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

[Vixen]

Yes, there is, as has been explained to you ad nauseam, most recently by Stacy.


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.


What Stacy said.


No one is speculating. The evidence that Guede had committed several burglaries is extremely strong, your denials notwithstanding.


Just when I thought it was safe to plug it back in again.

Magical thinking. You need to spread PR that the pair are innocent so how better to do it than present an obvious alternative perp. Unfortunately, most people can see your logic is rubbish.

 

[Stacyhs]

That's not what the pathologists said.

Then quote and cite him. Unless you do, it goes into the assfacts bin.

 

[AmyStrange]

Edited by jimbob: 

quote of subsequently moderated post removed

I apologize. I thought I was talking to a thirteen-year-old, but how about proving you're an adult by honestly answering SpitfireIX's questions:

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?

If, as you contend, you can "see the truth" that the print on the bathmat was made by Raffaele's foot, then why is the yellow line that passes approximately through the tip of the big toe of the bathmat print more than one centimeter behind the tip of the big toe of Raffaele's reference print?

Or, these from Stacyhs:

Do ENFSI guidelines include

1. not changing gloves between handling items at the crime scene,

2. only changing gloves when something is obviously dirty, or when the item is wet,

3. handing evidence around to several others,

74. collecting evidence without tongs,

5. storing evidence so that it rots or rusts?

These are easy Yes or No questions.


Or, these from Bill Williams:

Why did Nencini say that the other three male-profiles on the bra-clasp, were NOT evidence of those males being in the room when the victim was murdered? Compare and contrast that with why Nencini found that RS's profile found on the bra-clasp WAS evidence of him in the room at the time of the murder?

Given that Nencini had just established a judicial-fact with those claims, why did he further say that those other three male profiles, were, acc. to him, from 'amica'? Girlfriends, who he claimed regularly handled the bra? Obstensively, handled it in another place at another time? Why did that reasoning not apply to RS's profile?

Or is contamination an easier explanation? If not, why not?

What is the role of an appeal's court (cf. the Marasca-Bruno ISC panel) when presented with judicial facts like that?

Or, this one from London John:

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?

OR, are you afraid you'll debunk your opinions with real objective answers?

BTW, I have more if you care to see them.

 

[Vixen]

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?


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!

Police ask questions. They ask questions in all different ways. It doesn't signify they had no idea what 'see you later meant'. Having seen Knox go into visible physiological and completely involuntary shock and horror when Lumumba's deleted message was called up on her phone, experience told them they had hit bullseye , that's why they kept on and on at the same topic. Cops are trained interviewers. I've seen Official Receiver Examiners in action against 'dodgy directors' and they run circles around them. These guys have to sit exams in examining. It's a skill and an art. Ficarra might be a horrible nasty piece of work but there is no way she is stupid and had no idea what 'see you later' meant. '

 

[AmyStrange]

Police ask questions. They ask questions in all different ways. It doesn't signify they had no idea what 'see you later meant'. Having seen Knox go into visible physiological and completely involuntary shock and horror when Lumumba's deleted message was called up on her phone, experience told them they had hit bullseye , that's why they kept on and on at the same topic. Cops are trained interviewers. I've seen Official Receiver Examiners in action against 'dodgy directors' and they run circles around them. These guys have to sit exams in examining. It's a skill and an art. Ficarra might be a horrible nasty piece of work but there is no way she is stupid and had no idea what 'see you later' meant. '

Yeah, that's what really happened... bwahahahahahaha

 

[Stacyhs]

The police didn't think it was 'likely' when they charged her with the theft.

It doesn't matter what the police thought as she was acquitted of that theft. Even Massei didn't buy it.

The police didn't charge her with anything; the prosecution did. But thanks for yet another example of just how suspect-centered and tunnel-visioned both the police and prosecution were.

I also note that you ignore (per usual) that I proved her bank account record proves the 215 euros she had was more than covered by her recent withdrawals. Quelle surprise!

 

[SpitfireIX]

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.

So you're saying you'd falsely accuse someone of burglary just to appease your significant other, even if you were uncertain of your identification?

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.

No, it's not the same at all, because there's no inherent conflict of interest between a couple in the identification of the person they caught burglarizing their apartment. This is just another of your lame attempts to spread FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) about the evidence that Guede acted alone in raping and murdering Meredith.

 

[Stacyhs]

If you do a search you can find exactly the reasons why the courts found AK guilty of criminal calunnia, as I have now quoted it more than once.

You're attempting to redirect, Vixen. It's not working.
You dishonestly quoted only part of Knox's statement as evidence that she did NOT retract her statements. I then quoted the rest of that statement which disproves your claim.

You also ignored this:
"So tell us what the colloquial meaning of "criminal verdict" is vs the legal meaning of "criminal verdict".
Why? Oh, never mind...we all know why.

 

[Stacyhs]

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!

It was also established in Guede's conviction for having stolen property, that the watch was also stolen property. The court declared that his story about getting it from a 'friend' he could not identify was not plausible. It was included in his conviction.

 

[Stacyhs]

Are we back to the would could should nonsense of 'if they had done it they wouldn't have left any clues of themselves'.

It seems we are back to you failing to logically address this:
"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."

All you can do is fabricate some silly "they thought they were smarter and wanted to pull one over on the police" rubbish. Stop digging. No one buys that nonsense.

 

[Stacyhs]

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).

None of which they knowingly and deliberately left and pointed out to the police!

Sollecito shows the same propensity towards meticulous planning, down to frying the three laptops at the cottage plus his own,

This is an excellent example of you ignoring the evidence presented in court. The 3 laptops were destroyed by the police:
Massei, pg 21:

an expert report on the computers of the accused was requested, the memories of which were found to have been damaged at the time of the analysis of the supports carried out by the Postal Police, such that the hard drives could not be duplicated/cloned for subsequent examination.

Massei MR, pg. 300

They were intact (witness vice-captain Trotta; they were dismantled in the presence of the Sollecito Defence consultant; no evidence presented itself of erroneous assembly or tampering; the hard disks were perfectly integral, pages 103104, Assistant Trifici), and nothing of their external aspect gave any indication that three of them were non-functional.

Hellmann MR:

The other computers used by Raffaele Sollecito were not analysed, because the hard disk was destroyed after they were seized,

Plus, RS's laptop was used by a police officer when he was in their custody the night of Nov. 5/6. I can quote and cite that, too, if necessary.

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?

All of which are only your unproved allegations.

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!

And here we go yet again with another fantasy from your imagination. It looked like a foot as anyone can see for themselves. Do you really think that if he'd actually stepped barefoot onto that mat, he couldn't deduce it was his footprint?


I guess that 'explanation' isn't any crazier than the " they wanted to put one over of the police" one!

 

[Stacyhs]

Rationalisation. The cops and the court weigh up probable cause and probability. Computer said, no.

Yes, it is a list of rational reasons why Guede, not Knox, is a thief. And I forgot to add two more to the list:
FACT: Guede's DNA in Kercher's blood was found on the purse.
FACT: No evidence of Knox was found in Kercher's bedroom.

On the other hand, can you give any evidence of Knox or Sollecito ever having been accused of theft? Were they ever caught with stolen property?

What "computer" are you talking about?

 

[Stacyhs]

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?

Previously asked and answered.

Stop trying to redirect from the actual topic which is: "You're trying to discredit Tramontano's GF by claiming she'd lie just because she's his girlfriend."

This ain't our first rodeo with you.

 

[Stacyhs]

Magical thinking. You need to spread PR that the pair are innocent so how better to do it than present an obvious alternative perp. Unfortunately, most people can see your logic is rubbish.

You mean the only person remaining convicted of the murder of Meredith, who's going on trial yet again for a heinous crime, and is convicted of having stolen items from at least 3 different thefts and left his DNA on MK's purse ISN'T "an obvious alternative perp"?

Fortunately, most people can see your logic is rubbish.

 

[Stacyhs]

Police ask questions. They ask questions in all different ways. It doesn't signify they had no idea what 'see you later meant'.

Has anyone suggested police don't ask questions or that they ask them in different ways?
I'd provide Ficarra's testimony again, but why bother if the first two times don't get through to you?

Having seen Knox go into visible physiological and completely involuntary shock and horror when Lumumba's deleted message was called up on her phone,

As the police so conveniently failed to record or transcribe the interrogation, it's their word against Knox's as to whether or not she broke down immediately when his text was brought up. Knox's version is far different with them hounding her about the text, calling her a liar and accusing her of meeting him for some time and the interpreter bringing up "amnesia" before finally breaking down.

experience told them they had hit bullseye , that's why they kept on and on at the same topic.

No, it was confirmation bias that made them think they'd hit a bullseye. Finzi claimed "experience" led him to collect only one knife from Sollecito's cutlery drawer when Finzi admitted he had never been given any information on the wounds or what size knife to look for.

Cops are trained interviewers.

And they certainly knew and used techniques straight from the Reid method known to produce false confessions!

I've seen Official Receiver Examiners in action against 'dodgy directors' and they run circles around them. These guys have to sit exams in examining. It's a skill and an art.

And I can produce many, many examples of police extracting false confessions from innocent people, including Raffaele's interrogator, Profazio.
The Perugia cops were not "Official Receiver Examiners" so your comment is irrelevant. Do you have any evidence that Ficarra had ever been through any kind of interrogation training?

Ficarra might be a horrible nasty piece of work but there is no way she is stupid and had no idea what 'see you later' meant. '

I refer you, yet again, to her previously presented testimony. Which you'll promptly ignore one again.

 

[Numbers]

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.

I feel compelled to address some apparent misunderstandings in your post. My sense of compulsion is due to my having not understood the basis in Italian law about the calunnia charge and conviction for probably the first year after I became actively interested in the Knox - Sollecito case, and some of my confusion was not resolved until the ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy was published in 2019.

Firstly, under Italian law, certain wrongful actions, harmful to another, are subject to both a criminal charge and penalty (for example, a prison term, and a civil (tort) action with liability (an award to the victim or the victim's family). This is similar to US law, for example, murder is a crime with a criminal penalty and, as wrongful death, a tort with a civil liability (award for damages).
But there are differences between US and Italian laws and judicial practices. In the US, as far as I know, criminal and civil trials cannot lawfully take place at the same time before the same jury or the same judge. The following online reference supports that view:
pr

When a single act results in both criminal charges and a civil claim, the two cases are handled in separate legal proceedings. The American legal system does not combine a criminal prosecution with a related civil lawsuit into one trial, ensuring the distinct goals and rules of each system are properly applied.

Source:

Can Criminal and Civil Cases Be Tried Together?

Explore the distinct legal pathways for criminal and civil actions. Learn how these separate proceedings, stemming from a single event, can influence one another.

legalclarity.org

However, in Italy, victims or the family of a victim of a crime have a choice: they can file an independent civil claim against an alleged perpetrator (the accused), or file that claim by joining the criminal trial; the victim's or the victim's family's civil lawyer becomes a private party lawyer (private prosecutor) working alongside the public prosecutor. Probably in part because Italian criminal trials can continue for extended times (indefinitely, for a murder, which has no statute of limitations), it is not at all uncommon for civil cases to be joined to their corresponding criminal cases, if there is one. The advantage for the civil party is that if the accused is finally convicted, the civil party is awarded compensation damages from the accused (CPP Article 651). The disadvantage for the civil party is that if the accused is finally acquitted, the civil party loses any right to collect any award from the accused, and cannot raise any subsequent civil action against the accused for the same act, provided that the reason for the acquittal is one of the following: the criminal act did not occur, the accused did not commit the criminal act, or the accused had a legal duty or right to commit the act [such as self-defense] (CPP Article 652).

Thus, for the Knox-Sollecito case, the criminal case of murder was joined by a civil case brought by Kercher's family, and the criminal case of calunnia (malicious accusation) was joined by a civil case brought by Lumumba.

Finally, there's the question of how the Italian courts reasoned to allow Knox's interrogation statements to be used against her in the criminal and civil calunnia trials (held together before the same judges but presented by a public prosecutor and private party lawyer, respectively), although the statements could not be used against her for the murder/rape charges because of the violation by the police and prosecutor of CPP Article 63, as stated by the CSC in an early ruling. The reason was not that there was a civil trial for calunnia, but because there had been an earlier ruling, in another (and subsequent) cases, by the CSC, that CPP Article 63 did not apply to spontaneous statements that were themselves criminal made during an interrogation. I learned this from statements made by Italy in the ECHR case Knox v. Italy. This is the Italian government statement, as presented in Knox v. Italy (Google translation):

142. The Government observed that the statements made by the applicant on 6 November 2007 in the absence of legal counsel had been declared unusable in relation to the offences under investigation, namely the murder of M.K. and the sexual violence perpetrated against her. They explained, however, that according to the settled case-law of the Court of Cassation (judgments nos. 10089 of 2005, 26460 of 2010 and 33583 of 2015), spontaneous statements made by a person under investigation in the absence of legal counsel could in any event be used where, as in the present case, they constituted an offence in themselves. In their view, this was compounded by the fact that the applicant had been assisted by a lawyer from the moment the first indications of her responsibility for the murder of M.K. appeared.

Source:

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-189422

 

[Welshman]

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!

The lie about Raffaele destroying his own laptops is being repeated yet again. Again why repeat the same lies constantly if there was hard evidence against Amanda and Raffaele and a strong case?

 

[Stacyhs]

I feel compelled to address some apparent misunderstandings in your post. My sense of compulsion is due to my having not understood the basis in Italian law about the calunnia charge and conviction for probably the first year after I became actively interested in the Knox - Sollecito case, and some of my confusion was not resolved until the ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy was published in 2019.

Firstly, under Italian law, certain wrongful actions, harmful to another, are subject to both a criminal charge and penalty (for example, a prison term, and a civil (tort) action with liability (an award to the victim or the victim's family). This is similar to US law, for example, murder is a crime with a criminal penalty and, as wrongful death, a tort with a civil liability (award for damages).
But there are differences between US and Italian laws and judicial practices. In the US, as far as I know, criminal and civil trials cannot lawfully take place at the same time before the same jury or the same judge. The following online reference supports that view:
pr

Source: https://legalclarity.org/can-criminal-and-civil-cases-be-tried-together/o
However, in Italy, victims or the family of a victim of a crime have a choice: they can file an independent civil claim against an alleged perpetrator (the accused), or file that claim by joining the criminal trial; the victim's or the victim's family's civil lawyer becomes a private party lawyer (private prosecutor) working alongside the public prosecutor. Probably in part because Italian criminal trials can continue for extended times (indefinitely, for a murder, which has no statute of limitations), it is not at all uncommon for civil cases to be joined to their corresponding criminal cases, if there is one. The advantage for the civil party is that if the accused is finally convicted, the civil party is awarded compensation damages from the accused (CPP Article 651). The disadvantage for the civil party is that if the accused is finally acquitted, the civil party loses any right to collect any award from the accused, and cannot raise any subsequent civil action against the accused for the same act, provided that the reason for the acquittal is one of the following: the criminal act did not occur, the accused did not commit the criminal act, or the accused had a legal duty or right to commit the act [such as self-defense] (CPP Article 652).

Thus, for the Knox-Sollecito case, the criminal case of murder was joined by a civil case brought by Kercher's family, and the criminal case of calunnia (malicious accusation) was joined by a civil case brought by Lumumba.

Finally, there's the question of how the Italian courts reasoned to allow Knox's interrogation statements to be used against her in the criminal and civil calunnia trials (held together before the same judges but presented by a public prosecutor and private party lawyer, respectively), although the statements could not be used against her for the murder/rape charges because of the violation by the police and prosecutor of CPP Article 63, as stated by the CSC in an early ruling. The reason was not that there was a civil trial for calunnia, but because there had been an earlier ruling, in another (and subsequent) cases, by the CSC, that CPP Article 63 did not apply to spontaneous statements that were themselves criminal made during an interrogation. I learned this from statements made by Italy in the ECHR case Knox v. Italy. This is the Italian government statement, as presented in Knox v. Italy (Google translation):


Source: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-189422

And there's the reason Mignini claimed Amanda made spontaneous statement with him acting only as a notary. Amanda's description in not that he said didn't ask her questions, but that he did. From her book:

Before he started questioning me, I said, “Look, I’m really confused, and I don’t know what I’m remembering, and it doesn’t seem right.”

It was a much more solemn, official affair than my earlier questioning had been, though the pubblico ministero was asking me the same questions as before: “What happened? What did you see?” I said, “I didn’t see anything.” “What do you mean you didn’t see anything? When did you meet him?” “I don’t know,” I said. “Where did you meet him?”

“I think by the basketball court.” I had imagined the basketball court in Piazza Grimana, just across the street from the University for Foreigners. “I have an image of the basketball court in Piazza Grimana near my house.” “What was he wearing?” “I don’t know.” “Was he wearing a jacket?” “I think so.” “What color was it?” “I think it was brown.” “What did he do?” “I don’t know.” “What do you mean you don’t know?” “I’m confused!” “Are you scared of him?” “I guess.”
I felt as if I were almost in a trance. The pubblico ministero led me through the scenario, and I meekly agreed to his suggestions. “This is what happened, right? You met him?” “I guess so.” “Where did you meet?” “I don’t know. I guess at the basketball court.” “You went to the house?” “I guess so.” “Was Meredith in the house?” “I don’t remember.” “Did Patrick go in there?” “I don’t know, I guess so.” “Where were you?” “I don’t know. I guess in the kitchen.” “Did you hear Meredith screaming?” “I don’t know.”

Of course, the PGP will believe that Knox, exhausted at 5:00 am, just needed to spontaneously repeat this to a guy she thought was the mayor with no prompting at all. I don't.

 

[TruthCalls]

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!

You know, if you think back to post #5164, I informed you P2P had nothing to do with the Naruto cartoon. The file had actually been downloaded on 14 Oct, and was launched using VLC, which does not support automated launches of videos, nor was there any known automation scheduled to launch it. I provided screen captures to prove this, and at the time you acknowledged it. Fast forward a couple of months and you're back to lying about when and how the Naruto cartoon was downloaded and launched. Why is that?????

Well, then again, it's also been proven to you that Raffaele's laptop was used after he was arrested, meaning the police booted the machine up and the hard drive was working just fine. Yet you keep repeating this lie as well. Hmmmm....

Oh, and then there's the "dismantling the U-tube to his sink" claim, which is entirely baseless. (P.S. It's called a trap)

Whoops, almost missed "got Dad and a friend to vouch for his leak being before 8:40 and that he was home at XX time", another baseless claim.

Holy cow, that's what... 4 whopper lies in one short post?!?!?! Where oh where did that "impartial, neutral and entirely objective" Vixen go????

 

[SpitfireIX]

Magical thinking. You need to spread PR that the pair are innocent so how better to do it than present an obvious alternative perp. Unfortunately, most people can see your logic is rubbish.

Did you miss the part where Guede was convicted of raping and murdering Meredith?