That makes the lack of gratitude and public mocking even worse doesn't it?

No problem with the US media? LOL.

Nonsense. The Italian judicial system bends over backwards for defendants. They are entitled to two automatic appeals, one to the Supreme Court. The average UK convict can only get an appeal with High Court consent and as for getting to the Supreme Court: no way José! Maybe one every five years. The State vs Knox/Sollecito trial was extremely fair and went on throughout Bongiorno's pregnancy and maternity leave. A UK court would have no patience with that and would insist on a replacement barrister. Sollecito was able to call a child kidnapper/murderer and an incarcerated Mafia criminal as his star witnesses. Absolute rubbish that the trial was unfair in any way whatsoever.

Nonsense. You know very little about witch trials in Europe.

Hello.

When I was researching my ancestors in Northumbria (North East England) I came across quite a few witchcraft trials. None of them were to do with 'confession' and 'being tortured to confess'; they were almost all to do with accusations by neighbours about mysterious illnesses and happenings, which they ascribed to the accused putting curses on them. In English common law, for something to be a crime you need someone who claims to have suffered a tort.

f/x: spews tea out nose

Because they were the "comments" of unnamed trolls who were too dense to grasp that Knox wasn't obligated to remain silent about Trump's stated policies because he had previously helped her.

No that was never the issue because it never happened.

Present evidence of anything Knox said re: Trump that could be construed as "mocking". We'll wait.

Amazing that anyone could be dense enough not to realize that, even if Knox "despised" Trump (and there's no evidence she did - in 2016 anyway), the despising came well after the help was provided.

As Knox said in the article:

There is a kind of loyalty I wholeheartedly support: loyalty to our ideals of due process, equal protection under the law, the freedom to speak one's mind and to vote according to one's principles. Only in banana republics do political leaders dole out favors to citizens in exchange for their silence and their vote. By holding personal loyalty about all else, Trump and some of his supporters create a political environment where reason and justice hold little sway.

It would be useful to also consider the following quotes from Knox's article:

"Trump recognized me as a fellow American who deserved to be assumed innocent until proven guilty, but he condemned the Central Park Five as “other” — guilty until proven innocent. Loyalty motivated Trump to call for all Americans to boycott Italy, even though, ironically, it only served to amplify anti-American sentiment in the courtroom, stacking the deck against me.

There is a kind of loyalty I wholeheartedly support: loyalty to our ideals of due process, equal protection under the law, the freedom to speak one’s mind and to vote according to one’s principles. Only in banana republics do political leaders dole out favors to citizens in exchange for their silence and their vote. By holding personal loyalty above all else, Trump and some of his supporters create a political environment where reason and justice hold little sway. He was probably right when he said he could “stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody” and not “lose voters” — that’s what happens when personal loyalty is paramount."

The remarks by some PGP posters on this matter illustrate an interesting contradiction: they will claim that PIP posters are wrongfully critical of Italy, then turn around and implicitly criticize Knox for her complaint that Trump was wrong and unhelpful to suggest (years before he was elected US president) a US boycott of Italian goods in retaliation for Italy's wrongful conviction of Knox. Clearly, the PGP aim is to criticize and demonize Knox rather than to maintain any consistent position regarding Italy. It's another example of the hypocrisy in PGP posts about Knox and this case.

Source: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-e...504-story.html

The US media had a problem covering the case early on, because they relied on stringers from Italy, namely Barbie Latza Nadeau and Andrea Vogt. It was not until US media outlets sent their own reporters overseas that a different view emerged, one critical of the Perugia prosecutor as well as the hyped up media frenzy within Italy and Britain.

Most notable was when the New York Times sent Tim Egan, and he found that the reality on the ground in Perugia was nothing like what either Nadeau or Vogt were being spoon-fed by the Perugian authorities. The Rolling Stone as well as Nina Burleigh also found a completely different reality.

Yes, it was so fair that the Italian courts exonerated Sollecito and Knox. In response to this, guilters have always claimed that the Italian courts had been unfair, as guilters call the Hellmann and Marasca decisions "bent" and corrupt. Make up your mind!

BTW - your thesis above appears to be that the process as "so fair" that Sollecito was allowed to be unfair! What is it that you're arguing, anyway?

So, this is your answer to Mignini regarding Knox as a liar, except that he had to have Lumumba arrested on her say-so? De Felice had put it, "she buckled and told us what we already knew."

It seems the problem was not someone buckling in the midst of a middle of the night interrogation (in a foreign language) the problem was what the cops "already knew".

Rolling Stone spoonfed by Knox friend Madison Paxton falsely claiming police brutality. Sure. Don't you recognise propaganda when you see it?

It was fair in that the defendants were allowed to have whatever witnesses they chose to defend themselves. They had a fair hearing.

Pathetic. Pretending to be a woke activist who cares about the underdog.

Your nonexistent reading comprehension is indeed pathetic. Nothing Knox wrote remotely alluded to "the underdog".

Not so. They had no standing at Rudy Guede's fast-track trial(s). A fast-track trial in Italy is like a normal trial, but with the evidence phase missing.

So it was that many of the "judicial facts" in this saga were set in stone. Set in stone while:

1) neither Sollecito nor Knox had had standing
2) facts were set in stone with no evidence presented, just alleged

Which is only one of the many ways this whole thing went off the rails until the March 2015 exonerations.

I do.

It's pure propaganda to suggest that some random twenty-something Seattleite could pull the wool over The Rolling Stone.

The Perugian police are welcome to release those tapes any time and put the whole thing to rest.

We'd know that if the suspected sperm stain found between the legs of a sexual assault victim was ever allowed to be tested, wouldn't we? Just how is a "burglary completed"? Is there a set number of items that have to be taken in order for it to be considered "complete"? What a silly statement to make.

When Kercher came home unexpectedly and interrupted Guede on the can, he then attacked and assaulted her. Guede wasn't an experienced killer; he panicked. I doubt staying around to search for a bunch of stuff he could later fence was on his mind. He wanted to get the hell away so he grabbed what was easily at hand: the things of value in her purse.

As for what the Massei court ruled, it was idiotic. She was likely unconscious or even dead before Guede left the cottage. Besides, all he had to do was turn the phones off if that was the motive. It's more likely his first instinct was to do what he usually did with cell phones he stole: fence them. But he soon realized it would connect him to the murder just as the phones from the law office had connected him to that crime so he threw them in the garden without turning them off. Guede wasn't the brightest.

.

WE do, do we? Funny how not one person testified to ever hearing Amanda say a negative word about Meredith. Not one. Nor one person ever testifying to hearing a raised word or argument between them. On the other hand, how those who did testify said under oath that there was a normal friendship. Just who expressed a fantasy to rape and kill? Because if you're claiming it was Amanda, that's just a bald faced lie and you know it because you've been called on it before.

Knox never mocked Trump although he is highly worthy of being mocked. But it's interesting how you spin Knox's explanation of why she did not owe Trump her vote just because he contributed to her defense fund years before. I guess you think that, by doing so, he also bought her vote? Fascinating.

Why shouldn't she? Well, for 1) because the police denied Knox her right to a lawyer and for 2) because she was denied the right to an unbiased interpreter which for 3) the ECHR said "compromised the fairness of the proceedings as a whole”. In the US, the case would have been thrown out of court.

How has it been twisted? Look in a mirror.

I notice that you ignore that it was the police (under Mignini's supervision) who kept PL's bar closed for 3 months...well past the 2 weeks he was completely cleared of any participation in the murder. Is that because you would then have to place blame on them for loss of his bar rather on Knox?

I'm reminded of the times when talking to someone about my interest in this case, the number of times the other person has never heard of Rudy Guede.

They'd never heard, for instance, that he admitted to being at the cottage in Meredith's presence, that he contrived the most bizarre rationale for being there (ie. at Meredith's invitation), that he'd had break-and-enters in the weeks before, and that he'd fled to Germany.

And, oh yes, his DNA was found in the victim's vagina.

Some accused me of making all that up. One went on to the Internet to try to prove me wrong. They discovered more about Guede, and did a 180 - why were Sollecito and Knox even charged?

Add to this the reason why the 2015 Italian Supreme Court acquitted, namely that regardless of anything else no credible evidence of anyone else but Guede was found in the murderroom.

I'd like to think that they discovered just how straightforward all this was.

And another trip around the misinformation merry-go-round Vixen invites on us! No thanks!

What makes you think she despised him at the time? He wasn't even running for office then. He was nothing but a (supposedly rich) New York real estate developer at the time. She was an early 20-something girl from the opposite side of the country. She might not even have known who he was. Sheesh.

1) She never mocked him so there is no issue.

2) Trump didn't "pay her defense fees". How much money he donated has
never been revealed. In fact, he has never presented proof he donated
anything at all. What is a fact is that he's a known pathological liar and his
'charitable foundation' was a fraud. I
wouldn't be surprised to find out he never paid a dime to her defense
fund.

3) It probably is sarcasm. As well it should be. Anyone who thinks Trump
is entitled to Knox's vote deserves sarcasm because they're an idiot.

Could Vixen explain her hypocrisy in attacking Amanda and Raffaele for lying which I have shown in previous posts :-

"Yet again Vixen bangs on about Amanda and Raffaele lying and Machiavelli said Raffaele lied about everything. If someone attacked someone for lying and deliberately set out to be as hypocritical as possible, these are the things you would do :-

• Attack someone for lying whilst lying on an industrial scale yourself.
• Attack someone for lying whilst you feel it is perfectly acceptable to use lies against the person you are attacking for lying and only regard lying as a problem if lies benefit the person you are attacking but are too dishonest to admit this.
• Attack someone for lying whilst spreading lies about the person you are attacking for lying.
• Attack someone for lying while spreading nasty and malicious lies about people.
• Attack someone for lying who has been who has on numerous occasions have had had lies spread about them and lies used against them and totally ignoring this fact.
• Attack someone for lying whilst on numerous occasions defending people who have lied.
• Attack someone for lying whilst falsely accusing them of lying.
• Say that someone would not need to lie if they were innocent of a crime whilst having to resort to lying to argue for that person’s guilt.
• Attacking someone for lying whilst making excuses for other people’s lies.

The above is exactly what PGP do when they attack Amanda for lying. The below is from a previous post showing how hypocritical PGP are when they attack Amanda and Raffaele. The next time Vixen bangs on about Amanda and Raffaele telling umpteen lies, Vixen should consider Amanda and Raffaele have never done any of the things below. I have given an example below where Vixen falsely accused Amanda of lying. If Amanda and Raffaele are such prolific liars why do PGP have to resort to inventing instances where Amanda and Raffaele lied? When it comes to Vixen it is not necessary to invent instances of Vixen lying because there are plenty of genuine instances to draw on. Vixen boasts she has done a psychology degree. I wonder what people with genuine expertise in psychology would say about people who habitually lie and support liars whilst viciously attacking people for lying. Would this be regarded as a sign of mental illness.

" As can be seen from the posts below, there are numerous instances where Vixen has used falsehoods in her posts. PGP constantly bang on about Amanda and Raffaele telling umpteen lies whilst telling umpteen lies in their posts.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11938562
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11942852
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11598412
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1#post11427461
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post11951893
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post11669633

• PGP have spread lies about Amanda and Raffaele. As can be seen from the examples above, PGP have spread lies about Amanda and Raffaele eg Amanda showed no grief over the death of Meredith, Amanda was taking 300 euros daily from her bank account, Raffaele was off his head.

• There are numerous instances when PGP have lied, supported liars and ignored lies as can be seen from the post below.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post11333243

• PGP lie by giving the impression they oppose lying in general when in reality they only oppose lying when it works in Amanda and Raffaele’s favour and support lying when it works against Amanda and Raffaele. PGP feel it is perfectly acceptable to use lies against Amanda and Raffaele. This can be seen from the way PGP defend those who spread lies about Amanda and Raffaele such as the prosecution and witnesses who blatantly lied such as Quintavelle.

• There are numerous instances where people have told lies about Amanda and Raffaele and lies have been used against Amanda and Raffaele. There are several instances where witnesses have lied against Amanda and Raffaele, the prosecution fed false information to the media, Amanda was lied to she had HIV. For some reason you will never hear Vixen banging on about the umpteen occasions people have lied about Amanda and Raffaele and lies have been used against them.

• PGP have spread malicious falsehoods about people such as Hellman being bribed, defence experts have used photoshop, C&V released a DVD only available to the defence.

• PGP have falsely accused Amanda and Raffaele of lying. The post below is one example.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5#post11849235

• I recall Vixen saying that an innocent person would not need to lie which implied that Amanda would not need to resort to lying if she was innocent when PGP have to resort to lying to argue the case for Amanda’s guilt.

• PGP make excuses for people’s lies. When Nencini lied in his motivation report that Raffaele’s DNA was on the knife, Vixen made an excuse for this lie by saying it was a typing error.

• PGP come up with Walter Mitty stories about their intelligence and qualifications they have achieved.

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Lumumba spend 2 weeks in jail because

1) Knox was coerced into making a false accusation because she was
a) denied the right to a lawyer who would have stopped that line of
coercive questioning.
b) denied an impartial interpreter who, instead of merely interpreting,
acted as an agent of the police and suggested she had amnesia
whenever she denied having anything to do with the murder, that she
wasn't there, and did not meet anyone including Lumumba.

2) Mignini kept Lumumba in jail even though

a) he knew within the first few days that there was no evidence of
Lumumba anywhere in the cottage.
b) he was relying solely on the word of Knox whom he considered a "liar".

Really?

Do you claim that, if Knox had had a lawyer present during the Nov. 5/6 interrogation, she would still have accused Lumumba? Do you seriously want to contend that a lawyer would have allowed her to do that? Do you want us to believe that a lawyer would have allowed an interpreter to tell Knox that she had amnesia and would remember "the truth" every time she denied being at the cottage? That a lawyer would have allowed her to be interrogated with no recording of it? That a lawyer would have allowed her to sign a statement that she almost immediately would feel she needed to "explain" as being given while extremely confused? GIVE ME A BREAK.

Do you seriously deny that Mignini knew there was no evidence of Lumumba in the cottage within the first week of Lumumba's arrest yet kept him in jail another week? They had his DNA and fingerprints the day they arrested him. They ran those immediately. They'd already decided the bloody shoe prints were Sollecito's...which was wrong. GIVE ME A BREAK.

Some...but certainly not to the extent with the UK and Italian media. Did the US print such blatantly and provably false stories such as "I Fired Foxy Knoxy" or "The Wild, Raunchy Past of Foxy Knoxy" or the infamous "GUILTY!" headline when she was actually acquitted which was full of made up quotes from family members, etc.? The Italian papers published false and misleading leaks from the Italian police all of which implied guilt and influenced the public negatively. We've presented several examples* of these many times before but you know that. You just choose to ignore and deny them.

* running washing machine, she smelled of sex, Harry Potter book, 'bloody bathroom' picture, etc. etc. etc.

The ECHR begs to differ with you. But, like Hellman and Marasca-Bruno, I'm sure they're 'bent'.

I'm honestly trying to understand how you come to that conclusion.

Lay and Inquisitorial Witchcraft Prosecutions in Early Modern Italy and Denmark
Louise Nyholm Kallestrup
Pages 265-278 | Published online: 29 Jul 2011

So strange that in pro-guilt bizarro-world, they seem to be inhabiting some form of "first Mrs de Winter" environment:

One where the definitive acquittals and annulments for Knox and Sollecito never happened;

One where the demolition (by reams of world-renowned experts in their respective fields) of literally every single piece of so-called "evidence" against Knox and/or Sollecito never happened

One where the ECHR demolition of Knox's conviction for criminal slander never happened;

One where Curatolo had never been exposed as a drug-addict (and dealer) fantasist with a Christ complex, who was beholden to the prosecution on account of the dealing charge hanging over him, and whose "recollection" was sunk below the waterline in any case by his claims of seeing the disco buses and revellers in costumes and masks;

One in which a key member of the prosecution team had never been exposed as - and criminally-convicted as - a corrupt public official, thereby having her credibility wholly destroyed;

One in which the clear and obvious truth - that Guede alone perpetrated the Kercher murder, and provably so - never even seemed to register.


But then again, there are some people who still insist that the Moon landings were faked (and that they have the "evidence" to prove it), or who still insist that the 9/11 attacks were pre-planned with either the complicity or direct participation of the US Government (and that they have the "evidence" to prove it). So I guess I shouldn't really be surprised that there are some people who still insist that Knox and Sollecito participated in the Kercher murder and "got away with it" (and that they have the "evidence" to prove it). There's no legislating for (nor, I suspect, any remedy for) these sorts of delusions though........

The first sentence of the above paragraph is accurate and true. Every other sentence is inaccurate and untrue.

You are aware that it's 2020, right? That it's not 2010? That, as The Dude once memorably said: "New **** has come to light" between 2010 and 2020? A considerable amount of "new ****", in fact. Enough "new ****" to drive a coach and horses through the entire case against Knox and Sollecito, in fact.

The ECHR adjudication might be an excellent place for you to start, in a quest to understand this issue accurately and properly. Can I take it that you haven't read the ECHR adjudication? Are you even aware of it?

*sigh*

When what started as a break-in evolves rapidly into a confrontation, a sexually-motivated assault, and then a murder...... the game changes dramatically for the perpetrator. Once he (and it's usually he in these scenarios) has culminated his assault with murder, the priority changes to a need to a) try to erase as much evidence of his presence at the murder scene as he can think of, and b) get away from the scene as quickly as possible, and without being spotted if possible.

There's actually academic literature on this sort of thing, if you care to look. I'll bet the British Library has some relevant stuff - even online, in the current climate.





What "staged burglary"? I suggest you read the Supreme Court judgement. And I further suggest that you supply credible, reliable evidence that the break-in was "staged" if you want to dispute the SC's definitive finding on this matter.....





Do "we"? I don't actually think "we" do, do "we"? Unless of course you can supply credible, reliable evidence to back up your claim (together with credible, reliable evidence that it was somehow linked to the Kercher murder itself).


Thanks in advance for your reply, which I'm confident will supply all the (credible, reliable) evidence to prove each of your claims conclusively :)

I am with AnimalFriendly here ;)
Amanda Knox: Donald Trump supported me when I was wrongly accused of murder. What do I owe him?
A Trump Tower Neighbor Is the Point Man for Europe’s Populists
Looks like all we have here, is some Italian resident of Trump Tower claiming to be close to Mr Trump, making a comment on a comment Mr Trump supposedly made on "the ingratitude of Ms. Knox" and that comment making it into the article of the New York Times and the overreaction (she should have known better to comment on "newspaper articles") of Amanda Knox...

I wonder if anyone can come up with anything first hand from Mr Trump regarding Ms Knox's "ingratitude"... Don't think so... ;)