The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 25

[Vixen]

Oh, good lord. This is not racism. He describes AK and RS in positive terms because of their personal history not their race. Guede was "different" based on his history and reputation (getting disowned by his own foster family, failure to keep a job, being caught with stolen items, being caught trespassing (if not breaking in), being caught breaking into Tramontano's home and threatening him with a knife, being a known liar, etc). His "human condition" is not his race, but his personal background. Claiming this is racism is simply ludicrous.



So what? The majority of people in Perugia were their age: college students. They ALL attended the same bars, night clubs, etc. It's a small college town!
They did not have the same friends. The ONLY "friends" they had in common were the boys downstairs and they weren't really friends with Guede. They played basketball with him (neither Knox nor Sollecito played basketball).

So Guede and Sollecito lived along the same road. I've lived in the same house for 20 years and I barely ever speak to my immediate neighbors. I don't even know their last names.

The basketball court is close to Knox's door and from her school. Again, so what? She didn't play basketball. Nor did Sollecito. I imagine she walked past many people on her way to school and back. Do you claim she was friends with all of them?




So? Is Guede the only black man in Perugia? You're really stretching here.



LOL! No, they never said "almost compulsively". That is your invention. When asked who she brought home, the roommates said some strangers. These turned out to be a few friends of Amanda's like Spiros or Daniel, the friend of one of the boys downstairs who was visiting. The ONLY man she had sex with in the cottage was Daniel (while Meredith was in her room with Giacomo). The innuendo that AK was dragging men home to sleep with is a common PGP tactic.




Please quote this testimony that they were talking "very friendly". From what I've read, they barely spoke two words to each other at the boys' apartment downstairs.
If you consider Knox serving Guede a drink at Le Chic once or twice "knowing each other", then I'm really good friends with the waitresses at several restaurants around here. They said "hi" to each other in passing a few times. Again, that's not exactly "knowing each other".




Crush? LOL. He asked Giacomo Silenzi once if he knew if Amanda was seeing anyone. That's it. Interested in a pretty girl? Yes. A crush? Hardly.



False. She had the phone number of ONE guy who turned out to be a coke dealer. I doubt she even knew he sold coke. Of course, she did not use cocaine as her hair test proved. But you just ignore that part. As far as having intercourse with Martini, that is also false. He was not named in her private diary list of men with whom she'd had sex when she had been told she was HIV+. She admits in her book they fooled around but did not have actual intercourse. She did not have "huge unaccounted-for cash expenditures every month". Your inference that she was buying cocaine is disproved by her hair test.



LOL! She had already completed a year at the University of Washington. She did not set the course of study at the Univ. for Strangers, the school did. So what if she didn't stay at the job in Germany? Stop the innuendo.




Oh, dear lord. This is so ridiculous that I'm not even going to bother discussing it. It's not worth my time.



You really need to stop believing all the crap that's written at TJMK. He had a freaking pocket knife, not a gun. Knox's party was a typical college party where a few people got a bit out of hand, not her. I went to several in my college days. You must have had a very dull time in college. I'm surprised you haven't brought up how it was a "scene out of Baghdad" with Knox being hauled off to jail under arrest!



OK: Knox and Sollecito were actually going to school and doing something with their lives. Guede was playing basketball all day long and surviving by selling stolen goods at the very least. Or why else do you think he was ending up with all those stolen items? Knox was also holding a job down. Guede kept getting fired when he bothered to actually get a job. Knox worked 3 jobs to save the money to go to Italy. Guede was getting thrown out by his family for lying and his behavior. Knox had never been in trouble with the police (getting a noise citation is not being in trouble with the police). Guede had been arrested after either breaking into or trespassing into a school and being found in the possession of stolen goods. Guede had a reputation for "bothering" girls.
I think that about sums it up.

Stop talking rubbish. Rudy moved to Perugia at the beginning of September, that same year. He was only recently unemployed, having trained as a waiter - a highly respectable profession in Latin Europe (and also in India) - he attended a party in Milan and trespassed at the nursery school. It was not breaking and entering. He was charged a few years later in retrospect due to lobbying by pro-Knox supporters, for being in possession of stolen property. It proves nothing. There a shops all over the place offering to 'unlock' stolen phones and laptops.

There is zero evidence Rudy 'was a known burglar'.

Even Marasca-Bruno stated clearly that the killing had the hallmark of a sadistic serial killer, not a random burglar.

Raff enjoyed sadistic hardcore manga and stated on his webpage he wanted 'extreme experiences' . He dressed up as a mad butcher/scientist.

Rudy is no more likely to fit the profile of the killer than Raff is.

 

[Vixen]

False. The Aprii Fool's prank she and some friends pulled had nothing whatsoever to do with rape. They staged a robbery. I have no idea where you get the "rape" nonsense.
We had a long discussion with Vixen over the false accusation that Knox wrote any stories about rape here some time ago. She claimed the same as you. It was shown clearly that no rape ever happened in Knox's story "Baby Brother". Vixen was unable to quote anything from the story regarding rape. You can't either as it doesn't exist. Try reading it.




Evidence of any of this other than your imagination? Seeing how both their families stood by and supported them during their ordeal, I'd say you're really scraping the bottom of the desperation barrel.



Already did. See my post above.

You remember incorrectly.

 

[Bill Williams]

You remember incorrectly.

She remembers correctly.

 

[LondonJohn]

You do not understand how law works. The prosecutor has to demonstrate to an arraigning court there is cause for prosecution.

In the UK the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) assesses police submissions and will not recommend prosecution unless there is a reasonable prospect of success, the England & Wales criterion.

Thus there is no possible reason the guy in Assisi would even come within police radar, let alone be prosecuted.

Oh, I know exactly how the law works, Vixen. Many orders of magnitude more than you do.

In the first instance, you fail to recognise that my example was a hypothetical. In the second instance, it's perfectly possible that at the charging stage and then the arraignment stage, police and prosecutors (respectively) might have presented "evidence" which seemed at that time to point to guilt (and thus lead to the case proceeding to a full trial), but which was subsequently shown to be entirely bogus and unreliable.

So, Vixen, it's actually entirely possible that someone could stand trial for murder, but that in the course of that trial the defence was able to show that none of the prosecution evidence was credible or reliable.

Let's take my hypothetical man from Assisi. Let's call him Francisco, shall we? Let's build a scenario to illustrate my point, Vixen. Suppose that the police, in the course of their investigation, were examining CCTV covering the street from the car park. Suppose they saw on the CCTV footage a dark coloured Fiat Panda drive slowly in the vicinity of the cottage. Suppose they (thought they) identified the registration number plate, and that number plate was found to belong to our Francisco from Assisi, who owned a dark coloured Fiat Panda.

So the police go to Assisi to have a chat with Francisco. He insists that he was in his apartment alone that whole evening/night (but cannot prove this). Immediately the police believe he is lying about his whereabouts - since they "know" that his car was near the cottage in Perugia on the evening of the murder.

The police then start to delve deeper into Francisco. They discover that he frequently hangs out at a particular bar in Assisi, and is a heavy drinker. They track down other regulars at the bar. They tell the regulars that they are investigating Francisco in relation to the Kercher murder. One of the regulars (let's call him Paolo) tells the police that the day after Kercher's body was discovered, he and Francisco were getting drunk in the bar, and there was a TV in the bar which showed a news item about the murder. Paolo tells the police that Francisco turned to him, in a drunken state, and said that he (Francisco) had participated in Kercher's murder, but that he was telling Paolo this in confidence to "get it off his chest".

So now we have Francisco's car being seen on CCTV near the cottage in Perugia, when Francisco claimed he was in Assisi all that evening/night. And we have a witness who says that Francisco confessed to participating in the murder.

Those things formulate a pretty strong case for charging and trying Francisco for the Kercher murder. In the UK (or, more accurately, E&W), for example, it's very likely that the CPS would authorise police to charge. In Italy, it's highly likely that when this evidence was placed before an arraignment judge, he/she would move the case forward to a full trial in a court of first instance.

So, Francisco goes on trial. In the meantime, his defence lawyers have done two things. Firstly, they have retained the services of video enhancement experts who have determined that the index plate of the vehicle in the CCTV footage actually is not the index plate of Francisco's car. Furthermore, the car in the CCTV image has a small rear spoiler which Francisco's car does not possess. And secondly, they have obtained affidavits from other regulars in that Assisi bar, who state that Paolo confessed to them that he had lied to the police about Francisco confessing to participation in the murder.

And so to the trial. The defence are easily able to satisfy the court that the car in the CCTV footage did not belong to Francisco. And when Paolo takes the stand as a witness, he is confronted under cross-examination with the affidavits from the other regulars. Paolo admits in court that he made up the story about Francisco confessing to him that he'd participated in the murder.

So, Vixen, here we have an instance where there was (or seemed at the time to be) sufficient evidence to justify charging and prosecuting Francisco for participation in the Kercher murder, but then in the first-instance trial the evidence against him is shown to be fundamentally lacking in credibility and reliability.

The court acquits Francisco. Under 530.2.

Any questions?

 

[LondonJohn]

Kisko's conviction was rendered unsafe because new evidence - a legal ground for appeal - showed that it was vanishingly remote that he could have committed the crime due to infertility caused by his condition.

There is no extenuating evidence for Raff and Amanda. There is zero evidences that makes it BARD that they cannot be guilty.

You don't get it, do you?

I'll try to explain it again.

When Kiszko was convicted, the jury must have been convinced that the evidence presented in court proved, beyond all doubt based in human reason, that Kiszko was the murderer of Molseed.

Yet, in fact, Kiszko factually did not murder Molseed. A different person altogether murdered Molseed. Kiszko had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

And since we know that Kiszko did not murder Molseed, how (think about logic and reason at this point....) could the jury in his trial possibly have concluded that there was proof BARD that he DID commit the murder?

Think about it for a while.

 

[LondonJohn]

False. The Aprii Fool's prank she and some friends pulled had nothing whatsoever to do with rape. They staged a robbery. I have no idea where you get the "rape" nonsense.

Yep. The (apparent) truth of the matter in respect of this issue is as follows:

Knox - together with a few of her friends - decided to play a prank on Knox's fellow housemates (or it could possibly have been housemates of a different house who were within Knox's circle of friends - I don't remember accurately on this point, and it's immaterial for the purposes of the analysis of what occurred).

So what happened was this: the housemates were away from their house for a period of a few hours of so. Knox and some of her friends decided to make it look like the housemates' house had been burgled (burglarised). In order to achieve the desired effect, they overturned furniture, turned out drawers, and removed valuables (electronic items etc). They then hid until the housemates came home. When the housemates entered their house, they were confronted with what appeared to be a break-in and burglary. Once Knox and the friends who'd assisted in setting up the prank gave the housemates a small amount of time to "freak out" over what they thought had been a burglary and theft of their property, Knox and the friends burst in from their hiding place and announced that it had all just been a prank.

It appears that one of the housemates had been genuinely traumatised by the prank. Knox and her friends apologised to him. And in hindsight, it appears that Knox and her friends realised that the prank they'd planned and executed was perhaps too extreme and traumatic, and that this overrode the "gotcha" humour element that they had intended.

And that's it. No "masks" or "balaclavas". Nothing whatsoever to do with "rape". Just an ill-judged attempt at a prank (any readers from outside the US might be unfamiliar with the hugely popular US TV show "Punk'd", which featured pranks - including many that were very similar in nature (and intended effect) to this burglary prank* - and which may very well have inspired the prank devised and executed by Knox and her friends). Juvenile high jinks that slightly overstepped the mark. Possibly indicative of Knox's impulsive nature, and her delight in causing shock and surprise. But nothing whatsoever more than that. End of story.


* The very first prank featured on Punk'd, for example, was played upon Justin Timberlake, when (bogus) government agents turned up at his home and announced that they were seizing his house and possessions because of unpaid income taxes.

 

[Bill Williams]

The court acquits Francisco. Under 530.2.

Any questions?

Machiavelli claims that Cassation never acquits using 530.2. Was the acquittal you refer to a Cassation acquittal like the Sollecito/Knox acquittal?

 

[bagels]

It's rubbish to claim she had nothing to do with Rudy and would not have done.

We're not claiming anything. You PGP are the ones making the claim. You claim AK was friends with Guede. The PIP simply point out the evidence: they never interacted beyond brief coincidental proximity. There's no witness testimony that Amanda had any additional interaction with Guede. There were no established communication channels. They didn't even speak a mutual language.

That's the problem all you PGP peeps have. You take your starting assumption (more like obsessive fantasy) as an axiom, and then dare the world to prove it definitely didn't happen. At this point your fantasy is held together by mafia conspiracies and backroom State Department deals. My advice is to give it up.

 

[TruthCalls]

Er, you do know Hellmann is toast?

Er, you do know Massei and Nencini are toast?

 

[TruthCalls]

Stop talking rubbish. Rudy moved to Perugia at the beginning of September, that same year. He was only recently unemployed, having trained as a waiter - a highly respectable profession in Latin Europe (and also in India) - he attended a party in Milan and trespassed at the nursery school. It was not breaking and entering. He was charged a few years later in retrospect due to lobbying by pro-Knox supporters, for being in possession of stolen property. It proves nothing. There a shops all over the place offering to 'unlock' stolen phones and laptops.

There is zero evidence Rudy 'was a known burglar'.
Even Marasca-Bruno stated clearly that the killing had the hallmark of a sadistic serial killer, not a random burglar.

Raff enjoyed sadistic hardcore manga and stated on his webpage he wanted 'extreme experiences' . He dressed up as a mad butcher/scientist.

Rudy is no more likely to fit the profile of the killer than Raff is.

Since he was caught in the school, with school property in his backpack your highlighted comment above is factually false. Now, if you want to claim he was not "convicted" for burglary I would agree... but failure of the police to charge someone doesn't alter the known facts.

It's also your right to think Guede somehow legally obtained the stolen laptop and mobile phone from the law office, but the fact remains they were stolen and they were in his possession. And Tramontano AND his girlfriend witnessed Guede in their apartment where things were stolen. Tramontano saw Guede at Domus that evening and recognized him and had him thrown out. This too is extremely compelling.

I get it... you're a Guede apologist. Not necessarily because you like him but because you find it necessary in order to carry on your crusade against Amanda and Raffaele. But there is no doubt there is evidence of Guede carrying out burglaries in the area prior to the murder. You should give this a rest and get back to finding evidence that Amanda washed Meredith's blood from her hands....

 

[Bill Williams]

I get it... you're a Guede apologist. Not necessarily because you like him but because you find it necessary in order to carry on your crusade against Amanda and Raffaele. But there is no doubt there is evidence of Guede carrying out burglaries in the area prior to the murder. You should give this a rest and get back to finding evidence that Amanda washed Meredith's blood from her hands....

It certainly is an elegant proof! Not that anyone has seen it.... makes one wonder how they know it's elegant?

 

[Stacyhs]

Stop talking rubbish. Rudy moved to Perugia at the beginning of September, that same year. He was only recently unemployed, having trained as a waiter - a highly respectable profession in Latin Europe (and also in India) - he attended a party in Milan and trespassed at the nursery school. It was not breaking and entering. He was charged a few years later in retrospect due to lobbying by pro-Knox supporters, for being in possession of stolen property. It proves nothing. There a shops all over the place offering to 'unlock' stolen phones and laptops. There is zero evidence Rudy 'was a known burglar'.

There is certainly rubbish being talked her but it's not by me.

Guede was on the verge of flunking out of school the Caporalis sent him to. He was not showing up for the tutorial help they had set up for him and he was still flunking all his exams. He lied to them about where he was all day. The Caporalis gave up and put him to work as a landscaper. He didn't bother to show up most of the time. The family was fed up with him and threw him out; they fired him. Unemployed.

“Now we didn’t trust him anymore,” Ilaria said. “He was a good guy, but he lied. He didn’t know the difference between good and bad. He didn’t have values. He was a like a baby that can’t understand right and wrong.”

(Burleigh, Nina. The Fatal Gift of Beauty: The Trials of Amanda Knox (p. 96).)

He then goes north to Milan where he gets a job as a waiter...which he then loses. Unemployed. You claim he "trained as a waiter". In reality, he simply got a job as a waiter and had to borrow the money from his aunt to buy his required white shirt and black pants.

He did not move to Perugia in September. He moved BACK to Perugia where he had lived almost his whole life after a few months near Milan.
"He drifted back to Perugia sometime in the late spring of 2007." (Burleigh, pg 97)

There is no record of him having a job in the several months since he returned to Perugia. So, yeah, I'd say he couldn't keep a job.

Yes, he "trespassed" in the Milan school. As I said earlier: "being caught trespassing (if not breaking in)". Regardless, he was somewhere that he had no right to be and stole something from the place.

He was charged a few years later in retrospect due to lobbying by pro-Knox supporters

LOL! Right! The Italians were forced by some Knox supporters to charge Guede! Man, we are powerful! You've said some outlandish things but this one takes the cake.

Even Marasca-Bruno stated clearly that the killing had the hallmark of a sadistic serial killer, not a random burglar.

Since AR and RS have been free for almost 6 years and have committed no crimes much less murders, I'd say the "serial killer" bit is a stretch for them. On the other hand, Guede has been in prison. M/B are not experts on serial killers or what the signs of a serial killer are. John Douglas is. And he said "This is not a case of serial killers...". I'll go with the opinion of the world renowned expert on serial killers.

Raff enjoyed sadistic hardcore manga and stated on his webpage he wanted 'extreme experiences' . He dressed up as a mad butcher/scientist.

LOL! Lots of people collect manga comics. Most of his collection was still in the original wrappers unopened. My BIL collects knives. That doesn't make him a killer. "Extreme experiences"? Like maybe skydiving? Bungee jumping? Do you really think RS meant "sexually assaulting and murdering a girl I don't even know"? His friends wrapped him in toilet paper like a mummy and gave him a machete and bottle of pink alcohol as a joke. Come on.This is a classic example of your bias coloring how you interpret everything; guilty, guilty, guilty.

Rudy is no more likely to fit the profile of the killer than Raff is.

Hmmm...since we know from the evidence that Guede did kill and sexually assault Meredith and that Raff did not, I'd say you've got that wrong.

 

[Stacyhs]

False. The Aprii Fool's prank she and some friends pulled had nothing whatsoever to do with rape. They staged a robbery. I have no idea where you get the "rape" nonsense.
We had a long discussion with Vixen over the false accusation that Knox wrote any stories about rape here some time ago. She claimed the same as you. It was shown clearly that no rape ever happened in Knox's story "Baby Brother". Vixen was unable to quote anything from the story regarding rape. You can't either as it doesn't exist. Try reading it.




Evidence of any of this other than your imagination? Seeing how both their families stood by and supported them during their ordeal, I'd say you're really scraping the bottom of the desperation barrel.



Already did. See my post above.

You remember incorrectly.

You are correct. I confused two discussions. One about "Baby Brother" and the other about "My Love". You claimed that Amanda wrote about a stabbing in "My Love" when, in fact, she wrote about people shooting up drugs.

However, the story "Baby Brother" is an ANTI-rape story in which the younger brother condemns his older brother for rape. It's about his disappointment and disgust for what his brother did. So for anyone to try and imply that Amanda wrote about rape as support that she was involved in Meredith's sexual assault is ridiculous.

(See? It's really not that hard to admit when you make a mistake or are wrong. The world doesn't end.)

 

[Vixen]

There is certainly rubbish being talked her but it's not by me.

Guede was on the verge of flunking out of school the Caporalis sent him to. He was not showing up for the tutorial help they had set up for him and he was still flunking all his exams. He lied to them about where he was all day. The Caporalis gave up and put him to work as a landscaper. He didn't bother to show up most of the time. The family was fed up with him and threw him out; they fired him. Unemployed.

“Now we didn’t trust him anymore,” Ilaria said. “He was a good guy, but he lied. He didn’t know the difference between good and bad. He didn’t have values. He was a like a baby that can’t understand right and wrong.”

(Burleigh, Nina. The Fatal Gift of Beauty: The Trials of Amanda Knox (p. 96).)

He then goes north to Milan where he gets a job as a waiter...which he then loses. Unemployed. You claim he "trained as a waiter". In reality, he simply got a job as a waiter and had to borrow the money from his aunt to buy his required white shirt and black pants.

He did not move to Perugia in September. He moved BACK to Perugia where he had lived almost his whole life after a few months near Milan.
"He drifted back to Perugia sometime in the late spring of 2007." (Burleigh, pg 97)

There is no record of him having a job in the several months since he returned to Perugia. So, yeah, I'd say he couldn't keep a job.

Yes, he "trespassed" in the Milan school. As I said earlier: "being caught trespassing (if not breaking in)". Regardless, he was somewhere that he had no right to be and stole something from the place.




LOL! Right! The Italians were forced by some Knox supporters to charge Guede! Man, we are powerful! You've said some outlandish things but this one takes the cake.



Since AR and RS have been free for almost 6 years and have committed no crimes much less murders, I'd say the "serial killer" bit is a stretch for them. On the other hand, Guede has been in prison. M/B are not experts on serial killers or what the signs of a serial killer are. John Douglas is. And he said "This is not a case of serial killers...". I'll go with the opinion of the world renowned expert on serial killers.




LOL! Lots of people collect manga comics. Most of his collection was still in the original wrappers unopened. My BIL collects knives. That doesn't make him a killer. "Extreme experiences"? Like maybe skydiving? Bungee jumping? Do you really think RS meant "sexually assaulting and murdering a girl I don't even know"? His friends wrapped him in toilet paper like a mummy and gave him a machete and bottle of pink alcohol as a joke. Come on.This is a classic example of your bias coloring how you interpret everything; guilty, guilty, guilty.



Hmmm...since we know from the evidence that Guede did kill and sexually assault Meredith and that Raff did not, I'd say you've got that wrong.

Your 'pantomime' debating technique ('Oh, no it's not!' to every point) is incredibly boring.

As I said, Rudy moved into his bedsit nearby Raff beginning of September that year. Since youth unemployment in Italy is circa 25%, it is hardly an indication of a ne'er-do-well to be out of work for a few months.

In addition, both he and Amanda were 20-year olds, so if anything, the person who should have behaved more responsibly ought to have been the older Raff.

Lying to investigators and obstructing them from completing their enquiries is grossly irresponsible.

 

[Vixen]

Oh, I know exactly how the law works, Vixen. Many orders of magnitude more than you do.

In the first instance, you fail to recognise that my example was a hypothetical. In the second instance, it's perfectly possible that at the charging stage and then the arraignment stage, police and prosecutors (respectively) might have presented "evidence" which seemed at that time to point to guilt (and thus lead to the case proceeding to a full trial), but which was subsequently shown to be entirely bogus and unreliable.

So, Vixen, it's actually entirely possible that someone could stand trial for murder, but that in the course of that trial the defence was able to show that none of the prosecution evidence was credible or reliable.

Let's take my hypothetical man from Assisi. Let's call him Francisco, shall we? Let's build a scenario to illustrate my point, Vixen. Suppose that the police, in the course of their investigation, were examining CCTV covering the street from the car park. Suppose they saw on the CCTV footage a dark coloured Fiat Panda drive slowly in the vicinity of the cottage. Suppose they (thought they) identified the registration number plate, and that number plate was found to belong to our Francisco from Assisi, who owned a dark coloured Fiat Panda.

So the police go to Assisi to have a chat with Francisco. He insists that he was in his apartment alone that whole evening/night (but cannot prove this). Immediately the police believe he is lying about his whereabouts - since they "know" that his car was near the cottage in Perugia on the evening of the murder.

The police then start to delve deeper into Francisco. They discover that he frequently hangs out at a particular bar in Assisi, and is a heavy drinker. They track down other regulars at the bar. They tell the regulars that they are investigating Francisco in relation to the Kercher murder. One of the regulars (let's call him Paolo) tells the police that the day after Kercher's body was discovered, he and Francisco were getting drunk in the bar, and there was a TV in the bar which showed a news item about the murder. Paolo tells the police that Francisco turned to him, in a drunken state, and said that he (Francisco) had participated in Kercher's murder, but that he was telling Paolo this in confidence to "get it off his chest".

So now we have Francisco's car being seen on CCTV near the cottage in Perugia, when Francisco claimed he was in Assisi all that evening/night. And we have a witness who says that Francisco confessed to participating in the murder.

Those things formulate a pretty strong case for charging and trying Francisco for the Kercher murder. In the UK (or, more accurately, E&W), for example, it's very likely that the CPS would authorise police to charge. In Italy, it's highly likely that when this evidence was placed before an arraignment judge, he/she would move the case forward to a full trial in a court of first instance.

So, Francisco goes on trial. In the meantime, his defence lawyers have done two things. Firstly, they have retained the services of video enhancement experts who have determined that the index plate of the vehicle in the CCTV footage actually is not the index plate of Francisco's car. Furthermore, the car in the CCTV image has a small rear spoiler which Francisco's car does not possess. And secondly, they have obtained affidavits from other regulars in that Assisi bar, who state that Paolo confessed to them that he had lied to the police about Francisco confessing to participation in the murder.

And so to the trial. The defence are easily able to satisfy the court that the car in the CCTV footage did not belong to Francisco. And when Paolo takes the stand as a witness, he is confronted under cross-examination with the affidavits from the other regulars. Paolo admits in court that he made up the story about Francisco confessing to him that he'd participated in the murder.

So, Vixen, here we have an instance where there was (or seemed at the time to be) sufficient evidence to justify charging and prosecuting Francisco for participation in the Kercher murder, but then in the first-instance trial the evidence against him is shown to be fundamentally lacking in credibility and reliability.

The court acquits Francisco. Under 530.2.

Any questions?

Since the hypothetical situation is all in your head, then anything is possible.

 

[Vixen]

You don't get it, do you?

I'll try to explain it again.

When Kiszko was convicted, the jury must have been convinced that the evidence presented in court proved, beyond all doubt based in human reason, that Kiszko was the murderer of Molseed.

Yet, in fact, Kiszko factually did not murder Molseed. A different person altogether murdered Molseed. Kiszko had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

And since we know that Kiszko did not murder Molseed, how (think about logic and reason at this point....) could the jury in his trial possibly have concluded that there was proof BARD that he DID commit the murder?

Think about it for a while.

Unfortunately for your idols, no other 'multiple attackers' have been identified. In fact, according to Raff and Amanda 'there are no other attackers'.

It's amazing how they know 'Rudy did it by himself' when police, pathologists and the courts state unequivocally he did not.

I wonder why the kid are so adamant they are wrong. Could it be they are the multiple attackers?

 

[Vixen]

You are correct. I confused two discussions. One about "Baby Brother" and the other about "My Love". You claimed that Amanda wrote about a stabbing in "My Love" when, in fact, she wrote about people shooting up drugs.

However, the story "Baby Brother" is an ANTI-rape story in which the younger brother condemns his older brother for rape. It's about his disappointment and disgust for what his brother did. So for anyone to try and imply that Amanda wrote about rape as support that she was involved in Meredith's sexual assault is ridiculous.

(See? It's really not that hard to admit when you make a mistake or are wrong. The world doesn't end.)

Yeah yeah, more apologist nonsense.

 

[Vixen]

Er, you do know Massei and Nencini are toast?

No, they are still going strong.

 

[Bill Williams]

Yeah yeah, more apologist nonsense.

No it's not. More to the point, your reply to Stacyhs does not demonstrate anything.

 

[bagels]

Unfortunately for your idols, no other 'multiple attackers' have been identified. In fact, according to Raff and Amanda 'there are no other attackers'.

It's amazing how they know 'Rudy did it by himself' when police, pathologists and the courts state unequivocally he did not.

I wonder why the kid are so adamant they are wrong. Could it be they are the multiple attackers?

The only known living witness to the crime says there was a single attacker.