The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

[Stacyhs]

She didn't remove evidence of her presence at the scene. That is a fanboy myth.

Believing your own PR now.

Make up your mind, will you?

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 11381414)
As Migini tactfully put it, 'Amanda is very astute'.

They knew how to clean a crime scene, and cunning enough to leave Rudy's incriminating faeces in the toilet. Yet too stupid to realise faeces are not a good source of DNA identification, as bacteria deteriorates the DNA rapidly.

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 11381531) As that chap says, criminals always leave something of themselves behind. Think of the enormity of the crime and how thoroughly exhausted the kids looked next day, despite claiming to have relaxed and slept almost twelve hours. Police were pretty convinced the kids had surfed the net about 'bleach' in the early hours. They'd soon find out which type of bleach evades luminol. Some believe Raff fried one of the relevant laptops, himself.

Amanda did spend a lot of time ferrying a mop around, and the washing machine was going, too.

Even if the perps were very clever and up half he night, in their exhaustion, lack of sleep and surprise interruption by the appearance of the police, there was bound to be ample evidence left behind. Raff was not to know the bra clasp was still under Mez body and would later nail him.

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 11383612)
Of course they acted with malice and forethought. If they were accidentally involved ('It went too far, M'Lud') then a decent upright person would have rung up the police, ambulance and fire brigade to try and save Mez' life. No, instead they tried to cover it up. They covered up for your arch enemy Rudy.

Where did you get the hunch cleaning with bleach would cause swirls? Amanda never went down on her knees to scrub the floor in her life. No, it would be a mop going up and down with the minimum of elbow grease (as witness the luminol highlighted footprints left behind).

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 11385547)
It's really not difficult, Stacy: you simply clean in the obvious places. There were a lot of smeared footprints in Amanda's room, consistent with the pair shuffling around on a soft cloth ( from this the shuffled bathmat story was born).

Forensic police can only test a limited number of places, so which places do they select for their forensic testing?

That's right: exactly the same places the perps cleaned up!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/printthread.php?t=308052&pp=50&page=14

 

[AnimalFriendly]

As very few murderers admit to their heinous act then of course we have to go by the findings of the court. I'm afraid the merits court - the fact-finding court - which was extremely fair did find the pair guilty as charged and a very high bar is set for finding young adults guilty of such a serious crime. Contrary to your claims, I believe most police officers, judges and jurors were sympathetic towards Knox and Sollecito and did not act with ill will or vindictiveness. The pair had a very fair trial.

Unfortunately, as we have no other way of ascertaining the truth of what happened exactly then of course we only have the judicial fact of the matter, which I believe is very likely close to the actual truth.

Knox should consider herself extremely lucky to be set free despite the strong evidence and 'absolute certainty'of her presence at the murder instead of touring the world making unfounded and unwarranted claims against the Italians who were mostly very kind to her.

More of your usual boring nonsense. I'm afraid the findings of the "merits" court mean exactly nothing. As for your last ridiculous, and run-on, sentence, take your whining to the various Innocence Projects and other entities who have invited her to speak.

 

[Stacyhs]

Exactly. As bent as a nine bob note. Or as wily as defence lawyer Barry Shenk when he declared 'if the glove does not fit OJ Simpson he must be innocent'.

Wait a minute. I thought it was the PIP who accused the judges of being "inept and corrupt". Darn, girl! Make up your mind on your accusations, will ya? I'm getting whiplash.

By the way, it's Barry Scheck. But let me guess...it was a typo, right?

 

[Vixen]

Make up your mind, will you?












http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/printthread.php?t=308052&pp=50&page=14

The claim 'there is no trace of Knox at the scene of the murder' is a PR myth.

Knox and Sollecito had all night to clean up and that is obviously what they tried to do. What a coincidence: Raff had a burst pipe the same evening to explain the excess of fluid in his apartment. Another amazing piece of synchronicity is Knox needing to pop over to the cottage for a mop to take back to Raff's to help mop up the flooded pipe next morning.

 

[Vixen]

More of your usual boring nonsense. I'm afraid the findings of the "merits" court mean exactly nothing. As for your last ridiculous, and run-on, sentence, take your whining to the various Innocence Projects and other entities who have invited her to speak.

Do you think it right that Knox should take the mickey out of them?

 

[Stacyhs]

It is said property is 9/10's of the law. The old slave owners resented their old slaves owning property so they got the lawmakers to pass a law saying slave could only own 100 acres or whatever it was and that their rights were 3/5's of non-ex-slaves.

As the old ex slave owners knew: the law is sovereign.

Whaaaaaa? None of the above is true. The law, which was pre-Civil War, said slaves, not ex-slaves, were to be counted as 3/5th of a person for census reasons having to do with representation in Congress as taxes.
Honestly, Vix. Stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[Stacyhs]

What? I practised it. Had to produce fifteen laboratory reports and a dissertation based on a scientific experiment for my science degree with honours. My chemistry teacher said I was the one person in the class who always knew the answer.

I don't even know how to respond to that. Especially the pitiful second sentence....

Mr. President, is that you?

 

[Stacyhs]

That was a slip of the tongue as well you know.

Not a 'typo' or 'clerical error'?

 

[AnimalFriendly]

Do you think it right that Knox should take the mickey out of them?

Who's them? As far as I can tell, this idiom means to tease or make fun of someone. Your question doesn't make sense. Typical.

 

[Numbers]

Whaaaaaa? None of the above is true. The law, which was pre-Civil War, said slaves, not ex-slaves, were to be counted as 3/5th of a person for census reasons having to do with representation in Congress as taxes.
Honestly, Vix. Stop embarrassing yourself.

I don't wish to divert the thread, but let's be clear: the "3/5" is from the US Constitution Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, as written in 1787 and enacted in 1789, not merely from a law. This part of the Constitution regarding the count for the Census and direct taxation by State was made invalid with the passage of the 14th Amendment (specifically Section 2) in 1868, after the Civil War.

The first sentence of Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 reads:

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

There are several online US Constitution sites readily accessible; I used: http://constitutionus.com/

 

[toto]

Do you think it right that Knox should take the mickey out of them?

Her definitive acquittal and the recent ECHR judgement in her favour would tend to give credence to her criticisms.

 

[LondonJohn]

The claim 'there is no trace of Knox at the scene of the murder' is a PR myth.

Knox and Sollecito had all night to clean up and that is obviously what they tried to do. What a coincidence: Raff had a burst pipe the same evening to explain the excess of fluid in his apartment. Another amazing piece of synchronicity is Knox needing to pop over to the cottage for a mop to take back to Raff's to help mop up the flooded pipe next morning.

You do know, don't you, that a proper evaluation of the evidence set leads to the firm conclusions that a) Knox and Sollecito almost certainly didn't participate in the Kercher murder in any way (and in any case, there's definitely not one piece of credible, reliable evidence of their participation), and b) the murder was almost certainly committed by Guede acting alone (and all of the credible, reliable evidence is entirely consistent with this)?

I ask because you keep writing thing like "Knox and Sollecito had all night to clean up and that is obviously what they tried to do", from which I infer that you conclude that this notional "clean-up" follows Knox's/Sollecito's notional participation in the murder. Is this a correct interpretation of your own personal beliefs? And if so, would you tell me why so?

 

[Stacyhs]

She didn't remove evidence of her presence at the scene. That is a fanboy myth.

Believing your own PR now.

The claim 'there is no trace of Knox at the scene of the murder' is a PR myth.

The 'scene of the murder' is the bedroom where MK was killed. She wasn't killed in the bathroom or living room or AK's bedroom. And it is a fact that no evidence of AK was found in that bedroom...the scene of the CRIME.
Every single trace of Knox in that cottage can be explained by the fact she LIVED there.

Knox and Sollecito had all night to clean up and that is obviously what they tried to do. What a coincidence: Raff had a burst pipe the same evening to explain the excess of fluid in his apartment. Another amazing piece of synchronicity is Knox needing to pop over to the cottage for a mop to take back to Raff's to help mop up the flooded pipe next morning.

Yes, it's so obvious and the prosecution presented all that evidence of cleaning up. You know, evidence like the luminol revealed swirls that wiping up blood leaves behind. Evidence like the mop that tested negative for blood. After all, everyone knows just how easy it would be to remove all traces of blood from a mop! About as easy as removing all traces of blood from a knife while leaving DNA behind. Oh, then there's the evidence of cleaning up like removing the rug with "Raff's" bloody footprint on it and leaving bloody shoe prints going down the hall and "Amanda's bloody footprints"! Yep, they tried REALLY hard to clean up!
Do you ever listen to yourself?

ETA: I forgot...the washing machine was running when they police got there. More clear evidence of a clean up.

 

[Stacyhs]

I don't wish to divert the thread, but let's be clear: the "3/5" is from the US Constitution Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, as written in 1787 and enacted in 1789, not merely from a law. This part of the Constitution regrading the count for the Census was made invalid with the passage of the 14th Amendment (specifically Section 2) in 1868, after the Civil War.

The first sentence of Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 reads:

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

There are several online US Constitution sites readily accessible; I used: http://constitutionus.com/

Wanna bet if Vixen admits she didn't know what she was talking about?

ETA: Is it any wonder why I find this forum so darned entertaining?

 

[Welshman]

What? I practised it. Had to produce fifteen laboratory reports and a dissertation based on a scientific experiment for my science degree with honours. My chemistry teacher said I was the one person in the class who always knew the answer.

PGP posters constantly bang on about Amanda lying and come up with Walter Mitty stories such as the above.

 

[Welshman]

And who can forget the marvellous ballistics/trajectory "analysis" from around 2017 or so?

I can never forget Vixen telling Amanda and Raffaele felt it necessary to return to the cottage to stage a rape when Rudy had already raped Meredith.

 

[Stacyhs]

My favorite:

AK and RS left the rug with RS's bloody footprint and pointed it out to the police in order to 'put one over' on them showing how clever they were.

 

[bagels]

As very few murderers admit to their heinous act then of course we have to go by the findings of the court. I'm afraid the merits court - the fact-finding court - which was extremely fair did find the pair guilty as charged and a very high bar is set for finding young adults guilty of such a serious crime. Contrary to your claims, I believe most police officers, judges and jurors were sympathetic towards Knox and Sollecito and did not act with ill will or vindictiveness. The pair had a very fair trial.

Unfortunately, as we have no other way of ascertaining the truth of what happened exactly then of course we only have the judicial fact of the matter, which I believe is very likely close to the actual truth.

Knox should consider herself extremely lucky to be set free despite the strong evidence and 'absolute certainty'of her presence at the murder instead of touring the world making unfounded and unwarranted claims against the Italians who were mostly very kind to her.

Everyone's gotta make a living Vixen, cut her some slack.

 

[Stacyhs]

I'm afraid the merits court - the fact-finding court - which was extremely fair did find the pair guilty as charged and a very high bar is set for finding young adults guilty of such a serious crime.

And yet..and yet...the appellate court overturned this 'extremely fair" court which

1) refused to allow independent forensic experts to examine the evidence,
2) which said a heroin addled, serial witness for the police, who confused his nights was 'credible',
3) which deemed credible a witness who came forward a year later claiming Knox had been in his store when he had previously stated he had NOT seen Knox when asked by a policeman within days of the murder,
4) which ignored negative TMB tests to declare there was blood because "what else could it be",
5) which used the word "probably" in its reasoning 39 times,

and more.

 

[acbytesla]

Whaaaaaa? None of the above is true. The law, which was pre-Civil War, said slaves, not ex-slaves, were to be counted as 3/5th of a person for census reasons having to do with representation in Congress as taxes.
Honestly, Vix. Stop embarrassing yourself.

Yes and that was a compromise. The Southern colonies/states wanted their cake and eat it to. They weren't going to give those slaves the vote or representation but they wanted the slaves to be fully counted so they could have more power in Congress.