The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 31

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

Knox hits back at Piers Morgan.

"Occasionally I joke about my wrongful conviction & imprisonment in Italy. I'm allowed to joke about my own trauma. I didn't joke about the Kercher's. I didn't kill Meredith. Rudy Guede did, & you know it. Stop exploiting Meredith's name to victim blame me. You're pathetic."

Right. Rudolf Hess liked to make quips about concentration camps now and again. Very droll I am sure. How could anyone object?

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Nah, I simply misread. Besides, whether or not she finds Biden appealing, we know she finds Trump less appealing as she has clearly stated her disapproval of him in 2016.

Took his money though, didn't she? Didn't have the integrity to decline it.
Couldn't even say thank you, that is the type of person she is.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Firstly, I think you would need to have a serious personality disorder to carry out a 'thrill kill' on your room mate. This is something inherent in a person's make up, so I shouldn't worry if I were you that you'll ever be facing charges of Aggravated Murder.

Some critic who disapproves of such behaviour would be the least of your worries.

If nothing else, you've now offered perhaps the fifth motive for the murder, and a full 13 years after the horrible act. There is no evidence at all that this was a "thrill kill", but there is evidence that this was Rudy Guede's lust which caused the murder.... as in what the 2009 court found:

Originally Posted by Massei in 2010

It is not possible, however, to know if Rudy went to Meredith’s room on his own
initiative, almost subjugated by the situation which he interpreted in erotic terms
(the two young lovers in their room and Meredith who was on her own in the room
right next to it) or, instead, he went to Meredith’s room at the urging of Amanda
and/or Raffaele.

This Court is inclined towards the first hypothesis.

It cannot see, in fact, the motive for such an invitation on the part of Amanda Knox
and/or of Raffaele Sollecito.

But there are sum who, 13 years after the fact, keep trying to re-jig their guilt-hypothesis for some unknown, strange reason.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Took his money though, didn't she? Didn't have the integrity to decline it.
Couldn't even say thank you, that is the type of person she is.

Why is the "type of person" she is (or isn't) even relevant? Why is that even interesting 13 years after the horrible murder?

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Right. Rudolf Hess liked to make quips about concentration camps now and again. Very droll I am sure. How could anyone object?

Rudolph Hess was "traumatized" by concentration camps?

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Lumumba spent two weeks in jail (not knowing when he'd be released or exonerated) because of the false accusation of Amanda Knox.

No, he was kept because Mignini/Napoleoni would not have him released. Mignini regarded Knox as a liar, yet the one thing he believed was the Lumumba story planted in her brain. "She buckled and told us what we already knew," was the way De Felice had put it.

The police then kept his bar closed, denying him a livelihood.

[Welshman]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

Thus the title of her book.

What is it with people? Remember Hallowe'en 2011? She was pilloried for dressing as a cat burglar, criticized mercilessly for insensitivity to the Kerchers on the, then, fourth anniversary of the latter's death.

Two problems.

1) It was not the anniversary. That would be the next day.

2) Knox, in fact, had dressed as her favourite Seattle Sounder soccer player, who happened to be a Frenchman. She had on a Parisian tam, and drew a curly mustache on her lip.

But why let an opportunity pass to shame a stranger, and have the Tabloids make some money off of Kercher's death - even four years later.

Guede broke into the cottage, stabbed Meredith to death, sexually assaulted her as she lay dying, stole from Meredith and falsely accused Amanda and Raffaele of being at the cottage when he killed Meredith. There is no condemnation directed at Guede but Amanda on the other hand is condemned over what she wears and a tweet.

[TruthCalls]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Took his money though, didn't she? Didn't have the integrity to decline it.
Couldn't even say thank you, that is the type of person she is.

She was in prison at the time and had much bigger problems to worry about so I doubt she had any idea who was contributing funds.

Regardless, are you suggesting she should have been vetting every contribution and returning those made by people who had differing political views? How irrational of you!

BTW, do you have evidence that she did not thank Trump? Just curious...

[Methos]

Originally Posted by TruthCalls

[...]
BTW, do you have evidence that she did not thank Trump? Just curious...

Just for the record:
Amanda Knox: Donald Trump supported me when I was wrongly accused of murder. What do I owe him?

Quote:

What do I owe Trump? A thank you for his well-intentioned, if undiplomatic, support. So for the record: Thank you, Mr. President.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Lumumba spent two weeks in jail (not knowing when he'd be released or exonerated) because of the false accusation of Amanda Knox.

Lumumba spend 2 weeks in jail because

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

2) Mignini kept Lumumba in jail even though

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

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Sheesh! Most people even spending one day in jail would have a nervous breakdown. You don't see Lumumba as a real person do you? Yet Knox on the other hand...

Reveals a lot about yourself.

Most people spending a day in jail would have a nervous breakdown? REALLY? The need to make such a ridiculous claim is truly bizarre! But I have to admire your attempt to distract attention from the obvious: you can't argue the facts I presented so instead you go for the racist dog whistle of "You don't see Lumumba as a real person do you?" Reveals a lot about yourself.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Right. Rudolf Hess liked to make quips about concentration camps now and again. Very droll I am sure. How could anyone object?

Citation needed. I won't hold my breath.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Took his money though, didn't she? Didn't have the integrity to decline it.
Couldn't even say thank you, that is the type of person she is.

Was he running for president in 2007-2014? Why, no...he wasn't. You might want to think before you post. You'll save yourself a lot of embarrassment.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

No, he was kept because Mignini/Napoleoni would not have him released. Mignini regarded Knox as a liar, yet the one thing he believed was the Lumumba story planted in her brain. "She buckled and told us what we already knew," was the way De Felice had put it.

The police then kept his bar closed, denying him a livelihood.

Mignini directed the investigation and the police. They did nothing without his approval.

[TruthCalls]

Originally Posted by Methos

Just for the record:
Amanda Knox: Donald Trump supported me when I was wrongly accused of murder. What do I owe him?

Thanks Methos, I forgot she had said that.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Mignini directed the investigation and the police. They did nothing without his approval.

According to Vixen, Mignini could not release Lumumba without Knox's approval.

[Welshman]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Sheesh! Most people even spending one day in jail would have a nervous breakdown. You don't see Lumumba as a real person do you? Yet Knox on the other hand...

Reveals a lot about yourself.

Does Vixen see the people she has falsely accused of crimes as real people.

[TomG]

Some comments on YouTube prompted me to take a look at the Milani report again. I must admit to being a complete techno-numpty in these matters; however, it seems to me that the report states in the "summing up" section that Raffaele's laptop doesn't go into standby mode until 5.32 am the following morning. M/B consider the computer evidence as a "failed alibi" but they don't mention the fact that it never goes into standby mode. Unless I'm mistaken this means that the computer needed user interaction to keep it from going into standby mode. Is this a certain alibi or is that just too simple in a case this complex to be credible?

Hoots

[TomG]

Originally Posted by Welshman

Does Vixen see the people she has falsely accused of crimes as real people.

It doesn't seem to have bothered Mignini either.

Hoots

[whoanellie]

Originally Posted by Welshman

Does Vixen see the people she has falsely accused of crimes as real people.

Nope

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Welshman

Does Vixen see the people she has falsely accused of crimes as real people.

I'd say more like the two dimensional evil characters created in films with no redeeming qualities so the audience can truly hate them while feeling morally superior.

Speaking of people who feel morally superior, over on TJMK, they never did mention the anniversary of Meredith's death last week even though they are supposedly dedicated to her memory. But a couple of days ago, they added a new article on Knox's body language and how it indicates her guilt. The writing style had a very familiar ring to it; overuse of exaggerated, negative adjectives, applying motives to Knox pulled straight from the colon, referring to Knox as a psychopath as if she has been diagnosed as such, etc. If I could only put my finger on the name..... It'll come to me.

[TomG]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I'd say more like the two dimensional evil characters created in films with no redeeming qualities so the audience can truly hate them while feeling morally superior.

Speaking of people who feel morally superior, over on TJMK, they never did mention the anniversary of Meredith's death last week even though they are supposedly dedicated to her memory. But a couple of days ago, they added a new article on Knox's body language and how it indicates her guilt. The writing style had a very familiar ring to it; overuse of exaggerated, negative adjectives, applying motives to Knox pulled straight from the colon, referring to Knox as a psychopath as if she has been diagnosed as such, etc. If I could only put my finger on the name..... It'll come to me.

The recent spate of micro-expression analysis is another devious way of targeting Amanda wihile offering an additional comfort zone of not being answerable to any scientific guidelines. You can interpret any swallow or eye-movement as anything you like and arrive at a conclusion of guilt by totally circumventing the evidence, while being answerable to no-one. Just think of the power it gives to the charlatans that expound this nonsense.

These guys use an intellectualised version of the very same superstitious rubbish that got thousands of women burned at the stake 500 years ago. The baying mob is just the same, they just bay online that's all. The primeval gut instinct is the same. That's where the likes of the usual YouTube suspects of Sleuth, Mila, Worley and the rest come in. I find it fascinating to discover that when you argue with these people, the more apparent it becomes that their hatred is based on falsehoods, the more intense it becomes. So if the hate isn't logical, could it be a burning ember of the past? Hmm....Food for thought methinks.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by TomG

The recent spate of micro-expression analysis is another devious way of targeting Amanda wihile offering an additional comfort zone of not being answerable to any scientific guidelines. You can interpret any swallow or eye-movement as anything you like and arrive at a conclusion of guilt by totally circumventing the evidence, while being answerable to no-one. Just think of the power it gives to the charlatans that expound this nonsense.

These guys use an intellectualised version of the very same superstitious rubbish that got thousands of women burned at the stake 500 years ago. The baying mob is just the same, they just bay online that's all. The primeval gut instinct is the same. That's where the likes of the usual YouTube suspects of Sleuth, Mila, Worley and the rest come in. I find it fascinating to discover that when you argue with these people, the more apparent it becomes that their hatred is based on falsehoods, the more intense it becomes. So if the hate isn't logical, could it be a burning ember of the past? Hmm....Food for thought methinks.

I totally agree. When the article starts out with "the excellent Liz Houle" it damns itself from the very start. Liz Houle, the self-appointed "crime examiner" and astrologer!

My fascination with the case isn't with Knox herself. She's just not all that interesting. It's with how the case was presented by the media, especially the UK and Italian tabloids, and the Italian police/prosecutor, and how they manipulated the people's perception of the case. It's with the psychology of how people can become so entrenched within their beliefs that, even when presented with evidence that disproves or greatly undermines that belief, they'll refuse to change or even question that belief. My fascination is with the psychology of people who are obsessed with and need to intensely hate someone they've never met and who has absolutely no influence in their lives other than what they are choosing to give her. She lives rent free in their head. They continue to run a website about her and to write articles about her 13 years later. Why?

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by TomG

The recent spate of micro-expression analysis is another devious way of targeting Amanda wihile offering an additional comfort zone of not being answerable to any scientific guidelines. You can interpret any swallow or eye-movement as anything you like and arrive at a conclusion of guilt by totally circumventing the evidence, while being answerable to no-one. Just think of the power it gives to the charlatans that expound this nonsense.

The very first of this was the comfort-kiss outside the cottage on Nov 2. Media put it on an endless loop, and accompanied it with, "Who makes out when their roommate has been murdered?"

At the end of the day, esp. 5+ years after their exoneration, if all that's left are these "micro-expression analyses", then that sez everything.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

The very first of this was the comfort-kiss outside the cottage on Nov 2. Media put it on an endless loop, and accompanied it with, "Who makes out when their roommate has been murdered?"

At the end of the day, esp. 5+ years after their exoneration, if all that's left are these "micro-expression analyses", then that sez everything.

One of the first examples of how the UK media started to manipulate how people saw Knox and Sollecito. Instead of presenting it for what it was...RS comforting AK...they used 'canoodling' which means to "kiss and cuddle amorously".

[TomG]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

The very first of this was the comfort-kiss outside the cottage on Nov 2. Media put it on an endless loop, and accompanied it with, "Who makes out when their roommate has been murdered?"

At the end of the day, esp. 5+ years after their exoneration, if all that's left are these "micro-expression analyses", then that sez everything.

Well, not quite everything. Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse it's tarot cards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZkLog-bxes&t=134s

Hoots

[Planigale]

Originally Posted by TomG

The recent spate of micro-expression analysis is another devious way of targeting Amanda wihile offering an additional comfort zone of not being answerable to any scientific guidelines. You can interpret any swallow or eye-movement as anything you like and arrive at a conclusion of guilt by totally circumventing the evidence, while being answerable to no-one. Just think of the power it gives to the charlatans that expound this nonsense.

These guys use an intellectualised version of the very same superstitious rubbish that got thousands of women burned at the stake 500 years ago. The baying mob is just the same, they just bay online that's all. The primeval gut instinct is the same. That's where the likes of the usual YouTube suspects of Sleuth, Mila, Worley and the rest come in. I find it fascinating to discover that when you argue with these people, the more apparent it becomes that their hatred is based on falsehoods, the more intense it becomes. So if the hate isn't logical, could it be a burning ember of the past? Hmm....Food for thought methinks.

Actually it is worse than mediaeval witch trials. At least in mediaeval England confessions were not permissible evidence, Knox's 'confession' would never have been allowed in evidence. Confessions were regarded as being too likely to be false to be reliable evidence. The principle role of torture (actually very rare) was to elicit witness evidence against others. Also surprisingly few witches were found guilty, except in a few short lived spasms most accused witches were found innocent for lack of evidence or given fairly minor punishments, being a witch per se was not a crime, the crime might be murder by witchcraft, or assault by causing the pox by witchcraft. Most mediaeval judges were intelligent, well educated, pragmatic professionals who knew witchcraft was irreligious nonsense and treated accusations as such.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by TomG

Well, not quite everything. Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse it's tarot cards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZkLog-bxes&t=134s

Hoots

There are not enough laughing dog emojis in the world to express my feelings for that utter waste of time! Can I have my time back? "Hoots" indeed!

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Planigale

Actually it is worse than mediaeval witch trials. At least in mediaeval England confessions were not permissible evidence, Knox's 'confession' would never have been allowed in evidence. Confessions were regarded as being too likely to be false to be reliable evidence. The principle role of torture (actually very rare) was to elicit witness evidence against others. Also surprisingly few witches were found guilty, except in a few short lived spasms most accused witches were found innocent for lack of evidence or given fairly minor punishments, being a witch per se was not a crime, the crime might be murder by witchcraft, or assault by causing the pox by witchcraft. Most mediaeval judges were intelligent, well educated, pragmatic professionals who knew witchcraft was irreligious nonsense and treated accusations as such.

The Inquisition considered confession to be the only admissible proof of witchcraft and had no compunction against using torture to get it. The worst time was from about 1550-1650 in Europe.


Yes, I know...Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

The Inquisition considered confession to be the only admissible proof of witchcraft and had no compunction against using torture to get it. The worst time was from about 1550-1650 in Europe.


Yes, I know...Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Fetch..... THE COMFY CHAIR!

[Planigale]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

The Inquisition considered confession to be the only admissible proof of witchcraft and had no compunction against using torture to get it. The worst time was from about 1550-1650 in Europe.


Yes, I know...Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Which is why I specified England. With the exception of the civil war period when the judicial system was briefly upset, witch trials were not an English phenomenon because unlike continental Europe, laity were not subject to ecclesiastical courts. The spanish inquisition could present evidence against people in Ecclesiastical courts where they could be tried for religious crimes, this was never a significant issue in England where ecclesiastical courts only had authority over church issues. Lots of women were tried and convicted for crimes carried out by witchcraft in England but penalties were usually trivial. Also as said in England confessions were not permissible as evidence until surprisingly recently, without checking, from memory, eighteenth century.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Planigale

Which is why I specified England. With the exception of the civil war period when the judicial system was briefly upset, witch trials were not an English phenomenon because unlike continental Europe, laity were not subject to ecclesiastical courts. The spanish inquisition could present evidence against people in Ecclesiastical courts where they could be tried for religious crimes, this was never a significant issue in England where ecclesiastical courts only had authority over church issues. Lots of women were tried and convicted for crimes carried out by witchcraft in England but penalties were usually trivial. Also as said in England confessions were not permissible as evidence until surprisingly recently, without checking, from memory, eighteenth century.

Yes, I understood that. I was not contradicting your post.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

If nothing else, you've now offered perhaps the fifth motive for the murder, and a full 13 years after the horrible act. There is no evidence at all that this was a "thrill kill", but there is evidence that this was Rudy Guede's lust which caused the murder.... as in what the 2009 court found:
But there are sum who, 13 years after the fact, keep trying to re-jig their guilt-hypothesis for some unknown, strange reason.

If it was the lust of Rudy Guede he didn't seem to have completed it, as Micheli remarked. Nor was a burglary completed.

What we have is a very personal attack on Meredith Kercher. Of all the valuables in the apartment, the three (then very expensive) laptops, camera jewellery, Knox' own €300 rent money, passports, bank cards, clothes, bags, guitar, etc ONLY items belonging to Mez were taken. Her two phones (it is a court ruling that these phones were not taken for gain but were taken to stop the critically wounded girl from calling for help or saying goodbye to her loved ones), her bank cards and her rent money were taken. Everybody else's was intact. The staged burglary indicates a clear inside job.

We all know who had a personal grudge and a previously expressed fantasy to rape and kill.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

Why is the "type of person" she is (or isn't) even relevant? Why is that even interesting 13 years after the horrible murder?

What sort of person takes someone's money to get them out of jail and then mocks them publicly in a newspaper?

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

Rudolph Hess was "traumatized" by concentration camps?

A prison sentence is there to punish an offender. Why shouldn't Knox be punished for criminal obstruction of justice by tying to divert police investigation into a terrible murder into a subverted direction?

She got three years in accordance with Italian law which prescribes up to six years for such a crime. In the US it is a five-year sentence felony. How has it been twisted into something that we all should feel sorry for her as though she is the victim of her own crime?

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

No, he was kept because Mignini/Napoleoni would not have him released. Mignini regarded Knox as a liar, yet the one thing he believed was the Lumumba story planted in her brain. "She buckled and told us what we already knew," was the way De Felice had put it.

The police then kept his bar closed, denying him a livelihood.

A liar does not lie about absolutely everything, just as a kleptomaniac does not steal absolutely everything, nor a serial murderer kill absolutely everything.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Welshman

Guede broke into the cottage, stabbed Meredith to death, sexually assaulted her as she lay dying, stole from Meredith and falsely accused Amanda and Raffaele of being at the cottage when he killed Meredith. There is no condemnation directed at Guede but Amanda on the other hand is condemned over what she wears and a tweet.

Guede did the crime and he has done the time. Unfortunately for Knox and Sollecito, their footprints were found in luminol and on the bathmat, together with Knox' mixed DNA in Mez' blood and on the murder weapon. In adition, the pair lied and lied and lied, as well as giving a false alibi. A false alibi counts as evidence in a criminal trial. A court is allowed to draw inferences from a defendant's persistent and profligate lying.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by TruthCalls

She was in prison at the time and had much bigger problems to worry about so I doubt she had any idea who was contributing funds.

Regardless, are you suggesting she should have been vetting every contribution and returning those made by people who had differing political views? How irrational of you!

BTW, do you have evidence that she did not thank Trump? Just curious...

She publicly wrote an article mocking Trump saying she could never support him. This hurt his feelings very much after all he had done for her. If you despise somebody you don't accept gifts from them.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Methos

Just for the record:
Amanda Knox: Donald Trump supported me when I was wrongly accused of murder. What do I owe him?

You omitted to mention the following:

Quote:

“I’m sorry I ever supported you. You have turned into a left wing lunatic. I see your experience in Italy has left you completely ungrateful to be an American. … Donald Trump stood by you, but now you turn around and indirectly attack him? You should be ashamed of yourself.”

Another wrote that, while I needn’t endorse Trump, my criticism of him wasn’t “nice.”

Of course, nobody is obliged to vote for anybody whose politics you disagree with. That is not the issue. The issue was Knox publicly mocking him, whilst at the same time being very happy to have had Trump pay her defence fees.

Saying thank you in response to a public outcry about her ingratitude just comes across as heavy sarcasm.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Lumumba spend 2 weeks in jail because

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

2) Mignini kept Lumumba in jail even though

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

Bollocks.