Continuation The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Oh, good lord. It's from the original Matteini Report, pg 10 as you've already been told and linked to.



No, it does not:

This is the original Matteini report.



Stop embellishing it.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I am supposed to rely on someone who just now - very knowingly - omitted to include the next sentence in Sollecito's arrest hearing in which he stated he could not remember whether Knox went out or not.

Oh, you mean never mentioned that like this, several posts upthread? I even typed it in all caps for you:

Quote:

DO YOU SEE HIM ANYWHERE IN THAT STATEMENT SAYING KNOX HAD GONE OUT THAT NIGHT? THE MOST HE COULD DO IS SAY HE COULDN'T REMEMBER FOR SURE.

Originally Posted by Vixen

Any particular reason you need to lie about the facts contained in a court document?

I haven't. Any particular reason you need to lie about a myriad of disproven claims, including your lie that Sollecito burned the hard disks on the 3 laptops? Despite being shown in the court documents that they were fried while in the possession of the police, you just kept right on repeating it. Then there's your claim that the M-B MR acquitting them "for not having committed the act" was just a typo. Let's not forget your claim that the pair were not acquitted for theft because that charge was dropped. Even quoting and citing the M-B MR stating they were acquitted of theft didn't phase you. Those are just the ones of the top of my head pertaining to court records.

Originally Posted by Vixen

The issue about the laptops has been thoroughly discussed already, if you would care to do a search on the thread.

Yep...and you were disproven then, too, if you would care to do a search on the thread.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

She seemed very excited by the Vaseline jar in Mez' room. How weird.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...4#post13955064


I get that this can be very difficult to understand. However, I also get that you do not understand it. Either way, please cease and desist from defacing my posts, as I have politely requested.

I understand that you think you can gaslight us. I also get that you can't.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

This is the original Matteini report.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...e5b0b994_c.jpg

Stop embellishing it.

And your translation is different in any significant way than the one I gave above?

Stop grasping for straws.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
She " took the courage of her convictions to the witness box"? What an odd statement to make. One is supposed to take the truth to the witness box, not their convictions. A conviction is a belief and Butterworth certainly believed Knox had killed her friend. That's called being a hostile witness: a witness whose relationship to the lawyer’s client is such that his testimony is likely to be prejudicial.

Butterworth said nothing of the sort.

Nothing of what sort? Did I quote her or even paraphrase anything she said above?

Quote:

She gave a straightforward account of Knox' behaviour, which she testified she found strange, distressing and upsetting.

She gave her account of Knox's behavior as she interpreted it. Please quote and cite Butterworth saying she found Knox's behavior distressing or upsetting.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I was using the term colloquially, because, of course, in assessing which charges to bring, the prosecutor can indeed weigh up whether a killing was murder, manslaughter, self-defence, or by someone unfit to plead (mentally defective, insane, etc.)


Most crimes are a straightforward test of did you do it or did you not.

No, Vixen. You were using the term incorrectly.

The word you should have been using was justification.

As (virtually) always - including your ongoing uninformed nonsense about the ECHR - you don’t know what you’re talking about.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I understand that you think you can gaslight us. I also get that you can't.

Please only speak for yourself and don't try to hide behind the coat-tails of an imaginary 'us'.

[Jack by the hedge]

Okay, maybe you can gaslight some of us. Is that better?

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Please only speak for yourself and don't try to hide behind the coat-tails of an imaginary 'us'.

Be that as it may, you claimed that when you posted that horribly slanderous account of Knox's first-day behaviour, which including things like false claims of bullying, etc........

You further claimed that you were only quoting one of the British friends. You said you were quoting what she had said, 'at trial'.

I posted John Follain's account of their testimony, and it bore NO relation to your false claim. The tone of the British friends was that they found Knox weird, but they also wanted to make it plain that they were NOT accusing her.

Are you prepared to admit that you were in error when you made up stuff about the British friends court testimony? My view is that you made it up, to cover for your original slander against Knox, claiming falsely that you were simply quoting someone else. I suppose you have a right to your own opinions, as well as a right to unfairly slander someone if you so wish. I wish you'd just own it, rather than try to sluff it off on someone else - speaking for them, rather than quoting (accurately) from them.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

Be that as it may, you claimed that when you posted that horribly slanderous account of Knox's first-day behaviour, which including things like false claims of bullying, etc........

You further claimed that you were only quoting one of the British friends. You said you were quoting what she had said, 'at trial'.

I posted John Follain's account of their testimony, and it bore NO relation to your false claim. The tone of the British friends was that they found Knox weird, but they also wanted to make it plain that they were NOT accusing her.

Are you prepared to admit that you were in error when you made up stuff about the British friends court testimony? My view is that you made it up, to cover for your original slander against Knox, claiming falsely that you were simply quoting someone else. I suppose you have a right to your own opinions, as well as a right to unfairly slander someone if you so wish. I wish you'd just own it, rather than try to sluff it off on someone else - speaking for them, rather than quoting (accurately) from them.

I didn't say the British girls accused her. I said they related that they found her behaviour strange, distressing and upsetting.

[Vixen]

Here's a quote from the late John Kercher from his book, Meredith, about his daughter, about the first time he came face to face with Knox in court:

Quote:

When Amanda Knox was called to take the stand in the court, I was shocked to discover that her language was more like that of a high-school teenager than a mature young woman. She said of Meredith's death: 'It was a disgusting death. I imagined that it was a slow death; a death that was shocking, yucky, disgusting.'

For someone who wasn't there, Knox' reaction to Mez' murder seems incredibly visceral. Reliving the moment perchance...?

Imagine saying that in front of Meredith's father.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I didn't say the British girls accused her. I said they related that they found her behaviour strange, distressing and upsetting.

I'm not sure you consider when you post, that there is a written record of what you had previously posted!!!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...9#post13954229

You said far, far, far more than,"behaviour strange, distressing and upsetting." That slanderous post of yours, you said you were simply citing court testimony for the British friends.

Your slanderous post, which everyone can read, goes far far beyond.

[Numbers]

Originally Posted by Vixen

No they do not. The ECHR went by Bongiorno's dishonest statements in Boninsegna. The Matteini report clearly shows she was not a suspect until after her confession, and in any case an interpreter was there. There is zero evidence a 'confession was extracted'. The ECHR and Boninsegnia criticises the police for being too familiar, too nice, comforting, hugging and patting her hand, which was inappropriate.


Occam's razor says she named Patrick to deflect attention away from herself and to pervert the course of justice.

Vixen, your quoted post is missing any display of understanding of the role of the ECHR and how it comes to its judgments, even though explanations have been posted repeatedly in this thread and its continuations.

In forming its judgment in the case Knox v. Italy, the ECHR examined all the relevant evidence - material in the motivation reports and other court records, that were provided by the Government of Italy - and reached conclusions based on logically reasoned inferences supported by that evidence and in accordance with ECHR case law. The Government of Italy had an opportunity to explain or otherwise defend the actions of its agents (police, interpreters employed by police, and courts) and its legal or judicial practices that were under review. ECHR judgments conform so closely to its case law that those of us who had read more than a superficial amount of EHCR publications were able to largely predict accurately the outcome of the ECHR case Knox v. Italy.

The Italian government has acknowledged that Italian judges need additional training in ECHR case law in order for Italy to fulfill its Council of Europe treaty obligations. As part of its effort to train judges in ECHR case law, the Italian government held training programs for judges in Naples in May and October of 2022. The concentrations of the first programs covered four areas not directly related to the case Knox v. Italy. These programs will continue in 2023.

The programs "aim at identifying viable and effective solutions to the shortcomings highlighted by the ECHR judgments and the Committee of Ministers’ decisions in specific cases."

Quote:

Italy launches novel training courses for Judges to enhance the execution of ECHR judgments

Source: https://www.coe.int/en/web/execution...echr-judgments

[Numbers]

Originally Posted by Numbers

Vixen, your quoted post is missing any display of understanding of the role of the ECHR and how it comes to its judgments, even though explanations have been posted repeatedly in this thread and its continuations.

In forming its judgment in the case Knox v. Italy, the ECHR examined all the relevant evidence - material in the motivation reports and other court records, that were provided by the Government of Italy - and reached conclusions based on logically reasoned inferences supported by that evidence and in accordance with ECHR case law. The Government of Italy had an opportunity to explain or otherwise defend the actions of its agents (police, interpreters employed by police, and courts) and its legal or judicial practices that were under review. ECHR judgments conform so closely to its case law that those of us who had read more than a superficial amount of EHCR publications were able to largely predict accurately the outcome of the ECHR case Knox v. Italy.

The Italian government has acknowledged that Italian judges need additional training in ECHR case law in order for Italy to fulfill its Council of Europe treaty obligations. As part of its effort to train judges in ECHR case law, the Italian government held training programs for judges in Naples in May and October of 2022. The concentrations of the first programs covered four areas not directly related to the case Knox v. Italy. These programs will continue in 2023.

The programs "aim at identifying viable and effective solutions to the shortcomings highlighted by the ECHR judgments and the Committee of Ministers’ decisions in specific cases."



Source: https://www.coe.int/en/web/execution...echr-judgments

For those who might believe that Italy does not suffer from significant human rights violations or that it ignores ECHR judgments, it's informative to compare Italy's payments for Just Satisfaction to those of the other CoE states.

For the period 2012 - 2022, Italy has paid much more in Just Satisfaction awards than any other Council of Europe state with the exception of Russia, which withdrew from the CoE in 2022. Here are the amounts, in Euros, for some states of interest, including four other western European democracies.

Russia: 2,054,152,582 EUR
Italy: 292,600,154 EUR
Turkey: 179,000,682 EUR

UK: 2,850,939 EUR
France: 21,902,411 EUR
Spain: 1,710,648 EUR
Germany: 2,082,479 EUR

Source: https://www.coe.int/en/web/execution/italy

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

I'm not sure you consider when you post, that there is a written record of what you had previously posted!!!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...9#post13954229

You said far, far, far more than,"behaviour strange, distressing and upsetting." That slanderous post of yours, you said you were simply citing court testimony for the British friends.

Your slanderous post, which everyone can read, goes far far beyond.

I stand by my opinion. Robyn Butterworth in her deposition said that none of the friends of Mez knew she was dead, let alone how she died, yet Knox was heard saying in the Questura how she was first to find the body, which Butterworth understood was inside a closet. She says she distinctly remembers this because Brits use the word 'wardrobe'.

Quote:

RB: Amanda. Amanda's behavior seemed strange, for me it was difficult to be around her because she showed no emotion, everyone was very upset as she seemed to show no emotion and didn't even feel emotions compared to all the others who were troubled. GM: Remember if there were girls crying? RB: Yes, we all we cried, I didn't see Amanda cry. GM: The two Italian flatmates were there? RB: Yes, they were there. GM: And they way they were. ? Crying? RB: Yes, I feel like I remember that Laura hugged me and we both cried. Then I also remember Filomena was very upset. GM: While Amanda was ... She looked, she said, you know, felt it was insensitive and not crying. <snip> GM: Another thing before I go any further on the story of Amanda. The two, Raffaele and Amanda, you passed the written, kissing, had of effusions? Behold, during an attendance in the antechamber of the police headquarters. RB: Yes, I remember kissing, he joked. Sometimes they even laughed at times, I remember that Amanda did as a Bigmouth, pulled out his tongue to Raphael. I remember that they had moved the chairs to stay closer and that Amanda had put his feet on Raphael. Remember that showing affection, kissing, I don't remember seeing that they exchanged business cards. GM: Amanda told what had happened on the morning of 2? RB: He did not speak directly with me but I was there in the room, then I heard what she was saying. Remember I said that Meredith was in the closet, wrapped in a blanket. GM: Then she said she saw? Amanda. RB: I can't remember if she said she saw Meredith. Remember I said that Meredith was in the closet wrapped in a blanket GCM: In the closet? What? RB: Yes. Remember this, because she used the word "closet" that is an American term, whereas I would have said "wardrobe" which is British.

and further:

Quote:

GCM: He said it was in the closet covered with a blanket? RB: I don't know how this is possible but this is what he said. GCM: Can ask maybe if this aspect they did questions: but how is it possible? If expressed perplexity, questions about this show made by Amanda Knox? RB: No, because at that time I was very upset and then I pulled away. GCM: Please, we can proceed. GM: Look, do you remember if Amanda added detail on death, saying. remember if you said it was bled Meredith?

RB: Remember the thing because it troubled me. I was sitting, Nathalie was on the ground and Nathalie said: "well, I hope at least that has not suffered". And then Amanda said: "what the **** do you think? She bled out " <snip, irrelevant exchange>

GM: Then, he said "what do you think-with the phrase he used--has bled out." He said so. RB: Yes, as if to say, "sure she suffered, of course, must've hurt" GM: Behold, you knew at that moment it was dead Amanda? You and present? AK: That GCM: Meredith, of course, Yes, as Meredith's death. RB: No, no one told us anything

Knox later claimed that Luca Alteieri told her all of this in the car and that he had told Sollecito and Knox sitting with him that he saw a policeman or ambulance man making a slashing gesture with his throat and that is how he got to know about the throat cut. Altieri is not a reliable witness as he claimed to have seen cell phones he could not have seen and I believe he is another Popanovic, misconceivedly helping Sollecito out as some kind of help a guy in distress offering.

Quote:

Can you tell us who remembers how people present to the police station? RB: All by name? CP: Yes, please. RB: Amy Frost, Sophie Purton, Samantha Rosenhurst, Nathalie Hayword I think his surname, Jade Bidwell, Helen Power, then of course Laura and Filomena, Amanda and Raffaele. The boyfriend of Filomena, can't remember her name, I just know it was her boyfriend. The girl who lived downstairs, i don't know their names. Remember James and Stephen. The man working on Merlin pub, Pisco, I think this is his name.

MB: We go to the time when you heard about the death of Meredith, before going to the police station. Remember what time did you hear the news, and by whom? RB: Nobody has said to us that Meredith had died. MB: He spoke only of a dead girl? RB: We knew it was Meredith because we were all in that room together and she was the only one that weren't there.

So Butterworth had every right to report that she perceived Knox' behaviour as distressing and even showing off - a type of behaviour that must have been very upsetting when none of them knew what had happened, other than that something had happened to their friend.

Quote:

RB: I was standing with Filomena and Amanda and Raffaele were sitting in front of me, and Nathalie had spoken on the phone with his mother. They had heard on the news that he had said something about a threatening call or threat. We didn't know what it was, but I remember I was trying to explain to Filomena the meaning of the word "threat". So I was pronouncing this word and I think Raffaele have asked Amanda what it meant. Remember that Amanda and Raffaele watched and kept repeating the word "threat" threat over and over again in English and they laughed, they laughed. It was just a little weird. Weird a bit the way he said it, he uttered that Word, not the fact that the ruling. It seemed a bit awkward, I felt a little uncomfortable.

Source: DEPOSITION OF HEADS-ROBYN CARMEL BUTTERWORTH – FEBRUARY 13, 2009 Key to abbreviations GCM Giancarlo Massei Judge Chairman GM Giuliano Mignini Prosecutor Prosecutor RB Robyn Butterworth Witness being questioned Meredith Kercher's friend Lumumba's Lawyer Carlo Pacelli CP civil lawyer MB Marco Brusco Raffaele Sollecito's defense lawyer Attorney DR Daniela Rocchi Defense Counsel for Raffaele Sollecito Lawyer LG Luciano Ghirga Knox defense lawyer Attorney CDV Carlo Dalla Vedova Knox defense lawyer Attorney Counsel for Kercher family Francesco Maresca FM (civil plaintiffs) Attorney Av1 Lawyer Unidentified Defense lawyer Av2 Lawyer Unidentified Defense lawyer INT Interpreter THE HEADS, CAUTIONED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ART. 4 97 JUDICIAL CODE

So, not at all slanderous. Knox knew all about the cause of death before anyone else and certainly nobody official had informed her. In addition, as of that time it was not known (from blood spatter forensics) that the victim was killed by the closet and later moved. Nor that she had had 'her throat slit' '******* bled to death' slowly.

Laughing and giggling in front of people dealt a stunning grievous blow is disgusting behaviour and definitely counts as a form of bullying. One of the British girls said she felt like hitting Knox, she was so obnoxious. This is recorded witness statements of fact of how she made people feel.

We only need to read marasca-Bruno to note that as far as they are concerned, Knox was present at the murder as a matter of upheld legal finding of fact.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Here's a quote from the late John Kercher from his book, Meredith, about his daughter, about the first time he came face to face with Knox in court:

Quote:

Quote:
When Amanda Knox was called to take the stand in the court, I was shocked to discover that her language was more like that of a high-school teenager than a mature young woman. She said of Meredith's death: 'It was a disgusting death. I imagined that it was a slow death; a death that was shocking, yucky, disgusting.'

For someone who wasn't there, Knox' reaction to Mez' murder seems incredibly visceral. Reliving the moment perchance...?

Imagine saying that in front of Meredith's father.

Imagine how any father would react to anything said by the person he thinks killed his daughter. Of course it's going to be negative and super critical. The word 'yucky' is not restricted to teenagers.

I'm wondering exactly why you brought either John Kercher or this particular quote up? But since you did:

Immediately preceding that quote, John K wrote this:



Amanda never said that the body was found in front of the wardrobe. Amy Frost and Robyn Butterworth

Quote:

testified that Knox told the group that Kercher's body was found "inside" the wardrobe covered with a duvet. In fact the body was discovered beside Kercher's bed, according to crime-scene photos.

So JK's confusion wasn't based on the facts because Amanda did not know the actual original location of the body.

Quote:

And the British witnesses were bothered by what they felt was Knox bragging about being on the scene when Kercher's body was found. "She said 'I found her. She was in the closet with a blanket on top of her,'" testified Frost. "I felt like she was proud."

(ibid)

This kind of comment should never be allowed in court because it is a personal and very subjective opinion that may or may not be an accurate depiction of how the defendant felt and it can influence a jury. It is not evidence. Frost and Butterworth made no secret of their opinion of Knox and that certainly influenced how they interpreted everything related to her. Merely recounting what happened that morning/afternoon to the others could be inferred as 'bragging' and being 'proud' by them due to confirmation bias.
Another example of this are people who consistently malign Knox and/or Sollecito with snarky, childish nicknames and grossly exaggerated comments that reveal their own strong bias.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I stand by my opinion. Robyn Butterworth in her deposition said that none of the friends of Mez the victim knew she was dead, let alone how she died, yet Knox was heard saying in the Questura how she was first to find the body, which Butterworth understood was inside a closet. She says she distinctly remembers this because Brits use the word 'wardrobe'.

