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

[Jack by the hedge]

This is where I am ahead of you.

? Do you mean you have accepted the truth but choose to pretend otherwise?

 

[ahhell]

I am so glad I started following this thread. Might be the most entertaining on the board.

 

[Vixen]

"AmyStrange believes judges to be 'stupid people'. I do not. Whilst the average person is easily swayed by propaganda and PR, let the reasonable, dispassionate, fair-minded person look coldly and objectively at what the highest Italian Courts rule, and which remains true today."


Bwahahahahaha... thanks for another laugh, and for also helping to prove me correct.


-

Dry your eyes. There, there. Santa DOES exist. Forget I said anything.

 

[Vixen]

So, if we use not the plain English meaning but rather the legal definition of exonerated, she was more than merely exonerated. i.e. She wasn't pardoned for committing the act, she was found not to have committed the act at all. I shall try to remember not to use the lesser term "exonerated" and use "acquitted" instead, if you find it annoyingly imprecise.

Thank you. It is important to be precise in legal matters. The term 'did not do it' is standard template in Italian law that follows an 'acquitted' verdict. The verdict here was not guilty due to insufficient evidence. Yes, 'exonerated' sounds impressive to the unwary who are easily fooled into believing it was a miscarriage of justice.

 

[Vixen]

? Do you mean you have accepted the truth but choose to pretend otherwise?

I see you. You enjoy shouting out, 'Oh no it's not!" just for the pantomime. You are perfectly capable of following an argument.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

No, the term exonerated means relieved of the burden of guilt but, as you point out, in legal terms it only means pardoned rather than found not to have been guilty at all.

As we know, she had nothing to do with the murder, though some obsessives still cling to the idea that "insufficient evidence" might actually mean she did it even though nobody could find a scrap of worthwhile evidence to prove it. Some people just can't accept reality.

 

[AmyStrange]

Dry your eyes. There, there. Santa DOES exist. Forget I said anything.

Yup, the comedy never stops, but it does help to prove me correct again and again and again...


-

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I see you. You enjoy shouting out, 'Oh no it's not!" just for the pantomime. You are perfectly capable of following an argument.

Not at all. You said you were ahead. Ahead how? You're fixated on still believing the crazy story that made up a notorious miscarriage of justice long ago. That's decades behind. Not ahead.

 

[Vixen]

Not at all. You said you were ahead. Ahead how? You're fixated on still believing the crazy story that made up a notorious miscarriage of justice long ago. That's decades behind. Not ahead.

>+3sds ahead. I am usually punished for it so I have resigned myself to being abused for spoiling people's fondly held beliefs.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Oh. Do you fantasize the case will someday be reopened and Knox be found really to have engaged in some crazy satanic sex-murder rite like in the fevered imaginings of that weirdo detective after all? While leaving no forensic trace of it, of course.

That's not "ahead" of anything. That's like holding onto your Confederate dollars waiting for the South to rise again.

 

[Vixen]

Oh. Do you fantasize the case will someday be reopened and Knox be found really to have engaged in some crazy satanic sex-murder rite like in the fevered imaginings of that weirdo detective after all? While leaving no forensic trace of it, of course.

That's not "ahead" of anything. That's like holding onto your Confederate dollars waiting for the South to rise again.

Not at all. I am merely seeing the objective neutral plain facts of the matter and the games people play to try to manipulate perception away from the truth. For example, declaring the solution to it all is, ta da! 'the prosecutor was misguided'. That explains everything. Reminds me of when Knox wrote in her Prison Diary that after seeing a nun, she suddenly realised she can't have remembered being at the cottage as...wait for it...she wasn't there! Another example, is the desperate need to prove Guede was a prolific burglar, hence could have snuck in through the window. Despite all the forensics saying it didn't happen and only a few bits of Mez' belongings were stolen, despite the presence of three laptops (much more expensive then than now), a camera and jewellery; all easy enough to carry. People think everything is a 'JR did it' thriller. Makes for a sensational story, with the twist in the tail (here, AK confronting 'her accuser' and trying to get him to admit he was errant. The problem is, it lacks authenticity, knowing what we do know about the crime scene and the events immediately before and after. If you want to read of an authentic account of an horrendous police interrogation and five years in jail, have a look at an account written by my old German language teacher, who wrote about My Years in an Indian Prison', after going on an overland to India trip. Now that would make a great documentary series. It is my view AK is better served by relating what really happened that night and maybe people would be more sympathetic towards her. That would help ease her conscience and help make amends towards the family of Meredith, instead of forever having to go into a spiel about the rogue prosecutor and the rogue forensic scientists.

 

[TruthCalls]

No. Being in possession of stolen goods is not the same as burglary. Do look up the difference. Tramontano's claims were never substantiated. In addition, if you think having 'a brand new car' is an indication of innocence, then might I remark that it is no wonder you have a 34-times felon, rapist and a six-times Bankrupt as a president. People seem to have no powers of discernment these days. In addition, Sollecito's bloody footprint was on the bathmat, Mignini's was not; so once again, a false equivalence.

So much for your claim of being "...impartial, neutral and entirely objective"

No one who is impartial, neutral and entirely objective would actually believed Guede 'bought' the laptop and mobile phones, nor would they be calling Tramontano AND his girlfriend liars, nor would they make excuses for breaking into a school. Impartial, neutral and entirely objective people don't make excuses for a convicted killer.

No one who is impartial, neutral and entirely objective would argue so strenuously that Amanda and Raffaele weren't exonerated.

No one who is impartial, neutral and entirely objective would continue to argue Amanda was at the cottage at the time of the murder, while failing to acknowledge that the judge used Amanda's inadmissible interrogation statement as evidence of this. Impartial, neutral and entirely objective people understand there is NO evidence that puts Amanda in the cottage at the time of the murder, but you'll never admit that.

People seem to have no powers of discernment these days? On that point I would agree, and you are a perfect example of that.

Oh, and vacated is what happened to the Hellmann verdict. Marasca acquitted, declaring they did not commit the crime. The ONLY reason I would agree she wasn't exonerated is because she was never truly convicted... provisional convictions don't count. If you were impartial, neutral and entirely objective, you wouldn't be so offended when someone says Amanda was exonerated.

 

[TruthCalls]

Not at all. I am merely seeing the objective neutral plain facts of the matter and the games people play to try to manipulate perception away from the truth. For example, declaring the solution to it all is, ta da! 'the prosecutor was misguided'. That explains everything. Reminds me of when Knox wrote in her Prison Diary that after seeing a nun, she suddenly realised she can't have remembered being at the cottage as...wait for it...she wasn't there! Another example, is the desperate need to prove Guede was a prolific burglar, hence could have snuck in through the window.
Despite all the forensics saying it didn't happenand only a few bits of Mez' belongings were stolen, despite the presence of three laptops (much more expensive then than now), a camera and jewellery; all easy enough to carry. People think everything is a 'JR did it' thriller. Makes for a sensational story, with the twist in the tail (here, AK confronting 'her accuser' and trying to get him to admit he was errant. The problem is, it lacks authenticity, knowing what we do know about the crime scene and the events immediately before and after. If you want to read of an authentic account of an horrendous police interrogation and fie years in jail, have a look at an account written by my old German language teacher, who wrote about My Five Years in an Indian Prison', after going on an overland to India trip. Now that would make a great documentary series. It is my view AK is better served by relating what really happened that night and maybe people would be more sympathetic towards her. That would help ease her conscience and help make amends towards the family of Meredith, instead of forever having to go into a spiel about the rogue prosecutor and the rogue forensic scientists.

What forensics would that be????? Some glass on top of clothes.. glass that wasn't even photographed. ALL of the forensics indicate the break-in was legitimate. Speculating some grass or dirt should have been transported in, or that a nail should be bent, or that Guede would have cut his hands and bled, is NOT forensics.

I understand this might be a hard concept for you to understand but... once Guede killed Meredith I think even he was smart enough to realize taking anything that could be connected back to Meredith would put him in prison. That's why laptops, cameras and jewelry were not taken.

No, you don't want Amanda to relate what happened that night, because she has already done that and you attack her for it. Again, calling yourself impartial, neutral and entirely objective is laughable when you then make comments like this. You're as pro-guilt as one can get, and you've been that way for as long as I can remember.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... Another example, is the desperate need to prove Guede was a prolific burglar, hence could have snuck in through the window. Despite all the forensics saying it didn't happen ...

You think this is you being objective and neutral. Well, it isn't. Window glass fragments embedded in the outside face of the shutter show the rock was thrown from the outside. You think it was staged and the window broken from inside. "All the forensics"? Obviously not true.

 

[Vixen]

So much for your claim of being "...impartial, neutral and entirely objective"

No one who is impartial, neutral and entirely objective would actually believed Guede 'bought' the laptop and mobile phones, nor would they be calling Tramontano AND his girlfriend liars, nor would they make excuses for breaking into a school. Impartial, neutral and entirely objective people don't make excuses for a convicted killer.

No one who is impartial, neutral and entirely objective would argue so strenuously that Amanda and Raffaele weren't exonerated.

No one who is impartial, neutral and entirely objective would continue to argue Amanda was at the cottage at the time of the murder, while failing to acknowledge that the judge used Amanda's inadmissible interrogation statement as evidence of this. Impartial, neutral and entirely objective people understand there is NO evidence that puts Amanda in the cottage at the time of the murder, but you'll never admit that.

People seem to have no powers of discernment these days? On that point I would agree, and you are a perfect example of that.

Oh, and vacated is what happened to the Hellmann verdict. Marasca acquitted, declaring they did not commit the crime. The ONLY reason I would agree she wasn't exonerated is because she was never truly convicted... provisional convictions don't count. If you were impartial, neutral and entirely objective, you wouldn't be so offended when someone says Amanda was exonerated.

A professional burglar or shoplifter NEVER hangs on to their own blag. The first thing they do is get rid of it to a fence or flog it off in a pub. The fact Guede was in possession of a stolen laptop in no way indicates he was the one who stole it in a burglary. In that particular burglary at the lawyers office, the burglar entered via a first floor balcony, exactly similar to the one by the boys entrance in via Pergola 7. No-one home, no-one to disturb you, no neck-breaking twelve-and-a-half-feet climb up a sheer wall. In addition, nothing was taken apart from Mez' belongings, so it was a crime personally targetting Mez. The only desperate need to say Guede was a professional burglar (this is conjecture and not factual) is to make it seem feasible the perp was a burglar who came in via Filomena's window and to challenge the fact that the burglary was staged. I worked in Proceeds of Crime (insolvency practice) for eleven years and the first thing professional thieves do is get rid of it PDQ ASAP. We chased money launderers right across the globe and located their millions of pounds worth of criminal proceeds in a Dutch offshore Caribbean tax haven. There was no way these guys would be caught with the misappropriated funds on their person or in their personal accounts. It is quite likely RG acquired the laptop cheaply from someone, as he claimed. As for Taramantano, he only came forward in retrospect. He didn't identify Guede, he said it was a Black guy. That doesn't mean it was Guede! In a town the size of Perugia, there will be dozens of burglaries. They are not all committed by the same person! As Guede had never been done for burglary before and had no criminal record, I don't think you can aver with certainty as Knox followers do that he was a prolific burglar and the same guy who broke and entered into the lawyers' offices and the same guy whom Taramantano claims to have seen in his apartment. It's is vaguely possible it was Guede but all we have is conjecture and speculation. I prefer hard fact. The lawyer himself said the burglar in his office knew exactly where to switch off the burglar alarm, which he himself was not aware of, and the main things stolen were USB sticks, and a whole pile of documents strewn on the floor as though the perp was looking for a particular piece of legal documentation. He didn't say it but he seemed to be hinting it was an 'inside job'. As for the Milan nursery, RG did stay there overnight. A burglar would have done his thing and left ASAP. It came out in court that an employee at the nursery was at the same party RG said he attended and it was she who told him he could stay there the night as the door lock was faulty. She told him how to get in. The proprietor confirmed it was not breaking and entering and that RG got in the way he said he got in. He was not charged with going equipped to commit a burglary so what was found in his backpack was not considered burglars tools. Sure there is a possibility they were burglars tools but again pure conjecture that suits the defence narrative to try to make the mise-en-scène a real burglary scene and not a staged one. But as Guede was found with a glass-breaking hammer why would he have needed to find a huge slab of limestone weighing almost ten pounds, or four kilograms. That is completely excessive. Then there is the claim that because he was adopted aged five as an asylum seeker from the Côte d'Ivoire and had a difficult adolescence with his wealthy adopted family, therefore it is obvious - they claim - that he must be the sole perp. That type of logic might sit well with some but others expect more corroboration than the fact he is ethnic African. The objective impartial scientific evidence puts Knox at the crime scene via her DNA mixed with Mez'. The fact people do not understand DNA analysis doesn't obviate it. So, you rely on intuition. You believe you can tell who did it by outward appearances and by fitting an 'alternative' story to that constructed by professional detectives and scientists. Myself, I prefer what was tested and tried in court, weighing up ALL of the evidence from ALL of the parties and then - only then - coming to a verdict. What other system of justice is there? Do we really want cases tried by PR agencies writing sensationalist clickbait material or should we stick to what has been tried and tested over literally hundreds of years?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

A professional burglar or shoplifter NEVER hangs on to their own blag. The first thing they do is get rid of it to a fence or flog it off in a pub.

So Guede was an amateurish burglar.

 

[Vixen]

You think this is you being objective and neutral. Well, it isn't. Window glass fragments embedded in the outside face of the shutter show the rock was thrown from the outside. You think it was staged and the window broken from inside. "All the forensics"? Obviously not true.

How does it prove it was Guede who broke the window?

 

[Vixen]

So Guede was an amateurish burglar.

But clever enough to leave absolutely ZERO trace of himself in Filomena's room. And commit a burglary -by turning over two drawers of clothing - without taking anything AFTER the murder. AFTER the murder he was dripping blood everywhere yet there are no bloody shoeprints in Filomena's room. But we see his shoe footsteps in the hallway, heading straight out of the murder room and out of the front door. Presumably these shoe prints aren't in the victim's blood but some kind of root vegetable juice that causes luminol to light up, rather like AK' and RS' BARE footprints...several of which facing Mez' door as if to lock it. And on the bathmat. A footprint size 42 with a clear hammer toe... that matches RS' perfectly.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

How does it prove it was Guede who broke the window?

Wrong question. It proves your pet theory of how Guede's burglary was staged is wrong. Yet you falsely claim the forensics support you and you're just being objective. Plainly not.

 

[Stacyhs]

No. Being in possession of stolen goods is not the same as burglary. Do look up the difference.

We've already been over this where you tried this nonsense before. I clearly said, "Don't play stupid games, Vixen. They couldn't prove Guede broke into the law office so they tried and convicted him on the lesser charge of being in possession of stolen goods."
Do quote me where I said being in possession of stolen goods is the same as burglary.

Tramontano's claims were never substantiated.

His girlfriend who was with him when Guede broke in substantiated it. Or are they, like Popovic and Altieri, just "trying to help out" RS and AK by committing perjury?

In addition, if you think having 'a brand new car' is an indication of innocence,

Yet again, you have to resort to grossly twisting what is said because you have no counterargument. You falsely claimed Guede "had his own bedsit, so not much different from Sollecito," and I replied, "To compare him to Sollecito is ludicrous. Sollecito didn't quit school and was getting ready to graduate from college. His apartment was a one- bedroom he had to himself with no roommates and a brand-new car. He also had an income from rental units his mother had left to him. Nor did he have a reputation for lying or theft."

Stop resorting to such blatant dishonesty.

then might I remark that it is no wonder you have a 34-times felon, rapist and a six-times Bankrupt as a president.

Stop embarrassing yourself with such lame attempts to connect idiot Trump to this. It doesn't bolster your position. If anything, it just reveals desperation.

Vixen:
People seem to have no powers of discernment these days.
In addition, Sollecito's bloody footprint was on the bathmat, Mignini's was not; so once again, a false equivalence.

No matter how many times you've repeated this, it doesn't make it true. It's not even a 'judicial truth' you can trot out. Some people are unable to discern that RS and AK would have removed or washed the mat if that were Sollecito's footprint and NOT have pointed it out to the police. It's so illogical that you couldn't even come up with a remotely plausible reason for them to do so and claimed they were "trying to pull one over on the police" because they thought they were so clever.