International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Trials and Errors (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=106)
-   -   The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 31 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=347719)

TomG 2nd December 2021 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13670108)
Hey, the fact she said he was S. African is clearly evidence of her trying to cover for him! Or....was she setting him up to take the fall? :rolleyes:

Not unless Stefano Bonassi had the same idea. He said much the same to Ficarra the previous day.

"Also, another young man visited our place, nicknamed “the baron,” shorter than myself, whose name I do not remember, of South African origin."

Interestingly he refers to an individual named "Body Roga" as though they were separate people in the same interview:

"A: Another young man who came to our place once is a tall, lean young man wearing tennis shoes and baggy pants, nicknamed Body Roga."

Rudy was both "The Baron" and "Body Roga" as well. For a moment I thought they might actually be different people. Further raising the question that the South African may be someone else, but who would it be? I think that Stefano was simply mistaken and referring to the same person.

http://amandaknoxcase.com/rita-ficarra-memo/
http://amandaknoxcase.com/files/wp-c...4-nov-2007.pdf

Stacyhs 2nd December 2021 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomG (Post 13670148)
Not unless Stefano Bonassi had the same idea. He said much the same to Ficarra the previous day.

"Also, another young man visited our place, nicknamed “the baron,” shorter than myself, whose name I do not remember, of South African origin."

Interestingly he refers to an individual named "Body Roga" as though they were separate people in the same interview:

"A: Another young man who came to our place once is a tall, lean young man wearing tennis shoes and baggy pants, nicknamed Body Roga."

Rudy was both "The Baron" and "Body Roga" as well. For a moment I thought they might actually be different people. Further raising the question that the South African may be someone else, but who would it be? I think that Stefano was simply mistaken and referring to the same person.

http://amandaknoxcase.com/rita-ficarra-memo/
http://amandaknoxcase.com/files/wp-c...4-nov-2007.pdf

Quote:

Rudy played basketball at the Piazza Grimana basketball court right across the street from 7 via Della Pergola, where he was known to all of the other basketball players, but none knew his real name. Some called him, Body Roga, after the Serbian basketball star, Deja Bodiroga, but most called him The Baron, because they found it difficult to say the name Byron. Guede styled himself after NBA star, Byron Scott.
(The Known Story of Rudy Guede by Patrick King)

Vixen 3rd December 2021 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rolfe (Post 13668909)
I watched this last night.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

Knox simply being allowed to tell her story, by a sympathetic interviewer who is well-versed in the facts of the case. Vixen won't like it.

It's a, 'No' from me.

Vixen 3rd December 2021 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Williams (Post 13668975)
It may be a big time-saver to use the logic of the final exoneration, by saying that even if what you claim about all this is true, it still doesn't put either AK or RS (remember him?) in the murder room. At best all that these pointless claims do is fail to address that Knox was in another part of the cottage at a later time.

There. Isn't that easier than constantly trying to read people's minds for motives? Maybe. Just maybe, she pointed out the crap - actually Raffaele pointed it out - because she knew that Laura always flushed. It would be the answer to a question posed by police to all the cottage occupants, "Is there anything out of the ordinary in there?"

Once again, you're shilling for Mignini. Trying to defend someone with diversions who dodges questions put to him, following his epic failure to wrongfully prosecute two people. Then again, I've just learned that even Micheli turned on Mignini in the second failed attempt to wrongfully prosecute someone else - the Narducci affair. I mean, Mignini had a track record of going for that big prosecution, regardless of the evidence.

:dl:

Vixen 3rd December 2021 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numbers (Post 13669092)
Another discrepancy: Lena states that the prank call was received at about 10:00 pm on 1 November. In his testimony before the Massei court, Chief Commisioner of the State Police (Commissario Capo della Polizia di Stato) Filippo Bartolozzi states that the prank call came at 10:30 pm.



While either 10:00 pm or 10:30 pm would be in the likely range of time for Guede to have tossed the phones into the Biscarini's garden after his raping and murdering Kercher, about 10:30 pm would probably be a better estimate allowing for the approximately 15 minute walking time from the cottage to the Biscarini property.

I suggest - and this is a speculation - that there was, in reality, no prank call, and that the Biscarini family had actually detected, perhaps with an alarm system, some disturbance in or around their garden. Somehow, perhaps under the influence of the police, this disturbance became, in the official records, a prank call. This speculation would account for why the police sought out Capasso, who gave 31 October, the wrong day, for the prank call, and whose phone (alleged by the police to have made the prank call), according to a phone log (if it is accurate) shows no call to any of the Biscarini family phones on any day of interest (31 October - 3 November).

There does seem to have been some kind of intelligence going on there, for the police to turn up at the cottage with Mez' phone before anyone even rang up them.

Vixen 3rd December 2021 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13669576)
Reading comprehension problems once again, heh?

No, I didn't say that at all. I said, "If Knox were trying to cover up for Guede, wouldn't she have flushed his crap down the toilet instead of pointing it out to the police?"

The prosecution contended that Knox was covering for Guede when she named Lumumba. If she were covering for him, why not flush his crap down the toilet?

You really are in serious need of a remedial reading comprehension course. And maybe one in "Logic Basics".

Oh dear.

Has it dawned on you she thought it a great idea to point the finger at someone else, as criminals are wont to do? However, the pair were too dumb to realise that faeces contain little DNA, thanks to bacteria breakdown.

Vixen 3rd December 2021 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomG (Post 13670007)
Amanda also mentioned Rudy in the 11.00pm 5th November list she prepared for Ficarra that indicated the male individuals who might have known Meredith:

"Auxiliary: The Interrogation of the 5th to the 6th of Nov. 2007
Annotation Rita Ficarra

"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."

Hoots

Of course she'd want to put her partner in crime on the radar. Interesting she called him 'South African', which indicates she socialised with him at the England - S. Africa World Cup Rugby game at the pub, when Guede claims to have exchanged banter with Brit Meredith.

Vixen 3rd December 2021 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13670108)
Hey, the fact she said he was S. African is clearly evidence of her trying to cover for him! Or....was she setting him up to take the fall? :rolleyes:

When Marasca-Bruno said Knox was covering up for Guede, what they meant was she was covering herself by naming someone else. According to M-B she was worried someone might have seen her and Guede together at the crime scene so she pointed the finger at Lumumba making the assumption 'These people are all the same, and I know all you cops are racist, so go and arrest the Black guy and leave me alone'.

Hence the conviction.

Vixen 3rd December 2021 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomG (Post 13670148)
Not unless Stefano Bonassi had the same idea. He said much the same to Ficarra the previous day.

"Also, another young man visited our place, nicknamed “the baron,” shorter than myself, whose name I do not remember, of South African origin."

Interestingly he refers to an individual named "Body Roga" as though they were separate people in the same interview:

"A: Another young man who came to our place once is a tall, lean young man wearing tennis shoes and baggy pants, nicknamed Body Roga."

Rudy was both "The Baron" and "Body Roga" as well. For a moment I thought they might actually be different people. Further raising the question that the South African may be someone else, but who would it be? I think that Stefano was simply mistaken and referring to the same person.

http://amandaknoxcase.com/rita-ficarra-memo/
http://amandaknoxcase.com/files/wp-c...4-nov-2007.pdf

Stefano was Mez' boyfriend? Maybe he got the 'South African' description from her as Guede was making out he was South African at the televised rugby game in the pub. Otherwise, he made out he was American and the Baron name was some kind of US basketball hero.

LondonJohn 3rd December 2021 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 13670500)
There does seem to have been some kind of intelligence going on there, for the police to turn up at the cottage with Mez' phone before anyone even rang up them.


Huh?

You're talking about the postal police officers coming to the cottage at around 1pm on 2nd November?

If so, then firstly: your post has nothing whatsoever to do with the matter that was actually being discussed (which was solely to do with the prank call the previous evening which brought the police to the Biscarini house on Via Sperandio).

But secondly: the reason why the postal police "turned up" at the cottage the following lunchtime was that Kercher's Italian phone actually belonged to Romanelli (who'd lent it to Kercher), and it was registered to Romanelli at that address. As soon as the postal police interrogated the SIM card from that phone on the morning of the 2nd November, they were able to link it to Romanelli at that address. That's precisely why they came over to the cottage at around 1pm on 2nd November.


(Are you still this unaware of such relatively basic facts concerning this case? After all these years?)

LondonJohn 3rd December 2021 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 13670502)
Oh dear.

Has it dawned on you she thought it a great idea to point the finger at someone else, as criminals are wont to do? However, the pair were too dumb to realise that faeces contain little DNA, thanks to bacteria breakdown.


What?

You start by saying Knox was aiming to "point the finger at someone else". But in the very next sentence, you claim that Knox and Sollecito were "too dumb to realise" that it's hard to carry out DNA typing on faeces. By which you must be implying that you think Knox and Sollecito were assuming the police would be able to get a DNA match from the faeces. Which in turn implies that you believe Knox and Sollecito were hoping the police would link the faeces to Guede. Which in turn implies that you believe Knox and Sollecito wanted the police to link Guede to the murder.

Which flatly contradicts your opening proposition: that (the factually-guilty, in your fantasy) Knox was trying to protect Guede by pointing the finger at Lumumba.

Oh dear.


ETA: Oh, and https://www.theguardian.com/guardian...-style-guide-a

LondonJohn 3rd December 2021 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 13670504)
Of course she'd want to put her partner in crime on the radar. Interesting she called him 'South African', which indicates she socialised with him at the England - S. Africa World Cup Rugby game at the pub, when Guede claims to have exchanged banter with Brit Meredith.


Pray explain to us all exactly why Knox referring to Guede as "South African" (which he in fact was not, by the way*) in any way indicates that she'd "socialised" with him at the pub at the screening of the RWC final.


* And paradoxically, if Knox had actually socialised with Guede previously as you claim, it's likely that she wouldn't subsequently have referred to him as "South African"......

LondonJohn 3rd December 2021 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 13670507)
When Marasca-Bruno said Knox was covering up for Guede, what they meant was she was covering herself by naming someone else. According to M-B she was worried someone might have seen her and Guede together at the crime scene so she pointed the finger at Lumumba making the assumption 'These people are all the same, and I know all you cops are racist, so go and arrest the Black guy and leave me alone'.

Hence the conviction.


LOL you contradict your first sentence in your second sentence.

Your posts are a joke.

LondonJohn 3rd December 2021 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 13670508)
Stefano was Mez' boyfriend? Maybe he got the 'South African' description from her as Guede was making out he was South African at the televised rugby game in the pub. Otherwise, he made out he was American and the Baron name was some kind of US basketball hero.


He was not Kercher's boyfriend. Are you really this ignorant about the basic facts of this case?


(And if you continue to insist on using the familiar contraction of Kercher's given name, please remember that it must take an "s" after the apostrophe in the possessive form. It's only when one wouldn't pronounce the possessive "s" - for instance in "my parents' house" - that there's no "s" written after the apostrophe.)

TruthCalls 3rd December 2021 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LondonJohn (Post 13670528)
LOL you contradict your first sentence in your second sentence.

Your posts are a joke.

The idea that she chose to implicate Lumumba to cover herself has always been, IMHO, one of the most illogical concepts proposed by the prosecution and adopted by the pro-guilt. One has to remember that for nearly four days Amanda and Raffaele had been telling the police the truth - that they spent the entire evening at Raffaele's apartment. During the interrogation the police never presented evidence to Amanda that put her at the apartment. Indeed they had nothing. Regardless, Amanda has now suddenly placed herself at the scene of the crime, not at Raffaele's house. I'm not sure I know in which universe this can be considered "covering" oneself, but in mine it's called implicating oneself, and if I were going to do that then I'd sure as hell include everyone else involved.

Vixen 3rd December 2021 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LondonJohn (Post 13670521)
Huh?

You're talking about the postal police officers coming to the cottage at around 1pm on 2nd November?

If so, then firstly: your post has nothing whatsoever to do with the matter that was actually being discussed (which was solely to do with the prank call the previous evening which brought the police to the Biscarini house on Via Sperandio).

But secondly: the reason why the postal police "turned up" at the cottage the following lunchtime was that Kercher's Italian phone actually belonged to Romanelli (who'd lent it to Kercher), and it was registered to Romanelli at that address. As soon as the postal police interrogated the SIM card from that phone on the morning of the 2nd November, they were able to link it to Romanelli at that address. That's precisely why they came over to the cottage at around 1pm on 2nd November.


(Are you still this unaware of such relatively basic facts concerning this case? After all these years?)

No. The nice policeman set off at 12:10.

Vixen 3rd December 2021 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LondonJohn (Post 13670524)
What?

You start by saying Knox was aiming to "point the finger at someone else". But in the very next sentence, you claim that Knox and Sollecito were "too dumb to realise" that it's hard to carry out DNA typing on faeces. By which you must be implying that you think Knox and Sollecito were assuming the police would be able to get a DNA match from the faeces. Which in turn implies that you believe Knox and Sollecito were hoping the police would link the faeces to Guede. Which in turn implies that you believe Knox and Sollecito wanted the police to link Guede to the murder.

Which flatly contradicts your opening proposition: that (the factually-guilty, in your fantasy) Knox was trying to protect Guede by pointing the finger at Lumumba.

Oh dear.


ETA: Oh, and https://www.theguardian.com/guardian...-style-guide-a

No, she was not 'protecting' Guede by naming Lumumba, she wanted to pin it on him but could hardly do so by naming him. Napoleoni said she found it suspicious that Sollecito and Knox kept insisting she go and examine the mess in the toilet. Of course, they wanted it analysed and Guede charged (alone).

Vixen 3rd December 2021 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LondonJohn (Post 13670527)
Pray explain to us all exactly why Knox referring to Guede as "South African" (which he in fact was not, by the way*) in any way indicates that she'd "socialised" with him at the pub at the screening of the RWC final.


* And paradoxically, if Knox had actually socialised with Guede previously as you claim, it's likely that she wouldn't subsequently have referred to him as "South African"......

Because Guede claims he exchanged banter with Mez by saying he was during that rugby game.

Vixen 3rd December 2021 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LondonJohn (Post 13670530)
He was not Kercher's boyfriend. Are you really this ignorant about the basic facts of this case?


(And if you continue to insist on using the familiar contraction of Kercher's given name, please remember that it must take an "s" after the apostrophe in the possessive form. It's only when one wouldn't pronounce the possessive "s" - for instance in "my parents' house" - that there's no "s" written after the apostrophe.)

No, an apostrophe represents a missing letter, not a silent letter. Thus, if there are a surplus of s's at the end of a word due to the possessive, you can dispense with the superfluous ones. For example, St. James' Park can be written by some as St. James's or St. Jameses, and it would not be wrong, but no way does the surplus 's' become silent. You still vocalise it as 'St. James's' out loud. Likewise, Boris' and Mez' are Boris's and Mez's although I appreciate it is confusing for tabloid readers so editors add the unnecessary additional 's'
.
Knox and Stefano either overheard Guede claiming to be South African at this televised pub event or they got it from Mez recounting it.

Vixen 3rd December 2021 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TruthCalls (Post 13670755)
The idea that she chose to implicate Lumumba to cover herself has always been, IMHO, one of the most illogical concepts proposed by the prosecution and adopted by the pro-guilt. One has to remember that for nearly four days Amanda and Raffaele had been telling the police the truth - that they spent the entire evening at Raffaele's apartment. During the interrogation the police never presented evidence to Amanda that put her at the apartment. Indeed they had nothing. Regardless, Amanda has now suddenly placed herself at the scene of the crime, not at Raffaele's house. I'm not sure I know in which universe this can be considered "covering" oneself, but in mine it's called implicating oneself, and if I were going to do that then I'd sure as hell include everyone else involved.

Which is the more charitable explanation?

She told police Lumumba raped and killed Mez because:
  • she was a racist and blamed the nearest Black guy
  • she knew Guede was there at the scene but could hardly name him
  • she was worried someone might have seen her and Guede together that evening so she named Lumumba to subvert justice.

bagels 3rd December 2021 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 13670858)
Napoleoni said she found it suspicious that Sollecito and Knox kept insisting she go and examine the mess in the toilet.

She probably just salty two anime watching kids were better at finding relevant clues at a murder scene than her lol

Bill Williams 3rd December 2021 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 13670498)
:dl:

Yet again, you fail to deal with anything of import. For lurkers who want to descend into this specific rabbit hole, the arrow above (beside Vixen's name) takes you through the thread. Make up your own mind.

Bill Williams 3rd December 2021 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 13670858)
No, she was not 'protecting' Guede by naming Lumumba, she wanted to pin it on him but could hardly do so by naming him. Napoleoni said she found it suspicious that Sollecito and Knox kept insisting she go and examine the mess in the toilet. Of course, they wanted it analysed and Guede charged (alone).

Which is, of course, what should have happened. Indeed, it was tested, and it simply added to the mountain of forensics that eventually convicted the young man.

As for whether or not AK and/or RS should have been even charged - Marco Chiacchiera suggested after the all night interrogations that RS and AK be let go and monitored. According to prosecution-friendly John Follain, Chiacchiera remained unconvinced that this rush to judgement was anything other than a...... rush to judgement.

The eventual exonerating court seemed to agree, by putting the investigation into AK and RS's possible involvement this way.....
Quote:

Originally Posted by Marasca-Bruno section 4
(It was an) objectively wavering process, whose oscillations, however, are also the result
of clamorous failures, or investigative ‘amnesia’ and of culpable omissions of
investigative activity
. Had they been carried out these would, in all probability, have
led to a picture if not of certainty, at least of tranquil reliability pointing either
towards guilt or innocence of today’s accused. Such a scenario, intrinsically
contradictory, constitutes in itself already a first and eloquent signal of an
investigation that was never capable of reaching a conclusion beyond any
reasonable doubt.

When you pass on Mignini's version of what the M-B report said, you never pass this piece on. Neither does Mignini, because it is the 'slam' to the way he'd handled the investigation...... including what Napoleoni was or wasn't suspicious about.

It's rather brave of you to cite Napoleoni's suspicions, though, while never being brave enough to quote the final court's evaluation of those suspicions.

Bill Williams 3rd December 2021 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 13670873)
Which is the more charitable explanation?

She told police Lumumba raped and killed Mez because:
  • she was a racist and blamed the nearest Black guy
  • she knew Guede was there at the scene but could hardly name him
  • she was worried someone might have seen her and Guede together that evening so she named Lumumba to subvert justice.

According to the European Court of Human Rights, the believable explanation is that she'd been bullied at interrogation into naming Lumumba. Or as one of the bulliers eventually put it, "She buckled and told us what we already knew".

The ECHR is now on record as believing Knox, and they are calling on the Italian justice system to rectify their wrongful conviction of her for calunnia.

Does that mean now that the ECHR:
  • is a racist organization and now blames the nearest Black guy?
  • knows Guede was there at the scene but could hardly name him?
  • is worried someone might have seen Knox and Guede together that evening so the ECHR is now trying to subvert justice?
Just how far does this conspiracy go? Is it really worth it to go all conspiratorial to help out Mignini in his sour grapes?

Stacyhs 3rd December 2021 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 13670502)
Oh dear.

Has it dawned on you she thought it a great idea to point the finger at someone else, as criminals are wont to do? However, the pair were too dumb to realise that faeces contain little DNA, thanks to bacteria breakdown.

Has it dawned on you that it was Ficarra who took her phone and discovered the text to Lumumba and not Knox who brought it to their attention?

Quote:

At the time when she was heard, she was asked to show us her mobile phone in order to check just in case whether in the memory there were messages that referred to appointments that evening, and we were able to see, myself and the other colleagues who were present, [while] scrolling through that mobile phone, that there had been easily, that there were various messages from the days preceding the 1st.
Quote:

we found a message sent around 2000-2030 hours it seems to me, around that time but at any rate it is in the files because we also photographed the mobile phone with the message where the name of Patrick appeared
Quote:

Yes. “Certainly. See you later. Good evening.” [Certo. Ci vediamo più tardi. Buona serata.]. It was the only [message] of that evening, and we asked who this Patrick was, and this seemed to us an appointment, see you later, certainly, in response to another [message].
Quote:

...in corroboration with the mobile phone, that there had been an appointment, that they had seen each other.
(Testimony of Rita Ficarra)

Has it dawned on you that it was the police who already thought a black man was involved due to the mistaken idea that the wool fibers found near Kercher's genitals were actually hair?

Once again we see AK and RS being clever, conniving criminals when it suits you yet "too dumb to realize that feces contain little DNA" when it doesn't suit you.

Stacyhs 3rd December 2021 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 13670504)
Of course she'd want to put her partner in crime on the radar. Interesting she called him 'South African', which indicates she socialised with him at the England - S. Africa World Cup Rugby game at the pub, when Guede claims to have exchanged banter with Brit Meredith.

Um...no. Because Knox actually didn't call him South African; that was Rita Ficarra:

Quote:

RF: She furthermore reports about a black South African boy, short, who plays basketball in the Piazza Grimana court, [and] who on one occasion had apparently visited the home of the boys who lived underneath the apartment.

GM: Was “South African” an exact term?

RF: No, no. In fact, I wanted to explain that she didn’t recall the particulars of this boy, or at least she did not tell me about them, so I said to her that if she recalled also any boy who had been in the home of the neighbours, of the students who lived below, because we had found out from these other boys that there had been a meeting between them; one evening they had had a little party in their home and that they had [sic], in which there was also [sic], in that circumstance there was also Amanda and Meredith. And she said to me “Yes, it’s true, I remember that boy. But I know neither his name nor can I give you his telephone number because I never saw him again. I can’t say anything else.” This is what she said to me, therefore she was ..

GM: But she said South African or [Côte d’]Ivorian?

RF: South African in the sense that I wanted to mean of a dark colour, that is a person, excuse me, not …
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.co..._%28English%29


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...a7a56d8b09.jpg

Welshman 3rd December 2021 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 13670507)
When Marasca-Bruno said Knox was covering up for Guede, what they meant was she was covering herself by naming someone else. According to M-B she was worried someone might have seen her and Guede together at the crime scene so she pointed the finger at Lumumba making the assumption 'These people are all the same, and I know all you cops are racist, so go and arrest the Black guy and leave me alone'.

Hence the conviction.


Vixen constantly bangs on about how Amanda and Raffaele killed Meredith with Guede and Amanda covered for Guede. PGP conveniently forget the numerous problems with this scenario :-

• Amanda barely knew Rudy, Raffaele did not know Rudy at all and Amanda and Raffaele had only been dating six days. Three virtual strangers came together to commit a brutal sex crazed murder.

• Amanda only had brief contact with Guede and in six years the prosecution could not find any evidence of regular contact with Amanda and Guede and Raffaele had never met Guede. Despite this they were able to plan a murder.

• As the links below show witness testimony stated Amanda had a good relationship with Meredith and no evidence has existed Amanda had any animosity towards Meredith. Despite this Amanda was prepared to help a stranger carry out a brutal sexual assault and murder against Meredith.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda...ehavior-myths/

• The phones of Amanda and Raffaele were tapped in the three days between the discovery of Meredith’s body and the interrogations. Despite this Amanda and Raffaele make no mention of Rudy a man they were supposed to have committed a brutal murder and sexual assault with.

• Amanda spoke only basic Italian and Rudy did not speak English. Despite this Amanda and Rudy were able to plan a murder together.

• There is no contact between Amanda and Raffaele with Rudy after the murder. Is it credible that people could committ a brutal sexual assault and murder together and never contact each other again.

• As per the link below, the evidence which should have existed if Amanda and Rafffaele killed Meredith with Rudy is missing.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI2.html

• A woman was supposedly willing to help a stranger carry out a brutal sexual assault and murder against another woman. A scenario with no known precedent.

• The evidence against Guede was solid, credible and irrefutable as seen in the link below.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/rudy-guede/

The evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was full of holes and had no credibility. The knife was an example of this as can be seen from my post below. If Amanda, Raffaele and Guede committed the same crime together, how is the difference in the quality of the evidence explained?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...7#post11377317

• The methods the prosecution had to resort to with regards to Amanda and Raffaele were clearly the methods prosecutors would resort to when they have a weak case, lack of evidence and the facts don’t support their case as can be seen from the links below. The prosecution didn’t have to resort to these tactics when it came to Guede which indicated the prosecution had plenty of evidence and a slam dunk case. How is this massive difference explained if Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy committed the same crime?


http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contam...bwork-coverup/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredi...ry-corruption/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/evidence-destroyed/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/blood-...irs-apartment/
https://knoxsollecito.wordpress.com/...ele-sollecito/
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...4#post11071314
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...4#post11071314

• The evidence suggests Meredith was killed between 9.00 pm and 10.00 pm. Raffaele was using his computer at 9.10 pm and 9.26 pm which gives them an alibi for the time Guede murdered Meredith.

• The posts below show some of the falsehoods by Vixen in her posts showing PGP have to resort to lying to argue the case for Amanda and Raffaele’s guilt. I have never heard anyone resorting to lying to argue the case for Rudy’s guilt. How is this difference explained if Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy committed the same crime?

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

If Amanda and Raffaele killed Meredith with Rudy, why is the scenario full of holes?

TruthCalls 3rd December 2021 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 13670873)
Which is the more charitable explanation?

She told police Lumumba raped and killed Mez because:
  • she was a racist and blamed the nearest Black guy
  • she knew Guede was there at the scene but could hardly name him
  • she was worried someone might have seen her and Guede together that evening so she named Lumumba to subvert justice.

Or how about she just continue sticking to the truth - that she was at Raffaele's all night - and say nothing about Lumumba or Guede? Didn't think of that one, eh?

And that's the point. There was no reason for her to suddenly implicate herself. The police hadn't brought forth any new evidence of her being there... indeed, they didn't have any. So the only logical explanation for this to come out during the interrogation is because the police found the SMS and coerced Amanda into naming Lumumba.

As for your 'options' above...

(1) This is just plain stupid and hateful... and I'm getting rather sick of the baseless claims of racism in the world today.

(2) Huh? Let's pretend she knew this. The police didn't know it so why did she suddenly decide to implicate herself?

(3) Same thing. If she was concerned about that why didn't she name Lumumba on the 2nd, or the 3rd, or the 4th... why wait until the interrogation?

Planigale 4th December 2021 03:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13671146)
Um...no. Because Knox actually didn't call him South African; that was Rita Ficarra:



http://themurderofmeredithkercher.co..._%28English%29


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...a7a56d8b09.jpg

Interesting, so what RF meant to say was south african but what RM heard was South African.

Presumably she meant south african in the sense of not being a North African, ie not arab / berber etc. So what a native English speaker would perhaps refer to as sub-saharan, or possibly southern african. I suspect she was trying to be non-racist and not refer to him as being 'black'.

Planigale 4th December 2021 03:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 13670873)
Which is the more charitable explanation?

She told police Lumumba raped and killed Mez because:
  • she was a racist and blamed the nearest Black guy
  • she knew Guede was there at the scene but could hardly name him
  • she was worried someone might have seen her and Guede together that evening so she named Lumumba to subvert justice.

I think you need to go back and refresh your memory, Knox never accused Lumumba of rape.

In the statement taken down by Mignini (acting just as a notary), all she says is that Meredith and Lumumba went in to Meredith's room to gather, then she heard screaming. She never says she witnessed any violence. She does not say Lumumba raped nor killed Meredith.

In the first statement she says Lumumba and Meredith had sex (no mention of rape), then 'I vaguely remember that he killed her'.

It was the police who introduced Lumumba into the interrogation, not Knox.

Bill Williams 4th December 2021 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Planigale (Post 13671512)
I think you need to go back and refresh your memory, Knox never accused Lumumba of rape.

In the statement taken down by Mignini (acting just as a notary), all she says is that Meredith and Lumumba went in to Meredith's room to gather, then she heard screaming. She never says she witnessed any violence. She does not say Lumumba raped nor killed Meredith.

In the first statement she says Lumumba and Meredith had sex (no mention of rape), then 'I vaguely remember that he killed her'.

It was the police who introduced Lumumba into the interrogation, not Knox.

One correction. She was asked why she hadn't heard screaming. It was then when she said she must have had her hands over her ears. Everything about the phantom Lumumba episode was classic police misconduct-at-interrogation. Every factoid which came out from that all nighter was interoduced by police or Mignini.

In 2010, Mignini had every reason to believe his Sherlock Holmes abilities would simply be rubber-stamped by all courts.

So it was he went into his 2010 CNN interview with Drew Griffin quite confident that he was immune from scrutiny. So it was he even told Griffin why there was a need for a second interrogation, and a second statement which came to be known as the 5:45 am memorale.

When coming into the room to prepare for that second interrogation he told Griffin that he immediately intuited that the young American in front of him had a need to do some further things. He didn't ask her to tell him what she needed, because he recognized the problem with the first memorale.... it was not a spontaneous statement of Knox's.

So he told Griffin, that the things he (Mignini) could intuit was first that Knox was afraid of Lumumba. (And why not. She'd just been told that Lumumba had killed the victim.)

But Mignini goes further as he relates it to Griffin. Mignini intuited that Knox needed to talk, that she actually needed to make spontaneous statements.

This shows awareness on Mignini's part that they needed to make another run at Knox, but this time allow her to make uncoaxed, spontaneous statements. It was at that point, Mignini told Griffin, that he told Knox that he'd allow her to speak and that he'd record anything she wanted to say, "as if a notary."

Mignini concluded that scenario by saying to Griffin that that was why Knox was still in no need of a lawyer. Mignini's claim to Griffin was that spontaneous statements can be accepted without lawyer protection.

This line of argument had worked for Mignini.... all the way to Oct 2011 when it suddenly didn't. All that's left these days is for Mignini to continue to claim all the stuff that Vixen floods this thread with..... loser stuff.

Stacyhs 4th December 2021 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Planigale (Post 13671508)
Interesting, so what RF meant to say was south african but what RM heard was South African.

Presumably she meant south african in the sense of not being a North African, ie not arab / berber etc. So what a native English speaker would perhaps refer to as sub-saharan, or possibly southern african. I suspect she was trying to be non-racist and not refer to him as being 'black'.

That's odd testimony from Ficarra because Amanda writes in her book:

As I’d been doing for days, I was trying to recall all the men who had ever visited our villa, when I suddenly remembered one of Giacomo and Marco’s friends. It had annoyed me that I couldn’t remember his name. “I think he’s South African,” I told the detective. “All I know is that he played basketball with the guys downstairs. They introduced him to Meredith and me in Piazza IV Novembre in mid-October. We all walked to the villa together, and then Meredith and I went to their apartment for a few minutes.”

What's also interesting is that I'd never noticed the "for a few minutes" before but someone in a discussion group recently asked how long they'd all been downstairs together that night and I coudn't remember any of the boys mentioning that in their testimonies. Unsurprisingly, this PGP also described Guede as Knox's "smoking weed buddy" that she "hung around with". :boggled:

Vixen 5th December 2021 03:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Planigale (Post 13671508)
Interesting, so what RF meant to say was south african but what RM heard was South African.

Presumably she meant south african in the sense of not being a North African, ie not arab / berber etc. So what a native English speaker would perhaps refer to as sub-saharan, or possibly southern african. I suspect she was trying to be non-racist and not refer to him as being 'black'.

In my experience, when someone was described as 'South African' in England, people assumed they are white.

Vixen 5th December 2021 03:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Planigale (Post 13671512)
I think you need to go back and refresh your memory, Knox never accused Lumumba of rape.

In the statement taken down by Mignini (acting just as a notary), all she says is that Meredith and Lumumba went in to Meredith's room to gather, then she heard screaming. She never says she witnessed any violence. She does not say Lumumba raped nor killed Meredith.

In the first statement she says Lumumba and Meredith had sex (no mention of rape), then 'I vaguely remember that he killed her'.

It was the police who introduced Lumumba into the interrogation, not Knox.

Wel, if 'Lumumba' supposedly killed her during sex it's safe to assume Knox was referring to non-consensual sex = rape. Likewise she described the harrowing scream and the thud, corroborated by others.

Marasca-Bruno underline the fact that she was at the scene of the murder.

Confession is considered a form of hard evidence against a person.

How would she know it was a black guy - to name Lumumba - unless she was there?

Planigale 5th December 2021 03:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 13672066)
Wel, if 'Lumumba' supposedly killed her during sex it's safe to assume Knox was referring to non-consensual sex = rape. Likewise she described the harrowing scream and the thud, corroborated by others.

Marasca-Bruno underline the fact that she was at the scene of the murder.

Confession is considered a form of hard evidence against a person.

How would she know it was a black guy - to name Lumumba - unless she was there?

How did the police know it was a black guy? They introduced Lumumba, and asked Knox about him. Why were the police so focussed on a black guy so early? Knox did not introduce him into the interview, the police did.

I think it is also worth remembering Guede's friend went to the police and said he thought Guede may have been the killer which is why he made the calls to Guede from the police station. Guede's friend thought Guede was the killer, not anyone else.

Strangely confessions are such poor evidence that for centuries English courts disallowed confessions as evidence. However, this was not a confession, Knox does not confess to any crime.

Yes, Knox was at the scene of the murder but so was Mignini. But neither were there at the time the crime was committed.

Planigale 5th December 2021 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13671935)
That's odd testimony from Ficarra because Amanda writes in her book:

As I’d been doing for days, I was trying to recall all the men who had ever visited our villa, when I suddenly remembered one of Giacomo and Marco’s friends. It had annoyed me that I couldn’t remember his name. “I think he’s South African,” I told the detective. “All I know is that he played basketball with the guys downstairs. They introduced him to Meredith and me in Piazza IV Novembre in mid-October. We all walked to the villa together, and then Meredith and I went to their apartment for a few minutes.”

What's also interesting is that I'd never noticed the "for a few minutes" before but someone in a discussion group recently asked how long they'd all been downstairs together that night and I coudn't remember any of the boys mentioning that in their testimonies. Unsurprisingly, this PGP also described Guede as Knox's "smoking weed buddy" that she "hung around with". :boggled:

The other odd thing (and I know Americans are some what ignorant of the outside world), is any South African would speak English (or possibly Afrikaans), I cannot imagine meeting a non-English / Italian speaking African and thinking they were from RSA.

Numbers 5th December 2021 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Planigale (Post 13672093)
How did the police know it was a black guy? They introduced Lumumba, and asked Knox about him. Why were the police so focussed on a black guy so early? Knox did not introduce him into the interview, the police did.

I think it is also worth remembering Guede's friend went to the police and said he thought Guede may have been the killer which is why he made the calls to Guede from the police station. Guede's friend thought Guede was the killer, not anyone else.

Strangely confessions are such poor evidence that for centuries English courts disallowed confessions as evidence. However, this was not a confession, Knox does not confess to any crime.

Yes, Knox was at the scene of the murder but so was Mignini. But neither were there at the time the crime was committed.

Knox and three other women lived in the cottage flat where the murder of one of them, Kercher, took place. No credible evidence shows that Knox was ever in Kercher's bedroom, where Kercher was sexually assaulted and murdered. While the whole cottage, especially the flat where Kercher lived, may be considered a crime scene, the rape - murder scene is specifically Kercher's bedroom.

The entire cottage flat where Kercher lived was a crime scene as it was the site of a break-in, short stay, and escape by a burglar who committed thefts and a sexual assault and murder (in Kercher's bedroom) during his short stay. Also part of the crime scene was the grill over the ground level window, apparently used by the burglar to reach Kercher's flat. The ground level flat may also be a crime scene, depending on whether or not the blood stains detected there, which may have been positive for human DNA by PCR testing, were indeed related to the crime. The scientific police data do not claim that the blood stain found by the light switch in the down-stairs flat was cat blood, although other down-stairs blood stains are claimed (on insufficiently verifiable alleged evidence) to be from a cat.

LondonJohn 5th December 2021 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 13672064)
In my experience, when someone was described as 'South African' in England, people assumed they are white.


How's that in any way relevant in this context?


(Not to mention the fact that these "people" in England to whom you refer - your friends and/or colleagues, maybe? - "assumed" that if someone was described as South African, then he/she was white. Because neither I nor (I am confident) literally anyone I know in UK would ever have made that assumption - whether today or in 2007...)

LondonJohn 5th December 2021 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 13672066)
Wel, if 'Lumumba' supposedly killed her during sex it's safe to assume Knox was referring to non-consensual sex = rape. Likewise she described the harrowing scream and the thud, corroborated by others.

Marasca-Bruno underline the fact that she was at the scene of the murder.

Confession is considered a form of hard evidence against a person.

How would she know it was a black guy - to name Lumumba - unless she was there?


All of this is so far off base it's risible.

The last two sentences in particular demonstrate a mastery of ignorance about a) coerced false confessions in general, b) logic, and c) the law.

And the previous sentence to those two shows clearly that still either don't know, don't understand, or refuse to recognise.... that the Marasca SC panel was, on this particular issue, totally hamstrung by the previous SC confirmation ruling re Guede's conviction/sentence.

Oh and: tell us more about this "corroborated by others" stuff you're claiming wrt "the harrowing scream and the thud".

pgwenthold 5th December 2021 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Williams (Post 13671668)
One correction. She was asked why she hadn't heard screaming. It was then when she said she must have had her hands over her ears. Everything about the phantom Lumumba episode was classic police misconduct-at-interrogation. Every factoid which came out from that all nighter was interoduced by police or Mignini.

OK, I will admit I know very little about this case, so can't vouch for the veracity of anything. However, I have heard an interview with Amanda Knox. Take it FWIW, but her statement is that the interviewers were insisting that she must just not be remembering things, and was repressing it. They kept drilling that into her, you need to remember these things. Ultimately, she says, yeah, maybe I can remember that stuff happening. After having heard it told to her so many times in extreme questioning, she couldn't actually say what she remembered and what she just remembered them telling them.

She couldn't introduce any useful factoid, because either
1) she didn't know anything, or
2) she was there and was just repressing the memories

For most of it, she was going with (1), but ultimately she broke down and said she didn't know anymore, maybe it was (2). But it was at their insistence.

But her story is that they can't telling her that she did it, and she was just not remembering it.

Like I said, I don't know enough to corraborate this or not, but that's how I've heard her talk about it.

She also talked about the creepy Vice Commandant who kept asking her about her sex partners and her underwear.

Is it true that they told her she had tested positive for HIV to get her to expose her sexual history?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:41 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.