I thought ear piercings were NOT to be removed until they healed

Let's try this one more time, you unbelievably dense person- You claimed you agreed with Cassation's conclusion, meaning you think either BARD exists or else innocence

No. Cassation's conclusion is simply a fact.

It is obviously one you refuse to accept.

I cannot claim what cassation said. They said it, that's it.

Our discussion is simply about whether the phrase 'a sex game gone wrong' is a fair and reasonable characterisation of the prosecutor's argument - ie whether it is accurate to say that the prosecutor concocted the story of a 'sex game gone wrong'.

That's the issue - remember. Which is proved.

Now tell me - Where in our discussion have I claimed innocence or guilt?

reply share

add reply

formatting help

^^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXvA6WJrYUo

No. Cassation's conclusion is simply a fact.

... 
Read this carefully please: All court conclusions are matters of fact, be they objective- as in the court reached a conclusion- or judicial, as in the specific conclusion the court reached.
You said you agreed with the court's conclusion, which means you agree with their reasoning, which means that you either believe in innocence or feel BARD exists. Those are the only two objective conclusions to reach from your answer, regardless of your garbled raving. You're stupid.

It is obviously one you refuse to accept.

I've said on this very board ages ago that I accept that Cassation's conclusion is final regardless of my disagreement with their logic, violation of law and procedure and verdict. You're simply pulling things outa thin air.

I cannot claim what cassation said. They said it, that's it.

And you agree with what they said, yet refuse to address their reasoning. That's it.

Our discussion is simply about whether the phrase 'a sex game gone wrong' is a fair and reasonable characterisation of the prosecutor's argument - ie whether it is accurate to say that the prosecutor concocted the story of a 'sex game gone wrong'.

No it isn't. That was our discussion on a different thread. Here the discussion is about something different. Read the heading.
My response was to the OP, who said:

Ms. Knox claims she removed her newly pierced earrings for a shower and that is why her blood was mixed with Meredith's in the bathroom. Humm something seems so fishy about that. Who removes ear rings just for a shower anyways ???

To which I replied:

And how did her blood fall precisely where Meredith's already was? In five separate samples in three separate areas of the house?

Then you whinged:

I'm afraid you'll have to prove the blood did - direct quote, link?

Then I provided it.
Now you're back to whinging about what you think the prosecutor meant as opposed to what he said, yet again after already having your false claim demolished. This is yet another reason still I strongly suspect you're a Knox groupie, the endless rehashing of already lost arguments and focusing on what you think is a potentially weak or tenuous aspect to the evidence against Knox, and focusing on that one piece- in this instance, what you fervently insist the prosecution really meant, as opposed to what was said, to the point where you follow other posters onto other threads to try and resurrect your already debunked issue yet again- in a complete vacuum as if the entire case for innocence or guilt rests on said piece. As I've helpfully and patiently explained to you before, your agenda is laughably transparent.

Now in this thread, stick to the topic at hand and address my question, seeing as you saw fit to challenge it: how did her blood fall precisely where Meredith's already was? In five separate samples in three separate areas of the house?
Are prepared to address this credibly and plausibly or are you gonna engage in more hot air noise, like you've been doing from the start?

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

reply share

add reply

formatting help

You said you agreed with the court's conclusion

Absolutely. I was impressed with their argumentation and logic and I accept their decision.

Now where have I argued that the formerly accused are innocence or guilty. In fact, think about it. Why would I even bother to argue either way? As far as I'm concerned the case is closed and I accept the verdict. The only thing that remains is to stop people (from either side) from rewriting history.

eg the issues - as your friend's website still says. 'sex game gone wrong' (no matter how problematical an approach) is a fair and reasonable characterisation of the prosecutions position.

I've said on this very board ages ago that I accept that Cassation's conclusion is final regardless of my disagreement with their logic, violation of law and procedure and verdict. You're simply pulling things outa thin air

In what way do you accept their conclusion? They said the accused are innocent. You do not accept this because you do not think they are innocent.

And you agree with what they said, yet refuse to address their reasoning. That's it.

Ah yes, I thought you might go on to say this. Yes, I refuse to address their reasoning. I'm not interested in discussing the case with regards to the question of guilt - never, ever have been.

Remember, no matter how hard you desperately try to change the subject, the issue is only whether it is fair and reasonable to characterise the prosecutor's position as a sex game gone wrong. Which it certainly is.

Then I provided it.
Now you're back to whinging about what you think the prosecutor meant as opposed to what he said, yet again after already having your false claim demolished. This is yet another reason still I strongly suspect you're a Knox groupie, the endless rehashing of already lost arguments and focusing on what you think is a potentially weak or tenuous aspect to the evidence against Knox, and focusing on that one piece- in this instance, what you fervently insist the prosecution really meant, as opposed to what was said, to the point where you follow other posters onto other threads to try and resurrect your already debunked issue yet again- in a complete vacuum as if the entire case for innocence or guilt rests on said piece. As I've helpfully and patiently explained to you before, your agenda is laughably transparent.

Now in this thread, stick to the topic at hand and address my question, seeing as you saw fit to challenge it: how did her blood fall precisely where Meredith's already was? In five separate samples in three separate areas of the house?
Are prepared to address this credibly and plausibly or are you gonna engage in more hot air noise, like you've been doing from the start?

Did I disagree with you? Did I deny anything about bloodstain evidence turning up?

You see, I was making a point. I can certainly accept that there was a bloodstain argument and have no reason to deny. As indeed you should accept that there was a sex game gone wrong argument from the prosecutor? .

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Absolutely. I was impressed with their argumentation and logic and I accept their decision.

Really?
So you agree that Knox was there when Meredith was murdered?
So you think it's logical for the supreme court of cassation to contradict the findings of... the supreme court of cassation?
You think it's logical to state that defendants cannot be convicted if they leave no biological t6races of themselves in the immediate vicinity around the victim's body?
You think it's logical for the supreme court to make the same remarks they annulled a previous appellate court for making?
You think it's logical for the supreme court to wish for certainties when certainty isn't required by any court of law?
You think it's logical for the supreme court to throw out DNA evidence on the grounds that the court didn't adhere to "international standards" when no international standards exist for forensic DNA gathering?

Your second paragraph is more nonsensical dribble so not worth entertaining.

In what way do you accept their conclusion? They said the accused are innocent. You do not accept this because you do not think they are innocent.

by Corpus_Vile
» Tue May 26 2015 08:03:49 Flag ▼ | Edit ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since May 2008
I'll give you this- you're not responding to me because you know deep down you don't have a remotely credible argument to validate your position so are quitting now while you still have some dignity. pete's just stupid.

And to clarify I fully accept that Knox is a free woman and feel she should be free to move on with her life. I fully accept the court's decision even if I disagree with it. You guys have no validity even using Cassation's verdict to defend your position though as you rejected the courts outright when they convicted, only couldn't say how they erred. Now you can't justify why Cassation acquitted, as your non arguments show.

Try again, troll.

Ah yes, I thought you might go on to say this. Yes, I refuse to address their reasoning.

Yes because you can't possibly justify it, we get it.

I'm not interested in discussing the case with regards to the question of guilt - never, ever have been.

Hence the reason you're commenting on this board, following people around, endlessly repeating your already debunked crap, due to your massive butthurt.

Speaking of which, your next paragraph is yet more mindless repetitive dribble, so I won't bother entertaining it as you were already debunked several times over.

Your last paragraph is yet more dribble still and rampantly obtuse dribble at that, as anyone objectively following this discussion can tell you, so I won't bother addressing it except to say that your concession is noted.


Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Really?

Yes. There has been so much nonsense (from both sides) about this case. It was good to see how the final instance dealt with all this.

So you agree that Knox was there when Meredith was murdered?
So you think it's logical for the supreme court of cassation to contradict the findings of... the supreme court of cassation?
You think it's logical to state that defendants cannot be convicted if they leave no biological t6races of themselves in the immediate vicinity around the victim's body?
You think it's logical for the supreme court to make the same remarks they annulled a previous appellate court for making?
You think it's logical for the supreme court to wish for certainties when certainty isn't required by any court of law?
You think it's logical for the supreme court to throw out DNA evidence on the grounds that the court didn't adhere to "international standards" when no international standards exist for forensic DNA gathering?

Your complaints (if accurate) are irrelevant because the case is now closed. Your complaints are further nonsensical because you apparently accept the court's decision.

I fully accept the court's decision even if I disagree with it

You seem to accept the fact that S and K have 'got away with murder' and that they should not be punished. That wasn't the court's decision - the court's decision is that they were not guilty of the crime. Do you accept that they were not guilty of the crime?

Yes because you can't possibly justify it, we get it.

What do you mean by "we"? Are you schizophrenic?

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Yes. There has been so much nonsense (from both sides) about this case. It was good to see how the final instance dealt with all this.

My response was to your comment of:

I was impressed with their argumentation and logic and I accept their decision.

Now are you going to back up your claim of being impressed with their "argumentation and logic" by addressing my questions or not?

Your complaints (if accurate)

...It's in Cassation's report. You clearly haven't read the report, yet are "impressed with their argumentation and logic". 

are irrelevant because the case is now closed.

You don't know what the word "irrelevant" means. Your concession that you can't back up your bluster regarding Casstion's ruling is duly noted.

Your complaints are further nonsensical because you apparently accept the court's decision.

Can you go a whole post without lying and misunderstanding English? I said I accepted that Cassation's verdict was final. I never said I agreed with their logic and verdict, even if I accept that it's a final verdict and the judicial process against Knox is finished. I then challenged you on your claim that you were impressed with Cassation's argument and logic and you once again refuse to address my challenge as you're a murderer groupie blowhard with no argument.Again, your lack of self awareness is hilarious. You're stupid.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I get the impression that you have a tendency to misread the report but I'm not really interested in your inability to understand why what they say equals innocence. It's your job to work it out.


You seem to accept the fact that S and K have 'got away with murder' and that they should not be punished. That wasn't the court's decision - the court's decision is that they were not guilty of the crime. Do you accept that they were not guilty of the crime?

reply share

add reply

formatting help

You said you were impressed with the court's argument and logic, so yet again, address my questions, which you should have no problem addressing, seeing as you find cassation's logic and argument so impressive. So once again:
You agree that Knox was there when Meredith was murdered?
You think it's logical for the supreme court of cassation to contradict the findings of... the supreme court of cassation?
You think it's logical to state that defendants cannot be convicted if they leave no biological traces of themselves in the immediate vicinity around the victim's body?
You think it's logical for the supreme court to make the same remarks they annulled a previous appellate court for making?
You think it's logical for the supreme court to wish for certainties when certainty isn't required by any court of law?
You think it's logical for the supreme court to throw out DNA evidence on the grounds that the court didn't adhere to "international standards" when no international standards exist for forensic DNA gathering?
Well?

Um, I accept that they got away with it and accept that the court acquitted them and accept that the judicial process against them is over. Can't put it more plainly. You otoh are impressed with Cassation's logic and argument (despite being clearly unaware of what their actual argument is) so back up your claim by addressing my questions.
Whenever you're ready.Considering your past track record, I won't hold my breath.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

reply share

add reply

formatting help

You said you were impressed with the court's argument and logic, so yet again, address my questions, which you should have no problem addressing, seeing as you find cassation's logic and argument so impressive. So once again:
You agree that Knox was there when Meredith was murdered?
You think it's logical for the supreme court of cassation to contradict the findings of... the supreme court of cassation?
You think it's logical to state that defendants cannot be convicted if they leave no biological traces of themselves in the immediate vicinity around the victim's body?
You think it's logical for the supreme court to make the same remarks they annulled a previous appellate court for making?
You think it's logical for the supreme court to wish for certainties when certainty isn't required by any court of law?
You think it's logical for the supreme court to throw out DNA evidence on the grounds that the court didn't adhere to "international standards" when no international standards exist for forensic DNA gathering?
Well?

I think you should read the report more carefully.

Um, I accept that they got away with it and accept that the court acquitted them and accept that the judicial process against them is over. Can't put it more plainly. You otoh are impressed with Cassation's logic and argument (despite being clearly unaware of what their actual argument is) so back up your claim by addressing my questions.
Whenever you're ready.Considering your past track record, I won't hold my breath.

Do you accept the court's decision (your words)?

reply share

add reply

formatting help

More evasion. I'm going by what the court says in its own report and your being impressed with what they say.
So again:
You agree that Knox was there when Meredith was murdered?
You think it's logical for the supreme court of cassation to contradict the findings of... the supreme court of cassation?
You think it's logical to state that defendants cannot be convicted if they leave no biological traces of themselves in the immediate vicinity around the victim's body?
You think it's logical for the supreme court to make the same remarks they annulled a previous appellate court for making?
You think it's logical for the supreme court to wish for certainties when certainty isn't required by any court of law?
You think it's logical for the supreme court to throw out DNA evidence on the grounds that the court didn't adhere to "international standards" when no international standards exist for forensic DNA gathering?

You do realise the more you refuse to address these questions, the more of a trolling groupie blowhard you appear, right? Or is that patented lack of self awareness gonna rear its ugly head again.
Now you seem to think I'm reading it wrong. Why don't you tell me what the report really says, if I'm so wrong and tell me specifically how I'm wrong?  Whenever you're ready.

Here's what Cassation says about Knox being present when Meredith was murdered, in Italian and English- tell me what's misinterpreted and how it's being read wrong.

9.4.1 Paragraph 1 (Page 45):
“…si osserva ora, quanto alla posizione di Amanda Knox, che la sua presenza nell'abitazione, teatro dell'omicidio, è dato conclamato nel processo, alla stregua delle sue stesse ammissioni, contenute anche nel memoriale a sua firma, nella parte in cui riferisce che, trovandosi in cucina, dopo che la giovane inglese ed altra persona si erano appartati nella stanza della stessa Kercher per un rapporto
sessuale, aveva sentito un urlo straziante dell'amica, al punto lacerante ed insostenibile da lasciarsi scivolare, accovacciata a terra, tenendo ben strette le mani alle orecchie per non sentire altro. In proposito, è certamente condivisibile il giudizio diattendibilità espresso dal giudice a quo con riferimento a questa parte della narrazione dell'imputata, sul plausibile riflesso che fu proprio lei ad accennare, per la prima volta, ad un possibile movente sessuale dell'omicidio ed a parlare dell'urlo straziante della vittima, quando ancora gli inquirenti non disponevano degli esiti dell'ispezione cadaverica e degli esami autoptici né delle informazioni testimoniali successivamente raccolte sull'urlo della vittima e sull'ora in cui fu percepito (testi Capezzali Nara, Monacchia Antonella ed altri). Si fa riferimento, in particolare, alle dichiarazioni rese dall'odierna ricorrente il 6.11.2007 (f. 96), nei locali della Polizia di Stato. D'altro canto, le stesse dichiarazioni calunniose nei confronti del Lumumba, che le sono valse la condanna, con statuizione ormai coperta da giudicato, avevano come presupposto del narrato proprio la presenza della giovane statunitense nella casa di via della Pergola, circostanza questa di cui nessuno, in quel momento - all'infuori, come è ovvio, delle altre persone presenti in casa - poteva essere a conoscenza (cit. f. 96).”

(… now we note, regarding Amanda Knox, that her presence in the dwelling, that was the “theatre of the murder”, was proclaimed in the trial process in alignment with her own admissions, including those contained in her signed statement in the part where she states she was in the kitchen, after the young English girl [Meredith] and another person went off to Kercher’s room for sexual intercourse, she heard a harrowing scream from her friend, so piercing and unbearable that she fell down huddled on the floor, holding her hands tightly against her ears so as not to hear more. We do indeed share the previous judge’s [Nencini’s] opinion that this part of the accused’s story is reliable, due to the plausible observation that it was she who first put forward a possible sexual motive for the murder and mentioned the victim’s harrowing scream, at a time when the investigators still didn’t have the results of the examination of the corpse or the autopsy, nor the witness information, which was subsequently gathered, about the victim’s scream and the time it was heard (witnesses Nara Capezzali, Antonella Monacchia and others). We refer here, in particular, to the statements made by the current appellant on 6th November 2007 (page 96) at the police station. Furthermore, the slanderous statements made in relation to Lumumba, that earned her a conviction, the status of which is now res iudicata, were based on the premise that the young American girl was present in the house in via della Pergola, a circumstance which in that moment nobody, apart from, as is obvious, the others present in the house, could have known

So do you agree with Cassation that Knox was there when Meredith was murdered, seeing as you're so impressed with their logic and argument?

I already told you several times I accept their decision even if I disagree with it, you complete and utter cabbage. You're stupid.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I already told you several times I accept their decision even if I disagree with it, you complete and utter cabbage. You're stupid

The court's decision is that they are innocent. Do you accept that they are innocent?

If you answer this question reasonably then I will discuss the report.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

No it isn't, an acquittal under paragraph 2 of article 530 of the Italian Criminal Procedure code is not an exoneration, it's not guilty due to insufficient evidence, just like Casey Anthony and OJ.
Had they had have been acquitted under paragraph 1 of article 530, they would have been definitively exonerated and found innocent. The court did not find them innocent but acquitted them due to insufficient evidence and violated their own procedure and defeated the whole purpose of a three tiered judicial system by even viewing the case yet again on its evidence merits as Cassation cannot hear a case on its merits but only on points of law. Again you're clueless about this case.
Now answer my questions:
Do you agree with cassation when they say that Knox was there when Meredith was murdered, yes or no?

9.4.1 Paragraph 1 (Page 45):
“…si osserva ora, quanto alla posizione di Amanda Knox, che la sua presenza nell'abitazione, teatro dell'omicidio, è dato conclamato nel processo, alla stregua delle sue stesse ammissioni, contenute anche nel memoriale a sua firma, nella parte in cui riferisce che, trovandosi in cucina, dopo che la giovane inglese ed altra persona si erano appartati nella stanza della stessa Kercher per un rapporto
sessuale, aveva sentito un urlo straziante dell'amica, al punto lacerante ed insostenibile da lasciarsi scivolare, accovacciata a terra, tenendo ben strette le mani alle orecchie per non sentire altro. In proposito, è certamente condivisibile il giudizio diattendibilità espresso dal giudice a quo con riferimento a questa parte della narrazione dell'imputata, sul plausibile riflesso che fu proprio lei ad accennare, per la prima volta, ad un possibile movente sessuale dell'omicidio ed a parlare dell'urlo straziante della vittima, quando ancora gli inquirenti non disponevano degli esiti dell'ispezione cadaverica e degli esami autoptici né delle informazioni testimoniali successivamente raccolte sull'urlo della vittima e sull'ora in cui fu percepito (testi Capezzali Nara, Monacchia Antonella ed altri). Si fa riferimento, in particolare, alle dichiarazioni rese dall'odierna ricorrente il 6.11.2007 (f. 96), nei locali della Polizia di Stato. D'altro canto, le stesse dichiarazioni calunniose nei confronti del Lumumba, che le sono valse la condanna, con statuizione ormai coperta da giudicato, avevano come presupposto del narrato proprio la presenza della giovane statunitense nella casa di via della Pergola, circostanza questa di cui nessuno, in quel momento - all'infuori, come è ovvio, delle altre persone presenti in casa - poteva essere a conoscenza (cit. f. 96).”

(… now we note, regarding Amanda Knox, that her presence in the dwelling, that was the “theatre of the murder”, was proclaimed in the trial process in alignment with her own admissions, including those contained in her signed statement in the part where she states she was in the kitchen, after the young English girl [Meredith] and another person went off to Kercher’s room for sexual intercourse, she heard a harrowing scream from her friend, so piercing and unbearable that she fell down huddled on the floor, holding her hands tightly against her ears so as not to hear more. We do indeed share the previous judge’s [Nencini’s] opinion that this part of the accused’s story is reliable, due to the plausible observation that it was she who first put forward a possible sexual motive for the murder and mentioned the victim’s harrowing scream, at a time when the investigators still didn’t have the results of the examination of the corpse or the autopsy, nor the witness information, which was subsequently gathered, about the victim’s scream and the time it was heard (witnesses Nara Capezzali, Antonella Monacchia and others). We refer here, in particular, to the statements made by the current appellant on 6th November 2007 (page 96) at the police station. Furthermore, the slanderous statements made in relation to Lumumba, that earned her a conviction, the status of which is now res iudicata, were based on the premise that the young American girl was present in the house in via della Pergola, a circumstance which in that moment nobody, apart from, as is obvious, the others present in the house, could have known

And answer the rest of my questions which you've so far run away from:

You agree that Knox was there when Meredith was murdered?
You think it's logical for the supreme court of cassation to contradict the findings of... the supreme court of cassation?
You think it's logical to state that defendants cannot be convicted if they leave no biological traces of themselves in the immediate vicinity around the victim's body?
You think it's logical for the supreme court to make the same remarks they annulled a previous appellate court for making?
You think it's logical for the supreme court to wish for certainties when certainty isn't required by any court of law?
You think it's logical for the supreme court to throw out DNA evidence on the grounds that the court didn't adhere to "international standards" when no international standards exist for forensic DNA gathering?
Well?
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

reply share

add reply

formatting help

You do not believe them to be innocent.

Thus you do not accept the court's decision.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Court never declared them innocent and your ignorance is of no interest to me or anyone else. Yet again:

an acquittal under paragraph 2 of article 530 of the Italian Criminal Procedure code is not an exoneration, it's not guilty due to insufficient evidence, just like Casey Anthony and OJ.
Had they had have been acquitted under paragraph 1 of article 530, they would have been definitively exonerated and found innocent. The court did not find them innocent but acquitted them due to insufficient evidence and violated their own procedure and defeated the whole purpose of a three tiered judicial system by even viewing the case yet again on its evidence merits as Cassation cannot hear a case on its merits but only on points of law. Again you're clueless about this case.

You said you were impressed with their argument and logic. Then you showed that you evidently don't know what their actual argument was. Then you claimed that the report was misinterpreted.
Now, were you impressed with the court saying that Knox was there when Meredith was murdered, or do you disagree with their logic and argument here?

Also, what precise specific parts of this are misinterpreted?

9.4.1 Paragraph 1 (Page 45):
“…si osserva ora, quanto alla posizione di Amanda Knox, che la sua presenza nell'abitazione, teatro dell'omicidio, è dato conclamato nel processo, alla stregua delle sue stesse ammissioni, contenute anche nel memoriale a sua firma, nella parte in cui riferisce che, trovandosi in cucina, dopo che la giovane inglese ed altra persona si erano appartati nella stanza della stessa Kercher per un rapporto
sessuale, aveva sentito un urlo straziante dell'amica, al punto lacerante ed insostenibile da lasciarsi scivolare, accovacciata a terra, tenendo ben strette le mani alle orecchie per non sentire altro. In proposito, è certamente condivisibile il giudizio diattendibilità espresso dal giudice a quo con riferimento a questa parte della narrazione dell'imputata, sul plausibile riflesso che fu proprio lei ad accennare, per la prima volta, ad un possibile movente sessuale dell'omicidio ed a parlare dell'urlo straziante della vittima, quando ancora gli inquirenti non disponevano degli esiti dell'ispezione cadaverica e degli esami autoptici né delle informazioni testimoniali successivamente raccolte sull'urlo della vittima e sull'ora in cui fu percepito (testi Capezzali Nara, Monacchia Antonella ed altri). Si fa riferimento, in particolare, alle dichiarazioni rese dall'odierna ricorrente il 6.11.2007 (f. 96), nei locali della Polizia di Stato. D'altro canto, le stesse dichiarazioni calunniose nei confronti del Lumumba, che le sono valse la condanna, con statuizione ormai coperta da giudicato, avevano come presupposto del narrato proprio la presenza della giovane statunitense nella casa di via della Pergola, circostanza questa di cui nessuno, in quel momento - all'infuori, come è ovvio, delle altre persone presenti in casa - poteva essere a conoscenza (cit. f. 96).”

(… now we note, regarding Amanda Knox, that her presence in the dwelling, that was the “theatre of the murder”, was proclaimed in the trial process in alignment with her own admissions, including those contained in her signed statement in the part where she states she was in the kitchen, after the young English girl [Meredith] and another person went off to Kercher’s room for sexual intercourse, she heard a harrowing scream from her friend, so piercing and unbearable that she fell down huddled on the floor, holding her hands tightly against her ears so as not to hear more. We do indeed share the previous judge’s [Nencini’s] opinion that this part of the accused’s story is reliable, due to the plausible observation that it was she who first put forward a possible sexual motive for the murder and mentioned the victim’s harrowing scream, at a time when the investigators still didn’t have the results of the examination of the corpse or the autopsy, nor the witness information, which was subsequently gathered, about the victim’s scream and the time it was heard (witnesses Nara Capezzali, Antonella Monacchia and others). We refer here, in particular, to the statements made by the current appellant on 6th November 2007 (page 96) at the police station. Furthermore, the slanderous statements made in relation to Lumumba, that earned her a conviction, the status of which is now res iudicata, were based on the premise that the young American girl was present in the house in via della Pergola, a circumstance which in that moment nobody, apart from, as is obvious, the others present in the house, could have known

What parts of the Italian text are misinterpreted and not read properly? Be very specific with your answers, thanks.
Or you could just admit you haven't read the report, that might work too.

So yet again: You agree that Knox was there when Meredith was murdered?
You think it's logical for the supreme court of cassation to contradict the findings of... the supreme court of cassation?
You think it's logical to state that defendants cannot be convicted if they leave no biological traces of themselves in the immediate vicinity around the victim's body?
You think it's logical for the supreme court to make the same remarks they annulled a previous appellate court for making?
You think it's logical for the supreme court to wish for certainties when certainty isn't required by any court of law?
You think it's logical for the supreme court to throw out DNA evidence on the grounds that the court didn't adhere to "international standards" when no international standards exist for forensic DNA gathering?

Why do you keep evading these questions, considering they're about a court whose "argumentation and logic" you're so impressed with?
I'll add another: Do you think it's logical and acceptable for an impartial appellate court to moot a new defence for Knox which even her own lawyers never mooted? Were you impressed with the "argumentation and logic" of this also? 

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Court never declared them innocent and your ignorance is of no interest to me or anyone else.

Defendants are presumed innocent until the final decision. The court's decision was that they did not do it and therefore are innocent as presumed.

You do not accept the court's decision.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

No it wasn't and I see you're back in mindlessly repeating your falsehood and falsely asserting that the court found "innocence" is yet another Knox groupie meme despite the court not declaring this.

So to recap:
You claimed to be impressed with Cassation's argumentation and logic, yet show that you evidently haven't read the report.
You then refuse to address the findings of the court to back up your claim that their logic and argumentation is impressive, when said findings are challenged.
You then resort to repeating your falsehood that the court found them innocent when this is simply untrue and have yet again highlighting how stupid you are by apparently conflating a not guilty verdict with actual factual innocence.
you then claim that the report hasn't been read properly and has been misinterpreted, yet refuse to specify how, even when presented with a segment of the report in Italian and English.
Despite being asked umpteen times.
Your trolling and repetitive falsehoods are derisively dismissed.
Your evident lie that you've read Cassation's report is also derisively dismissed as the worthless, zero substance bluster that it it is and your ignorance regarding their actual argument is accepted while being simultaneously laughed at.
Your desperate, consistent refusal to answer plainly put questions challenging your claim on Cassation's impressive logic and argumentation, is duly noted as is your concession that you cannot/will not address them, due to you having no argument.

My work here is done, as your constant refusal to validate your position and bluster is plain for anyone objectively reading our exchange to see, which was my sole intention for engaging with you anyway. regular as clockwork, you groupies eventually shoot yourselves in the foot with your persistent dishonesty and hot air noise. All one needs to do, is hand you the rope.
Your defeat and utter failure to offer any substance to your argument in this discussion is accepted magnanimously, troll.



Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

reply share

add reply

formatting help

No it wasn't and I see you're back in mindlessly repeating your falsehood and falsely asserting that the court found "innocence" is yet another Knox groupie meme despite the court not declaring this.

Presumption of innocence in Italian law up to the final decision. The final court decided that they didn't do it - therefore the presumption of innocence stands. Not guilty means innocent. Surely you've been told this before. Your response is bluster and irrelevance (Bard, exoneration etc is irrelevant).

If you admit the obvious and say that you do not accept the court's decision (that they are innocent) then I will discuss the report with you.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Pres*trolling waffle snipped.*

Sorry, you were given ample opportunity to specify how Cassation's report was misinterpreted and given plenty of time to address questions regarding their "argumentation and logic" which you claimed impressed you, and ran away.

9.4.1 Paragraph 1 (Page 45):
“…si osserva ora, quanto alla posizione di Amanda Knox, che la sua presenza nell'abitazione, teatro dell'omicidio, è dato conclamato nel processo, alla stregua delle sue stesse ammissioni, contenute anche nel memoriale a sua firma, nella parte in cui riferisce che, trovandosi in cucina, dopo che la giovane inglese ed altra persona si erano appartati nella stanza della stessa Kercher per un rapporto
sessuale, aveva sentito un urlo straziante dell'amica, al punto lacerante ed insostenibile da lasciarsi scivolare, accovacciata a terra, tenendo ben strette le mani alle orecchie per non sentire altro. In proposito, è certamente condivisibile il giudizio diattendibilità espresso dal giudice a quo con riferimento a questa parte della narrazione dell'imputata, sul plausibile riflesso che fu proprio lei ad accennare, per la prima volta, ad un possibile movente sessuale dell'omicidio ed a parlare dell'urlo straziante della vittima, quando ancora gli inquirenti non disponevano degli esiti dell'ispezione cadaverica e degli esami autoptici né delle informazioni testimoniali successivamente raccolte sull'urlo della vittima e sull'ora in cui fu percepito (testi Capezzali Nara, Monacchia Antonella ed altri). Si fa riferimento, in particolare, alle dichiarazioni rese dall'odierna ricorrente il 6.11.2007 (f. 96), nei locali della Polizia di Stato. D'altro canto, le stesse dichiarazioni calunniose nei confronti del Lumumba, che le sono valse la condanna, con statuizione ormai coperta da giudicato, avevano come presupposto del narrato proprio la presenza della giovane statunitense nella casa di via della Pergola, circostanza questa di cui nessuno, in quel momento - all'infuori, come è ovvio, delle altre persone presenti in casa - poteva essere a conoscenza (cit. f. 96).”

(… now we note, regarding Amanda Knox, that her presence in the dwelling, that was the “theatre of the murder”, was proclaimed in the trial process in alignment with her own admissions, including those contained in her signed statement in the part where she states she was in the kitchen, after the young English girl [Meredith] and another person went off to Kercher’s room for sexual intercourse, she heard a harrowing scream from her friend, so piercing and unbearable that she fell down huddled on the floor, holding her hands tightly against her ears so as not to hear more. We do indeed share the previous judge’s [Nencini’s] opinion that this part of the accused’s story is reliable, due to the plausible observation that it was she who first put forward a possible sexual motive for the murder and mentioned the victim’s harrowing scream, at a time when the investigators still didn’t have the results of the examination of the corpse or the autopsy, nor the witness information, which was subsequently gathered, about the victim’s scream and the time it was heard (witnesses Nara Capezzali, Antonella Monacchia and others). We refer here, in particular, to the statements made by the current appellant on 6th November 2007 (page 96) at the police station. Furthermore, the slanderous statements made in relation to Lumumba, that earned her a conviction, the status of which is now res iudicata, were based on the premise that the young American girl was present in the house in via della Pergola, a circumstance which in that moment nobody, apart from, as is obvious, the others present in the house, could have known

Until you're willing to specify how their report was misinterpreted, notably the segment I provided and until you're willing to answer the questions asked of you...

You agree that Knox was there when Meredith was murdered?
You think it's logical for the supreme court of cassation to contradict the findings of... the supreme court of cassation?
You think it's logical to state that defendants cannot be convicted if they leave no biological traces of themselves in the immediate vicinity around the victim's body?
You think it's logical for the supreme court to make the same remarks they annulled a previous appellate court for making?
You think it's logical for the supreme court to wish for certainties when certainty isn't required by any court of law?
You think it's logical for the supreme court to throw out DNA evidence on the grounds that the court didn't adhere to "international standards" when no international standards exist for forensic DNA gathering?

...then your defeat is still accepted and trolling and falsehoods still laughed at and dismissed. 
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Come now. You're supposed to be "good at defending your position". The court's decision was that they are innocent. You accept or you don't?


I'm afraid Pete must be wrong. I don't see you defending your position here. I just see insult and waffle.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

how many exchanges have you two had on this board. has he accepted your position that they are innocent or not. If after all these exchanges he hasn't accepted your position, then he has defended his. he is particularly good at the rope a dope.

Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain (Isaac Asimov)

reply share

add reply

formatting help

then he has defended his

If saying 'my work here is done' is defending a position then I beg to differ.

However it is not important, he appears to have changed his mind and come back.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Eh, I thought I'd give you one more chance to answer my questions and specify how the report is misinterpreted.
I see I was pissing in the wind, so yeah, your defeat is accepted and there's no need to entertain your irrational, garbled dishonest nonsense any more, due to your persistent cowardice.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

reply share

add reply

formatting help

There he goes again defending his position. Do you accept the court's decision or not?

reply share

add reply

formatting help

"There he goes again defending his position."

exactly. he is relentless. he never quits.

"Do you accept the court's decision or not?"

he'll never do so.

Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain (Isaac Asimov)

reply share

add reply

formatting help

he never quits.

He said 'my work here is done'. Sounds like quitting to me. But it looks like he changed his mind after all. Clearly inconsistent.

But really, if he wants me to discuss the court's report then I need to know whether he accepts its decision - I would have thought that was obvious.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

"I need to know whether he accepts its conclusions"

if the court's conclusions differ from his own, he'll never accept them. instead he will distort the statements to support his conclusions or use the rope a dope..

Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain (Isaac Asimov)

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Sorry - I'd just edited for clarity - decision not conclusions.

If he wants me to discuss the report then I think it's fair that he honestly tells me how he feels about the report's conclusion. ie Does he accept or does he not accept the court's decision that they are innocent?

He has some difficulty in answering this very simple question - strangely.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

um, my response was to your position that Cassation's logic and argumentation was impressive. I asked you several questions to get you to defend this position. You refuse to answer them.
Sorry but your ignorance is of no interest to anyone or your conflation of a not guilty verdict with factual innocence or even court established innocence. By your rationale, OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony were exonerated and found totally innocent, as opposed to not guilty. You also claimed earlier on this board that Knox wasn't exonerated. Nobody is interested in your u-turn, or repetitive lie that the court found them innocent, just as nobody was interested in your repetitive lie of a sex game gone wrong.

So again, which part of this was misinterpreted?

9.4.1 Paragraph 1 (Page 45):
“…si osserva ora, quanto alla posizione di Amanda Knox, che la sua presenza nell'abitazione, teatro dell'omicidio, è dato conclamato nel processo, alla stregua delle sue stesse ammissioni, contenute anche nel memoriale a sua firma, nella parte in cui riferisce che, trovandosi in cucina, dopo che la giovane inglese ed altra persona si erano appartati nella stanza della stessa Kercher per un rapporto
sessuale, aveva sentito un urlo straziante dell'amica, al punto lacerante ed insostenibile da lasciarsi scivolare, accovacciata a terra, tenendo ben strette le mani alle orecchie per non sentire altro. In proposito, è certamente condivisibile il giudizio diattendibilità espresso dal giudice a quo con riferimento a questa parte della narrazione dell'imputata, sul plausibile riflesso che fu proprio lei ad accennare, per la prima volta, ad un possibile movente sessuale dell'omicidio ed a parlare dell'urlo straziante della vittima, quando ancora gli inquirenti non disponevano degli esiti dell'ispezione cadaverica e degli esami autoptici né delle informazioni testimoniali successivamente raccolte sull'urlo della vittima e sull'ora in cui fu percepito (testi Capezzali Nara, Monacchia Antonella ed altri). Si fa riferimento, in particolare, alle dichiarazioni rese dall'odierna ricorrente il 6.11.2007 (f. 96), nei locali della Polizia di Stato. D'altro canto, le stesse dichiarazioni calunniose nei confronti del Lumumba, che le sono valse la condanna, con statuizione ormai coperta da giudicato, avevano come presupposto del narrato proprio la presenza della giovane statunitense nella casa di via della Pergola, circostanza questa di cui nessuno, in quel momento - all'infuori, come è ovvio, delle altre persone presenti in casa - poteva essere a conoscenza (cit. f. 96).”

(… now we note, regarding Amanda Knox, that her presence in the dwelling, that was the “theatre of the murder”, was proclaimed in the trial process in alignment with her own admissions, including those contained in her signed statement in the part where she states she was in the kitchen, after the young English girl [Meredith] and another person went off to Kercher’s room for sexual intercourse, she heard a harrowing scream from her friend, so piercing and unbearable that she fell down huddled on the floor, holding her hands tightly against her ears so as not to hear more. We do indeed share the previous judge’s [Nencini’s] opinion that this part of the accused’s story is reliable, due to the plausible observation that it was she who first put forward a possible sexual motive for the murder and mentioned the victim’s harrowing scream, at a time when the investigators still didn’t have the results of the examination of the corpse or the autopsy, nor the witness information, which was subsequently gathered, about the victim’s scream and the time it was heard (witnesses Nara Capezzali, Antonella Monacchia and others). We refer here, in particular, to the statements made by the current appellant on 6th November 2007 (page 96) at the police station. Furthermore, the slanderous statements made in relation to Lumumba, that earned her a conviction, the status of which is now res iudicata, were based on the premise that the young American girl was present in the house in via della Pergola, a circumstance which in that moment nobody, apart from, as is obvious, the others present in the house, could have known

Specify which part is misinterpreted, thanks.

And answer these questions which you've consistently run away from:

You agree that Knox was there when Meredith was murdered?
You think it's logical for the supreme court of cassation to contradict the findings of... the supreme court of cassation?
You think it's logical to state that defendants cannot be convicted if they leave no biological traces of themselves in the immediate vicinity around the victim's body?
You think it's logical for the supreme court to make the same remarks they annulled a previous appellate court for making?
You think it's logical for the supreme court to wish for certainties when certainty isn't required by any court of law?
You think it's logical for the supreme court to throw out DNA evidence on the grounds that the court didn't adhere to "international standards" when no international standards exist for forensic DNA gathering?

Unless you can address these issues, then your trolling is dismissed and defeat accepted. That's it.


Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

reply share

add reply

formatting help

If you want me to discuss the report then I think it's fair that you honestly tell me how you feel about the report's conclusion.

Do you accept or do you not accept the court's decision that they are innocent?

reply share

add reply

formatting help

If you want me to discuss the report then I think it's fair that you honestly tell me how you feel about the report's conclusion.

Do you accept or do you not accept the court's decision that they are innocent?

! Oh man... I'm sorry but I just can't resist pointing out just one more time your lack of self awareness at how dishonest you are here, seriously.
The reason I told you my work was done here was because I felt you had shown sufficient levels of dishonesty for all to see, but I just can't let this gem pass, so let's recap again:

You aren't aware of Cassation's argument and haven't read their report. You never would have wondered if my claims were accurate otherwise, nor would you have claimed that the report was misinterpreted. You wouldn't be able to misinterpret something like a court motivational report on such a huge scale and magnitude to the point were it said the opposite of what was claimed anyway, that's just not possible.
I then highlighted the segment of Cassation's report which unequivocally states that Knox was certainly there when Meredith was murdered and asked you- several times- which specific parts were misinterpreted and you've consistently refused to do so.
On top of this, you're now demanding preconditions before you'll agree to back up your waffle that you were impressed with Cassation's logic and argumentation. And your precondition is that I go along with your falsehood and falsely proclaim that the court found them innocent, when this is patently untrue, legally and objectively any more than it's true than Casey Anthony and OJ were found innocent.

Your whole debating style, from false claims of sex games gone wrong, to false claims of being impressed with a report's argument to false claims that the court found them "innocent", to viewing words in a vacuum and falsely trying to claim it as something it isn't to unrealistic and sly demands for preconditions before you'll back up your trolling is rampantly dishonest, which is why I'm not interested in entertaining your tired crap any more.
I'm merely responding to you now as I'm quite frankly marveling at your lack of self awareness at how plain your dishonesty comes across to others.
You're a murderer groupie troll with an unhealthy lust for a callous sex killer who I'm willing to bet is half your age. Just like the rest of Knox's drooling white knight male fanbase. And you have consistently proven this via your dishonesty, despite your earlier bluster and lip service. You're fooling nobody here.

You don't get to make preconditions in a debate, you morally barren low life, particularly when challenged to back up a false claim that you read Cassation's report.
So no, I have no need to discuss with you a report you clearly haven't read, or indeed Meredith's case at all with you, particularly when your debating style consists of endlessly repeating your falsehoods, in apparent attempt to bore others into submission.
My sole intention from the start was to let you blather on highlighting your dishonesty for all impartial readers to see, knowing your patented Knox groupie lack of self awareness would be all the rope you needed and knew also that you'd refuse to back up your points and would do so consistently, hence my constant challenge to your position.
You haven't let me down and it's there for anyone reading to see.

So yeah, my work here is done and your defeat is accepted and feel free to have the last word, as I won't be bothering to read it, seeing as you passed boring long ago.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

reply share

add reply

formatting help

my work here is done

Your position is that your "work is done here" - but you keep on changing that position...... M. flip flop.

[your] false claims that the court found them "innocent"

Innocent until proven guilty at the final court (Italian constitution). They were not proven guilty at the final court therefore innocent. Clearly not a false claim.

You don't get to make preconditions in a debate,

It's not a precondition. It's a basic requirement for further discussion of the report. Do you accept that reports conclusion that they are innocent or not?

My sole intention from the start was to let you blather on

With respect, you are the one who appears to be blathering on.

reply share

add reply

formatting help