• 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:
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.
Click to expand...
What rubbish. The unemployed get unemployment support. Are you seriously claiming the unemployed are motivated to go out burgling? That is some desperate logic there. A criminal life style is largely a choice. The vast majority of unemployed people are just as honest and law-abiding as anyone else. Knox was given a ticket for anti-social behaviour, letting her guests cause great distress to the neighbours, with people throwing rocks at passing cars. I know Knox fans find this really amusing but that kind of behaviour is not only dangerous to motorists but shows a '◊◊◊◊ you' attitude by the person concerned. Sollecito brags that he received a caution for possession of drugs. On another occasion, he brags he managed to conceal illegal drugs from the cops by clever deception. Your claim that AK and RS are nice people whilst Guede was a prolific burglar says a lot about your values.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm not aware of any evidence to support this claim, and you're saying so doesn't prove it. It's certainly not called out in the autopsy. So, do you have any evidence to support this claim?

Of course they reconstructed the scene as being three perps. There is nothing to prove three perps, nor is there any evidence that two different size knives were used. All of the injuries, all of the wounds, are all 100% compatible with a lone assailant. Further, your 'reenactment' of what happened when is entirely baseless, and really has zero sway here.

I told you, if you can find evidence that the SP made the same massive errors while collection Guede's DNA, then sure, I'm fine with finding fault with that and tossing it. Of course, we know there is no evidence to prove this, or even suggest it. Further, we know Guede was never in the upstairs half of the cottage, so his DNA could only get there because he brought it that night. And finally, unlike both the bra clasp and the knife, where the samples were LCN, Guede's DNA was in significant quantity.

The bra clasp was collected by techs with visibly dirty gloves. They fondled it, including the very hook where Raffaele's DNA was found. They then passed it around for other techs to handle. The sample was amplified only once, and then it was improperly stored, causing it to rust so it could never be tested again. You seem to think this is fine.

The knife was removed from it's collection bag in a non-sterile police station, in direct violation with ENFSI standards that Italy is supposed to follow. Three separate tests proved the sample was not blood, not human biological material, and that no, or insufficient DNA, was present. You think this is fine.

Geuede's DNA is found INSIDE Meredith, on her sweatshirt, on her bra, on her handbag, all in significant quantity. No known errors were made while any of these samples were collected. Despite this, you think if we're suspicious of the bra clasp and knife samples, we should also be suspicious of these samples. Anything to support your friend Guede, I guess.
 
TruthCalls said:
I'm not aware of any evidence to support this claim, and you're saying so doesn't prove it. It's certainly not called out in the autopsy. So, do you have any evidence to support this claim?

Of course they reconstructed the scene as being three perps. There is nothing to prove three perps, nor is there any evidence that two different size knives were used. All of the injuries, all of the wounds, are all 100% compatible with a lone assailant. Further, your 'reenactment' of what happened when is entirely baseless, and really has zero sway here.

I told you, if you can find evidence that the SP made the same massive errors while collection Guede's DNA, then sure, I'm fine with finding fault with that and tossing it. Of course, we know there is no evidence to prove this, or even suggest it. Further, we know Guede was never in the upstairs half of the cottage, so his DNA could only get there because he brought it that night. And finally, unlike both the bra clasp and the knife, where the samples were LCN, Guede's DNA was in significant quantity.

The bra clasp was collected by techs with visibly dirty gloves. They fondled it, including the very hook where Raffaele's DNA was found. They then passed it around for other techs to handle. The sample was amplified only once, and then it was improperly stored, causing it to rust so it could never be tested again. You seem to think this is fine.

The knife was removed from it's collection bag in a non-sterile police station, in direct violation with ENFSI standards that Italy is supposed to follow. Three separate tests proved the sample was not blood, not human biological material, and that no, or insufficient DNA, was present. You think this is fine.

Geuede's DNA is found INSIDE Meredith, on her sweatshirt, on her bra, on her handbag, all in significant quantity. No known errors were made while any of these samples were collected. Despite this, you think if we're suspicious of the bra clasp and knife samples, we should also be suspicious of these samples. Anything to support your friend Guede, I guess.
Click to expand...
Guede never denied being there. Fact is, it was proven in a long and fair criminal trial that all three were guilty as charged and convicted fairly and squarely. The pair AK and RS got off on a little used loop-hole of 'insufficient evidence', that in Italy is more usually used before charges are brought, as in 'striking out' or 'dismissal'. It's clear M-B thought there was no way they'd be able to extradite AK so they just binned it. But the facts tried and tested, and cross-examined, in court remain true. An established fact never changes. No matter how much you pay for a PR agency and try to pervert the narrative.
 
Vixen said:
Incorrect. The ECHR has no legal power to issue a criminal verdict.
Click to expand...
I wrote "The ECHR ruled her 6 Nov memoriale was a retraction."

Perhaps you can point out to me where in that statement I suggested the ECHR issued a criminal verdict?

You claimed she didn't retract her interrogation statement. The ECHR reviewed her memoriale written on 6 Nov and determined it WAS a retraction. You know that was their conclusion as well as we do, so why lie about it?
 
TruthCalls said:
I wrote "The ECHR ruled her 6 Nov memoriale was a retraction."

Perhaps you can point out to me where in that statement I suggested the ECHR issued a criminal verdict?

You claimed she didn't retract her interrogation statement. The ECHR reviewed her memoriale written on 6 Nov and determined it WAS a retraction. You know that was their conclusion as well as we do, so why lie about it?
Click to expand...
There is a colloquial meaning of a word and a legal meaning. At the criminal trial it was found for all the purple prose used by AK it was a proven clear fact she did with criminal intent point the investigation at Lumumba. IOW it was not an accident or due to confusion nor was it disguised by flowery language. If anything AK underlined her criminal claim by actually writing, I stand by what I said. The ECHR does not have the remit to declare her not guilty of criminal calunnia, nor of anything else.
 
Vixen said:
Guede never denied being there. Fact is, it was proven in a long and fair criminal trial that all three were guilty as charged and convicted fairly and squarely. The pair AK and RS got off on a little used loop-hole of 'insufficient evidence', that in Italy is more usually used before charges are brought, as in 'striking out' or 'dismissal'. It's clear M-B thought there was no way they'd be able to extradite AK so they just binned it. But the facts tried and tested, and cross-examined, in court remain true. An established fact never changes. No matter how much you pay for a PR agency and try to pervert the narrative.
Click to expand...
You're nothing if not entertaining, Vixen. Wrong, but entertaining.

Amanda and Raffaele were definitively acquitted and will forever be recorded in the record books as having been innocent of the crime. And while you can claim they were convicted fair and square, I can say they were acquitted fair and square. Such is the confusion when you have multiple courts, some finding for guilt, others for innocence. I know you like to pretend Hellmann didn't happen, but if you want to single out Nencini, I'll single out Hellmann.

No, what's clear to everyone except the few remaining blinded-by-hate pro-guilters is that M/B acquitted them because there was no evidence of them in the murder room, no reasonable, credible evidence of their involvement, NO motive, a likely ToD at or near 21:30 and evidence that Amanda and Raffaele were still at his apartment downloading and launching a Naruto cartoon. You just remain in denial because you think that somehow helps with the image of your buddy Guede, but it doesn't. His current legal troubles just reaffirms that he's a violent scumbag who physically assaults women.

You can continue to make the false claim of a loophole, as I assume that assuages your hurt feelings from being wrong. But virtually all not guilty verdicts are based on the simple premise that the prosecution failed to prove guilt... i.e., insufficient evidence to prove guilt.
 
Vixen said:
There is a colloquial meaning of a word and a legal meaning. At the criminal trial it was found for all the purple prose used by AK it was a proven clear fact she did with criminal intent point the investigation at Lumumba. IOW it was not an accident or due to confusion nor was it disguised by flowery language. If anything AK underlined her criminal claim by actually writing, I stand by what I said. The ECHR does not have the remit to declare her not guilty of criminal calunnia, nor of anything else.
Click to expand...
Once again, you seem to have a problem staying on subject.

The ECHR ruled that her memoriale from 6 Nov was a retraction of her interrogation statement implicating Lumumba. THAT is what was being discussed. You claimed that was false, despite knowing full well that is exactly what the ECHR said. So I ask again... WHY LIE about it?????

BTW, perhaps we should start a new thread to discuss the calunnia charge and what's happening with that. As far as I'm concerned, the Italian Supreme Court has ruled...
  • Amanda's rights were violated during the interrogation, though for unknown reasons allowed her statements be used for the civil trial
  • Amanda was definitively acquitted for having not committed the crime of murder.
The ECHR further has ruled....
  • Amanda's rights were violated during the interrogation, and therefore the interrogation, including her statements, are inadmissible for either the criminal or civil trials.
  • Amanda's memoriale from 6 Nov is a retraction of the statements made during the interrogation.
So on what basis, therefore, did Italy find her guilty of calunnia? As the court has already ruled she was not guilty of the murder, and since the only reason the court could even think she was in the cottage at the time was her interrogation statements - statements the courts can no longer reference - there is no basis for the court to conclude Amanda knew Lumumba wasn't at the cottage, didn't kill Meredith.

And here's what you don't get to do. You don't get to overrule what the ECHR wrote. It was clear to them that Amanda retracted the statement. End of story. Italy simply chose to ignore the ECHR, and we'll see how well that goes as the case wears on.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...


Yup, you certainly are for coming up with these fake facts.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...


You do it every time you give an opinion and pretend it's a fact.
 
Vixen said:
What rubbish. The unemployed get unemployment support. Are you seriously claiming the unemployed are motivated to go out burgling? That is some desperate logic there. A criminal life style is largely a choice. The vast majority of unemployed people are just as honest and law-abiding as anyone else. Knox was given a ticket for anti-social behaviour, letting her guests cause great distress to the neighbours, with people throwing rocks at passing cars. I know Knox fans find this really amusing but that kind of behaviour is not only dangerous to motorists but shows a '◊◊◊◊ you' attitude by the person concerned. Sollecito brags that he received a caution for possession of drugs. On another occasion, he brags he managed to conceal illegal drugs from the cops by clever deception. Your claim that AK and RS are nice people whilst Guede was a prolific burglar says a lot about your values.
Click to expand...
Why do most commit burglary? Perhaps to steal things of value? If you are unemployed, and you have no savings, and you have no family who can lend you money, and you can't get a loan - ALL things that characterize Guede - then yes, it IS a motive to commit burglary. Why do YOU think people commit burglary? So they can check out the interior design choices of the home owner?

No, Amanda was given a NOISE CITATION. Again, why lie about things that are common knowledge? Do you have any evidence that Amanda knew someone might have been throwing rocks or causing her neighbors distress? Of course you don't, but this is Amanda, so might as well just lie about things in a desperate effort to attack her character.

I'm not aware of Raffaele "...brags that he received a caution for possession of drugs". Care to cite evidence of this? Likewise, care to cite evidence of Raffaele "...brags be managed to conceal illegal drugs from the cops by clever deception"?

Amanda and Raffaele may or may not be "nice" people, but they certainly aren't burglars or otherwise criminals. Guede, OTOH, was a prolific burglar. I realize you like to defend Guede, and you just love claiming he was never charged, but if you weren't in denial, you might be able to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence that he WAS actively burglarizing places in the area in the days prior to the murder.

And BTW, you wrote "Unlike AK and RS, Rudy didn't have a criminal record at the time of the murder". I asked you what criminal records Amanda and Raffaele had, reminding you that a noise citation is not a criminal record. I also notice you did not answer this question. So once again, we have you LYING about Amanda and Raffaele. Why lie???
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...
This post proves my point about how Guede's supporters use the race card to defend him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom