Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 27

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
Marasca-Bruno did say it. You are either losing your grip on reality, or - more likely - are trying to spin the matter to fool readers into thinking it didn't happen.

You could get a job with Putin. 'Nerve gas, what nerve gas? Not us, guv.'
Click to expand...

Vixen constantly bangs on about Amanda telling umpteen lies and repeats the same lie umpteen times The Supreme Court said Amanda covered for Guede.
 
Vixen said:
Marasca-Bruno did say it. You are either losing your grip on reality, or - more likely - are trying to spin the matter to fool readers into thinking it didn't happen.

You could get a job with Putin. 'Nerve gas, what nerve gas? Not us, guv.'
Click to expand...

Vixen - the following quote from the 2015 Marasca-Bruno report is not for you, because:

1) you've probably never read it
2) you've obviously misunderstood (or been misled) about the context of M/B's words
3) and at best, acc. to M/B, this factoid is purely circumstantial, as a way of M/B being forced to accept the "judicial fact" of Knox's calunnia against Lumumba.​
So this is not for you, it would be wasted on yu anyway. It is posted here if by some miracle there are lurkers left who haven't read the salient part of M/B for themselves.

Nevertheless, even if attribution (of Knox rubbing blood from her hands) is certain, the trial element would not be unequivocal as a demonstration of posthumous contact with that blood, as a likely attempt to remove the most blatant traces of what had happened, perhaps to help someone or deflect suspicion from herself, without this entailing her certain direct involvement in the murder. Any further and more meaningful value would be, in fact, resisted by the fact - which is decisive - that no trace leading to her was found at the scene of the crime or on the victim’s body, so that - if all the above is accepted - her contact with the victim’s blood would have occurred after the crime and in another part of the house.

Another element against her is, certainly, the calumny against Lumumba, which has already been referred to.

It is not understood, however, what pushed the young American to make these serious accusations. The hypothesis that she did so to escape the psychological pressure of the investigators appears extremely fragile, taking into account that the woman must have realised that, sooner or later, these accusations against her employer would have been disproved, considering that she certainly knew that Lumumba had no contact either with Kercher or with the house on via della Pergola. Moreover, the possibility of having an “iron-clad” alibi would then have led to Lumumba being freed and acquitted of the serious accusation.

Nevertheless, the calumny in question also represents circumstantial evidence against the appellant in so much as it could be considered as an initiative to cover for Guede, against whom she would have had an interest to protect herself due to retaliatory accusations against her. All is underpinned by the fact that Lumumba, like Guede, is black, hence the reliable reference to the former, in case the other was seen by someone coming into or going out of the flat.​
Click to expand...
Being stuck with the judicial fact of the calunnia conviction, the best that M/B can make of it is to supply a motive, which only "could be considered".

Please also note that this is immediate after the part where M/B narrates its reason for saying that NEITHER KNOX NOR SOLLECITO COULD HAVE TAKEN PART IN THE CRIME.....

..... and the best M/B could do with this business of "covering for Guede" was reach into the calunnia against Lumumba conviction.

And that makes no sense. As outlined by others in this thread, if Knox had been trying to cover for Guede, why'd she leave Guede's feces in the toilet and his bloody foottrack on the bathmat?

And why, when cleaning her own DNA from the murder room, did she purposely leave Guede's forensic presence there?

That's how much sense it makes.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
She was a liar then, wasn't she, as she and Guede had chatted each other up at Le Chic sometime before. That's something Knox will never tell you about.

Telling lies to the police. Tut, tut.
Click to expand...

To "chat up" means to flirt. Serving a drink to a customer is not flirting with them.

Please provide evidence that she and Guede "chatted each other up" at Le Chic. And by evidence, I mean actual quotes from a credible witness. Unless you can do that, we'll throw this on your mountainous pile of made up nonsense.

Knox will never tell you about that because it never happened. She served him a drink or two which was her job.

This is what Follain had to say about your so-called "chatting up" nonsense:

This was about the same time that Rudy went to Le Chic after he was handed a leaflet advertising the bar’s opening. Amanda was working as a waitress that evening. She went up to Rudy and asked, in English, if he wanted to drink something. Rudy asked for a sangria and the two chatted briefly. Amanda told him she came from Seattle, and Rudy mentioned a student friend of his came from there too – did she know him? Amanda said no, and their chat ended there.
Click to expand...

Does "they chatted briefly" equate to "chatting up" someone in your mind?
 
Vixen said:
I just looked up this case on Google, and according to the SUN, the baby did draw breath, if only for a couple of hours. Therefore, it was not stillborn.

Burning it and burying it is indeed suspicious.

A live birth is very different from a miscarriage or a stillborn.

Please don't tell us your grandmother in the 1930's set fire to the foetus before burying it, just to stick up for Brook Skylar Richardson (_sp?)
Click to expand...

The SUN? THE SUN? LOL!! They also reported that she had burned the baby's body which later was revealed to be FALSE. Try and keep up and stop relying on old, discredited tabloid news.

Richardson never burned the baby.

Her attorney blasted a forensic anthropologist who told the prosecution the baby had been burned and said the claim was retracted a month after his client was indicted. But the narrative had already been tainted, igniting a social media firestorm and coloring law enforcement's perspective on the case.
Click to expand...

Eventually, a second forensic expert confirmed there were no signs the child was burned, Rittgers wrote in court documents.

"The false information has left the public with the horrible mental picture of a girl burning her baby," the attorney said, "without realizing that version is false, contradicted by science and retracted by the state's doctor."
Click to expand...
https://www.cincinnati.com/story/ne...t-turning-case-into-something-sini/399885002/

You obviously don't know that the body was unearthed two months after its death and was so decomposed that the coroner couldn't even tell the sex without doing a DNA test. All that remained was the skeleton from which the coroner cannot determine whether the baby ever drew breath, much less for a couple of hours.
The article I'm linking to explains how it can be determined if a child ever breathed on its own. Every single one requires more than just "skeletal remains", mostly examination of the lungs.

http://www.forensicpathologyonline.com/e-book/sexual-assaults/infant-deaths

From the Sun ariticle:

The infant is believed to have been born sometime between May 6 and May 7, and was alive probably for only a few hours, according to authorities.
Click to expand...

Exactly what authorities? The sheriff who falsely reported the baby had been burned? The forensic anthropologist who had to retract his claim the baby had been burned? From nothing I've read does the CORONER ever say the baby was born alive.

As for your ridiculous statement, I am not "sticking up" for Skylar Richardson. My question was, and still is, how can she be accused of murder if they cannot determine if the child was stillborn or not?
 
Last edited:
Bill Williams said:
Vixen - the following quote from the 2015 Marasca-Bruno report is not for you, because:

1) you've probably never read it
2) you've obviously misunderstood (or been misled) about the context of M/B's words
3) and at best, acc. to M/B, this factoid is purely circumstantial, as a way of M/B being forced to accept the "judicial fact" of Knox's calunnia against Lumumba.​
So this is not for you, it would be wasted on yu anyway. It is posted here if by some miracle there are lurkers left who haven't read the salient part of M/B for themselves.

​
Being stuck with the judicial fact of the calunnia conviction, the best that M/B can make of it is to supply a motive, which only "could be considered".

Please also note that this is immediate after the part where M/B narrates its reason for saying that NEITHER KNOX NOR SOLLECITO COULD HAVE TAKEN PART IN THE CRIME.....

..... and the best M/B could do with this business of "covering for Guede" was reach into the calunnia against Lumumba conviction.

And that makes no sense. As outlined by others in this thread, if Knox had been trying to cover for Guede, why'd she leave Guede's feces in the toilet and his bloody foottrack on the bathmat?And why, when cleaning her own DNA from the murder room, did she purposely leave Guede's forensic presence there?

That's how much sense it makes.
Click to expand...

You know Vixen will claim that it wasn't Guede's, but Sollecito's footprint. Which makes leaving it even more illogical since they were allegedly cleaning up all traces of themselves. The ONLY logical reason the bathmat wasn't removed/cleaned up is that Knox and Sollecito had no reason to remove it because they didn't kill Meredith.

Another reason that claiming AK and RS were covering for Guede is equally illogical: the staging of the break-in. If they were covering for Guede, why would they stage it a la Guede's method of throwing a rock through the window and climbing into a second story window via a grate below it? The sheer illogical reasoning behind the PGP's "covering for Guede" nonsense reveals just how desperate they are. It's embarrassing.

PGPs remind me of Trump voters. Despite overwhelming evidence that Trump is a lying, immoral pathological narcissist they simply cannot admit they were wrong and move on. They do what Trump does: they double down and defend the indefensible because they are incapable of admitting error.
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
You know Vixen will claim that it wasn't Guede's, but Sollecito's footprint. Which makes leaving it even more illogical since they were allegedly cleaning up all traces of themselves. The ONLY logical reason the bathmat wasn't removed/cleaned up is that Knox and Sollecito had no reason to remove it because they didn't kill Meredith.

Another reason that claiming AK and RS were covering for Guede is equally illogical: the staging of the break-in. If they were covering for Guede, why would they stage it a la Guede's method of throwing a rock through the window and climbing into a second story window via a grate below it? The sheer illogical reasoning behind the PGP's "covering for Guede" nonsense reveals just how desperate they are. It's embarrassing.

PGPs remind me of Trump voters. Despite overwhelming evidence that Trump is a lying, immoral pathological narcissist they simply cannot admit they were wrong and move on. They do what Trump does: they double down and defend the indefensible because they are incapable of admitting error.
Click to expand...

The stupidity of the claim is even more obvious than that. Up until the interrogation of 5/6 Nov, Amanda and Raffaele both had always said they were at his place alone. At the time of the interrogation the only people the police were suspecting were Amanda and Raffaele. There is no need to cover for anyone when you are saying you were elsewhere and the police have not indicated they have any idea who committed the crime. Suddenly saying you were there with a black dude immediately puts the police way closer to Guede than they were when you were claiming you weren't there at all.

There's only two ways to look at this - either Vixen realizes just how stupid this idea is but is to ashamed to admit it or she doesn't realize just how stupid it is. Either way, I agree... it is embarrassing.
 
Speaking of Quennell's pathetic "mafia" nonsense, this is the latest Front Page:

Note to IP conference re Amanda Knox. IP rep Hampikian's ONLY achievement was to be main cause of annulment of 2011 appeal, to anger of defense counsel. And to subject Knox and Sollecito to much tougher appeal, requiring desperate measures to bend Supreme Court. In other words Hampikian directly caused mafia involvement Knox and RS must hide for a lifetime. Nice going Hampikian.
Click to expand...
(TJMK today)

Bwaaaahaahaaa! So now Quennell has AK and RS hiding from the mafia! You just can't make this stuff up!! Oh, wait...yes, he does!
 
Bill Williams said:
Vixen - the following quote from the 2015 Marasca-Bruno report is not for you, because:

1) you've probably never read it
2) you've obviously misunderstood (or been misled) about the context of M/B's words
3) and at best, acc. to M/B, this factoid is purely circumstantial, as a way of M/B being forced to accept the "judicial fact" of Knox's calunnia against Lumumba.​
So this is not for you, it would be wasted on yu anyway. It is posted here if by some miracle there are lurkers left who haven't read the salient part of M/B for themselves.

​
Being stuck with the judicial fact of the calunnia conviction, the best that M/B can make of it is to supply a motive, which only "could be considered".

Please also note that this is immediate after the part where M/B narrates its reason for saying that NEITHER KNOX NOR SOLLECITO COULD HAVE TAKEN PART IN THE CRIME.....

..... and the best M/B could do with this business of "covering for Guede" was reach into the calunnia against Lumumba conviction.

And that makes no sense. As outlined by others in this thread, if Knox had been trying to cover for Guede, why'd she leave Guede's feces in the toilet and his bloody foottrack on the bathmat?

And why, when cleaning her own DNA from the murder room, did she purposely leave Guede's forensic presence there?

That's how much sense it makes.
Click to expand...


Of course it makes sense. Knox & Sollecito planned to point police toward's Guede's presence, but could hardly name him themselves, without incriminating themselves.

Thank you for confirming by direct quote that Marasca-Bruno did conclude 'Knox covered up for Rudy by naming Patrick'.

Prisoners Dilemma: you keep schtum about me, I'll not grass on you.
 
Stacyhs said:
To "chat up" means to flirt. Serving a drink to a customer is not flirting with them.

Please provide evidence that she and Guede "chatted each other up" at Le Chic. And by evidence, I mean actual quotes from a credible witness. Unless you can do that, we'll throw this on your mountainous pile of made up nonsense.

Knox will never tell you about that because it never happened. She served him a drink or two which was her job.

This is what Follain had to say about your so-called "chatting up" nonsense:



Does "they chatted briefly" equate to "chatting up" someone in your mind?
Click to expand...


Knox liked Rudy enough to approach him in the street and remind him, 'Hi, I'm Amanda from Seattle'.

Knox doesn't mention this in her book or the trial that she had met him before the joint-smoking night nor that Meredith was present at this for a very short period of time. Guede confirms that Knox made eyes at him during the joint-smoking session.

So it is completely untrue, 'Knox did not know Guede except in passing'.

Let's face it, Amanda let Rudy in to the cottage on the murder night and partied with him.
 
TruthCalls said:
The stupidity of the claim is even more obvious than that. Up until the interrogation of 5/6 Nov, Amanda and Raffaele both had always said they were at his place alone. At the time of the interrogation the only people the police were suspecting were Amanda and Raffaele. There is no need to cover for anyone when you are saying you were elsewhere and the police have not indicated they have any idea who committed the crime. Suddenly saying you were there with a black dude immediately puts the police way closer to Guede than they were when you were claiming you weren't there at all.

There's only two ways to look at this - either Vixen realizes just how stupid this idea is but is to ashamed to admit it or she doesn't realize just how stupid it is. Either way, I agree... it is embarrassing.
Click to expand...

Given that Knox virtually ORDERED Napoleoni to take Rudy's faeces away for DNA testing, it is clear she knew 'a black dude's' DNA was going to be found at the scene, especailly given she didn't clean up Rudy's footprints, except by accident, leaving just one set, making it look like he must have hopped out of the door.

She let Patrick rot in prison for nearly three weeks and her colluding mother, quite happily. What she didn't know, was that as an immigrant, police had Guede's DNA data on their migrants database. It is pure luck they matched the crime to him. Imagine if Patrick's good friend from Austria had not been there at Le Chic to provide an alibi for him, he might be serving life right now, with Knox, Guede and Sollecito roaming around scot free.
 
Stacyhs said:
Speaking of Quennell's pathetic "mafia" nonsense, this is the latest Front Page:

(TJMK today)

Bwaaaahaahaaa! So now Quennell has AK and RS hiding from the mafia! You just can't make this stuff up!! Oh, wait...yes, he does!
Click to expand...

How else do you think they were sprung from jail, given their watertight 'guilty' verdicts from both the merits trial and the appeal court?
 
Vixen said:
Of course it makes sense. Knox & Sollecito planned to point police toward's Guede's presence, but could hardly name him themselves, without incriminating themselves.

Thank you for confirming by direct quote that Marasca-Bruno did conclude 'Knox covered up for Rudy by naming Patrick'.

Prisoners Dilemma: you keep schtum about me, I'll not grass on you.
Click to expand...


So they "planned to point police toward's (sic) Guede's presence" by misdirecting the police towards Lumumba. Yeah, that makes loads of sense.....

And you still have reading comprehension issues about the Marasca MR: what it says is that this may be considered as a possibility, but the report has already stated explicitly that it's effectively impossible to understand how/why Knox pointed the finger at Lumumba in that police interrogation (though I and the ECHR know exactly how that came to pass.....).

Lastly, you still have no idea whatsoever of what the Prisoner's Dilemma actually is. It's a very specific flavour of game theory. It absolutely is NOT "You keep schtum about me, I'll not grass on you". It would behove you well not to bandy about intellectually-impressive-looking terms improperly/inappropriately.
 
LondonJohn said:
So they "planned to point police toward's (sic) Guede's presence" by misdirecting the police towards Lumumba. Yeah, that makes loads of sense.....

And you still have reading comprehension issues about the Marasca MR: what it says is that this may be considered as a possibility, but the report has already stated explicitly that it's effectively impossible to understand how/why Knox pointed the finger at Lumumba in that police interrogation (though I and the ECHR know exactly how that came to pass.....).

Lastly, you still have no idea whatsoever of what the Prisoner's Dilemma actually is. It's a very specific flavour of game theory. It absolutely is NOT "You keep schtum about me, I'll not grass on you". It would behove you well not to bandy about intellectually-impressive-looking terms improperly/inappropriately.
Click to expand...


Courts of law do not deal in hypotheticals. Judges are paid handsomely to come to a decision, not pontificate about 'possibilities'.

As Bill Williams points out it is a judicial truth that Knox covered up for Rudy.

B'ain't nuthink you can do about it.

In fact Prisoners Dilemma is exactly about optimising your own best interest and in crime that means 'do not grass' on your co-criminals.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
How else do you think they were sprung from jail, given their watertight 'guilty' verdicts from both the merits trial and the appeal court?
Click to expand...


Erm...... because

a) The previous verdicts were actually extremely far from "watertight" - in fact, they were riddled with gross errors in law; and

b) The Marasca SC panel was able to see what pro-acquittal commentators and every single independent expert had been seeing for very many years: not one of the "witnesses" was credible or reliable in any manner; none of the forensic evidence against Knox or Sollecito was credible or reliable; the police and PM had appallingly botched the investigation through a combination of tunnel vision/confirmation bias about the involvement of Knox and Sollecito, and the sheer incompetence/malpractice of the detective, crime scene and forensic lab work; and the previous convicting courts had erred gigantically in the way they had deferred to the prosecution position and improperly assessed evidence/testimony.


Knox and Sollecito were not "sprung" from prison, Vixen. They were definitively acquitted by the Supreme Court of Italy. You keep apparently forgetting this :)
 
Vixen said:
Courts of law do not deal in hypotheticals. Judges are paid handsomely to come to a decision, not pontificate about 'possibilities'.

As Bill Williams points out it is a judicial truth that Knox covered up for Rudy.

B'ain't nuthink you can do about it.

In fact Prisoners Dilemma is exactly about optimising your own best interest and in crime that means 'do not grass' on your co-criminals.
Click to expand...



OF COURSE courts deal in hypotheticals. Short of compelling direct evidence, inferences always have to be drawn in order to reach a verdict. And that ALWAYS involves hypotheses based on the evidence. Sheesh.

Bill Williams pointed out nothing of the sort.

And please, please stop talking about the Prisoner's (note the apostrophe) Dilemma as if it's some generalised rule about prisoners not grassing each other up. It is not. It is a far, far more specific application of game theory. Please read up more about it.
 
Amanda Knox and her mother Edda Melllas cruelly and wickedly let Patrick Lumumba rot in prison when all along they knew he was wholly innocent of any involvement in Meredith's murder.

Ugh, what horrible vile people.
 
LondonJohn said:
OF COURSE courts deal in hypotheticals. Short of compelling direct evidence, inferences always have to be drawn in order to reach a verdict. And that ALWAYS involves hypotheses based on the evidence. Sheesh.

Bill Williams pointed out nothing of the sort.

And please, please stop talking about the Prisoner's (note the apostrophe) Dilemma as if it's some generalised rule about prisoners not grassing each other up. It is not. It is a far, far more specific application of game theory. Please read up more about it.
Click to expand...

Stop talking rubbish. Why do you think judgments use the word 'did' prolifically. Merits courts are there to establish the facts not pontificate on airy-fairy possibilities.

You are ignorant about game theory.


Edited by Agatha: 
Removed derailing material
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Vixen said:
Given that Knox virtually ORDERED Napoleoni to take Rudy's faeces away for DNA testing, it is clear she knew 'a black dude's' DNA was going to be found at the scene, especailly given she didn't clean up Rudy's footprints, except by accident, leaving just one set, making it look like he must have hopped out of the door.

She let Patrick rot in prison for nearly three weeks and her colluding mother, quite happily. What she didn't know, was that as an immigrant, police had Guede's DNA data on their migrants database. It is pure luck they matched the crime to him. Imagine if Patrick's good friend from Austria had not been there at Le Chic to provide an alibi for him, he might be serving life right now, with Knox, Guede and Sollecito roaming around scot free.
Click to expand...


Oh. So Lumumba's DNA would not have matched the DNA in and around Kercher's genital area, and nor would his palm print have matched the print made in blood on the pillow case found under Kercher's body. And yet you believe the police would have carried on and charged Lumumba, and the courts would have found him guilty. Right.

And, by the way, it wasn't Lumumba's "good friend from Austria" who conclusively alibied him. It was a Swiss university professor who was visiting Perugia with students, who had no prior connection whatsoever with Lumumba, but who engaged Lumumba in a lengthy conversation in "Le Chic" that evening. And while we're talking about him, he had to go above and beyond to get himself to Perugia to alibi Lumumba, since the police effectively rebuffed him several times (in spite of him telling them over the phone that he could prove Lumumba was in his bar that evening). More outstanding police work. And more reading/learning about this case required on your part too.
 
Vixen said:
Amanda Knox and her mother Edda Melllas cruelly and wickedly let Patrick Lumumba rot in prison when all along they knew he was wholly innocent of any involvement in Meredith's murder.

Ugh, what horrible vile people.
Click to expand...


You'll get over it.
 
Vixen said:
Stop talking rubbish. Why do you think judgments use the word 'did prolifically. Merits courts are there to establish the facts not pontificate on airy-fairy possibilities.
Click to expand...


Oh please stop with this nonsense.

Suppose that a woman is stabbed in the street with no eyewitnesses, but the police find a knife hidden in the apartment of the woman's ex-husband (where he lived alone), with significant amounts of the woman's blood still on the knife; and the ex-husband says he was at home (some 10 miles from the murder scene) at the time of the murder, but reliable mobile phone analysis proves his phone was very close to the murder scene just before and just after the murder; and a friend of the ex-husband testifies that the ex-husband had been talking at length with him about his desire to kill his ex-wife.

Now. You and I would probably agree that if all this evidence was put to a court, it's very highly likely that the ex-husband would be found guilty of murder. But none of this evidence proves the elements of the crime in and of itself. All of this evidence is circumstantial. That means, Vixen, that inferences must be drawn from the evidence in order to prove the required elements of the crime, and thus to prove the man's guilt.

So when the convicting court says "Mr A: you stabbed your ex-wife to death", that is ENTIRELY based on hypothesis - even though the court states it as "judicial truth".
 
LondonJohn said:
Oh please stop with this nonsense.

Suppose that a woman is stabbed in the street with no eyewitnesses, but the police find a knife hidden in the apartment of the woman's ex-husband (where he lived alone), with significant amounts of the woman's blood still on the knife; and the ex-husband says he was at home (some 10 miles from the murder scene) at the time of the murder, but reliable mobile phone analysis proves his phone was very close to the murder scene just before and just after the murder; and a friend of the ex-husband testifies that the ex-husband had been talking at length with him about his desire to kill his ex-wife.

Now. You and I would probably agree that if all this evidence was put to a court, it's very highly likely that the ex-husband would be found guilty of murder. But none of this evidence proves the elements of the crime in and of itself. All of this evidence is circumstantial. That means, Vixen, that inferences must be drawn from the evidence in order to prove the required elements of the crime, and thus to prove the man's guilt.

So when the convicting court says "Mr A: you stabbed your ex-wife to death", that is ENTIRELY based on hypothesis - even though the court states it as "judicial truth".
Click to expand...

The Crown Prosecution Service will not give police permission to charge that man unless they can show real evidence that there is a reasonable prospect of success for conviction. I should think his mobile phone records represent genuine objective scientific evidence that he was in the vicinity of the crime. There is nothing hypothetical about this, unless he comes up with a reasonable explanation.

Criminal law courts in the UK and the USA are crude and basic. It is a simple case of evidence being presented and a jury deciding whether the case has been sufficently proven 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

No degree in rocket science or philosophy needed. It can be comprised by a bunch of unemployables, Trump supporters and brexiteers.

But hey, do you know what? This is one of the fairest systems of justice.
 
Vixen said:
Courts of law do not deal in hypotheticals. Judges are paid handsomely to come to a decision, not pontificate about 'possibilities'.

As Bill Williams points out it is a judicial truth that Knox covered up for Rudy.
B'ain't nuthink you can do about it.

In fact Prisoners Dilemma is exactly about optimising your own best interest and in crime that means 'do not grass' on your co-criminals.
Click to expand...

Amongst other things you have serious reading comprehension issues. This is the reason I'd said my post upthread was not directed at you, because you demonstrate a complete inability to draw facts from the printed word.

Here's the deal. Fresh from writing that neither AK nor RS could have participated with Rudy in his murdering, the M/B report considers the calunnia Knox had been convicted of.

What's the first thing M/B writes about Hellmann's reason for convicting on that? That Hellmann's rationale of "to relieve herself of interrogation pressure" is bogus.

M/B then writes that a more convincing reason to convict her on that would be to claim she'd done it to cover-up for Rudy - but M/B in the previous paragraph had said that Knox COULDN'T HAVE DONE THE CRIME, with or without Rudy.

You simply have not read the M/B report if you believe it is making "she covered for Rudy" as a judicial fact. M/B is actually trashing the reason previous courts used to convict her of calunnia against Lumumba.

At least do the courtesy of reading things before applying a legendary reading comprehension deficit.
 
Vixen said:
The Crown Prosecution Service will not give police permission to charge that man unless they can show real evidence that there is a reasonable prospect of success for conviction. I should think his mobile phone records represent genuine objective scientific evidence that he was in the vicinity of the crime. There is nothing hypothetical about this, unless he comes up with a reasonable explanation.

Criminal law courts in the UK and the USA are crude and basic. It is a simple case of evidence being presented and a jury deciding whether the case has been sufficently proven 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

No degree in rocket science or philosophy needed. It can be comprised by a bunch of unemployables, Trump supporters and brexiteers.

But hey, do you know what? This is one of the fairest systems of justice.
Click to expand...


Oh brother.

You're missing the point - either accidentally or deliberately....

The point is that in, for example, the set of circumstances I proposed, it's very likely that a fair court would find the men guilty. But - and here's the point - the court would have to create hypotheses based on the evidence before it. There is no direct evidence proving the man's guilt. Rather, the court has to draw inferences (which necessarily involves hypothesising) from the (very strong) circumstantial evidence. None of the evidence I listed proves, in and of itself, that the man killed his ex-wife.

Had the man given a reliable full confession, for example, that would be different. But whenever a case is circumstantial in nature (which is a significant minority of cases which come before criminal courts), then the court has to hypothesise - based on the evidence - in order to infer whether or not the person is guilty of the charges he/she faces.
 
Vixen said:
Given that Knox virtually ORDERED Napoleoni to take Rudy's faeces away for DNA testing, it is clear she knew 'a black dude's' DNA was going to be found at the scene, especailly given she didn't clean up Rudy's footprints, except by accident, leaving just one set, making it look like he must have hopped out of the door.
Click to expand...

You don't even know basic facts of this case. It was Raffaele, not Knox, who pointed out the pooh in the toilet to Napoleoni. Knox at that point spoke only simplistic Italian.

But wait a minute - a moment ago you were saying Knox was covering for Rudy. Now you're claiming Knox ordered Napoleoni to discover who he was, by id'ing the pooh.

You can't keep your vilification of others straight.
 
Amanda Hugginkiss to Police Lady: Black mana did da poo poo

Amanda pointing at boss: Black man found, black man guilty
 
Vixen said:
Given that Knox virtually ORDERED Napoleoni to take Rudy's faeces away for DNA testing, it is clear she knew 'a black dude's' DNA was going to be found at the scene, especailly given she didn't clean up Rudy's footprints, except by accident, leaving just one set, making it look like he must have hopped out of the door.

She let Patrick rot in prison for nearly three weeks and her colluding mother, quite happily. What she didn't know, was that as an immigrant, police had Guede's DNA data on their migrants database. It is pure luck they matched the crime to him. Imagine if Patrick's good friend from Austria had not been there at Le Chic to provide an alibi for him, he might be serving life right now, with Knox, Guede and Sollecito roaming around scot free.
Click to expand...

Are you on drugs? Drinking heavily? For the life of me I can't make heads or tails of where you're going with any of this.

Why would she want to point the police anywhere? What was wrong with her 'I wasn't there and I have no idea' strategy? If she didn't want Guede found because he could link her to the crime why would she leave his evidence behind after cleaning her own? Why would she finger anyone when the police have no suspects? You only cover for people when they are suspected of something. Why would she want anyone thinking the killer hopped out the door?

You're right... she should have issued the order to the police to release Lumumba immediately. That would have gotten him out of prison post haste. Oh, wait - neither she or her mother had any control over Lumumba being released. All she could do was clarify that her statement was coerced and is not accurate. Oh wait, she DID do that. So I must be missing something... what did you expect Amanda to do that she didn't do?

It wasn't pure luck. Guede left DNA, shoe prints and a palm print. His prints were on record and that is what got him caught. None of it would have linked to Lumumba, all would link to Guede. And it was a Swiss professor, not a good friend from Austria.

It's clear you're randomly throwing thoughts out here without thinking through enough to realize none of it makes sense. You've got all these people here pointing this out to you yet you just lower your head and carry on. You're hardly making a case for your 'superior education' claims.
 
Vixen said:
Of course it makes sense. Knox & Sollecito planned to point police toward's Guede's presence, but could hardly name him themselves, without incriminating themselves.

Thank you for confirming by direct quote that Marasca-Bruno did conclude 'Knox covered up for Rudy by naming Patrick'.
Prisoners Dilemma: you keep schtum about me, I'll not grass on you.
Click to expand...

You simply cannot read.

M/B wrote that the stated reason for Hellmann's conviction of Knox for calunnia against Lumumba was bogus. M/B then opined that a better reason for the calunnia would be to postulate that perhaps Knox had covered up for Rudy....

...... right on the heels of the M/B report concluding that Knox (and Sollecito) could not have been part of the crime (which was Rudy's crime) to begin with.

If you don't "get" what M/B is implying by that, then do manner of repeating the actual text will help you.
 
Vixen said:
Of course it makes sense. Knox & Sollecito planned to point police toward's Guede's presence, but could hardly name him themselves, without incriminating themselves.

Thank you for confirming by direct quote that Marasca-Bruno did conclude 'Knox covered up for Rudy by naming Patrick'.

Prisoners Dilemma: you keep schtum about me, I'll not grass on you.
Click to expand...

I'm getting whiplash because you can't keep your claims straight. Was Knox covering for Guede or was she pointing the police to him?

Vixen said:
Knox liked Rudy enough to approach him in the street and remind him, 'Hi, I'm Amanda from Seattle'.

Knox doesn't mention this in her book or the trial that she had met him before the joint-smoking night nor that Meredith was present at this for a very short period of time. Guede confirms that Knox made eyes at him during the joint-smoking session.

So it is completely untrue, 'Knox did not know Guede except in passing'.

Let's face it, Amanda let Rudy in to the cottage on the murder night and partied with him.
Click to expand...

You previously claimed Amanda was "chatting up" Guede at Le Chic, yet when the group she was with ran into him on the street she had to "remind him" by telling him her name and where she was from? Sounds more to me like she didn't recognize him and was introducing herself. If she recognized him, she'd have said something more along the line of "Hi, remember me from Le Chic?" or "Hi, we met at Le Chic already".

Vixen said:
Given that Knox virtually ORDERED Napoleoni to take Rudy's faeces away for DNA testing, it is clear she knew 'a black dude's' DNA was going to be found at the scene, especailly given she didn't clean up Rudy's footprints, except by accident, leaving just one set, making it look like he must have hopped out of the door.
Click to expand...


"ORDERED Napoleoni"? Oh, my....you are known for gross exaggeration, but this one is in the running for a top prize. Once again, was she covering up for Guede or setting him up? You can't seem keep your claims straight.

Vixen said:
She let Patrick rot in prison for nearly three weeks and her colluding mother, quite happily. What she didn't know, was that as an immigrant, police had Guede's DNA data on their migrants database. It is pure luck they matched the crime to him. Imagine if Patrick's good friend from Austria had not been there at Le Chic to provide an alibi for him, he might be serving life right now, with Knox, Guede and Sollecito roaming around scot free.
Click to expand...

Try and keep your stories straight a bit better, will ya? Now you claim it was "pure luck" the police matched the crime to Guede when you just claimed that Knox was directing the police to his feces and hadn't cleaned up his shoeprints (not footprints). Which the heck is it? As for Guede "roaming around scot free" and Lumumba being in prison, we really do have to stretch our imaginations as you have apparently done considering that not a shred of evidence put Lumumba at the crime and Guede's DNA, palmprint and fingerprints did. Give it up.

Vixen said:
How else do you think they were sprung from jail, given their watertight 'guilty' verdicts from both the merits trial and the appeal court?
Click to expand...

LOL. You really think the mafia has control over the Italian courts? Besides, I thought it was the Masons! Apparently I need to remind you that neither Massei nor Nencini were "watertight" in their verdicts as both were overturned for very well spelled out reasons. Darn those mafiose and Masons!
 
Vixen said:
Courts of law do not deal in hypotheticals. Judges are paid handsomely to come to a decision, not pontificate about 'possibilities'.

As Bill Williams points out it is a judicial truth that Knox covered up for Rudy.

B'ain't nuthink you can do about it.

In fact Prisoners Dilemma is exactly about optimising your own best interest and in crime that means 'do not grass' on your co-criminals.
Click to expand...

And yet..and yet...a Supreme Court came to the conclusion that women wearing tight jeans can't possibly be raped! They hypothesized that the woman would have to help the man remove her jeans which showed she consented to sexual relations. This was their judicial truth. Since you rely heavily on judicial truths also being factual truths, you must agree with them that tight jeans prevent rapes.

Edited by Agatha: 
Removed derailing material
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Stacyhs said:
I'm getting whiplash because you can't keep your claims straight. Was Knox covering for Guede or was she pointing the police to him?



You previously claimed Amanda was "chatting up" Guede at Le Chic, yet when the group she was with ran into him on the street she had to "remind him" by telling him her name and where she was from? Sounds more to me like she didn't recognize him and was introducing herself. If she recognized him, she'd have said something more along the line of "Hi, remember me from Le Chic?" or "Hi, we met at Le Chic already".




"ORDERED Napoleoni"? Oh, my....you are known for gross exaggeration, but this one is in the running for a top prize. Once again, was she covering up for Guede or setting him up? You can't seem keep your claims straight.



Try and keep your stories straight a bit better, will ya? Now you claim it was "pure luck" the police matched the crime to Guede when you just claimed that Knox was directing the police to his feces and hadn't cleaned up his shoeprints (not footprints). Which the heck is it? As for Guede "roaming around scot free" and Lumumba being in prison, we really do have to stretch our imaginations as you have apparently done considering that not a shred of evidence put Lumumba at the crime and Guede's DNA, palmprint and fingerprints did. Give it up.



LOL. You really think the mafia has control over the Italian courts? Besides, I thought it was the Masons! Apparently I need to remind you that neither Massei nor Nencini were "watertight" in their verdicts as both were overturned for very well spelled out reasons. Darn those mafiose and Masons!
Click to expand...


You are either being 'real cute', or you have genuinely great difficulty in following logic.
 
That. Is. Enough.

If you want to argue about the correct plural for mother-in-law (it's mothers-in-law) then kindly do it in a thread about English, dictionaries, plurals or whatever. You can open a new thread if you like, but please stop wandering off the topic in this thread.

If you want to talk about Meredith Kercher, Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and the tragic events in Italy almost ten years ago, then feel free to do so here.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha
 
Totally agree.

So.... back to the tortured "logic" of Knox wanting to draw the authorities' attention to Guede, but without actually pointing to Guede (for fear, apparently, of incriminating herself on account of the supposition that she couldn't know Guede was involved unless she herself was also involved...), so pointing to Lumumba instead (apparently under the "logic" that pointing to one black African man, Lumumba, would eventually lead the authorities to another black African man, Guede....).

You couldn't make it up. Oh, wait..................
 
LondonJohn said:
Totally agree.

So.... back to the tortured "logic" of Knox wanting to draw the authorities' attention to Guede, but without actually pointing to Guede (for fear, apparently, of incriminating herself on account of the supposition that she couldn't know Guede was involved unless she herself was also involved...), so pointing to Lumumba instead (apparently under the "logic" that pointing to one black African man, Lumumba, would eventually lead the authorities to another black African man, Guede....).

You couldn't make it up. Oh, wait..................
Click to expand...


It's beyond your comprehension, but Marasca-Bruno and Hellmann had no problem understanding Knox' rationale for accusing Patrick.
 
Vixen said:
It's beyond your comprehension, but Marasca-Bruno and Hellmann had no problem understanding Knox' rationale for accusing Patrick.
Click to expand...


Once again, I suggest you read the Marasca Report again. The report lists this as a possibility, but prefaces the whole section by stating explicitly that it's effectively impossible to understand/know why Knox might have accused Lumumba.

(And, once again, both I and the ECHR know very well exactly how/why Knox came to make that curious and infamous "confession/accusation" in the very early hours of November 6th 2007. As does every one of the police officers who were in that interrogation room).



As a tasty little aside for you, Vixen: why, once Knox had made her initial, verbal "buckle" in which she "told the police what they already knew to be correct" and told them she'd met with Lumumba and taken him to the cottage etc........ why did the police not immediately arrest her at that point, read her her rights, put her in a cell, provide her with a lawyer, and wait for the PM to interrogate her further in the presence of her lawyer? And for clarity, I mean in-between Knox making the verbal statement and her signing the written-up statement. After all, Knox had, at the very moment when she "buckled" and made the verbal statement, indisputably made herself into a suspect of a serious criminal offence. That offence was at the very least along the lines of lying (earlier) to the police and protecting an offender, and at the worst it was participation in the murder itself.

If a man were to, say, walk into a police station in London, go up to the front desk, and state that he had murdered his wife, then the police would follow the (correct procedure) of arresting the man, informing him of his rights, asking him if he wanted to consult a lawyer (though in Italy this part is compulsory), and only asking him to repeat his statement (and sign a written statement to that effect) under all of those safeguards. Why do you think it was, Vixen, that even if we suppose the police didn't consider Knox a suspect before she "buckled" and "told them what they already knew to be correct" (and of course they DID consider Knox a suspect before that point, but deliberately withheld suspect status from her), why they did not apply the required safeguards as soon as Knox indisputably made herself into a suspect - i.e. before typing up her verbal statement and getting her to sign it.....?
 
Vixen said:
It's beyond your comprehension, but Marasca-Bruno and Hellmann had no problem understanding Knox' rationale for accusing Patrick.
Click to expand...

LOL. You still can't see the illogical reasoning of claiming Knox was "covering up" for Guede while, at the same time, pointing the police to him.

"Hey, Raffaele, we need to cover up for Rudy because he could tie us to the murder. Let's do this by ordering the police to test his feces and we'll only clean up some of his bloody shoeprints and leave his bloody palm print under Meredith's body! Then, we'll stage a burglary according to the same method he confided in us that he used at the law office for some strange reason! Several days later, I'll accuse Patrick of the murder even though I know he's working at the bar tonight and there will be customers there to witness it. The police will arrest him instead of Rudy so he won't turn on us. Don't worry that the DNA I'll order the police to test will show it wasn't Patrick at all! Oh, how Machiavellian are we?"

If that makes any kind of sense to you, well, it explains a lot.
 
Vixen said:
It's beyond your comprehension, but Marasca-Bruno and Hellmann had no problem understanding Knox' rationale for accusing Patrick.
Click to expand...
LondonJohn said:
Once again, I suggest you read the Marasca Report again. The report lists this as a possibility, but prefaces the whole section by stating explicitly that it's effectively impossible to understand/know why Knox might have accused Lumumba.
Click to expand...

Vixen does not know the content of the various motivations reports.

The Marasca-Bruno report, far from having no problem with Judge Hellmann's rationale for convicting Knox of calunnia, finds it unconvincing and has tremendous problem with agreeing with Hellman:

Marasca-Bruno in 2015 said:
The hypothesis that she did so to escape the psychological pressure of the investigators appears extremely fragile, taking into account that the woman must have realised that, sooner or later, these accusations against her employer would have been disproved, considering that she certainly knew that Lumumba had no contact either with Kercher or with the house on via della Pergola.​
Click to expand...
M/B then goes on to say that any rationale for calunnia would better fit a motive where Knox could be seen as covering for Guede - but remember, M/B wrote this only two paragraphs after saying that Knox could not have been involved in the crime!

Marasca-Bruno in 2015 said:
Nevertheless, even if attribution (of Knox wiping blood from her hands) is certain, the trial element would not be unequivocal as a demonstration of posthumous contact with that blood, as a likely attempt to remove the most blatant traces of what had happened, perhaps to help someone or deflect suspicion from herself, without this entailing her certain direct involvement in the murder. Any further and more meaningful value would be, in fact, resisted by the fact - which is decisive - that no trace leading to her was found at the scene of the crime or on the victim’s body, so that - if all the above is accepted - her contact with the victim’s blood would have occurred after the crime and in another part of the house.​
Click to expand...
M/B could not be clearer, speculation about Knox "covering for Rudy" is part of their "even-if" clause. Even if Knox had done all that to, "help someone" or to "deflect attention", all that does is prove that:

her contact with the victim’s blood would have occurred after the crime and in another part of the house.​
Be all this as it may, Vixen's original statement is hogwash and reveals she has no working concept of why either Hellmann or M/B had written what they wrote.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Knox liked Rudy enough to approach him in the street and remind him, 'Hi, I'm Amanda from Seattle'.
Knox doesn't mention this in her book or the trial that she had met him before the joint-smoking night nor that Meredith was present at this for a very short period of time. Guede confirms that Knox made eyes at him during the joint-smoking session.
So it is completely untrue, 'Knox did not know Guede except in passing'.

Let's face it, Amanda let Rudy in to the cottage on the murder night and partied with him.
Click to expand...

1)Knox didn't approach Guede. Knox had texted Meredith when she left work at Le Chic and met her at Piazza iV Novembre where they ran into Giamcomo and Marco. The group ran into Guede and the boys introduced the girls to him. They then went to the boys' place. This is confirmed by Giacomo Silenzi and Marco Marzan.

2) What is the source for claiming Knox had met Guede at Le Chic perviously? Rudy Guede in a letter from prison! You know...the habitual liar. No one else has ever claimed seeing Amanda and Guede together before that night they all went to the boys' apartment. Follain claims Amanda served him at Le Chic, but gives no source, and the only person to ever claim this was Guede himself.

3). Guede confirms Amanda made eyes at him? LOL! That's rich! Neither Giacomo nor Marco confirm Guede's claim.

Let's face it, your claims are not supported by the evidence or court testimony by the people who were there.
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
LOL. You still can't see the illogical reasoning of claiming Knox was "covering up" for Guede while, at the same time, pointing the police to him.

"Hey, Raffaele, we need to cover up for Rudy because he could tie us to the murder. Let's do this by ordering the police to test his feces and we'll only clean up some of his bloody shoeprints and leave his bloody palm print under Meredith's body! Then, we'll stage a burglary according to the same method he confided in us that he used at the law office for some strange reason! Several days later, I'll accuse Patrick of the murder even though I know he's working at the bar tonight and there will be customers there to witness it. The police will arrest him instead of Rudy so he won't turn on us. Don't worry that the DNA I'll order the police to test will show it wasn't Patrick at all! Oh, how Machiavellian are we?"

If that makes any kind of sense to you, well, it explains a lot.
Click to expand...

It likely happened like this.

'I've got a great idea, let's clean up our remains, but why should we care about Rudy, after all he's ********** off.'

'Yeah great idea. We can leave his evidence here - y'know like the disgusting mess he left in the toilet -'

'Yeah, yeah, let's do that.'


<fast forward outside the cottage>

'Officer Napoleoni, can I have a word'

<Napoleoni swings round>

'Who are you?'

'I live here. I want to show you some faeces I found in the toilet.'
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom