The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stacyhs said:
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:



ETA: You didn't address this part of my previous post:
Click to expand...

Bongiorno said at the time she would sue for libel. She never did.

Why do you think?

Because she is terrified of losing.


There was absolutely nothing to stop the courts from convicting Aviello for the umpteenth time as a chronic recidivist, form as long as your arm and then some, yet he was cleared.

Bongiorno and people like yourself might hope that 'no-one believes this guy' but where else did he get the money for his $75K sex change operation being as he was a homeless bum whose main home was jail?
 
Stacyhs said:
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.
Click to expand...

Same faulty logical structure. 'If there is A, then B cannot have happened.'

Do you really believe that two apartments covered in copious blood can be dealt with by the bottle of bleach below the sink?

'Raff had a bottle off ACE beneath his sink, therefore, Amanda could not have been at the local store looking at cleaning materials'.


Spot the poor logic.
 
Stacyhs said:
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.
Click to expand...

I contacted Krissy Allen and in spidery writing, remarkably similar to my own, she denied knowing anyone called Vixen.
 
Vixen said:
Your critical debating skills are shockingly poor. Serving up straw man arguments now. Followed by the logical fallacy of a false conclusion.
Click to expand...

Every post you make in this thread uses a combination of circular logic and confirmation bias.

For example you can't claim Amanda Knox is a liar without engaging in one or both of these faulty reasoning methods.

It's easy to prove somebody is a liar, if in fact they lied and it can be proven.

Step 1: Cite a statement they made.

Step 2: Cite unequivocal evidence proving that statement false.

I can even give you an example to get you started:

Scott Peterson statement to Amber Frey: I was in Paris France on New Years

Scott Peterson's location on New Years: Modesto California at a candlelight vigil witnessed by many dozens.

Ergo, Scott Peterson is a liar.

Unfortunately these tips wont help you because they require basic rational thought free from cognitive biases causing self delusion.
 
Rudy Guede lies every 3rd sentence. Pathological lying is a trait found in sociopaths. So is delinquent behavior, trespassing, breaking and entering etc, which are all behaviors found in Guede.

I wonder if Rudy Guede is a sociopath that slaughtered Meredith in cold blood after breaking into the cottage? This would explain why Rudy had Meredith's blood on his hands, and why there was an apparent break-in at the cottage consistent with a similar break-in a few blocks away he was arrested in connection with, and why he fled the country after the murder.

This would also explain why a criminal case brought against two students not connected to the crime would have fallen apart and been ultimately rejected by the courts, since there wouldn't be credible evidence to sustain prosecution against people not involved in the crime, whereas the evidence against the actual killer would have been compelling and resulted in a conviction.

My conclusion appears consistent with actual reality, suggesting I've correctly inferred what occurred.

If I found myself having to believe in fantastic mafia conspiracies to rig a national court verdict I would be more wary of my conclusions. Perhaps in such an instance I would question if I had succumbed to a cognitive bias formed from a delusional belief.
 
bagels said:
Rudy Guede lies every 3rd sentence. Pathological lying is a trait found in sociopaths. So is delinquent behavior, trespassing, breaking and entering etc, which are all behaviors found in Guede.

I wonder if Rudy Guede is a sociopath that slaughtered Meredith in cold blood after breaking into the cottage? This would explain why Rudy had Meredith's blood on his hands, and why there was an apparent break-in at the cottage consistent with a similar break-in a few blocks away he was arrested in connection with, and why he fled the country after the murder.

This would also explain why a criminal case brought against two students not connected to the crime would have fallen apart and been ultimately rejected by the courts, since there wouldn't be credible evidence to sustain prosecution against people not involved in the crime, whereas the evidence against the actual killer would have been compelling and resulted in a conviction.

My conclusion appears consistent with actual reality, suggesting I've correctly inferred what occurred.

If I found myself having to believe in fantastic mafia conspiracies to rig a national court verdict I would be more wary of my conclusions. Perhaps in such an instance I would question if I had succumbed to a cognitive bias formed from a delusional belief.
Click to expand...


I hate to break it to you but even the Marasca-Bruno court declared that Knox and Raff lied 'umpteen times'. They lied again and again and again. Indeed, Raff provided five different alibis. A false alibi in a court of law is seen as material evidence (against you). He declined to be questioned in the witness box.

Knox tried to get gullible people like yourself to donate towards her wedding. Sucker! Didn't tell you she was already married. What kind of sociopath is that?

Knox also broke in and ransacked a pal's apartment and was was forced to apologise for what she labels a 'prank'. So how was she different from Guede accessing the nursery scholl in which a staff member admitted giving him the key to so that he could crash after a party in Milan (or so he claimed). Fact is, he wasn't convicted of breaking and entering for this proven reason (someone from the nursery gave him the key).

The courts ruled - even Marasca-Bruno - that the burglary was staged and we all know who had previous experience of faking a burglary.

Knox only admitted to this because someone from Seattle (the Kazakhstani lady she later caught staring at her in a Seattle restaurant) grassed on her by informing the police of her known nastiness.
 
Bill Williams said:
Now you're quoting Krissy G!? LOL!
Click to expand...



I truly can't figure out whether Vixen is having a laugh or not. But if this was a sincere attempt by Vixen to provide credible, reliable evidence to support the "$2 million PR campaign" claim, it could hardly BE more worthless.

The icing on the cake, for me, was the flagrant goalpost shifting in her final sentence: "Are you denying Knox' Knox's parents hired a PR agent?" No, Vixen, that was not the issue. The issue, Vixen, was whether the Knox family hired $2 million worth of PR representation.


By the way, I'm guessing that "KrissyG" and "Krissy Allen" are.... related. They certainly share the same jaw-dropping combo of ignorance, pretensions of grandeur, vindictiveness, inability to employ logical analysis or critical thinking, and a complete absence of objective reason.
 
Bill Williams said:
Now you're quoting Krissy G!? LOL!
Click to expand...

I think you'll find the quote is Peter Quennell. Sadly you seem to be suffering from some kind of paranoia that make you see hallucinations created by your own fevered delusions.

'this increases my paranoia
Yeah, like looking in my mirror and seeing a police car' ~ David Crosby
 
LondonJohn said:
I truly can't figure out whether Vixen is having a laugh or not. But if this was a sincere attempt by Vixen to provide credible, reliable evidence to support the "$2 million PR campaign" claim, it could hardly BE more worthless.

The icing on the cake, for me, was the flagrant goalpost shifting in her final sentence: "Are you denying Knox' Knox's parents hired a PR agent?" No, Vixen, that was not the issue. The issue, Vixen, was whether the Knox family hired $2 million worth of PR representation.


By the way, I'm guessing that "KrissyG" and "Krissy Allen" are.... related. They certainly share the same jaw-dropping combo of ignorance, pretensions of grandeur, vindictiveness, inability to employ logical analysis or critical thinking, and a complete absence of objective reason.
Click to expand...

Perhaps Chrissy Shrimpton, Chrissy Hynde and Christine Keeler are all the same person in your mind. It's called 'cracking up'.
 
Vixen said:
I think you'll find the quote is Peter Quennell. Sadly you seem to be suffering from some kind of paranoia that make you see hallucinations created by your own fevered delusions.

'this increases my paranoia
Yeah, like looking in my mirror and seeing a police car' ~ David Crosby
Click to expand...



So now Quennell is a credible and reliable source, eh?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
 
Vixen said:
I hate to break it to you but even the Marasca-Bruno court declared that Knox and Raff lied 'umpteen times'. They lied again and again and again. Indeed, Raff provided five different alibis. A false alibi in a court of law is seen as material evidence (against you). He declined to be questioned in the witness box.

Knox tried to get gullible people like yourself to donate towards her wedding. Sucker! Didn't tell you she was already married. What kind of sociopath is that?

Knox also broke in and ransacked a pal's apartment and was was forced to apologise for what she labels a 'prank'. So how was she different from Guede accessing the nursery scholl in which a staff member admitted giving him the key to so that he could crash after a party in Milan (or so he claimed). Fact is, he wasn't convicted of breaking and entering for this proven reason (someone from the nursery gave him the key). The courts ruled - even Marasca-Bruno - that the burglary was staged and we all know who had previous experience of faking a burglary. Knox only admitted to this because someone from Seattle (the Kazakhstani lady she later caught staring at her in a Seattle restaurant) grassed on her by informing the police of her known nastiness.
Click to expand...

But the alleged staged break-in at VDP wasn't actually staged was it? It's virtually a carbon-copy of the break-in at the Palazzoli-Brocchi lawyers office a couple of weeks earlier. Glass on top of clothing isn't an excuse since the Massei report (page 47) refers to "glass was found on clothes" at the Palazzoli-Brocchi office. Maria Del Prato also testified in court that Rudy had stolen "a meat knife" from the nursery kitchen and had stolen petty cash when he was apprehended. If Rudy had keys to the nursery then it ties him to the break-in that happened 2 weeks before at the nursery when Maria Del Prato testified that 2 thousand euros in cash had been stolen she also went on to say that she believed the crime had been "staged":

"Sincerely I believed it had been staged to make out a tramp or a gypsy had come in because some food had been cooked in the kitchen and a cot had been put in one of the rooms as if a baby had slept in the cot with a bowl with food but it seemed unlikely to me."

So we have 3 actual break-ins that all had the peculiar appearance of being "staged". It doesn't take rocket science to work it out. M/B acquits K&S of charge E (simulated break-in) "of the rubric because the appellants did not commit the act."

Hoots
 
Vixen said:
Perhaps Chrissy Shrimpton, Chrissy Hynde and Christine Keeler are all the same person in your mind. It's called 'cracking up'.
Click to expand...



Oooh you wouldn't be making a personalised (though baseless) assertion about my state of mind, would you Vixen.....?


But to address the point: I think that if all three of the above displayed an extremely similar style of desperately poor, intellectually-challenged, logically-bereft, bias-ridden writing, then it would be perfectly reasonable to suppose that they might be somehow *related*
 
Vixen said:
I hate to break it to you but even the Marasca-Bruno court declared that Knox and Raff lied 'umpteen times'. They lied again and again and again. Indeed, Raff provided five different alibis. A false alibi in a court of law is seen as material evidence (against you). He declined to be questioned in the witness box.

Knox tried to get gullible people like yourself to donate towards her wedding. Sucker! Didn't tell you she was already married. What kind of sociopath is that?

Knox also broke in and ransacked a pal's apartment and was was forced to apologise for what she labels a 'prank'. So how was she different from Guede accessing the nursery scholl in which a staff member admitted giving him the key to so that he could crash after a party in Milan (or so he claimed). Fact is, he wasn't convicted of breaking and entering for this proven reason (someone from the nursery gave him the key).

The courts ruled - even Marasca-Bruno - that the burglary was staged and we all know who had previous experience of faking a burglary.

Knox only admitted to this because someone from Seattle (the Kazakhstani lady she later caught staring at her in a Seattle restaurant) grassed on her by informing the police of her known nastiness.
Click to expand...

And you claim not to be running your own PR campaign against someone who exists as a figment of your imagination. Note, though, how far you've strayed from the actual evidence related to the case.....

...... about which the final, definitive, and acquitting court summarized by saying.....

..... even if all the negative factoids are true, it still does not put either AK or RS in the murder room at the time of the murder. So it is that your PR effort to smear and libel someone you've never met falls on deaf ears. All that energy you've expended to smear and slutshame this fictional character you've assembled is, at the end, for naught.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
I think you'll find the quote is Peter Quennell. Sadly you seem to be suffering from some kind of paranoia that make you see hallucinations created by your own fevered delusions.
'this increases my paranoia
Yeah, like looking in my mirror and seeing a police car' ~ David Crosby
Click to expand...

..... and even if your assessment is true, none of it puts either AK or RS in the murder room at the time of the murder, so your attempt to psychologize my observation is fruitless. It adds nothing to understanding why, at the end, the Italian courts acquitted the pair, or why the ECHR found that Italy had erred in convicting AK of calunnia.
 
Bill Williams said:
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.
Click to expand...



Yes - let's have no more of this speculation. After all, it's patently ridiculous (nay, scurrilous) to suggest that someone might NOT ONLY pose as different personas online and make active efforts to deny the shared ownership of those personas..... BUT ALSO then go on to use their own second persona as source evidence for claims made by their first persona.

Could never happen........
 
Oh and Vixen: how are you coming along finding and providing proper evidence to support your claim that the Knox family engaged in a "$2 million PR campaign"?

I'm really starting to think that you don't actually have any such evidence, and that in fact you made the whole thing up. A lie, if you will.
 
Vixen said:
1. She has not been found innocent. The final Supreme Court spells out she was present during the murder and covered up for Guede.
Click to expand...

Wow! This is contradictory to everything I have ever read about the case.

All, can anyone find evidential support for Vixen's claim here? Was Amanda Knox actually found guilty of being present during the murder and covering up for Rudy Guede? The trial documents seem to suggest the complete opposite, but I am open to alternative evidence.

Vixen, just so we're clear, you're also saying Amanda Knox is a pathological liar, and you are NOT a pathological liar, and everything you say is based on well established facts, correct? And you're definitely NOT projecting when you call other people pathological liars?

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

I have never heard her "bragging" about having sex with a handful of men. Can you provide evidence of this, since you are NOT a pathological liar and base all of your statements on well-established evidence?

Secondly, since you are not a pathological liar, can you show me where she labeled herself "promiscuous"? If she has not, where did she acquire this label, and what makes her having sex with a handful of men in her entire life "promiscuous"?

Since you are definitely not simply slut shaming, this should be easy to find.

Thirdly, what does Amanda having sex with a handful of men have to do with her being wrongly (as proven by all the higher courts and all forensic experts) accused of murder?

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

I thought we were talking about Amanda Knox? The girl you say is a promiscuous slut, pathological liar, narcissist, and murderer (despite the verdict of the Italian Supreme court, ECHR, and all forensic evidence). You are indeed personalizing your posts (since it has nothing to do with the evidence), towards her and her supporters when you fling insults at them.

Is that what you are referring to?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom