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

[Numbers]

And as has been pointed out hundreds of times, the 'evidence' of her being at the crime scene is her interrogation statements, and since these statements were ruled inadmissible, there is NO EVIDENCE Amanda was at the crime scene when the crime took place. That you continue to repeat what is clearly an unsubstantiated claim proves your blind, hateful bias towards Amanda. You're being incredibly dishonest, and you know it.

I'm not disagreeing with your statement, but it's important to recognize that the Italian courts that have re-convicted Knox of calunnia on this basis were also being dishonest and in violation of international and Italian law.

 

[Numbers]

As you yourself affirm, Douglas Preston had a massive grudge against Mignini, having been advised to leave Italy or face charges re the Spezi affair. Preston led the Union of Journalists (or whatever its called) against Mignini issuing a complaint about West Seattle Herald shilling for Knox, whose husband is the grandson of the then proprietor and his uncle the editor. So Preston had it in for Mignini and his methods were particularly obnoxious, trying to appeal to the MAGA Jim Crow mentality of 'You've got the black guy, you don't need to look for anyone else'.

1. You are mischaracterizing my statements in my post. I have not stated that "Douglas Preston had a massive grudge against Mignini".

2. You are claiming without any evidence that Douglas Preston's writing about Mignini, the Knox - Sollecito case, or the Kercher murder/rape case showed racism. Your statements without evidence are not credible.

3. Here's a table of the number of ECHR cases against Italy and some other states that resulted in an ECHR judgment. In each case, there was a complaint made against the Respondent State and thus, by implication, a non-ECHR judiciable complaint about one or more persons of authority in that state. Do these complaints all equate to "grudges" in your system of "logic"?

Italy: 2644 ECHR cases judged
France: 1161 ECHR cases judged
UK: 580 ECHR cases judged
Germany: 378 ECHR cases judged

Even higher in "grudges" than Italy:

Russia: 4116 ECHR cases judged
Turkiye: 4096 ECHR cases judged

Note that each ECHR case is based upon on or more complaints; the ECHR often combines several similar complaints against one Respondent State.

 

[Vixen]

And as has been pointed out hundreds of times, the 'evidence' of her being at the crime scene is her interrogation statements, and since these statements were ruled inadmissible, there is NO EVIDENCE Amanda was at the crime scene when the crime took place. That you continue to repeat what is clearly an unsubstantiated claim proves your blind, hateful bias towards Amanda. You're being incredibly dishonest, and you know it.

Absolute nonsense. There is Stefanoni's hard scientific evidence, as well as dozens of other scientists brought in. 100% objective. You are being emotional.

 

[Vixen]

Yup, not only does he hate Amanda, but he also hates Meredith and loves Guede.


-

No reasoning from you. So can we assume your 'Guede-lover' jibes are of the knee-jerk MAGA Jim Crow type?

 

[Vixen]

1. You are mischaracterizing my statements in my post. I have not stated that "Douglas Preston had a massive grudge against Mignini".

2. You are claiming without any evidence that Douglas Preston's writing about Mignini, the Knox - Sollecito case, or the Kercher murder/rape case showed racism. Your statements without evidence are not credible.

3. Here's a table of the number of ECHR cases against Italy and some other states that resulted in an ECHR judgment. In each case, there was a complaint made against the Respondent State and thus, by implication, a non-ECHR judiciable complaint about one or more persons of authority in that state. Do these complaints all equate to "grudges" in your system of "logic"?

Italy: 2644 ECHR cases judged
France: 1161 ECHR cases judged
UK: 580 ECHR cases judged
Germany: 378 ECHR cases judged

Even higher in "grudges" than Italy:

Russia: 4116 ECHR cases judged
Turkiye: 4096 ECHR cases judged

Note that each ECHR case is based upon on or more complaints; the ECHR often combines several similar complaints against one Respondent State.

I didn't say Preston himself was racist, I was stating an observable phenomenon of his appealing to people's basest instincts. Rather like Nina Burleigh with her 'African migrant drifter drug dealer' propaganda. Of course Italy has its problems, coming out of the 1940's Mussolini fascist era and the violent rivalries between the communist opposition, not to mention the very real problem of the Ndrangetha and mafia organised crime groups, which are bound to seep into the judiciary and police processes, as in any country with high levels of corruption, such as Russia and Turkey (which has a problem with the Kurdish PK movement, which is probably where half their cases with ECHR emanate). But this case is about the murder of a young Englishwoman in her own home. The case was very clearly proven AFAICS, not perfect, but the trial was a long and fair one.

 

[AmyStrange]

No reasoning from you. So can we assume your 'Guede-lover' jibes are of the knee-jerk MAGA Jim Crow type?

Bwahahahaha... thanks for the laugh, hater.


-

 

[Vixen]

And as has been pointed out hundreds of times, the 'evidence' of her being at the crime scene is her interrogation statements, and since these statements were ruled inadmissible, there is NO EVIDENCE Amanda was at the crime scene when the crime took place. That you continue to repeat what is clearly an unsubstantiated claim proves your blind, hateful bias towards Amanda. You're being incredibly dishonest, and you know it.

What the final Supreme Court Marasca-Bruno decreed in writing was that Knox did wash Mez' blood from her hands. Dr. Stefanoni says, in her expert opinion, the drips in the bathroom were as a result of Knox carrying the used knife there, which was dripping blood and rinsing under the tap. She was also bleeding. Stefanoni reasoned that had Knox' blood been left there an earlier time, or Kercher's, they would have washed away with water. One drop of blood was so large and visible, it was not credible it had been there for days and no-one noticed to wipe it clean. The evidece shows Knox did take Sollecito's knife to the cottage (having switched off her phone beforehand) and did use it to viciously stab Mez in the neck. This is why she was able to tell everyone about it and wanted to 'write a song about it'. Next day, she was wearing a clean white skirt and at the questura acted 'nonchalant' - rather like Jody Arias doing yoga on the floor of the police interview room - turning cartwheels, and acted as carefree as a lark, whilst all the other foreign students couldn't wait to get the heck out of there.

 

[Numbers]

I didn't say Preston himself was racist, I was stating an observable phenomenon of his appealing to people's basest instincts. Rather like Nina Burleigh with her 'African migrant drifter drug dealer' propaganda. Of course Italy has its problems, coming out of the 1940's Mussolini fascist era and the violent rivalries between the communist opposition, not to mention the very real problem of the Ndrangetha and mafia organised crime groups, which are bound to seep into the judiciary and police processes, as in any country with high levels of corruption, such as Russia and Turkey (which has a problem with the Kurdish PK movement, which is probably where half their cases with ECHR emanate). But this case is about the murder of a young Englishwoman in her own home. The case was very clearly proven AFAICS, not perfect, but the trial was a long and fair one..

1. Your statement in your earlier post stated that Preston's "methods were particularly obnoxious, trying to appeal to the MAGA Jim Crow mentality of 'You've got the black guy, you don't need to look for anyone else'." Now you deny that you meant that Preston was racist, and substitute the false statement that his method was an "an observable phenomenon of his appealing to people's basest instincts", again without providing any evidence in support of your false claim.

You then appear to offer support with a statement accusing Nina Burleigh of using propaganda consisting of "African migrant drifter drug dealer" although that was how Guede was characterized in the Italian news media. In fact, he was born in Africa - the nation called Ivory Coast - and with his father had immigrated to Italy as a child. The Italian news media had characterized him as a small-time drug dealer; the basis for that in law is unclear; apparently Guede never filed a defamation lawsuit against the news media that used those words to characterize him. It's not clear what was meant by him being a drifter, although at the relevant time he was not gainfully employed or in school and very soon after Kercher's murder had fled Italy and was captured, on a international warrant originating in Italy, in Germany.

2. Very many Italian trials are long. In fact, many complaints to the ECHR are that they are of unreasonable length because of unlawful delays by the Italian judicial system. Several of the Italian trials against Knox and Sollecito were unfair, provisionally convicting them contrary to Italian and international law. Knox was unfairly convicted of calunnia against Lumumba, contrary to Italian law and international law, the last as found by the ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy. Your post seems to indicate that you have no knowledge of that ECHR judgment. The Knox's recent reconviction for calunnia was also unfair, and in part was a rejection by the Italian judiciary of the ECHR criticizing the Italian courts' perceived right to be as unfair and arbitrary as they wanted to be.

 

[Vixen]

1. Your statement in your earlier post stated that Preston's "methods were particularly obnoxious, trying to appeal to the MAGA Jim Crow mentality of 'You've got the black guy, you don't need to look for anyone else'." Now you deny that you meant that Preston was racist, and substitute the false statement that his method was an "an observable phenomenon of his appealing to people's basest instincts", again without providing any evidence in support of your false claim.

You then appear to offer support with a statement accusing Nina Burleigh of using propaganda consisting of "African migrant drifter drug dealer" although that was how Guede was characterized in the Italian news media. In fact, he was born in Africa - the nation called Ivory Coast - and with his father had immigrated to Italy as a child. The Italian news media had characterized him as a small-time drug dealer; the basis for that in law is unclear; apparently Guede never filed a defamation lawsuit against the news media that used those words to characterize him. It's not clear what was meant by him being a drifter, although at the relevant time he was not gainfully employed or in school and very soon after Kercher's murder had fled Italy and was captured, on a international warrant originating in Italy, in Germany.

2. Very many Italian trials are long. In fact, many complaints to the ECHR are that they are of unreasonable length because of unlawful delays by the Italian judicial system. Several of the Italian trials against Knox and Sollecito were unfair, provisionally convicting them contrary to Italian and international law. Knox was unfairly convicted of calunnia against Lumumba, contrary to Italian law and international law, the last as found by the ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy. Your post seems to indicate that you have no knowledge of that ECHR judgment. The Knox's recent reconviction for calunnia was also unfair, and in part was a rejection by the Italian judiciary of the ECHR criticizing the Italian courts' perceived right to be as unfair and arbitrary as they wanted to be.

A five-year-old child can hardly be written off as a drifter migrant, when he was adopted by a wealthy family unlike working class Knox. Youth unemployment is a big problem in Europe. It really doesn't signify criminality. Guede did the crime and he did the time. But his involvement doesn't cancel out the legally established involvement of Knox and Sollecito - leaving his DNA at the crime scene (rather like Kohberger, who without that DNA left behind, might never have been convicted so convincingly). So out of all the 500 pieces of evidence, only his DNA and Mez on the knife were 'contaminated'. Pull the other one.

 

[Numbers]

A five-year-old child can hardly be written off as a drifter migrant, when he was adopted by a wealthy family unlike working class Knox. Youth unemployment is a big problem in Europe. It really doesn't signify criminality. Guede did the crime and he did the time. But his involvement doesn't cancel out the legally established involvement of Knox and Sollecito - leaving his DNA at the crime scene (rather like Kohberger, who without that DNA left behind, might never have been convicted so convincingly). So out of all the 500 pieces of evidence, only his DNA and Mez on the knife were 'contaminated'. Pull the other one.

No one claims that Guede was a drifter when he was a child - not even the Italian news media made that claim. So your statement is an absurd distraction.

Your "classism" is noted. It's absurd that you characterize Knox and her family as "working class" and then attribute some vast conspiracy and oodles of money spent by the Knox family to "bend" the law and experts to protect Amanda Knox.

Knox and Sollecito were found not guilty - they have no legally established involvement with the crimes against Kercher. Do some reading of the relevant Marasca CSC panel and ECHR judgments with comprehension. The recent re-conviction of Knox for calunnia is a contradiction of the ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy and must therefore be discounted.

 

[Vixen]

No one claims that Guede was a drifter when he was a child - not even the Italian news media made that claim. So your statement is an absurd distraction.

Your "classism" is noted. It's absurd that you characterize Knox and her family as "working class" and then attribute some vast conspiracy and oodles of money spent by the Knox family to "bend" the law and experts to protect Amanda Knox.

Knox and Sollecito were found not guilty - they have no legally established involvement with the crimes against Kercher. Do some reading of the relevant Marasca CSC panel and ECHR judgments with comprehension. The recent re-conviction of Knox for calunnia is a contradiction of the ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy and must therefore be discounted.

...Which illustrates my point of the futility of judging someone by superficial attributes such as class, gender and whether they have a 'brand new car' as one poster enthused as though impressed. Yes, legally they are not guilty but the facts remain that Knox is proven to have been at the crime scene as a matter of stated fact in the final Supreme Court decision, plus that she washed Meredith's blood from her hands (which can only mean one thing IMV) and that she named Lumumba to cover up for Guede. This conclusion is final and inescapable.

 

[Numbers]

...Which illustrates my point of the futility of judging someone by superficial attributes such as class, gender and whether they have a 'brand new car' as one poster enthused as though impressed. Yes, legally they are not guilty but the facts remain that Knox is proven to have been at the crime scene as a matter of stated fact in the final Supreme Court decision, plus that she washed Meredith's blood from her hands (which can only mean one thing IMV) and that she named Lumumba to cover up for Guede. This conclusion is final and inescapable.

These are facts only to all those who are biased, lack ability to think critically, or are among the Italian judges and prosecutors determined to avoid admitting that the police and prosecutor Mignini violated Italian and international law during the interrogation of Knox and Sollecito.

 

[Disbelief]

...Which illustrates my point of the futility of judging someone by superficial attributes such as class, gender and whether they have a 'brand new car' as one poster enthused as though impressed. Yes, legally they are not guilty but the facts remain that Knox is proven to have been at the crime scene as a matter of stated fact in the final Supreme Court decision, plus that she washed Meredith's blood from her hands (which can only mean one thing IMV) and that she named Lumumba to cover up for Guede. This conclusion is final and inescapable.

You know what else is final and inescapable? That they were exonerated while the lone killer is on trial again for another terrible crime.

 

[Stacyhs]

Wow, toxic.

The fact is that YOU accuse AK's and RS's lawyers, the acquitting judges, the defense and independent experts, witnesses (some who didn't even know the pair), and authors and journalists of being somehow corrupt. Everyone who doesn't support your narrative is somehow "bent" to use your word.

 

[Bill Williams]

Vixen wrote:

Yes, legally they are not guilty but the facts remain that Knox is proven to have been at the crime scene as a matter of stated fact in the final Supreme Court decision, plus that she washed Meredith's blood from her hands (which can only mean one thing IMV)

There's the problem right there. It's your 'view' which is mistaken. Your view completely ignores the impact of WHY the Supreme Court found them 'legally not guilty', which is a welcome admission on your part.

That same court found that even if that 'blood evidence' had been true, which almost everyone thinks it isn't....

...... that it doesn't make up for the fatal flaw in considering them guilty, either RS or AK - that there is no evidence of either of them in the murder room.

Without that evidence, then it's moot - even if the blood evidence had been solid, which it was not....

.... as well as no one denies that AK and RS had been at the cottage... the problem was that there was no evidence as to when, other than their own admission that they'd been there the next morning.

That's the sum total of the case - as to why the only decision any court could safely make was that they were not guilty.

 

[TruthCalls]

What the final Supreme Court Marasca-Bruno decreed in writing was that Knox did wash Mez' blood from her hands. Dr. Stefanoni says, in her expert opinion, the drips in the bathroom were as a result of Knox carrying the used knife there, which was dripping blood and rinsing under the tap. She was also bleeding. Stefanoni reasoned that had Knox' blood been left there an earlier time, or Kercher's, they would have washed away with water. One drop of blood was so large and visible, it was not credible it had been there for days and no-one noticed to wipe it clean. The evidece shows Knox did take Sollecito's knife to the cottage (having switched off her phone beforehand) and did use it to viciously stab Mez in the neck. This is why she was able to tell everyone about it and wanted to 'write a song about it'. Next day, she was wearing a clean white skirt and at the questura acted 'nonchalant' - rather like Jody Arias doing yoga on the floor of the police interview room - turning cartwheels, and acted as carefree as a lark, whilst all the other foreign students couldn't wait to get the heck out of there.

Goal post moving again. We were discussing the claim that Amanda was at the cottage at the time of the murder, not whether she washed Meredith's blood from her hands. On that score, you comment above is baseless. Stefanoni did not introduce a shred of evidence that would prove Amanda was in the cottage at the time of the murder. How about you point out what that "hard scientific evidence" is.

As for the new goal post position, that Amanda washed Meredith's blood from her hands, we KNOW this was a claim based on the mixed DNA samples from the small bathroom. We also know those results are completely consistent with Meredith's diluted blood landing on Amanda's latent DNA from days of use of the sink. So no, there is no evidence to support this claim either. If you were being honest, you'd admit as much, but I've long since learned that's just too much to ask of you.

BTW, I really don't care what baseless narratives Stefanoni came up with. The diluted blood drops are far more likely to have come from Guede as he was cleaning up before leaving. Stefanoni is just following the prosecution fabricated narrative, nothing more.

The drop was on the faucet and not very obvious. No one said the blood was there "for days", just that it was there prior to Meredith's murder. It could have been there for only a day. I'm sure you're perfect and would never miss something, but for the rest of the human race, we sometimes miss things. But you know, if it was that big and obvious, and they did this extensive clean-up, why was it still there?

"The evidece shows Knox did take Sollecito's knife to the cottage (having switched off her phone beforehand) and did use it to viciously stab Mez in the neck."

Really???!!! I'd love to know what evidence that is, and exactly how turning her phone off so her boss couldn't change his mind proves this. You just love making things up, don't you. Well I think the evidence is quite clear - GUEDE did use his own smaller knife... you know, the knife small enough to have made ALL THREE wounds AND leave the imprint on the bed sheets... and him being the sole attacker explains why only Guede and Meredith left a forensic trace of themselves in the room where she was sexually assaults - also proven to be Guede - and murdered.

The rest of your ridiculous post isn't commenting on.

 

[Stacyhs]

...Which illustrates my point of the futility of judging someone by superficial attributes such as class, gender and whether they have a 'brand new car' as one poster enthused as though impressed.

Oh, dear. You are referring to an exchange between us which, yet again, you are misrepresenting. Here is that exchange:

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

My reply:

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."

The trouble with being dishonest is that it invariably comes back to bite you in the butt.

Yes, legally they are not guilty but the facts remain that Knox is proven to have been at the crime scene as a matter of stated fact in the final Supreme Court decision,

Based on Knox's retracted interrogation statements.

plus that she washed Meredith's blood from her hands (which can only mean one thing IMV)

Yet again, you ignore that conclusion is NOT based on any scientific evidence. As has been pointed out, ad nauseum and which you continue to ignore, no evidence was provided in court that Knox's DNA was deposited the night of the murder in any of the mixed samples or that its source was epithelial.
Do you deny that:
1. Knox brushed her teeth and/or washed her hands in that sink on a daily basis, including that morning?
2. Doing so could leave buccal cells, epithelial cells, or saliva in the sink?
3. The source of Knox's DNA was never scientifically determined, only assumed by the courts?

and that she named Lumumba to cover up for Guede.

Completely illogical. Leaving his feces, his bloody shoe prints, the pillowcase, and the bathmat* is most certainly NOT a "cover up for Guede". They had 13+ hours to clean up that scene before KNOX started the discovery process yet left all that evidence of him.

*Please, don't give me that ludicrous and embarrassing excuse again that it was really RS's and they wanted to "pull one over" on the police to prove how smart they were.

This conclusion is final and inescapable.

That conclusion is illogical and unfounded.

 

[Stacyhs]

A five-year-old child can hardly be written off as a drifter migrant, when he was adopted by a wealthy family unlike working class Knox. Youth unemployment is a big problem in Europe. It really doesn't signify criminality. Guede did the crime and he did the time. But his involvement doesn't cancel out the legally established involvement of Knox and Sollecito - leaving his DNA at the crime scene (rather like Kohberger, who without that DNA left behind, might never have been convicted so convincingly). So out of all the 500 pieces of evidence, only his DNA and Mez on the knife were 'contaminated'. Pull the other one.

I've previously quoted media reports stating he was a "drifter" including Follain.
Even the TJMK darling, Ergon, refers to him as a drifter:

Her roommate, Amanda Marie Knox, was convicted of the murder, as was her boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, and Rudy Hermann Guede, a drifter from the Cote de Ivoire in Africa.

Barbie Nadeau:

As an example, in the list of characters of her true crime book Angel Face, Barbie Nadeau labels Rudy Guede a “local drifter”

Michelli:

[216] Similarly, there is scarce weight in the proceedings of the 27th of October in Milan, save for the purpose of demonstrating that in the final days Mr GUEDE was moving about like a drifter..."
(Micheli report, pg. 68)

 

[Stacyhs]

Goal post moving again. We were discussing the claim that Amanda was at the cottage at the time of the murder, not whether she washed Meredith's blood from her hands. On that score, you comment above is baseless. Stefanoni did not introduce a shred of evidence that would prove Amanda was in the cottage at the time of the murder. How about you point out what that "hard scientific evidence" is.

As for the new goal post position, that Amanda washed Meredith's blood from her hands, we KNOW this was a claim based on the mixed DNA samples from the small bathroom. We also know those results are completely consistent with Meredith's diluted blood landing on Amanda's latent DNA from days of use of the sink. So no, there is no evidence to support this claim either. If you were being honest, you'd admit as much, but I've long since learned that's just too much to ask of you.

BTW, I really don't care what baseless narratives Stefanoni came up with. The diluted blood drops are far more likely to have come from Guede as he was cleaning up before leaving. Stefanoni is just following the prosecution fabricated narrative, nothing more.

The drop was on the faucet and not very obvious. No one said the blood was there "for days", just that it was there prior to Meredith's murder. It could have been there for only a day. I'm sure you're perfect and would never miss something, but for the rest of the human race, we sometimes miss things. But you know, if it was that big and obvious, and they did this extensive clean-up, why was it still there?



Really???!!! I'd love to know what evidence that is, and exactly how turning her phone off so her boss couldn't change his mind proves this. You just love making things up, don't you. Well I think the evidence is quite clear - GUEDE did use his own smaller knife... you know, the knife small enough to have made ALL THREE wounds AND leave the imprint on the bed sheets... and him being the sole attacker explains why only Guede and Meredith left a forensic trace of themselves in the room where she was sexually assaults - also proven to be Guede - and murdered.

The rest of your ridiculous post isn't commenting on.

Regarding the bolded paragraph: If we were to use "Vixen logic", Knox didn't miss her own blood on the faucet despite having many hours to clean it up. She left it there on purpose in order to "pull one over" on the cops. According to her, that's why they left "Sollecito's" bloody footprint on the bath mat. It makes as much sense.

 

[Numbers]

Regarding the bolded paragraph: If we were to use "Vixen logic", Knox didn't miss her own blood on the faucet despite having many hours to clean it up. She left it there on purpose in order to "pull one over" on the cops. According to her, that's why they left "Sollecito's" bloody footprint on the bath mat. It makes as much sense.

Here are some of the characteristics of a conspiracy theory (from the Wikipedia articles with my additions in square brackets):

1. A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy when other explanations are more probable.

2. The hypothesized conspiracy involves or includes, generally, powerful, sinister groups [or groups or individuals claimed to be powerful and sinister].

3. This hypothesized conspiracy has certain specific characteristics, including but not limited to opposition to the mainstream consensus among those qualified to evaluate its accuracy [such as the forensic scientists and legal experts who have commented on the Knox - Sollecito case].

4. Conspiracy theories are identified as lay theories: Unlike formal scientific theories, lay theories often reflect intuitive beliefs that may diverge significantly from empirical findings.

5. Conspiracy theories are generally designed to resist falsification either by evidence against them or a lack of evidence for them.

6. Conspiracy theories are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and the absence of evidence for it are misinterpreted as evidence of its truth.

7. A conspiracy theory tends to become a matter of faith rather than a hypothesis that can be proved or disproved.

Conspiracy theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Belief - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Circular reasoning - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org