
Click to expand...


I suspect you know that it was others to whom I was referring. But full marks for keeping up with your inglorious record in the puerile schoolyard game of "that's you, that is". Erudition of the highest order.
 
LondonJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...

Micheli ruled and found it reasonable to surmise that Mez kept one phone on her person so that her mum could ring her in an emergency.

There is an oultine in blood of where the phone fell on the floor.

Rudy's hands were bloody. Yet there is no blood inside the bag.

But there is a long strand of fair hair across the top of it.

This likely belongs to the person who last opened it.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't care what those people think. I'm fully capable of thinking for myself. I see ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that Amanda was there during the murder. NONE.

If you think that is disgusting go jump in a lake because I don't care what you think either.
 
Vixen said:
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.)
Click to expand...

How the hell do we know what you think? Our minds don't seem to work like yours.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

 
Bill Williams said:
Why are you guessing?



It was to see if Meredith would answer.
Click to expand...

It was not. After the call to Filomena who urged her to call Mez (she already had, but failed to mention it) she rang each of the phones for three and four seconds, respectively.

IOW she rang them, to register the call.

In the same way the guy who murdered his partner, Helen Bailey, sent her a text, whilst all the time being in possession of her phone, receiving the text.

It was just for show.

Amanda didn't realise police could tell how long it rang for.
 
Vixen said:
It is disgusting. And isn't it disgusting the person who stole Mez' phones, rang them the next day to test them?
Click to expand...

Oh, dear. Isn't it amazing that AK's DNA was never found anywhere in MK's bedroom, much less on any of her clothing? But Guede's was. Isn't it amazing that only Guede's DNA was found on Meredith's purse?

Yet according to you, the evidence points to AK having stolen the phones. Poirot, you ain't.
 
LondonJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...

That doesn't stop Vixen from making it up. It's like the PGP kooks are engaged in fan fiction.
 
Vixen said:
Micheli ruled and found it reasonable to surmise that Mez kept one phone on her person so that her mum could ring her in an emergency.

There is an oultine in blood of where the phone fell on the floor.

Rudy's hands were bloody. Yet there is no blood inside the bag.

But there is a long strand of fair hair across the top of it.

This likely belongs to the person who last opened it.
Click to expand...

Talk about a stretch. Micheli didn't know. That he thought it was OK to pull it out of his ass doesn't mean anyone else should.
 
Stacyhs said:
Oh, dear. Isn't it amazing that AK's DNA was never found anywhere in MK's bedroom, much less on any of her clothing? But Guede's was. Isn't it amazing that only Guede's DNA was found on Meredith's purse?

Yet according to you, the evidence points to AK having stolen the phones. Poirot, you ain't.
Click to expand...

Italian police believe Amanda stole the phones. So did the Public Prosecutor (District Attorney) who decided there was sufficient evidence to charge her with their theft.

The person who locked Mez' door - almost certainly Amanda - is the same person who wanted to delay the body being found - the same reason given by Judge Micheli for removal of the phones.
 
Vixen said:
It was not. After the call to Filomena who urged her to call Mez (she already had, but failed to mention it) she rang each of the phones for three and four seconds, respectively.

IOW she rang them, to register the call.

In the same way the guy who murdered his partner, Helen Bailey, sent her a text, whilst all the time being in possession of her phone, receiving the text.

It was just for show.

Amanda didn't realise police could tell how long it rang for.
Click to expand...


Wild ass speculation. A consistent theme. Koo Koo.
 
Vixen said:
It is disgusting. And isn't it disgusting the person who stole Mez' phones, rang them the next day to test them?
Click to expand...


??? Guede didn't ring Kercher's phones, I don't think.

And incidentally, you really ought to get an education in what phone billing records actually mean*. Granted, the Massei and Nencini courts (as well, regrettably, as the defence teams) were ignorant on this subject, but you should be able to grasp the issue with your scientific understanding and all-round high intellect, I'm sure.


* I'll give you a starter hint: the time recorded in those records is the time elapsed only once a connection has been made - and not the time elapsed since the dialling party hit "dial", or the time elapsed since the dialled party's phone started ringing.

For example, suppose person A dials person B's phone, and B's phone is switched on but is set to divert to voicemail after 8 ringtones lasting 16 seconds. When A calls B, suppose that A waits for the 16 seconds of ringtone, then hears the start of person B's voicemail greeting message, but then A hangs up after 3 seconds of B's voicemail greeting.

Now, A will have been "on the phone" for a total of 19 seconds (16 seconds of B's ringtone, then 3 seconds of B's voicemail greeting). But the billing record will only show a 3-second call - since the timing for billing records only starts once the call actually connects (in this case, the call only connected when B's phone auto-forwarded A's incoming call to B's voicemail).

I'm sure you're intelligent enough to take this information and apply it fairly and objectively to the billing record timings from Knox's phone; obviously, when you do so, you'll see immediately that Knox's calls to Kercher's Italian phone (which was switched off) were of short duration because that phone was immediately diverting to voicemail every time Knox called (and Knox understandably had no need to keep listening to the voicemail message or leaving repeated messages..... so all of those calls were of fewer than 10 seconds' duration), and all Knox's calls to Kercher's UK phone (which was switched on) consisted of the phone ringing and ringing and then diverting to an Italian message stating that the caller was unavailable and it was impossible to leave a message (meaning that the ringing time was not included in the billing records timings, and Knox hung up every time she started hearing the Italian message.... again meaning that these calls showed on the billing records at under 10 seconds' duration).

Obviously, now that you know how all this actually works (and I have no doubt that a person of your clear brilliance will have no problem understanding and assimilating all this fully...), you'll be wanting to desist with any incorrect claims that Knox was calling Kercher's phones on 2nd November "to test them". After all, you now know precisely why the timings - as taken from the billing records - showed repeated calls of under 10 seconds' duration, and you also know how/why that is in fact entirely consistent with Knox sincerely trying repeatedly to reach Kercher via either of her phones, but only ever reaching a voicemail greeting message or a "this person is unavailable" message. Thanks in advance.
 
acbytesla said:
Talk about a stretch. Micheli didn't know. That he thought it was OK to pull it out of his ass doesn't mean anyone else should.
Click to expand...

What a quaint Americanism. A judge in a murder case does not 'pull things out of his donkey'. He coldly, objectively and dispassionately gets to the facts of the matter and his verdict follows from there, having seen and heard all of the evidence presented before him.
 
Vixen said:
Italian police believe Amanda stole the phones. So did the Public Prosecutor (District Attorney) who decided there was sufficient evidence to charge her with their theft.

The person who locked Mez' door - almost certainly Amanda - is the same person who wanted to delay the body being found - the same reason given by Judge Micheli for removal of the phones.
Click to expand...

More crazy speculation. And the beat goes on. And the beat goes on.
 
Vixen said:
What a quaint Americanism. A judge in a murder case does not 'pull things out of his donkey'. He coldly, objectively and dispassionately gets to the facts of the matter and his verdict follows from there, having seen and heard all of the evidence presented before him.
Click to expand...

Oh yes he did! And it smells like it came from there. You know BS is just chewed up grass.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom