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

[Vixen]

Jeebus, even by your pathetically low standards this is utter strawmannery.

There is no evidence Guede stole the rent money. For your information, it was Knox who was charged with that offence. If you are going to claim Guede stole the money you need to explain how he would even know about the rent in cash. (And Knox being richer by a similar amount.)

 

[AnimalFriendly]

Knox' B&E's weren't just 'pranks'. After one, she was forced to apologise to the victim of her bullying for the distress she caused her. Another said AK had sought to frighten them by breaking in wearing a sinister ski mask over her face. One victim of AK's B&E 'prank' rang up Perugia Police after the murder of Meredith to report AK's B&E and staged burglary of her room, which was turned upside down,, so clearly this was not seen as just a 'prank' by the person who rang up all the way from the USA. Whatever the true facts of the matter are, we know with certainty staging a scene to make it look like a burglary is something Knox was experienced in. Then there's her history of writing lurid rape fantasies about 'chicks wanting it'. So yes, if Guede's history of being unemployed and a supposed cat burglar (despite no police record) is relevant to the crime then so is Knox' past history.

Is there a law that says one cannot apologize for a prank? Reasonable people view an apology as a good thing, not as a sign of malice. Who FORCED her to apologize, by the way? The name of the person, first and last, please.

As for these other "victims", did they have names? Or were they just made-up people as is the standard practice of respectable newspapers like the Daily Fail, er, Mail? Like the "reporting" they did on the policeman in Seattle who issued the noise citation? Who said he never once was contacted by them or spoke to them.

 

[Myriad]

I've identified a new Logical Fallacy. I would like to give credit to AmyStrange but I think 11-year-old Justin Bieber fans got there first, so we'll call it the 'Justin Bieber logical fallacy', which holds, "If you don't like Justin Bieber and his music, you are a hater!" I'll admit that Myriad's one is quite sophisticated in form but can be summed up thus: "You're a hater!" or, to put it in AmyStrange words, "You're a Guede-lover!" Saves thinking.

How could anyone hate Rudy Guede? He's such a good-looking guy, strong, tall, lean, and athletic, and more important, he knows what he wants and goes after it, especially when it's other people's property. He's so confident and assertive, what worldly woman could resist? When some uppity privileged white foreign girls didn't want him taking their stuff he knew how to take charge, killing one and cleverly helping with the malicious false prosecution of the other, just like their kind deserve! He'd better be banking his sperm because every real woman wants to have his babies and there might be limits on conjugal visits in his future. Even guys admire his resolve and initiative so he'll probably have inside help. So let's not hear any more about hate!

 

[Stacyhs]

The pathologist did not explain Mez' lack of defence wounds as her being 'too scared to fight back'. That is your suggestion.

What part of my statements are you have such difficulty in understanding? No one else is. Only YOU.

This is exactly what I mean when I say you misrepresent and twist what people say.
Nowhere in my statement did I refer to Meredith...nor did LondonJohn to whom I was responding. We both were referring to "a woman" in general terms.
We don't have to do either of the above to know that a woman (never mentioning Meredith) might comply with her assailant's demand if they had a knife to their throat.

I repeat: Neither LJ nor I mentioned Meredith. We were referring to "A WOMAN IN GENERAL". It's not OUR "suggestion"; it's YOUR inference. Would you now like to argue that WOMEN never comply with an attacker out of fear for their lives?
Frankly, at this point there are only two options for your post:
1. You really do have a severe reading comprehension problem or
2. Your 'confusion' is deliberate.

Additionally, it's the job of the pathologist to determine manner and cause of death and to conduct lab tests in support of that. It is NOT their job to determine the state of mind of the victim at the time of the crime.

When someone is approached with someone threatening them with a knife, they don't immediately believe they are going to die,

You are now moving the goalpost to "When someone is approached with someone threatening them with a knife," when the discussion is about "an attacker holding a knife to a woman's throat," and not "approaching" them. If they didn't immediately fear for their life, then they wouldn't comply with his demands!

so yes they do tend to defend themselves out of reflex in what is initially a physical one-to-one confrontation.

You are just making up your own facts...AGAIN. According to you, every woman who is attacked and is threatened with a knife fights back. I won't bother quoting and citing evidence that your claim is ludicrous because you'll just ignore it per usual.

This is quite different from someone pointing a gun and your - wisely - simply handing over your wallet.

Having a knife held to your throat with demands to comply or be killed is every bit as intimidating and fear producing as having a gun pointed at you. Frankly, it's beyond ridiculous.

So if Guede the burglar decided he was overcome by aggressive lust, then Mez might have - sensibly -succumbed to sexual assault in face of the serious threat to life.

Wait a minute...so NOW you're agreeing that a woman might comply with the assault out of fear for her life. Which is exactly what LJ and I said previously!

But the post-mortem showed no less that FOUR stab wounds to the neck. This was someone who wanted to make sure they finished her off.

Once again, you assume that LJ and I were referring to this specific case when you've been repeatedly told we were referring to women in general and never mentioned Meredith.

OK, you could say, RG was worried she could identify him so he was panicked into doing this. But there are a further forty-four visible wounds, many of them knife flicks. So Guede was not only after a sexual assault, he was also enjoying bullying her and inflicting pain, distress and fear. He was 'teaching her a lesson' even though they had previously exchanged friendly banter in a pub over an England ~vs~ South Africa World Cup Rugby game. So no, the pathologist was probably correct to determine it was not a simple murder/rape.

None of the above has jack crap to do with the fact that, yet again, you flagrantly misrepresent what the discussion was actually about in an attempt to control it. It isn't working.

 

[Welshman]

I don't like Guede at all. His was a disgusting crime. However, he served his time as charged so there is nothing outstanding here. As someone who invariably sticks up for the underdog, I despise the way people like Nina Burleigh try to appeal to people's basest prejudices instead of presenting the facts. So yes, it is obvious Knox and Sollecito dreamt up the 'watching Amélie' ruse - a sweet lovely girl - whilst turning off their phones, thinking how incredibly horror story-like and sinister to pretend to be this sweet Amélie character and pin the entire crime via PR agencies and shills on the guy without the same influences., even to carry on the charade of having watched freaking Amélie even in 2025 as if they think anyone is sucked in by this utter nonsense that AK is anything like this innocuous Amélie character.

Guilters support and defend Guede but as this post they are too dishonest to admit this.

 

[Stacyhs]

She didn't retract it.

According to the ECHR she did and to anyone who can read with a modicum of comprehension.

What part of "I can't know who the killer is because I didn't return back to the cottage" is NOT a retraction for you?

It's also noted that you ignore that the wounds were NOT the result of a 'knife swiping' at Kercher as in your scenario.

 

[Myriad]

Guilters support and defend Guede but as this post they are too dishonest to admit this.

Who can resist a guy who can climb right up to a balcony like that, like Romeo to meet his Juliet? Such effort and agility! Even though he didn't do that, because it was all staged, it's still so attractive!

 

[Stacyhs]

Knox' B&E's weren't just 'pranks'.

Yet again, you use the plural (without evidence) when there was only ONE burglary prank. This is exactly why you are not credible.

After one, she was forced to apologise to the victim of her bullying for the distress she caused her.

Your usual hyperbole; there is no evidence she was "forced" to apologize and did not do so immediately and voluntarily. Again, this is why you are not credible.

Another said AK had sought to frighten them by breaking in wearing a sinister ski mask over her face.

Who exactly said the above? Another M. Smith? Another D. Williams? Another T. Jackson? Because you give no evidence of this at all. Your unsupported claims have proven not to be credible for a reason.

One victim of AK's B&E 'prank' rang up Perugia Police after the murder of Meredith to report AK's B&E and staged burglary of her room, which was turned upside down,, so clearly this was not seen as just a 'prank' by the person who rang up all the way from the USA.

Your repeated use of "B&E" is intentional exaggeration. Knox did not steal anything...the removed items were all returned immediately with no intention of keeping them. If simply entering someone's room without express permission is a "B&E" then so is Amanda and Raffaele's opening Laura's and Filomena's bedroom doors and entering.

Whatever the true facts of the matter are, we know with certainty staging a scene to make it look like a burglary is something Knox was experienced in.

What a silly remark. How much 'experience' does a person need to have in order to know that removing items will make it look like a burglary? Duh.

Which bring up this question: If Knox was so experienced at staging a burglary, then why didn't she remove the laptop and camera in Laura's room or any other valuable items? Why did Raffaele tell the police nothing was stolen?

No matter how much you want it, you can't have it both ways.

Then there's her history of writing lurid rape fantasies about 'chicks wanting it'.

What is it with you and your need to dishonestly exaggerate things (plural "rape fantasies") and misrepresent things ("chicks wanting it")?
It's not like you haven't made this false "rape fantasy" accusation before and had it pointed out to you that her class assignment story was an ANTI-RAPE story. The story was about a brother's DISGUST for and CONFRONTING of his "baby brother" drugging and (implied) rape of a girl. Nor was it about "chicks wanting it".

Kyle, the story's rapist, is a cheeseball bad guy who first tells his brother, "A thing you have to know about chicks is that they don't know what they want," and then punches Edgar in the face.

Your continued and deliberate misrepresentation about this story is intentional dishonesty.

So yes, if Guede's history of being unemployed and a supposed cat burglar (despite no police record) is relevant to the crime then so is Knox' past history.

So no, because you minimize Guede's history and exaggerate and misrepresent Knox's history.

"Despite no police record" ignores being caught RED HANDED BY THE POLICE WITH STOLEN PROPERTY FROM TWO DIFFERENT CRIMES (and arguably a third regarding the gold watch) for which he had NO credible explanations. You also ignore that he was eventually convicted of both.

So predictable.

 

[Numbers]

As many readers here may be aware, the provisional convictions of Knox and Sollecito on the murder/rape charges were due to flaws in those trials. What may not be fully understood is that many of those flaws are evidence of the survival into relatively current times (the year 2007 and later) of dysfunctional and unfair Italian judicial practices from the pre-1988 reforms of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure and required, or still require, correction by further reforms of Italian laws or the Italian Constitution. One example from the Knox - Sollecito case was the effort to introduce the findings of Guede's fast-track trial into the Knox - Sollecito trials as was done in the Nencini Court of Appeal trial; such documentary evidence was claimed lawfully introduced under CPP Articles 238 and 238-bis. However, as pointed out in the Marasca CSC panel MR that quashed the Nencini judgment, that introduction was an unlawful ruse because (although possibly not explained fully in the MR) it violated CPP Articles 238, paragraph 5, and 192, paragraph 3, as well as Article 111 of the Italian Constitution, in the clause:

The guilt of the defendant cannot be established on the basis of statements by persons who, out of their own free choice, have always voluntarily avoided undergoing cross-examination by the defendant or the defence counsel.

This clause of the Italian Constitution was introduced only in 2001 (the current Italian Constitution dates from 1948). The clause was introduced as the result of the resolution of an ECHR case, Craxi v. Italy (No. 2). Here's a summary of this result from the DEJ/CoM website Factsheet on Italy:

Changes to the Constitution, in 1999, gave constitutional rank to a number of requirements of fair trials. A 2001 reform introduced improved safeguards as regards the use of testimony during investigations by a person who decides to remain silent during trial, thus preventing convictions exclusively on evidence the defendant had never been able to refute.

See: https://rm.coe.int/ma-italy-eng/1680a186af, page 3, Fairness of Proceedings

More details of the 1999 and subsequent reforms to the Italian Constitution and laws in relation to the Craxi v. Italy (No. 2) case may be found in a CoM Resolution ResDH(2005)28 at:

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-68986

Here's an excerpt from that CoM Resolution:

Constitutional reform of 1999

Article 111 of the Italian Constitution, as modified in November 1999, gave Constitutional rank to a number of requirements contained in Article 6 of the Convention and, in its new wording, it provides in particular that:

1. Jurisdiction shall be exercised through fair proceedings, conducted in accordance with the law.

2. All proceedings shall be conducted in compliance with the principles of adversarial process and equality of arms before a neutral and impartial court. The right to be tried within a reasonable time shall be guaranteed by law.

3. In criminal proceedings, the law shall guarantee that the person accused of an offence is informed promptly and in confidence of the nature and grounds of the charge against him; that he shall have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; that he shall be given an opportunity before the court to examine or to have examined anyone giving evidence against him, to obtain the attendance and examination of any defence witnesses on the same conditions as witnesses called by the prosecution and to obtain the production of any other evidence in his favour; and that he will have the assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used at the trial.

4. The principle of adversarial process shall be observed during criminal proceedings with regard to the examination of evidence. The guilt of an accused cannot be established on the basis of statements made by a person who has freely and wilfully eluded examination by the accused or his lawyer.

5. Rules shall be made governing the circumstances in which adversarial examination of the evidence is to be dispensed with, either because the accused has consented or because there is due evidence that such examination is objectively impossible or that there has been unlawful conduct.”

In conclusion, readers here should recognize the probability that the ECHR cases Knox v. Italy and Sollecito v. Italy do not merely affect the rights of Knox and Sollecito, but the laws as well as police and judicial practices of Italy that potentially affect the rights of all persons in Italy.

 

[Welshman]

Yet again, you use the plural (without evidence) when there was only ONE burglary prank. This is exactly why you are not credible.


Your usual hyperbole; there is no evidence she was "forced" to apologize and did not do so immediately and voluntarily. Again, this is why you are not credible.


Who exactly said the above? Another M. Smith? Another D. Williams? Another T. Jackson? Because you give no evidence of this at all. Your unsupported claims have proven not to be credible for a reason.

Your repeated use of "B&E" is intentional exaggeration. Knox did not steal anything...the removed items were all returned immediately with no intention of keeping them. If simply entering someone's room without express permission is a "B&E" then so is Amanda and Raffaele's opening Laura's and Filomena's bedroom doors and entering.

What a silly remark. How much 'experience' does a person need to have in order to know that removing items will make it look like a burglary? Duh.

Which bring up this question: If Knox was so experienced at staging a burglary, then why didn't she remove the laptop and camera in Laura's room or any other valuable items? Why did Raffaele tell the police nothing was stolen?

No matter how much you want it, you can't have it both ways.

What is it with you and your need to dishonestly exaggerate things (plural "rape fantasies") and misrepresent things ("chicks wanting it")?
It's not like you haven't made this false "rape fantasy" accusation before and had it pointed out to you that her class assignment story was an ANTI-RAPE story. The story was about a brother's DISGUST for and CONFRONTING of his "baby brother" drugging and (implied) rape of a girl. Nor was it about "chicks wanting it".

Your continued and deliberate misrepresentation about this story is intentional dishonesty.


So no, because you minimize Guede's history and exaggerate and misrepresent Knox's history.

"Despite no police record" ignores being caught RED HANDED BY THE POLICE WITH STOLEN PROPERTY FROM TWO DIFFERENT CRIMES (and arguably a third regarding the gold watch) for which he had NO credible explanations. You also ignore that he was eventually convicted of both.

So predictable.

If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was so solid, why is that Vixen has consistently been unable to present any arguments without resorting to lying. Vixen claims the notion Amanda was a nice woman incapable of committing a brutal murder was a myth but if this is true, why is it necessary to resort to lying to sustain this argument? There are several falsehoods highlighted in this post; Amanda carried several burglary pranks, was forced to apologize over one prank and what Amanda wrote in a story about rape. The rape story lie has been constantly repeated. Again why repeat the same lies over and over again?

 

[Stacyhs]

How would he know the rent was due?

Because all rent was due on the first of the month unless a holiday (as in Nov.) and in cash. His landlady, Rina Marani, told police she had asked him to give her proof of employment which he had not done.

If so, how come he didn't also rummage through the drawers in AK's, Laura's and Filomena's rooms, as well as the guys' downstairs?

In Laura's room, two of her drawers were pulled out as seen in photos 42 and 43 taken on Nov. 2. Why would they be pulled out and left open by Laura, who by all accounts, was very neat? Perhaps he did pull out the drawers in Filomena's nightstand but closed them so he could see into the one below it. Rather difficult to do with the one on top open. He never went in AK's room because he never got the opportunity before Meredith came home. After killing her, he logically went into her purse and grabbed her wallet. Was her cash rent money in there? If so, he had what he came for and got the hell out of Dodge so to speak.

Amanda, with all her "experience in staging burglaries", according to you, could also have reported her own rent money missing, thereby setting herself up a burglary victim, yet safely have it hidden away.

Guede was never in the downstairs apartment on Nov. 1.

Even if rent was due, how would he know Mez took it out of the cashpoint well in advance.

He didn't know. But he knew he had no money for his own rent so that's what he was looking for. Like any burglar, he was looking for whatever he could get, with cash being paramount. If he didn't find cash, he'd have to gamble on finding something he could fence quickly.

She could have waited until Filomena got back after her holiday weekend.

Did you mean "He"? If so, how would he know when Filomena, or any of the girls, might be home? He wanted an empty cottage which he had that night. Why wait for some unknown possibility?

 

[Stacyhs]

Another interpretation is that Knox knowing this therefore had to claim the front door was swinging open when she arrived next morning. We only have her word it was open.

And we have absolutely NOTHING that disputes it.

All they had to do was go to Gubbio as planned and let someone else come home to discover the crime. She could have stayed the entire time at Raffaele's after going to Gubbio, never going back to the cottage and make damn sure they could prove where they were by taking photos of the trip (date and time stamped), called people from his place, had friends over, etc. The idea that they just made up this convoluted and detailed story which they'd have to remember is just dumb. NOT going back to the cottage would have been so much easier.

 

[Stacyhs]

If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was so solid, why is that Vixen has consistently been unable to present any arguments without resorting to lying. Vixen claims the notion Amanda was a nice woman incapable of committing a brutal murder was a myth but if this is true, why is it necessary to resort to lying to sustain this argument? There are several falsehoods highlighted in this post; Amanda carried several burglary pranks, was forced to apologize over one prank and what Amanda wrote in a story about rape. The rape story lie has been constantly repeated. Again why repeat the same lies over and over again?

Some people can never admit they're wrong. They just dig in.

 

[Stacyhs]

Vecchiotti's bibliography is full of US citations. Vinci was part of a US agency.

Oh, good god. This is what you wrote:

Vixen said:
The LCN on the hilt is the one C&V - on the orders of their US masters - refused to analyse, claiming it was 'too LCN' but which Nencini got Berti and Barni* [_sp? ] of the Rome RIS to analyse. The claim there is no equipment to cope with LCN is laughable as LCN analysis is used in embryology, for example, all the time.

Only YOU could equate "Vecchiotti's bibliography is full of US citations" with "on the orders of their US masters".

Do you really have to have it explained to you that forensic science facts do NOT change between borders?
Does a Y haplotype in DNA in the US not indicate a male in Italy? Does secondary transfer of DNA exist in Germany, but not in the UK? Does how it happens change? Does DNA change between countries? How about fingerprints?

As for Vinci "being part of a US agency", exactly what agency would that be? The FBI? CIA?

Just put the shovel down.

 

[Stacyhs]

I don't like Guede at all. His was a disgusting crime. However, he served his time as charged so there is nothing outstanding here. As someone who invariably sticks up for the underdog, I despise the way people like Nina Burleigh try to appeal to people's basest prejudices instead of presenting the facts. So yes, it is obvious Knox and Sollecito dreamt up the 'watching Amélie' ruse - a sweet lovely girl - whilst turning off their phones, thinking how incredibly horror story-like and sinister to pretend to be this sweet Amélie character and pin the entire crime via PR agencies and shills on the guy without the same influences., even to carry on the charade of having watched freaking Amélie even in 2025 as if they think anyone is sucked in by this utter nonsense that AK is anything like this innocuous Amélie character.

Fiction is certainly your forte. But this isn't a fiction writers' forum so how about sticking to non-fiction here?

 

[Stacyhs]

Before getting into your post below, I noticed you fail to acknowledge that your claim below is false. Not that that's surprising or unusual:

Vixen said:
It's very basic. Before a court can proceed with a criminal trial for murder, then of course, it has to determine how that murder took place.

Now. back to our regularly scheduled show....

Er, Nina Burleigh, Knox advocate, on 20 August 2025, did write the following:

Published on Aug 19, the day before you post below which is why I had not seen it:

"Rudy Guede was a Black immigrant, known to local cops as a cat burglar, repeatedly breaking into empty houses and taking stuff. He had never murdered anyone, but was known to carry a knife. His fingerprints were on the wall of Meredith’s bedroom, his shoe print on the floor in blood. A local Perugia defense lawyer, tight with the prosecutor, copped him a plea deal."

The Twisted Tale of Amanda Knox

“My every quirk would be used to brand me as a monster.”

www.americanfreakshow.news

A self-professed racist or what? In addition, it is untrue as Italy doesn't have plea deals.

How is stating facts being a racist?
Fact: Guede is Black.
Fact: Guede is an immigrant as he is not an Italian citizen.
Therefore, I'd say "SO what?" Your attempt to portray Burleigh as a racist fails miserably just as failed to do with me.
Saying Guede played the race card himself by falsely claiming that the "knife wielding" killer proclaimed "Black man found, black man guilty" is not racist.

As for Taramantano's girlfriend, that doesn't make his allegations stronger.

When another person under oath corroborates his sworn deposition, that most certainly does make it stronger.
To argue otherwise is beyond irrational.

Courts treat spouses as an extension of their partners and hence a spouse is not required to testify against their partner.

She was NOT his spouse. She was his girlfriend. You know that so your remark is clearly dishonest.

Likewise getting your SO to back you up is hardly proof it was Guede in Taramantano's apartment as claimed.

I didn't say it was proof. I said she corroborated his sentence under oath. Having more than one witness to an event most certainly strengthens it which is why police like to have multiple witnesses to an event.
Why do you play these silly games?

As police never took him seriously, why are you demanding we should?

Oh, those psychic powers of yours are once again on display knowing what the police thought!

Hellmann most certainly did take him seriously as written in his MR:

The answer, however, is yes: the personality of Rudy Guede, as it emerges from the testimony of witnesses, does not show any particular respect for others. He not only ‐ as already mentioned ‐ had accrued experience as the perpetrator of thefts in buildings owned by others, even committed with the victims of theft present at home [122] (see Tramontano); not only did he not hesitate to use the knife to threaten the burglary victim who had chased him (Tramontano again), but also he had taken possession of a knife 40 cm long in the Milan nursery school )...

Rudy Guede several times, in fact, had been the protagonist of burglaries in apartments or offices: in a legal office in Perugia when he removed, after breaking in through a French door opening onto a terrace about 3 or 4 metres high, a computer and a cell phone; in a nursery school in Milan, when a kitchen knife 40 cm long, removed from the kitchen of the nursery school, was found in his back‐pack, and yet again inside the home of Mr. Tramontano, when, having been discovered, he had managed to the escape by threatening the former with a pocket knife.
So, the Court of the Assizes of First Instance, in order to dismiss the circumstantial significance of this record against Rudy Guede, has highlighted the differences between the said incidents and the presumed entry through the window in the apartment at via della Pergola 7.

 

[Stacyhs]

All asked and answered, or too frivolous and/or readily available in court documents.

You have NOT answered those questions. Period. We've asked repeatedly for you to do so and you ignore us. To claim you answered them is gobsmackingly ballsy even for you. And that's saying something.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Explains the gap you refer to. Think of a shoe print in mud. You place your foot over a muddy floor but there is a hole or a gap in the floor with no mud - because gap in floor - so therefore the muddy footprint shows the same gap as of that point. Ditto the bathmat and the missing thread.

Your analogy is completely false, because a floor is solid, but cotton threads will compress under the weight of a man, allowing even the areas of the mat that are not covered with threads to receive the diluted blood and retain a print. It's obvious from all three pictures that this is what happened, but it's particularly clear in the CrimeScope-enhanced photo:



Further, even if you were correct that no blood would have gotten on the area around the big toe where the threads are missing, it's obvious, as illustrated above, that if the print were compatible with Raffaele's foot, there would be more blood ahead of the yellow line even if only in the area where there is not thread missing.

Finally, do you deny that there's clearly blood on areas of the mat were there is missing thread?

 

[Vixen]

Is there a law that says one cannot apologize for a prank? Reasonable people view an apology as a good thing, not as a sign of malice. Who FORCED her to apologize, by the way? The name of the person, first and last, please.

As for these other "victims", did they have names? Or were they just made-up people as is the standard practice of respectable newspapers like the Daily Fail, er, Mail? Like the "reporting" they did on the policeman in Seattle who issued the noise citation? Who said he never once was contacted by them or spoke to them.

I think one of them was called 'Ada' from Azerbaijan IIRC. By AK's own account she bumped into her again in a washroom some years after the MK affair. There is no law against 'apologising' but 'apologising' is also a euphemism for one way to avoid sanction. Presumably, the individual Knox was made to 'apologise' to complained to an authority figure who instructed AK to 'apologise' (...or else, sanctions).

 

[Vixen]

What part of my statements are you have such difficulty in understanding? No one else is. Only YOU.



I repeat: Neither LJ nor I mentioned Meredith. We were referring to "A WOMAN IN GENERAL". It's not OUR "suggestion"; it's YOUR inference. Would you now like to argue that WOMEN never comply with an attacker out of fear for their lives?
Frankly, at this point there are only two options for your post:
1. You really do have a severe reading comprehension problem or
2. Your 'confusion' is deliberate.

Additionally, it's the job of the pathologist to determine manner and cause of death and to conduct lab tests in support of that. It is NOT their job to determine the state of mind of the victim at the time of the crime.

You are now moving the goalpost to "When someone is approached with someone threatening them with a knife," when the discussion is about "an attacker holding a knife to a woman's throat," and not "approaching" them. If they didn't immediately fear for their life, then they wouldn't comply with his demands!

You are just making up your own facts...AGAIN. According to you, every woman who is attacked and is threatened with a knife fights back. I won't bother quoting and citing evidence that your claim is ludicrous because you'll just ignore it per usual.


Having a knife held to your throat with demands to comply or be killed is every bit as intimidating and fear producing as having a gun pointed at you. Frankly, it's beyond ridiculous.

Wait a minute...so NOW you're agreeing that a woman might comply with the assault out of fear for her life. Which is exactly what LJ and I said previously!


Once again, you assume that LJ and I were referring to this specific case when you've been repeatedly told we were referring to women in general and never mentioned Meredith.


None of the above has jack crap to do with the fact that, yet again, you flagrantly misrepresent what the discussion was actually about in an attempt to control it. It isn't working.

Why are you talking about 'women in general'? We are talking about a specific individual in a specific situation.