• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

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

As you know, Guede was not a 'complete stranger'. He and Knox had shared a joint with the guys downstairs and they had conversed at Le Chic.

The original Calunnia conviction MR said she slandered Patrick to cover up and gain impunity for others including Guede.

The lastest MR re the confirmation of the Calunnia conviction also mentions this.

It rubbishes her claim that her memorale was just a confused nightmare.

However, you have Ficarra's memo stating that Amanda gave a description of Rudy on 5th Nov., at 23.00 in her list of possible suspects that Meredith might have known:

"Lastly she informed of another South African young man, black, short, who plays basketball in the Piazza Grimana court, who would have, in one occasion, frequented the house."

Rudy was passing himself off as a South African fan during the rugby match. If Amanda was trying to protect Rudy then why did she give a reasonable description of him to Ficarra? If it wasn't Rudy she was describing then who was it? In fact it's clear from Ficarra's testimony that she herself, did know who it was but neither knew his name. It appears that it was Ficarra who initiated the discussion:

"DEL GROSSO: Why then did you say earlier that you referred to Rudy and it was on your own initiative to ask Amanda to talk about Rudy?"

"FICARRA: To remember something about that subject. I asked her if she knew his name, because we didn’t have him identified yet in that moment. We didn’t know who he was. I knew he called himself the Baron by the downstairs boys, but we didn’t know his identity."

Amanda would have clammed up and said that she had no recollection of such a person in order to protect Rudy, but was instead compliant and helpful. Who were the others she was supposed to be protecting at the expense of Lumumba? There's no evidence of any of them.

It's also curious that Ficarra gets Amanda to refer to the contacts list on her own phone for those possibilities, suggesting that Amanda also knew the killer. Rudy was not on Amanda's list of contacts.

Hoots
 
TomG, don't confuse the issue with facts and logic. It might short circuit some colpevolisti brains.

Yet apparently Vixen isn't wrong. As I understand it, the protection of Rudy was the reasoning that the Florence court used to reinstate the calunnia conviction.

Hoots
 
Yet apparently Vixen isn't wrong. As I understand it, the protection of Rudy was the reasoning that the Florence court used to reinstate the calunnia conviction.

Hoots

Whatever happened to judicial truth?

The implication of the final acquittal was that Knox and Guede had not been at the cottage at the same time. Nor at the same location inside.

Guede, he'd been in the murder room.

Knox, all that the Nencini court had proven, was that she'd been in the cottage at a later time, and in a locale different from the murder room. She'd not been in the victim's room that night.....

.... that's a judicial truth.

Why is Vixen all of a sudden pooh-poohing judicial truths?
 
Yet apparently Vixen isn't wrong. As I understand it, the protection of Rudy was the reasoning that the Florence court used to reinstate the calunnia conviction.

Hoots

She's not wrong in saying that the original and second MRs stated that she blamed Lumumba to cover for Guede. Ficarra says that Amanda, after giving her the names of several people who had come to the apartment, describes Guede. Only after this does Ficarra ask her if he's the one whom the boys downstairs had mentioned to her.

Ficarra: "[Knox]also refers to a black South African boy, short, who plays basketball in the court of Piazza Grimana, who on one occasion would have frequented the house of the boys who lived under the apartment."

QUESTION – Was South African an exact term?

FICARRA – No, no, in fact I wanted to clarify that she did not remember the details of this boy, at least she had not told me about it, so I asked her if she also remembered a boy who had been in the house of the neighbors, of the students who lived below because we had learned from those other boys that they had had a meeting, one evening they had a little party at home and that they had, in which he was also, in that circumstance Amanda and Meredith were also there, and there she said to me: "Yes, it's true, I remember this guy but I can't say either the name or I can't give the phone number because I haven't seen him again, I can't say anything else". That's what she told me..."
(pg 68)

So Amanda brought up Guede first which she would not have done if she were trying to cover for him. It would be illogical to do that.
 
Whatever happened to judicial truth?

The implication of the final acquittal was that Knox and Guede had not been at the cottage at the same time. Nor at the same location inside.

Guede, he'd been in the murder room.

Knox, all that the Nencini court had proven, was that she'd been in the cottage at a later time, and in a locale different from the murder room. She'd not been in the victim's room that night.....

.... that's a judicial truth.

Why is Vixen all of a sudden pooh-poohing judicial truths?



Because it's convenient.

It's also a judicial truth that Knox and Sollecito 'did not commit the act' of murder.
 
She's not wrong in saying that the original and second MRs stated that she blamed Lumumba to cover for Guede. Ficarra says that Amanda, after giving her the names of several people who had come to the apartment, describes Guede. Only after this does Ficarra ask her if he's the one whom the boys downstairs had mentioned to her.

Ficarra: "[Knox]also refers to a black South African boy, short, who plays basketball in the court of Piazza Grimana, who on one occasion would have frequented the house of the boys who lived under the apartment."

QUESTION – Was South African an exact term?

FICARRA – No, no, in fact I wanted to clarify that she did not remember the details of this boy, at least she had not told me about it, so I asked her if she also remembered a boy who had been in the house of the neighbors, of the students who lived below because we had learned from those other boys that they had had a meeting, one evening they had a little party at home and that they had, in which he was also, in that circumstance Amanda and Meredith were also there, and there she said to me: "Yes, it's true, I remember this guy but I can't say either the name or I can't give the phone number because I haven't seen him again, I can't say anything else". That's what she told me..."
(pg 68)

So Amanda brought up Guede first which she would not have done if she were trying to cover for him. It would be illogical to do that.

I find it strange that Vixen accuses Amanda of protecting Guede when there has been a sustained effort by the Italian authorities and guilters like Vixen to treat Guede leniently, minimize Guede's role in Meredith's murder, deflect attention from Guede, place as much as blame as possible on Amanda and Raffaele, viciously attacking Amanda and Raffaele whilst ignoring Guede.
 
I find it strange that Vixen accuses Amanda of protecting Guede when there has been a sustained effort by the Italian authorities and guilters like Vixen to treat Guede leniently, minimize Guede's role in Meredith's murder, deflect attention from Guede, place as much as blame as possible on Amanda and Raffaele, viciously attacking Amanda and Raffaele whilst ignoring Guede.

Hey, I still find it strange that Vixen would claim a woman helping a stranger to commit a murder had precedent, yet the examples she provided, in fact, did NOT support the claim. Did she not understand the point she supposedly was making, or did she actually know her examples did not support her claim but hoped we wouldn't notice. I'd love to know, but I doubt Vixen will address her oops.

And BTW, I think this is actually a key 'second tier' argument that can't be ignored. I believe no one has been able to come up with even a single instance where a crime was carried out that would be consistent with what they accuse Amanda and Raffaele of doing. This is simply something that never happens, and Amanda and Raffaele, given past and current history, are two of the most unlikely to do something like this. It doesn't prove anything, but it's almost as powerful as there being no motive and no physical evidence of them being in Meredith's room.
 
I find the counterargument presented proving Raffaele's interrogation account of the night of Nov. 1 was supported by the known facts and that Popovic committed perjury quite compelling myself.



Oh. Wait..........
 
And BTW, I think this is actually a key 'second tier' argument that can't be ignored. I believe no one has been able to come up with even a single instance where a crime was carried out that would be consistent with what they accuse Amanda and Raffaele of doing. This is simply something that never happens, and Amanda and Raffaele, given past and current history, are two of the most unlikely to do something like this. It doesn't prove anything, but it's almost as powerful as there being no motive and no physical evidence of them being in Meredith's room.

John Douglas invented the science of criminal profiling.... starting by interviewing convicted felons themselves. What he noted were similarities among them all - some variations, but mostly similar.... Douglas interviewed them, after the fact. Apparently no one had ever done that, prior to Douglas.

... so that turning around to investigate a case which otherwise seemed to defy explanation, John Douglas supplied investigators with a starting place. That starting place? Start with similar fact things....

.... one of which WASN'T that only female perpetrators cover a victim they'd just off'ed.

None of the profiling ultimately guarantees that investigators are on the right track, but it gives them a solid place to start - right from the horse's mouth, the convicted perps themselves.

So, it is pertinent.... if there is no instance of a female perp coax'ing two male-strangers to participate in a pre-planned homicide with her, why would investigators even start there?

At this point is is pertinent to say, not even Judge Massei in 2009-2010, not even in convicting them did he:

1) suggest that the homicide had been pre-planned
2) suggest that AK and/or RS had a motive to commit the crime. Judge Massei was clear, the motive of the crime came from Rudy Guede, and Rudy Guede alone. The mistake was that then Massei shoe-horned RS and AK into that crime, because acc. to Massei, the two of them had made a 'choice for evil'.​

No one other than extreme guilters ever suggested that Knox alone had orchestrated this - much less that John Douglas-style profiling never once found a real-live perp who had done what Vixen insists that Knox must have done.

https://www.amazon.ca/Mindhunter-In...1726678578&sprefix=John+Duglas,aps,125&sr=8-1

https://www.amazon.ca/Killer-Across...1726678578&sprefix=John+Duglas,aps,125&sr=8-4
 
Last edited:
Hey, I still find it strange that Vixen would claim a woman helping a stranger to commit a murder had precedent, yet the examples she provided, in fact, did NOT support the claim. Did she not understand the point she supposedly was making, or did she actually know her examples did not support her claim but hoped we wouldn't notice. I'd love to know, but I doubt Vixen will address her oops.

And BTW, I think this is actually a key 'second tier' argument that can't be ignored. I believe no one has been able to come up with even a single instance where a crime was carried out that would be consistent with what they accuse Amanda and Raffaele of doing. This is simply something that never happens, and Amanda and Raffaele, given past and current history, are two of the most unlikely to do something like this. It doesn't prove anything, but it's almost as powerful as there being no motive and no physical evidence of them being in Meredith's room.

Stop rationalising. Guede was pretty much the same age as Knox and she knew him because he played basketball with the guys downstairs and also visited to watch Formula One. He was at the pub when S Africa played England in the World Cup Rugby Final and was exchanging banter with Mez, being English, whilst he cheered S Africa. It's probably where Knox got the idea he was South African. Yes, Knox and he were friends, you are in denial to claim they were 'complete strangers'. It is pretty certain that on the afternoon of the murder, they met up at the kebab house.

There are many examples of young adults committing thrill killings as a group. It's quite shocking.
 
Stop rationalising. Guede was pretty much the same age as Knox and she knew him because he played basketball with the guys downstairs and also visited to watch Formula One.

What odd reasoning. According to you, somehow Amanda 'knew' Guede because the boys downstairs played basketball with him and he came over once to watch F1 downstairs...neither of which she was present at.

Pros. Mignini Right, being in that area, in that area, in that basketball court did you meet for example Amanda Knox?

Guede Well, no, not while I was there.
(March 26, 2008 interview with Mignini)

He was at the pub when S Africa played England in the World Cup Rugby Final and was exchanging banter with Mez, being English, whilst he cheered S Africa. It's probably where Knox got the idea he was South African.

Why would she assume he was S African from an event she didn't attend? It's more likely the boys downstairs mentioned it to her as they believed he was from S Africa as Stefano told the police.

Yes, Knox and he were friends, you are in denial to claim they were 'complete strangers'.

Raffaele and Guede were "complete strangers". But for you to call Amanda and Guede 'friends' is ludicrous. Even Guede's account of the times they had any interaction agrees with Amanda's account: one evening downstairs, Amanda serving him a drink at Le Chic, and saying "hi" as they passed in the street. That's what constitutes being a 'friend' to you?

It is pretty certain that on the afternoon of the murder, they met up at the kebab house.

There you go again claiming something as "pretty certain" when there's not a shred of evidence to support it. The fact you have to make something up out of whole cloth should tell you something.

There are many examples of young adults committing thrill killings as a group. It's quite shocking.

Yes, but they were always friends, not a virtual stranger and a love interest of a week. And there was always an element of mental illness or anti-social behavior prior to the murder. Neither of which pertains to Amanda or Raffaele.

You still fail to address my points that the known evidence disproves Raffaele's Nov. 5/6 statement being possible. And neither have you given an alternate interpretation to mine of De Felice's press statement. But your failure to do so is, in itself, an admission that you can't.
 
Yes, Knox and he were friends, you are in denial to claim they were 'complete strangers'.
They were strangers.

It is pretty certain that on the afternoon of the murder, they met up at the kebab house.
No - it's not.

There are many examples of young adults committing thrill killings as a group. It's quite shocking.
Which has no relevance here. No one, ever, suggested this was a 'thrill killing'. Mignini once called it a killing based on a Satanic rite. Massei called it Guede's sexually motived killing, with the others joining in as a choice for evil. Hellmann said that AK and RS had had nothing to do with it. The 2013 Cassazione said that it was a 'sex game gone wrong'. The Nencini court said it was an argument over rent money.

The 2015 Cassazione said that RS and AK had had nothing to do with.

Now..... you are implying it was a thrill killing.

How many times does this case need to be reinvented so that it can fit your preconceived notions? It's been 17 years. Sheesh.

In those 17 years neither RS nor AK have offended. Rudy Guede has.
 
They were strangers.


No - it's not.


Which has no relevance here. No one, ever, suggested this was a 'thrill killing'. Mignini once called it a killing based on a Satanic rite. Massei called it Guede's sexually motived killing, with the others joining in as a choice for evil. Hellmann said that AK and RS had had nothing to do with it. The 2013 Cassazione said that it was a 'sex game gone wrong'. The Nencini court said it was an argument over rent money.

The 2015 Cassazione said that RS and AK had had nothing to do with.

Now..... you are implying it was a thrill killing.

How many times does this case need to be reinvented so that it can fit your preconceived notions? It's been 17 years. Sheesh.

In those 17 years neither RS nor AK have offended. Rudy Guede has.

If Guede was 'a complete stranger' then what the heck was Sollecito, as she had only been sleeping with him for seven days, as soon as they met.
 
If Guede was 'a complete stranger' then what the heck was Sollecito, as she had only been sleeping with him for seven days, as soon as they met.

Raffaele was a complete stranger when Amanda met him, but unlike Guede, Amanda was attracted to Raffaele and they decided to get to know one another, and after seven days I'd say they knew each other pretty well. Amanda was not attracted to Guede and they made no effort to get to know one another. That Guede socialized with the boys downstairs does not make him friends with Amanda or Raffaele, and I find it very odd that you'd actually try to make this argument. Perhaps desperation is seeping in?

You claimed this case - at least your theory of it - was not unique, and you cited two cases as example to prove that. However, in both of those cases, those involved were friends. Guede was NOT a friend of Amanda or Raffaele, he was a stranger.

So we're back to where we started from. Never in the annals of crime can we find a scenario such as the one you claim happened in this case. Care to try again?
 
If Guede was 'a complete stranger' then what the heck was Sollecito, as she had only been sleeping with him for seven days, as soon as they met.

The two people who were utterly complete strangers were Raffaele and Guede. No one, ever, linked the two. No evidence was led at trial connecting the two.

Never in the annuls of crime have two complete strangers done such a thing. Remember, in convicting judge, Massei's 're-creation', the two had never met until a moment before the murder.

And acc. to the final acquiting court, Raffaele had never been reliably placed in that room anyways.

So we're back to where we started from. Never in the annals of crime can we find a scenario such as the one you claim happened in this case. Care to try again?
 
Last edited:
The two people who were utterly complete strangers were Raffaele and Guede. No one, ever, linked the two. No evidence was led at trial connecting the two.

Never in the annuls of crime have two complete strangers done such a thing. Remember, in convicting judge, Massei's 're-creation', the two had never met until a moment before the murder.

And acc. to the final acquiting court, Raffaele had never been reliably placed in that room anyways.

So we're back to where we started from. Never in the annals of crime can we find a scenario such as the one you claim happened in this case. Care to try again?


Absolute nonsense.
 
If Guede was 'a complete stranger' then what the heck was Sollecito, as she had only been sleeping with him for seven days, as soon as they met.

You claimed Guede and Knox were friends which is false. They had briefly exchanged words on two occasions, including once at her work. Maybe in your world that makes them "friends" but not in any rational world.

Resorting to slut shaming Knox is neither a good argument nor a good look.

Hey, Vixen, have you managed to find any evidence that Popovic committed perjury when she gave testimony that disproves Raffaele's coerced 'confession' wasn't even possible?

Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.
 
Absolute nonsense.

Well now, there's a compelling comeback! :rolleyes:

You could have at least pointed out what part you thought was absolute nonsense. Surely it's not that Raffaele and Guede were complete strangers. Not even you would be foolish enough to claim otherwise, so that's not the "nonsense"

Then there is the whole issue of strangers getting together to commit a crime like this. You supposedly listed a couple of examples, but, of course, they were bogus because they weren't strangers. As you've failed to offer up any additional examples, I think we can assume this isn't the "nonsense" either.

And, of course, Massei does conclude Raffaele and Guede were complete strangers, so that's not the "nonsense".

So it must be that the final acquitting court (Marasca) didn't actually conclude that Raffaele was never reliably placed in Meredith's room... except... well damn, they DID conclude that.

So it does look like I'm gonna need some help understanding what part of Bill's comment was "absolute nonsense".
 
The two people who were utterly complete strangers were Raffaele and Guede.
Not nonsense, unless you can demonstrate different.

No one, ever, linked the two.
Not nonsense, unless you can demonstrate different.
No evidence was led at trial connecting the two.
Not nonsense, unless you can demonstrate different.
Never in the annuls of crime have two complete strangers done such a thing.
Not nonsense, unless you can demonstrate different.
Remember, in convicting judge, Massei's 're-creation', the two had never met until a moment before the murder.
Not nonsense, unless you can demonstrate different.
And acc. to the final acquiting court, Raffaele had never been reliably placed in that room anyways.
Not nonsense, unless you can demonstrate different.
So we're back to where we started from. Never in the annals of crime can we find a scenario such as the one you claim happened in this case.
Not nonsense, unless you can demonstrate different.
Care to try again?

..... without spewing nonsense.
 
You claimed Guede and Knox were friends which is false. They had briefly exchanged words on two occasions, including once at her work. Maybe in your world that makes them "friends" but not in any rational world.

Resorting to slut shaming Knox is neither a good argument nor a good look.

Hey, Vixen, have you managed to find any evidence that Popovic committed perjury when she gave testimony that disproves Raffaele's coerced 'confession' wasn't even possible?

Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

That is not correct. I was challenging Welshman's and Bill Williams' claim that never in the annals of crime history had 'complete strangers' committed a murder together. I pointed out that Guede was not a 'complete stranger'. Bearing in mind Knox had been in Perugia just a short time, he was no less a stranger than the guys downstairs or the guys hanging around the internet café and Le Chic. How many 'complete strangers' know you to greet you by name and know where you come from? Let alone share a joint with.


If you believe Guede was a 'complete stranger' to Knox you are either intellectually dishonest or you are in denial.
 
Not nonsense, unless you can demonstrate different.


Not nonsense, unless you can demonstrate different.

Not nonsense, unless you can demonstrate different.

Not nonsense, unless you can demonstrate different.

Not nonsense, unless you can demonstrate different.

Not nonsense, unless you can demonstrate different.

Not nonsense, unless you can demonstrate different.


..... without spewing nonsense.

Just because Sollecito was studying hard for his finals and thus not a part of Knox' ready social circle around the pub, internet café and le Chic, that doesn't ipso facto rule him out. IMV it was unfortunate Knox teamed up with Sollecito because he was a very dark character with a coldly sinister side to him (now he's in his 40's maybe he as since matured a bit). So when faced with Knox' rage and upset at having had to spend Halloween alone with Mez snubbing her via taxt and not inviting her to join in with her party of pals, Sollecito took the opportunity t encourage and inflame her angry jealous rage, especially when, if true, Mez accused her of stealing her one month's rent money (which was missing from the crime scene). So yeah, the fact, Guede was just another guy to Sollecito doesn't rule out Knox being played by Sollecito and enabling Guede with the promise of sex with Mez. If you recall in her statements to the police Knox claimed she met 'Patrick' in the basketball court and let him into the cottage because he fancied Mez. The Fifth Chambers final court and the current Calunnia re-trial court believe she falsely (criminally) named Patrick to cover up for Guede.

That wouldn't be the first time a woman used her charms towards guys with the promise of something further and asking for their help to deal with an angry Mez demanding to know what happened to her rent money.

It is patently nonsense to say that there has never been a murder based on a relatively trivial row before, involving young adults fueled by raging sex hormones, a knife fetish and fantasy world in the case of Sollecito, together with a short-tempered person incandescent with rage at being left out of a Halloween Party despite all of her attempts to get invited.
 
Posted by Stacyhs View Post
You claimed Guede and Knox were friends which is false. They had briefly exchanged words on two occasions, including once at her work. Maybe in your world that makes them "friends" but not in any rational world.

Resorting to slut shaming Knox is neither a good argument nor a good look.

Hey, Vixen, have you managed to find any evidence that Popovic committed perjury when she gave testimony that disproves Raffaele's coerced 'confession' wasn't even possible?

Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.


That is not correct.

It is correct:

It's probably where Knox got the idea he was South African. Yes, Knox and he were friends, you are in denial to claim they were 'complete strangers'. It is pretty certain that on the afternoon of the murder, they met up at the kebab house.


I was challenging Welshman's and Bill Williams' claim that never in the annals of crime history had 'complete strangers' committed a murder together. I pointed out that Guede was not a 'complete stranger'. Bearing in mind Knox had been in Perugia just a short time, he was no less a stranger than the guys downstairs or the guys hanging around the internet café and Le Chic. How many 'complete strangers' know you to greet you by name and know where you come from? Let alone share a joint with.

You claimed Guede and Knox were friends.

Knox socialized with the boys downstairs. Over six weeks, they went dancing together, they had dinner with each other. The boys came upstairs, the girls went downstairs. Did Knox ever once go dancing with Guede? Did Guede ever set foot in the upstairs apartment before the night of the murder? Did Knox ever go to his apartment? Have dinner with him? And please, none of that "they met up at the kebab house" nonsense you invented out of whole cloth.

Telling someone at work or at a single gathering your name and where you come from doesn't make anyone friends. Hell, I'VE had a joint with someone I just met at a gathering. That didn't make us friends or anything more than strangers.

If you believe Guede was a 'complete stranger' to Knox you are either intellectually dishonest or you are in denial.

If you believe Guede was a "friend" to Knox you are either intellectually dishonest or you are in denial.

So, give us an example of 3 people, two of whom had never met, and two of whom had only two brief encounters who then got together and murdered someone. But you can't any more than you can explain away De Felice's statement or the evidence disproving Raffaele's interrogation statement.
 
:thumbsup:
Just because Sollecito was studying hard for his finals and thus not a part of Knox' ready social circle around the pub, internet café and le Chic, that doesn't ipso facto rule him out. IMV it was unfortunate Knox teamed up with Sollecito because he was a very dark character with a coldly sinister side to him (now he's in his 40's maybe he as since matured a bit).

What exactly made RS "a very dark character with a coldly sinister side to him"?


So when faced with Knox' rage and upset at having had to spend Halloween alone with Mez snubbing her via taxt and not inviting her to join in with her party of pals, Sollecito took the opportunity to encourage and inflame her angry jealous rage,

Yeah, Knox was just soooooo upset with Meredith that those who saw her that night all commented on what a bad mood she was in. Oh, wait...no one with her that night said any such thing.

And her texts to Meredith that night are filled with rage:

"What are you doing tonight? Do you want to meet? Do you have a costume?" and "I’m going to le chic for a while and then who knows? Maybe we’ll see each other? Call me."

My god! Such venom!

especially when, if true, Mez accused her of stealing her one month's rent money (which was missing from the crime scene).

A fact you always conveniently fail to include is that it was GUEDE'S DNA in MK's blood on her purse, not Amanda's. You ignore that Guede had a history of theft, including out of purses according to his friend, and was broke while Knox had over $4200 in her account. But, yeah...it was Knox who needed to steal the rent money. :confused:


So yeah, the fact, Guede was just another guy to Sollecito doesn't rule out Knox being played by Sollecito and enabling Guede with the promise of sex with Mez.

I see you've swallowed hook, line, and sinker the "Foxy Knoxy was a femme fatale" idiocy. Sure, Vixen, she's such a Svengali that she could get a boyfriend of a week and a virtual stranger to kill and rape her roommate. Uh-huh. Yeah. Sure. You betcha. You just keep telling yourself that.



If you recall in her statements to the police Knox claimed she met 'Patrick' in the basketball court and let him into the cottage because he fancied Mez. The Fifth Chambers final court and the current Calunnia re-trial court believe she falsely (criminally) named Patrick to cover up for Guede.

If you recall, it was the police who believed she had met Lumumba and kept telling her she just didn't remember it because she had amnesia. As De Felice so revealing said:
"Initially the American gave a version of events we knew was not correct. She buckled and made an admission of facts we knew were correct and from that we were able to bring them in. They all participated but had different roles."

So when Knox said she was home all night, the police knew she was lying and had really met Lumumba and taken him to the cottage, right?

But you really don't want to go there, do you?

And by the way, if Curatolo was in Piazza Grimana that night, why did he never see Knox and Lumumba when they "met" there?
Hmmm....leaving Guede's crap in the toilet and his footprint on the bathmat and then pointing them out to the police is a very odd way of "covering" for Guede! Not to mention not mopping down the hallway with his intact bloody shoeprints. But that makes sense to you, does it?

That wouldn't be the first time a woman used her charms towards guys with the promise of something further and asking for their help to deal with an angry Mez demanding to know what happened to her rent money.

Have you considered writing fiction? Oh, wait....

It is patently nonsense to say that there has never been a murder based on a relatively trivial row before, involving young adults fueled by raging sex hormones, a knife fetish and fantasy world in the case of Sollecito, together with a short-tempered person incandescent with rage at being left out of a Halloween Party despite all of her attempts to get invited.

Ding, ding, ding! And we've got a winner in the contest for "Most Unsupported Nonsense in a Single Post"!

Ahem...no one said, "there has never been a murder based on a relatively trivial row before", but nice goalpost move there!
 
It is correct:






You claimed Guede and Knox were friends.

Knox socialized with the boys downstairs. Over six weeks, they went dancing together, they had dinner with each other. The boys came upstairs, the girls went downstairs. Did Knox ever once go dancing with Guede? Did Guede ever set foot in the upstairs apartment before the night of the murder? Did Knox ever go to his apartment? Have dinner with him? And please, none of that "they met up at the kebab house" nonsense you invented out of whole cloth.

Telling someone at work or at a single gathering your name and where you come from doesn't make anyone friends. Hell, I'VE had a joint with someone I just met at a gathering. That didn't make us friends or anything more than strangers.



If you believe Guede was a "friend" to Knox you are either intellectually dishonest or you are in denial.

So, give us an example of 3 people, two of whom had never met, and two of whom had only two brief encounters who then got together and murdered someone. But you can't any more than you can explain away De Felice's statement or the evidence disproving Raffaele's interrogation statement.

In front of witnesses, the guys downstairs, with whom Guede had been playing basketball with, Knox greeted him and reminded him, '"Amanda, from Seattle" alluding to their prior conversation at le Chic.

I find it difficult to debate with you as you use the logical fallacy of tu quoque a lot, possibly the worst logical fallacy there is. Your response to everything is "What about..." (Fellice, Mez, Mignini, Ficarri, etc), or, 'I said hello, I'm Stacyhs from wherever but that doesn't mean I am a friend'. It is a pointless form of debate. Fellice has sweet Fanny Adams to do with it. If you can quit using 'what about?' or trying to change the subject to a counteraccusation, then maybe I can attempt to respond. In other words, it would help if you could stick to the point instead of always trying to reference something else completely. We are not talking about whether you are friends with a work colleague, we were discussing the veracity of the claim Guede and Knox were 'complete strangers'.

The fact you want to skirt around the issue tells me you know it is untrue.
 
:thumbsup:

What exactly made RS "a very dark character with a coldly sinister side to him"?




Yeah, Knox was just soooooo upset with Meredith that those who saw her that night all commented on what a bad mood she was in. Oh, wait...no one with her that night said any such thing.

And her texts to Meredith that night are filled with rage:

"What are you doing tonight? Do you want to meet? Do you have a costume?" and "I’m going to le chic for a while and then who knows? Maybe we’ll see each other? Call me."

My god! Such venom!



A fact you always conveniently fail to include is that it was GUEDE'S DNA in MK's blood on her purse, not Amanda's. You ignore that Guede had a history of theft, including out of purses according to his friend, and was broke while Knox had over $4200 in her account. But, yeah...it was Knox who needed to steal the rent money. :confused:




I see you've swallowed hook, line, and sinker the "Foxy Knoxy was a femme fatale" idiocy. Sure, Vixen, she's such a Svengali that she could get a boyfriend of a week and a virtual stranger to kill and rape her roommate. Uh-huh. Yeah. Sure. You betcha. You just keep telling yourself that.





If you recall, it was the police who believed she had met Lumumba and kept telling her she just didn't remember it because she had amnesia. As De Felice so revealing said:


So when Knox said she was home all night, the police knew she was lying and had really met Lumumba and taken him to the cottage, right?

But you really don't want to go there, do you?

And by the way, if Curatolo was in Piazza Grimana that night, why did he never see Knox and Lumumba when they "met" there?
Hmmm....leaving Guede's crap in the toilet and his footprint on the bathmat and then pointing them out to the police is a very odd way of "covering" for Guede! Not to mention not mopping down the hallway with his intact bloody shoeprints. But that makes sense to you, does it?



Have you considered writing fiction? Oh, wait....



Ding, ding, ding! And we've got a winner in the contest for "Most Unsupported Nonsense in a Single Post"!

Ahem...no one said, "there has never been a murder based on a relatively trivial row before", but nice goalpost move there!


I didn't say Knox was a femme fatale, I was simply pointing out there have been numerous crimes which involve men committing horrendous crimes on the behest of a female friend. For example, Johanna Denehey, had two guys helping her chase down random guys in the street to stab, simply because she asked them to. The girl who got her 16-year-old boyfriend to kill her mother and 11-year-old sister, and he didn't even know them. Erin Caffey getting a couple of guys to kill her entire family.

No, it is not unheard of in the annals of crime history.
 
In front of witnesses, the guys downstairs, with whom Guede had been playing basketball with, Knox greeted him and reminded him, '"Amanda, from Seattle" alluding to their prior conversation at le Chic.

I have referenced Amanda serving Guede a drink once at Le Chic, so what is your point?

I just looked at Giacomo's, Marco's and Stefano's testimonies and I found nothing where AK "reminded him, 'Amanda, from Seattle' alluding to their prior conversation at le Chic." How about quoting and citing the page number of such testimony?


I find it difficult to debate with you as you use the logical fallacy of tu quoque a lot, possibly the worst logical fallacy there is. Your response to everything is "What about..." (Fellice, Mez, Mignini, Ficarri, etc), or, 'I said hello, I'm Stacyhs from wherever but that doesn't mean I am a friend'. It is a pointless form of debate. Fellice has sweet Fanny Adams to do with it. If you can quit using 'what about?' or trying to change the subject to a counteraccusation, then maybe I can attempt to respond. In other words, it would help if you could stick to the point instead of always trying to reference something else completely. We are not talking about whether you are friends with a work colleague, we were discussing the veracity of the claim Guede and Knox were 'complete strangers'.

So this is the tactic you're going to try and go with now, is it? Pointing out your false claims that you can't support with any evidence is not a tu quoque.



The fact you want to skirt around the issue tells me you know it is untrue.

The fact you repeatedly ignore the questions you've been asked tells me you can't answer them and you know you can't.

I haven't "skirted around" anything despite your claim. I've addressed each and every one of your claims.
 
There is in excellent website titled “knox augaries innocence” which pointed out that there has been a sustained campaigned by the Italian authorities to deflect attention from Guede, minimise Guede’s role in Meredith’s murder and treat him leniently when the evidence overwhelmingly shows Guede acted alone. This is the view shared by the guilters as suggested in the attached link which explains the views held by guilters. Guilters like Vixen are people who believe Amanda and Raffaele are guilty regardless of the facts and any evidence proving otherwise. If guilters want to minimise Guede’s role and see Guede treated leniently, this can be justified if other people such as Amanda and Raffaele are convicted of the crime but can’t be justified if Amanda and Raffaele are acquitted which explains the massive anger and resentment Vixen and other members of TJMK feel when Amanda and Raffaele were acquitted under Hellman and later the supreme court and why guilters hold the fixed belief Amanda and Raffaele are guilty. Guilters will only talk about Amanda and Raffaele and viciously attack them but they ignore Guede and never attack him which is explained by the fact guilters wish to minimise Guede’s role in Meredith’s murder and deflect attention from Guede.

Guilters are so determined to protect Guede by claiming Amanda and Raffaele were involved in Meredith’s murder, guilters are prepared to believe in absurdities such as claiming Amanda and Raffaele came together to commit murder even when the scenario is utterly absurd and has more holes in it than a string vest. Guilters make the absurd claim the notion Guede killed Meredith when she walked in on a burglary is far fetched when the evidence overwhelmingly supports this scenario. Note the desperate lengths Vixen will go to maintain Amanda and Rudy knew each other.



Rudy Guede, the poor black guy - A Study in Myopia (nigelscott.co.uk)
 
I didn't say Knox was a femme fatale, I was simply pointing out there have been numerous crimes which involve men committing horrendous crimes on the behest of a female friend. For example, Johanna Denehey, had two guys helping her chase down random guys in the street to stab, simply because she asked them to. The girl who got her 16-year-old boyfriend to kill her mother and 11-year-old sister, and he didn't even know them. Erin Caffey getting a couple of guys to kill her entire family.

No, it is not unheard of in the annals of crime history.


Yet again, you fail to answer any questions:

So when Knox said she was home all night, the police knew she was lying and had really met Lumumba and taken him to the cottage, right? But you really don't want to go there, do you?

And by the way, if Curatolo was in Piazza Grimana that night, why did he never see Knox and Lumumba when they "met" there?

Your comparisons with Dennehy and Caffey fall flat.

Dennehy was diagnosed with psychopathic, anti-social and borderline personality disorders and was a serial killer. Of course, ignorant guilter armchair psychologists who demonstrate little knowledge of the case facts repeatedly claim Knox is a psychopath and there were common claims years ago that she "would kill again". How did that work out for them?

What you keep doing is comparing cases where the accomplices were all longer-term friends or boyfriends of the killer. In none of them was one participant a virtual or complete stranger or boyfriend of a week. Try again.
 
Just because Sollecito was studying hard for his finals and thus not a part of Knox' ready social circle around the pub, internet café and le Chic, that doesn't ipso facto rule him out.

I stopped reading here, at the above.

You see, the issue is not if Raffaele can be ruled out.... the issue is, can he be ruled in?

You can't simply assume he'd been ruled in, then demand that he be ruled out. It's amazing that you don't know that.
 
There is in excellent website titled “knox augaries innocence” which pointed out that there has been a sustained campaigned by the Italian authorities to deflect attention from Guede, minimise Guede’s role in Meredith’s murder and treat him leniently when the evidence overwhelmingly shows Guede acted alone. This is the view shared by the guilters as suggested in the attached link which explains the views held by guilters. Guilters like Vixen are people who believe Amanda and Raffaele are guilty regardless of the facts and any evidence proving otherwise. If guilters want to minimise Guede’s role and see Guede treated leniently, this can be justified if other people such as Amanda and Raffaele are convicted of the crime but can’t be justified if Amanda and Raffaele are acquitted which explains the massive anger and resentment Vixen and other members of TJMK feel when Amanda and Raffaele were acquitted under Hellman and later the supreme court and why guilters hold the fixed belief Amanda and Raffaele are guilty. Guilters will only talk about Amanda and Raffaele and viciously attack them but they ignore Guede and never attack him which is explained by the fact guilters wish to minimise Guede’s role in Meredith’s murder and deflect attention from Guede.

Guilters are so determined to protect Guede by claiming Amanda and Raffaele were involved in Meredith’s murder, guilters are prepared to believe in absurdities such as claiming Amanda and Raffaele came together to commit murder even when the scenario is utterly absurd and has more holes in it than a string vest. Guilters make the absurd claim the notion Guede killed Meredith when she walked in on a burglary is far fetched when the evidence overwhelmingly supports this scenario. Note the desperate lengths Vixen will go to maintain Amanda and Rudy knew each other.



Rudy Guede, the poor black guy - A Study in Myopia (nigelscott.co.uk)

Link doesn't work for me. Are you able to put a number - or perhaps an estimate - of how many people are involved in this conspiracy to pin things on Knox and Sollecito? Whilst you are busy counting, can you think of a possible motive for all of these people conspiring together to falsely accuse and convict two nondescript nobodies?
 
Yet again, you fail to answer any questions:



Your comparisons with Dennehy and Caffey fall flat.

Dennehy was diagnosed with psychopathic, anti-social and borderline personality disorders and was a serial killer. Of course, ignorant guilter armchair psychologists who demonstrate little knowledge of the case facts repeatedly claim Knox is a psychopath and there were common claims years ago that she "would kill again". How did that work out for them?

What you keep doing is comparing cases where the accomplices were all longer-term friends or boyfriends of the killer. In none of them was one participant a virtual or complete stranger or boyfriend of a week. Try again.

That wasn't the issue. The issue was why would a couple of guys only passingly familiar with Mez join in with hazing attack on Knox' roommate, a lovely young woman by all accounts.

For goodness sake, Knox and Mez had only been in Perugia a short time, for the start of autumn term. At that age, in a strange place, your new acquaintances quickly become identified as 'friends' and is nothing at all like you introducing yourself to a work colleague in a workplace setting. In any case, your work colleague is hardly a 'complete stranger' once you've been introduced. Mez was there with numerous English students from Leeds Uni and elsewhere. She likely only just met most of them for the first time, yet she quickly formed a great social circle, going out and having fun. For example on Halloween and then again the next day, she was off to visit her three or four friends for a film (The Note Book) and Pizza. She soon had a handsome Italian boyfriend who went skiing in expensive ski resorts. What did Knox have? Loner weirdo incel Sollecito who liked dressing up in sheets and menacingly wielding a scalpel on FaceBook bragging about his drug use. His father knew he was flakey as he had to ring his errant wayward son six times a day to check up on him. Had been caught watching animla pron at school and had attacked a classmate with scissors. So what do we have, Knox spending Halloween alone (a big disappointment for an American) as Sollecito was studying for his exams, and as a Catholic, wasn't that bothered by Halloween as a celebration, Mez studiously avoiding Knox' company for Halloween and having great fun with all her friends. Next afternoon, she's off again! Leaving Knox all alone with weirdo boyfriend and his knife fetish and anime fantasies of killing a vampire as per his latest comic.

Your arguments simply run along the ridiculous claim that 'no-one called Amanda Knox had ever been convicted for murder of her roommate before', so therefore, she must be innocent!

And no, Guede was not a 'complete stranger' to Knox. Stop lying to yourself.
 
I stopped reading here, at the above.

You see, the issue is not if Raffaele can be ruled out.... the issue is, can he be ruled in?

You can't simply assume he'd been ruled in, then demand that he be ruled out. It's amazing that you don't know that.

The point being made is that whilst Guede and Sollecito weren't friends, the missing link between the two was Knox.


Three weirdos. Guede, bored and lonely on Halloween, going around all of his friends to find out if they were home. Knox bumping into him in the basketball court, also alone. He openly admits he had an attraction towards her and when she took him to the cottage, he was ready to do anything to gain her favour. So now that she wasn't needed at Le Chic,, thanks to Patrick's message, she and Sollecito both switched off their phone at 8:45pm ready to party when Mez arrived back home at circa 9:00pm. But Mez didn't want to party. She had history homework to do (not realising the next day was a Public Holiday in Italy). Guede claims she confronted Knox about her missing rent money. Whatever, we know Knox took along a kitchen knife of Sollecito's and he took along one of his collector's knives for himself. His chance to act out his vampire-slaying fantasy. Three reject weirdos against poor popular, sought-after Mez.
 
I didn't say Knox was a femme fatale, I was simply pointing out there have been numerous crimes which involve men committing horrendous crimes on the behest of a female friend. For example, Johanna Denehey, had two guys helping her chase down random guys in the street to stab, simply because she asked them to. The girl who got her 16-year-old boyfriend to kill her mother and 11-year-old sister, and he didn't even know them. Erin Caffey getting a couple of guys to kill her entire family.

No, it is not unheard of in the annals of crime history.

After all these years you still think you can move the goal posts and no one is going to notice.

What we said never happened in the annals of crime history was a female teaming up with a complete stranger to commit murder. You offered up a few examples, but they were proven bogus because in each case they were friends, not complete strangers. So you pause for a while, and now your back, but you've moved the goal posts... now it's Amanda and Raffaele, and yes, they were not complete strangers. However, you forget, Guede was supposedly involved and yes, he WAS a complete stranger. Amanda's relationship with Guede was something less than the relationship I have with the cashier at the grocery store, and I would still consider the cashier a complete stranger. You must really think people are stupid to make the arguments you're making.

Guede was a stranger to Amanda, a complete stranger to Raffaele. Find a case - just one - where two friends team up with a complete stranger to murder one of the friends housemate and friend. You can't do it because it's never happened... but you just go on and remain in denial... the rest of us know better.
 
The point being made is that whilst Guede and Sollecito weren't friends, the missing link between the two was Knox.

Three weirdos.

Wow. **This** is your case? No wonder the 2015 court acquitted, if it was something like this that the lower court had used to convict!

You do realize, don't you, that the first **convicting court** called RS and AK normal, overachieving kids? Who'd made (in the court's misguided opinion) made an inexplicable choice for evil, without being evil themselves, just far from their homes, and familiar surroundings? You never address that! You think it's me making it up. Good on you!

After all these years, that's all you got? That and being creepy about the use of the victim's familiar name.....
 
Last edited:
In front of witnesses, the guys downstairs, with whom Guede had been playing basketball with, Knox greeted him and reminded him, '"Amanda, from Seattle" alluding to their prior conversation at le Chic...

Do you have any other murder conspiracy cases in mind where the perpetrators kinda recognise each other but have to remind each other who they are?
 
Link doesn't work for me. Are you able to put a number - or perhaps an estimate - of how many people are involved in this conspiracy to pin things on Knox and Sollecito? Whilst you are busy counting, can you think of a possible motive for all of these people conspiring together to falsely accuse and convict two nondescript nobodies?

Poor police work and jumping to conclusions does not make this some grand conspiracy.
 
Back
Top Bottom