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

[Vixen]

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?

There were only superficial defensive wounds because someone was restraining her arms behind her back, as she was being strangled, stabbed repeatedly and had a hand over her mouth. This is borne out by the pathologists notes documenting the type of wounds visible on the body at post-mortem. Large upward thrusting sawing stabs on one side of the throat and a lesser stab wound with a smaller-sized knife - and more superficial - than the fatal one. Knox was charged and convicted of wielding the knife in the larger wound. The conviction was annulled due to mental gymnastics by Marasca-Bruno, thanks to political backchanneling and, shall we say, interference by Bongiono's well-known chums, who ride about in armoured vehicles for their own protection from other mobsters.

 

[Vixen]

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.

It's well-documented.

 

[Vixen]

Factually untrue.

Er, that's not what the courts found.

 

[Vixen]

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

Please explain.

 

[Vixen]

This post is a typical example of Guede's supporters playing the race card.

Referring to someone integrated into Italian culture, language and society as a 'Black migrant'* and a 'cat burglar' when they have ZERO convictions for burglary or breaking and entering, is pure incitement to hatred. Which is Nina Burleigh's aim. Forget the courts, let's just be racist.

*when they arrived aged five as an asylum seeker.

 

[Vixen]

What should you care about how innocent people choose to spend their time?

There is something immoral in people profiting from their crime.

 

[Vixen]

Why should you care what an innocent person wrote as a school assignment?

The point being made is, if Guede as a teenager was unemployed because he got sacked lying in bed and unable to get his arse into work, proves he was a lone murderer/rapist, then the past history of Knox and Sollecito also becomes fair game. Unlike AK and RS, RG had no criminal record as of the time of the murder. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

 

[Vixen]

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

Certainly. We can look at what Dalla Vedova submitted to them. He cunningly used the Boninsegna MR, when Boninsegna was not the trial judge at the convictions being complained of. He lied quite a lot, claiming Italian police were obliged to provide a lawyer, when protocol at an interview (not the hyperbolic word 'interrogation') is simply to inform the interviewee that they are entitled to one. In addition, Boninsegna's issue wasn't police brutality, it was the cops being too kind such as patting AK's hand reassuringly or being 'mumsy'. A far cry from the treatment of Saluduz or Hamza, who had potentially genuine complaints, as much as we might despise the latter for his 'hate' preaching. So the Art 6 finding that was upheld was predicated on a deliberate falsehood by Dalla Vedova. The ECHR was constrained by RIRO. But overall, it wasn't fooled, it threw out almost all of the long list of 'claims'.

 

[Vixen]

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.

No, a criminal act requires mens rea. Guede was not convicted of burglary, breaking and entrying but was convicted in hindsight of 'being in possession of stolen property', some weeks after his arrest for the murder, thanks to lobbying by 'ex-FBI Steve Moore' doing the TV rounds falsely claiming AK was subjected to 'tag teams of twelve from Rome flying squad, all night long'.

 

[Vixen]

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

No they were not. Knox remains permanently convicted of the serious crime of criminal calunnia, serious because it attracts a prison sentence of over two years and is roughly equivalent to the US 'obstruction of justice' (sentence up to six years, as in Italy) or the UK's, 'perverting the course of justice', also a serious crime. Given AK remains convicted, we have to consider why she pointed investigators to Lumumba and one can only conclude it was to try to save her own skin.

 

[Vixen]

Well duh! I didn't say she was undressed before the knife wound, I said she was undressed while still alive. If she's aspirating blood, she is alive. So no, not wrong.

And where is your evidence she died by the closet or that she was dragged by her hair? You don't have either.. it's speculation at best.

No, he claimed only a female would cover their victim, and he was wrong about that. Stop lying.

Wow, are you making a whole series of baseless assumptions. Who ever said Guede knew there was €300 lying around? He was there to steal whatever he could steal. Of course, Meredith comes home and surprises him, they get into a confrontation and it leads to her death. Now he just wants to get out of the cottage WITHOUT taking things that can connect him to the murder. Of course, once he realized he needed the keys to get out of the cottage, he went into Meredith's handbag, found her wallet, found the money, cards and phones, and took them, later deciding to toss the phones for fear they'll connect him to the crime.

It is not speculating Mez was dragged circa 18" by her hair (" = inches for those unfamiliar) from where she died. This is the scientific assessment of blood spatter analysts. Unlike yourself, I am not given to conjecture. Strange 'He was there to steal whatever he could steal', when he didn't steal anything at all, as a burglar. It was AK who was charged with the thefts. As for the bag, whilst his DNA was in there, a long strand of blond hair or dyed hair was across the top of the bag, as was one such gripped in the deceased's hand. Mez had two phones, one of which was kept in her back jean's pocket. Knox would have known this. RG wouldn't know she had two phones, yet both were stolen. Only Mez' property was stolen, leaving behind her expensive laptop. Nothing was stolen from Knox, Laura or Filomena, despite a 'burglary scene' in her room. In addition, a burglar or mugger just grabs the entire bag and goes through it later. The bag is emptied and left lying in the street. Police didn't charge Knox with the theft for no reason.

 

[Vixen]

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

There is also an offence of going 'equipped for burglary'; you can be done if police find you in possession of things such as a glass breaking hammer, crowbar, jemmy and what have you. In addition, if you can't produce the 'receipts' for goods in your possession you can be done for 'being in possession of stolen property'.

 

[Vixen]

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?

But this was a young woman with her hands gripped from behind and repeatedly jabbed with knife flicks over a long period of time. This was someone being tortured.

 

[Vixen]

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.


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.


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.

There is no overwhelming evidence Guede was the local burglar, as Knox and her fans like to claim, to offset suspicion away from herself. Why? Because Guede has never been convicted of burglary nor of breaking and entering. He might well have attained his stolen property laptop from some guy in Milan, not that RG is known for telling the truth. However, simply speculating RG was a burglar who must have been the real killer, really isn't the same as being tried in a criminal court of law. Knox fans smear Guede because they think it cancels out suspicion from AK and RS of the horrible crime against Mez. But truth cannot be cancelled out. A fact remains a fact no matter how much effort goes into hiding it.

 

[Vixen]

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..

The point being made is just because Taramontano's girlfriend backs him up means sweet Fanny Adams because the natural response would be, of course she would. It's really not the same as an arm's length independent witness backing you up. Rather like tax rules, fair market value is decided by what an independent arms-length third party would pay (or rather does pay) than what your friend, relative or SO would. That's the principle I was referring to here.

 

[Vixen]

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.


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

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.

I love how this horrible nasty mean action that caused someone a great deal of distress is now laughingly referred to as 'an April Fool's prank' that included a whole load of other people, not just AK.

 

[Vixen]

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:


Your argument holds no water.


Neither has Knox.

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







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.


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




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


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 ignoring the logic that he did makes it false.
I already asked you...and as usual...you failed to answer:


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.

Get a grip. Burglars go for gold jewellery*. So the fact some old lady living nearby BOTH RS and RG had some gold jewellery stolen really doesn't prove the gold item Guede had in Milan was stolen from that particular lady. There are outlets throughout Europe in which you can sell your stuff to be resold to someone else. Likewise there are pawnbrokers. You take your gold jewellery in when you are broke and if you do not redeem it by a certain date, it goes on sale as a second-hand item. Being gold, it tends to be sought after, as it maintains its value, It also works as a great form of security for those without access to bank loans or needing quick cash in the short term. They can then return to the pawnshop when they receive their wages and take the item back out. How Knox fans have concluded Guede having a gold watch 'must be the same one stolen from the old lady' is a truly wild curve ball one, as Guede was never charged with being in possession of this lady's freaking watch, nor was it deemed stolen AFAIAA. For all you know, the lady's watch was never stolen at all but an insurance scam, as there was a concomitant fire to go with it. Looks like Nina Burleigh went to superhuman lengths to find out who had what stolen so she could pin them all on to Guede. But Sollecito also lived nearby this said old lady whose gold watch went missing. How do you know it wasn't Sollecito who stole it? Eh? Eh? See how irrational your logic is?

*But strangely the 'burglar' ignored Filomena's, there for the taking.

 

[TruthCalls]

But unlike Knox, Guede was neither charged nor convicted of the theft of the phones, cash and cards. Your claim the police singled out Knox is your pathetic fantasy that police have nothing better to do than pick on some random person. She was charged because of strong probable cause., not because some cop didn't like the look of her.

Why wasn't Guede charged? What was the evidence of Amanda stealing her money? They couldn't even prove she was in the room. I just cited why Guede should have been charged... now your turn, what was the evidence of Amanda stealing money and phones. I'll wait...

 

[Vixen]

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

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.


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?


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.

She was found in possession of cash roughly equivalent to Mez' rent money.

 

[TruthCalls]

Knox only referred to the 'prank' because someone had rung up Perugia Police to draw their attention to her past behaviour. Of course, she is going to make light of it. Freaking someone out was just a leetle April Fools joke, ha ha ha, not a reflection on a dark sadistic personality.

Hey, congratulations, you finally figured something out. That's right, it WAS a prank, a joke.

Dictionary.com defines a prank as: a trick of an amusing, playful, or sometimes malicious nature.

She wasn't the only one involved in the prank. So now everyone who was involved in that prank should be considered armed and dangerous? That means tens of thousands of people with dark sadistic personalities are running wild the world over executing pranks... such darkness, Vixen... the end must be near!