• 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.

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fulcanelli said:
It's not my comment, it's Rose'. It's she that was accusing Rudy of committing necrophilia. If you don't like it, I suggest you take it up with the source.
Click to expand...

I believe I said that at the point that Meredith was assaulted she was in no condition to resist. How does the prosecutions theory of events proceed on this. Was the sexual assault after she was stabbed or before?
 
Fulcanelli said:
Because she proffered the please to believe that she was still in bed at Raffaele's, so to give herself an alibi. She didn't want to have to explain what she was doing at the cottage for all that time. That's why she didn't admit to going to the shop.
Click to expand...

The shop is in the cottage?
 
Fulcanelli said:
Not in court it hasn't and until it has, then it hasn't been discredited. At the moment, all we have are assertions.
Click to expand...

You like using this "we" thing. Is that a "royal we". I have seen convincing evidence that Quintavalle's testimony has been completely discredited. Maybe you should consider using something other than "we" here when you make sweeping statements like that.
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
We don't know that he didn't have sex with the victim. As far as I remember, the DNA discovered inside Meredith came from epithelial skin cells, which could just as likely have come from Guede's penis as from his finger. As far as I can tell, the only reason that people have come to the conclusion that Guede didn't have actual intercourse is that none of his semen was found inside Meredith. But isn't it entirely possible that Guede withdrew before ejaculation? I wonder if that pillowcase will get tested for semen.....?
Click to expand...

Yes, we do. Well...you might not.
 
Katody Matrass said:
So you believe the police service note about Quintavalle, the policeman's testimony and coworker's testimony are all fabricated by the defense.
Denial is some way of coping, for sure.
Click to expand...

I believe all were tested in court and the validity of each judged based on the known facts and their cross examination.
 
RoseMontague said:
You like using this "we" thing. Is that a "royal we". I have seen convincing evidence that Quintavalle's testimony has been completely discredited. Maybe you should consider using something other than "we" here when you make sweeping statements like that.
Click to expand...

No, you have seen 'claims' of evidence, evidence that has not been tested in court. Not the same thing.
 
Fulcanelli said:
It's not known if she bought (or even stole) anything and if so what. All that's known is she headed off to the area that sold cleaning supplies.
Click to expand...

So Quintavalle remembers her coming in, he remembers her looking at cleaning supplies, but he can't remember any face-to-face encounter when he actually took her money for something she bought?
 
Fulcanelli said:
No, you have seen 'claims' of evidence, evidence that has not been tested in court. Not the same thing.
Click to expand...

What needs to be "tested" is Massei's reasoning. That will be "tested" in the appeal. Until then I think his reasoning on Quintavalle is in error, and obviously in error. I don't agree with any argument that basically says because "Massei said so", which seems to be very common coming from you. The point of our discussion recently has been the debate on this reasoning so it is a long way from being tested and proven at JREF.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom