The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 31

[Stacyhs]

This was all dealt with at the criminal trial.

Failure to address any point. Failure to quote/cite any evidence supporting your claims.

Do find out how trials work.

Superfluous attempt to evade failures provided above.

The evidence of the prosecution was preferred over that of the defence.

False claim as evidenced by the definitive acquittal of Knox and Sollecito by the SC.

 

[Stacyhs]

If you didn't know that Hellman was inexperienced in murder cases

Failure to provide evidence of claim noted.

then it is no surprise you are ignorant as to the background of the case.

Superfluous, false claim in attempt to distract from failure to provide evidence.

As for the bra clasp, this was dealt with at trial and the appeal and the evidence was damning for Sollecito.

Failure to address how DNA of 3 other males got on bra hook. False claim as evidenced by the definitive acquittal of Knox and Sollecito by the SC.

 

[Stacyhs]

Sorry, I cannot tolerate people who use bigoted language.

Failed virtue signaling in attempt to distract from evidence provided that Simpson's lawyers did, indeed, play the race card.

It reveals a deeply prejudiced mindset which will never be swayed by reasoned debate.

Superfluous, false, derogatory claim in attempt to distract from failure to provide contradictory evidence.

So I'll say "goodbye" to you.

Evasion, virtue signaling.

 

[Stacyhs]

The Italian and British public were much better informed of the case than the US public, who were innundated with Knox-sponsored spin and false stories of 'twelve-man tag teams'.

"Much better informed" included a false headline with completely made up conversations/quotes/reactions from those present courtesy of Nick Pisa and the Daily Mail.

Daily Mail Apologizes for Amanda Knox Story with Wrong Verdict


"Much better informed" included false reports of: a running washing machine, AK and RS being "caught" with a bucket and mop when the police arrived, AK and RS 'canoodling' on Nov. 2, a Harry Potter book in German 'proving AK lied to police', AK 'smelling of sex', a bleach purchase receipt found, AK showered in a blood covered bathroom, AK visiting a 'lingerie store' and buying a 'g-string', AK admitted "I was there" (at the cottage) to her mother in during a prison visit, 'Foxy Knoxy' was AK's description of herself, Knox held a "wild party" in Seattle with scenes "straight out of Baghdad" (The Wild, Raunchy Past of Foxy Knoxy), Lumumba's paid for DM interview (I Fired Fired Foxy Knoxy) in which he told many lies about Knox which he contradicted under sworn oath in his testimony, Knox bringing home strange men for sex, Amanda had a 'wound' on her neck, reports that Meredith was horrified at Knox's 'sex toy', CCTV footage shows Knox at the cottage, and more.

As Deborah Orr wrote:

“There are many deeply troubling facets to this case. But an important one, surely, is the degree to which it exposes so many humans as only too happy to believe lurid and destructive slurs served up by a tabloid media culture that they all know – or should know – exists to make money from peddling damaging sensation, the more outrageous the better.”
(The Guardian, 2011)

Truer words were never written.

 

[Numbers]

"Much better informed" included a false headline with completely made up conversations/quotes/reactions from those present courtesy of Nick Pisa and the Daily Mail.

Daily Mail Apologizes for Amanda Knox Story with Wrong Verdict


"Much better informed" included false reports of: a running washing machine, AK and RS being "caught" with a bucket and mop when the police arrived, AK and RS 'canoodling' on Nov. 2, a Harry Potter book in German 'proving AK lied to police', AK 'smelling of sex', a bleach purchase receipt found, AK showered in a blood covered bathroom, AK visiting a 'lingerie store' and buying a 'g-string', AK admitted "I was there" (at the cottage) to her mother in during a prison visit, 'Foxy Knoxy' was AK's description of herself, Knox held a "wild party" in Seattle with scenes "straight out of Baghdad" (The Wild, Raunchy Past of Foxy Knoxy), Lumumba's paid for DM interview (I Fired Fired Foxy Knoxy) in which he told many lies about Knox which he contradicted under sworn oath in his testimony, Knox bringing home strange men for sex, Amanda had a 'wound' on her neck, reports that Meredith was horrified at Knox's 'sex toy', CCTV footage shows Knox at the cottage, and more.

As Deborah Orr wrote:

“There are many deeply troubling facets to this case. But an important one, surely, is the degree to which it exposes so many humans as only too happy to believe lurid and destructive slurs served up by a tabloid media culture that they all know – or should know – exists to make money from peddling damaging sensation, the more outrageous the better.”
(The Guardian, 2011)

Truer words were never written.

This is an example of the DM's "superb" "journalism":

Further, the Mail defended the article’s inclusion of quotations from the prosecutors on the wrong verdict. While StinkyJournalism was unable to ever find those quotes reported by another outlet, the Mail stated “The quotes were obtained from various parties in the event of either a guilty or not guilty verdict.”

In other words, the Mail wants people to believe the preposterous, science-fiction-like notion that they were able to obtain quotes from reliable sources about an event that did NOT take place.

From the source Stacyhs cites:

https://www.imediaethics.org/daily-mail-apologizes-for-amanda-knox-story-with-wrong-verdict/

 

[Stacyhs]

This Guardian article discusses the role of tabloid journalism in the Kercher case, but more importantly, it accurately describes why those who cling to the belief that AK and RS are guilty cannot admit they were wrong.

The internet teems with those who are reluctant to part with their beloved tale of an unspeakably depraved creature disguised as a pretty US student. They are determined to cling to the idea that there is something twisted and cruel about her. No wonder. The demolition of this idea suggests there is something twisted and cruel about them, or at least that they have been markedly credulous and prurient. They therefore point to the crime for which Knox's conviction still stands – her naming of Diya "Patrick" Lumumba, the man who owned the bar where she worked, as a suspect during her initial police interrogation.

Now, naming an innocent party in an attempt to get yourself out of trouble is certainly a dreadful act, one for which got Knox three years in jail. However, if I had discovered the body of my murdered flatmate, then been badgered for hours by hostile police insisting they could prove I had been there, and wanting to know who was this Lumumba whom I'd texted "See you later" – well, I'm not certain I would have resisted the temptation to confirm what they wished to hear, then retract it hours later. Yet the world is full of people, it seems, who are convinced of their own ability to be scrupulously honest under all circumstances, and who condemn others for not being so.

Also, it seems preferable to place all the blame for Lumumba's wrongful arrest on Knox, once again, rather than on the people who actually made the wrongful arrest so quickly and so carelessly.

Weirdly, I have never come across anyone suggesting that Guede is a bit of a reprobate even for fleeing the scene of a murder he didn't commit, as he claims, let alone pointing the finger at two innocent people who served eight years in prison between them, partly on the strength of his evidence. I have, however, come across suggestions that it is pretty typical that the poor, black man is in prison for murder, while the rich, white people are walking free.* Yet, Guede was known to have broken, entered and robbed, very probably armed with a knife, on three recent occasions previously, and was the only person tied by hard evidence to the scene.

So it would appear to me that skin colour is among the less relevant of circumstantial defences. In fact, it would seem to me that any prejudice in this case has been directed against privileged white flesh. It is wrong to think ill of people simply because they are black and poor, of course. But deciding to turn the tables and think ill of people simply because they are rich and white is hardly a sound, sensible, or helpful remedy. That self-consciously topsy-turvy mindset, exploited by the media, has played a large part in this terrible saga.

*This is from the article Orr referenced above:

In light of Knox and Sollecito’s release, Guede now says he’s also going to ask for a retrial. The difference for Guede, however, is that he’s far less of a sympathetic case than Knox. A smalltime drug dealer and Black African immigrant, Guede's case is not the same kind of front-page tabloid fodder as Knox, a pretty, young white American woman. To many people, Guede looks like a killer, while Knox does not. That’s not to say that the Italian courts are necessarily racist, of course. But the facts are the facts: The white woman and man are free. The Black man remains in prison.

What the article does not say, is that the "with accomplices" judicial fact was established before the appeal trial in which the two pieces of evidence supposedly showing the presence of anyone else in that room (the bra hook and MK's DNA on the (debunked) murder weapon) had been discredited by independent forensic experts. As the last SC said, there is no evidence of Knox or Sollecito in that room...or in fact...of anyone else.

Nor does the article author mention the overwhelming forensic evidence against Guede and proof of his lies regarding his story of that night which is why he was convicted...the evidence and not the irrelevant fact that he is black. If Guede had been white, he'd still have been convicted on the basis of the evidence against him.

This is what I've meant about playing the race card. They imply strongly that his race is what convicted him (not the evidence) while RS and AK are free because they're white.

Naming something for what it is, is not being bigoted or racist. It's being factual.

 

[Stacyhs]

The DNA[

What DNA? Of the three men on the bra hook besides RS? Or the debunked DNA of Kercher on the knife?

the footprints highlighted by luminol

But TMB negative for blood, which you continue to handwave away because it doesn't support your opinion.

the lack of an alibi

Lack of an alibi does not prove it false.

the numerous lies

What lies are those specifically? Statements taken during an illegal interrogation without a lawyer are not permissible as evidence as found by an Italian SC.

the attempt to subvert police investigation to Lumumba

Subvert? LOL.

Wasn't she trying to set up Guede? Isn't that why she left all his bloody shoe prints, his feces, etc. when she and Raffaele cleaned up all their forensic evidence?
She thought 37 yr. old, 1.70-1.75m (5'5"-5'6") Lumumba could climb that wall and enter through Filomena's window?

the fact of the 'burglary' scene happening after the victim's death (paper strewn on top of her body and shards of glass from Philomena's room)

LOL! You mean the single shard of glass that could easily have been brought into MK's bedroom AFTER climbing through a broken glass window and stepping on the broken shards of glass that littered the floor?

Exactly how do two pieces of paper lying on top the quilt covering MK's body proved the break-in in FR's room was staged?

together with the Sollecito-compatible bloodied footprint on the bathmat, firmly puts them at the scene of the crime.

It's (not so) amazing that you consistently fail to mention that Prof. Vinci ruled Sollecito out as making that footprint. Logic and rational thinking would tell you that, if it had belonged to Sollecito, they would have removed that rug or at the very least, washed it. They certainly would not have purposefully pointed it out to the police. But then again, you once handwaved this away by claiming it was their narcissistic need to "put one over" on the police by showing how smart they were. Supposedly, these two crackerjack experts knew that footprint could never be identified as RS's. I guess desperation calls for desperate excuses.

What was the first big red flag for me about this case? Mez' door locked. A random burglar would not have had a key to lock it. Burglars just want to get away as fast as possible.

REALLY? You couldn't figure out where he'd have gotten the victim's keys?

Burglars just want to get away as fast as possible.

True. And murderers want to delay discovery of the victim as long as possible.

The only things stolen were possessions of the victim, so clearly a highly personalised crime.

Nope. Clearly he'd want to grab her wallet and keys out of her purse (where his DNA is found), and her two phones ASAP and then get out of the house... using the key needed to open the front door. So tell me, Vix...if he didn't have her keys, how did he get out the front door? The one he said was locked because Kercher had to let Knox in and that wouldn't stay shut if not locked? And why would Knox have to knock in the first place as she had her own key?

A real burglar would have taken the three laptops and the jewellery.

True...but a burglar who became a murderer when he was interrupted by someone coming home unexpectedly wouldn't waste time getting the hell out of Dodge... or Perugia...by taking time to look for jewelry or collect laptops. He'd have far more on his mind than taking things he could later fence...things connected to his murder victim. Which is why he threw the two phones into the Lana's yard on his way back to his apartment.

 

[Bill Williams]

This Guardian article discusses the role of tabloid journalism in the Kercher case, but more importantly, it accurately describes why those who cling to the belief that AK and RS are guilty cannot admit they were wrong.

Wow, I've never seen Deborah Orr's Guardian piece, published 2 days after the 2011 provisional exonerations. Thanks for the link. It is heartening to read pieces where the author 'gets' what is going on and obvious.

One line stood out, an observation that I once repeated and repeated. Deborah Orr wrote it 11 years ago!!!

I'm not certain I would have resisted the temptation to confirm what they wished to hear, then retract it hours later. Yet the world is full of people, it seems, who are convinced of their own ability to be scrupulously honest under all circumstances, and who condemn others for not being so.

Also, it seems preferable to place all the blame for Lumumba's wrongful arrest on Knox, once again, rather than on the people who actually made the wrongful arrest so quickly and so carelessly.​

The highlighted observation puts Orr lightyears ahead of author John Follain. In his book 'A Death in Italy', Follain relates two tidbits about Giuliano Mignini, that Follain failed to piece together.

On one page, Follain relates that Mignini thought of Knox as a liar, who was trying to lie her way out of culpability. Two pages later, Follain relates Mignini's helpless action, that he had to go out and arrest Lumumba, 'because Amanda accused him'. To be fair, John Follain, alone out of all who wrote about this, relates that even with all that, Marco Chiacchiera counseled Napoleoni and Mignini to release Knox and Sollecito, and have them monitored out on the street. As you know, Napoleoni and Mignini ignored that advice. (If nothing else, John Follain documented that the decision to detain the pair was not unanimous.)

At worst, Amanda Knox was a young woman, only three months out of her own teen years, blindly flailing about under all night interrogation and accusation, trying to do her best to assuage the powers of a nation-state lined up against her.

Yet, all of Knox's critics simply elide over the actions of the police in relation to Lumumba. The wrongful arrest was their responsibility - so much so that one of the most pro-Mignini authors out there simply ignored Mignini's role, first regarding someone as a liar, then taking action on the basis of something he had heard from her.

Orr divined all that in Oct 2011, 2 days after the first provisional exoneration. Others ignore the police as actors all together, and blame a teenager +3 months for cracking under interrogation. But that's where Knox's faux-accountability stops. It was the police's action to carry through with an arrest.

 

[Welshman]

The DNA, the footprints highlighted by luminol, the lack of an alibi, the numerous lies, the attempt to subvert police investigation to Lumumba, the fact of the 'burglary' scene happening after the victim's death (paper strewn on top of her body and shards of glass from Philomena's room), together with the Sollecito-compatible bloodied footprint on the bathmat, firmly puts them at the scene of the crime.

What was the first big red flag for me about this case? Mez' door locked. A random burglar would not have had a key to lock it. Burglars just want to get away as fast as possible. The only things stolen were possessions of the victim, so clearly a highly personalised crime. A real burglar would have taken the three laptops and the jewellery.

Below is a reminder of the hypocrisy Vixen and other PGP show when they attack Amanda and Raffaele for lying.

Before Vixen attacks Amanda and Raffaele for lying again, Vixen should bear in mind that unlike Vixen and other PGP, Amanda and Raffaele have not done the following

*Lied on an industrial scale and then have the hypocrisy to attack others for telling numerous lies.

*Attacked people for lying and then told numerous lies about them.

*Attacked people for lying whilst regarding lying as acceptable when it works against them and only regard lying as wrong when it works in their favour.

*Attacked people for lying who on numerous occasions have had lies told about them.

*Projected their lies onto other people.

*Falsely accused people of lying.

In addition Amanda and Raffaele have not called people morons whilst being so staggeringly stupid as to do the following

*Attack people for lying whilst no realising they are lying themselves.

*Don't understand it is hypocritical to attack people for lying whilst lying yourself, spreading lies about people and regarding lying as acceptable when it works against them.

*It is not acceptable to attack people for lying when they haven't lied.

*Don't understand the concept of projection when people who lie attack others for lying.

"Vixen lies on an industrial scale in her posts as can be seen from the links below and has the hypocrisy to attack Amanda for lying. Vixen doesn’t see this as immoral.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11938562

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11942852

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11598412

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1#post11427461

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post11951893

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post11982023

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6#post12107306

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post12200863

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post12297573

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5#post12297575

* Vixen viciously attacks Amanda for lying when lies have been told about Amanda on numerous occasions as can be seen from the list at the bottom. Vixen doesn’t see this as immoral. This is like calling a victim of theft a thief.


* Vixen viciously attacks Amanda for lying whilst feeling it is perfectly acceptable to lie if it works against Amanda and only objects to lying if it works in Amanda’s favour but doesn't have the courage to admit this. For instance, when witnesses such as Quintavelle and Curalto lied they had seen Amanda and Raffaele, Vixen feels their lies were acceptable as they worked against Amanda. Vixen doesn’t see this as immoral.

* As can be seen from the link below, Vixen falsely accuses Amanda of lying. Vixen doesn’t see this as immoral.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...9#post12724199

* Vixen viciously attacks Amanda for lying when as can be seen from the list of lies told by Vixen, there are numerous instances where Vixen has told lies about Amanda. Vixen doesn’t see this as immoral.

* Vixen doesn't it as immoral to project her lies on to Amanda.

* The facts that Vixen has to resort to lying to support the argument Amanda has told numerous lies and Amanda would not need to lie because the facts overwhelmingly support the case for innocence and go against the case for guilt, indicates Amanda has not lied. Vixen doesn’t see it as immoral to lie on an industrial scale and attack Amanda for lying when she has not lied.

Instances when lies have been used against Amanda

• The media spread false lies about Amanda :- http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-media-lies/ • Books, films and documentaries filled with falsehoods have told lies about Amanda John Kercher's book Meredith. The falsehoods are detailed on http://groundreport.com/amanda-knox-...l-convictions/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-media-lies/
http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.or...1e0c2cd6559958 The lifetime move the falsehoods are detailed in chapter 2 of finding justice in Perugia. Barbara Nadeu's book Angel Face. As with John Kercher's book the falsehoods are detailed on http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-media-lies/ and the chapter Injustice in Perugia on the media. A documentary on British Television is Amanda Knox guilty the rebuttal can be found by searching "is Amanda Knox guilty youtube rebuttal"

• There are several instances of witnesses who gave false testimony against Amanda and Raffaele. Hekuran Kokomani claimed he saw Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy together on the night of the murder. Kokomani was proved to have lied because he said Amanda had gaps in her teeth and an Italian uncle. Fabio Gioffredi said he saw Amanda, Raffaele, Meredith and Rudy on the October 30th 2007 between 4.30 and 5.30 pm. Raffaele's computer shows itense activity from 5.30 pm to 6.30 pm which proved Fabio had lied. The haters have never criticsed these witnesses for lying. The shop owner Quintavelle initially said he did not see Amanda in his shop the morning after the murder and then changed his story a year later to say he had seen Amanda in his shop. The fact the shop owner changed his story proved he has lied at least once. The haters have defended the shop owner. Curalto initially said he did not see Amanda and Raffaele but changed his story later to say he had seen Amanda and Raffaele. Like Quintavelle, Curalto lied at least once. As the link below shows the English friends of Meredith were caught giving false testimony against Amanda in court http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/the-british-girls/

• Amanda’s acquittal under Hellman was annulled on the basis of a motivation report full of lies. In addition Amanda was convicted by Nencini on the basis of a motivation report full of lies. The falsehoods can be found by searching "Injustice anywhere forum Nenci stupid errors" and "Injustice Anywhere forum Chieffi report errors".

• As per the links below, the prosecution used lies against Amanda on numerous occasions. In addition to the lies listed below, Amanda was lied to she had HIV by the prosecution. Prosecutor Comodi lied to Amanda in court by asking Amanda why she called her mother at twelve when phone records show Amanda called her mother at 12.47.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/ http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contam...bwork-coverup/ http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredi...ry-corruption/ http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/evidence-destroyed/ http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/blood-...irs-apartment/ https://knoxsollecito.wordpress.com/...ele-sollecito/ http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html"

 

[MarkCorrigan]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11938562
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11942852
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11598412
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1#post11427461
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post11951893
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post11982023
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6#post12107306
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post12200863
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post12297573
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5#post12297575

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...9#post12724199
http://groundreport.com/amanda-knox-...l-convictions/ http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.or...1e0c2cd6559958 The http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contam...bwork-coverup/ http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredi...ry-corruption/ http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/blood-...irs-apartment/ https://knoxsollecito.wordpress.com/...ele-sollecito/

None of these links work as they're all incomplete, using elipses where there should be part of the link.

 

[Vixen]

According to Italian paper Il Giornale, Guede is sticking to his story:

A different version of the Perugia crime
“ I had a sexual approach with Meredith, I went to the bathroom, I tried to stop the blood coming out of her neck ... And all this to say that I am not the killer, but I am only guilty of conspiracy to murder. With whom? In the sentences against me it is written with Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. But they were acquitted. So who did I compete with? ". It is one of the questions that Rudy Guede asks himself in his writing, with a language so naive that it turns out to be real, tangible.

Rudy repeats his version: he was with Meredith, they had petting, then they stopped because of the absence of a condom . The young man of Ivorian origin then went to the bathroom, out of habit with the iPod in his ears, until he heard the young British girl scream. And he ran to her, trying to stop her blood as best he could. He then saw a man with a scalpel, saw Amanda Knox and a male figure in the driveway saying: " Let's go away, there's a ****** ." And in the end he ran away too.

Google translate

 

[Bill Williams]

According to Italian paper Il Giornale, Guede is sticking to his story:

Google translate

Rudy's story was that he'd been in the cottage, invited by the victim, and they had consensual sex. That Knox came later, knocking on the front door waiting to be let in, interrupting the pair.

Do you believe that?

 

[bagels]

Rudy's story was that he'd been in the cottage, invited by the victim, and they had consensual sex. That Knox came later, knocking on the front door waiting to be let in, interrupting the pair.

Do you believe that?

I for one don't believe him. He doesn't even claim a giant kitchen knife was used, or that Amanda held it. He obviously isn't aware of all the court documents and judicial facts and, worse, probably hasn't read a single Vixen post.

 

[schmidt61]

The girls having Y alleles is not the only problem with Nencini's statement. None of those Y alleles matched Giacomo Silenzi's DNA. I guess we'll just have to accept that Meredith allowed those 3 other men besides her boyfriend to take off her bra. Now, what exactly were people calling Amanda due to her sex life?

I maybe wrong but I remember reading somewhere that Laura and Filomena and none of boys including Giacomo Silenzi were asked to give DNA samples.

Since the bra clasp was located for the 2nd time Dec 18, 2007. About 46 days later about the same Curatolo showed up claiming to see Amanda and Raffaele hanging out at the basketball court. Putting Raffaele in the frame since he wasn't going to throw Amanda under the bus to save himself.

How damaging to the prosecution case if the 3 DNA samples were from Giacomo and one or two of his roommates. Since they were in close contact. Even though they had alibis.

 

[Stacyhs]

I maybe wrong but I remember reading somewhere that Laura and Filomena and none of boys including Giacomo Silenzi were asked to give DNA samples.

Since the bra clasp was located for the 2nd time Dec 18, 2007. About 46 days later about the same Curatolo showed up claiming to see Amanda and Raffaele hanging out at the basketball court. Putting Raffaele in the frame since he wasn't going to throw Amanda under the bus to save himself.

How damaging to the prosecution case if the 3 DNA samples were from Giacomo and one or two of his roommates. Since they were in close contact. Even though they had alibis.

I've been through the files at TMofMK and can find no orders or anything else pertaining to DNA or fingerprint samples taken from Silenzi. Which, considering his relationship with Meredith, competent investigators would have ordered if only to be able to rule out 'unidentified' DNA. They never took footprint samples of Laura, Filomena, or Meredith either so they were never compared to the footprints allegedly belonging to Knox even though they contained no DNA.

The Dec 16 search was a direct result of the embarrassing finding that the bloody shoeprints that the police said belonged to Sollecito didn't, in fact, match his shoes. A fact left to his father and uncle to discover.

 

[Vixen]

Rudy's story was that he'd been in the cottage, invited by the victim, and they had consensual sex. That Knox came later, knocking on the front door waiting to be let in, interrupting the pair.

Do you believe that?

No, I don't believe it. Criminals claiming 'not guilty' have to concoct lies for their defence. Guede is hardly likely to come out and admit his guilt, any more than Knox or Sollecito will. Why don't I believe him? Because if he really was a friend of Kercher he should be able to prove it. Mez had just come home after an evening with her English compatriots. How likely is she going to pick up some guy on the way home, even if she knows him from the local pub? In addition, if it was true he and Mez were making out when Knox arrived home and picked a fight, he would surely take the side of Kercher and not Knox.

IMV Massei, Micheli and Nencini were on the right track, albeit with some variation in their construction of events, which is to be expected given nobody was actually present to witness what happened. Knox was on her way to work when she got a message from Patrik not to come in as business was quiet. She bumped into Guede in Plaza Grimana and invited him abck to the cottage, or he invited himself. Whatever the sequence, at some poitn, Guede, Knox and Kercher were together in the cottage and probably Sollecito came by, too. A row broke out between Knox and Kercher. The fact Guede took Knox' side and held Mez' hands behind her back (his DNA is on the cuffs of her jumper) whilst Knox and Sollecito tormented her with knives proves he was no friend of Mez'.

Motive, I believe a young adult thrill killling. Sollecito because he was into 'extreme experiences' and knives and Knox because she was upset by Mez excluding her from her circle of friends and possibly accusing her of the theft of her rent money. Sollecito had in his apartment an anime comic whci recreated a Halloween scene of an ancient female vampire, which showed the vampire being slayed, naked, with three pairs of feet standing around her. Knox had spent Halloween alone, tramping the streets looking for friends whilst Mez was out having fun with her group of friends. I believe this triggered Knox who had been subjected to exclusion at school and by her own account subsequently had to hang out with the freaks and 'rejects'. This was a case of history repeating itself, with Sollecito himself a loner, incel-type with personality disorder problems, which were the despair off his father, who packed him off to a boarding school for the orphans of doctors. Sollecito bitterly resented this as he blamed his fahter's affair for the suicide of his mother, hence his retreat into drug experimentation and anti-social attitude (love of Marilyn Manson for example). So the three of them stoned out of the heads on drugs (see Kokomani's testimony) play acted Mez as a vampire to be slain (as she still had blood makeup on her chin earlier that afternoon). English girls can be quite haughty so I am sure this stuck in Knox' craw.

So, as is apparent, Guede, like the woman in the Manson gang, was equally guilty by holding the victims arms behind her back, and indeed had his trousers drenched in her blood.

The fact Knox and Sollecito did come back later to clean up the mess and try to stage a burglary, all fits in with the chronology the prosecution lawyers came up with. I don't believe it was an argument about cleanliness. That wouldn't lead to torture and sadism. So i disagree with Nencini there. However, as motive is not required to prove an aggravated murder, Nencini probably went for the lesser motive. Massei's belief in a sex game 'gone wrong' was likely nearer the mark.


What Americans find impossible to believe is that Knox would be friends with an African. However, it is a fact they knew each other, had exchanged pleasantries in the night club and had shared a joint at the cottage.

 

[Vixen]

I maybe wrong but I remember reading somewhere that Laura and Filomena and none of boys including Giacomo Silenzi were asked to give DNA samples.

Since the bra clasp was located for the 2nd time Dec 18, 2007. About 46 days later about the same Curatolo showed up claiming to see Amanda and Raffaele hanging out at the basketball court. Putting Raffaele in the frame since he wasn't going to throw Amanda under the bus to save himself.

How damaging to the prosecution case if the 3 DNA samples were from Giacomo and one or two of his roommates. Since they were in close contact. Even though they had alibis.

Giacomo was away on a skiing holiday and could prove his alibi. Laura was in Rome and Filomena was actually interrogated just as much as Knox. Her alibi was also sound.

 

[whoanellie]

No, I don't believe it. Criminals claiming 'not guilty' have to concoct lies for their defence. Guede is hardly likely to come out and admit his guilt, any more than Knox or Sollecito will. Why don't I believe him? Because if he really was a friend of Kercher he should be able to prove it. Mez had just come home after an evening with her English compatriots. How likely is she going to pick up some guy on the way home, even if she knows him from the local pub? In addition, if it was true he and Mez were making out when Knox arrived home and picked a fight, he would surely take the side of Kercher and not Knox.

IMV Massei, Micheli and Nencini were on the right track, albeit with some variation in their construction of events, which is to be expected given nobody was actually present to witness what happened. Knox was on her way to work when she got a message from Patrik not to come in as business was quiet. She bumped into Guede in Plaza Grimana and invited him abck to the cottage, or he invited himself. Whatever the sequence, at some poitn, Guede, Knox and Kercher were together in the cottage and probably Sollecito came by, too. A row broke out between Knox and Kercher. The fact Guede took Knox' side and held Mez' hands behind her back (his DNA is on the cuffs of her jumper) whilst Knox and Sollecito tormented her with knives proves he was no friend of Mez'.

Motive, I believe a young adult thrill killling. Sollecito because he was into 'extreme experiences' and knives and Knox because she was upset by Mez excluding her from her circle of friends and possibly accusing her of the theft of her rent money. Sollecito had in his apartment an anime comic whci recreated a Halloween scene of an ancient female vampire, which showed the vampire being slayed, naked, with three pairs of feet standing around her. Knox had spent Halloween alone, tramping the streets looking for friends whilst Mez was out having fun with her group of friends. I believe this triggered Knox who had been subjected to exclusion at school and by her own account subsequently had to hang out with the freaks and 'rejects'. This was a case of history repeating itself, with Sollecito himself a loner, incel-type with personality disorder problems, which were the despair off his father, who packed him off to a boarding school for the orphans of doctors. Sollecito bitterly resented this as he blamed his fahter's affair for the suicide of his mother, hence his retreat into drug experimentation and anti-social attitude (love of Marilyn Manson for example). So the three of them stoned out of the heads on drugs (see Kokomani's testimony) play acted Mez as a vampire to be slain (as she still had blood makeup on her chin earlier that afternoon). English girls can be quite haughty so I am sure this stuck in Knox' craw.

So, as is apparent, Guede, like the woman in the Manson gang, was equally guilty by holding the victims arms behind her back, and indeed had his trousers drenched in her blood.

The fact Knox and Sollecito did come back later to clean up the mess and try to stage a burglary, all fits in with the chronology the prosecution lawyers came up with. I don't believe it was an argument about cleanliness. That wouldn't lead to torture and sadism. So i disagree with Nencini there. However, as motive is not required to prove an aggravated murder, Nencini probably went for the lesser motive. Massei's belief in a sex game 'gone wrong' was likely nearer the mark.


What Americans find impossible to believe is that Knox would be friends with an African. However, it is a fact they knew each other, had exchanged pleasantries in the night club and had shared a joint at the cottage.

Sollecito was an incel-type getting laid by Amanda

 

[whoanellie]

This Guardian article discusses the role of tabloid journalism in the Kercher case, but more importantly, it accurately describes why those who cling to the belief that AK and RS are guilty cannot admit they were wrong.



*This is from the article Orr referenced above:



What the article does not say, is that the "with accomplices" judicial fact was established before the appeal trial in which the two pieces of evidence supposedly showing the presence of anyone else in that room (the bra hook and MK's DNA on the (debunked) murder weapon) had been discredited by independent forensic experts. As the last SC said, there is no evidence of Knox or Sollecito in that room...or in fact...of anyone else.

Nor does the article author mention the overwhelming forensic evidence against Guede and proof of his lies regarding his story of that night which is why he was convicted...the evidence and not the irrelevant fact that he is black. If Guede had been white, he'd still have been convicted on the basis of the evidence against him.

This is what I've meant about playing the race card. They imply strongly that his race is what convicted him (not the evidence) while RS and AK are free because they're white.

Naming something for what it is, is not being bigoted or racist. It's being factual.

From the article you linked to:
"The internet teems with those who are reluctant to part with their beloved tale of an unspeakably depraved creature disguised as a pretty US student. They are determined to cling to the idea that there is something twisted and cruel about her. No wonder. The demolition of this idea suggests there is something twisted and cruel about them, or at least that they have been markedly credulous and prurient."
That perfectly describes the pathology we have and are continuing to witness.

 

[Vixen]

Sollecito was an incel-type getting laid by Amanda

He'd only ever had sex once before.