• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

TruthCalls said:
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. :eusa_hand:

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.
Click to expand...
No. No, I have never knowingly 'pranked' someone that would cause them distress. I can't think of any prank I have ever carried out, not even an April Fool's one, harmless or otherwise. The closest I can think of is a Secret Santa incident involving my super-sleazy sex-obsessed boss, wherein one of my colleagues presented him with a 'wanking kit' as his Secret Santa pressie. The look on the recipient's face when he opened it caused us all a great deal of schadenfreude and hilarity. He went from turning as white as a ghost, through to pink, then red, then crimson, magenta, puce, purple, blue, to black with thunder. At the next Secret Santa, he sent a memo around saying all gifts must be politically correct. Does that make me a wicked person that it makes me smile, even now? But I can't see anything amusing about staging a burglary. It's not funny at all.
 
Numbers said:
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.
Click to expand...
Ha, this 'see you later' is another Knox hoax, together with the 'Guede was a prolific local burglar' one. No, police didn't begin to suspect Knox over the 'see you later' crap, as no doubt her parents decided would be a great PR point for Gogerty-Marriott. The hoax goes something like this: the stupid Italians thought Knox was literally going to 'see you later' with somebody, which is why they decided she was a key suspect and started beating her about the head (plus, enter the tag teams of twelve from Rome all night long shouting REMEMBER! REMEMBER!). The truth is, Knox deleted her message from Patrick not to come in and thought she had deleted her response. If you recall, she switched off her phone within half an hour of Patrick's don't come in text, the aim being to hide her whereabouts that evening. But the Italians have a lot of secret police doing their stuff (think about how quickly two plainclothed policemen turned up at the cottage with Mez' handed in discarded phone). The found Knox message which she had deleted. When she realised they could place her in Plaza Grimana, her physiological reaction of shock and surprise told them, from past experience, was typical of a criminal caught out bang to rights. This is why she had to quickly dream up a story of why she was in Plaza Grimana and how she met up with Patrik there to take him to the cottage, etc. I mean, her folk were furious she was tricked into confessing, but it was all by Knox' own accord.
 
Last edited:
TruthCalls said:
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.
Click to expand...
If it is so harmless, why did that person from WSU ring up Perugia Police to report it? Why would Knox go to the lengths of playing it down, wen she was made to apologise to her victim? Not such a 'harmless prank' after all, given the context of Mez being mercilessly hazed by her attackers.
 
TruthCalls said:
Do you really need evidence that Vixen knows what a prank is. Do you suspect she's gone through her entire life never having played a prank, or had a prank played on her?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I can recall someone playing a prank on me. A guy in my office ran off with my phone. I went in hot pursuit of him when I realised. He had gone upstairs to a meeting with the 'big boss'. I was so upset, I burst into this meeting, yelling, 'Where's my phone, Jason?!!!' and he sheepishly handed it to me. Big boss looked quite amused.
 
Lots of stupid jokes and pranks from our resident guilter tonight, but what do you expect from someone who thinks an opinion is a fact... bwahahahahaha.
 
Numbers said:
Another theme of some of Vixen's posts is that the PIP posts criticize the Italian judicial system, and somehow that criticism is an unwarranted diversion from the basics facts of the Knox - Sollecito case. However, I would suggest that the dysfunction of the Italian judicial system is a factor at the heart of the Knox - Sollecito case.

Here's an excerpt from an academic paper reviewing some of the issues associated with the dysfunction of the Italian judicial system (inline superscript citations omitted, words in braces are my additions):








Source:
The Never-Ending Crisis of Italian Justice: Role and Responsibility of its Governance System
Francesco Contini
National Research Council of Italy (IGSG-CNR), Italy
LAW, TECHNOLOGY AND HUMANS
Volume 5 (1) 2023

Law, Technology and Humans

Law, Technology and Humans provides an inclusive and unique forum for exploration of the broader connections, history and emergent future of law and technology through supporting research that takes seriously the human, and humanity of law and technology. ISSN: 2652-4074 (Online)
doi.org doi.org

The article does not appear to address how the judges treat criminal cases with different approaches to the laws of the Code of Criminal Procedure - some judges ignore those laws, even one as fundamental as CPP Article 533 (conviction may only be pronounced if there is proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt).
Click to expand...
Well we all know Italy was a fascist state. With its mafia problem, it also means they were able to wiretap people almost at will and do all kinds of undercover stuff. In the UK you need to get a magistrates warrant to wire tap (= i.e., you need to provide a valid reason for doing this stuff). I expect it was a huge shock for AK when she realised just how much the cops knew about her activities and movements. that night.
 
AmyStrange said:
The jokes and pranks never stop... YEEEEEha!

Go loser! Go!
Click to expand...
Sure, holding your roommate captive and torturing her whilst stripping her must have been the 'best ever' prank, together with staging a burglary and setting it up to look like 'a black guy did it', whilst next day wearing a pristine white skirt, must have taken an awful lot of chutzpah to pull off! Especially when everyone now thinks AK is Amélie. Hilarious.
 
Vixen said:
They were not exonerated, they were acquitted due to 'insufficient evidence'. It's rather like the OJ Simpson case. Imagine if he'd brought out a tv series depicting himself as the Pope going around blessing people.
Click to expand...
You keep trotting that out there, but you have been called out on this lie repeatedly. Do you do anything other than lie and misrepresent in your posts?
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...
Good lord, Vixen, we just had a whole discussion about why so many victims, assaulted by a lone assailant, didn't have defensive wounds. There are many reasons for it OTHER than two people holding the victim down. You were NOT there, and you do NOT know someone was restraining her arms behind her back, nor is there any evidence to prove that. And ironically enough, even if we were to believe that, as it's Guede's DNA on her sweatshirt sleeves, I guess we can assume he was holding her down. Still no trace of either Amanda or Raffaele in the room.

There was NOTHING with her wounds that indicated more than one assailant. How many times must we point out that six of seven forensic pathologists who testified confirmed the wounds were consistent or compatible with a lone assailant. I know you think you're smarter than everyone else, and you've already claimed to know better than the ECHR (as I predicted...), but are you now going to claim you're smarter than the six pathologists who disagree with you?
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...
First, Guede being unemployed doesn't prove he was a lone murderer/rapist, the forensic evidence proves that. His being unemployed and without money only proves a motive for him burglarizing places, and having stolen Meredith's money and credit cards.

What criminal record did Amanda or Raffaele have at the time of the murder? Note that a noise citation is NOT a criminal record.
 
TruthCalls said:
Good lord, Vixen, we just had a whole discussion about why so many victims, assaulted by a lone assailant, didn't have defensive wounds. There are many reasons for it OTHER than two people holding the victim down. You were NOT there, and you do NOT know someone was restraining her arms behind her back, nor is there any evidence to prove that. And ironically enough, even if we were to believe that, as it's Guede's DNA on her sweatshirt sleeves, I guess we can assume he was holding her down. Still no trace of either Amanda or Raffaele in the room.

There was NOTHING with her wounds that indicated more than one assailant. How many times must we point out that six of seven forensic pathologists who testified confirmed the wounds were consistent or compatible with a lone assailant. I know you think you're smarter than everyone else, and you've already claimed to know better than the ECHR (as I predicted...), but are you now going to claim you're smarter than the six pathologists who disagree with you?
Click to expand...
The evidence to prove her arms were held behind her back was tried and tested in court. This is scientifically observable from the type of bruising at her shoulder blade in particular. The police reconstructed the scene as being three perps. You are claiming by pure conjecture, without any evidence at all, with the aim of deflecting away suspicion from AK/RS, that Guede managed to restrain Mez from behind, whilst holding one knife of one size and another of another size, whilst simultaneously stabbing her in the neck on one side and again with the other knife on the other side, whilst at the same time lifting up her jumper to to tear or cut off her bra, together with numerous knife flicks over her body in order to prolong the torture before the final kill. Ah, so Guede's DNA is fine, not due to contamination, then? Yet collected by the same team who collected the bra clasp. Is there any particular reason you have this great compulsion to cover up for AK/RS, denying everything that was found as an objective proven scientific fact in court? It seems weird to me that you would claim a pathologist is lying.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom