Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Bwaaaahaaahaaaahaaaaa! Well done.
The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29
- Thread starter Bill Williams
- Start date
- Status
Bwaaaahaaahaaaahaaaaa! Well done.
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
There's your problem right there. No one is "champion(ing) Amanda Knox".
People these days are being led by evidence, or in this case the lack of same.
People are agreeing that the original investigation was hopelessly botched, or as the 2015 Italian Supreme Court put it, "amnesiac".
Last edited:
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Bill, something I've noticed about so many PGP is that they tend to judge the case based on personality vs evidence, thus their need to vilify, disparage and dehumanize Knox. It's far easier than dealing with the evidence...or in this case...the lack of it.
Not as funny as Vixen's claim Amanda and Raffaele had to go back to the cottage to stage a rape when Rudy had already raped Meredith.
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
...... and they first have to invent a cardboard personality full measure for hating!
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Absolutely. They have constructed a person...actually two people...who don't really exist except in their minds. We see it all the time when those who don't know either Knox or Sollecito tell us what they think and feel.
Why the need to lie part 1
There is one thing which you guaranteed to see on this forum and that is Vixen saying Amanda and Raffaele have told numerous lies. There are two issues raised with this claim. Firstly, why would Amanda and Raffaele need to resort to lying. Secondly, why do PGP have to resort to lying to sustain the claim Amanda and Raffaele have told numerous lies.
Lying is something you resort to when the facts are against you. I remember Vixen telling an innocent person would not need to lie in reference to Amanda. The implication is there was a mountain of damming evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, a slam dunk case and the facts supported the case for guilt and not the case for innocence. Because of this Amanda and Raffaele could only argue the case for innocence by lying.
If the facts support the case for innocence and go against the case for a guilt, the accused should not have to resort to lying to argue the case for innocence. If someone has told numerous lies, you should not have to resort to lying to sustain this argument. Because of the gross stupidity of PGP and the inability to understand simple things, I will use a hypothetical example to illustrate this point and make things as simple as possible. Someone breaks in the home of a woman and the woman is brutally stabbed to death numerous times. The ex husband is arrested. A lot of the evidence which should exist against the ex husband is missing. The wife lost vast amounts of blood but there is no blood on the clothing of the husband, in his home or car. Bloody fingerprints and palm prints found in the woman’s home don’t match the ex husband. There is no forensic trace at all of the ex husband in the woman’s house such as hairs or DNA. There is skin found on the woman’s fingernails which indicates she scratched her attacker in defence. The attacker should have scratches on his face which the ex husband doesn’t have. The ex husband and the woman divorced on amicable terms and there is no evidence the husband was violent towards his ex wife during their marriage or has ever threatened his wife after their divorce. The ex husband has a strong alibi. At the time of the murder the ex husband was caught on CCTV in a supermarket a hundred miles from the woman’s house. The evidence used by the police has no credibility. The police collect a butter knife and claimed it was used to stab the woman despite the fact it is impossible for a butter knife to stab someone. In addition the butter knife has no blood or biological material on the knife and the knife was purchased two days after the woman was murdered. The police and PGP have to resort to lying. Both police PGP spread lies such as blood of the woman being found in the ex husband’s car and the car of the ex husband was seen on CCTV close to woman’s house. The fact the police and PGP have to resort to lying indicates the police have a lack of evidence.
PGP claim the ex husband has told numerous lies. Would people not find it strange the ex husband would need to resort to lying when the facts overwhelmingly support the case for the ex husband’s innocence and go against the case for guilt. PGP have to resort to lying to sustain the notion the ex husband has told numerous lies. When the ex husband says no traces of his blood was found in his home or car, PGP claim he was lying when he was in fact telling the truth. Despite CCTV confirming the presence of the husband at the supermarket, PGP claim the ex husband was lying when he said he was at the supermarket. Would people not find it strange PGP would need to resort to lying to sustain the claim the ex husband has lied if he has told numerous lies.
There is one thing which you guaranteed to see on this forum and that is Vixen saying Amanda and Raffaele have told numerous lies. There are two issues raised with this claim. Firstly, why would Amanda and Raffaele need to resort to lying. Secondly, why do PGP have to resort to lying to sustain the claim Amanda and Raffaele have told numerous lies.
Lying is something you resort to when the facts are against you. I remember Vixen telling an innocent person would not need to lie in reference to Amanda. The implication is there was a mountain of damming evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, a slam dunk case and the facts supported the case for guilt and not the case for innocence. Because of this Amanda and Raffaele could only argue the case for innocence by lying.
If the facts support the case for innocence and go against the case for a guilt, the accused should not have to resort to lying to argue the case for innocence. If someone has told numerous lies, you should not have to resort to lying to sustain this argument. Because of the gross stupidity of PGP and the inability to understand simple things, I will use a hypothetical example to illustrate this point and make things as simple as possible. Someone breaks in the home of a woman and the woman is brutally stabbed to death numerous times. The ex husband is arrested. A lot of the evidence which should exist against the ex husband is missing. The wife lost vast amounts of blood but there is no blood on the clothing of the husband, in his home or car. Bloody fingerprints and palm prints found in the woman’s home don’t match the ex husband. There is no forensic trace at all of the ex husband in the woman’s house such as hairs or DNA. There is skin found on the woman’s fingernails which indicates she scratched her attacker in defence. The attacker should have scratches on his face which the ex husband doesn’t have. The ex husband and the woman divorced on amicable terms and there is no evidence the husband was violent towards his ex wife during their marriage or has ever threatened his wife after their divorce. The ex husband has a strong alibi. At the time of the murder the ex husband was caught on CCTV in a supermarket a hundred miles from the woman’s house. The evidence used by the police has no credibility. The police collect a butter knife and claimed it was used to stab the woman despite the fact it is impossible for a butter knife to stab someone. In addition the butter knife has no blood or biological material on the knife and the knife was purchased two days after the woman was murdered. The police and PGP have to resort to lying. Both police PGP spread lies such as blood of the woman being found in the ex husband’s car and the car of the ex husband was seen on CCTV close to woman’s house. The fact the police and PGP have to resort to lying indicates the police have a lack of evidence.
PGP claim the ex husband has told numerous lies. Would people not find it strange the ex husband would need to resort to lying when the facts overwhelmingly support the case for the ex husband’s innocence and go against the case for guilt. PGP have to resort to lying to sustain the notion the ex husband has told numerous lies. When the ex husband says no traces of his blood was found in his home or car, PGP claim he was lying when he was in fact telling the truth. Despite CCTV confirming the presence of the husband at the supermarket, PGP claim the ex husband was lying when he said he was at the supermarket. Would people not find it strange PGP would need to resort to lying to sustain the claim the ex husband has lied if he has told numerous lies.
If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was such a slam dunk and the facts went totally against the case for innocence, why are there massive problems with the prosecution’s case as detailed in the points below. Why would Amanda and Raffaele need to resort to lying when the facts overwhelmingly support the case for innocence and go against the case for guilt. In fact it is the prosecution and PGP who had to resort to lying.
• The evidence which should have existed if Amanda and Raffaele were guilty is missing. Besides the dubious bra clasp, there was no forensic traces of Amanda and Raffaele in Meredith’s room. No reliable witnesses saw Amanda and Raffaele near the cottage on the night of the murder. Amanda and Raffaele were not caught on CCTV coming to and from the cottage. Meredith lost vast amounts of blood but despite this Amanda and Raffaele left no blood traces in the Meredith’s room such as bloody footprints and palm prints. There was no blood transfer in Amanda’s room or Raffaele’s flat. There was no blood on Amanda and Raffaele’s clothing. There were no cuts on Amanda or Raffaele’s hands which should have occurred when trying to stab someone. The prosecution couldn’t find a motive which is proved by the fact the prosecution had to constantly change motives which indicated that each motive suggested was not credible and the prosecution had to find something else. As the link below shows the evidence suggests Meredith and Amanda had a good relationship and Amanda had no hatred towards Meredith. The phones of Amanda and Raffaele were tapped for three days and nothing incriminating was said in their phone calls. Amanda had no history of psychiatric disorders or violence.
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-behavior-myths/
• The forensic evidence and eyewitness testimony provided by the prosecution lacked credibility and were full of holes :-
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/luminol/
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-01.html
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredith-kercher-bra-clasp/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredith-kercher-scream-compromised-witness/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/antonio-curatolo/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/marco-quintavalle/
• The prosecution had to resort to these tactics detailed in the links below
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contamination-labwork-coverup/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredith-kercher-perjury-corruption/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/evidence-destroyed/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/blood-evidence-downstairs-apartment/
https://knoxsollecito.wordpress.com...old-about-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito/
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11071314#post11071314
• PGP have to resort to lying to argue their case. Below are some of the numerous lies Vixen has told in her posts. If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was such a slam dunk, why is that in all the time Vixen has been a member of this forum Vixen has consistently been unable to argue the case for guilt on the basis of facts and Vixen can only argue the case for guilty by making things up or resorting to falsehoods which directly contradict the facts of the case eg saying Stefanoni found tissue on the knife when in reality there was no biological material on the knife.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11938562#post11938562
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11942852#post11942852
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11598412#post11598412
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11427461#post11427461
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11951893#post11951893
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11982023#post11982023
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12107306#post12107306
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12200863#post12200863
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12297573#post12297573
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12297575#post12297575
The PGP have set up a fake wiki detailed in the link below
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/anti-amanda-knox-deceptive-wiki/
• Below are the appeal documents prepared by the defence teams of Amanda and Raffaele before the Hellman trial. As you can see the defence were able to make highly effective arguments which punched major holes in the prosecution’s case. How do you explain this if the case against Amanda and Raffaele was such a slam dunk?
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Appeal.html
Vixen constantly repeats the falsehood the supreme court said Amanda and Raffaele told numerous lies. As can be seen from my posts below, there are several instances where Vixen has made false allegations Amanda has lied. I recall Harry Rag saying Amanda told numerous lies to the police but Harry Rag was unable to list these lies and there is no record of the police saying Amanda told numerous lies. Vixen has made the same claim. If Amanda and Raffaele were such prolific liars, why do PGP need to resort to lying to sustain this claim? With Vixen you don’t need to lie to sustain the claim Vixen has told numerous lies because there are plenty of genuine instances of Vixen lying in her posts as detailed in the above posts.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11849235#post11849235
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11952561#post11952561
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12389273#post12389273
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12390810#post12390810
• The evidence which should have existed if Amanda and Raffaele were guilty is missing. Besides the dubious bra clasp, there was no forensic traces of Amanda and Raffaele in Meredith’s room. No reliable witnesses saw Amanda and Raffaele near the cottage on the night of the murder. Amanda and Raffaele were not caught on CCTV coming to and from the cottage. Meredith lost vast amounts of blood but despite this Amanda and Raffaele left no blood traces in the Meredith’s room such as bloody footprints and palm prints. There was no blood transfer in Amanda’s room or Raffaele’s flat. There was no blood on Amanda and Raffaele’s clothing. There were no cuts on Amanda or Raffaele’s hands which should have occurred when trying to stab someone. The prosecution couldn’t find a motive which is proved by the fact the prosecution had to constantly change motives which indicated that each motive suggested was not credible and the prosecution had to find something else. As the link below shows the evidence suggests Meredith and Amanda had a good relationship and Amanda had no hatred towards Meredith. The phones of Amanda and Raffaele were tapped for three days and nothing incriminating was said in their phone calls. Amanda had no history of psychiatric disorders or violence.
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-behavior-myths/
• The forensic evidence and eyewitness testimony provided by the prosecution lacked credibility and were full of holes :-
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/luminol/
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-01.html
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredith-kercher-bra-clasp/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredith-kercher-scream-compromised-witness/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/antonio-curatolo/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/marco-quintavalle/
• The prosecution had to resort to these tactics detailed in the links below
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contamination-labwork-coverup/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredith-kercher-perjury-corruption/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/evidence-destroyed/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/blood-evidence-downstairs-apartment/
https://knoxsollecito.wordpress.com...old-about-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito/
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11071314#post11071314
• PGP have to resort to lying to argue their case. Below are some of the numerous lies Vixen has told in her posts. If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was such a slam dunk, why is that in all the time Vixen has been a member of this forum Vixen has consistently been unable to argue the case for guilt on the basis of facts and Vixen can only argue the case for guilty by making things up or resorting to falsehoods which directly contradict the facts of the case eg saying Stefanoni found tissue on the knife when in reality there was no biological material on the knife.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11938562#post11938562
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11942852#post11942852
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11598412#post11598412
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11427461#post11427461
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11951893#post11951893
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11982023#post11982023
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12107306#post12107306
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12200863#post12200863
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12297573#post12297573
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12297575#post12297575
The PGP have set up a fake wiki detailed in the link below
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/anti-amanda-knox-deceptive-wiki/
• Below are the appeal documents prepared by the defence teams of Amanda and Raffaele before the Hellman trial. As you can see the defence were able to make highly effective arguments which punched major holes in the prosecution’s case. How do you explain this if the case against Amanda and Raffaele was such a slam dunk?
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Appeal.html
Vixen constantly repeats the falsehood the supreme court said Amanda and Raffaele told numerous lies. As can be seen from my posts below, there are several instances where Vixen has made false allegations Amanda has lied. I recall Harry Rag saying Amanda told numerous lies to the police but Harry Rag was unable to list these lies and there is no record of the police saying Amanda told numerous lies. Vixen has made the same claim. If Amanda and Raffaele were such prolific liars, why do PGP need to resort to lying to sustain this claim? With Vixen you don’t need to lie to sustain the claim Vixen has told numerous lies because there are plenty of genuine instances of Vixen lying in her posts as detailed in the above posts.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11849235#post11849235
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11952561#post11952561
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12389273#post12389273
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12390810#post12390810
Last edited:
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
Your content, my life
Worse than the guilters?
"I apologize for using you for my entertainment."
https://gen.medium.com/amanda-knox-your-content-my-life-a9f7b010fe55?fbclid=IwAR3Nk0YLgFfwJAA2NzcHZy3CsC45Gpa_VKJZ4Sm3bbk1MPoV1EOKKWOsxVY
Fits all of us......
Worse than the guilters?
"I apologize for using you for my entertainment."
https://gen.medium.com/amanda-knox-your-content-my-life-a9f7b010fe55?fbclid=IwAR3Nk0YLgFfwJAA2NzcHZy3CsC45Gpa_VKJZ4Sm3bbk1MPoV1EOKKWOsxVY
Fits all of us......
The bottom line:
Source:
https://gen.medium.com/amanda-knox-...A2NzcHZy3CsC45Gpa_VKJZ4Sm3bbk1MPoV1EOKKWOsxVY
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
For the ECHR case Knox v. Italy, we are awaiting the next GC Panel meeting and its decision:
"Demande de renvoi devant la Grande Chambre en cours"
"Request for referral to the Grand Chamber pending"
If the Panel turns down the request from Italy, then the Chamber judgment will become final on the day the refusal is announced.
If the Panel accepts the request, there will be a Grand Chamber judgment in the case in perhaps 1 or 2 years. All GC judgments are final on the day they are announced.
Only requests for cases considered "exceptional" in terms of the interpretation of the Convention or ECHR case-law are accepted by the Panel.
The request cannot be based on an issue of inadmissibility that the respondent state had the obligation to bring up in response to the Communication (the notice to the respondent state ["contracting party"] in Rule 54.2c):
"Rule 55 – Pleas of inadmissibility
Any plea of inadmissibility must, in so far as its character and the circumstances permit, be raised by the respondent Contracting Party in its written or oral observations on the admissibility of the application submitted as provided in Rule 51 or 54, as the case may be.
Rule 54 – Procedure before a Chamber
1. The Chamber may at once declare the application inadmissible or strike it out of the Court’s list of cases. The decision of the Chamber may relate to all or part of the application.
2. Alternatively, the Chamber or the President of the Section may decide to
(a) request the parties to submit any factual information, documents or other material considered by the Chamber or its President to be relevant;
(b) give notice of the application or part of the application to the respondent Contracting Party and invite that Party to submit written observations thereon and, upon receipt thereof, invite the applicant to submit observations in reply;
(c) invite the parties to submit further observations in writing.
....
Rule 73 – Request by a party for referral of a case to the Grand Chamber
1. In accordance with Article 43 of the Convention, any party to a case may exceptionally, within a period of three months from the date of delivery of the judgment of a Chamber, file in writing at the Registry a request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber. The party shall specify in its request the serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, or the serious issue of general importance, which in its view warrants consideration by the Grand Chamber.
2. A panel of five judges of the Grand Chamber constituted in accordance with Rule 24 § 5 shall examine the request solely on the basis of the existing case file. It shall accept the request only if it considers that the case does raise such a question or issue. Reasons need not be given for a refusal of the request.
3. If the panel accepts the request, the Grand Chamber shall decide the case by means of a judgment."
"Demande de renvoi devant la Grande Chambre en cours"
"Request for referral to the Grand Chamber pending"
If the Panel turns down the request from Italy, then the Chamber judgment will become final on the day the refusal is announced.
If the Panel accepts the request, there will be a Grand Chamber judgment in the case in perhaps 1 or 2 years. All GC judgments are final on the day they are announced.
Only requests for cases considered "exceptional" in terms of the interpretation of the Convention or ECHR case-law are accepted by the Panel.
The request cannot be based on an issue of inadmissibility that the respondent state had the obligation to bring up in response to the Communication (the notice to the respondent state ["contracting party"] in Rule 54.2c):
"Rule 55 – Pleas of inadmissibility
Any plea of inadmissibility must, in so far as its character and the circumstances permit, be raised by the respondent Contracting Party in its written or oral observations on the admissibility of the application submitted as provided in Rule 51 or 54, as the case may be.
Rule 54 – Procedure before a Chamber
1. The Chamber may at once declare the application inadmissible or strike it out of the Court’s list of cases. The decision of the Chamber may relate to all or part of the application.
2. Alternatively, the Chamber or the President of the Section may decide to
(a) request the parties to submit any factual information, documents or other material considered by the Chamber or its President to be relevant;
(b) give notice of the application or part of the application to the respondent Contracting Party and invite that Party to submit written observations thereon and, upon receipt thereof, invite the applicant to submit observations in reply;
(c) invite the parties to submit further observations in writing.
....
Rule 73 – Request by a party for referral of a case to the Grand Chamber
1. In accordance with Article 43 of the Convention, any party to a case may exceptionally, within a period of three months from the date of delivery of the judgment of a Chamber, file in writing at the Registry a request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber. The party shall specify in its request the serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, or the serious issue of general importance, which in its view warrants consideration by the Grand Chamber.
2. A panel of five judges of the Grand Chamber constituted in accordance with Rule 24 § 5 shall examine the request solely on the basis of the existing case file. It shall accept the request only if it considers that the case does raise such a question or issue. Reasons need not be given for a refusal of the request.
3. If the panel accepts the request, the Grand Chamber shall decide the case by means of a judgment."
Last edited:
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
"Perpetrator" of what? If it is about the murder, the 2015 Supreme Court exonerated both K and S, citing no presence of them in the murder room.
If it is about Lumumba, that part IS unaddressed, as the conviction for calunnia in relation to it was ruled result of Italy abusing K of her rights as a suspect.
You are "neaty" mixing apples and oranges.
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2011
- Messages
- 1,960
What part of "We spent the evening alone at Raffaele's apartment" fails to meet the definition of an alibi?
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
I bet there were many people on the night of the murder who couldn't provide a proven alibi. Any person who was home alone that night reading or watching TV and who neither made nor received any phone calls between 9 PM and midnight wouldn't have an alibi. Come to think of it, Nara Capezalli was home alone that night. Can she prove she didn't kill Meredith? 
Just because someone doesn't have an alibi, doesn't mean they committed the crime.
Just because someone doesn't have an alibi, doesn't mean they committed the crime.Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
Note how silent - all of a sudden - guilter-nutters are about the claims of felons being ineligible for international travel. It was one thing for them to harp on this for coming to conferences in, say, Canada.... quite another for them to harp on this for coming to Italy.
Crickets. I remember when the guilter-nutters claimed that sneaking past Canada Customs put Canada into ill repute....
But Italy? Crickets. The predictable, consistent part of their claim, is the ease by which they drop both "felon" and "unable to travel" once both have been disproved; and they move on to the next bogus claim.
Last edited:
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
I bet there were many people on the night of the murder who couldn't provide a proven alibi. Any person who was home alone that night reading or watching TV and who neither made nor received any phone calls between 9 PM and midnight wouldn't have an alibi. Come to think of it, Nara Capezalli was home alone that night. Can she prove she didn't kill Meredith?
A person knowingly giving the police a false alibi - as Knox and Sollecito did - will find themselves under the scrutiny of the Old Bill as a false alibi is just as valid as evidence as DNA or fingerprints.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Why would Amanda lie about Lumumba when we've been told she was trying to set up Guede to take the rap? Or was she protecting him by accusing Lumumba? Which one is it today?
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Er, because Raff dropped her in it..?
- Status