Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32
- Thread starter LondonJohn
- Start date
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
ENOUGH! You can try and spin it any way you can but the fact remains that Guede's photo and announcement of being a suspect was made public the day BEFORE Amanda told her father she'd seen it on the news.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
The facts are: I did not say you "misquoted" it as you falsely claimed nor did you provide a link. Period.
Again, that you would even quote Naseer Ahmad is mindboggling.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
SO WHAT? To those seeing it, it looked like she'd had her throat sliced open. Your pedantry is tiresome.
You can't accept that anyone made a throat slicing motion because you need to discredit Altieri's testimony that he told RS and AK that MK's throat had been cut. Just like you need to discredit every single judge, expert, or witness that doesn't support your guilt narrative. They're all "bent" somehow.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
It doesn't matter what you think "makes sense": the evidence shows the information was, in fact, released on Nov. 19. Or was Mignini wrong on Nov. 19 when he said "ANSA and other journalists" had already posted Guede's name and photo? That's a yes or no.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
That doesn't stop you from posting a long diatribe on how you think she should or shouldn't live her life.
No one cares how YOU think she should or shouldn't live her life so why bother taking the time and effort to do so? Instead, why not put your effort into answering the many specific questions you're asked which you ignore?
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Then quote and cite that!
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
Yes. Crimes with a potential penalty of life in prison, and no others. You just pulled that out of an orifice because you're desperate to come up with some excuse for why no one's been charged yet.
However, your BS claim did cause me to double-check, and I discovered that my first source, which listed a six-year statute of limitations, is incorrect. It turns out that the statute of limitations for most crimes is actually equal to the maximum sentence for that crime, with a minimum of six years for felonies. And the maximum penalty for judicial bribery is 20 years. But, crucially, you weren't aware of either of those facts. And bear in mind that in Italy, the entire judicial process, including sentencing and appeals, must be completed before the statute of limitations runs.
That said, your insinuation that there's been some investigation of this allegedly blindingly obvious corruption going on for the past 10 years is ridiculous. What could possibly be taking anywhere near this long?? Marasca is 81 years old, the clock is ticking in more than one way. And the other allegedly corrupt judges have still been on the bench these past 10 years. Finally, of course, proving corruption would be the only way of possibly getting a new trial for Amanda and Raffaele.
What Stacy said.
Last edited:
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
Evasion noted. And what Stacy said.
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
As usual, you mischaracterize. I said "said or insinuated." You insinuated that every American who believes in innocence has been brainwashed here:
Assumes facts not in evidence.
I am quite confident that anyone who disagrees with me will say so. As you may have noticed, no one has prevented you from disagreeing with me and with numerous other posters.
Your posts suggest otherwise.
I have repeatedly invited you to report any posts of mine that you feel violate the membership agreement for moderation.
If you don't want me to do that, you ought to stop making so many highly ironic statements.
Last edited:
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
Which methods? Yet again, I can't tell what you're talking about because of your failure to inline your responses.
Begging the question that I want to do that. Further, I can continue to call out the numerous factual errors, logical fallacies, and downright dishonesty in your your posts.
What Stacy said.
I would argue that you are the one who fails to grasp that, as you are forever planting your flag on "judicial facts," as if the courts having determined said facts could not possibly have done so erroneously.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Straw man.
It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Macbeth, Act V, Scene 5
No. You've been corrected on this several times, but you keep repeating it anyway.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
This is Reuters earliest news and it does NOT name Guede. It refers to him as the fourth suspect. I don't care what crafty time stamps you put on your sources. Any date anomaly is a time zone issue.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
The gesture for a stab and then thrust upward is VERY different from a cut throat one. The classic gangster 'permanent grin' was NOT seen here.
.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
The story is easily found on the internet and in RS' book, but please see one example here:
Cosmopolitan.com - The Women's Magazine for Dating Advice, Relationships, and Celebrity News
Your source for the latest dating tips, celebrity news, relationship help, beauty tutorials, fashion trends, and more.
www.cosmopolitan.com
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
That is interesting to know. I don't think it was Marasca who was the dodgy one, more likely Bruno, who had been charged and acquitted of dodgy stuff before. The Motivational Report, by statute, should have come out within 60 days but it was delayed by another three months, a clear breach of court procedure. Rumour at the time was that Bruno had been taken ill - he's the junior judge who writes it (not based on age) and Marasca who signs it off. So there was obviously some kind of issue going on with people describing angry words being shouted between the pair.
.
Last edited:
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
If you don't know the difference between slashing and stabbing, I can't help you.
What thingummybob said.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Not sure why you are disputing there was a massive PR campaign, when I provided a citation from Curt Knox saying recruiting a PR agency was the smartest thing he ever did. We all know advertising and PR are hugely successful, why else do corporations spend a huge amount of money on it. Why do you think Elon Musk invested hundreds of mllions in PR to get King Donald of Orange elected. Because it works. If you want to use the hyperbole of 'brainwashing' then you obviously understood the intent behind PR. But should criminal law be tried by PR, advertising or by public opinion? I would stick my neck out and say the correct place to try a criminal case is in a criminal court of law.
As for your moronic admonitions to report your word twisting to to the moderators, please stop it. It is not clever.
.
Last edited:
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Which methods? Yet again, I can't tell what you're talking about because of your failure to inline your responses.
Begging the question that I want to do that. Further, I can continue to call out the numerous factual errors, logical fallacies, and downright dishonesty in your your posts.
What Stacy said.
I would argue that you are the one who fails to grasp that, as you are forever planting your flag on "judicial facts," as if the courts having determined said facts could not possibly have done so erroneously.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Straw man.
It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Macbeth, Act V, Scene 5
No. You've been corrected on this several times, but you keep repeating it anyway.
Er, you said your method for forming an opinion was to search out engineers and authority figures. That tells me you lack confidence in your own critical faculties. That's fine. That is your way. Nobody can refuse you that right.
Judicial facts: yes, a judicial fact becomes a fact. Your entire life is based on judicial facts: your birth certificate, your parents' marital status, your marital status, your kids' dates of birth status and legal names. Your driving licence. All legal facts.
So if a court decides something is a fact, then I am afraid it becomes so.
The whole point of a trial is to test evidence for and against, employing independent expert witnesses by the court, if necessary, the defence always welcome to bring some of their own. After cross examination and weighing of the ALL merits, the panel of judges, including six permanent lay judges (in Italy) then have to deliberate and come to a verdict. That means it prefers one set of evidence over the others. There is the safety net of the appeal. In a criminal trial all parties have the right to present their case. But if you lose, no point continuing to tubthump your defence (or charges, if the prosecution) all that matters is what the court has decided.
In PR and advertising, what you get is a very one-sided view, in the case of AK, her chum, Madison Paxton, got her boyfriend on ROLLING STONE magazine to run a huge story, RAILROADED!! with all kinds of claims of torture, all-night interrogations, evil prosecutors, etcetera. There is no balance there. An article might add, 'the other party has been contacted for their comment' but anyone who reads a gossip rag like the DAILY MAIL, Page 6, TMZ, Radar or watches FOX News should always be aware that the quality of accuracy might not be what you would expect under cross-examination in a criminal trial or PhD thesis. PR is not even news/gossip entertainment, it is a decided attempt to persuade and persuasion is something we should all resist and be suspicious of when it crosses our path, or before you know it, you have just ordered an entire set of encyclopaedias or double-glazed windows.
Please stop with the trite clichés, 'assumes facts not in evidence'. It really isn't clever.
.
Last edited:
The article's time stamp corresponds to 6:10 pm (18:10 0n 24-hour clock) Italian time on 19 November 2007. Note that it also corresponds to 12:10 pm in New York on that date (19 November 2007). That's the same time and date as the ABC news article that named Rudy Guede as the person sought by the Italian police. However, in the Reuters article, possibly to avoid a legal issue, the person sought is not named. Instead, the article states that Italian media have identified the suspect, and that details of the evidence against him have been leaked and published in the media:
According to Knox's memoir Free: My Search for Meaning, a television was available to the women inmates at the prison for group viewing and viewing TV was a popular activity among them.
Here's an example of the Italian media coverage from 19 November 2007. It specifically names Rudy Guede.
In summary, Vixen's claim that Knox could not have known Rudy Guede's name as the "fourth suspect" in the case on 20 November 2007 is clearly false. In fact, Guede's name and photo had been lawfully released to the media (and thus to the public) on 19 November 2007 by a legal notice signed by the prosecutor, Mignini, on 19 November 2007. Indeed, that document provides the reason for the media release as the fact that Guede's name and photo had already been published by ANSA and other Italian media.
Here's the ABC News short summary as presented by a search engine today (9 May 2025); the time given is (I assume) for New York, but adjusted for Eastern Daylight Time; the actual time on 19 November would have been 12:10 pm Eastern Standard Time. If it were for Perugia, it would have been 12:10 pm in Perugia (Italy also observes a time change - advancing the clock one hour for summer). New York Eastern Standard Time is 6 hours behind (earlier) than the standard time in Italy. That means that Rudy Guede's name and photo would have been in the Italian media before 6:10 pm (18:10 for the 24-hour clock) Italian time on 19 November 2007.
Sources:
Rudy Guede, ecco il quarto uomo Patrick vicino alla scarcerazione
IL GIALLO DI PERUGIA
www.quotidiano.net
Last edited:
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
Quote an ad hominem fallacy from any of my posts.
I made no such claim. That's just your usual selective reading comprehension, in order to avoid addressing the actual issue. And the hilited still assumes facts not in evidence, your recent pretend attempt to provide evidence notwithstanding.
The fallacy here is yours, and it's special pleadingWP. You claim that Vanessa is "corrupt" because of her purported attempt to "interfere" in the murder investigation against her brother, when she was never even charged with, let alone convicted of, any such thing, and at worst dismissed from the Carabinieri. Yet you claim that Napoleoni is not corrupt, despite the fact that she was sentenced to prison for her criminal attempt to dig up dirt on her ex-husband to use in their custody case.
Do you understand why this isn't a tu quoque argument?
See above.