• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 24

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
She was charged and convicted, which was upheld at appeal of 'aggravated murder'. The 'aggravated' part refers to rape (or more specifically, sexual assault). It was annulled because Marasca had its ears bent by Bongiorno.

I never once mentioned Amanda's sisters. All in yours and Bill's salacious minds.
Click to expand...

OK, then...exactly whom were you referencing in regards to wearing "skimpy shorts and vests taking selfies of each other"? Edda? Curt?

You do love to dig a hole, don't you?
 
Vixen said:
And what lie would that be. Says the person who falsely claims I mentioned Amanda's 'preteen' sisters and that 'Amanda was never charged with rape'.
Click to expand...

Please provide the quote where I said they were "pre-teens". You can't, because I didn't.

If not her sisters, then exactly which family members (which we were discussing) were wearing "skimpy shorts" and "taking selfies"?

I acknowledge that she was charged with sexual assault (and acquitted). That was a mistake on my part, not a lie. However, you claimed you have a degree in psychology which you do not. That is a lie.
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
Please provide the quote where I said they were "pre-teens". You can't, because I didn't.

If not her sisters, then exactly which family member (which we were discussing) were wearing "skimpy shorts" and "taking selfies"?

I acknowledge that she was charged with sexual assault (and acquitted). That was a mistake on my part, not a lie. However, you claimed you have a degree in psychology which you do not. That is a lie.
Click to expand...



And one of her (half-) sisters WAS a pre-teen at the time of the Massei trial. So it's irrelevant whether Vixen actually used the term "pre-teen" - what's relevant is that she was discussing (and sexualising) the actions of Knox's (half-) sisters, one of whom factually WAS a pre-teen at that point.
 
Stacyhs said:
Now we're back to a "boulder", eh? That gave me a chuckle.

I never said it was "shut". I said it was "partially closed"...which is supported by the photo I supplied. As does the one below.

Of course, it's totally impossible that Guede, after "hurling the boulder" and climbing in, pulled the shutters forward in order to obstruct the view of the broken glass from passersby, right?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_7166958e69859e66af.jpg[/qimg]

Rather than delete this post, I will acknowledge that the shutters were pulled shut and it was the police who partially opened them. Thank you, London John. However, my point still stands that the broken window was not visible to Amanda when she approached the cottage as Vixen falsely claimed.
Click to expand...

The shutters were not pulled shut. As per my link that was not what the police reported.

And of course Amanda must have seen the broken window on the approach to the cottage (see pic). Had the rock been hurled from straight ahead, as per Pasquali's video, it would have dropped straight down in a dead impact. (See other pic).

In any case, being an irregular shape with a displaced centre of gravity, it would have been near impossible to throw it straight or with any accuracy unless thrown with substantial force. The trajectory Pasquali used was lighter than the actual boulder.

There is no way it could have bounced to the left to end up under Filomena's chair.
 

Attachments

  • shutters 1.jpg
    shutters 1.jpg
    44.1 KB · Views: 0
  • shutter - rock under chair.jpg
    shutter - rock under chair.jpg
    21.8 KB · Views: 1
  • shutter approach to front door.jpeg
    shutter approach to front door.jpeg
    33.4 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
And one of her (half-) sisters WAS a pre-teen at the time of the Massei trial. So it's irrelevant whether Vixen actually used the term "pre-teen" - what's relevant is that she was discussing (and sexualising) the actions of Knox's (half-) sisters, one of whom factually WAS a pre-teen at that point.
Click to expand...

We should known exactly whom she was talking about once she identifies the persons wearing "skimpy shorts and vests and taking selfies".

OK...quit laughing....
 
Stacyhs said:
OK, then...exactly whom were you referencing in regards to wearing "skimpy shorts and vests taking selfies of each other"? Edda? Curt?

You do love to dig a hole, don't you?
Click to expand...

As I said, I was talking about decorum in court. Nothing to do with sex.

AIUI the judge was ready to throw them out.
 
LondonJohn said:
And one of her (half-) sisters WAS a pre-teen at the time of the Massei trial. So it's irrelevant whether Vixen actually used the term "pre-teen" - what's relevant is that she was discussing (and sexualising) the actions of Knox's (half-) sisters, one of whom factually WAS a pre-teen at that point.
Click to expand...

All in your mind.
 
Vixen said:
As I said, I was talking about decorum in court. Nothing to do with sex.

AIUI the judge was ready to throw them out.
Click to expand...

Identify who was "wearing skimpy shorts and vests and taking selfies".

AYUI, is irrelevant as you've provided no evidence what the judge was thinking.
 
Stacyhs said:
Please provide the quote where I said they were "pre-teens". You can't, because I didn't.

If not her sisters, then exactly which family members (which we were discussing) were wearing "skimpy shorts" and "taking selfies"?

I acknowledge that she was charged with sexual assault (and acquitted). That was a mistake on my part, not a lie. However, you claimed you have a degree in psychology which you do not. That is a lie.
Click to expand...

If I say I have a degree in psychology then I do. I am straight.

They were all taking selfies. If you think that is appropriate behaviour in a sombre murder trial there is something amiss. To imagine it is a reference to sex is astounding.

AIUI the judge reprimanded the skimpiness of their clothing, so not my value judgement. They ought to know this without being told.
 
Vixen said:
The shutters were not pulled shut. As per my link that was not what the police reported.

And of course Amanda must have seen the broken window on the approach to the cottage (see pic). Had the rock been hurled from straight ahead, as per Pasquali's video, it would have dropped straight down in a dead impact. (See other pic).

In any case, being an irregular shape with a displaced centre of gravity, it would have been near impossible to throw it straight or with any accuracy unless thrown with substantial force. The trajectory Pasquali used was lighter than the actual boulder.

There is no way it could have bounced to the left to end up under Filomena's chair.
Click to expand...

And yet, the link you provided said "The shutters to the window for the purported point of entry were closed..."

Battistelli's testimony:
" Asked about the shutters Battistelli described them as ajar with the right one slightly more open." (TMofMK)

Marsi's testimony:

"Asked about the shutters Marsi said they were ajar. " (TMofMK)
Ajar = slightly open

So, how exactly is it that Amanda " must have seen the broken window on the approach to the cottage"? X-ray vision?

The third picture does not indicate when it was taken and does not agree with the police testimony.

Let me ask this: if Amanda could "see the broken window on approach to the cottage", what does this indicate? If she were responsible for the broken window, she'd have known about it before approaching the cottage.

I await the demolition of your "boulder" physics nonsense by those more learned than I (or you) here. Unlike you, I know when I don't know something.
 
Last edited:
Vixen;11789639[HILITE said:
]If I say I have a degree in psychology then I do. I am straight.[/HILITE]
They were all taking selfies. If you think that is appropriate behaviour in a sombre murder trial there is something amiss. To imagine it is a reference to sex is astounding.

AIUI the judge reprimanded the skimpiness of their clothing, so not my value judgement. They ought to know this without being told.
Click to expand...

LOL!! Sure! Not only are you an accountant, but now a psychologist. Something you have never, ever mentioned before. I think I smell an "alternative fact"!

WHO is "all"?

And I never said, or implied, it is a "reference to sex". Where DO you come up with this lunacy?

As I said "As I understand it" is NOT evidence that it ever happened. Sheesh.

Put the darn shovel away. The hole you're in is deep enough.
 
Last edited:
Vixen earlier stated:

(but Mez' blood and Amanda's DNA were mixed together (reps 176 and 177).
Click to expand...

Ummmm...no again. Both those samples tested negative for blood. But why let the facts get in the way of your beliefs?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom