MovieChat Forums > Amanda Knox (2011) Discussion > Finally. it took them long enough

Finally. it took them long enough


just what I have been saying for years. no murder weapon. no proof she was ever in Meredith's room. no case.


ROME – Italy's top criminal court has scathingly faulted prosecutors for presenting a flawed and hastily constructed case against Amanda Knox and her former Italian boyfriend, saying Monday it threw out their convictions for the 2007 murder of her British roommate in part because there was no proof they were in the bedroom where the woman was fatally stabbed.

The Court of Cassation issued its formal written explanation, as required by Italian law, for its March ruling — vindicating the pair once and for all in the murder of Meredith Kercher in the apartment the two women shared while students in Perugia, Italy.

It wrote there was an "absolute lack of biological traces" of Knox, an American, or of co-defendant Raffaele Sollecito in the room or on the victim's body. It slammed the quality of the prosecution's case from the start.

The path of the case took was "objectively wavering, whose oscillations are ... the result also of stunning weakness or investigative bouts of amnesia and of blameworthy omissions of investigative activity," the court wrote. Had the investigation not been so shaky, "in all probability" the defendants' guilt or innocence could have been determined from the earliest stages, the panel said.

Media clamor was also a factor in what was ultimately a flawed case, the high court concluded.

"The international spotlight on the case in fact resulted in the investigation undergoing a sudden acceleration," the judges wrote.


In March, the high court declared that Knox, now 28, and Sollecito, now 31, didn't murder 21-year-old Kercher, a stronger exoneration than merely finding there was insufficient evidence to convict.

Had the Cassation Court upheld 2014 appeals court convictions of the pair, Knox would have faced 28½ years in an Italian prison, assuming she would have been extradited from the United States, while Sollecito had been facing 25 years.

Knox and Sollecito had served nearly four years in Italian prison after a first, lower court conviction by a Perugia court.

They had always proclaimed their innocence. A man from Ivory Coast, Rudy Hermann Guede, was convicted in separate proceedings and is serving a 16-year sentence.

The Cassation Court's written explanation is tantamount to a "great censure, a note of solemn censure of all the investigators," a Knox defense lawyer, Carlo Dalla Vedova, told The Associated Press. Speaking about his client, the lawyer said, "She is very satisfied and happy to read this decision.

"At the same time, it's a very sad story. It's a sad story because Meredith Kercher is no longer with us, and this is a tragedy nobody can forget," Dalla Vedova said. Still, "at the same time for Amanda, being four years in prison is a bad memory."

The Cassation panel of five judges essentially concluded that while there were indications Guede could have had accomplices, nothing in the prosecutors' case proved that either Knox or Sollecito were involved in the murder.

It also wrote that the Florence appeals court which convicted them last year ignored expert testimony that "clearly demonstrated possible contamination" of evidence and misinterpreted findings about the knife allegedly used to slit Kercher's throat, in what prosecutors had described as a sexual assault.

"The kitchen knife, found in Sollecito's house and the supposed crime weapon, was kept in an ordinary cardboard box, like the kind that Christmas gadgets are packaged in," the Cassation judges noted. In any case, no traces of blood were found on it, they wrote.

Examples of investigative ineptitude abound in the report.

"The computers of Amanda Knox and Kercher, which perhaps could have furnished information useful to the investigation, were, incredibly, burned by imprudent maneuvers by the investigators, who caused an electric shock" apparently through a charging error, the panel of judges wrote.

Even the supposed time of death, as argued by prosecutors, reflected a "deplorable approximation," they wrote.

A bra clasp of the victim, which prosecutors argued carried a trace of Sollecito's DNA, was on the floor of the murder scene for 46 days, and then "was passed from hand to hand of the workers, who, furthermore, were wearing dirty latex gloves," the panel said.

One of Sollecito's lawyers, Giulia Bongiorno, praised the Cassation Court's 52-page conclusion "for having the courage to underline the gravity of the investigative errors and for making the gravity of the judicial error understandable."

Knox and Sollecito were first convicted by a Perugia court in 2009, and then acquitted after a first appeals court trial. They were convicted again in 2014, after a separate Cassation Court panel overturned those acquittals and ordered the Florence appeals.

While the flip-flop verdicts and appeals ran their course, Knox became a cause celebre in the United States, where many saw her as an innocent victim of a miscarriage of Italian justice and of sloppy investigative methods.

Monday's explanation effectively agreed with her supporters.

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

reply

The 5th Chamber handled this final verdict. I wonder if Amanda can sue the 1st chamber now for her unjust persecution and wasting her family's money and an extra 2 years of stress, in addition to the fact that the 1st chamber overruled her first acquittal because it was reached independent of Rudy Guede's trial which ruled he did not act alone and Amanda and Rafael had no legal representation in that trial?

How you can make the world a better place:
Don't shop at Wal-Mart.

reply

I doubt it. She deserves compensation but with the screwy Italian laws, I doubt she can make a case. I know she appealed her slander conviction to an international court> If she wins there, then she might be able to make a case in Italy.
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain (Isaac Asimov)

reply

She can't appeal her slander conviction to an international court. yet again you clearly haven't read any of the SC report which covers this.

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

reply

just reading through a few things. I wonder. Knox supposedly falsely accusing her boss was a crime in Italy and resulted in jail time and compensation. Rudy wrongly accused Knox (has to be wrongly since she has been proven innocent) of murder. so can her lawyer charge him with slander and sue him for damages.

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

reply

She wasn't proven innocent. Paragraph 2 acquittal under article 530 is an insufficient evidence acquittal, regardless of your lies and spin. Had she had have been acquitted under paragraph 1 of article 530, she would have been fully exonerated. She wasn't. The SC also violated articles 620 and 617 of the Italian criminal procedure code as they're only obliged to view the case on points of law, as the evidence has already been covered at the trial and appeal... which is the entire point of a three tired judicial system, Forrest.
Very telling that the two courts which convicted her followed the law and sound logic, while the courts which acquitted had to break the law to get her off the hook. Which says it all about the strength of their case for factual innocence.

This is in no way an exoneration for your precious killer, you pathetic white knight saddo. They're all but flat out saying she did it.

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

reply

No she can't. Reason being, the first chamber is supposed to be the one reviewing murder cases. Bongiorno requested the fifth chamber, which was granted. Paolo Bruno, the SC lead judge has faced investigation for corruption, mafia association and indeed is considered "a mafioso" by the current mayor of Naples, who himself is a former prosecutor.
Hey Blackjack, what are your thoughts on the SC saying Knox was there the night of Meredith's murder? (p48)
Do you agree with them that Knox washed Meredith's blood from her hands? (p46)
Do you agree with them that Guede had accomplices? Do tell.

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

reply

I STILL say, that Legal truth and ACTUAL truth are two completely different things.

NO, I don't agree that Amanda washed Meredith's blood. I agree that both their DNA was in the Bathroom because THEY LIVED THERE, and a bathroom is one of the easiest places to leave your DNA.

NO, I don't agree that Rudy had accomplices. LEGALLY, the Crime scene is the murder house. ACTUALLY, it was only the room in which Meredith was killed, and ONLY Rudy's DNA was found on and IN the victim.


Also, I know she has no further action in Italy regarding the calumna. Only the ECHR can clean that up now. I was saying that the 1st chambers caused her and her family needless emotional and financial hardship by throwing out Hellman's acquittal, only for the 5th Chambers to re-instate it on the exact same reasoning.

Also, The 1st chamber practically ORDERED Nencini to find Amanda guilty (in a sense, evaluating the evidence, which you claim is a violation). Having another SC panel look at the case was the only way the final verdict would have ever been fair.





How you can make the world a better place:
Don't shop at Wal-Mart.

reply

Right, so you're saying that your little icon was acquitted on unsound grounds, gotcha.

You're also saying that Meredith's blood fell in each and every precise area where Knox's blood DNA already was innocuously. This is why nobody with half a brain takes you murderer groupies seriously.

ECHR is not an appeals court and Knox won't pursue it either. She just said she would but will now quietly drop it. I've patiently and helpfully explained this to you before and am not repeating myself due to your inability to process information.

Next questions:
1) Considering the damning revelations on pages 46-48, are you still insisting that the court "completely exonerated her"? Yes or no?

2) Considering the SC essentially dreamed up a defence scenario that even her own lawyers didn't moot, do you think they acted in a fair and impartial manner? (Oh and a slice of advice- think very carefully before you post, answering this specific question. )

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

reply

To err is human, to forgive is divine. If Amanda won't pursue it, I respect her for it.

How you can make the world a better place:
Don't shop at Wal-Mart.

reply

save your breath or more properly finger tips. corpus is totally incapable of admitting the truth.

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

reply

Name one lie I've told Forrest and be specific. You're the one lying that she was proven innocent when the report doesn't say that at all.

Hey what are your thoughts on page 46-48?

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

reply

the judge said she did not do the crime. that's innocent by any rational measure.

but the judge did say what I've said for years.
1) she was never in Merdith's room
2) the knife either is not the murder weapon and the murder weapon cannot be placed in Amanda's hand
3) there is no convincing motive.



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

reply

Ah, I see you're back in mantra mode.
Proof of motive isn't required by any court of law, Forrest. As I've patiently explained to you about oh, 700,00 times now.
The report states there's no biological traces of her in Meredith's room which is meaningless anyway, for reasons I've also explained to you an absolute bunch of times. Even if there were, you'd simply bleat it was because she lived there anyway.
Yet the report also states she may have washed Meredith's blood from her hands to cover up for someone, which means she must have been in your fabled "Murder Room" to get Meredith's blood on her hands... you unbelievably silly little man.

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

reply

Hey Pete, looks like the Supreme Court report has confirmed that Guede didn't act alone.

4.3.1 Paragraphs 2 and 3 (Page 26):
“Orbene, il "fatto" accertato nella sentenza in questione è, incontrovertibilmente, la partecipazione del Guede all'omicidio, "in concorso con altre persone, rimaste ignote". Il richiamo alle norme processuali indicate sta a significare che l'utilizzabilità di siffatto accertamento è subordinata alla duplice condizione della riconducibilità di quel fatto all'alveo dell’ “oggetto della prova", rilevante nel presente giudizio, ed alla sussistenza di altri elementi di prova che ne confermano l'attendibilità.

Duplice verifica che, nel caso di specie, ha esito, largamente, positivo. Ed infatti, è di tutta evidenza la pertinenza di quel fatto, aliunde accertato, all'oggetto di cognizione del presente giudizio. Parimenti corretta è la sua valutazione in rapporto ad altre risultanze processuali, idonee a ribadirne l'attendibilità. Si intende fare riferimento ai plurimi elementi, legati alla complessiva ricostruzione della vicenda, che escludono che il Guede possa avere agito da solo. In primo luogo, depongono in tal senso le due principali ferite (in realtà tre) riscontrate sul collo della giovane inglese, una da un lato e la seconda dall'altro, con andamento diversificato e caratteristiche riconducibili, verosimilmente (anche se il dato è contestato dalle difese) a due diverse armi da taglio. Ed ancora, la mancanza di segni di resistenza da parte della ragazza, sotto le cui unghie non essendo state rilevate tracce dell'aggressore né risultando aliunde alcun disperato tentativo di opposizione; le tumefazioni agli arti superiori e le ecchimosi in zona mandibolare e labiale (per verosimile azione manuale di costrizione volta a tappare la bocca della vittima) rinvenute in sede di ispezione cadaverica e soprattutto le agghiaccianti modalità dell'omicidio, non adeguatamente valorizzate nella sentenza impugnata.”



Translation :

(So, the “fact” that was ascertained in the verdict in question is, irrevocably, Guede’s participation in the murder “along with other people, who remain unknown”. The invoking of the cited procedural norms means that the possibility of using said fact is subject to the twofold condition of both reconciling such fact within the scope of the “purpose of the evidence” which is relevant to the current judgement, and on the existence of further pieces of evidence that confirm its reliability.

This twofold verification, in the current case, has, broadly, had a positive outcome. And in fact, the importance of such fact, ascertained elsewhere, to the process of arriving at the current judgement is manifestly evident. Equally correct is its assessment in relation to other trial findings that are fit to confirm its reliability. We refer to the multiple elements, linked to the overall reconstruction of events, which rule out that Guede could have acted alone. In the first place, the two main wounds (actually, three) found on the neck of the young English woman are pointing in that direction: the first on one side and the second on the other side, with differing shapes and characteristics, that are compatible with (albeit this is challenged by the defence teams) two different cutting weapons. And also, the lack of signs of resistance on the part of the girl, since no traces of the assailant were found under her nails, and there is no evidence elsewhere of any desperate attempt to oppose the aggressor; the bruises on her upper limbs and those on the area of the mandibular and the lips (likely the result of forcible hand action of constraint meant to keep the victim’s mouth shut) found during the examination of the corpse, and above all the horrific manner of the murder, which was not adequately evaluated in the impugned verdict.)





The Supreme Court also throws out the defence’s theory that the murder was the result of an interrupted burglary.

4.3.1 Paragraph 7 (Page 27):
“Quel rilievo risulta, ancor meno, compatibile con l'ipotesi dell'irruzione in casa di un ignoto ladro, non appena si consideri che, nell'ordine naturale degli ordinari accadimenti, se è ben possibile che un ladro, alla vista di una giovane donna, possa essere colto da irrefrenabili pulsioni sessuali ed aggredirla, assai difficilmente, dopo l'aggressione fisica e sessuale, si lascia andare ad un gratuito omicidio, peraltro con la brutale ferocia del caso, anziché darsi a precipitosa fuga. Salvo, ovviamente, a non pensare alla disturbata personalità di un serial killer, di cui però in atti non vié traccia alcuna, non risultando che a Perugia, in quel periodo di tempo, siano stati commessi omicidi di altre ragazze con identiche modalità.”




Translation


(That finding is even less compatible with the theory that an unknown thief broke into the house, as soon as one considers that, within the natural course of ordinary events, while it is possible that a thief might be overcome by uncontrollable sexual urges at the sight of a young woman and attack her, it’s rather unlikely that after the physical and sexual aggression he would also commit a gratuitous murder, especially not with the fierce brutality of this case, rather than running away quickly instead. Unless, obviously, one considers the disturbed personality of a serial killer, of which, however, there is no trace in the court documents, since in that period of time in Perugia no murders of other girls with the same modus operandi were committed.)

Not exactly the "proven innocent" bs you were constantly droning, eh?







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

reply

Hey Pete, looks like the Supreme Court report has confirmed that Guede didn't act alone.


Very interesting. "Pete" said nothing about Guede acting alone in his post yet you reply with this huge post of quoted irrelevancies.

I haven't really had the chance to "debate" with guilters like you before and I'm quite shocked . Is this one of your techniques of trolling or are you not very bright?

reply

pete has insisted throughout this board and on other boards that Guede is the sole killer in more convos with him than I care to remember, you dribbling turnip.

Oh and stop using cultish made up words that don't actually exist such as "guilter" and then lie that you're not interested in this case or a Knox supporter as while hilarious, it's also utterly pathetic.

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

reply

Very interesting. "Pete" said nothing about Guede acting alone in his post yet you reply with this huge post of quoted irrelevancies.


explain.



a Knox supporter


evidence

reply

Already explained. Ask him yourself if he thinks Guede is the sole killer. Your stupidity is not my concern.

Your use of a non existent word such as "guilter", which Knox supporters use. Deny it all you like, you're fooling nobody.

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

reply

I use guilter because it's an insult you don't like. It amuses me that you protest.

knox supporter

proof?

Really, very simple.

reply

So you can read my mind now as well as Mignini's? I never said it bothered me, it's simply one of the many many examples Knox supporters are considered akin to a cult, is all.

Sure it is. It's not like you've engaged in dishonesty before so I have no reason to disbelieve you now mate.


















































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

reply

Alas you lie again - it does bother you - you complained when I used it a couple of days in quotes -.guilter

where is the evidence I support the former defendants?

Dishonesty is rewriting web pages to prove your point  indeed.

reply

Yeah keep deluding yourself. Your agenda is plain for anyone to see, yet again you simply lack the basic self awareness to see this.
So, you gonna continue to be stuck in Groundhog Day mode? See now why you've already been stuck on ignore by one poster?

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

reply

by Corpus_Vile » 3 days ago (Sun Nov 15 2015 04:59:06) Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since May 2008
However, I am also aware that the 'guilters' are also prone to lying, rewriting history and making things up - which is why we are having this discussion.

I see by your nonsensical use of a creepy and decidedly cultish lexicon of "guilter" that you're a true Amandafan btw.


there you go - I guess you forget to rewrite the evidence out of that post.

My use of the word guilter in quotes - and your whining about it being creepy and cultish.

Well - yeah - guilter you are definitely creepy and cultish sex obsessed weirdo - how long have you been discussing (sorry enjoying) this case for?

reply

If you weren't interested in Meredith's case, you wouldn't be aware of the term or be posting here or engaging in dishonesty to defend your nonce.

Are you actually aware how stupid you're coming across as here, or is it an ignorance is bliss kinda thing with you? 

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

reply

If you weren't interested in Meredith's case, you wouldn't be aware of the term or be posting here or engaging in dishonesty to defend your nonce.


Stupid you. I've been following the case for a long time. I've hardly discussed it though. No I'm not interested in this case - it is finished there is no point discussing guilt.

The only point left is to stop you lot of perverted fantasists from trying to rewrite history. As I said that counts for both sides. But when I point out that Knox Sollecito were not exonerated I don't get attacked by GUILTER equivalents.

reply

What's a guilter?
If you're gonna be dishonest be prepared to get called on it.
You said earlier you weren't interested, now you've followed the case for a long time, while apparently all the while being unaware that DNA evidence existed against Knox and now say yet again that you're still not interested in this case, yet feel the need to comment on several threads about it and stalk other posters. Again, do you realise how stupid you're actually coming across as here?


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

reply

You said earlier you weren't interested, now you've followed the case for a long time,


lies lies lies. My gosh what a lot of lies.

I'd followed the case for a long time. I'm not interested in the question of guilt because the case is over.

I guess you didn't notice 

I think it's important that people don't rewrite history - like you. And I'm kind of curious about what motivates you people - but you are quite disturbing.. I suppose what interests me is how absolutely deluded you people are.

all the while being unaware that DNA evidence existed against Knox and now say yet again that you're still not interested in this case, yet feel the need to comment on several threads about it and stalk other posters


I vaguely remember this - long while back. Clearly not relevant unless you disagree with the final verdict.

reply

I'd followed the case for a long time


all the while being unaware that DNA evidence existed against Knox


I vaguely remember this - long while back.

Keep 'em coming.
It's clearly ignorance is bliss unwitting stupidity with you.

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

reply

According to you I can remember something I was unaware of?

How is this possible?

Please answer 😁

reply

You vaguely remember DNA evidence against Knox, yet claim to have followed this case for a long time. You demanded links to the actual DNA evidence against Knox before suddenly claiming that you "vaguely remember" it. You're unbelievably stupid. Or should I say "stooped".

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

reply

Yup, I vaguely remember the mixed blood DNA evidence in the bathroom and then people could have this idiotic argument as to whether it was blood mixed with DNA or blood mixed with blood and how it all could have got there etc etc. The more I think about it the more I remember .. how not worth remembering it is. Anyway.

How can I remember something that I was unaware of? Please (again) try again.

reply



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

reply

How can I remember something that I was unaware of? Please (again) try again.


please answer this question.

Interesting about the blood in the bathroom. There was an issue - I think I'd be annoyed if someone started denying that there ever was an issue. In a similar way if people denied that the prosecutor chose to concoct a sex game gone wrong theory - no denying it happened. Why he chose to do that is an interesting question.

reply

I did answer it already and I don't do rinse repeat, sorry.

Rest of your post is yet more repetitive dribble, ergo dismissed.

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

reply

How can I remember something that I was unaware of? Please (again) try again.

reply

^^http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107048/reference

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

reply

Is it still going on with its plodding defense of a murderess? I have it on ignore. Not only the like don't know the case at all, they ask you to do their homework, LOL.

reply

I'm afraid you will have to explain your claim that I can remember something that I was unaware of?

reply

I'm afraid I'm not interested in your boring automaton style repetition due to your obtuseness to grasp things the first time around.

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

reply

I'm afraid I'm not interested in your boring automaton style repetition due to your obtuseness to grasp things the first time around.


You still didn't answer the question the first time round. 

To remind you - how can I remember something I was unaware of?

reply

^^http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/reference

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

reply

The non-existent word "guilter" was made up by a chap from Ireland calling himself Michael Charles Becker, this same person is also known to harass and abuse the Kercher family on various websites, along with his friends. If you want to be associated with this, it's your choice, it makes you look silly, but so be it.

On the other hand, Meredith Hater, are genuine words and apply to people who choose to use words made up by people who abuse murder victims families.

I personally like being known as a guilter and a Guede, Knox & Sollecito hater, the reason for this is 4-fold. I hate murder and I hate people who lie to the police during murder investigations. I also hate people, who for whatever selfish reasons, choose to blame innocent people for crimes they didn't commit. I also hate people, who again for whatever selfish reasons, attempt to profit from murder or crimes.

Now you have my reasons for hating Sollecito, Guede and Knox, perhaps you can explain to us why you hate Meredith Kercher and her family?

Guilter and proud hater of criminals.

reply

I love your avatar.


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

reply

Well said. Hoping the imdb Knox groupies don't turn out to be racist, pro-Nazi stalkers and borderline criminals with mental health issues like their counterparts elsewhere.

reply

Welcome to the IMDB. Nice of you to come and stalk me so offensively in your very first post.

If you want to be associated with this, it's your choice, it makes you look silly, but so be it.


I happen to agree that it is very silly. I used it once in quotes referring to vile and he was outraged so I think I used it again to offend him - he is very offensive. I'd probably use it again because causing offense to people seems to be the way you people do things, but to be honest it is quite "gay" (not of course being offensive to the LGBT community)

On the other hand, Meredith Hater, are genuine words and apply to people who choose to use words made up by people who abuse murder victims families.


That is like your opinion man 

I personally like being known as a guilter and a Guede, Knox & Sollecito hater, the reason for this is 4-fold. I hate murder and I hate people who lie to the police during murder investigations. I also hate people, who for whatever selfish reasons, choose to blame innocent people for crimes they didn't commit. I also hate people, who again for whatever selfish reasons, attempt to profit from murder or crimes.


Am I supposed to care?


Now you have my reasons for hating Sollecito, Guede and Knox, perhaps you can explain to us why you hate Meredith Kercher and her family?


ah, (I'll address this to Vile and TheeMortyToad as well because they seem to agree with this).

How utterly disrespectful to use the murdered victim and their family as a way to insult someone.

I think this is probably the main reason why I've despised you murder groupies (from whichever side you are on) and possibly why, after 8 years of saying hardly anything I'm bothering to post now . You are literally murder junkies who don't care who they use in order to get their fix.

reply

I happen to agree that it is very silly. I used it once in quotes referring to vile and he was outraged so I think I used it again to offend him - he is very offensive. I'd probably use it again because causing offense to people seems to be the way you people do things, but to be honest it is quite "gay" (not of course being offensive to the LGBT community)


You happen to agree it is very silly but chose to do it anyway. This makes you a) intelligent or b) silly?

Am I supposed to care?


No, I was hoping you were going to show us all how much you don't care by not responding. I guess I hoped for too much.

ah, (I'll address this to Vile and TheeMortyToad as well because they seem to agree with this).

How utterly disrespectful to use the murdered victim and their family as a way to insult someone.


I'm confused, you do or don't care? This response certainly looks like you care enough about being shown who you are.

Show us all how much you don't care again.

reply

"How utterly disrespectful to use the murdered victim and their family as a way to insult someone."

I agree. That is really low.


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

reply

Do you recall Knox's spoken address/statement to Hellman's court? She really seemed to be urging Guede to "talk" about what happened, as if she were also there. Because she was, I believe.

reply

I remember her making it but would need to go over it again to remember what she specifically said. I also recall that Guede made some odd statements anyway, such as his "atraxia of the mind" comment. I've always wondered precisely what he meant by that statement and if it was some form of code actually.

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

reply

Sc states they were at the house that night, Knox washed Meredith's blood off her hands and that they very probably would have convicted, only they then falsely accuse the cops of incompetence, which means they couldn't convict. it even moots a defence for Knox that her own lawyers didn't moot.
You clearly haven't read any of the report, you clueless moron.

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

reply

This is a gem on p49, paragraph three:

Resta, nondimento, forte il sopetto che egli fosse, realmente, presente nella casa di villa della pergola la notte d'ella omicidio in une moneto, pero' che non e' stato possible determinare.
D'altro canto, certa la prezenza della Knox in quella casa, appare scarsamente credible che eglinon si trovasse con lei


Translation:
Nevertheless there is strong suspicion that he (Sollecito) was, truly, present in the house in villa della pergola on the night of the homicide, however, it is not possible to determine when he was there. On the other hand, since it was certain that Knox was present in that house, it seems scarcely credible that he would not have been there with her.


... Ouch. "Proven innocent", eh Forrest? 

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

reply

I've always believed Sollecito was there and have no doubt he took active part in the staging, most likely he was the person who moved poor Meredith Kercher's body and obviously cut her undergarments from her body as part of the staging.

Normal Is A Myth.

reply

IMO it was his idea for the clean up and his idea to pose Meredith. Her murder bore noticeable similarities to one of his mangas and she was even posed in a similar manner. IMO, he's a lot more dangerous than he's been given credit for actually and it wouldn't surprise me if he gets himself into trouble again in the future.
Cassation says there's "strong suspicion" that he was there when Meredith was murdered and that it's certain that Knox was.

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

reply

I agree. And Sollecito is not only dangerous, but he's also very dumb. A bad combination.

Normal Is A Myth.

reply

He's indeed thick and doesn't even remember to keep track of his lies. He claims in his own book that both he and Knox switched off their phones simultaneously, yet then denied they did this and denied he even said it, when he appeared on Linnea Giallo. 

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

reply

One thing has always fascinated me about people like this Lynden chap, why can't they just own, as I & others can, the tag they quite openly give themselves, Kercher family haters? I imagine they hate Meredith and her family for racist or sexist reasons.

I would have so much more respect for them if they just came out, like plenty of their fellow Knox/Guede/Sollecito groupies, and just admitted to being affiliated to the KKK or other racist hate groups.

reply

I think they know deep down what type of low life they are, and for some reason it irks them to have it pointed out to them by other people. Lyndhgen's one of these pretends to be neutral types but has no problem engaging in rampant dishonest to try and pass of foaker memes as part of his neutral outlook. Then his true obsessive stalker colours comes into play once he's exposed. Amanda Knox attracts some strange, creepy people.

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

reply

BrucFishlips:

Lynden chap, why can't they just own, as I & others can, the tag they quite openly give themselves, Kercher family haters?


Corpus_Vile:
. Lyndhgen's one of these pretends to be neutral types but has no problem engaging in rampant dishonest to try and pass of foaker memes as part of his neutral outlook.


I very rarely post here - but there are two posts in the thread 'amanda knox innocent or guilty' which clearly prove you both wrong.

My replies in italics.

I'm not saying that the Kercher family are bad people, or that money is their only motivation


Money is not their motivation. Punishment is their motivation, and if Guede gets out in only 16 years the family has every right to seek as much punishment as they can get.

but you would think they would want justice for Meredith, justice includes punishing the guilty parties and not the innocent.


No. Absolutely no one is objective about this case, why does the family have to be neutral. The family has every right to believe the Police and not the case presented by the defence. It's the courts job to see justice is done, not the family's.

As far as I know the Kercher family has been extremely restrained and it's obvious that the current proceedings must be as difficult for them as for the defendants.


Second post - my replies in italics
The Kercher family filed a civil law suit against anyone found guilty of the murder. The court awarded a sum of €1,000,000 to each of the parents and €800,000 to each of Meredith's siblings. If Amanda and Raffaelli are exonerated (or their convictions are overturned), the family stands to lose a substantial sum of money.

14 Days until s7 of "Supernatural!"
Cram it with walnuts, Ugly!
Re: Amanda Knox innocent or guilty?
image for user Lyndhen
by Lyndhen
» Fri Sep 9 2011 03:50:23 Flag ▼ | Edit ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since November 2005

As you may know, filing a civil law suit allowed the family to have access to documents and information that would normally be restricted to the prosecution and defence.

Also, there is no chance that the family will actually get this money. S and K do not have this money and will likely not inherit any money if their appeal fails. If it is true that Guede will get out in a mere 16 years then I certainly hope that he will remain insolvent for the rest of his life with this huge debt.

To suggest that the Kercher family's motives are financial does you no service. I know the 'guilters' are capable of wild histrionics but I expect more from those who support Knox Sollecito.



Clearly my words prove you wrong. Note "I know the 'guilters' are capable of wild histrionics". This is evidently as true now as it was then.

reply

No need to justify your hate of a murder victims family, you had ample opportunity to do that in earlier posts. Instead you chose to confirm what we already knew.

Be gone with you now, hater.

reply

This guy is just a complete moron, like the rest of Knox's fan club. But this one's only semi coherent half the time.

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

reply

I've clearly shown you that you are wrong with these vile accusations. Why do you not accept it?



reply

The only thing you've shown is that you're a dishonest highly strung blowhard who consistently refuses to validate any position he takes, seems to think that mindless repetition is somehow a valid argument and that getting the last word in, no matter how stupid said last word is, again is somehow a valid argument.
Feel free to drone some more. The only reason I even interact with you groupies to begin with is for the benefit of others impartially reading, to provide them with factual info on Meredith Kercher's murder as i know from experience that you Knox cultists are incapable of honest or reasonable debate anyway so feel free to engage in more of your repetitive waffle. I'll respond to you whenever you actually post something worth addressing. If you get no response, it means you haven't said anything valid, interesting or worthy of a response.

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

reply

I've clearly proved you and your friend wrong with my own words quoted above from 2011. Do you now accept that you are wrong?


I'll respond to you whenever you actually post something worth addressing. If you get no response, it means you haven't said anything valid, interesting or worthy of a response.


I think we both know what it means 

reply

He's now reduced to trolling by insisting on getting the last word in, which he seems to think somehow validates his argument, while everyone else can see that he's just an obsessive w2ho needs to get the last word in.

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

reply

replying to your sock puppet there 

truly insane

reply

No need to justify your hate of a murder victims family, you had ample opportunity to do that in earlier posts. Instead you chose to confirm what we already knew.

Be gone with you now, hater.


I've clearly shown you that your accusation is untrue.

reply

Sorry but your dishonest tactics show your true colours.

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

reply

What is dishonest about posting something I said four years ago that directly refutes your malicious and vile accusation?

I am not manofatlan - I don't just make things up . Do you want a link to the quotes - they should be easy enough to find if you look on page one and two of the thread.

reply