Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 27

[bagels]

If you have read the court documents as you claim, what made you state it was 'nonsense' that Bruno-Marasca did state Knox was there, did wash off the victim's blood and did cover up for Rudy. What's more they confirmed the burglary was staged.

To deny it proves you are either utterly ignorant, or, more probably, deliberately spinning lies. It beats me why anyone would rush to the defence of a despicable criminal, but there's nowt so queer as folk.

But washing off blood, covering up a crime, and misleading police, are all crimes, crimes Amanda Knox was not convicted of. So the report clearly didn't find enough evidence to support its own allegations. In other words, the report is inherently self-contradicting.

In conclusion:

TJMK: The Italian judicial system is corrupt, incompetent, dishonest! Read their report to see them directly contradict themselves!

Colleges/Law Schools: Yeah we know...that's why we invited AK....

 

[Bill Williams]

If you have read the court documents as you claim, what made you state it was 'nonsense' that Bruno-Marasca did state Knox was there, did wash off the victim's blood and did cover up for Rudy. What's more they confirmed the burglary was staged.

To deny it proves you are either utterly ignorant, or, more probably, deliberately spinning lies. It beats me why anyone would rush to the defence of a despicable criminal, but there's nowt so queer as folk.

Attention, Roanoke folks - let's then read the court documents:

Did Marasca-Bruno in 2015 (in the document explaining why they'd exonerated Sollecito and Knox} say "she was there"?

9.3 During the analysis of the aforementioned elements of evidence, it is certainly useful to remember that, taking for granted that the murder occurred in via della Pergola, the alleged presence at the house of the defendants cannot, in itself, be considered as proof of guilt.​

Marasca-Bruno agree with Sollecito's appeal that establishing a Time Of Death (something the lower court had not done) was crucial to assessing his alibi.

The Sollecito defence is right to object in pointing out the need for investigation of this point and all its implications, especially in a circumstantial case like this one. Not only that, but the exact determination of Kercher’s time of death is an unavoidable factual prerequisite for the verification of the defendant’s alibi, in the form of an inquiry aimed at ascertaining the possibility of his alleged presence in the house on via della Pergola at the time of the murder. It is for this reason that an appropriate expert review was requested.​

There is more. In short that exonerating report did not say that K/S had been there. It concluded with:

9.4. However, a matter of undoubted significance in favour of the appellants, in the sense that it excludes their material participation in the murder, even if it is hypothesised that they were present in the house on via della Pergola, consists of the absolute lack of biological traces attributable to them (except the clasp which will be dealt with further on) in the murder room or on the victim’s body, where instead numerous traces attributable to Guede were found.​

The matter of "Knox rubbed blood from her hands" was covered in the 2010 Massei report, which even while convicting them, then, the convicting judge had to concede that even the police's own scientific team could not make that determining on the evidence at the scene.

To the Roanoke folks: I can supply the cite if you wish to read it. But for sake of argument, this is how the 2015 exonerating court puts it:

Nevertheless, even if attribution is certain, the trial element would not be unequivocal as a demonstration of posthumous contact with that blood, as a likely attempt to remove the most blatant traces of what had happened, perhaps to help someone or deflect suspicion from herself, without this entailing her certain direct involvement in the murder. Any further and more meaningful value would be, in fact, resisted by the fact - which is decisive - that no trace leading to her was found at the scene of the crime or on the victim’s body, so that - if all the above is accepted - her contact with the victim’s blood would have occurred after the crime and in another part of the house.​

 

[Welshman]

I don't wish to burst the bubble you are in, but even the doddering old fool Bruno spelt it out large that Amanda Knox covered up for Rudy Guede.

If your heroine covers up for murderer/rapist Rudy, then you should be venting your spleen in the right direction. What decent person covers up for a murderer/rapist? And washes off the victim's blood from her hands and fails to come to the aid of her housemate in any way whatsoever?

Not my findings, these are the findings of the final Supreme Court.

You think such a person should be paid US$5,000 to put up a ham performance with more wood than Heals of being the victim of misogny and Roman Catholic prosecutors. Complete with rehearsed yelps and sobs.

