• 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

Welshman said:
It is important to bear in mind that the nutjobs at TJMK have an obsessive hatred of Amanda and Raffaele and have a Vendetta against them. If AK and RS had criminal records, you can bet your life TJMK would have used this against them. Vixen constantly bangs on about Amanda falsely accusing Lumumba but then makes false accusations AK and RS have criminal records. Why resort to false accusations if the case against Amanda and Raffaele was so solid?
Click to expand...
Those of us not aged 11 and Justin Bieber fans don't subscribe to hate or love. Pure objectivity as to the facts. As presented in a criminal court of law.
 
Vixen said:
Er, Amelie is a convicted criminal liar. There remains no law against being unemployed or a 'lazy' lay-about.
Click to expand...
You know, for someone who once claimed to be "impartial, neutral and entirely objective", you sure do everything possible to prove otherwise.

The question was, what crimes had Amanda or Raffaele commit prior to the night of the murder? As usual, you dodge the question, this time because neither of them had been charged, let alone convicted of a crime. And no, a noise citation is NOT a crime. Very dishonest of you.

If you truly were "impartial, neutral and entirely objective", you wouldn't use the lack of charges to defend Guede, which is clearly what you are doing.

Let's recap;
  • Found to illegally have entered a school in Milan. No, you do not get to break into a place and then claim so unknown individual said you could. That is not a defense.
  • During a search following his illegal entry Guede was found with some stolen items;
    • A knife stolen from the school kitchen.
    • A laptop stolen from a law office
    • A mobile phone, also stolen from the same law office
    • A woman's gold watch that resembled the one stolen from Guede's neighbor before her apartment was set on fire.
    • A small hammer designed to break windows.
  • Christian Tramontano AND his girlfriend witnesses Guede rummaging through their things. Christian confronted Guede, who brandished a knife before running off.
  • The cottage has signs of having been broken into, Guede is proven to have been in the cottage, and Meredith's cell phones, money and credit cards went missing.
If you were truly "impartial, neutral and entirely objective", you would acknowledge this record, all established within a couple weeks of the murder, and conclude Guede is in fact an active burglar. Further, by acknowledging Guede as an active burglar, and in confirming his presence in the cottage that night, and acknowledging there were signs of a break-in, one can reasonably conclude Guede broke into the cottage. This would be a normal, logical, rational conclusion for any impartial, neutral and entirely objective observer. Instead, you defend Guede, making excuses for him, while at the same time you try to morph a prank into a hate crime.

Impartial, neutral and entirely objective.... in a pig's eye!
 
Vixen, I asked you a question. Do you deny that there's blood on parts of the bath mat even where there aren't threads? Further, now that we've disposed of your ridiculous hard floor analogy, I renew my earlier question. If, as you contend, you can "see the truth" that this is Raffaele's footprint on the bathmat, and everyone else is deluding themselves, then why is there more than a centimeter in difference between the tip of the footprint and Raffaele's reference print?

SpitfireIX said:
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:

View attachment 63119

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?
Click to expand...
 
Vixen said:
See Jody Arias and Bryan Kohberger. They had the same bright idea.
Click to expand...
And? You still have no evidence whatsoever, other than your fertile imagination, that Knox and Sollecito's "game plan was to outwit the police, leaving them silly cryptic 'clues'." You can't give a rational explanation for why that bathmat wasn't removed/washed before they called the police and made a point of pointing it out to the police if it were Sollecito's print. Rather than acknowledge just how stupid that would be, you make up some silly story out of thin air. At least you actually answered the question instead of ignoring it as is usual. Got to give you some points for that.
 
SpitfireIX said:
Vixen, I asked you a question. Do you deny that there's blood on parts of the bath mat even where there aren't threads? Further, now that we've disposed of your ridiculous hard floor analogy, I renew my earlier question. If, as you contend, you can "see the truth" that this is Raffaele's footprint on the bathmat, and everyone else is deluding themselves, then why is there more than a centimeter in difference between the tip of the footprint and Raffaele's reference print?
Click to expand...
Just look up Rinaldi and Boemia. I have given you my reasoning.
 
Stacyhs said:
And? You still have no evidence whatsoever, other than your fertile imagination, that Knox and Sollecito's "game plan was to outwit the police, leaving them silly cryptic 'clues'." You can't give a rational explanation for why that bathmat wasn't removed/washed before they called the police and made a point of pointing it out to the police if it were Sollecito's print. Rather than acknowledge just how stupid that would be, you make up some silly story out of thin air. At least you actually answered the question instead of ignoring it as is usual. Got to give you some points for that.
Click to expand...
Are we back to the would could should nonsense of 'if they had done it they wouldn't have left any clues of themselves'.
 
Vixen: why would Sollecito - if he had participated in Kercher's murder and would therefore have known that he washed off blood in the shower before stepping onto the bathmat - help Knox to direct the police to the print on the bathmat which he knew his foot had made?

Take your time before posting your "reasoning".....
 
Vixen said:
Doesn't cancel out anything AK/RS did.
Click to expand...
Doesn't cancel out the fact that there is far more probable that Guede burgled the law office himself than buying them from some guy in Milan and that he stole the money from Meredith's purse as it was HIS DNA on the purse.

Guede originally claimed he bought the items from a guy in the train station
Vixen said:
It is a fact Guede has no convictions for burglary or breaking and entering. It is an established fact there was no burglary at via Pergola 7 that night.
Click to expand...
Is it a fact that even the court, in convicting Guede of being in the possession of stolen good, doubted his story of buying them:
Also significant is the fact that the accused initially claimed to have purchased them in Milan, a circumstance denied by Guede himself in the last writing and in itself unlikely, given the short time that has passed since the theft, the distance between the places (Perugia-Milan) and the nature of the theft and in this context even the spontaneous presentation to Brocchi does not present itself as an indication of good faith.
Click to expand...
Fact: Guede entered the school illegally...unless you think some stranger he ran into at the train station (according to him) had the authority to let him in and used a key? It's more likely he gained access by pushing the front door open. The court noted: "The fact that the entrance door to the kindergarten was "defective" and could be opened simply with a kick..."


Fact: items were stolen from the cottage that night.
Fact: only Guede had a clear and obvious motive; he was broke and neither RS nor AK were.
Fact: only Guede had been caught with stolen items, including a cell phone.
Fact: only Guede was caught with a burglary tool, the glass breaker.
Fact: only Guede was caught being in a building illegally.
Fact: only Guede has been charged with additional crimes.
 
Vixen said:
It doesn't matter.
Click to expand...
You seem to think it does as YOU wrote:
Vixen said:
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'.
Click to expand...
In your mind, do people just carry around a tool used for burglary for no reason?
Vixen said:
Police didn't think anything of it.
Click to expand...
Really? Is that why they arrested him at the school and specifically note that tool? Apparently, you need to be reminded that the police received instructions to send his arse back to Perugia. It was never established why.
 
Stacyhs said:
Here we go again. When Paola Grande testified to hearing Luca tell Amanda and Raffaele in the car that Meredith's throat had been cut, was that also just a 'natural response' of 'backing up' her boyfriend up?
I guess we can add CT's girlfriend to your long list of people who lied under oath. Odd how it's only those who don't back your narrative who are so dishonest.
Click to expand...
Vixen said:
Whoo-oooosh! Points fly right over your head.
Click to expand...
I understand exactly what you're saying and what you're implying:
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.
Click to expand...
You're trying to discredit Tramontano's GF by claiming she'd lie just because she's his girlfriend. This wasn't a case of a GF lying to protect her BF but of simply confirming what he says happened. There was no need for her to even go with him to the police when he gave his deposition if he were lying.

When you have to resort to this kind of argument, it just proves you've got nothing else.
 
Vixen said:
There is no overwhelming evidence Guede was the local burglar, as Knox and her fans like to claim, to offset suspicion away from herself.
Click to expand...
Yes, there is, as has been explained to you ad nauseam, most recently by Stacy.

Vixen said:
Why? Because Guede has never been convicted of burglary nor of breaking and entering.
Click to expand...
And OJ Simpson was never convicted of murder, yet you obviously believe he was guilty. Neither was Lee Harvey Oswald ever convicted of murdering JFK and a Dallas police officer, but he was clearly guilty of both of those crimes.

Vixen said:
He might well have attained his stolen property laptop from some guy in Milan, not that RG is known for telling the truth.
Click to expand...
What Stacy said.

Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...
No one is speculating. The evidence that Guede had committed several burglaries is extremely strong, your denials notwithstanding.

Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...
:id: Just when I thought it was safe to plug it back in again. :(
 
LondonJohn said:
Vixen: why would Sollecito - if he had participated in Kercher's murder and would therefore have known that he washed off blood in the shower before stepping onto the bathmat - help Knox to direct the police to the print on the bathmat which he knew his foot had made?

Take your time before posting your "reasoning".....
Click to expand...
Leopold & Loeb left behind some eye-glasses. Jody Arias left behind her DNA in a palm print on Travis Alexander's bathroom wall (after going to the trouble of switching off her phone before commencing her drive to his place). For all of his meticulous planning, Kohebrger left behind a sheath (ditto phone switched off). Sollecito shows the same propensity towards meticulous planning, down to frying the three laptops at the cottage plus his own, dismantling the U-tube to his sink, arranging a P2P download of Naruto to make it look like he was watching it, got Dad and a friend to vouch for his leak being before 8:40 and that he was home at XX time, denied his phone was switched off but it obviously was, I mean how much more meticulous can you get? I would imagine, in his short-sightedness he failed to see that the blood on the bathmat was not just an amalgamous blob, vaguely looking like a foot, but that forensic cops had the means to identify whose footprint it was compatible with. DANG!
 
Stacyhs said:
Doesn't cancel out the fact that there is far more probable that Guede burgled the law office himself than buying them from some guy in Milan and that he stole the money from Meredith's purse as it was HIS DNA on the purse.

Guede originally claimed he bought the items from a guy in the train station

Is it a fact that even the court, in convicting Guede of being in the possession of stolen good, doubted his story of buying them:

Fact: Guede entered the school illegally...unless you think some stranger he ran into at the train station (according to him) had the authority to let him in and used a key? It's more likely he gained access by pushing the front door open. The court noted: "The fact that the entrance door to the kindergarten was "defective" and could be opened simply with a kick..."


Fact: items were stolen from the cottage that night.
Fact: only Guede had a clear and obvious motive; he was broke and neither RS nor AK were.
Fact: only Guede had been caught with stolen items, including a cell phone.
Fact: only Guede was caught with a burglary tool, the glass breaker.
Fact: only Guede was caught being in a building illegally.
Fact: only Guede has been charged with additional crimes.
Click to expand...
Rationalisation. The cops and the court weigh up probable cause and probability. Computer said, no.
 
Stacyhs said:
I understand exactly what you're saying and what you're implying:

You're trying to discredit Tramontano's GF by claiming she'd lie just because she's his girlfriend. This wasn't a case of a GF lying to protect her BF but of simply confirming what he says happened. There was no need for her to even go with him to the police when he gave his deposition if he were lying.

When you have to resort to this kind of argument, it just proves you've got nothing else.
Click to expand...
If the police and the court didn't take Taramantano's claims seriously because of little prospect of success in proving them, why should we?
 
Vixen said:
Would could should. The claim the Italians have no idea what the English speaking world (and the French and the Spanish and the German*) mean, when they say,'See you later!" is one of the more hilarious PR myths. This point on the PR crib sheet is to claim that the thicko cops decided that saying 'See you later', was what made them wrongly suspect AK.

*...and even the Italian, when they say, Arrivederci!
Click to expand...
No one said that "the Italians have no idea what the English speaking world (and the French and the Spanish and the German*) mean, when they say,'See you later!" What has been said is that FICARRA didn't understand it and she was leading Knox's interrogation.
Thanks for yet another example of your habitual misrepresentation.
Your accusation that it's all a PR hoax is unfounded and exists only in your imagination. Much like Donald's constant claims that any event he doesn't like is a hoax.


Hmmmm...remember this?
Stacyhs said:
There is something immoral in people repeating disinformation and misinformation, especially after they've been quoted and cited evidence they're wrong.
Click to expand...
Vixen said:
Look in the mirror.
Click to expand...
I quoted and cited Rita Ficarra testifying that “Sure. See you later. Have a good evening...seemed like a date. See you later, of course, in response to someone else." and that it "could have meant a date that evening, after the time the message was sent, which was around 8:30".

You've been presented the evidence you're wrong, but you still press on!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom