• 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.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
Article 3 is the Torture article. You can dress it up in fancy words such as 'degrading and inhumane treatment'. However, it needs to be a lot more than police being a bit rude to you.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm... those darn legal professionals at the ECHR who wrote the articles and their vague and dressed up wording! What were they thinking?
 
Stacyhs said:
Yes, that would be a scam. But, of course, you haven't a scrap of evidence to support that this is what Zellner did, do you? Nope.
What I find interesting is that you accuse Zellner of this "scam", but you find it perfectly logical that a journalist could get two witnesses to claim they had seen a defendant a year later when they had originally told the police they had not seen that defendant. Nor do you find it odd that this same journalist "found" a witness who claimed to hear a horrific scream the night of the murder. A witness who had been in a mental hospital previously, who had failed to mention this scream to anyone, and claimed to know about the crime before its discovery. Nope...that's all not suspect at all, is it?
Click to expand...

Anyone who runs is a VC. Anyone who stands still is a well-disciplined VC!
 
Vixen, are you ever going to own up to the fact that Curatolo did, indeed, specifically claim it was Halloween and that the students were wearing masks?

Silly me. Of course you're not. That would mean admitting you were wrong about something and that will just never do.
 
Pictured: Vixen hooked up to an irony meter

GrpGD5.gif
 
Vixen, are you ever going to own up to the fact that Curatolo did, indeed, specifically claim it was Halloween and that the students were wearing masks?

Silly me. Of course you're not. That would mean admitting you were wrong about something and that will just never do.
 
Vixen said:
What a load of Pseuds Corner clap trap. I might send it in to PRIVATE EYE.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm...I thought she described some people very well when she wrote

In filming "The Scarlet Letter Reports," I met with women who, like me, have faced vitriolic harassment by the media and the public
Click to expand...

I was hounded and harassed before, during, and after my release, whereas most exonerees face being forgotten or ignored by society. These individuals have all borne the burden of our criminal justice system’s failures, and by extension, our society’s shortcomings: our racism, classism, and impulse to scapegoat, vilify, and punish. Foxy Knoxy was the product of some of these shortcomings, but filtered through society’s long history of villainizing women and particularly our sexuality.
Click to expand...

And, in trying to live our lives or come forward with the truth, we faced vicious campaigns against our characters—our identities distorted and crammed into prepackaged tropes, ready-made to be discounted, condemned, and rejected: the slut, the psycho, the trainwreck, the liar, the man-eater.
Click to expand...
https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/arti...arlet-letter-trailer?utm_campaign=sharebutton
 
Vixen said:
What a load of Pseuds Corner clap trap. I might send it in to PRIVATE EYE.
Click to expand...

People like you are the subject of this series - those who spend all their time vilifying strangers with citationless factoids about a murder which had (essentially) been solved 3 years and one month ago.

Keep posting, Vixen, you're proving all the points made.
 
LondonJohn said:
Yes indeed. And also, I don't think Vixen really understands what qualifies a piece of writing for inclusion in Private Eye's "Pseuds Corner". None of this article of Knox's comes remotely close to meeting the criteria. Still, I guess in some eyes it somehow sounds edgy and cool to make the claim......
Click to expand...

As in using res judicata and kimo sabe (incorrectly)?:D
 
Stacyhs said:
Vixen, are you ever going to own up to the fact that Curatolo did, indeed, specifically claim it was Halloween and that the students were wearing masks?

Silly me. Of course you're not. That would mean admitting you were wrong about something and that will just never do.
Click to expand...

Vixen, "It strikes me as a patent scam to get eyewitnesses to a crime to recant their testimony by defence lawyers many years after the trial..."

But if Curatolo changes his facts, (or worse if the prosecution materially alters his statement for him), that's just fine.

Vixen it would never you to adopt a standpoint and stick with it.
 
Vixen said:
Don't put words in my mouth. I don't know enough about the Ferguson /Eriksson case to know whether the trial was fair. However, the facts of the crime scene are uncannily as described by the caretaker Orr. so I am sceptical that years later she has retracted her eyewitness account of seeing the body lying on the ground between cars thanks to Kathlee Zellner's intervention.

It strikes me as a patent scam to get eyewitnesses to a crime to recant their testimony by defence lawyers many years after the trial determined to get their client 'exonerated' and hopefully get $m in compensation.
Click to expand...

So did you make this statement just to prove how much you don't know about the case?

Ornt (not Orr) was a janitor, not a caretaker. Ornt was the only witness who ALWAYS told the police she saw the two assailants running away and could identify them. In fact, Ornt helped the police artist develop a sketch. She told the police on several occasions that neither of them was Ferguson. Zellner didn't have to work on Ornt because Ornt's statements would have helped the defense from the start. The problem was, the prosecution withheld this information and Ornt never testified in court. And it was only Ornt's witnessing the suspects running away that was relevant to the case. I don't even know if she saw the body, but it's entirely irrelevant - many other people saw the body.

Zellner worked on Trump but there was good reason; Trump told the police initially he couldn't identify anyone. It was only later, when Trump was in jail and the police leaned on him did he change his story and say he could identify Ferguson. What Zellner found out was that the story Trump gave the police - i.e., receiving a newspaper article from his wife - was a lie. His wife told investigators she never sent him the newspaper article but the prosecution withheld this evidence and it never made it to court. Additionally, after news got out about Trump's testimony claiming to have seen Ferguson, Trump's supervisor at the time of the murder, Christine Varner, came forward and said that Trump had told her and another colleague that he could not identify anyone at the crime scene. That's two (three if the 'colleague' was ever questioned) people who can contradict Trump, and that doesn't include his own initial statements to police stating he couldn't identify anyone.

But all this is irrelevant really... the truth is, you don't know jack about the Ferguson case yet you blithely dismiss it as not being a good example of a wrongful conviction. I'm not sure what bothers me more - your indifference to knowing anything about a subject you prattle on with as if you did, or that you'd be willing to condemn Ferguson when you don't know a thing about the case and what makes him such a perfect example of someone being wrongfully convicted.

What words did I put in your mouth?
 
Mike1711 said:
Vixen, "It strikes me as a patent scam to get eyewitnesses to a crime to recant their testimony by defence lawyers many years after the trial..."

But if Curatolo changes his facts, (or worse if the prosecution materially alters his statement for him), that's just fine.

Vixen it would never you to adopt a standpoint and stick with it.
Click to expand...

Exactly. As Stacy mentioned earlier, when a witness in the Kercher case creates a story (Capezzali, Curatolo) or changes their story (Quintavalle) months after the murder, and only after meeting with the same reporter and then the prosecution, it's accurate and believable, but when the story changes after meeting with the defense, then it's falsification and not believable. And let's not forget the prosecution has a few advantages; they can use coercive techniques, as is seen & heard in the Erickson interrogation recording (as well as the Knox interrogation, although we don't have the recording to prove it. Hmmm), they can offer deals, as was the case with Erickson when he offered to testify in exchange for a lighter sentence, and they can make threats as was suspected with Trump when he changed his story. Zellner can't do any of that. All she could do was work on their conscience.

So, to summarize Vixen... Trump initially tells the police "A". Then, after meeting with the police he changes his story to "B". This, according to Vixen, is OK. Then Zellner gets Trump to admit his initial story of "A" was correct and according to Vixen, this is Zellner using her witchcraft to get Trump to change his story (if going back to what you originally said can be considered changing your story... you just can't make this stuff up!)

It's called confirmation bias and it just owns Vixen.
 
TruthCalls said:
So did you make this statement just to prove how much you don't know about the case?

Ornt (not Orr) was a janitor, not a caretaker. Ornt was the only witness who ALWAYS told the police she saw the two assailants running away and could identify them. In fact, Ornt helped the police artist develop a sketch. She told the police on several occasions that neither of them was Ferguson. Zellner didn't have to work on Ornt because Ornt's statements would have helped the defense from the start. The problem was, the prosecution withheld this information and Ornt never testified in court. And it was only Ornt's witnessing the suspects running away that was relevant to the case. I don't even know if she saw the body, but it's entirely irrelevant - many other people saw the body.

Zellner worked on Trump but there was good reason; Trump told the police initially he couldn't identify anyone. It was only later, when Trump was in jail and the police leaned on him did he change his story and say he could identify Ferguson. What Zellner found out was that the story Trump gave the police - i.e., receiving a newspaper article from his wife - was a lie. His wife told investigators she never sent him the newspaper article but the prosecution withheld this evidence and it never made it to court. Additionally, after news got out about Trump's testimony claiming to have seen Ferguson, Trump's supervisor at the time of the murder, Christine Varner, came forward and said that Trump had told her and another colleague that he could not identify anyone at the crime scene. That's two (three if the 'colleague' was ever questioned) people who can contradict Trump, and that doesn't include his own initial statements to police stating he couldn't identify anyone.

But all this is irrelevant really... the truth is, you don't know jack about the Ferguson case yet you blithely dismiss it as not being a good example of a wrongful conviction. I'm not sure what bothers me more - your indifference to knowing anything about a subject you prattle on with as if you did, or that you'd be willing to condemn Ferguson when you don't know a thing about the case and what makes him such a perfect example of someone being wrongfully convicted.

What words did I put in your mouth?
Click to expand...

I agree Trump's wife's testimony was a red herring. However, I read up on this case and found the evidence compelling. The defence's attempt to pin the murder on some 'mysterious black guy' (note, the WM3 also came up with this 'alternative' suspect, as did Steven Avery, when he pointed the finger at Halbach's ex-boyfriend) failed spectacularly, so the search was on to find yet another.

Brendan Dassey confessed to the Avery murder, one of the WM3 confessed, Eriksson confessed in the Ferguson case, and Knox confessed to being at the murder of Merdith Kercher. I believe them.

'When someone shows you who they are, believe them. The first time.' ~ Angela Mayou
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Brendan Dassey confessed to the Avery murder, one of the WM3 confessed, Eriksson confessed in the Ferguson case, and Knox confessed to being at the murder of Merdith Kercher. I believe them.

'When someone shows you who they are, believe them. The first time.' ~ Angela Mayou
Click to expand...

And John Mark Karr confessed to the Jonbenet Ramsey murder, Kevin Fox confessed to murdering his own daughter. I mean as long as we're throwing out useless irrelevant information free of context here's more for your list.
 
Vixen said:
I agree Trump's wife's testimony was a red herring. However, I read up on this case and found the evidence compelling. The defence's attempt to pin the murder on some 'mysterious black guy' (note, the WM3 also came up with this 'alternative' suspect, as did Steven Avery, when he pointed the finger at Halbach's ex-boyfriend) failed spectacularly, so the search was on to find yet another.

Brendan Dassey confessed to the Avery murder, one of the WM3 confessed, Eriksson confessed in the Ferguson case, and Knox confessed to being at the murder of Merdith Kercher. I believe them.

'When someone shows you who they are, believe them. The first time.' ~ Angela Mayou
Click to expand...

You just can't resist showing how much you don't know about this case, can you. It's almost embarrassing.

Who said Trump's wife's testimony was a red herring? It was just the opposite. She stated she did NOT send her husband the newspaper article he claimed he received from her. It proved his story was a fabrication.

The defense didn't attempt to pin the crime on anyone. The defense merely proved there was NO evidence against Ferguson.

The last person known to be with Heitholt was Michael Boyd (who just happens to be black, but I see you once again try to add the race element - sick) and that was at 2:30AM in the parking lot where Heitholt was murdered. He was also not mysterious - his identity was known from the get go. Boyd has given multiple, conflicting accounts of what took place that evening. Papers belonging to Boyd were found at the crime scene. Heitholt was Boyd’s supervisor at the Tribune and it was later discovered that Boyd had a dispute with Heitholt shortly before the murder regarding a "major mistake" Boyd had made on an assignment from Heitholt. Despite all of this Boyd was NEVER investigated. Can you explain that, Vixen?

Ferguson was convicted on the strength of the testimony of Trump and Erickson. I've already given you the reasons why Trump's testimony HAS to be discarded. That leaves Erickson. Did you watch the Erickson interview? Do you realize he had NO knowledge of the crime. No idea where the body was, no idea how he died, nothing. He claimed they robbed him for drinking money but he wasn't robbed. He said they went back to the bar at 2:30 but the bar closed at 1:30. There was absolutely nothing about his testimony that matched to the crime. He had a dream, Vixen - a DREAM! He was passed out due to drugs and alcohol. There was plenty of forensic evidence but not one speck of it connected Erickson or Ferguson to the crime. The court concluded neither witness was credible, the police fabricated evidence and the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence. It had no choice but to vacate the conviction. The prosecution realized they had no case against him and opted to drop the charges.

So now I am really curious... exactly what did you find so compelling????

This is what fascinates me about you so much, Vixen. There is NO evidence against Ferguson and yet you claim there is compelling evidence. You still think Kirsten Lobato was guilty and yet there was no evidence connecting her to the crime and significant exculpatory evidence. And we all know how you feel about Amanda and Raffaele. What is it with you that compels you to think all of these people guilty when in all three cases the evidence to the contrary has caused courts to reverse them?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
I agree Trump's wife's testimony was a red herring. However, I read up on this case and found the evidence compelling. The defence's attempt to pin the murder on some 'mysterious black guy' (note, the WM3 also came up with this 'alternative' suspect, as did Steven Avery, when he pointed the finger at Halbach's ex-boyfriend) failed spectacularly, so the search was on to find yet another.
Click to expand...


Yes, well you've already shown yourself to be wholly incapable of rational, logical, objective analysis of criminal cases. So it really doesn't matter one bit that you claim to find "the evidence compelling" in the Ferguson case or those others.



Brendan Dassey confessed to the Avery murder, one of the WM3 confessed, Eriksson confessed in the Ferguson case, and Knox confessed to being at the murder of Merdith Kercher. I believe them.
Click to expand...


You still seem entirely incapable of understanding that factually-innocent people can - and provably do - confess to crimes. For all sorts of reasons. But misconduct by investigating authorities is a pretty common cause. Again, your claim to "believe them" carries zero weight on account of your proven absence of understanding and analytical ability in this area.



'When someone shows you who they are, believe them. The first time.' ~ Angela Mayou
Click to expand...


I believe you mean Maya Angelou. I presume she (one of the 20th Century's seminal literary figures, by the way) didn't feature on any of your worthless "creative writing" summer school classes - otherwise you might have known at least how to spell her name........
 
TruthCalls said:
You just can't resist showing how much you don't know about this case, can you. It's almost embarrassing.

Who said Trump's wife's testimony was a red herring? It was just the opposite. She stated she did NOT send her husband the newspaper article he claimed he received from her. It proved his story was a fabrication.

The defense didn't attempt to pin the crime on anyone. The defense merely proved there was NO evidence against Ferguson.

The last person known to be with Heitholt was Michael Boyd (who just happens to be black, but I see you once again try to add the race element - sick) and that was at 2:30AM in the parking lot where Heitholt was murdered. Boyd has given multiple, conflicting accounts of what took place that evening. Papers belonging to Boyd were found at the crime scene. Heitholt was Boyd’s supervisor at the Tribune and it was later discovered that Boyd had a dispute with Heitholt shortly before the murder regarding a "major mistake" Boyd had made on an assignment from Heitholt. Despite all of this Boyd was NEVER investigated. Can you explain that, Vixen?

Ferguson was convicted on the strength of the testimony of Trump and Erickson. I've already given you the reasons why Trump's testimony HAS to be discarded. That leaves Erickson. Did you watch the Erickson interview? Do you realize he had NO knowledge of the crime. No idea where the body was, no idea how he died, nothing. He claimed they robbed him for drinking money but he wasn't robbed. He said they went back to the bar at 2:30 but the bar closed at 1:30. There was absolutely nothing about his testimony that matched to the crime. He had a dream, Vixen - a DREAM! He was passed out due to drugs and alcohol. There was plenty of forensic evidence but not one speck of it connected Erickson or Ferguson to the crime. The court concluded neither witness was credible, the police fabricated evidence and the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence. It had no choice but to vacate the conviction. The prosecution realized they had no case against him and opted to drop the charges.

So now I am really curious... exactly what did you find so compelling????

This is what fascinates me about you so much, Vixen. There is NO evidence against Ferguson and yet you claim there is compelling evidence. You still think Kirsten Lobato was guilty and yet there was no evidence connecting her to the crime and significant exculpatory evidence. And we all know how you feel about Amanda and Raffaele. What is it with you that compels you to think all of these people guilty when in all three cases the evidence to the contrary has caused courts to reverse all of these convictions.
Click to expand...

Vixen doesn't even apply the logic used in some of these absurd cases/investigations universally. I've never seen Vixen claim the Ashley Olsen case is unsettled since they never searched her friend Amy's sink for her own DNA or spent the night harassing and attempting to persuade her she had a trauma blackout and somehow witnessed the murder (as was done in the Knox case).

So the logic seems to purely be, anything the police or prosecution did or claimed in any particular case is inherently correct by virtue of them doing it, anything not done in inherently unnecessary by virtue of them not doing it. I've never seen Vixen object to this characterization of her logic and I don't suspect she will, as she agrees with it. I don't really have a problem with that because she is honest and straight forward about it even if she can't seem to understand why it's absurd.
 
Vixen said:
I have no doubt at all mistakes were made. Some police officers might well have behaved inappropriately. However, AFAIAA, the trial was fair. All witnesses were given an ample platform.

Knox' claim of torture just doesn't ring true. In Italy there were two automatic appeals and full written reasons. Under common law (UK/USA) you don't get any of that. If you are allowed an appeal, it is purely discretionary.
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
Don't put words in my mouth. I don't know enough about the Ferguson /Eriksson case to know whether the trial was fair. However, the facts of the crime scene are uncannily as described by the caretaker Orr. so I am sceptical that years later she has retracted her eyewitness account of seeing the body lying on the ground between cars thanks to Kathlee Zellner's intervention.

It strikes me as a patent scam to get eyewitnesses to a crime to recant their testimony by defence lawyers many years after the trial determined to get their client 'exonerated' and hopefully get $m in compensation.
Click to expand...

Make up your mind.
 
Vixen said:
Brendan Dassey confessed to the Avery murder, one of the WM3 confessed, Eriksson confessed in the Ferguson case, and Knox confessed to being at the murder of Merdith Kercher. I believe them.

'When someone shows you who they are, believe them. The first time.' ~ Angela Mayou
Click to expand...

Knox is premiering a Vice-channel program, The Scarlett Letters, where she interviews various women who've been slut-shamed for the service of entertainment, with the side effect that it fed into a fantastic case against some people in what can be called wrongful prosecutions/convictions, etc.

Anyone who doubts that all of that is a real phenomenon only needs to read your posts to this thread.

Proof? You selectively believe people, not because of evidence but because of a confirmation bias. Quintavalle does not identify Knox in the days following the murder in Perugia in 2007, yet when he's goaded to i.d. her months' later, all of a sudden you believe him.

Same with Curatolo who's wheeled out months' later to i.d. Knox and Sollecito, and even though he gets the wrong day - and can't see the cottage from his vantage point in Piazza Grimana - you believe him.

You even believe John Follain's account in his book (favourable to the original prosecution) that PM Giuliano Mignini thought of Knox as a liar, but then Follain writes on the next page that Mignini had been forced to (wrongly) arrest Lumumba, solely on Knox's say so. (Wait a minute, a minute ago, she'd been a liar.)

And true to form, you misidentify quotes from famous people. It's Maya Angelou.

So in your campaign to vilify a random Seattleite caught up in a sex-game-gone-wrong fantasy of an Italian prosecutor..... consider the quote from Angelou once again:

When someone shows you who they are, believe them. The first time​

No one prior to Knox's trip to Perugia in 2007 and no one following her release in 2011 (who actually knows her and has met her) believes she's the witch of Perugia, is a psychopath, or anything other than a slightly quirky Seattleite left-coaster in a completely normal blended family.

Anything you can add to that, anything that your hater buddies can add to that simply adds to the content that Knox can use for her Vice program.

You are a known quantity, as are the haters. Not in identity (mainly) but in attitude.... as per what Nina Burleigh wrote in 2013:

http://world.time.com/2013/03/29/the-amanda-knox-haters-society-how-they-learned-to-hate-me-too/
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom