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

[Vixen]

Now that you've acknowledged that, can we expect a cessation in the constant banging on about the merits court?


So Italy was exacting revenge for Sollecito's acquittal? How nice. The State doesn't like the SC annulling a sentence so like a boyfriend who beats up his girlfriend that he thinks is cheating on him, they get 'revenge'. Doesn't say much for Italy, does it?


Hmmmm.... the you'd expect that they would have confirmed the conviction or at least sent it back down to another appeals court.
But they didn't.

Your ability to know what people 'really think' is mind-blowing. Have you thought of going on tour and dazzling audiences everywhere?

A good court can sniff out a scam. So the system works. Neither Knox nor Sollecito give a toss about 'human rights' or the ECHR. They just see it as a gateway for loadsamoney compensation. No remorse. No shame. Just milking it.

 

[Vixen]

I'm afraid you are the one who is completely twisting what I did say.


I would if that's actually what I said. But it wasn't. This was:





The Supreme Court annulled the merits courts and determined Knox did NOT kill Meredith.

Seeing how I never mentioned Guede's being a migrant as evidence of anything, much less why he killed Kercher, I'd say you need a good course in reading comprehension. Or Ethics. Or
maybe make an appointment to take the MoCA[/HILITE

Please explain.

 

[Stacyhs]

This was already discussed some while ago. I reproduced the newspaper article at the time. I cannot open Seattle PSI 'in your location'.

Then be true to your statement that the onus is on the person making a claim to prove it.

I just did a forum search for "Seattle Post Intelligencer" with the now functioning Search feature. I went back to 2006 and no such article presented by you or anyone else showed up.

 

[Stacyhs]

It was ruled they did not commit the criminal act of murder. It remains a fact that Knox killed Mez, but it was not proven to be criminal.

Oh, for Christ's sake. Do you ever listen to yourself?

 

[Vixen]

This post is a perfect example of how flawed the judicial facts are set in stone and must be accepted without question argument Vixen likes to use is. The judgement of Micheli highlights this. A major issue with relying on judicial facts and regarding them as sacred is that judicial fact may conflict with actual facts and there are numerous ways what Micheli wrote bore no relation to actual facts.

• Amanda barely knew Rudy, Raffaele did not know Rudy at all and Amanda and Raffaele had only been dating six days. Three virtual strangers came together to commit a brutal sex crazed murder.

• Amanda only had brief contact with Guede and in six years the prosecution could not find any evidence of regular contact with Amanda and Guede and Raffaele had never met Guede. Despite this they were able to plan a murder.

• As the links below show witness testimony stated Amanda had a good relationship with Meredith and no evidence has existed Amanda had any animosity towards Meredith. Despite this Amanda was prepared to help a stranger carry out a brutal sexual assault and murder against Meredith.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda...ehavior-myths/

• The phones of Amanda and Raffaele were tapped in the three days between the discovery of Meredith’s body and the interrogations. Despite this Amanda and Raffaele make no mention of Rudy a man they were supposed to have committed a brutal murder and sexual assault with.

• Amanda spoke only basic Italian and Rudy did not speak English. Despite this Amanda and Rudy were able to plan a murder together.

• There is no contact between Amanda and Raffaele with Rudy after the murder. Is it credible that people could committ a brutal sexual assault and murder together and never contact each other again.

• As per the link below, the evidence which should have existed if Amanda and Rafffaele killed Meredith with Rudy is missing.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI2.html

• A woman was supposedly willing to help a stranger carry out a brutal sexual assault and murder against another woman. A scenario with no known precedent.

• The evidence against Guede was solid, credible and irrefutable as seen in the link below.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/rudy-guede/

The evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was full of holes and had no credibility. The knife was an example of this as can be seen from my post below. If Amanda, Raffaele and Guede committed the same crime together, how is the difference in the quality of the evidence explained?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...7#post11377317

• The methods the prosecution had to resort to with regards to Amanda and Raffaele were clearly the methods prosecutors would resort to when they have a weak case, lack of evidence and the facts don’t support their case as can be seen from the links below. The prosecution didn’t have to resort to these tactics when it came to Guede which indicated the prosecution had plenty of evidence and a slam dunk case. How is this massive difference explained if Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy committed the same crime?


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
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...4#post11071314
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...4#post11071314

• The evidence suggests Meredith was killed between 9.00 pm and 10.00 pm. Raffaele was using his computer at 9.10 pm and 9.26 pm which gives them an alibi for the time Guede murdered Meredith.

• The posts below show some of the falsehoods by Vixen in her posts showing PGP have to resort to lying to argue the case for Amanda and Raffaele’s guilt. I have never heard anyone resorting to lying to argue the case for Rudy’s guilt. How is this difference explained if Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy committed the same crime?

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
Judicial facts may conflict with actual facts.

Micheli claims that Amanda, Raffaele came together to kill Meredith but as the list shows below, the notion is utterly absurd and has more holes in it than a string vest.
• Amanda barely knew Rudy, Raffaele did not know Rudy at all and Amanda and Raffaele had only been dating six days. Three virtual strangers came together to commit a brutal sex crazed murder.

• Amanda only had brief contact with Guede and in six years the prosecution could not find any evidence of regular contact with Amanda and Guede and Raffaele had never met Guede. Despite this they were able to plan a murder.

• As the links below show witness testimony stated Amanda had a good relationship with Meredith and no evidence has existed Amanda had any animosity towards Meredith. Despite this Amanda was prepared to help a stranger carry out a brutal sexual assault and murder against Meredith.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda...ehavior-myths/

• The phones of Amanda and Raffaele were tapped in the three days between the discovery of Meredith’s body and the interrogations. Despite this Amanda and Raffaele make no mention of Rudy a man they were supposed to have committed a brutal murder and sexual assault with.

• Amanda spoke only basic Italian and Rudy did not speak English. Despite this Amanda and Rudy were able to plan a murder together.

• There is no contact between Amanda and Raffaele with Rudy after the murder. Is it credible that people could committ a brutal sexual assault and murder together and never contact each other again.

• As per the link below, the evidence which should have existed if Amanda and Rafffaele killed Meredith with Rudy is missing.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI2.html

• A woman was supposedly willing to help a stranger carry out a brutal sexual assault and murder against another woman. A scenario with no known precedent.

• The evidence against Guede was solid, credible and irrefutable as seen in the link below.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/rudy-guede/

The evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was full of holes and had no credibility. The knife was an example of this as can be seen from my post below. If Amanda, Raffaele and Guede committed the same crime together, how is the difference in the quality of the evidence explained?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...7#post11377317

• The methods the prosecution had to resort to with regards to Amanda and Raffaele were clearly the methods prosecutors would resort to when they have a weak case, lack of evidence and the facts don’t support their case as can be seen from the links below. The prosecution didn’t have to resort to these tactics when it came to Guede which indicated the prosecution had plenty of evidence and a slam dunk case. How is this massive difference explained if Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy committed the same crime?


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
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...4#post11071314
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...4#post11071314

• The evidence suggests Meredith was killed between 9.00 pm and 10.00 pm. Raffaele was using his computer at 9.10 pm and 9.26 pm which gives them an alibi for the time Guede murdered Meredith.

• The posts below show some of the falsehoods by Vixen in her posts showing PGP have to resort to lying to argue the case for Amanda and Raffaele’s guilt. I have never heard anyone resorting to lying to argue the case for Rudy’s guilt. How is this difference explained if Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy committed the same crime?

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

Why would it be necessary to stage a rape when Guede had actually raped Meredith which was proved by the presence of Guede's DNA in her vagina. It was proved the luminol prints were not made in blood as they were negative for TMB and didn't contain Meredith's DNA. The notion Amanda and Raffaele came back to rearrange the scene has been debunked.

You are coming at it from a position of incredulity. In Psychology we call this 'cognitive dissonance'. This happens when reality is at odds with our comfort zones. For example, a person who enjoys a drink and a cigarette will be aware of doctors warnings that even small amounts of alcohol or tobacco can cause cancer. So you might tell oneself that one or two is fine, or perhaps rationalise that wine is drunk with meals in Mediterranean countries and this diet is considered healthy. This is a means of rebalancing the perception brought to your attention of the reality of drinking and smoking and the dawning realisation you are self-harming in continuing with the proven unhealthy habit. Likewise, so convinced are you of Knox and Sollecito's innocence (assuming your belief is sincere and genuine) that, of course, it arouses cognitive dissonance to face the reality they were found guilty by the fact-finding merits trials. So comfort is found in heaping blame on the 'real culprit': Guede, even though he was never ruled to have done the actual killing. It helps that he is of migrant ethnicity, and we can imagine he is the local burglar and drug dealer, a line of thought that can only work if we comfort ourselves with the rationalisation that Knox and Sollecito could only have been found guilty because a rogue prosecutor imagined it all and convinced the Rome Scientific Police to cherry pick forensic evidence that would point to AK and RS only. This idea is preferable to the reality the three had fair trials and the facts were as found - albeit they can never be perfect - so to continue the psychological comfort zone of being in the right, we can point to the fact the final Supreme Court let AK and RS off. AK being the 'manipulative, narcissistic and transgressive' person that Mignini claimed she was, perceives her fan base as believing in their cognitive dissonance myth, with her fan base having actively achieved her release, the logical next step for such a manipulative narcissistic and transgressive personality is to bring out a six-part episodes, for streaming, starring herself - of course - relating the comforting myth of a miscarriage of justice and the rail roading of an innocent young American girl - with the epiphany ending of the rogue prosecutor apologising to her as the grand finale climax to it all. THE END.

 

[Vixen]

Then be true to your statement that the onus is on the person making a claim to prove it.

I just did a forum search for "Seattle Post Intelligencer" with the now functioning Search feature. I went back to 2006 and no such article presented by you or anyone else showed up.

Have you tried Vecchiotti and the Carabinieri?

 

[Stacyhs]

Please explain.

What are you not understanding?
The part where
a) you claimed that I said Guede was guilty because he fell out with his foster family which I never did?
b) you then claimed I said Guede was guilty because he was a migrant which I never did?

 

[Stacyhs]

A good court can sniff out a scam. So the system works.

Most of the time. Knox and Sollecito were acquitted, after all.

Neither Knox nor Sollecito give a toss about 'human rights' or the ECHR. They just see it as a gateway for loadsamoney compensation. No remorse. No shame. Just milking it.

Really, Vixen. Do consider going on tour with your mindreading act. But drop the crystal ball. It's so 1800's.

 

[Stacyhs]

Have you tried Vecchiotti and the Carabinieri?

That would get hundreds of hits as it's too vague. Besides, remember the onus is on you per your own words. You can do an ISF search as well as I can. I suggest you start right away.

 

[Vixen]

What are you not understanding?
The part where
a) you claimed that I said Guede was guilty because he fell out with his foster family which I never did?
b) you then claimed I said Guede was guilty because he was a migrant which I never did?

Cognitive dissonance. But in your case I wonder if your belief in the pair's innocence is sincere, given how much you know about the case but even so, logic should tell you that just because the pair were acquitted it really doesn't mean that Guede is now the killer. The fact remains, Knox killed Mez with Sollecito's knife. They were acquitted owing to 'insufficient evidence' to secure a conviction, based on a specious claim that Sollecito's DNA might have been transferred to the bra clasp by a sterile latex glove. Yes you keep emphaisisng how lazy Guede was and how his adopted family got fed up of his lying. Like Nina Burleigh you have a belief that only a low life person could commit such a sadistic and cruel crime and Guede fits your stereotype of a lowlife.

 

[Stacyhs]

You are coming at it from a position of incredulity. In Psychology we call this 'cognitive dissonance'. This happens when reality is at odds with our comfort zones. For example, a person who enjoys a drink and a cigarette will be aware of doctors warnings that even small amounts of alcohol or tobacco can cause cancer. So you might tell oneself that one or two is fine, or perhaps rationalise that wine is drunk with meals in Mediterranean countries and this diet is considered healthy. This is a means of rebalancing the perception brought to your attention of the reality of drinking and smoking and the dawning realisation you are self-harming in continuing with the proven unhealthy habit. Likewise, so convinced are you of Knox and Sollecito's innocence (assuming your belief is sincere and genuine) that, of course, it arouses cognitive dissonance to face the reality they were found guilty by the fact-finding merits trials. So comfort is found in heaping blame on the 'real culprit': Guede, even though he was never ruled to have done the actual killing. It helps that he is of migrant ethnicity, and we can imagine he is the local burglar and drug dealer, a line of thought that can only work if we comfort ourselves with the rationalisation that Knox and Sollecito could only have been found guilty because a rogue prosecutor imagined it all and convinced the Rome Scientific Police to cherry pick forensic evidence that would point to AK and RS only. This idea is preferable to the reality the three had fair trials ad the facts were as found - albeit they can never be perfect - so to continue the psychological comfort zone of being in the right, we can point to the fact the final Supreme Court let AK and RS off. AK being the 'manipulative, narcissistic and transgressive' person that Mignini claimed she was, perceives her fan base as believing in their cognitive dissonance myth, with her fan base having actively achieved her release, the logical next step for such a manipulative narcissistic and transgressive personality is to bring out a six-part episodes, for streaming, starring herself - of course - relating the comforting myth of a miscarriage of justice and the rail roading of an innocent young American girl - with the epiphany ending of the rogue prosecutor apologising to her as the grand finale climax to it all. THE END.

 

[Numbers]

It was ruled they did not commit the'criminal act of murder. It remains a fact that Knox killed Mez, but it was not proven to be criminal.

This has to be among the most absurd statements ever posted on this thread.

If Vixen's post were to be taken seriously, it would mean that the Italian CSC had ruled that Knox had killed Kercher, but it was a justifiable act of self-defense.

Vixen seems to be desperate to avoid the truth that Knox and Sollecito were finally acquitted of the murder/rape of Kercher because there was no credible evidence that they had committed the crime. That means someone else had committed the murder/rape. Indeed, all the credible evidence indicates that one person was culpable for the murder/rape of Kercher, and that person is Rudy Guede. He was convicted of participating in the murder/rape with others, but the "with others" was a judicial error based on what may be called prosecutorial "overreach".

 

[Vixen]

What are you not understanding?
The part where
a) you claimed that I said Guede was guilty because he fell out with his foster family which I never did?
b) you then claimed I said Guede was guilty because he was a migrant which I never did?

The bit where you said: make an appointment to take the MoCA. Explain yourself.

 

[Vixen]

View attachment 62084

Here comes the verbal abuse.

 

[Welshman]

You are coming at it from a position of incredulity. In Psychology we call this 'cognitive dissonance'. This happens when reality is at odds with our comfort zones. For example, a person who enjoys a drink and a cigarette will be aware of doctors warnings that even small amounts of alcohol or tobacco can cause cancer. So you might tell oneself that one or two is fine, or perhaps rationalise that wine is drunk with meals in Mediterranean countries and this diet is considered healthy. This is a means of rebalancing the perception brought to your attention of the reality of drinking and smoking and the dawning realisation you are self-harming in continuing with the proven unhealthy habit. Likewise, so convinced are you of Knox and Sollecito's innocence (assuming your belief is sincere and genuine) that, of course, it arouses cognitive dissonance to face the reality they were found guilty by the fact-finding merits trials. So comfort is found in heaping blame on the 'real culprit': Guede, even though he was never ruled to have done the actual killing. It helps that he is of migrant ethnicity, and we can imagine he is the local burglar and drug dealer, a line of thought that can only work if we comfort ourselves with the rationalisation that Knox and Sollecito could only have been found guilty because a rogue prosecutor imagined it all and convinced the Rome Scientific Police to cherry pick forensic evidence that would point to AK and RS only. This idea is preferable to the reality the three had fair trials ad the facts were as found - albeit they can never be perfect - so to continue the psychological comfort zone of being in the right, we can point to the fact the final Supreme Court let AK and RS off. AK being the 'manipulative, narcissistic and transgressive' person that Mignini claimed she was, perceives her fan base as believing in their cognitive dissonance myth, with her fan base having actively achieved her release, the logical next step for such a manipulative narcissistic and transgressive personality is to bring out a six-part episodes, for streaming, starring herself - of course - relating the comforting myth of a miscarriage of justice and the rail roading of an innocent young American girl - with the epiphany ending of the rogue prosecutor apologising to her as the grand finale climax to it all. THE END.

This post doesn't address my point about judicial facts having no resemblance to actual facts. Can Vixen explain if Amanda, Raffaele and Guede came together to commit murder why does this scenario have zero credibility and more holes in it than a string vest.

 

[Myriad]

Here comes the verbal abuse.

Can you show us on the picture which copy of the word "BLAH" abused you?

 

[Vixen]

This has to be among the most absurd statements ever posted on this thread.

If Vixen's post were to be taken seriously, it would mean that the Italian CSC had ruled that Knox had killed Kercher, but it was a justifiable act of self-defense.

Vixen seems to be desperate to avoid the truth that Knox and Sollecito were finally acquitted of the murder/rape of Kercher because there was no credible evidence that they had committed the crime. That means someone else had committed the murder/rape. Indeed, all the credible evidence indicates that one person was culpable for the murder/rape of Kercher, and that person is Rudy Guede. He was convicted of participating in the murder/rape with others, but the "with others" was a judicial error based on what may be called prosecutorial "overreach".

Really? I look forward to your explanation of why Knox covered up for Guede by insisting to the police very strongly it was Lumumba.

 

[Vixen]

This post doesn't address my point about judicial facts having no resemblance to actual facts. Can Vixen explain if Amanda, Raffaele and Guede came together to commit murder why does this scenario have zero credibility and more holes in it than a string vest.

Because like a lot of people you are unable to face reality because you have been taken in by either a hoax, PR (clever advertising, special and paid influencers and the manipulating of your perceptions) or have trouble believing a female could stab another female in the neck. But your inability to face reality doesn't actually cancel out the reality.

 

[SpitfireIX]

He was known as the urologist to the Dons.

Known by whom? The British tabloids??

He was wiretapped saying money could make water flow up hill.

Granting, arguendo, that that's true, it doesn't mean he belonged to the Mafia, nor can we even know what he meant by it without more context.

Of course, nobody is openly going to claim fraternity with the mafia . . .

IOW, you don't have any proof; you're just assuming it because you need it to be true in order for your conspiracy theory to work. Further, you stated earlier that Bongiorno proudly claims fraternity (sorority) with the Mafia.

. . . but given the duo were found guilty at each of the merits hearings, don't you think it's a bit dodgy that C&V were suddenly back in favour at the Fifth Chambers, having been struck out by the First Chamber.

Not at all. We have discussed the many fatal weaknesses of the investigation, the merits trials in general, and the DNA evidence in particular, ad nauseam, yet you continually insist that the initial verdict must be respected because reasons, and that any overturning of that verdict by higher courts can only be due to corruption.

One Supreme Court chamber cannot pull rank over another.

Again, I do not accept you as an authority on the Italian legal system.

In addition, the coincidence of the pair being acquitted under the same loophole get-out-clause as Andreotti & Berlusconi, the common link between the three cases being Bongiorno?

Also again, "You keep saying this; it keeps not being true."

 

[Vixen]

Known by whom? The British tabloids??


Granting, arguendo, that that's true, it doesn't mean he belonged to the Mafia, nor can we even know what he meant by it without more context.


IOW, you don't have any proof; you're just assuming it because you need it to be true in order for your conspiracy theory to work. Further, you stated earlier that Bongiorno proudly claims fraternity (sorority) with the Mafia.


Not at all. We have discussed the many fatal weaknesses of the investigation, the merits trials in general, and the DNA evidence in particular, ad nauseam, yet you continually insist that the initial verdict must be respected because reasons, and that any overturning of that verdict by higher courts can only be due to corruption.


Again, I do not accept you as an authority on the Italian legal system.


Also again, "You keep saying this; it keeps not being true."

Whoa! I didn't say he was a member of the mafia. However, it would be no surprise if he has contacts (and he was put in touch with Bongiorno, who is hardly a good barrister but seems to get results for her wealthy clients). In addition, he might well be a close relative of Rocco. Certainly there was some kind of sting going on, first with Hellmann and C&V, and then with Marasca- Bruno. Yours is the conspiracy theory because you believe AK and RS were set up by the prosecutor, a ridiculous idea, The more extreme cognitive dissonance is resolved by people in the smoking/drinking example as being 'the nanny state is trying to control our behaviour', so that affords a psychological solution for some. Others shrug and make out they do not care. Your attitude here is to try to pick piecemeal holes in the evidence that convicted the pair because you need to discover flaws that prove the pair were wrongly convicted. Reality tells you that you can't carry someone's full profile DNA from one spot to another.