• 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

Stacyhs said:
False. "Rape" is included in the "sexual assault" category in Italy:


He was not convicted of murder because he "didn't stop the killer" but because the pre-2011 courts that convicted him held he did not wield the knife that inflicted the fatal wound. Why? Because at the time, the courts held the kitchen knife to be the murder weapon and Kercher's DNA on the blade to be scientifically valid.
Click to expand...
It is not correct that rape is the same as any sexual assault. Please don't try to claim some guy grabbing a woman in the street and kissing her, or putting his hand on her knee unwanted, is the same as violent rapist and they'll both get life. It is amusing how you maximise Guede's offences and go to enormous lengths to minimise those of your adopted innocents. And BTW Micheli and Giordani say it large that Guede was not the killer but convicted of murder because he failed to stop the others. Do have a read of it.
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
I've used the search function and the back arrow; I have found no trace of your answers to the questions. Since you are unable to link to them yourself it is reasonable to conclude that they don't exist.
Click to expand...
This type of stuff doesn't interest me. If you have something to contribute to the topic I look forward to it.
 
Mojo said:
I've used the search function and the back arrow; I have found no trace of your answers to the questions. Since you are unable to link to them yourself it is reasonable to conclude that they don't exist.
Click to expand...
Vixen said:
This type of stuff doesn't interest me. If you have something to contribute to the topic I look forward to it.
Click to expand...


HAVE YOU LOST ALL CREDIBILITY?
Have all your friends started calling you a liar?
Are they laughing at you behind your back?

Fix all that by honestly answering this question from the Welshman (and the others that follow) with real facts and not lies, innuendoes, and fake opinions:

If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was a slam dunk, why has Vixen been consistently unable to argue her case without resorting to lying.
Click to expand...


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.

Can you give any evidence of Knox or Sollecito ever having been accused of theft? Were they ever caught with stolen property?
Click to expand...


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?
Click to expand...


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?
Click to expand...


Or, how about SpitfireIX's questions which you originally lied about:

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?
Click to expand...


1755871682291.jpg



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

BTW, I have more if you care to see them, and I'll be adding them as I go along.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
It is not correct that rape is the same as any sexual assault. Please don't try to claim some guy grabbing a woman in the street and kissing her, or putting his hand on her knee unwanted, is the same as violent rapist and they'll both get life. It is amusing how you maximise Guede's offences and go to enormous lengths to minimise those of your adopted innocents. And BTW Micheli and Giordani say it large that Guede was not the killer but convicted of murder because he failed to stop the others. Do have a read of it.
Click to expand...
Guede's DNA was inside Meredith's vagina. That is NOT randomly kissing some woman on the street or putting an unwanted hand on a knee, though your hyperbole is duly noted.

It is amusing how you find fault with everything Amanda does while going to enormous lengths to minimize clear criminal behavior of your friend Guede.

And why don't you explain to us again exactly HOW Micheli and Giordano (not Giordani) determined Guede wasn't the killer?
 
TruthCalls said:
Guede's DNA was inside Meredith's vagina. That is NOT randomly kissing some woman on the street or putting an unwanted hand on a knee, though your hyperbole is duly noted.

It is amusing how you find fault with everything Amanda does while going to enormous lengths to minimize clear criminal behavior of your friend Guede.

And why don't you explain to us again exactly HOW Micheli and Giordano (not Giordani) determined Guede wasn't the killer?
Click to expand...
Yes. And then there are the incomplete results provided from the rape kit (Stefanoni suppressing information - could it be because it further implicated Guede?) and the failure of the Scientific Police to analyze the putative semen stain on the pillow found under Kercher's body (the stain may have been fresh at the relevant time because it was smeared by a footprint, IIRC). Recall that Judge Massei refused the defense request to have this stain analyzed because "DNA cannot be dated" despite the indication that it was a stain possibly produced at the relevant time. In my view, this was one of the several indications that Massei was not acting as a neutral referee in an adversarial trial, as required by the Italian Constitution (Article 111), but rather acting as a colleague of the prosecution in a version of an unfair inquisitional trial.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
I must apologise for using an example of Fair Market Value from Taxation Law in valuing property as the concept I was trying to convey about close friends and relatives. I obviously didn't succeed, my bad. Try again. 'Teacher, dog ate my homework'. Little brother: 'That's right miss, I saw the dog do it'. Now, this doesn't have the same level of credibility as, third party random stranger passerby, 'That is correct, I saw a dog, a fluffy grey-brown cockerpoo that did toss about an A4 notepad, ripping it to bits, with the headed paper, 'Homework'".
Click to expand...
Evasion noted. I asked you a direct question. Would you falsely accuse someone of burglary, if you were uncertain of the identification, just to back up your significant other?

As for the rest of your silly "example," we're talking about adults, not children, and, as you obviously need reminding yet again, you are not the teacher here.
 
As pointed out in a post upstream, the crime and penalty for rape and/or sexual assault are established in Italian law, Codice Penale (CP) Article 609-bis. There are aggravating circumstances that increase the penalty listed in CP Article 609-ter. For example, use of a weapon in the act increases the penalty by 1/3.

Here are Google translations of those two Italian laws (texts as of 2025):

Art. 609-bis.
Sexual violence

Whoever, by violence or threats or through abuse of authority, forces someone to perform or submit to sexual acts is punished with imprisonment from six to twelve years.

The same penalty applies to anyone who induces someone to perform or submit to sexual acts:

1) by abusing the injured party's physical or mental inferiority at the time of the act;

2) by deceiving the injured party by impersonating another person.

In less serious cases, the penalty is reduced by no more than two-thirds.
Click to expand...

Art. 609-ter.
Aggravating Circumstances.

The penalty established by Article 609-bis is increased by one-third if the acts provided for therein are committed:
1) against a person whose culprit is an ascendant, parent, including adoptive parent, or guardian;
2) with the use of weapons or alcoholic, narcotic, or drug-induced substances, or other instruments or substances seriously harmful to the health of the injured party;
3) by a person disguised or pretending to be a public official or a person in charge of a public service;
4) against a person otherwise subject to limitations on personal freedom;
5) against a person who has not reached the age of eighteen;
5-bis) within or in the immediate vicinity of an educational or training institution attended by the injured party;
5-ter) against a pregnant woman;
5-quater) against a person whose guilty party is the spouse, even if separated or divorced, or someone who is or has been linked to the same person by an emotional relationship, even without cohabitation;
5-quinquies) if the crime is committed by a person who is part of a criminal association and for the purpose of facilitating its activity;
5-sexies) if the crime is committed with serious violence or if the act causes serious harm to the minor, due to the repetition of the conduct;
5-septies) if the act causes danger to the minor's life.
The penalty established by Article 609-bis is increased by half if the acts provided for therein are committed against a person who has not reached the age of fourteen. The penalty is doubled if the acts referred to in Article 609-bis are committed against a person who has not reached the age of ten.
Click to expand...

Source:
https://www.altalex.com/documents/news/2014/10/28/dei-delitti-contro-la-persona
 
Last edited:
Numbers said:
Yes. And then there are the incomplete results provided from the rape kit (Stefanoni suppressing information - could it be because it further implicated Guede?) and the failure of the Scientific Police to analyze the putative semen stain on the pillow found under Kercher's body (the stain may have been fresh at the relevant time because it was smeared by a footprint, IIRC). Recall that Judge Massei refused the defense request to have this stain analyzed because "DNA cannot be dated" despite the indication that it was a stain possibly produced at the relevant time. In my view, this was one of the several indications that Massei was not acting as a neutral referee in an adversarial trial, as required by the Italian Constitution (Article 111), but rather acting as a colleague of the prosecution in a version of an unfair inquisitional trial.
Click to expand...
The RG DNA was epithelial not seminal.
 
SpitfireIX said:
Evasion noted. I asked you a direct question. Would you falsely accuse someone of burglary, if you were uncertain of the identification, just to back up your significant other?

As for the rest of your silly "example," we're talking about adults, not children, and, as you obviously need reminding yet again, you are not the teacher here.
Click to expand...
Look. Suppose I said Brad Pitt was in my apartment some weeks ago. Question: whilst I might sincerely believe this, does it follow that everyone else should, too? Should the police arrest and charge him? If not, then Brad Pitt is not a burglar until such time he is charged.
 
Vixen said:
Your claim that RS could not have left the footprint because otherwise they would not have left the bathmat there doesn't hold water. It is pure conjecture on your part.
Click to expand...
No, I didn't say RS COULD NOT HAVE left the footprint. I said it would be totally ILLOGICAL for him to do so. Or do you think it's LOGICAL for a murderer to deliberately leave and point out evidence of himself for the police? DNA and print identification were not unknown forensics then.
Vixen said:
It is clear it was an oversight, just like Knox' lamp being left on the floor in Mez' room.
Click to expand...
So now we're back to it being an "oversight" by RS who, according to you "meticulously planned" everything. What happened to leaving it deliberately because they thought they were so much smarter than the police and wanted to "put on over" on them?
 
Vixen said:
The footprint on the bathmat has been discussed over and over again, so either do a search for previous discussions or go straight to the court documents. It is my perception SpitfireIX is simply being vexatious in having had a detailed response, complete with references and sources brings up the same issue again just for sport.
Click to expand...
No. I and others have pointed out the fatal flaws in the prosecution's footprint analysis. Your response was to make the ridiculous assertion that the pattern of cotton threads on the bath mat would have somehow acted like a hard surface and prevented part of the big toe from leaving an impression on the bathmat. When I asked you if you couldn't see that there is clearly blood on areas of the mat that don't have the thread pattern, instead of acknowledging what's obvious in the CrimeScope photo, you fell back to saying that, like all the convicting courts, you just agree with the prosecution's experts. It's obvious that you're only accepting that analysis because it's what you want to hear, even though you're not qualified to evaluate it.
 
Vixen said:
It is not correct that rape is the same as any sexual assault.
Click to expand...
True...which is why I never said that. What I said was "Rape" is included in the "sexual assault" category in Italy:" then quote and cited the source which said, " In this way, the Law has put on the same level all conducts that infringe a legal right (the sexual freedom of the individual), eliminating the distinction based on the occurrence of sexual intercourse" . Do you need to have that explained to you?
Vixen said:
Please don't try to claim some guy grabbing a woman in the street and kissing her, or putting his hand on her knee unwanted, is the same as violent rapist and they'll both get life.
Click to expand...
I didn't claim any such thing. That is YOUR inference. Don't blame me if the crime of sexual assault includes the act of rape in Italy.

Vixen said:
It is amusing how you maximise Guede's offences and go to enormous lengths to minimise those of your adopted innocents. And BTW Micheli and Giordani say it large that Guede was not the killer but convicted of murder because he failed to stop the others. Do have a read of it.
Click to expand...
What's amusing is how you misrepresent things by claiming things were said that never were, refusing to answer questions, and claiming to answer questions you never did.
 
Mojo said:
I've used the search function and the back arrow; I have found no trace of your answers to the questions. Since you are unable to link to them yourself it is reasonable to conclude that they don't exist
Click to expand...
Vixen said:
This type of stuff doesn't interest me. If you have something to contribute to the topic I look forward to it.
Click to expand...
IOW, you can't link to your alleged answers to those questions because you never answered them.
 
AmyStrange said:
HAVE YOU LOST ALL CREDIBILITY?
Have all your friends started calling you a liar?
Are they laughing at you behind your back?

Fix all that by honestly answering this question from the Welshman (and the others that follow) with real facts and not lies, innuendoes, and fake opinions:




Or these from Stacyhs:




Or, these from Bill Williams:




Or, this one from London John:




Or, how about SpitfireIX's questions which you originally lied about:




1755871682291.jpg



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

BTW, I have more if you care to see them, and I'll be adding them as I go along.
Click to expand...
That will be a might long list!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom