The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

[LondonJohn]

Not like a certain Welsh person, I suppose.

Huh? Expand?

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh and Vixen, since you're around: please will you supply the (credible and reliable) source evidence - which you said you possessed - to support your claim that the Knox family engaged in a $2 million PR campaign?

Thanks awfully in advance

 

[LondonJohn]

Please refer back to previous discussions.

So no, then. You're not prepared to admit that what you wrote was ignorant and incorrect.....

 

[RoseMontague]

"According to me, Rudy can explain"

ETA... ""katy_did
29th May 2010, 08:17 AM
If I remember correctly this homeless person was found by a local journalist that took him to the cops. Was this the case?
Not only that, but I think the police had already spoken to him after the murder, when he said he hadn't seen anything. It was only when the journalist 'found' him that he remembered he'd seen AK and RS there that night.
To go full circle with the JREF/PMF/JREF thing, here's a video (http://www.la7.it/news/dettaglio_video.asp?id_video=24303...)that was just posted on PMF which shows Curatolo. It's a bit confusing because Curatolo and the journalist asking questions sound very similar to me! One of the Italian-speakers on PMF wrote the following about it:
Interesting, the video of a journalist talking to Curatolo. Curatolo looks around a lot, but never at him. His speech is very slightly slurred, he has a local accent. He says "I got here at around 9:30, and while I was sitting down, lighting a cigarette and taking a look around, maybe 5 minutes passed." The journalist says "And they were already there?" Curatolo responds "According to me, it's a real shame (è una disgrazia)". The journalist says "Were they having a heated discussion?" Curatolo gives a tiny shake or movement of his head, and then he says, "According to me, the only person who could explain everything is really Rudy." That's all we see."

 

[RoseMontague]

It was a perfect storm of perfect witnesses, full stop.
Miracle Ear Lady
Mr Memory
The drug dealing, heroin addicted homeless park bench bum

caso chiuso

 

[LondonJohn]

It was a perfect storm of perfect witnesses, full stop.
Miracle Ear Lady
Mr Memory
The drug dealing, heroin addicted homeless park bench bum

caso chiuso

Exactly.

The crucial point, I think, is this: the prosecution WANTED to believe these "witnesses" as credible and reliable, because their testimony bolstered the predetermined prosecution narrative*.

And the (unlawful) convicting courts appear to have simply accepted the prosecution evaluation of these "witnesses" at face value - seemingly following the doctrine that if the "neutral, disinterested, truth-seeking" prosecutors had decided that these "witnesses" were all reliable and credible...... well, that was good enough for the court in and of itself. These courts likewise seemingly found it easy to wave away any defence objections, employing the (unlawful) philosophy that one could safely conclude that the defence would lie/cheat/obfuscate/misdirect to try to spare their client (the defendant), and that therefore their calling into question the credibility/reliability of these "witnesses" was just a devious and mischievous tactic.


* It may be instructive to compare the a) rigour (i.e. the lack of rigour) with which the prosecutors/police tested evidence/testimony which was in support of their predetermined narrative, against b) the rigour with which they tried to discredit evidence/testimony which contradicted their predetermined narrative. For example, the concerted and protracted efforts of police and PM to disprove or discredit the account given by Roman Mero, the Swiss professor who had been chatting with Lumumba in his bar throughout the whole timeframe of the murder.....

 

[Bill Williams]

Yeah, yeah, everybody's a lair except the killer.

True. Rudy Guede told many lies. And continues to.

Welshman has also documented the lies of the most prolific guilter-nutter on this thread. You failed to address any of them.

 

[Bill Williams]

1. She has not been found innocent. The final Supreme Court spells out she was present during the murder and covered up for Guede.

She was acquitted definitively. For the 176th time, the Supreme Court stated that all the various prosecutions demonstrated was that she (and Raffaele, remember him?) was there at a later time and another part of the house. Yet you repeat ad nauseam the factoid above.

2. She was promiscuous as per her own bragging about the fact.

You just can't help yourself from slutshaming. When you can't deal with the first point, you default to some random stranger's sex life. Whatever floats your boat.

3. Sorry, are you personalising your post? Who exactly are you referring to?

Personalizing posts!? LOL!

 

[Bill Williams]

1. She has not been found innocent. The final Supreme Court spells out she was present during the murder and covered up for Guede.

One thing you and Krissy Allen have in common is that you never read, much less quoted from the Marasca-Bruno report of 2015, the one which exonerated the pair.

Key to this notion that Knox/Sollecito had only allegedly been at the cottage at the time of the murder (as assumed by Nencini), is that the Nencini court, according to the final Supreme Court ruling, had never properly ascertained the time of death....

6.2. Another judicial error is to be found in the finding that the establishment of
Kercher’s exact time of death was irrelevant, in the belief that the approximate
timing offered by the expert investigations was sufficient...

........ 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.​

This is the reason why:

1. Marasca-Bruno called both AK's and RS's presence at the cottage at the actual time of death as only "alleged"....

2. But more importantly, why the M/B report defaulted to say that even if everything had been true as alleged in the Nencini conviction, all that Nencini had proved was that AK and/or RS had been in another part of the cottage (other than the murder room), as well as at a later time.​

Yet you'll ignore all this and repeat endlessly the factoid of yours above, all the while claiming that you only get your views from the evidence. Evidence which you never quote.

 

[Welshman]

Yeah, yeah, everybody's a lair except the killer.

There were numerous instances of people lying in the case of Meredith which I backed up with evidence. Could Vixen answer the following questions

• How does Vixen explain the hypocrisy of lying on an industrial scale in her posts and then viciously attacking Amanda for telling numerous lies?

• How does Vixen explain the hypocrisy of attacking Amanda for telling lies when Vixen tells numerous lies about Amanda?

• How is it that Amanda is viciously attacked for lying when lies have been told about and have been used against Amanda?

• Vixen lies on an industrial scale in her posts and then attacks Amanda for lying. Is Vixen projecting when she attacks Amanda for lying?

• How does Vixen explain the hypocrisy of attacking Amanda for lying when Vixen feels it is perfectly acceptable to lie if it works against Amanda?

• If Amanda is such a prolific liar, why does Vixen has to resort to lying to sustain this claim? How does Vixen explain the hypocrisy of attacking Amanda for lying when falsely accusing Amanda of lying?

• Lying is something you resort to when the facts are against you. As my post below, there are major problems with the prosecution’s case and the facts overwhelmingly support the case the defence case and go against the prosecution’s case. In view of this why would Amanda need to resort to lying?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12724199#post12724199

 

[Stacyhs]

1. She has not been found innocent. The final Supreme Court spells out she was present during the murder and covered up for Guede.

2. She was promiscuous as per her own bragging about the fact.

3. Sorry, are you personalising your post? Who exactly are you referring to?

Once again, there is no 'innocent' verdict, only acquittal. "For not having committed the act" means they did not do it. As has been pointed out to you numerous times before, a person is considered INNOCENT under Italian law until, and unless, they are definitively convicted. No definitive conviction = innocent under Italian law. I don't know why you have so much trouble understanding that very simple fact. No, I take that back; I do know why.

If Knox slept with every man she ever crossed paths with, it doesn't matter one whit when it comes to the murder of Kercher. Stop the slut shaming. It has nothing to due with the murder.

 

[Stacyhs]

Yeah, yeah, everybody's a lair except the killer.

Guede is a huge lair liar. You'll get no argument from us about that, but there are those out there that think the 'poor guy' was railroaded. There's no explaining how some people think.

 

[Stacyhs]

Wow, paranoid much?

Thanks for the compliments.

Seriously, Vix. Take some remedial reading comprehension classes. Nothing I wrote was 'paranoid' nor were there any compliments to you or Krissy Allen, for that matter.

I notice you and Krissy both ignore this quote from the Umbria news:

The acquittal of the accused was also solicited this morning by the public prosecutor's office following the testimony of a policeman of the mobile squad who explained in the courtroom that he had not started investigations into Aviello's statements because he was considered unreliable.

ETA: You didn't address this part of my previous post:

Are you seriously claiming this proves that Aviello was bribed by Bongiorno? It does no such thing. That article is a year and a half old. Has Bongiorno or Francesco Sollecito (whom Aviello also accused of bribing him) been charged with any crime? No. Why is that?

 

[Stacyhs]

Vixen also thinks it's logical that Amanda would go to buy bleach at a store just a few doors down from Raff's where there was a bottle and a half of bleach in the bathroom.

Man, that is some logical reasoning!

It's ridiculous to think Hitler was a mass murderer when he was a tee-totaller and loved his dog.

I am only demonstrating your own logic back to you. Do you now see why it is a complete non sequitur to claim your kitchen knife would also fit or that Knox couldn't have been seen in the shop as Raff already had provisions?


Please do better.

Vix, can you please explain to me why you think it would be logical for Knox to go a few doors down to a store and buy bleach (which she did not do) in the early morning when she already had 1 1/2 bottles in Raff's apartment? Do you go to the store to buy a gallon of milk when you already have a gallon in the fridge?

Can you explain to me why why it's illogical to state that my chef's knife, or anyone's similar chef knife, would not be compatible with the largest wound when the coroner's only requirement was that the knife was non-serrated?

You are right about one thing; it IS ridiculous to think Hitler wasn't a mass murderer because he was a tee-totaller and loved his dog. Why you brought that up is anyone's guess because it certainly didn't equate to what I said.

 

[Stacyhs]

It is apparent that you'll avoid like the plague answering a straight forward question.....

Did you just cite yourself as a third party reputable source? If you did, that takes the cake.

I've been on-lining since 1988. I've never seen someone cite themselves before.

Bill, I make no claims that Vixen and Krissy Allen are the same person. I just noted that the two had both written about the Cheddar Man just as they both write articles about Knox.

 

[Stacyhs]

As I do not buy my things from a jumble sale but from reputable stores such as John Lewis or Marks & Sparks, there is no problem wearing new clothes straight away without having to wash them. Not to mention the ecological waste of an unnecessary machine cycle.

Ah, I see. So undergarments bought from John Lewis or M & S aren't handled by countless people during manufacture and packaging unlike those bought at jumble sales. And you don't wash new underwear before wearing because of that. Is that what you're saying? If so, that's some logic.

And for the record, I didn't say "clothes". I specifically said lingerie.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill, I make no claims that Vixen and Krissy Allen are the same person. I just noted that the two had both written about the Cheddar Man just as they both write articles about Knox.

It's just that Vixen offered a non-denial denial. Which is her right, I suppose. If this was reversed, I'd leave it to Vixen to prove us wrong. But it's not. So benefit of doubt goes to Vixen.

 

[Vixen]

Oh and Vixen, since you're around: please will you supply the (credible and reliable) source evidence - which you said you possessed - to support your claim that the Knox family engaged in a $2 million PR campaign?

Thanks awfully in advance

Here you go:

A while back, I posted in Comments on the rumor long rampant in Perugia that “someone” paid $2 million to have Judge Chiari replaced by Judge Hellmann.

Or:

Who hired Candace Dempsey, brought in Anne Bremner, Tom Wright and now retired King County judge Michael Heavey on board? In that very tight knit Seattle community, these players all seem to have known each other.

With their political organization, one can see how they roped in Washington senator Maria Cantwell and various congresspersons. When you shine the light of full disclosure on their activities, some truly malodorous actions come up.

Are you denying Knox' parents hired a PR agent?

 

[Vixen]

Once again, there is no 'innocent' verdict, only acquittal. "For not having committed the act" means they did not do it. As has been pointed out to you numerous times before, a person is considered INNOCENT under Italian law until, and unless, they are definitively convicted. No definitive conviction = innocent under Italian law. I don't know why you have so much trouble understanding that very simple fact. No, I take that back; I do know why.

If Knox slept with every man she ever crossed paths with, it doesn't matter one whit when it comes to the murder of Kercher. Stop the slut shaming. It has nothing to due with the murder.

She uses sex to sell her book so have a go at the panhandler.

 

[Vixen]

Guede is a huge lair liar. You'll get no argument from us about that, but there are those out there that think the 'poor guy' was railroaded. There's no explaining how some people think.

Your critical debating skills are shockingly poor. Serving up straw man arguments now. Followed by the logical fallacy of a false conclusion.