The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

[TomG]

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.

This is much the same tactic that Harry Rag uses on YouTube. He quotes Amanda's presence at VDP in 9.4.1 as a "proven fact" (according to the TJMK version of M/B) in the hope that he can somehow arrive at the kids guilt by stringing factoids together with things like "Amanda was the first to suggest a sexual motive for the crime" as the "proven fact". I've challenged him to provide a crime scene narrative to involve K&S in the murder of Meredith as a "proven fact"; however he just can't do it. The endgame being if he can't resolve the case by this time with the factoids he has at hand, then how true are the factoids?

Hoots

 

[bagels]

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.

Stay focused here, the goal is to prove Knox lied, not Raffaele. This should be easy, I demonstrated clearly how to do it.

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?

I couldn't care less about Knox's wedding, and unless she took donations for a wedding ceremony she never has this doesn't make her a liar.

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.

College pranks with friends are much different than solo anti-social behavior which includes actual crime.

What's not being done here speaks volumes when we put it into context. The police have countless hours of tapped phone calls and bugged rooms of Amanda Knox's private conversation, and this supposed lying sociopath can't be caught in one single verifiable lie? It would tend to suggest she is honest, which is a trait not found in most sociopaths. You overlook this because

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

 

[Stacyhs]

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

When sex is used to sell a book, one can expect passages of lurid and detailed descriptions of said sex. None of that exists in WTBH. None.

Not having read her book as you've said yourself, you certainly claim to know what's in it. On the other hand, I have read it and sex is barely mentioned unless pertinent to the accusations against her.

Try again, Vix.

 

[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.

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

1. You claim everyone's a lair liar except the killer.

2. I agree that the killer, Guede, is a liar but some people think he was railroaded.

3. You then comment on my debating skills when I was, in fact, agreeing with you and not debating you at all.

4. How is agreeing with you a 'straw man argument', a logical fallacy or a false conclusion?

5. If you were referring to something else than what you quoted, then please include that in your posts so we know what you are talking about. Goodness knows, that's difficult enough even when you do.

 

[Bill Williams]

..... 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.

This is much the same tactic that Harry Rag uses on YouTube. He quotes Amanda's presence at VDP in 9.4.1 as a "proven fact" (according to the TJMK version of M/B) in the hope that he can somehow arrive at the kids guilt by stringing factoids together with things like "Amanda was the first to suggest a sexual motive for the crime" as the "proven fact". I've challenged him to provide a crime scene narrative to involve K&S in the murder of Meredith as a "proven fact"; however he just can't do it. The endgame being if he can't resolve the case by this time with the factoids he has at hand, then how true are the factoids?
Hoots

My reading of the 2015 Marasca-Bruno report is, in fact, as you cite (highlighted). Indeed, if there was a genius to the M/B report, it was to be found in its length, or better put, lack of length.

For the most part, the prosecution(s) and the haters have always substituted width for depth. When one does not have a case, they simply throw more factoids at it, hoping that the sheer number of baseless factoids will tempt some to say that something of substance must have been in there somewhere.

M/B did not fall into that trap. It saw the width of factoid-based evidence as being a distraction. The question was, acc. to M/B, a distraction from what?

The "what" was this: even if (there's that dreaded "even if" again).... even if every factoid in that long width of baseless evidence had been true, it still didn't make up for the lack of primary evidence in the murder room that would have pointed to either AK or RS. You could double the factoid distractions, but the definitive fact of it all was as written in the report....

9.4.1 .......Any further and more meaningful value would be, in fact,
resisted by the fact - which is decisive - that no trace leading to her was found at the
scene of the crime or on the victim’s body, so that - if all the above is accepted - her contact with the victim’s blood would have occurred after the crime and in another part of the house.​

This applies to every one of the factoids, not just the issue of if even if AK had had the victim's blood on her.

It's why this case was solved in March 2015. Definitively. Guilter-nutters can argue around the edges if they want, but M/B cut through all that with the simplest rendition of obvious innocence there was.

 

[Stacyhs]

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

Why do you think?

Because she is terrified of losing.

When you answer my question that I asked first, then I'll answer yours:

A year and a half later, no charges have been brought against Bongiorno or Dr. Sollecito. Why is that, Vix?

Why do you not address the fact the it was the prosecution that solicited the acquittal of Aviello?
Pssssst....that was a rhetorical question. Both you and Krissy Allen have misrepresented Aviello's acquittal to the detriment of Bongiorno and Knox.

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.

At the request of the prosecution. Ponder on that for a while.

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?

Krissy Allen and people like you might hope that 'someone believes this guy' but with his record, no one with any sense does.

As for his sex change operation, there is no evidence he actually had it done.

Aviello, it emerged, was saving up for a sex-change operation and needed the cash. A police officer then testified that Aviello had been a police informant who had proved unreliable, so the garden in question was never dug up to see if the keys and knife were really there.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/amanda-knox-appeal-hearing-raffaele-sollecito-waffles?ref=scroll

His testimony brought a bizarre twist to the retrial – the Camorra gangster is undergoing a sex change and turned up to the hearing dressed in women’s clothing.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...trial-My-brother-killed-Meredith-Kercher.html

A sex change operation takes a long time. First the person has to live as the preferred sex for a year. Then they start taking hormones of that sex. The last thing they do is the actual operation. Note that the article said Aviello is 'undergoing' the sex change which means he could have been in the first stage: dressing as a woman. That doesn't cost much. There is no evidence he ever completed the process with an operation.

 

[Stacyhs]

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

I never said it cannot have happened; I said it was illogical. You have failed to explain, using logic, why Knox would go out to buy bleach (which she did not buy) early in the morning when she already had 1 1/2 bottles at hand? Is there a reason why you continue to skirt answering that question?

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

But there is no evidence of any bleach clean up. In fact, the evidence shows there was no clean up. Besides that, the 1 1/2 bottles were not even used as so why would she need to buy more? It's far more logical to have used those bottles first, and if more was needed, to then go buy more. Which they never did because there was no bleach clean up.

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

I never said "could not'. I said it's illogical for her to go out to buy bleach when she already had some at hand.

Additionally, once again, you have your facts wrong. Quintavalle never said she was 'looking at cleaning materials'. He said she went to the upper levels where the cleaning supplies were....along with many other things. I've been in that store. Here is a pic I took of the upper level. The cleaning supplies are circled in red at the far end by the door on the right.

Spot the poor logic.

I did; I've tried to point out just why your logic isn't logic at all.

 

[Stacyhs]

I contacted Krissy Allen and in spidery writing, remarkably similar to my own, she denied knowing anyone called Vixen.

You should become pen pals using your remarkably similar spidery writing. You have so much in common!

 

[TruthCalls]

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.

You, like the other two or three guilters that remain, seem to keep forgetting that between the Italian Supreme Court and the ECHR, the interrogation has been stricken from history. The "lying" is all based on the premise that they somehow changed their stories while they were being interrogated, thereby proving they were lying before. However, when we remove everything connected to the interrogation, most of those guilter claims disappear. Five different alibis (a claim, as documented at the fake wiki, I find rather humorous) as well as a "false alibi" all go out the window.

But speaking of lying (which includes being deliberately deceptive)...

Amanda and Christopher asked people who would otherwise give them a gift to make cash donations instead. This is a very typical request. And it was to help fund the reception, not the marriage. Getting married is cheap, hosting a reception is expensive, and they've not yet had the reception. Not sure if this is lying or just ignorance on your part, yet you try to use this to label Amanda as a sociopath. Totally classless.

Amanda's prank was on her roommate, so she didn't "break in". She hid a few items to make it appear as if there had been a theft, there was no "ransack". She offered an apology because the prank scared her roommate more than intended, she was not "forced" to apologize. Three more lies in one sentence. Impressive, but not in a good way.

Do you have a cite for a staff member admitting to giving Guede a key? And by cite, I don't mean a link to something written by Quennell or Krissy on TJMK, I mean an official source. I could be wrong, but all I recall was Guede making the claim of some unknown individual telling him it was OK.

Since M-B was ruling on Amanda and Raffaele's appeal, and since they were acquitted of staging a break-in, I'm curious how you base your comment that even M-B ruled it was staged.

And no, I have no idea who had previous experience faking a burglary.

 

[Stacyhs]

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

Does Quennell present evidence of this $2 million campaign? Hint: NO.

So we're right back where we started: no evidence of that dollar amount has ever been presented. Repeating a lie over and over again does not make it true. But you have to give TJMK and its 'main writers' credit for persistence.

 

[Stacyhs]

>snip<

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).

Knox didn't 'break into' her friends apartment. She pranked a housemate. Why would she need to break into her own house? Nor was she 'forced' to apologize. Why do you find it necessary to lie? And it is a lie because you've made these claims before and been shown they are false, yet you continue to repeat the same lies.

“I played a part in an April Fool’s prank that involved making a mess — moving and hiding stuff in the house I shared with friends — to make it seem like we had been robbed when we weren’t there. The ruse was immediately revealed after the initial shock. We — all of the mutual friends of my housemates who participated in the prank with me — apologized for the distress caused.”

(Amanda Knox)

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

No, M-B ruled no such thing. The previous Guede verdict S.Court had ruled it was faked. M-B had no power to contradict that.

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.

Please provide evidence of this. I suspect you have none.

 

[Bill Williams]

Does Quennell present evidence of this $2 million campaign? Hint: NO.

So we're right back where we started: no evidence of that dollar amount has ever been presented. Repeating a lie over and over again does not make it true. But you have to give TJMK and its 'main writers' credit for persistence.

This is the problem that PQ, Peggy, Michael, and Ergon always had with their respective hate-sites. They brooked no opposition. If someone ever challenged the factoids, like the factuality of the $2M PR campaign, they had their accounts summarily terminated. Therefore the "groupthink" on those sites developed unopposed.

What's left are a rag-tag group of hangers-on, with Harry Rag and PQ being the sole oldtimers maintaining their own PR Campaign, that they're doing for free.

Suffice it to say, there was no $2M PR campaign, not one that ended up with the Mafia, Mason, and power American Media interests subverting Italian courts. Because remember, that's the whole point of asserting the campaign to begin with. It ended, acc. to them, with Italian courts buckling under to Mafia, Masons, and American media interests.

 

[Stacyhs]

And I noted that the profile image of Krissy Allen shows a typical Scandinavian (Finnish) house...
https://uk.blastingnews.com/editorial-staff/krissy-allen/

It did not go unnoticed by me.

Mysteriously, the link to Krissy A's past work is back up. Eight of the nine articles concern Knox and/or Sollecito. She's rather obsessed with them.

 

[Stacyhs]

Truthcalls, there is no evidence that any staff member admitted to giving Guede a key. That was a lie told by Guede. Remember that the school door was faulty and would open if given a hard push. Del Prato's testimony:

WITNESS – Well, at the time the entrance door was a little defective
and there was no gate and in fact later I had a gate installed for
safety, but at the time the door was a bit defective and it opened if
you kicked it, but this was only known by... us or those who worked in
the school knew.

It's not as if a person trying to break in would normally try to force a door open. Nah. Guede would never have tried that.

 

[TruthCalls]

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.

TWO apartments covered in copious blood??? ALL of the blood, sans some faint shoeprints and some diluted traces in the small bathroom, was contained within Meredith's bedroom. No forensic trace of a clean-up anywhere. And how did copious amounts of blood make it all the way to Raffaele's place?

It is so fascinating to watch your gears grind. You want Amanda to be at that store to buy bleach, but there's a problem - (well, there's many, like she didn't buy anything, no one else saw her, etc., but I digress) - there was 1.5 bottles of bleach under the sink already. So what do you do? Why, you alter reality. Now it's not just a bloody hallway, maybe a bathroom. No, that could be cleaned with less than half a bottle, let alone 1.5 bottles. Now it has become two full apartments covered in copious amounts of blood. In order for Amanda and Raffaele to be so thoroughly soaked in blood that they could carry copious amounts of it back to his apartment for spreading around you'd think they'd have left just a wee bit of a trace of themselves where all the blood was, but nope... go figure!

You want to spot the poor logic, Vixen, just look in the mirror.

 

[TruthCalls]

Truthcalls, there is no evidence that any staff member admitted to giving Guede a key. That was a lie told by Guede. Remember that the school door was faulty and would open if given a hard push. Del Prato's testimony:



It's not as if a person trying to break in would normally try to force a door open. Nah. Guede would never have tried that.

Yeah, that is how I remember it as well, but I figured I'd give Vixen the benefit of the doubt and give her the chance to offer proof of the claim.

And notice how she's actually managed to kill two birds with one fictitious story. Not only was Guede a guest of the school and not a burglar, but that's why he wasn't charged. Maybe Vixen can scare up a police report, or even just a statement from the police, proving this claim.

 

[TruthCalls]

It did not go unnoticed by me.

Mysteriously, the link to Krissy A's past work is back up. Eight of the nine articles concern Knox and/or Sollecito. She's rather obsessed with them.

That might explain why she only has 8 followers!

 

[Bill Williams]

That might explain why she only has 8 followers!

They're all named Krissy. A through H.

 

[Stacyhs]

Yeah, that is how I remember it as well, but I figured I'd give Vixen the benefit of the doubt and give her the chance to offer proof of the claim.

And notice how she's actually managed to kill two birds with one fictitious story. Not only was Guede a guest of the school and not a burglar, but that's why he wasn't charged. Maybe Vixen can scare up a police report, or even just a statement from the police, proving this claim.

Vixen believes every self-serving thing Guede says that she thinks supports her bias and ignores everything that doesn't. I wonder if Guede was also given permission to help himself to Del Prato's computer and the kitchen knife he 'borrowed' from the kitchen and stuffed in his backpack? I suspect she also believes he bought those stolen cell phones and laptop from some guy at the train station, too. And that woman's gold watch? He probably found that somewhere and it didn't belong to his next door neighbor. I'm sure that glass breaking tool in his backpack was for an emergency situation for getting out of his car. The car he didn't own.

 

[RoseMontague]

I think you'll find the quote is Peter Quennell. Sadly....

Seriously? Quoting Peter Q as proof of a two million dollar PR campaign? You must be desperate.