The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 31

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Also from ANSA Italian Press Agency, also in the news:

True Crimes Podcast

Prosecutor Mignini saw the crime scene himself personally. He interviewed Knox in the presence of her lawyers who tried to urge her to shut up. Detectives and seasoned police know when they have got their man. The problem is in building up a case. They can tell by body language - profuse sweating, avoidance behaviour, covering up, lying - that someone is a likely suspect.

Luckily for suspects, bleeding heart jurors are on their side. (cf OJ Simpson.)

From the above, one can reasonably infer that Vixen believes that police are infallible in reading body language (which isn't even allowed in court as evidence because...well...it's not reliable), and never arrest anyone who isn't guilty. Of course, actual facts don't support either of these, but some people are not interested facts.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Knox thinks she can work her charm on Mignini and to get him to publicly declare her innocent. So they exchange messages on WhatsApp. After what Sollecito did - encourage a senseless and frenzied attack on a lovely English girl - and then threw Knox under a bus I can only imagine she wants to be friends with him for publicity reasons only. Perhaps she doesn't realise Sollecito was using her to fulfil his amine fantasies to kill a helpless young woman after torturing her with his knives so that he could experience 'extreme sensations'. Ugh. What a creep! It's all a game to him.

Yep, your wild imagination certainly explains a lot! I've lost count of all your imagined scenarios and claims unsupported by actual evidence we've been witness to the last several years.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Marcello is very well respected.

I have no doubt. The accuracy of his work speaks for itself.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Bongiorno was corrupt Andreotti's counsel. She has a fetish about him. She has his old desk. Bruno was indicted for mafia associations but got off.

Look up the Sollecito family in Canada. Rocco was from Bari and is almost certainly Sollecito's uncle!


Mafia = FAMILY.

Yeah, and Francesco attended his dear brother's memorial as evidenced by the photo of him coming out of the church!

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
You literally do all of those things, far more than anyone else does them to you. Would you like me to get examples so you can ignore them again?

This is supposed to be a serious discussion thread. I understand that there are some individuals who are just here for the sport of trolling. I hope you are not one of them as I cannot think of anything more yawn-inducing.

MarkCorrigan isn't the only one who recognized the absolute irony of your post.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Vixen

No you're right. The brutal slaughter of a British student is little more serious than just another burglary, right? The cops should have sat back and let Sollecito come for an interview in his own time instead of rudely ordering him to turn up.

This mini-thread started when you claimed, "They (the police) don't waste their time on the innocent without any motive because at the end of the day they have to explain it all before a High Court judge."

You then filled this mini-thread with noise that culminated in saying that the cops had to use extreme, coercive measures because a mass-murderer could have been on the loose.

Responding to your scattergun imaginings is exhausting, which I think is the point of you making them.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Don't lie. I asked her politely to not use sexist language aimed at me, the language in question being 'stupid woman'.

Please grow up and concentrate on discussing the title of the thread.

I suggest you don't lie: I said, "You are NOT a stupid woman". Can you explain how referring to you as a 'woman' when you ARE a woman, is sexist? Go on. Tell us how that is sexist.

I suggest you grow up and stop calling RS "Knife Boy".

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Er, you do know hundreds of people, mostly young women - including the friends of Mez - left Perugia in a hurry.

I'd ask for a citation that "hundreds of people" left Perugia, but I know better.

Quote:

Sophie was made to stay behind. For all of the hours of grilling, phone tapping and being made to stay for questioning, Sophie never once complained

.

I know this is a waste of time but....citation?

Quote:

She understood the reason police wanted to interview her.

So did Amanda. But do you really think Sophie was questioned in the same manner as Amanda?

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Do look up what a witness statement is.

https://www.twinkl.fi/teaching-wiki/witness-statement.

Oh, good lord. Do you really think we don't recognize that you failed to address anything in my post and veered of into "Look! Squirrel!" territory?

Originally Posted by Vixen

A ghost written book long after the trial

LOL! RS's book wasn't "ghost written"; it was co-authored. Fail one.

Originally Posted by Vixen

... is not a retraction or a correction.

Um....yes, it is.

Originally Posted by Vixen

It is a pack of lies for the gullible.

So you're admitting that Guede's book and Mignini's book are "a pack of lies for the gullible"?

Originally Posted by Vixen

Curatalo and the objective scientific phone logs were all dealt with at the merits court.

Ah, here we go again; only the overturned Massei court is valid. Uh-huh...right......you might want to consult the Marasca SC.

As I already presented, the phone logs do not support your opinion.

An impartial observer would note that I, and the other posters here, routinely and regularly quote and cite evidence to support our statements while...you do not despite repeated requests to do so.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Stop trying to put words in my mouth. I very clearly said that when she pointed to an outsider 'other' as being the culprit she was not aware police would be able to identify Guede from his biometric details in their immigration data base. They identified Guede by matching his biometric and then confirming it was him by comparing his DNA on a toothbrush at his apartment with DNA collected at the cottage, on the sleeve of the jumper. (Sorry, that was all contaminated according to yourself.)

She named Patrik and it worked didn't it? He was duly arrested in front of his little kids and thrown int he slammer. In fact Knox and her mother were more than willing for him to remain there.

Luckily, a passing tourist was able to provide Patrik with an alibi.

Now, that would have been a genuine wrongful conviction.

Incidentally, absence of DNA is not evidence of absence. You yourself said the other day there were only two samples of Guede (despite the frequent claim his DNA was all over the crime scene).

Ah, I see that, yet again, you artfully tried a little deception and misdirection there, didn’t you? Your original claim was that the authorities had Guede’s DNA on file wrt his immigration status. Then I and Stacy both corrected you by informing you that it was only Guede’s prints that were on file, not his DNA. Then you tried - tragically - to style it out by switching to the all-encompassing “biometric data”. Did you hope nobody would notice? Are you seriously that incapable of writing something along the lines of “My mistake. They didn’t have his DNA on file”? Apparently so.

This is all so, so revealing of your point of view wrt this case, as well as your levels of intellectual honesty.

As for the rest of your post, it’s nothing more than the same old tainted bollocks. I realise you’ll almost certainly never come to the following realisation, but virtually every single opinion you hold on this case, virtually every single “fact” you think you know, virtually every single piece of analysis (scientific and legal/judicial), and virtually every single argument you attempt to make…….. are completely, irreconcilably at odds with reality and truth.


ETA: I’ve just noticed that I could probably set the words of the last paragraph above to the tune of The Police’s “Every Breath You Take”

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Ah, here we go again; only the overturned Massei court is valid. Uh-huh...right......you might want to consult the Marasca SC.

NO, NO, NO!!!

Didn’t you know that the verdicts and reasonings of the “merits courts” (hehehe) remain extant, sacrosanct and inviolable….. even when a higher court has line-by-line savaged the extraordinary ineptitude of that lower court’s cavalier and unlawful approach to deliberation & reasoning, and consigned that lower court’s entire verdict and reasoning to the waste disposal unit, where it’s now churning round as pulp “porridge”, waiting to become paper which hopefully a competent lower court will use next time round?

Only in Vixenbizarroworld….. where lies magically become truths, where destruction of credibility magically becomes credibility again, where abject scientific illiteracy magically becomes an authority on all matters scientific, where Knox and Sollecito participated in the murder of Meredith Kercher. So sad. Yet so funny as well.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Darat Membership Agreement <Snip> We want the Forum to be available to as wide an audience as possible therefore the Forum has been subdivided into "Welcome to ISF", "General Topics" and "Forum Members" categories, and these categories into more specific areas of interest. The Forum is a discussion forum and we want it to be a friendly and lively (if challenging) forum for a mature audience and therefore will endeavour to ensure that civility will be the norm, but this does not mean that Members will be insulated from all insults and certainly not from challenges; the nature of the Forum inevitably involves strong emotions and opinions which can result in heated exchanges. Having your views challenged is not considered unfriendly nor uncivil. Concatenation of a member's name with (for example) "Bizarroworld" is not civil

Responding to this mod box in thread will be off topic Posted By:jimbob

ETA:

Continued here http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=363048

Posted By:jimbob