Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32

[Vixen]

No. You didn't use any qualifiers such as "supposedly" or "reputedly" in your post. Further, you've previously insinuated that Freemasonry has some sort of unhealthy influence in Italy. You were just conspiracy-mongering as usual, but now that you've learned that my family has extensive Masonic connections, you're trying to weasel out by claiming that no one should have taken your statement seriously. Shame on you.

Also, Masonic is a proper adjective and should be capitalized.

It was a throwaway comment said in jest about Altieri's cut throat gesture, which he claimed meant 'Mez had her throat slit'. As it is a common reference it needs no further explanation, at least not in England.


.

 

[Disbelief]

And how would Guede even know the cottage doors were lockable, given it was probably originally designed for one family. If you look at the door, there is flap [?] over the lock which you WOULD need to face as you need to (a) peer downwards in the dimmed light (b) require both hands to insert the key whilst holding the flap to one side and (c) shutting the door firmly, first. Only one person present had the key anyway or knew where it was kept. It is hardly a detail a fleeing criminal is going to consider.

View attachment 60620

View attachment 60621

The idea Guede twisted his body to do this whilst facing towards the exit is laughable and shows your desperation to spin a lie.

Amanda Knox locked Mez' door. She had the key. Which was never found.

You have bizarre ideas. I am in no way desperate to spin a lie, I am just laughing at your understanding on how things work. Someone can very easily lock a door without directly facing it, but you can't imagine that because you need to spin your story. Guede had a good reason for locking the door as well, to give him more time to get away.

 

[Vixen]

You have bizarre ideas. I am in no way desperate to spin a lie, I am just laughing at your understanding on how things work. Someone can very easily lock a door without directly facing it, but you can't imagine that because you need to spin your story. Guede had a good reason for locking the door as well, to give him more time to get away.

... Well, there wouldn't be anyone coming after him.


.

 

[Welshman]

I very much agree with the aims of the ECHR and the principle of a fair trial and the right to dignity. However, I cannot see that it necessarily renders a verdict unsafe. For example, in the case of Lee Rigby's killer who claimed his teeth were damaged by police, even if he never had a lawyer, say, or was tortured as he claims, does that cancel out his heinous crime? With the finality of Knox' verdict of guilty as charged re the Calunnia crime, it is now established she did that with mens rea - criminal intent - and not because a lawyer or interpreter was not there, although Donnino WAS an interpreter (something else Dalla Vedova citing Boninsegna misled them about) but because despite not having lawyer who COULD have shut her up if present, she needed to come up with a story, being in a sticky spot, with Sollecito taking away her alibi, and being caught out as being in Piazza Grimana, having said she was with Sollecito all evening.

The next implication is that she WAS at the murder scene and knew Lumumba was not there for a fact, so she is not the poor innocent waif she likes to present herself as.

From a previous post

"Guilters have a consistent history of showing industrial scale hypocrisy and one clear example is when guilters attack Amanda for falsely accusing Lumumba of committing a crime. A cause of this hypocrisy is the guilter belief is that something is unacceptable if it works in Amanda’s favour but acceptable if it works against Amanda but guilters are too dishonest to admit this and give the false impression they have an issue with something in general. Guilters will attack Amanda for doing something but condone the same thing if it is done against Amanda and Raffaele and works against them. There are several instances of people making false accusations against Amanda as per the list below. The instances below of false accusations are acceptable to guilters because they worked against Amanda and Raffaele. You will see no demands those who made false accusations against Amanda and Raffaele should be prosecuted or pay damages to Amanda and Raffaele. Guilters complain Lumumba could have been convicted on Amanda’s testimony but have no issue with Amanda and Raffaele being convicted on the basis of false testimony by witnesses.

• *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-girl

• *The police/prosecution told numerous lies to falsely suggest Amanda and Raffaele were guilty

https://knoxsollecito.wordpress.com/list-of-prosecution-and-press-lies-told-about-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito/

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html

• *Guede lied that Amanda and Raffaele were present at the cottage when Meredith was murdered.

Guilters will attack people for something but will do the same thing themselves if it works against Amanda and Raffaele. Guilters attack Amanda for falsely accusing Lumumba but will falsely accuse people of crimes themselves if it works against Amanda and Raffaele. Below are two instances where Vixen has falsely accused people of crimes. One post accused Hellman of taking a bribe and the other that C&V lied. Guilters regard these false accusations as acceptable as they work against Amanda and Raffaele eg Hellman only found Amanda and Raffaele not guilty due to a bribe.

https://internationalskeptics.com/f...ffaele-sollecito-part-32.363048/post-1456153

https://internationalskeptics.com/f...ffaele-sollecito-part-32.363048/post-145583

It is repulsive how guilters give the false impression they have a general issue with falsely accusing people of crimes when they attack Amanda for falsely accusing Lumumba when their issue is how falsely accusing people of crimes is used."
Besides the above there are numerous other ways guilters show industrial scale hypocrisy when attacking Amanda for naming Lumumba. Guilters have consistently acted as lickspittles and PR agents for the prosecution which means guilters will never criticise the prosecution and ignore any wrongdoing by the prosecution which leads to hypocrisy. Lumumba initially claimed he was dragged from his home, beaten in the interrogation, called a dirty black and denied access to a lawyer. Lumumba was arrested without any investigation. Amanda was never asked questions such as when did Lumumba raise the issue of wanting to kill Meredith, what time did Lumumba kill Meredith, what was he wearing, what weapon did he use. Guilters are completely silent about the treatment Lumumba received at the hands of the police and claim to be concerned over Amanda falsely accusing Lumumba of a crime but any concern over Lumumba vanishes when it comes to how the police treated him.

Guilters claim the annulment of the conviction of Amanda and Raffaele was illegal but guilters had no issue with Amanda being convicted of Calunia on the basis of an illegal interrogation as Amanda was denied access to a lawyer.

Guilters are completely shameless in their hypocrisy.

 

[Vixen]

<snip>

How do Knox and Sollecito know it was Guede if they were not there?

Um...just like the rest of us: from the police announcing it to the media.

I almost forgot to answer this little gem.

Knox knew it was Guede who had been arrested BEFORE the police announced it to the media. (Police wiretap of Knox speaking to her father.)


Knox seems to have been better informed Guede was a co-killer than the police!


.

.

 

[TruthCalls]

When I am in the UK, I have a whole load of keys: two or three keys for the London address, together with my home keys and the summer cottage keys. I can't imagine a burglar would stop to work out which was which, given criminals tend to leave the crime scene ASAP.

The door was locked because the plan was someone else other than her should find the body. If she found it, she might be suspected, runs the reasoning.



.

Well Vixen, not everyone has three separate addresses, nor does everyone carry three keys for each one. She likely had her parent's house key and perhaps it shared a ring with her car key, which is easily identified as such.

Well if she was concerned with that she could have taken off for Gubbio as planned and let Laura or Filomena find her.

 

[TruthCalls]

I almost forgot to answer this little gem.

Knox knew it was Guede who had been arrested BEFORE the police announced it to the media. (Police wiretap of Knox speaking to her father.)


Knox seems to have been better informed Guede was a co-killer than the police!


.

.

Could you please advise which wiretap it was when Amanda told her father about Guede? IIRC, there was no incriminating information collected from the thousands of taps put in place. Surely if Amanda knew about Guede before the police did, that would have been something that came up in trial, no?

 

[Bill Williams]

Sigh, my bad for not lurking....

Vixen wrote:

No, Bill Williams, the reason their sentence was annulled was because of backchanneling outwith the legal chambers.

Wow. I love the way you surf between two poles, the first one being simply repeating 'judicial facts', but when those judicial facts are not in your favour, you resort to evidenceless, and unprovable conspiracy theories.

Ok. First of all, get it right. It was not their 'sentence' which had been annuled in 2015, it was the 2014 Nencini, lower court conviction which had been annuled. It was annuled, because as the Supreme Court had written - a judicial fact, I guess - the original investigation had been so amnesic and so improper that no court could safely convict on what had been brought before it. It also wrote, - another judicial fact, I guess - that none of the iffy evidence in front of the 2013-'14 Nencini Court could make up for the definitive fact, that there'd been no evidence of either AK or RS in the murder room itself.

In short, 'all the other evidence' itself could have been true, repeat - could have been true - yet none of it made up for the central fact of the case - that there was no evidence of either AK or RS in the murder room.

One doesn't need 'backchanneling outwith the legal chambers'. Neither you nor anyone else has showed anything remotely suggesting some sort of interference. Not to mention, I have no idea what you meant by 'outwith'. If it is a conspiracy term, I'm unfamiliar with it.

Back to lurking.

 

[Vixen]

Well Vixen, not everyone has three separate addresses, nor does everyone carry three keys for each one. She likely had her parent's house key and perhaps it shared a ring with her car key, which is easily identified as such.

Well if she was concerned with that she could have taken off for Gubbio as planned and let Laura or Filomena find her.

Well, she was set to go to Gubbio, just waiting for Filomena to arrive, but then a surprise appearance by the postal police, completely unexpected.

.

 

[Vixen]

Could you please advise which wiretap it was when Amanda told her father about Guede? IIRC, there was no incriminating information collected from the thousands of taps put in place. Surely if Amanda knew about Guede before the police did, that would have been something that came up in trial, no?

On 20 Nov 2007, three hours before Curt Knox arrived at the visiting room, Guede had been apprehended. Knox started talking about a 'fourth man', whom she said she didn't know but knew who he was, had seen him around, didn't know his name or anything, had never invited him to the house. Ghirga - her lawyer - had been asking her about this 'fourth chap', whose palm print had been found. So then she asked Curt whether the fourth chap found was 'Rudy' and Curt replied they haven't said yet. Knox then claimed she had heard his name from the TV.

It doesn't prove anything but the chronology est très intéressant, n'est-ce pas?



.

 

[Vixen]

Sigh, my bad for not lurking....



Wow. I love the way you surf between two poles, the first one being simply repeating 'judicial facts', but when those judicial facts are not in your favour, you resort to evidenceless, and unprovable conspiracy theories.

Ok. First of all, get it right. It was not their 'sentence' which had been annuled in 2015, it was the 2014 Nencini, lower court conviction which had been annuled. It was annuled, because as the Supreme Court had written - a judicial fact, I guess - the original investigation had been so amnesic and so improper that no court could safely convict on what had been brought before it. It also wrote, - another judicial fact, I guess - that none of the iffy evidence in front of the 2013-'14 Nencini Court could make up for the definitive fact, that there'd been no evidence of either AK or RS in the murder room itself.

In short, 'all the other evidence' itself could have been true, repeat - could have been true - yet none of it made up for the central fact of the case - that there was no evidence of either AK or RS in the murder room.

One doesn't need 'backchanneling outwith the legal chambers'. Neither you nor anyone else has showed anything remotely suggesting some sort of interference. Not to mention, I have no idea what you meant by 'outwith'. If it is a conspiracy term, I'm unfamiliar with it.

Back to lurking.

We know that is nonsense as Nencini and Massei ran their ships as tight as a fish's arse.

Enjoy your lurking!


.

 

[Stacyhs]

You do enjoy being offensive.


.

I find that highly offensive.

 

[Numbers]

Sigh, my bad for not lurking....



Wow. I love the way you surf between two poles, the first one being simply repeating 'judicial facts', but when those judicial facts are not in your favour, you resort to evidenceless, and unprovable conspiracy theories.

Ok. First of all, get it right. It was not their 'sentence' which had been annuled in 2015, it was the 2014 Nencini, lower court conviction which had been annuled. It was annuled, because as the Supreme Court had written - a judicial fact, I guess - the original investigation had been so amnesic and so improper that no court could safely convict on what had been brought before it. It also wrote, - another judicial fact, I guess - that none of the iffy evidence in front of the 2013-'14 Nencini Court could make up for the definitive fact, that there'd been no evidence of either AK or RS in the murder room itself.

In short, 'all the other evidence' itself could have been true, repeat - could have been true - yet none of it made up for the central fact of the case - that there was no evidence of either AK or RS in the murder room.

One doesn't need 'backchanneling outwith the legal chambers'. Neither you nor anyone else has showed anything remotely suggesting some sort of interference. Not to mention, I have no idea what you meant by 'outwith'. If it is a conspiracy term, I'm unfamiliar with it.

Back to lurking.

Hi Bill Williams, welcome back!

I agree with your concise post pointing out that crediting the convicting courts as reliable while attacking the acquitting courts or ECHR as "bent" or corrupt or even merely mistaken without any evidence to support those claims is nonsensical and absurd. Numerous legal errors - violations of procedural law including errors of logic and the evaluation of evidence, coupled with the practice of inventing false narratives that in some instances contradicted known scientific findings or required practical impossibilities and were not supported by any evidence - made the trials and judgments of the courts that convicted Knox and Sollecito unfair.

BTW, the word "outwith" is, according to the following websites, a Scottish English word meaning "outside" or "beyond":

The origin of popular Scottish word 'outwith' that is not used anywhere else

Here in Scotland, the word 'outwith' is used so commonly that you may be shocked to learn that the majority of non-Scots have never used it—or even heard of it.

www.dailyrecord.co.uk

outwith

1. outside: 2. outside:

dictionary.cambridge.org

 

[Numbers]

What is the infringement procedure of the European Court of Human Rights? How does it work? - Excerpts from a Q & A Document of the ECHR.
Emphasis by bolding and intalics is mine.

What is an infringement procedure?

Member States of the Council of Europe commit to implement judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. Ordinarily supervision of that process is overseen by the Committee of Ministers (the executive body of the Council of Europe). With the infringement procedure the Committee of Ministers can, where it takes the view that a State has refused to implement the judgment or to resolve the problem that led to the human-rights breach, go back to the Court for a definitive ruling on the matter.

How does it work?

After the Court receives the referral from the Committee of Ministers, it then asks for submissions from the State concerned and other relevant parties. The Grand Chamber, which is the highest body of the Court, sets out the obligations flowing from the original judgment and then examines the State’s compliance before reaching a decision.

This is the only procedure by which the Court can comment or decide on compliance with a judgment.

For what types of infringement can it be used?

Enforcement of the Court’s judgments depends on the good faith on the part of the member States – after all, individuals’ rights should not be illusory. This procedure can be used when the Committee of Ministers feels that good faith to resolve breaches of the rights in the Convention is lacking.

Ultimately, such absence of good faith can lead to an individual being denied justice.

What is the possible result if an infringement is found?

If the Court agrees with the Committee of Ministers that a State has refused to abide by a judgment of the Court, it can find that the State is in breach of its obligations under Article 46, leading to a new violation of the Convention being found. There is no appeal against this decision.

Source: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/Press_Q_A_Infringement_Procedure_ENG

 

[Stacyhs]

I almost forgot to answer this little gem.

Knox knew it was Guede who had been arrested BEFORE the police announced it to the media. (Police wiretap of Knox speaking to her father.)


Knox seems to have been better informed Guede was a co-killer than the police!

Oh, dear. Wrong yet again:

Nov. 18, 2007:
"I was stunned one morning when I looked up at the TV and noticed a breaking news report. There was
now a fourth suspect, and an international manhunt for him had been launched. The police didn’t say who the suspect was or how this person fit into the murder scenario they’d imagined, only that they’d found a bloody handprint on Meredith’s pillowcase that wasn’t mine, Patrick’s, or Raffaele’s." (WTBH, pg. 282)

Guede was arrested Nov. 18, the same day. So what was the news reporting on Nov. 18, 2007?

"ROME, Nov. 18 (UPI) -- Italian police say forensic evidence points to a fourth suspect in the death of a British exchange student killed in her home in Perugia."

Knox's first mention of Guede by name to her father was two days later, on Nov. 20, 2007:

"Amanda: Um…he asked me how well I knew…this other guy
Curt: Yeah
Amanda: Rudy, this guy called Rudy.

Curt: They haven't said the name yet.
Amanda: Oh, they said it on TV.

The media was reporting Guede by name on Nov. 20,2007:

Arrestato in Germania il "quarto uomo", Rudy Hermann Guede

Arrestato in Germania il "quarto uomo", Rudy Hermann Guede, ricercato per l'omicidio di Meredith Kercher: è stato sottoposto a fermo provvisorio in attesa di estradizione.

Guede's name was in the English media by Nov. 20 as reported in The Guardian.

So, either pony up and quote and cite the prison interception where "Knox knew it was Guede who had been arrested BEFORE the police announced it to the media," or admit you are wrong.

 

[Vixen]

Oh, dear. Wrong yet again:



Guede was arrested Nov. 18, the same day. So what was the news reporting on Nov. 18, 2007?



Knox's first mention of Guede by name to her father was two days later, on Nov. 20, 2007:



The media was reporting Guede by name on Nov. 20,2007:



Guede's name was in the English media by Nov. 20 as reported in The Guardian.

So, either pony up and quote and cite the prison interception where "Knox knew it was Guede who had been arrested BEFORE the police announced it to the media," or admit you are wrong.

Not until 18:30 CET.




.

 

[Vixen]

.Guede was arrested 6:00am in Rhine, Germany. Curt Knox visited his daughter, 'three hours after the arrest', so that would have been 9:00a.m. It wasn't on the news until lunch time, which tallies with the Italian paper, above, 11:45. So Knox saw it on the news at lunchtime earliest but she had mentioned the name 'Rudy' to her dad earlier.

 

[SpitfireIX]

I suggest you read up on it. It is not exactly an unknown topic.

This is a good example of how your failure to in-line your responses makes it difficult to understand your posts. I have no idea to which of my points this is supposed to refer.

The interference by mafia is my conjecture based on my evaluation of events.

A conspiracy theory with no credible evidence to support it (and virtually no non-credible evidence, for that matter).

I am not asking anyone to accept it.

And yet, whenever people call attention to the lack of evidence for your conjecture conspiracy theory, you accuse them of denying that the Italian judiciary has a Mafia problem (motte-and-bailey fallacy, as discussed). Further, you claim that we're the ones taking things on faith, yet you appear to be conceding that you can't make a credible argument for your assertion.

Also, Mafia, when referring to organized criminal groups, should be capitalized. There are certain cases, when the word is used in other contexts (e.g., the U.S. Air Force's fighter mafia), that it may not be. And it also doesn't mean "family." It means "swagger" or "bravado" in the Sicilian dialect of Italian.

 

[Vixen]

This is a good example of how your failure to in-line your responses makes it difficult to understand your posts. I have no idea to which of my points this is supposed to refer.


A conspiracy theory with no credible evidence to support it (and virtually no non-credible evidence, for that matter).


And yet, whenever people call attention to the lack of evidence for your conjecture conspiracy theory, you accuse them of denying that the Italian judiciary has a Mafia problem (motte-and-bailey fallacy, as discussed). Further, you claim that we're the ones taking things on faith, yet you appear to be conceding that you can't make a credible argument for your assertion.

Also, Mafia, when referring to organized criminal groups, should be capitalized. There are certain cases, when the word is used in other contexts (e.g., the U.S. Air Force's fighter mafia), that it may not be. And it also doesn't mean "family." It means "swagger" or "bravado" in the Sicilian dialect of Italian.

I used a lower case 'm' because that is what I meant.



.

 

[SpitfireIX]

View attachment 60597

I am truly in awe of your logical, mathematical, and objective response.