<..... suspicious deletia .....>

So, not at all slanderous. Knox knew all about the cause of death before anyone else and certainly nobody official had informed her. In addition, as of that time it was not known (from blood spatter forensics) that the victim was killed by the closet and later moved. Nor that she had had 'her throat slit' '******* bled to death' slowly.

In other words, you're claiming that Knox was suspected before the Nov 5/6 interrogation. That they knew this by her behaviour.

Yet in other posts, when you're trying to make other points, you say that Knox was not suspected until naming Lumumba. Pick a lane.

Originally Posted by Vixen

Laughing and giggling in front of people dealt a stunning grievous blow is disgusting behaviour and definitely counts as a form of bullying. One of the British girls said she felt like hitting Knox, she was so obnoxious. This is recorded witness statements of fact of how she made people feel.

Doubling down on the 'laughing and giggling' nonsense is useless. Indeed, when challenged you said that you were simply quoting from court testimony of the English friends.

Yet those friends, according to prosecution-friendly John Follain, said that Knox was annoying, but they cautioned that they did not want that to sound like they suspected Knox of anything to do with the murder.

Originally Posted by Vixen

We only need to read marasca-Bruno to note that as far as they are concerned, Knox was present at the murder as a matter of upheld legal finding of fact.

For the umpteenth time:

Originally Posted by Marasca-Bruno

Nevertheless, even if attribution 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.

The core of the Marasca-Bruno motivations report is that the Nencini court failed to find evidence which put them in the room at the time of the murder. That all it meant was that they were there 'later', which NO ONE denies.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Vixen

For someone who wasn't there, Knox' reaction to Mez' murder seems incredibly visceral. Reliving the moment perchance...?

You weren't there either. Yet your descriptions have been even more bloodthirsty than hers. So, should we assume you too are reliving a moment perchance?

Or shall we just observe that you are trying to insinuate there's a sinister inference in her words which simply doesn't exist? Yeah. It's that.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I didn't say the British girls accused her. I said they related that they found her behaviour strange, distressing and upsetting.

Those were not the words you used and attributed to them. You shouldn't wave straw so near the gaslight.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I stand by my opinion. Robyn Butterworth in her deposition said that none of the friends of Mez knew she was dead, let alone how she died, yet Knox was heard saying in the Questura how she was first to find the body, which Butterworth understood was inside a closet. She says she distinctly remembers this because Brits use the word 'wardrobe'.

[/spoiler]

and further:

They didn't know Meredith was dead? Oh, come on now! In that same deposition, RB says that a lady from the uni had called and asked Sophie if she knew a girl named Meredith because the body of a girl named Meredith had been found. Sophie then went to RB's house and told them this but the woman had a couple things wrong that didn't match so they weren't sure if it was Meredith or not. So they started walking to VdP7 when the police called Sophie and picked up the girls near the Univ. for Foreigners and took them to the questura. RS and AK came in after. Do you expect us to believe they hadn't figured out it was Meredith or would the police have called Sophie and taken them to the questura with Amanda then arriving because a stranger named Meredith had been killed? Pull the other one. (From your own link, pg. 14)

Originally Posted by Vixen

Knox later claimed that Luca Alteieri told her all of this in the car and that he had told Sollecito and Knox sitting with him that he saw a policeman or ambulance man making a slashing gesture with his throat and that is how he got to know about the throat cut. Altieri is not a reliable witness as he claimed to have seen cell phones he could not have seen and I believe he is another Popanovic, misconceivedly helping Sollecito out as some kind of help a guy in distress offering.

So now you're claiming yet another witness is a liar in order to help Sollecito...whom he'd never met...because he was 'another guy'? Unbelievable! It's amazing what you cherry pick to believe or not to believe from testimony depending on your bias. Altieri testified under oath that he told AK and RS in the car that Kercher's throat had been cut. This is not opinion or feelings or subjective testimony:

Quote:

Altieri: Yes, yes, yes, after a while, you know, after the Red Cross car arrived, the Scientific Police and the Carabinieri arrived, all of them, after a while one of the two medics, I believe, the driver of the Red Cross, it wasn’t an ambulance, he came out of the crime scene, let’s say, from inside the house, speaking to one of the Carabinieri that was there outside and he described a bit about what had happened, saying… referring to the both the fact the her throat had been cut and that she had also fought back, let’s say, and from this I understood this thing.

Quote:

Mignini: OK, do you remember if Sollecito spoke to you in the Police Station, did he speak of this fact? What did he say to you?

Altieri: Look, the only exchange of words was while we were going to the Police station in the car, let’s say, where he asked me if she was dead. I was a bit shocked at the question, I responded “yes”. And then after he asked me, if I remember correctly, how she died, something of this sort, and so I explained to him this thing that I’d heard outside.

Quote:

Mignini: When did she cry?

Altieri: Now, after I… she asked me this… I don’t remember well if she asked how, with what she had been killed, basically, how they had cut her throat, and when I gave her the answer to this question she burst out crying.

[quote=Vixen;13955745]So Butterworth had every right to report that she perceived Knox' behaviour as distressing and even showing off - a type of behaviour that must have been very upsetting when none of them knew what had happened, other than that something had happened to their friend.[quote]

She had the right to report what Knox actually said or did, but her own interpretation of what Knox was feeling (proud) or doing (bragging) is not evidence but opinion.

Originally Posted by Vixen

So, not at all slanderous.

One can't be sued for libel or slander for a personal opinion.

Originally Posted by Vixen

Knox knew all about the cause of death before anyone else and certainly nobody official had informed her.

No, she only knew what Altieri had told her in the car per his testimony. That you need to accuse him of committing perjury about that when he had no motive...being another 'guy' is not a motive by any rational thinking...is beyond ludicrous.

Originally Posted by Vixen

In addition, as of that time it was not known (from blood spatter forensics) that the victim was killed by the closet and later moved.

Knox never said where she was killed or that she was moved. And she even got where the body was found wrong. Why do you need to lie about what is in official court records?

Originally Posted by Vixen

Nor that she had had 'her throat slit' '******* bled to death' slowly.

Again, why do you need to lie about what is written in court documents? Knox never said she '******* bled to death' slowly."That you felt the need to add your own made up 'slowly' to that is very revealing.

Originally Posted by Vixen

Laughing and giggling in front of people dealt a stunning grievous blow is disgusting behaviour and definitely counts as a form of bullying.

No, it's not. Oh...unless you're using "bullying" colloquially?

Originally Posted by Vixen

One of the British girls said she felt like hitting Knox, she was so obnoxious. This is recorded witness statements of fact of how she made people feel.

Citation needed...not that you'd just make something completely up, misrepresent it or take it out of context.

Originally Posted by Vixen

We only need to read marasca-Bruno to note that as far as they are concerned, Knox was present at the murder as a matter of upheld legal finding of fact.

One only needs to read M-B to note that, as far as they are concerned, Knox was acquitted for not having committed the murder as a matter of upheld legal finding of fact. And it's been explained to you umpteen times that her being at the cottage was a pre-existing judicial fact that they had no legal choice but to incorporate into their ruling.

Do read the court documents.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

You weren't there either. Yet your descriptions have been even more bloodthirsty than hers. So, should we assume you too are reliving a moment perchance?

Or shall we just observe that you are trying to insinuate there's a sinister inference in her words which simply doesn't exist? Yeah. It's that.

For someone who wasn't there and has never exchanged a word with anyone involved, she seems to know a tremendous amount of what they were feeling, thinking, intending, etc. which she shares with us frequently. Maybe she's channeling her inner Gabriella Carlizzi or maybe Ergon...who, incidentally refers to Guede as a 'drifter' in his TJMK ramblings of how psychic he is. You'll get a laugh from his astrology analysis of Knox, Sollecito, Guede, and Kercher.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

Those were not the words you used and attributed to them. You shouldn't wave straw so near the gaslight.

[Numbers]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

....

One can't be sued for libel or slander for a personal opinion.
....

That all depends. In the US, a statement of fact presented as an opinion ("it is my opinion that X murdered Y") may be actionable as defamation (libel or slander).

A statement of subjective view ("it is my opinion that X is a bad person") would not usually be actionable in the US.

See, for example:

https://www.minclaw.com/legal-resour...on-defamatory/

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/op...famation-47607

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Numbers

That all depends. In the US, a statement of fact presented as an opinion ("it is my opinion that X murdered Y") may be actionable as defamation (libel or slander).

A statement of subjective view ("it is my opinion that X is a bad person") would not usually be actionable in the US.

See, for example:

https://www.minclaw.com/legal-resour...on-defamatory/

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/op...famation-47607

I was using 'slander' colloquially and the word 'cannot' was a typo. Those two websites you linked to are obviously bent and the authors are just shills for criminals.



(Thanks for the correction )

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Imagine how any father would react to anything said by the person he thinks killed his daughter. Of course it's going to be negative and super critical. The word 'yucky' is not restricted to teenagers.

I'm wondering exactly why you brought either John Kercher or this particular quote up? But since you did:

Immediately preceding that quote, John K wrote this:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...682d389923.jpg

Amanda never said that the body was found in front of the wardrobe. Amy Frost and Robyn Butterworth

So JK's confusion wasn't based on the facts because Amanda did not know the actual original location of the body.


(ibid)

This kind of comment should never be allowed in court because it is a personal and very subjective opinion that may or may not be an accurate depiction of how the defendant felt and it can influence a jury. It is not evidence. Frost and Butterworth made no secret of their opinion of Knox and that certainly influenced how they interpreted everything related to her. Merely recounting what happened that morning/afternoon to the others could be inferred as 'bragging' and being 'proud' by them due to confirmation bias.
Another example of this are people who consistently malign Knox and/or Sollecito with snarky, childish nicknames and grossly exaggerated comments that reveal their own strong bias.

First of all, this is a section of a forum on the topic of Trials and Errors. If you do not wish to discuss such a thing then you are not obliged to even read it, so stop trying to censor discussion of this unresolved case.

The victim was murdered nearby the 'closet'. Nobody knew this until the forensic guys went in much later.

Secondly, Knox was nowhere near the door when it was forced open, so her claim to be 'first to find the body' is curious, as she and Sollecito hung well back. The fact she knew of the method of killing, the slow death and where exactly the murder happened is a perfectly reasonable area of investigation.

It was a deposition. Why shouldn't Mez' friends be a witness as to the events leading up to it and its immediate afterrmath?

Here is the actual transcript and as under oath.

Quote:

RB: He did not speak directly with me but I was there in the room, then I heard what she was saying. Remember I said that Meredith was in the closet, wrapped in a blanket. GM: Then she said she saw? Amanda. RB: I can't remember if she said she saw Meredith. Remember I said that Meredith was in the closet wrapped in a blanket GCM: In the closet? What? RB: Yes. Remember this, because she used the word "closet" that is an American term, whereas I would have said "wardrobe" which is British. So remember this thing, in fact I went home and I scored. <snip> GM: As regards therefore the speech he did then Amanda saying that in practice, she said, had seen her in a closet, wrapped in a blanket? RB: Meredith was in a closet, wrapped in a blanket. GM: But he also said before: "I found it". RB: It was the same phrase. GM: Yes, but he said ... He said it anyway, says, "I found it"? RB: You said: "what do you think about how you feel, I found it." GCM: Excuse me, but this to whoever said, pointing to who? RB: I was sitting in front of her, she was standing, so I think speaking to all of us, as a group of guys

Stop trying to normalise a vicious murder by claiming that Mez' friends were the ones in the wrong for being 'negative and super critical'.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

They didn't know Meredith was dead? Oh, come on now! In that same deposition, RB says that a lady from the uni had called and asked Sophie if she knew a girl named Meredith because the body of a girl named Meredith had been found. Sophie then went to RB's house and told them this but the woman had a couple things wrong that didn't match so they weren't sure if it was Meredith or not. So they started walking to VdP7 when the police called Sophie and picked up the girls near the Univ. for Foreigners and took them to the questura. RS and AK came in after. Do you expect us to believe they hadn't figured out it was Meredith or would the police have called Sophie and taken them to the questura with Amanda then arriving because a stranger named Meredith had been killed? Pull the other one. (From your own link, pg. 14)




So now you're claiming yet another witness is a liar in order to help Sollecito...whom he'd never met...because he was 'another guy'? Unbelievable! It's amazing what you cherry pick to believe or not to believe from testimony depending on your bias. Altieri testified under oath that he told AK and RS in the car that Kercher's throat had been cut. This is not opinion or feelings or subjective testimony:

Originally Posted by Vixen

So Butterworth had every right to report that she perceived Knox' behaviour as distressing and even showing off - a type of behaviour that must have been very upsetting when none of them knew what had happened, other than that something had happened to their friend.

Quote:

She had the right to report what Knox actually said or did, but her own interpretation of what Knox was feeling (proud) or doing (bragging) is not evidence but opinion.





One can't be sued for libel or slander for a personal opinion.



No, she only knew what Altieri had told her in the car per his testimony. That you need to accuse him of committing perjury about that when he had no motive...being another 'guy' is not a motive by any rational thinking...is beyond ludicrous.



Knox never said where she was killed or that she was moved. And she even got where the body was found wrong. Why do you need to lie about what is in official court records?



Again, why do you need to lie about what is written in court documents? Knox never said she '******* bled to death' slowly."That you felt the need to add your own made up 'slowly' to that is very revealing.




No, it's not. Oh...unless you're using "bullying" colloquially?



Citation needed...not that you'd just make something completely up, misrepresent it or take it out of context.



One only needs to read M-B to note that, as far as they are concerned, Knox was acquitted for not having committed the murder as a matter of upheld legal finding of fact. And it's been explained to you umpteen times that her being at the cottage was a pre-existing judicial fact that they had no legal choice but to incorporate into their ruling.

Do read the court documents.

There is no way ordinary person Luca Altieri who happened to arrive at the scene because he gave Filomena a lift would have been informed by the police or anybody else the method and cause of death. He is a liar. A police investigation is sub judice and Altieri is a liar when he says he alone ever witnessed Knox crying - she supposedly burst into tears in the car - when he as Superintendent for Perugia Police and Chief Medical Examiner gravely told the pair as they were speeding down the highway towards the Sheriff's Office, helicopters overhead that the cause of death was a 'slit throat' and that 'of course she died slowly, she had her ******* throat cut!!!' All of this came through on the radio, M'Lud. Whereupon Knox was seized with an urge to ring up all of her friends and relatives in the States to let them know that SHE had found the body! Pay attention to MEEEEEEE!!!


Please refrain from trying to normalise totally aberrant behaviour. What kind of person criticises detectives for finding such outrageous behaviour in the aftermath of a truly disgusting murder suspicious?

BTW I don't know where you get your totally revised erroneous information from but Knox definitely DID say the following as per Butterworth's sworn testimony.

Quote:

RB: Remember the thing because it troubled me. I was sitting, Nathalie was on the ground and Nathalie said: "well, I hope at least that has not suffered". And then Amanda said: "what the **** do you think? She bled out "

So once again the Knox advocates trying to rewrite history. Quelle surprise!


NB Please do something about your formatting. Why should I have to tidy up after you?

[Jack by the hedge]

I fail to see what is suspicious about someone, distressed at their friend being horribly murdered, snapping back at another who says they hope she didn't suffer, when that's pretty obviously not the case and no comfort whatsoever. I mean, what do you suppose is the right thing to say in such circumstances? Thank you for your hopeless but well-meaning platitude?

It seems to me you could only hold that against someone if you came to it absolutely determined to find the most biased and uttery negative interpretation you possibly could.

[whoanellie]

Originally Posted by Vixen

First of all, this is a section of a forum on the topic of Trials and Errors. If you do not wish to discuss such a thing then you are not obliged to even read it, so stop trying to censor discussion of this unresolved case.

The victim was murdered nearby the 'closet'. Nobody knew this until the forensic guys went in much later.

Secondly, Knox was nowhere near the door when it was forced open, so her claim to be 'first to find the body' is curious, as she and Sollecito hung well back. The fact she knew of the method of killing, the slow death and where exactly the murder happened is a perfectly reasonable area of investigation.

It was a deposition. Why shouldn't Mez' friends be a witness as to the events leading up to it and its immediate afterrmath?

Here is the actual transcript and as under oath.



Stop trying to normalise a vicious murder by claiming that Mez' friends were the ones in the wrong for being 'negative and super critical'.

Oh Vixen, the case has been resolved. You are profoundly unhappy with that result, but it is final. The Supreme Court in Italy has issued its final ruling. Now that is a 'judicial fact'.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Vixen

The victim was murdered nearby the 'closet'. Nobody knew this until the forensic guys went in much later.

Huh? One of the postal police, Battistelli, saw the scene as soon as the door was opened. In fact, Filomena's boyfriend saw the seen, as he was the one who forced the door. I note that yu are now calling him a liar!

It is impossible to know how quickly rumours spread based on what they said, either to the other postal, or to the people already there like Filomena. To claim that NOBODY saw the scene betrays a complete ignorant of the ost basic facts of the accounts of those first hours.

But we've now come a long way from your claim to be simply quoting the British girls court testimony, when you wrote that slanderous post of completely unfactual, bullying behaviour by Knox, behaviour which no one else reported, and which was not on the list of her behaviour which police cited as making them suspicious of her. Things like putting booties on at the cottage and sayin 'oop-la'.

Indeed, it has been shown that at trial, the British girls were concerned that they did not want to be seen as accusing Amanda, while at the same time saying that they found her behaviour weird.

Congrats for moving the goalposts, quite successfully.

Originally Posted by Vixen

Stop trying to normalise a vicious murder by claiming that Mez' The victim's friends were the ones in the wrong for being 'negative and super critical'.

No, I was saying that YOU were in the wrong for misquoting their testimony at trial, and then using that misquote to defend saying unfounded slanderous things.

[Numbers]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

In other words, you're claiming that Knox was suspected before the Nov 5/6 interrogation. That they knew this by her behaviour.

Yet in other posts, when you're trying to make other points, you say that Knox was not suspected until naming Lumumba. Pick a lane.

....

For the umpteenth time:
The core of the Marasca-Bruno motivations report is that the Nencini court failed to find evidence which put them in the room at the time of the murder. That all it meant was that they were there 'later', which NO ONE denies.

Bill Williams, I missed this when I read it the first time.

I think your statement has an error. Correct me if I am wrong.

The Marasca CSC panel MR indeed states that there was no [credible] evidence of Knox and Sollecito in the murder room. It does acknowledge that Knox and Sollecito were in the cottage at some unspecified times. IIUC, no one has argued that Knox and Sollecito were not in the cottage - but not the murder room itself - [hours] after the murder took place.

IIUC, the Marasca CSC panel MR does not at all state that Knox and/or Sollecito were in the murder room at some unspecified time.

[Numbers]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Being a suspect by the police in an initial investigation is not the same as there being enough probable cause to charge by the prosecutor.

As for the sex toys business, since the treatment of the victim was utterly disgusting with her privacy invaded and her body mutilated, then I am afraid lewd behaviour by a suspect does become relevant in a sex crime.

For Italy and other CoE countries, the appropriate term is "reasonable suspicion", which is defined by ECHR case law. "Probable cause" is a somewhat similar concept, but is the term used in the US and possibly other countries to indicate that there are legally justified objective reasons to arrest someone or obtain a search warrant, etc.

Reasonable suspicion is defined under ECHR case law: "A “reasonable suspicion” that a criminal offence has been committed presupposes the existence of facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have committed an offence .... [A] failure by the authorities to make a genuine inquiry into the basic facts of a case in order to verify whether a complaint was well-founded" is thus a violation of Convention Article 5.1c.

See paragraph 90 of Source 1.

Furthermore, "the facts relied on [for reasonable suspicion] can be reasonably considered to fall under one of the sections of the law dealing with criminal behaviour. Thus, there could clearly not be a “reasonable suspicion” if the acts or facts held against a detained person did not constitute a crime ...."

See paragraph 94 of Source 1.

For example, the various statements by Kercher's British friends claiming alleged "strange behavior" by Knox could not be considered a basis for "reasonable suspicion" according to ECHR case law. Similarly, the alleged "behavioral" clues claimed by Giobbi as a basis for his suspicions of Knox and Sollecito could not be considered a basis for "reasonable suspicion" according to ECHR case law.

Thus, having a sex toy (for example, a vibrator) or a condom by itself would not be considered a basis for reasonable suspicion, unless it were shown to be related to the crime, for example, by credible biological evidence of the victim associated with that object. So-called "lewd behavior" would likewise not be a basis for reasonable suspicion if it itself were legal - many people have consensual sexual acts with (or without) others that some may call "lewd" and those people are not engaged in or likely to be engaged in any nonconsensual or illegal sexual acts.

Sources:

1. https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_5_ENG.pdf
See paragraphs 89 -100 and especially paragraphs 90 and 94.

2. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

The core of the Marasca-Bruno motivations report is that the Nencini court failed to find evidence which put them in the room at the time of the murder. That all it meant was that they were there 'later', which NO ONE denies.

Originally Posted by Numbers

Bill Williams, I missed this when I read it the first time.

I think your statement has an error. Correct me if I am wrong.

The Marasca CSC panel MR indeed states that there was no [credible] evidence of Knox and Sollecito in the murder room. It does acknowledge that Knox and Sollecito were in the cottage at some unspecified times. IIUC, no one has argued that Knox and Sollecito were not in the cottage - but not the murder room itself - [hours] after the murder took place.

IIUC, the Marasca CSC panel MR does not at all state that Knox and/or Sollecito were in the murder room at some unspecified time.

I do not see the error of mine that you claim is there. Maybe it is there, I don't know, but you have not pointed specifically to one.

With that said, all of what you summarized as being in the M-B report is, indeed, accurate. No one denies that both Knox and Sollecito were in the cottage after the murder - indeed, Knox and Sollecito were there quite alone by their own admission. Knox, by her own admission, was there in the middle-morning of the 2nd.

Marasca-Bruno found that the blood evidence was ill-conceived from a legal point of view. However, they added, even if the blood evidence was solid, all that that did was put the pair in the cottage in another location (other than the murder room) and at a later time. They surmised that even if Knox had tracked blood around, that she must have picked up that blood from another part of the cottage, ie. secondary transfer. (They didn't say it, but the implication is that Knox had unintentionally picked up some of the victim's blood from a location other than the murderroom, and deposited it in the bathroom. I wish Marasca-Bruno had been more specific in their reasoning, but the reasoning is solid and can be read by anyone.)

MB concluded that Nencini had convicted on a legal-error, of misunderstanding what the evidence meant, even if the blood evidence had been solid. Which it wasn't.

Yes, on the base of it, M-B concluded that Knox was in the cottage. But the way Nencini had mishandled the blood evidence, nothing could bridge the legal gap to put either of them into the murder room at the time of the murder. That's an evidentiary alibi, that Nencini missed. There was no 'there' there as to their participation in murder.

So, even if the blood evidence had been solid, which it was not, Nencini erred in convicting.

Where's the error in that?

[Numbers]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

I....The core of the Marasca-Bruno motivations report is that the Nencini court failed to find evidence which put them in the room at the time of the murder. That all it meant was that they were there 'later', which NO ONE denies.

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

I do not see the error of mine that you claim is there. Maybe it is there, I don't know, but you have not pointed specifically to one.

With that said, all of what you summarized as being in the M-B report is, indeed, accurate. No one denies that both Knox and Sollecito were in the cottage after the murder - indeed, Knox and Sollecito were there quite alone by their own admission. Knox, by her own admission, was there in the middle-morning of the 2nd.

Marasca-Bruno found that the blood evidence was ill-conceived from a legal point of view. However, they added, even if the blood evidence was solid, all that that did was put the pair in the cottage in another location (other than the murder room) and at a later time. They surmised that even if Knox had tracked blood around, that she must have picked up that blood from another part of the cottage, ie. secondary transfer. (They didn't say it, but the implication is that Knox had unintentionally picked up some of the victim's blood from a location other than the murderroom, and deposited it in the bathroom. I wish Marasca-Bruno had been more specific in their reasoning, but the reasoning is solid and can be read by anyone.)

MB concluded that Nencini had convicted on a legal-error, of misunderstanding what the evidence meant, even if the blood evidence had been solid. Which it wasn't.

Yes, on the base of it, M-B concluded that Knox was in the cottage. But the way Nencini had mishandled the blood evidence, nothing could bridge the legal gap to put either of them into the murder room at the time of the murder. That's an evidentiary alibi, that Nencini missed. There was no 'there' there as to their participation in murder.

So, even if the blood evidence had been solid, which it was not, Nencini erred in convicting.

Where's the error in that?

Bill Williams, I should have been more specific. It's a grammar-related issue that could cause confusion.

The word "there" in your first-quoted post above, by the usual rules of English grammar as I understand them, must refer to "the room". But I believe your intended meaning (referent for "there") is "the cottage", a referent not in the sentence preceding the one containing "there".

IIUC, there is no credible evidence that Knox and/or Sollecito were ever in Kercher's room.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Numbers

Bill Williams, I should have been more specific. It's a grammar-related issue that could cause confusion.

The word "there" in your first-quoted post above, by the usual rules of English grammar as I understand them, must refer to "the room". But I believe your intended meaning (referent for "there") is "the cottage", a referent not in the sentence preceding the one containing "there".

IIUC, there is no credible evidence that Knox and/or Sollecito were ever in Kercher's room.

You are quite correct, I was sloppy in the use of the 'there' in that sentence. M-B said that there was no [credible] evidence that Knox and/or Sollecito had been in the murderroom at the time of the murder, but that the [blood] evidence, even if true which it probably wasn't, had only put them 'there', ie. in another location in the cottage, at a later time.

Indeed, there was no [credible] evidence that they had been 'there', meaning in the murderroom, at any relevant time even after the murder.

Thanks for the correction.

[MarkCorrigan]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

You are quite correct, I was sloppy in the use of the 'there' in that sentence. M-B said that there was no [credible] evidence that Knox and/or Sollecito had been in the murderroom at the time of the murder, but that the [blood] evidence, even if true which it probably wasn't, had only put them 'there', ie. in another location in the cottage, at a later time.

Indeed, there was no [credible] evidence that they had been 'there', meaning in the murderroom, at any relevant time even after the murder.

Thanks for the correction.

What the hell is wrong with you? That's not how you respond to correction! Instead you should throw your arms about and shout the person down claiming that you're not in error at all. Even when it becomes untenable to maintain your position you don't back down, you just try to gaslight people into thinking you never held the opinion that people are quoting you as holding.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

What the hell is wrong with you? That's not how you respond to correction! Instead you should throw your arms about and shout the person down claiming that you're not in error at all. Even when it becomes untenable to maintain your position you don't back down, you just try to gaslight people into thinking you never held the opinion that people are quoting you as holding.

I once tried that, then got accused of boring the crap out of people.

I can't win!

Yes, 'Glory to Ukraine!'

[Numbers]

Originally Posted by Numbers

Vixen, your quoted post is missing any display of understanding of the role of the ECHR and how it comes to its judgments, even though explanations have been posted repeatedly in this thread and its continuations.

In forming its judgment in the case Knox v. Italy, the ECHR examined all the relevant evidence - material in the motivation reports and other court records, that were provided by the Government of Italy - and reached conclusions based on logically reasoned inferences supported by that evidence and in accordance with ECHR case law. The Government of Italy had an opportunity to explain or otherwise defend the actions of its agents (police, interpreters employed by police, and courts) and its legal or judicial practices that were under review. ECHR judgments conform so closely to its case law that those of us who had read more than a superficial amount of EHCR publications were able to largely predict accurately the outcome of the ECHR case Knox v. Italy.

The Italian government has acknowledged that Italian judges need additional training in ECHR case law in order for Italy to fulfill its Council of Europe treaty obligations. As part of its effort to train judges in ECHR case law, the Italian government held training programs for judges in Naples in May and October of 2022. The concentrations of the first programs covered four areas not directly related to the case Knox v. Italy. These programs will continue in 2023.

The programs "aim at identifying viable and effective solutions to the shortcomings highlighted by the ECHR judgments and the Committee of Ministers’ decisions in specific cases."



Source: https://www.coe.int/en/web/execution...echr-judgments

The Department for the Execution of Judgments of the ECHR has a very clear brief overview of the solemn legal responsibility of the respondent state under the supervision process by the Committee of Ministers:

https://www.coe.int/en/web/execution...vision-process

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

What the hell is wrong with you? That's not how you respond to correction! Instead you should throw your arms about and shout the person down claiming that you're not in error at all. Even when it becomes untenable to maintain your position you don't back down, you just try to gaslight people into thinking you never held the opinion that people are quoting you as holding.

I blame Numbers. He was the one being reasonable. The nerve.

His criticism was precise, articulate and well reasoned. Everything we should hate in this thread.

He and I have had our differences. Yet I blame him for keeping those differences on point and with a commitment to actual citations and proper procedure (when it comes to Italian process).

Like I said, the nerve of the guy.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

Huh? One of the postal police, Battistelli, saw the scene as soon as the door was opened. In fact, Filomena's boyfriend saw the seen, as he was the one who forced the door. I note that yu are now calling him a liar!

It is impossible to know how quickly rumours spread based on what they said, either to the other postal, or to the people already there like Filomena. To claim that NOBODY saw the scene betrays a complete ignorant of the ost basic facts of the accounts of those first hours.

But we've now come a long way from your claim to be simply quoting the British girls court testimony, when you wrote that slanderous post of completely unfactual, bullying behaviour by Knox, behaviour which no one else reported, and which was not on the list of her behaviour which police cited as making them suspicious of her. Things like putting booties on at the cottage and sayin 'oop-la'.

Indeed, it has been shown that at trial, the British girls were concerned that they did not want to be seen as accusing Amanda, while at the same time saying that they found her behaviour weird.

Congrats for moving the goalposts, quite successfully.



No, I was saying that YOU were in the wrong for misquoting their testimony at trial, and then using that misquote to defend saying unfounded slanderous things.

Did you not know that the victim was not killed in the position the body was found? Mez was actually killed nearby the 'closet' and her body later placed on a sheet and moved some eighteen inches to where it was found.


Battistelli certainly would not have known this as of 2 Nov2007 and neither would Luca Altieri. Yet Knox knew. And now you know. They say one learns something new every day. There's a new thing for you.

Altieri claimed Battistelli entered the room and lifed the duvet. This is another lie from Altieri because Battistelli denies he did any such thing. I know whose testimony I prefer. Altieri has shown himself to be an unreliable witness (cf the mobile phones). In any case, there is no way Battistelli would report anything back to Altieri.