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

[whoanellie]

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

You can't make this **** up!

 

[acbytesla]

Mez was brutally stripped and sexually assaulted.

That is far worse than someone calling you a slut. I don't know anyone who has called Knox a slut.

Her fake claims are just manipulation to get people to feel sorry for her.

What a stupid post. Yes, getting raped and murdered is worse.

But judging by your posts alone, it is doubtful that her claims are fake. In fact EVERYONE KNOWS THEY ARE TRUE. Just because some people who villify her like you are too stupid and dishonest to recognize it is more proof. Read some posts by Grahame Rhodes and then try and say her claims are fake.

 

[acbytesla]

The main tenet of the guilters' argument is that Knox is a slut, and therefore a murderer. This sexual-criminal fantasy of the guilters propels their entire view of the case, and drives the extreme bias which prevents them from acknowledging that they actually have no credible arguments for the guilt of Knox or (when they remember him) Sollecito.

Which is really really stupid. There is no link between violence and sex. None. Nothing about Amanda's history suggests that her sex life was anything more than vanilla and average. It was the prosecution, the tabloids and the nutters who focused on her sex life.

As if mythical events like Amanda having sex on a train demonstrates that she would also rape and kill her roommate. It doesn't. Just because that idea is titillating, doesn't mean one would also do something violent. They also suggested it was a three-way that they tried to turn into a four-way which turned violent. This too is not very likely. Amanda could have been into heavy BDSM, it doesn't make rape and murder any more likely.

This is why I like the concept of this series so much. There is NOTHING evil about a woman who happens to be a sexual being any more than a man being one.

 

[Stacyhs]

Why do you comment on things that you are sadly ignorant about? The WM3 defense didn't come up with some black "alternative" suspect. Unless, of course, considering a very suspicious person who was bleeding and disoriented as reported by a citizen, who just happened to be black, is unreasonable in your view.

The citing of a black male as a possible alternate suspect was implied during the beginning of the Misskelley trial. According to local West Memphis police officers, on the evening of May 5, 1993, at 8:42 pm, workers in the Bojangles' restaurant located about a mile from the crime scene in Robin Hood Hills reported seeing a black male who seemed "mentally disoriented" inside the restaurant's ladies' room. The man was bleeding and had brushed against the restroom walls. Officer Regina Meeks responded to the call, taking the restaurant manager's report through the eatery's drive-through window. By then, the man had left, and police did not enter the restroom on that date.[22]

The day after the victims' bodies were found, Bojangles' manager Marty King, thinking there was a possible connection to the bloody man found in the bathroom, reported the incident to police officers who then inspected the ladies' room. King gave the officers a pair of sunglasses he thought the man had left behind, and the detectives took some blood samples from the walls and tiles of the restroom. Police detective Bryn Ridge testified that he later lost those blood scrapings. A hair identified as belonging to a black male was later recovered from a sheet wrapped around one of the victims.

(Wikipedia)

Your inability (or refusal) to accept that innocent people do frequently falsely confess supports what studies have found: a confession will override almost everything else in many people's minds.


http://www.kkcomcon.com/doc/KFalseConfess.pdf

No, I wasn't referring to Boyd. There was a 'mysterious black guy' who was the main suspect (according to the defence) until that turned out to be not feasible.

Oh, dear. Oh, dear....

I explained that to you earlier but here you are misrepresenting it yet again. A man who was behaving oddly and bleeding was reported by the manager of a fast food restaurant to the police. He just happened to be black...and he was unidentified, not "mysterious". Despite what you so dishonestly claim, he was not ruled out as being a feasible suspect. The police screwed it up by losing the blood samples they took which could have tied him to the DNA found at the crime scene. We'll never know due to their incompetence. Hmm...sounds familiar.

 

[Stacyhs]

Mez was brutally stripped and sexually assaulted.

That is far worse than someone calling you a slut. I don't know anyone who has called Knox a slut.
Her fake claims are just manipulation to get people to feel sorry for her.

That has got to be one of the biggest whoppers you've ever told. And that's saying something.

 

[Stacyhs]

Can't have it both ways. One minute she claims she is protesting about sexual harassment, and the next, proclaims it is her right to sexually harass her roommate by waving her sex toys in her face.

Anyway, the programme is a minority interest one. It won't get many views.

Why do you need to twist the fact that Amanda had a gag vibrator in her cosmetic case into her "waving her sex toys in (Meredith's) face"?
It would be fascinating to have your habit of gross exaggeration analyzed. But, nah...it's obvious why you do it. Pathetic.

 

[Stacyhs]

David Marriott had died.

 

[acbytesla]

Why do you need to twist the fact that Amanda had a gag vibrator in her cosmetic case into her "waving her sex toys in (Meredith's) face"?
It would be fascinating to have your habit of gross exaggeration analyzed. But, nah...it's obvious why you do it. Pathetic.

I wish you didn't use the adjective 'gag' when describing the vibrator. This was 2007, not 1807. The idea that Meredith would have had the 'vapors' over the sight of a tiny little vibrator is ridiculous. She was as sexually active as Amanda and the other roommates.

That Vixen or anyone would find it shocking or relevant says more about their own sick minds then anything else. There is no evidence that Amanda waved it in anyone's face. That Vixen would think the vibrator is worth mentioning proves Amanda's point about over sexualizing women. It's a form of female self loathing misogyny.

Amanda said it in her interview today. It shouldn't have been relevant if Amanda was the kinkiest woman, it had nothing to do with this case.

 

[Bill Williams]

Amanda said it in her interview today. It shouldn't have been relevant if Amanda was the kinkiest woman, it had nothing to do with this case.

I'd today done a search on every instance of "slut shaming" on ISF/JREF. A good proportion of the search results pointed to the Knox/Sollecito continuations and a good proportion of those have been since April 2015 when Vixen joined here.

I gave up trying to get a good sample of Vixen's posts when her posts from Aug 2017 provided more than enough data.

Specifically, fresh from claiming she'd never known anyone who'd ever called Knox a slut, she claims Knox had waved a vibrator in the victim's face. Last August Vixen invented a scene at court from years' past where this fictional Knox had bragged about a 4 -inch vibrator, when in reality it had been anything but.

More generally, Knox is inviting other women to join her in The Scarlett Letter Reports to talk about the way these psychotic inventions (like Vixen's) destroy people "in the news", who've had either the whole of the internet, or the tabloid click-machine turn on you.

For that general concern it's an important conversation for women who've been psychotically slut-shamed by strangers.

Vixen continues to supply the content.

ETA - apparently the Daily Mail is also proving Knox's point today. Hoots!

 

[Stacyhs]

I wish you didn't use the adjective 'gag' when describing the vibrator. This was 2007, not 1807. The idea that Meredith would have had the 'vapors' over the sight of a tiny little vibrator is ridiculous. She was as sexually active as Amanda and the other roommates.

That Vixen or anyone would find it shocking or relevant says more about their own sick minds then anything else. There is no evidence that Amanda waved it in anyone's face. That Vixen would think the vibrator is worth mentioning proves Amanda's point about over sexualizing women. It's a form of female self loathing misogyny.

Amanda said it in her interview today. It shouldn't have been relevant if Amanda was the kinkiest woman, it had nothing to do with this case.

I used it because that is what it was...a gag..a joke gift given to her as described by Amanda. Other than that, I agree with your post completely.

 

[acbytesla]

I used it because that is what it was...a gag..a joke gift given to her as described by Amanda. Other than that, I agree with your post completely.

I get that. And it probably was. But that Amanda felt the need to describe it as a 'gag' seemed like a kind of a subconscious reflex to this age old repression of women's sexuality. That somehow it wouldn't have been ok for her to own a sex toy. Here's the thing. If it really was a gag, why did she take it with her? People masturbate and that's ok. It has NOTHING to do with this case.

 

[TruthCalls]

Oh, dear. Oh, dear....

I explained that to you earlier but here you are misrepresenting it yet again. A man who was behaving oddly and bleeding was reported by the manager of a fast food restaurant to the police. He just happened to be black...and he was unidentified, not "mysterious". Despite what you so dishonestly claim, he was not ruled out as being a feasible suspect. The police screwed it up by losing the blood samples they took which could have tied him to the DNA found at the crime scene. We'll never know due to their incompetence. Hmm...sounds familiar.

There isn't a single aspect of the Ferguson case that Vixen didn't get wrong. That's actually quite an accomplishment when you think about it.

I was really looking forward to hearing what was so compelling but I guess I can write that one off.

 

[acbytesla]

There isn't a single aspect of the Ferguson case that Vixen didn't get wrong. That's actually quite an accomplishment when you think about it.

I was really looking forward to hearing what was so compelling but I guess I can write that one off.

And yet she manages it with such ease.

 

[Bill Williams]

And yet she manages it with such ease.

Way back when, when PMF.ORG was in business, the only time Peggy Ganong ever disallowed a smear against Knox, was when one of the usual suspects called Knox a slut. It was remarkable given the other things Ganong had allowed.

But the thing Vixen manages with equal ease is this claim of hers that she's never heard anyone referring to Knox as a slut.

All that forgetting that she herself had done as much on these threads which a simple wordsearch shows.

Easy peasy for Vixen to "stretch the truth" with such aplomb.

 

[acbytesla]

Way back when, when PMF.ORG was in business, the only time Peggy Ganong ever disallowed a smear against Knox, was when one of the usual suspects called Knox a slut. It was remarkable given the other things Ganong had allowed.

But the thing Vixen manages with equal ease is this claim of hers that she's never heard anyone referring to Knox as a slut.

All that forgetting that she herself had done as much on these threads which a simple wordsearch shows.

Easy peasy for Vixen to "stretch the truth" with such aplomb.

Machiavelli took it even farther. He said she was a whore and working for Rudy. Dr. Mull, Grahame Rhodes, and others called Amanda a slut. I doubt Vixen didn't use the word. Nevertheless she has constantly vilified Amanda as a loose woman who was into dangerous sex. What is that, if not a slut?

 

[Stacyhs]

Way back when, when PMF.ORG was in business, the only time Peggy Ganong ever disallowed a smear against Knox, was when one of the usual suspects called Knox a slut. It was remarkable given the other things Ganong had allowed.

But the thing Vixen manages with equal ease is this claim of hers that she's never heard anyone referring to Knox as a slut.All that forgetting that she herself had done as much on these threads which a simple wordsearch shows.

Easy peasy for Vixen to "stretch the truth" with such aplomb.

Not exactly. She said she doesn't know anyone who has called Knox a slut. A slight difference but a claim that still rings hollow.

 

[Vixen]

Way back when, when PMF.ORG was in business, the only time Peggy Ganong ever disallowed a smear against Knox, was when one of the usual suspects called Knox a slut. It was remarkable given the other things Ganong had allowed.

But the thing Vixen manages with equal ease is this claim of hers that she's never heard anyone referring to Knox as a slut.

All that forgetting that she herself had done as much on these threads which a simple wordsearch shows.

Easy peasy for Vixen to "stretch the truth" with such aplomb.

As you have been told on more than one occasion, in in the UK a 'slut' is someone who is slovenly at housework.

You and Knox are the ones who have sexualised the word.

 

[Bill Williams]

As you have been told on more than one occasion, in in the UK a 'slut' is someone who is slovenly at housework.

You and Knox are the ones who have sexualised the word.

LOL! Sez the person who once wrote:

If someone proudly proclaims they are a 'slut', why should we pretend they are not?

We are not even allowed to call people 'prostitutes' any more, we have to call them 'sex workers'. But does it really change the nature of what they do?

Please at least add yourself to the category of people who sexualize the word.

You are determined to prove Knox's thesis of the vice show correct! Go for it! Hoots!

 

[Bill Williams]

Not exactly. She said she doesn't know anyone who has called Knox a slut. A slight difference but a claim that still rings hollow.

Then she doesn't know herself. No comment.

 

[Numbers]

On 23 May 2018, the ECHR will hold a Grand Chamber hearing in the case of Georgia v. Russia (II) 38263/08.

The relevance here is that one or more guilters posted in this forum some time ago that the ECHR never hears witnesses or investigates the evidence underlying a case. That is, of course, a false statement. The Convention allows the ECHR to hear witnesses or conduct any investigation it deems necessary in a case. The states that are members of the the Council of Europe, including a respondent state, are obligated by treaty to render all requested assistance to the ECHR in conducting an investigation. Article 38 of the Convention provides for such investigations:

"ARTICLE 38
Examination of the case
The Court shall examine the case together with the representatives of the parties and, if need be, undertake an investigation, for the effective conduct of which the High Contracting Parties concerned shall furnish all necessary facilities."

While the ECHR rarely needs to look beyond the documentation of a case, such as court records, to render a judgment, in the case cited above, it has called witnesses:

"A delegation of Judges of the Court took evidence from witnesses in Strasbourg from Monday 6 June to Friday 17 June 2016. The Court heard 33 witnesses in total: 16 summoned through the Georgian Government, 11 through the Government of the Russian Federation and six directly by the Court."

Sources:

https://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=home
See Grand Chamber hearing in an inter-State case; PDF Press Release

https://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=basictexts&c=#n1359128122487_pointer
See PDF European Convention on Human Rights; Article 38
____
To emphasize, once again, information provided by a guilter is shown to be false. The falsehood may be the result of insufficient research of readily available sources, such as the Convention, and/or of bias.

I should add that I do not know whether or not the ECHR will hear any witnesses or conduct any investigation of evidence beyond court documents and other written materials in order to reach a judgment in Knox v. Italy. Usually, such written materials are all that is necessary for the ECHR to judge a case, and there is a large amount of such documentation - which indeed supports that Knox's rights under the Convention were violated by Italy - that would likely be sufficient for the ECHR. However, there is no doubt that the ECHR could seek additional evidence, such as requesting the audio or audiovisual recording of Knox's interrogation, which should have been made in accordance with Italian law CCP Article 141-bis.