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

[TruthCalls]

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.)

Yes, and she was also acquitted of the charge. The police knew they had Guede dead to rights, so why waste ALL of the charges on him.

Guede did NOT need to KNOW the rent money was there. He was there to steal whatever he could. He had to go into her handbag to get the keys, he found her wallet, found her cash, and the rest is history.

We know what the evidence is of Guede taking the cash - his DNA on her handbag, him not having a job and no source for money, his recent streak of B&E's. What was the evidence of Amanda taking her cash? Hell, they couldn't even prove she was in the room... they just threw a charge at her with absolutely no basis in fact. It doesn't even make sense given she has never been accused of stealing, she had plenty of money, and she was dating a wealthy guy. But I guess when you are hopelessly obsessed with hating on someone, seeing even the obvious can be difficult.

 

[TruthCalls]

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).

You "think"... "Presumably"... Stop making things up. If you can't prove something, then it's nothing more than speculation, if not a complete fabrication.

Amanda was NOT made to apologize, she did that on her own once she realized the prank had caused someone more angst than expected.

but 'apologising' is also a euphemism for one way to avoid sanction.

What a ridiculous comment, one that could only be made by an obsessive hater that can't help but see everything Amanda says or does through hate colored glasses. In your bizarre world, Amanda couldn't have apologized because the prank stressed her friend more than expected and she felt bad about it. Nope, you just HAVE to find a nefarious explanation to everything.

 

[TruthCalls]

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

The discussion was why so few defensive wounds. As there is NO EVIDENCE of how the attack began, all anyone can do is speculate. And one such speculation is the VERY WELL KNOWN PHENOMENA of a victim complying with their attacker when they are facing imminent, severe danger, such as a gun to your head or a knife to your throat. It really is a very simply concept, so why are you struggling so much with grasping it?

 

[TruthCalls]

The ECHR disagrees with you. Do you know better than the ECHR?

LJ, that's a loaded question.... Vixen thinks she's smarter than everyone, including the ISC and the ECHR.

 

[Welshman]

It wasn't one story it was several. She put them up on her MySpace page into the public domain and wrote yet another one whilst in Capanne. It's by her own account, so hardly my 'falsehood'. As for the ridiculous claim by Stacyhs that it was a school class assignment to write about anti-rape, that is just something made up on the hoof to 'explain' it. As if any English teacher instructs a class of minors to write a lurid composition about rape and violence.

Stacyhs pointed out that Vixen lied about the contents of the story. Can Vixen provide any evidence Amanda wrote several stories about rape, put them on MySpace and wrote another story in Capanne. I ask this as Vixen has a consistent history of dishonesty in her posts.

 

[catsmate]

She didn't retract it.

Factually untrue.

 

[catsmate]

The criminal courts acquitted Knox and Sollecito of every single charge related to the murder. Next?

But as with Lindy Chamberlain Vixen knows better......

 

[catsmate]

Oh dear. Burglary is precisely the act of entering a property illegally. The act of taking property without the owner's permission is theft. Again, please educate yourself before embarrassing yourself with a pompous attempt to educate anyone else. Thanks.

I remember the days when burglary and house-breaking were separate offences, depending on time of day.

 

[Stacyhs]

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

No, WE were not. LJ's post, to which I responded, never mentioned Meredith and neither did mine. As you've had repeatedly explained to you, we were talking about WOMEN or A WOMAN submitting to AN attacker because they felt their life was in danger. Why can't you just admit that when it's very clear instead of this ridiculous digging in?

 

[SpitfireIX]

As for Taramantano's girlfriend, that doesn't make his allegations stronger. Courts treat spouses as an extension of their partners and hence a spouse is not required to testify against their partner. Likewise getting your SO to back you up is hardly proof it was Guede in Taramantano's apartment as claimed. As police never took him seriously, why are you demanding we should?

Just to add to Stacy's response, thanks for demonstrating yet again why we don't accept you as any kind of an authority on legal matters. Courts do not "treat spouses as extensions of their partners." The point of spousal privilege is to avoid having marriages damaged or destroyed by compelling one spouse to testify against the other, and there are exceptions. In Indiana, for example (and I'm sure many other jurisdictions), spousal privilege does not apply in cases of domestic abuse, or where one spouse is accused of assaulting someone who's attempting to intervene to prevent abuse of one spouse by the other. So, yes, despite your lame attempt to pretend otherwise, it absolutely does make his accusation stronger.

 

[SpitfireIX]

B&E doesn't refer to stealing, it refers to illegally accessing a property by breaking and entering, for example, forcing a lock or smashing a window. Guede has never been convicted of Breaking and Entering.

Irrelevant. Despite your usual lame attempts to pretend otherwise, the evidence is overwhelming that Guede had committed several burglaries prior to Meredith's murder. Further, even if he'd never committed a burglary prior to that, it wouldn't preclude the possibility of his having acted alone in murdering Meredith, with burglary as his motive for having initially entered the cottage that night.

You claim AK removed objects from this person's room, but I am sorry, that is technically not only B&E but also burglary proper. So historically, Knox is the real burglar.

And, again, in your zeal to smear Amanda, you demonstrate your breathtaking ignorance of legal matters. Breaking and entering and burglary both require criminal intent, which Amanda did not have when she was pulling what she thought was a harmless prank.

Guede only ever got charged with 'being in possession of stolen property'. No amount of trying to pin the solicitor's office break in and the theft of a gold watch from some old lady living nearby, by you, makes it true.

Again, despite your attempts to pretend otherwise, the fact that he was never charged doesn't mean he didn't do it. As has been explained to you ad nauseam, we are concerned, first and foremost, with the actual truth, and not what charges the prosecutor did or did not bring, or what a court did or did not rule.

 

[TruthCalls]

Just to add to Stacy's response, thanks for demonstrating yet again why we don't accept you as any kind of an authority on legal matters. Courts do not "treat spouses as extensions of their partners." The point of spousal privilege is to avoid having marriages damaged or destroyed by compelling one spouse to testify against the other, and there are exceptions. In Indiana, for example (and I'm sure many other jurisdictions), spousal privilege does not apply in cases of domestic abuse, or where one spouse is accused of assaulting someone who's attempting to intervene to prevent abuse of one spouse by the other. So, yes, despite your lame attempt to pretend otherwise, it absolutely does make his accusation stronger.

I don't even understand this line of thinking. As previously pointed out, they were not married so spousal privilege is a moot point. But even if they were married, they were testifying to the same thing. One was not testifying against the other. Sometimes I think Vixen just throws things out in hopes something will stick, but this has zero relevance to reality. Crazy stuff..

 

[Stacyhs]

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.

I remember this incident vaguely but I don't think 'Ada' was connected to the April Fool's Day prank. IIRC, 'Ada' was someone she worked with or knew in Perugia.

There is no law against 'apologising' but 'apologising' is also a euphemism for one way to avoid sanction.

It's also just a way to show regret for something and taking responsibility.

Presumably, the individual Knox was made to 'apologise' to complained to an authority figure who instructed AK to 'apologise' (...or else, sanctions).

The key word there is "presumbably" which means you have no evidence any of this ever happened and you just made it up. Into the 'assfacts bin' it goes. I'm gonna need a bigger bin.

 

[Stacyhs]

If you care to read the judge's notes you'll understand that employing purple prose in the form of in my head I saw it was Patrik, doesn't get you off a charge of deliberately and cunningly trying to pervert the course of justice by pointing law investigators to a person you know is innocent.

You claimed "She didn't retract it." If you care to read the ECHR's 2019 ruling, you'll understand that she did:

"Secondly, only a few hours after the interviews in question, Ms Knox had promptly RETRACTED HER STATEMENTS, IN PARTICULAR BY A TEXT THAT SHE HAD WRITTEN ON 6 NOVEMBER 2007 AT ABOUT 1 P.M.

Apparently, neither the last court nor you understand that ruling or Knox's Nov 7 statement that she couldn't know who the killer was because she wasn't there.

 

[Numbers]

In the current case under topic, {1}the issue of whether there were 'astonishing flaws' in the investigation was never established as a fact by a merits court (first or second instance merits and/or appeal). It is simply a hypothetical blurting out by Marasca- Bruno because they could think of no other reason to claim grounds for an acquittal due to 'insufficient evidence'. {2}A judge can only quote what has been pleaded in court, so clearly, Marasca-Bruno are quoting the words of Bongiorno, in her astonishingly long {3}two-day marathon 'twenty-minute skeleton' argument. It shows you what a piss-poor barrister she is if that's the best argument she could come up with and how {4}dreadfully improper M-B were, quite aside from their breaching the CPP deadline in issuing their MR, extended by some three months, as they tossed and turned at night trying to work out how to word something so pitifully absurd and illogical and not determined by the facts found at trial. Now we know why Dr. Sollecito hired Bongiorno: he wanted someone who, quote, 'could make water run up hill'.

I'll now give a somewhat longer response to your post; I've added numbers to some of your points to allow for discussion in this response.

1. The Conti & Vecchiotti report, obtained by the Hellmann Court of Appeal, provided unimpeachable evidence of flaws in the investigation. This evidence, and all other valid evidence, survived the partial annulment of the Hellmann court verdict. So the Marasca CSC panel had solid evidence that there were significant flaws in the investigation that were decisive in their acquittal and annulment; it was not a hypothetical statement by the Marasca CSC panel.

2. Judges are not restricted to quoting what has been pleaded in court, and certainly not in Italy. There is no Italian law stating what you claim.

3. There is no Italian law restricting the length of a CSC panel hearing; Italian law does require that the prosecutor, defense, and private party lawyers be notified 30 days in advance of the date set for the first day of the hearing, and whether the hearing will be held in chambers or in open court. The parties are allowed to submit new arguments and briefs up to 15 days before the hearing, and to submit reply briefs up to 5 days before the hearing. The CSC judgment (the short-form operative verdict) is handed down in a closed session immediately after the conclusion of the hearing, unless the President of the CSC panel decides to postpone the conclusion of the deliberation to a further hearing because of the large number or complexity of the issues.

4. Under Italian law, the MR is not to be delivered more than 90 days after the short-form operative verdict is delivered; CSC panels apparently may take more time if they are delivering the MR of a final judgment, since no ordinary appeal is possible.

 

[Stacyhs]

B&E doesn't refer to stealing, it refers to illegally accessing a property by breaking and entering, for example, forcing a lock or smashing a window.

I am aware of that. But, do explain how Knox could illegally access her own house that she shared with the other girls? She never says she entered the girl's bedroom in the house:

I played a part in an April's Fools prank that involved making a mess-moving and hiding stuff in the house I shared with friends-to make it seem like we had been robbed when we weren't there. The ruse was immediately revealed after the initial shock. We-all of the mutual friends of my housemates who participated in the prank with me-apologized in the distress caused.

Your argument holds no water.

Guede has never been convicted of Breaking and Entering.

Neither has Knox.

You claim AK removed objects from this person's room, but I am sorry, that is technically not only B&E but also burglary proper.

I never made any such claim. This is what I said:

Oh, did she now? Then you can cite these multiple B&E's (your plural). You misleadingly like to present it as Knox doing this when, if fact, it was Knox and some fellow housemates.

Vixen said:
"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.

It was a silly prank that YOU NEED to exaggerate because admitting it was just a college April Fool's Day prank would not demonize her enough for you.

I never said Knox or anyone entered the girl's bedroom. I said "IF" and a hypothetical "SOMEONE'S BEDROOM" and compared that to AK and RS just going into Laura and Filomena's bedroom. Do try and read for comprehension instead of twisting what's actually written to fit your own narrative.

So historically, Knox is the real burglar.

Nope. And your 'explanation' is embarrassingly wrong. And by the way:

[In the US] Burglary is a crime defined as unlawful entry into a building or structure with the intent to commit a crime.

The offender only has to enter a structure, even if it is through an open door, with the intent of stealing something or causing harm to another person.

In Italy, burglary is defined under the Italian Penal Code (Codice Penale), specifically in Article 624, which addresses theft. The crime of theft involves unlawfully taking possession of someone else's movable property with the intent to gain economic gain.

Nothing was stolen from the house and there was no intent to commit a crime.

Guede only ever got charged with 'being in possession of stolen property'.

No, Guede was convicted of being in possession of stolen property:

• 2013-02-18-Motivations-Trial-Milano-Lacaita-convicting-Guede-possession-stolen-goods-breaking-in-daycare.pdf

No amount of trying to pin the solicitor's office break in and the theft of a gold watch from some old lady living nearby, by you, makes it true

No amount of ignoring the logic that he did makes it false.
I already asked you...and as usual...you failed to answer:

He told police he bought the phones and laptop off some guy in the Milan train station. How likely is it that Guede just happened to run into some random guy in Milan who had items stolen in Perugia?

Just how do you think Guede legally obtained a woman's gold watch? What a coincidence that his neighbor of a few feet away, not just 'nearby', had also reported her gold watch stolen! Guede was broke and unemployed. In fact, he had just tried to borrow 20 euros from a friend who had refused him. Do you think someone just gave it to him? Think, Vixen, think.

 

[Stacyhs]

There is no evidence Guede stole the rent money.

Nah, none at all. His DNA in Meredith's blood ON THE PURSE ain't no evidence at all!
I wonder just how he could afford to buy a train ticket out of Italy when he was flat broke?

For your information, it was Knox who was charged with that offence.

For your information, Knox was acquitted of that offence. From the Massei MR pg. 396:

KNOX Amanda Marie and SOLLECITO Raffaele guilty of the crimes ascribed to them under chapter A) of the charges, into said crime being absorbed the felony contested under chapter C), as well as [guilty] under chapter B), D) limited to the mobile phones

Charge D included the rent money, credit cards, 2 cell phones.
But I think you know that and chose not to mention the acquittal for the rent money.

If you are going to claim Guede stole the money you need to explain how he would even know about the rent in cash.

Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick! Burglars don't always KNOW what's in a house the burgle. That's why they rummage through things looking for valuable items. If the girls' paid in cash, what makes you think that wasn't the common way to pay rent? Guede didn't even provide evidence of employment to his landlady and was renting a dumpy one-room bedsit. He had no bank account...or at least none that we know of... and no credit cards. How else would he pay it?

(And Knox being richer by a similar amount.)

How was she "richer" by a similar amount? Knox had a similar amount because they owed the same rent amount; €350!

Her bank record shows these transaction:

Oct 23: -355.79 [€250] $4,549.89
Oct 29: -215.90 [€150] $4,333.99 (Trip to Assisi)
Nov 5: -361,54 [€250] $3,9790.30
Nov 5: +562.00 $4,528.69

She had already withdrawn her rent from her bank which accounts for the money you're attempting to connect to Meredith's stolen money.

 

[TruthCalls]

B&E doesn't refer to stealing, it refers to illegally accessing a property by breaking and entering, for example, forcing a lock or smashing a window. Guede has never been convicted of Breaking and Entering. You claim AK removed objects from this person's room, but I am sorry, that is technically not only B&E but also burglary proper. So historically, Knox is the real burglar. Guede only ever got charged with 'being in possession of stolen property'. No amount of trying to pin the solicitor's office break in and the theft of a gold watch from some old lady living nearby, by you, makes it true.

This entire line of ...ahem....reasoning is ridiculous. Have you ever grabbed someone's keys or cell phone when they're not looking and get a laugh out of watching them look, and thinking they lost, the item. Once they've sufficiently freaked out, you hand it to them and everyone has a laugh. It's called a prank.

The prank while at UW is the exact same thing, but on a larger scale, involving several girls. It's NOT B&E, it's NOT burglary... it's a F###ing PRANK.

Damn, you're so desperate to pin something on Amanda that you're actually obsessing on friends having fun. Good lord.

And yeah, he was caught having broken into a school. When the police search him they find a laptop, a mobile phone, a gold watch and a knife. The knife was stolen from the school kitchen. The laptop and mobile phone were taken from a burglary of a law office days earlier. The gold watch was consistent with one taken from Guede's neighbor. And Christian Tramontano AND his girl friend both testified they caught him burglarizing their apartment while they were in the loft sleeping. He confronted Guede, who wielded a knife, before Guede fled. They know who they saw. He saw Guede again the next day at the bar he worked at and had him removed. All of that took place BEFORE Meredith's murder, so no chance someone just came forward for notoriety. Amazing after all that, you still wish to defend Guede, question his B&E's, trying to equate all of this to a prank amongst friends. You've totally lost your perspective, Vixen.

 

[Numbers]

This entire line of ...ahem....reasoning is ridiculous. Have you ever grabbed someone's keys or cell phone when they're not looking and get a laugh out of watching them look, and thinking they lost, the item. Once they've sufficiently freaked out, you hand it to them and everyone has a laugh. It's called a prank.

The prank while at UW is the exact same thing, but on a larger scale, involving several girls. It's NOT B&E, it's NOT burglary... it's a F###ing PRANK.

Damn, you're so desperate to pin something on Amanda that you're actually obsessing on friends having fun. Good lord.

And yeah, he was caught having broken into a school. When the police search him they find a laptop, a mobile phone, a gold watch and a knife. The knife was stolen from the school kitchen. The laptop and mobile phone were taken from a burglary of a law office days earlier. The gold watch was consistent with one taken from Guede's neighbor. And Christian Tramontano AND his girl friend both testified they caught him burglarizing their apartment while they were in the loft sleeping. He confronted Guede, who wielded a knife, before Guede fled. They know who they saw. He saw Guede again the next day at the bar he worked at and had him removed. All of that took place BEFORE Meredith's murder, so no chance someone just came forward for notoriety. Amazing after all that, you still wish to defend Guede, question his B&E's, trying to equate all of this to a prank amongst friends. You've totally lost your perspective, Vixen.

Vixen's attempt to misrepresent Knox's prank as a crime is siimilar to the effort by the Italian police and prosecutor to misrepresent Knox's cell phone text message to Lumumba as an invitation to meet, rather than an attempt by a beginning learner of Italian to write "see you later" (= "goodbye" as a parting greeting) as an invitation to a meeting. To make their false case against Knox, Vixen and other PGP constantly use misrepresentations and lies. In some cases, it's not clear if such PGP falsehoods are intentional or the result of superficial research into the topic.

Examples of possible superficial research by Vixen or other PGP posters are pointed out in my post #4,352 in this Continuation 32. In response to a post by Stacyhs that stated that, for the past 10 years, Vixen and other PGP had been posting the falsehood that the Marasca CSC panel had no lawful authority to quash the Nencini Court of Appeal judgment, I pointed out other examples of PGP false claims that could likewise be based on superficial research, such as not bothering to read in detail the pertinent Italian laws or ECHR case law. Of course, it is possible that Vixen and the PGP have done the research and understood it, but choose to misrepresent it to support their position against Knox and Sollecito.

 

[TruthCalls]

Vixen's attempt to misrepresent Knox's prank as a crime is siimilar to the effort by the Italian police and prosecutor to misrepresent Knox's cell phone text message to Lumumba as an invitation to meet, rather than an attempt by a beginning learner of Italian to write "see you later" (= "goodbye" as a parting greeting) as an invitation to a meeting. To make their false case against Knox, Vixen and other PGP constantly use misrepresentations and lies. In some cases, it's not clear if such PGP falsehoods are intentional or the result of superficial research into the topic.

Examples of possible superficial research by Vixen or other PGP posters are pointed out in my post #4,352 in this Continuation 32. In response to a post by Stacyhs that stated that, for the past 10 years, Vixen and other PGP had been posting the falsehood that the Marasca CSC panel had no lawful authority to quash the Nencini Court of Appeal judgment, I pointed out other examples of PGP false claims that could likewise be based on superficial research, such as not bothering to read in detail the pertinent Italian laws or ECHR case law. Of course, it is possible that Vixen and the PGP have done the research and understood it, but choose to misrepresent it to support their position against Knox and Sollecito.

Numbers, I couldn't agree more. There are definitely issues in this case where I can understand people seeing is as an indication of guilt, but this issue with the prank at UW is indefensible. We all know what pranks are, and I seriously doubt there is anyone here who has not pulled a prank on someone. It's fun and games, nothing more. So Vixen is being completely disingenuous with her comments. She knows as well as anyone that a prank is not a crime. So her effort to equate a prank to Guede's provable crimes - indeed, to even try to elevate them above Guede's crimes - is inexcusable and it's disgusting, yet somehow I am not surprised.