Vixen yet again repeats the falsehood the supreme court said Amanda covered up for Guede. Vixen constantly bangs on about Amanda telling umpteen lies and repeats the same lies umpteen times. Why would the supreme court annull the murder conviction if they felt Amanda covered up for Guede and hence took part in Meredith's murder. If Amanda killed Meredith with Guede and covered up for Guede, can Vixen explain the numerous holes in this scenario I pointed out in my post below :-

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11970178#post11970178

 

[Stacyhs]

You should get out more. Not everything is recorded on the internet.

Desperate times called again. They are now demanding their desperate measures back.

Lucky for us (not so much for you) there is a cockney dictionary available on the internet with hundreds of cockney words. "Kimo sabe" is not among them. NEXT EXCUSE! You really don't know when to put the shovel away, do you?

http://www.freelang.net/dictionary/docs/html_cockney_english.php#k

What do they call someone who can never admit when they are wrong in Cockney?

 

[Stacyhs]

You think cockneys have a vocabulary of only a few dozen words...?

Nope. As the Cockney dictionary I linked to demonstrates.

Peter Quennell is just one individual. It is so typical of you to bring personalities into it instead of concentrating on the issues at hand.

Quennell is the issue at hand right now in this thread. Quennell and his crazy hate campaign, sick obsession with Knox, and lunatic claims of Amanda inciting violence resulting in (alleged) attacks on Mignini in Perugia.

 

[Bill Williams]

Peter Quennell is just one individual. It is so typical of you to bring personalities into it instead of concentrating on the issues at hand.

Quennell is the issue at hand right now in this thread. Quennell and his crazy hate campaign, sick obsession with Knox, and lunatic claims of Amanda inciting violence resulting in (alleged) attacks on Mignini in Perugia.

Quennell has behaved in a certain manner. Right now he's orchestrating a negative PR-campaign against Amanda Knox at Roanoke college. He's claiming success.

It is typical of the haters to pivot into a claim that this is about personalities. As Roanoke staffers are experiencing right now, at least two of the haters have admitted to sending inflamed emails to them.

Can people at Roanoke college have any doubt about this internet harassment campaign when Knox mentions it, even if in passing?

 

[Stacyhs]

Just when you think Quennell can't get any more detached from reality, he writes this at TJMK:

Maybe yours was the straw that broke the camels back. It’s announced that contrary to an earlier notice from Roanoke, Knox will no longer appear tonight at the showing of the very dishonest Netflix report.
Netflix made 5 out of every 6 online reviewers suspect that Italy had been at fault somehow. But far fewer emerged with any liking or trust for Knox herself and some said they actively disliked her.

She inhabits a shrinking island. But I would have expected her to drag at minimum those befuddled ex-FBI dodos and the ex-judge in the early stages of dementia. Tough call though, given these onstage fiascoes.

Maybe someone should inform him that Amanda was NEVER going to attend the docu screening tonight. She was only scheduled to speak tomorrow night:

Amanda Knox will not be present at the screening; however will speak the following evening (details below).
Both events are free and open to the public. Tickets are not required.

https://www.roanoke.edu/events/amanda_knox_documentary

This is the original Roanoke announcement. Next thing, Slipped Pete will be claiming it was changed. It wasn't. Quennell claims Heavey is "in the early stages of dementia". Well, someone looks like they've lost touch with reality but it sure isn't Heavey!

 

[TruthCalls]

If you have read the court documents as you claim, what made you state it was 'nonsense' that Bruno-Marasca did state Knox was there, did wash off the victim's blood and did cover up for Rudy. What's more they confirmed the burglary was staged.

To deny it proves you are either utterly ignorant, or, more probably, deliberately spinning lies. It beats me why anyone would rush to the defence of a despicable criminal, but there's nowt so queer as folk.

Instead of arguing what M-B stated in their motivation report (since we've all read it already and know what they said) why don't you cite the evidence to support what you claim they said. It's not like you haven't been asked dozens of times for this in the past.

We know they did reference her statements from the interrogation where she said she was there, but we also know Amanda recanted this and we know what was said was false since she didn't meet Lumumba at the basketball court nor did Lumumba go to the cottage with her. There is absolutely nothing else to support Amanda being present at the time of the crime and you know it. I find it absolutely amazing how Guede claims to come by the cottage twice and CCTV picks him up both times as well as Meredith arriving home yet CCTV never picks up Amanda or Raffaele.

What evidence is there of Amanda washing Meredith's blood from her hands or her covering for Guede? There is none and you know it.

What evidence is there of a staged burglary? Claims of glass on top of clothes (no physical evidence of this) after multiple visits to the room to go through things there? No bent nail, no scuff mark on the wall - neither of which were left by those who later showed the climb is easy. But we do know there was glass under the clothes and glass sprayed clear across the room (documented by photographs). We do know there was glass embedded in the interior wood shutter as well as damage from the rock striking it, both of which proves the rock came from the outside. Forensic sampling was extremely limited and an analysis of the window and broken glass to prove the direction of the broken glass was never done, all because the police jumped to a conclusion and felt they didn't need anything more.

But go on with your desperate claims of what M-B said in their report as they were acquitting Amanda and Raffaele without sending the case back to another appellate court. I guess all that damning evidence you claim they speak of in their report didn't impress them quite as much as it does you.

 

[Stacyhs]

Instead of arguing what M-B stated in their motivation report (since we've all read it already and know what they said) why don't you cite the evidence to support what you claim they said. It's not like you haven't been asked dozens of times for this in the past.

We know they did reference her statements from the interrogation where she said she was there, but we also know Amanda recanted this and we know what was said was false since she didn't meet Lumumba at the basketball court nor did Lumumba go to the cottage with her. There is absolutely nothing else to support Amanda being present at the time of the crime and you know it. I find it absolutely amazing how Guede claims to come by the cottage twice and CCTV picks him up both times as well as Meredith arriving home yet CCTV never picks up Amanda or Raffaele.

What evidence is there of Amanda washing Meredith's blood from her hands or her covering for Guede? There is none and you know it.

What evidence is there of a staged burglary? Claims of glass on top of clothes (no physical evidence of this) after multiple visits to the room to go through things there? No bent nail, no scuff mark on the wall - neither of which were left by those who later showed the climb is easy. But we do know there was glass under the clothes and glass sprayed clear across the room (documented by photographs). We do know there was glass embedded in the interior wood shutter as well as damage from the rock striking it, both of which proves the rock came from the outside. Forensic sampling was extremely limited and an analysis of the window and broken glass to prove the direction of the broken glass was never done, all because the police jumped to a conclusion and felt they didn't need anything more.

But go on with your desperate claims of what M-B said in their report as they were acquitting Amanda and Raffaele without sending the case back to another appellate court. I guess all that damning evidence you claim they speak of in their report didn't impress them quite as much as it does you.

Actually, Marasca, Bruno and the other three judges were very impressed with the evidence against AK and RS. But the thing is, they were all "bent" besides being "doddering old fools" who couldn't put a sensible string of words together.

 

[Bill Williams]

Instead of arguing what M-B stated in their motivation report (since we've all read it already and know what they said) why don't you cite the evidence to support what you claim they said. It's not like you haven't been asked dozens of times for this in the past.

We know they did reference her statements from the interrogation where she said she was there, but we also know Amanda recanted this and we know what was said was false since she didn't meet Lumumba at the basketball court nor did Lumumba go to the cottage with her. There is absolutely nothing else to support Amanda being present at the time of the crime and you know it.

If there is crazy stuff in the M-B report from 2015, this is it. And no wonder, the 5th Chambers of Cassazione could not undo what the 1st Chambers had signed off on in 2013 - the calunnia against Lumuba conviction.

So, let the muddle begin - in all other parts of the M-B report, both Knox's and Sollecito's "presence" at the cottage was only something M-B said was alleged by the prosecution(s), and then went on to say that even if true, that still did not overcome the fact of their non-presence in the murder room. This meant, for M-B, that if the prosecution theory was true that they'd been there, then they'd have had to have been there at another time and in another part of the cottage.

But - 5th Cambers is locked in also to her presence, so that the confession about herself and Lumumba could be used against her for something 1st Chambers had already convicted her of, that 5th Chambers could do nothing about 2 years later.

So - if the M-B report sounds muddled on that point; welcome to the Italian concept of judicial truth. But when one thinks of that, that is not that much different from North American wrongful convictions. In North America, there's only one lower grade trial, one fact finding trial. If, as in Kirstin Blaise Lobato's case, the first grade wrongfully convicts, then there's a set of judicial facts generated called "the record". Unless compelling new evidence is found at a later date or if faulty representation can be proved, "the record" is our version of judicial truth.

Fortunately, us here way up in the bleachers can look past these judicial truths, esp. if there'd been no evidence to sustain them to begin with. One of the benefits of having to look down at the playing field with opera glasses is "judicial truth" can be shown for what it sometimes is.

 

[Numbers]

If there is crazy stuff in the M-B report from 2015, this is it. And no wonder, the 5th Chambers of Cassazione could not undo what the 1st Chambers had signed off on in 2013 - the calunnia against Lumuba conviction.

So, let the muddle begin - in all other parts of the M-B report, both Knox's and Sollecito's "presence" at the cottage was only something M-B said was alleged by the prosecution(s), and then went on to say that even if true, that still did not overcome the fact of their non-presence in the murder room. This meant, for M-B, that if the prosecution theory was true that they'd been there, then they'd have had to have been there at another time and in another part of the cottage.
But - 5th Cambers is locked in also to her presence, so that the confession about herself and Lumumba could be used against her for something 1st Chambers had already convicted her of, that 5th Chambers could do nothing about 2 years later. So - if the M-B report sounds muddled on that point; welcome to the Italian concept of judicial truth. But when one thinks of that, that is not that much different from North American wrongful convictions. In North America, there's only one lower grade trial, one fact finding trial. If, as in Kirstin Blaise Lobato's case, the first grade wrongfully convicts, then there's a set of judicial facts generated called "the record". Unless compelling new evidence is found at a later date or if faulty representation can be proved, "the record" is our version of judicial truth.

Fortunately, us here way up in the bleachers can look past these judicial truths, esp. if there'd been no evidence to sustain them to begin with. One of the benefits of having to look down at the playing field with opera glasses is "judicial truth" can be shown for what it sometimes is.

I think you are mixing up the very mixed-up "judicial truths" of the Italian courts.

Amanda Knox was provisionally convicted of "simple" calunnia against Patrick Lumumba by the Hellmann appeal court. This conviction was made "final" by the Chieffi CSC panel. The Hellmann appeal court motivation report did not state that Knox's statement indicated she was at the cottage at the time of the murder or that she knew who the murderer was at the time of her interrogation. It does state that she did know at the time of the interrogation that Lumumba was not the murderer, because (IIUC) according to the motivation report, she would have known that Lumumba had never met Meredith Kercher and because the police were insisting that she name someone - specifically, Lumumba.

So anything that the Chieffi CSC panel added with respect to Hellmann conviction in their discussion of the calunnia conviction was, according to the logic of the Marasca CSC panel motivation report and the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, not binding law or "judicial truth" but merely suggestions for the remand court (Nencini appeal court) to consider.

The Marasca CSC panel committed it own bizarre misstatement of facts in the section in which it claimed that a revision court could not acquit Knox of calunnia against Lumumba after an ECHR finding of a violation of the Convention and need for retrial, because, alleges the Marasca CSC panel, Knox had repeated her allegations against Lumumba at her arrest hearing. However, Knox was silent on the advice of counsel at her arrest hearing, and this is in the record, nor did Knox repeat her statements against Lumumba after she had obtained counsel.

In ECHR cases I have read in which persons are coerced into making allegedly false statements as a result of police mistreatment during an interrogation without the presence of counsel, there is sometimes a repetition of the false statement in the period before counsel is obtained, while the person is still under police control without counsel. Generally, the ECHR infers that such allegedly false statements made prior to the person obtaining the assistance of counsel as attributable to the police mistreatment and thus coerced and thus not admissible. Use of such statements at trial to convict is thus a violation of Convention Article 6 (right to a fair trial).

 

[Bill Williams]

I think you are mixing up the very mixed-up "judicial truths" of the Italian courts.

That could very well be. Also, the fault is entirely mine - but it was difficult to follow an attempt by yourself to unbefuddle a befuddled process with regard to how Knox's calunnia conviction cashes out depending on if a court convicts or acquits on the big stuff.

Suffice it to say, for us way up here in the cheap seats it simply looks bizarre that at the end of the day someone can be wholly innocent of the big crime, but still be convicted of calunnia.

But that also could very well just be my own deficiencies.

 

[Stacyhs]

Slipped Pete still has not realized that Amanda was never supposed to appear at last night's showing of the Netflix docu at Roanoke College. When a poster asked if her appearance had been cancelled completely, Quennell replied:

Sorry, that was unclear. Knox appearance at the Netflix showing Tuesday night was seemingly cancelled. The Wednesday night presentation is seemingly still on.

(Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/24/18 at 08:04 AM TJMK Front Page)

I had to laugh at his use of "seemingly".

The showing of the docu on Jan. 23 and Amanda speaking on Jan. 24 were reported as early as Jan 5... before Quennell launched his email/phone call campaign. No mention of her appearing on the 23rd, but only on the 24th. Quennell needs to stop taking a victory lap and start taking his medication.

http://www.roanoke.com/community/so...cle_b341578a-ce84-5848-8842-afd2bd44002b.html

 

[Numbers]

That could very well be. Also, the fault is entirely mine - but it was difficult to follow an attempt by yourself to unbefuddle a befuddled process with regard to how Knox's calunnia conviction cashes out depending on if a court convicts or acquits on the big stuff.

Suffice it to say, for us way up here in the cheap seats it simply looks bizarre that at the end of the day someone can be wholly innocent of the big crime, but still be convicted of calunnia.

But that also could very well just be my own deficiencies.

This may help explain (as I understand it).

We need to distinguish:

1) Amanda Knox's provisional conviction for "simple" calunnia against Lumumba, generated by the Hellmann appeal court and confirmed by the Chieffi CSC panel,

from

2) Amanda Knox's provisional conviction for "aggravated" calunnia against Lumumba, generated by the Nencini appeal court and quashed by the Marasca CSC panel.

The "simple" calunnia "final" conviction does not imply any knowledge by Knox who was the actual murderer or that Knox was in the cottage at the time of the murder.

The quashed "aggravated" calunnia provisional conviction did indicate that Knox knew who the actual murderer was, that she was in in the cottage at the time of the murder, and had falsely accused Lumumba to protect herself and/or the actual murderer. The Chieffi CSC panel "suggested" to the Nencini appeal court that Knox should be convicted of "aggravated" calunnia.

It is the quashed "aggravated" calunnia provisional conviction that the guilters continually mention as though it were established or credible. It is not.

The "simple" calunnia conviction was an obvious miscarriage of justice and I am confident that the ECHR will find that it was a violation of Knox's rights under the Convention, thus requiring a retrial or other measures, with all Convention rights respected, to restore Knox's situation to that before her rights were violated. This would, of course, mean that she would be acquitted of the "simple" calunnia charge and (eventually) compensated.

 

[TruthCalls]

This may help explain (as I understand it).

We need to distinguish:

1) Amanda Knox's provisional conviction for "simple" calunnia against Lumumba, generated by the Hellmann appeal court and confirmed by the Chieffi CSC panel,

from

2) Amanda Knox's provisional conviction for "aggravated" calunnia against Lumumba, generated by the Nencini appeal court and quashed by the Marasca CSC panel.

The "simple" calunnia "final" conviction does not imply any knowledge by Knox who was the actual murderer or that Knox was in the cottage at the time of the murder.

The quashed "aggravated" calunnia provisional conviction did indicate that Knox knew who the actual murderer was, that she was in in the cottage at the time of the murder, and had falsely accused Lumumba to protect herself and/or the actual murderer. The Chieffi CSC panel "suggested" to the Nencini appeal court that Knox should be convicted of "aggravated" calunnia.

It is the quashed "aggravated" calunnia provisional conviction that the guilters continually mention as though it were established or credible. It is not.

The "simple" calunnia conviction was an obvious miscarriage of justice and I am confident that the ECHR will find that it was a violation of Knox's rights under the Convention, thus requiring a retrial or other measures, with all Convention rights respected, to restore Knox's situation to that before her rights were violated. This would, of course, mean that she would be acquitted of the "simple" calunnia charge and (eventually) compensated.

Not that I'm disagreeing with anything you're saying here Numbers, but I think the distinction is moot when it comes to the argument used by Vixen and other guilters. Vixen continues to claim M-B ruled Amanda was present in the cottage based on section 9.4.1 of the M-B report which reads;

With this premise, with regards to Amanda Knox’s position, it is now observed that her presence in the house, the scene of the murder, is an acclaimed fact of the trial, based on her own admissions, also contained in her signed memorial, in the part where she explains how, when she was in the kitchen, after the young Englishwoman and another person went into Kercher’s room to have sex, she heard her friend’s harrowing scream, to the lacerating and unbearable point that she slid down, squatting on the floor, holding her hands firmly on her ears, so as to hear no more of it.

But if Vixen were being honest she would acknowledge Amanda recanted this claim and has always held it was coerced. She would also acknowledge that the overall claim is false based on the fact that Lumumba wasn't present that evening, so the entire premise of meeting him and taking him back to the cottage is nullified. And, of course, the CCTV evidence that shows Guede twice and Meredith arriving home, but never shows Amanda or Raffaele confirms she wasn't at the cottage. In short, Vixen is being incredibly disingenuous to make the claim but that's nothing new.

 

[Stacyhs]

Not that I'm disagreeing with anything you're saying here Numbers, but I think the distinction is moot when it comes to the argument used by Vixen and other guilters. Vixen continues to claim M-B ruled Amanda was present in the cottage based on section 9.4.1 of the M-B report which reads;

With this premise, with regards to Amanda Knox’s position, it is now observed that her presence in the house, the scene of the murder, is an acclaimed fact of the trial, based on her own admissions, also contained in her signed memorial, in the part where she explains how, when she was in the kitchen, after the young Englishwoman and another person went into Kercher’s room to have sex, she heard her friend’s harrowing scream, to the lacerating and unbearable point that she slid down, squatting on the floor, holding her hands firmly on her ears, so as to hear no more of it.

But if Vixen were being honest she would acknowledge Amanda recanted this claim and has always held it was coerced. She would also acknowledge that the overall claim is false based on the fact that Lumumba wasn't present that evening, so the entire premise of meeting him and taking him back to the cottage is nullified. And, of course, the CCTV evidence that shows Guede twice and Meredith arriving home, but never shows Amanda or Raffaele confirms she wasn't at the cottage. In short, Vixen is being incredibly disingenuous to make the claim but that's nothing new.

NOOOOOOO! I'm SHOCKED! SHOCKED, I TELL YA!

 

[Numbers]

Not that I'm disagreeing with anything you're saying here Numbers, but I think the distinction is moot when it comes to the argument used by Vixen and other guilters. Vixen continues to claim M-B ruled Amanda was present in the cottage based on section 9.4.1 of the M-B report which reads;

With this premise, with regards to Amanda Knox’s position, it is now observed that her presence in the house, the scene of the murder, is an acclaimed fact of the trial, based on her own admissions, also contained in her signed memorial, in the part where she explains how, when she was in the kitchen, after the young Englishwoman and another person went into Kercher’s room to have sex, she heard her friend’s harrowing scream, to the lacerating and unbearable point that she slid down, squatting on the floor, holding her hands firmly on her ears, so as to hear no more of it.

But if Vixen were being honest she would acknowledge Amanda recanted this claim and has always held it was coerced. She would also acknowledge that the overall claim is false based on the fact that Lumumba wasn't present that evening, so the entire premise of meeting him and taking him back to the cottage is nullified. And, of course, the CCTV evidence that shows Guede twice and Meredith arriving home, but never shows Amanda or Raffaele confirms she wasn't at the cottage. In short, Vixen is being incredibly disingenuous to make the claim but that's nothing new.

It's important that "acclaimed fact of the trial" be understood in context. It should be understood as saying "acknowledged assumption of the Nencini appeal court trial".

The Marasca CSC court quashed the Nencini appeal court conviction of Knox for "aggravated" calunnia, therefore the quoted statement does not mean that the Marasca CSC panel accepted the Nencini appeal court acknowledged assumption (or "acclaimed fact").

Furthermore, the Gemelli CSC panel had early on indicated that Knox's interrogation statements could not be used against her for the murder case, but only for the calunnia case, based on the fact that she had written a defensive statement on Nov. 6, 2007, referring to her interrogation. However, use of such an interrogation statement for a conviction on this basis is clearly contrary to ECHR case-law (Salduz v. Turkey), which should have been clear to the Gemelli CSC panel, if they were competent judges. According to Italian law, the interrogation statements should not have been used whatsoever against Knox.

 

[Vixen]

Desperate times called again. They are now demanding their desperate measures back.

Lucky for us (not so much for you) there is a cockney dictionary available on the internet with hundreds of cockney words. "Kimo sabe" is not among them. NEXT EXCUSE! You really don't know when to put the shovel away, do you?

http://www.freelang.net/dictionary/docs/html_cockney_english.php#k

What do they call someone who can never admit when they are wrong in Cockney?

'Brass neck'.

It is a compilation by one guy. He doesn't even have 'brassic' in there. Does that mean Londoners do not use that term?

In addition, language constantly changes, slang comes and goes. The cockney guys I knew who used 'Kimo sabe' to mean, 'Do you speak English?'

The whole aim of Cockney villain slang is to speak in a code that the police wouldn't understand, and they even invented a backslang for this purpose.

(No, I am not cockney and I never followed the Lone Ranger, thanks for asking.)

 

[Vixen]

Instead of arguing what M-B stated in their motivation report (since we've all read it already and know what they said) why don't you cite the evidence to support what you claim they said. It's not like you haven't been asked dozens of times for this in the past.

We know they did reference her statements from the interrogation where she said she was there, but we also know Amanda recanted this and we know what was said was false since she didn't meet Lumumba at the basketball court nor did Lumumba go to the cottage with her. There is absolutely nothing else to support Amanda being present at the time of the crime and you know it. I find it absolutely amazing how Guede claims to come by the cottage twice and CCTV picks him up both times as well as Meredith arriving home yet CCTV never picks up Amanda or Raffaele.

What evidence is there of Amanda washing Meredith's blood from her hands or her covering for Guede? There is none and you know it.

What evidence is there of a staged burglary? Claims of glass on top of clothes (no physical evidence of this) after multiple visits to the room to go through things there? No bent nail, no scuff mark on the wall - neither of which were left by those who later showed the climb is easy. But we do know there was glass under the clothes and glass sprayed clear across the room (documented by photographs). We do know there was glass embedded in the interior wood shutter as well as damage from the rock striking it, both of which proves the rock came from the outside. Forensic sampling was extremely limited and an analysis of the window and broken glass to prove the direction of the broken glass was never done, all because the police jumped to a conclusion and felt they didn't need anything more.

But go on with your desperate claims of what M-B said in their report as they were acquitting Amanda and Raffaele without sending the case back to another appellate court. I guess all that damning evidence you claim they speak of in their report didn't impress them quite as much as it does you.

The cctv cameras only pick up people walking past or driving into or out of the San Antonio (_sp?) car park (via Pergola 7, strictly speaking, being in San Antonio, which is why the police had trouble finding it both times).

Your other points I have answered in great detail many times before.

 

[Vixen]

Not that I'm disagreeing with anything you're saying here Numbers, but I think the distinction is moot when it comes to the argument used by Vixen and other guilters. Vixen continues to claim M-B ruled Amanda was present in the cottage based on section 9.4.1 of the M-B report which reads;

With this premise, with regards to Amanda Knox’s position, it is now observed that her presence in the house, the scene of the murder, is an acclaimed fact of the trial, based on her own admissions, also contained in her signed memorial, in the part where she explains how, when she was in the kitchen, after the young Englishwoman and another person went into Kercher’s room to have sex, she heard her friend’s harrowing scream, to the lacerating and unbearable point that she slid down, squatting on the floor, holding her hands firmly on her ears, so as to hear no more of it.

But if Vixen were being honest she would acknowledge Amanda recanted this claim and has always held it was coerced. She would also acknowledge that the overall claim is false based on the fact that Lumumba wasn't present that evening, so the entire premise of meeting him and taking him back to the cottage is nullified. And, of course, the CCTV evidence that shows Guede twice and Meredith arriving home, but never shows Amanda or Raffaele confirms she wasn't at the cottage. In short, Vixen is being incredibly disingenuous to make the claim but that's nothing new.

You omit to mention that Marasca-Bruno ruled that Knox named Patrick to cover up for Rudy.

Of course she's not going to admit being in cahoots with Rudy. When a defendant does not admit a crime, hello? we have a trial.