ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Amanda Knox , Italy cases , Meredith Kercher , murder cases , Raffaele Sollecito

Reply
Old 18th November 2019, 02:22 PM   #321
whoanellie
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 704
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
True.



Vixen has also claimed that the clean up included removing the heel part of the bathmat bloody footprint from the tile floor . But why then leave the bathmat itself with the rest of the footprint? Why leave the sink uncleaned of visible blood, especially in the light that Vixen claims Knox had been "bleeding profusely"?
and why didn't they flush the toilet? My recollection is that the poo wasn't in Amanda's bathroom. I don't think KrissyG realizes that.
whoanellie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2019, 03:20 PM   #322
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,840
Originally Posted by whoanellie View Post
and why didn't they flush the toilet? My recollection is that the poo wasn't in Amanda's bathroom. I don't think KrissyG realizes that.


*Ahem* Stop being so logical and objective. Everyone knows that blinkered biases coupled with a stupendous paucity of scientific or legal understanding are the real way forward in any debate.....


(And yes, those faeces were in the other, bigger bathroom (the bathroom used mainly by the two Italian tenants), rather than the so-called "small bathroom" (the bathroom used mainly by Knox and Kercher). Knox noticed their presence on account of the fact that she went to use the mirror in that other bathroom to dry her hair after her shower*.)


* Oh oops, sorry! I mean: the evil fox Knox knew about those faeces because she and Sollecito had gone round the whole cottage doing this mythical, evidence-free "clean-up" after the murder, and she decided not to flush in order to frame Guede. Or was it Lumumba she was trying to frame? Yes, that's it! She was trying to frame Lumumba using a piece of poo that she knew had emerged from Guede's backside! That makes sense, right?
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2019, 03:44 PM   #323
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,461
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
*Ahem* Stop being so logical and objective. Everyone knows that blinkered biases coupled with a stupendous paucity of scientific or legal understanding are the real way forward in any debate.....


(And yes, those faeces were in the other, bigger bathroom (the bathroom used mainly by the two Italian tenants), rather than the so-called "small bathroom" (the bathroom used mainly by Knox and Kercher). Knox noticed their presence on account of the fact that she went to use the mirror in that other bathroom to dry her hair after her shower*.)


* Oh oops, sorry! I mean: the evil fox Knox knew about those faeces because she and Sollecito had gone round the whole cottage doing this mythical, evidence-free "clean-up" after the murder, and she decided not to flush in order to frame Guede. Or was it Lumumba she was trying to frame? Yes, that's it! She was trying to frame Lumumba using a piece of poo that she knew had emerged from Guede's backside! That makes sense, right?
Reminds me of a Star Trek episode where, in an effort to confuse a race of androids, Kirk tells the android leader Norman that everything Harry Mud says is a lie, wherein Harry then tells Norman "I lied". Poor Norman shorts out trying to reconcile Harry saying he lied, which would mean he was telling the truth, but he couldn't be telling the truth because everything he says is a lie.

There are days when I try to follow the 'logic' of the likes of Krissy or Vixen and I feel like shorting out.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2019, 04:18 PM   #324
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,277
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
From Krissy G's TJMK article above:

Quote:
Some Conclusions From The Above



I agree with that first sentence...but not in the way KG means. They were mixed together at the same time when Brocci wiped them up with the swab. Watching the collection video, it's clear that there was a great deal of pressure and often vigorous rubbing of the samples over a large area. This is the same conclusion that Hellmann and other forensic experts, rightfully, came to.




If the bolded sentence were correct, then why have forensic experts explicitly stated otherwise? As Prof. Peter Gill wrote:


https://www.fsigenetics.com/article/...033-3/fulltext

Hmmmm....whom to believe? Some pontificating, self-appointed DNA 'expert' whose opinion is contrary to the vast majority of forensic experts or one of, if not the, most respected DNA experts in the world?



What a stupendously stupid statement! According to KG, Knox was 'bleeding profusely', yet the pair knew what was Meredith's blood and what was hers? KG has claimed there was a clean up in the apartment yet she now wants us to swallow the idea that the bathroom was not cleaned up of visible blood because the pair knew about pre-existing DNA and that it could not be dated? KG's logic is as tortured as Vixen's claim that they pointed out the bathmat to police in order to 'put one over on them'.




It's not Gladwell's assertion, but KrissyG's assertions, that are 'both utterly false and ignorant". Why is it that she failed to supply any forensic experts who agree with her? Could it possibly be because there are none?



Marasca was just plain wrong as there isn't a shred of scientific evidence to support that conclusion. It is contrary to the facts of forensic science as well as logic. Marasca ruled that Knox was not in the murder room, so how could she have come into contact with that much fresh blood in order to leave visible traces in the sink? Why would she not have cleaned the sink? Krissy G's illogical reasoning that Knox didn't bother because she knew that her DNA would be pre-existing is beyond ludicrous.

Let's also recall that the text in question appears in Section 9.4.1 of the Marasca CSC panel Motivation Report. All of Section 9 and its subsections are attempts by the CSC to show that the various alternative hypotheses claiming to support the guilt of Knox and Sollecito for the murder/rape of Kercher don't make sense - legally, they do not add up to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, the CSC was also trying to accommodate an acceptance of Knox's (wrongful) conviction for calunnia against Lumumba; therefore, it had to give some credence to her coerced statement that she was in the flat at the time of the murder, while expressing puzzlement as to how she came to make such statements.

Another point is that the translation of the Italian text may be difficult, and that may be because of some ambiguities in the way the MR is phrased. To address this issue of translation, I have attempted a translation of the relevant part of Section 9.4.1 using Google Translate with help from Collins Reverso. One trick I have found useful in such translation exercises is to isolate unclear phrases or clauses; this appears to increase the accuracy of Google Translate. I have also interjected corrections or clarifications where I recognized problems in the translation, for example with pronoun gender.

Here's the Italian text, as I divided it, followed by the translation:

"Altro elemento a suo carico è rappresentato dalle tracce di dna misto, suo e della vittima, nel "bagno piccolo",
ad eloquente che era,
comunque,
venuta a contatto con il sangue
di quest'ultima,
che cercò di lavare
(si trattava, a quanto pare, di sangue dilavato, mentre le tacce biologiche a lei riferite sarebbero conseguenti a sfregamento epiteliale).

Il dato è di forte sospetto, ma non decisivo,
a parte
le ben note considerazioni
sulla sicura natura
e riferibilità delle tracce in questione.

Nondimeno, anche a ritenere
certa l'attribuzione,
l'elemento processuale sarebbe non univoco,
siccome
dimostrativo anche di un contatto postumo con quel sangue,
nel probabile tentativo di rimuovere le più vistose tracce di quanto accaduto,
forse per aiutare qualcuno o
per allontanare da sé i sospetti,
senza che ciò possa contribuire a dare certezza del suo diretto coinvolgimento nell'azione omicidiaria.

Ogni ulteriore e più pregnante valenza sarebbe, infatti, comunque resistita dalla circostanza
- questa sì decisiva -
che nessuna traccia a lei riferibile e stata rinvenuta nel luogo del delitto o sul corpo della vittima, di talché -
a tutto concedere -
il contatto con il sangue della stessa sarebbe awenuto in un momento successivo ed in altro locale della casa."

Google translation with help from Collins Reverso:

"Another element in this charge is represented by the traces of mixed DNA, hers {Knox's} and the victim's, in the "small bathroom",
being significant evidence,
however,
{that Knox} came into contact with {the victim's} blood,
{which Knox} tried to {remove by} washing
({the traces were}, apparently, of washed blood, while the biological traces {attributed to Knox} would be consequent [resulting, subsequent] to epithelial rubbing).

The data are strongly suspicious, but not decisive,
apart from
the well-known considerations [comments, remarks]
on the safe nature
and traceability of the tracks in question
.


Nevertheless, even to believe
certain attribution,
the procedural element would be non-unique,
since {it could also be the}
demonstration of a posthumous contact with that blood,
in the probable attempt to remove the most obvious traces of what happened,
maybe to help someone or
to drive suspicion away,
without this contributing to giving certainty of {Knox's} direct involvement in the homicidal action.

Any further and more meaningful value would, in fact, in any case be resisted by the circumstance
- this {is completely} decisive -
that no trace of {Knox} was found at the scene of the crime or on the body of the victim, such that -
{even} to grant [allow, concede] everything {consider all the hypotheses to be true} -
the contact with the blood of the {victim} would have occurred at a later time and in another room of the house."

One point in the above is the MR statement:

"The data are strongly suspicious, but not decisive,
apart from
the well-known considerations [comments, remarks]
on the safe nature
and traceability of the tracks in question
."

This appears to be the CSC too cautiously stating that it is aware that there is no real inculpatory meaning to the bathroom sink DNA traces because of the improper way the Scientific Police collected the samples, combining all the traces into one.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2019, 04:37 PM   #325
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 14,410
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
*Ahem* Stop being so logical and objective. Everyone knows that blinkered biases coupled with a stupendous paucity of scientific or legal understanding are the real way forward in any debate.....


(And yes, those faeces were in the other, bigger bathroom (the bathroom used mainly by the two Italian tenants), rather than the so-called "small bathroom" (the bathroom used mainly by Knox and Kercher). Knox noticed their presence on account of the fact that she went to use the mirror in that other bathroom to dry her hair after her shower*.)


* Oh oops, sorry! I mean: the evil fox Knox knew about those faeces because she and Sollecito had gone round the whole cottage doing this mythical, evidence-free "clean-up" after the murder, and she decided not to flush in order to frame Guede. Or was it Lumumba she was trying to frame? Yes, that's it! She was trying to frame Lumumba using a piece of poo that she knew had emerged from Guede's backside! That makes sense, right?
The PGP have never been able to make up their minds whether Knox was setting up Guede or protecting him. They choose whichever one fits their current situation.

If she were protecting Guede, why point out the feces in the toilet? Why stage a break-in consistent with Guede's history? Why leave his visible bloody shoe prints? But if she were setting him up why accuse Lumumba instead? Why not break down during the interrogation and say it was Guede and he'd threatened to kill her if she squealed on him? Neither makes sense. The only logical explanation is that she was neither protecting him nor setting him up because she didn't know he was involved at all.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2019, 05:51 PM   #326
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,750
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
The PGP have never been able to make up their minds whether Knox was setting up Guede or protecting him. They choose whichever one fits their current situation.
....... and ignore that just moments previously they'd been enthusiastically arguing the other.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2019, 07:13 PM   #327
whoanellie
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 704
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You don't need to be a genius to spot there was a clean up.
(11/15/2019)

KrissyG (11/13/2019): 'So, blood on the bath mat, on the tap, in the sink, excrement in the toilet - and yet no attempt to flush it nor to wipe the sink clean.'
whoanellie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2019, 12:10 AM   #328
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 14,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You don't need to be a genius to spot there was a clean up.
Originally Posted by whoanellie View Post
(11/15/2019)

KrissyG (11/13/2019): 'So, blood on the bath mat, on the tap, in the sink, excrement in the toilet - and yet no attempt to flush it nor to wipe the sink clean.'
Maybe Vixen and Krissy G need to get together and figure out which story the PGP are going with.

Clean up or no clean up? Knox was protecting Guede, she was setting him up?
Ping.....pong....ping...pong....ping...pong...
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2019, 07:01 AM   #329
whoanellie
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 704
Cue the thoroughly debunked story that the postal police arrived before the 112 call catching Amanda mop in hand and interrupting the clean up in 3-2-1. Even Massei wouldn't buy that nonsense.
whoanellie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2019, 08:54 AM   #330
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,277
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
So getting back to the issue of "framing": What is the definition of framing that each of us is using?

I suggest that each of us may be using a different definition. It would be useful to each state a concrete definition so that we may understand more fully where we agree and disagree.

Here's my definition:

A person attempts to "frame" another - the alleged suspect - for a crime when that person intentionally attempts to mislead an investigation by:

1) providing a false or misleading element of evidence, interpretation, or logic which could be interpreted, if true, to demonstrate the guilt of the alleged suspect, or

2) suppressing or distorting a true element of evidence, interpretation, or logic that could be interpreted to contradict a demonstration of guilt of the alleged suspect.

"Framing" as defined above would, of course, also be a kind of official misconduct when the person committing it is an official such as a police officer or prosecutor.

Thus, by my definition, Stefanoni and the prosecution were "framing" Knox and Sollecito by, for example, suppressing the results from almost all the controls, including negative controls used to evaluate possible contamination, in the DNA profile testing.

Recall that one negative control among the real-time PCR quantification controls indeed showed contamination, as did several of the positive controls used for calibration.

It seems that an addition to Italian law (the Criminal Code) was made in 2016 to make "framing" (roughly as I define it above) a crime punishable by imprisonment. Here are some details.

On 6 August, 2016, roteoctober posted on IIP (Italian Criminal and Procedural Laws thread) as follows:

"An interesting modification of the Italian Penal Code was approved into law right before the summer recess, a practice sometimes applied in Italy when you want something to "pass without much fuss".

Essentially article 375 cp has been substituted (not just modified) by a totally new text (here a Google translated version) which basically introduces serious sentences (up to 20 years in very particular cases) for the alteration, destruction or falsification of evidence by "public officials [officers]", which essentially means, under Italian law, the law enforcement people.

This novelty is both interesting and somewhat surprising, because it specifically targets rogue elements of the law enforcement who may have destroyed, fabricted {fabricated} or tampered with evidence, something never so specifically targeted by the Italian Penal Code and one also wonders why such a need wasn't felt before and has been instead suddenly felt now."

On 8 August 2016, I posted in that IIP thread an English translation, as well as the original Italian text, of the new Italian law, CP Article 375 (reformatted for clarity):

"Here is an excerpt of the relevant text in the definition of the crime in CP 375 (Google translated, with my attempts at clarification):

CP Article 375
Fraud and Misdirection in the Criminal Trial and/or Investigative Process

{Fraud and Misdirection in Criminal Proceedings}

{1.} Unless the fact (of the crime) constitutes a more serious offense, the following acts are punished with imprisonment of from three to eight years: the public official or the person providing a public service, in order to prevent, obstruct or divert the criminal investigation or process:

a) artificially changes the material evidence, or the state of the places, things or persons connected with the crime;

b) being required by judicial authorities or the judicial police to provide information in a criminal case, falsely states or denies the truth, or remains silent, in whole or in part, about what he knows about the facts of the case.

{2.} If the fact (of the crime) is committed by destruction, suppression, concealment, damage, in whole or in part, or fabrication or artificial alteration, in whole or in part, of a document or an object to be used as evidence or in any case is useful to the discovery of the crime or its investigation, punishment shall be increased by a third to half. ..."

Here's the Italian text of the first two paragraphs of this law, from the web site of the Procura Generale (Attorney General) of Trento, Italy*

Articolo n.375
Frode in processo penale e depistaggio

1.Salvo che il fatto costituisca piu' grave reato, e' punito con la reclusione da tre a otto anni il pubblico ufficiale o l'incaricato di pubblico servizio che, al fine di impedire, ostacolare o sviare un'indagine o un processo penale:

a) immuta artificiosamente il corpo del reato ovvero lo stato dei luoghi, delle cose o delle persone connessi al reato;

b) richiesto dall'autorita' giudiziaria o dalla polizia giudiziaria di fornire informazioni in un procedimento penale, afferma il falso o nega il vero, ovvero tace, in tutto o in parte, cio' che sa intorno ai fatti sui quali viene sentito.

2.Se il fatto e' commesso mediante distruzione, soppressione, occultamento, danneggiamento, in tutto o in parte, ovvero formazione o artificiosa alterazione, in tutto o in parte, di un documento o diun oggetto da impiegare come elemento di prova o comunque utile alla scoperta del reato o al suo accertamento, la pena e' aumentata da un terzo alla meta'. ...."

* http://www.procuragenerale.trento.it...icle/31/cp.pdf.
For clarity and completeness, I point out that framings (false efforts to make the non-guilty appear guilty) and cover-ups (false efforts to make the guilty appear non-guilty or guilty only of lesser crimes) by authorities (public servants, for example, police or prosecutor) are both illegal in Italy, as of August, 2016, under CP Article 375, Fraud or Misdirection in Criminal Proceedings [Criminal Trial or Criminal Investigation].

Thus, as relevant to the Kercher murder/rape, the authorities hiding of evidence indicating that Guede had committed his crimes against Kercher alone, rather than with others, or the fabricating of evidence that he had committed with others, rather than alone, would have been criminal acts under the 2016 CP Article 375. Of course, those acts were committed before the 2016 law went into effect, and no one who violated 2016 CP Article 375 prior to it going it force could be legally prosecuted under it.

Last edited by Numbers; 19th November 2019 at 09:05 AM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2019, 10:24 AM   #331
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 18,942
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
The PGP have never been able to make up their minds whether Knox was setting up Guede or protecting him. They choose whichever one fits their current situation.

If she were protecting Guede, why point out the feces in the toilet? Why stage a break-in consistent with Guede's history? Why leave his visible bloody shoe prints? But if she were setting him up why accuse Lumumba instead? Why not break down during the interrogation and say it was Guede and he'd threatened to kill her if she squealed on him? Neither makes sense. The only logical explanation is that she was neither protecting him nor setting him up because she didn't know he was involved at all.
Knox could hardly name him without incriminating herself. Once she got the bright idea to blame A N Other all she could do was hint and gently - even crudely [showing Napoleoni the **** in the toilet] - in his direction.

Guess you'll never be a cop, as you have no idea how a criminal thinks.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2019, 10:28 AM   #332
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 18,942
Originally Posted by whoanellie View Post
(11/15/2019)

KrissyG (11/13/2019): 'So, blood on the bath mat, on the tap, in the sink, excrement in the toilet - and yet no attempt to flush it nor to wipe the sink clean.'
You might think 'all night long' is a long time but you'd be amazed at how time flies when you have some much to do and so little time to do it in. Maybe only six hours and no wonder you need the adrenaline rush of Nirvana at 5:00 in the morning after all that rushing around.

...Whoops! Left the lamp on the floor of Meredith's room..._DOH!
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2019, 11:49 AM   #333
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 14,410
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Knox could hardly name him without incriminating herself. Once she got the bright idea to blame A N Other all she could do was hint and gently - even crudely [showing Napoleoni the **** in the toilet] - in his direction.
Nope. All Knox had to do was say what Massei concluded himself: she and RS were in her bedroom, door closed, while Guede was talking and/or 'making out' with Kercher. Guede then attacked Kercher and killed her by himself. They could have done what Guede did: covered what they knew could be incriminating evidence. They went into the bedroom and tried to 'save' Kercher thereby explaining any footprints/DNA/fingerprints. Same with the bathroom. No clean up needed, no staged burglary needed, no missing credit cards needed, no alibi needed. Call the police and hysterically tell them Guede had just killed Meredith.

Was she also " gently - even crudely" hinting that Raffaele was involved when she pointed out the bathmat that you claim had his bloody footprint on it? Was she " gently - even crudely" leading them to herself when she pointed out the blood on the faucet which was hers?


Quote:
Guess you'll never be a cop, as you have no idea how a criminal thinks.
Are you now claiming to know "how a criminal thinks"?

On the other hand, former FBI profiler John Douglas (you know, the guy who actually invented profiling) does know how criminals think. His professional opinion is that Guede fits the profile of who would have killed Kercher. Knox and Sollecito do not.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 19th November 2019 at 11:51 AM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2019, 11:59 AM   #334
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 18,942
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
From Krissy G's TJMK article above:

Quote:
Some Conclusions From The Above



I agree with that first sentence...but not in the way KG means. They were mixed together at the same time when Brocci wiped them up with the swab. Watching the collection video, it's clear that there was a great deal of pressure and often vigorous rubbing of the samples over a large area. This is the same conclusion that Hellmann and other forensic experts, rightfully, came to.




If the bolded sentence were correct, then why have forensic experts explicitly stated otherwise? As Prof. Peter Gill wrote:


https://www.fsigenetics.com/article/...033-3/fulltext

Hmmmm....whom to believe? Some pontificating, self-appointed DNA 'expert' whose opinion is contrary to the vast majority of forensic experts or one of, if not the, most respected DNA experts in the world?



What a stupendously stupid statement! According to KG, Knox was 'bleeding profusely', yet the pair knew what was Meredith's blood and what was hers? KG has claimed there was a clean up in the apartment yet she now wants us to swallow the idea that the bathroom was not cleaned up of visible blood because the pair knew about pre-existing DNA and that it could not be dated? KG's logic is as tortured as Vixen's claim that they pointed out the bathmat to police in order to 'put one over on them'.




It's not Gladwell's assertion, but KrissyG's assertions, that are 'both utterly false and ignorant". Why is it that she failed to supply any forensic experts who agree with her? Could it possibly be because there are none?



Marasca was just plain wrong as there isn't a shred of scientific evidence to support that conclusion. It is contrary to the facts of forensic science as well as logic. Marasca ruled that Knox was not in the murder room, so how could she have come into contact with that much fresh blood in order to leave visible traces in the sink? Why would she not have cleaned the sink? Krissy G's illogical reasoning that Knox didn't bother because she knew that her DNA would be pre-existing is beyond ludicrous.

Tsk, tsk,tsk. A grammar policeman who didn't know the correct form is either 'tortuous' or 'torturous' and have different meaning depending on how they are used. Logic cannot be 'tortured', not being a sentient being capable of feeling thus, nor being acted upon so.

Talk about murdering the English language...
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2019, 12:01 PM   #335
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 18,942
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Nope. All Knox had to do was say what Massei concluded himself: she and RS were in her bedroom, door closed, while Guede was talking and/or 'making out' with Kercher. Guede then attacked Kercher and killed her by himself. They could have done what Guede did: covered what they knew could be incriminating evidence. They went into the bedroom and tried to 'save' Kercher thereby explaining any footprints/DNA/fingerprints. Same with the bathroom. No clean up needed, no staged burglary needed, no missing credit cards needed, no alibi needed. Call the police and hysterically tell them Guede had just killed Meredith.

Was she also " gently - even crudely" hinting that Raffaele was involved when she pointed out the bathmat that you claim had his bloody footprint on it? Was she " gently - even crudely" leading them to herself when she pointed out the blood on the faucet which was hers?




Are you now claiming to know "how a criminal thinks"?

On the other hand, former FBI profiler John Douglas (you know, the guy who actually invented profiling) does know how criminals think. His professional opinion is that Guede fits the profile of who would have killed Kercher. Knox and Sollecito do not.
Ah, but you do know they told police they didn't do it, they wuzn't there? They wuz at Raff's all evening. Remember?
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2019, 12:06 PM   #336
whoanellie
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 704
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You might think 'all night long' is a long time but you'd be amazed at how time flies when you have some much to do and so little time to do it in. Maybe only six hours and no wonder you need the adrenaline rush of Nirvana at 5:00 in the morning after all that rushing around.

...Whoops! Left the lamp on the floor of Meredith's room..._DOH!
I might, but I don't.
whoanellie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2019, 12:11 PM   #337
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,461
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Knox could hardly name him without incriminating herself. Once she got the bright idea to blame A N Other all she could do was hint and gently - even crudely [showing Napoleoni the **** in the toilet] - in his direction.

Guess you'll never be a cop, as you have no idea how a criminal thinks.
You're still flapping in the breeze.

Let's assume Amanda was there with Guede and they committed the crime together. It seems logical that if Guede is caught he'll implicate Amanda. Therefore, doing whatever she could to ensure Guede is not caught seems a reasonable course of action. Given this, can you explain;

(1) Why did she not clean up as much of Guede's forensic trace as possible, especially the easy and obvious stuff like the feces in the toilet and the bloody shoe prints?

(2) What do you think was the reason she "got the bright idea to blame "A N Other" (whatever that means)"?

(3) Once she got this bright idea, why would she do anything other than try to point at someone completely different from Guede? Why name another black man?

And exactly what makes you think YOU know "how a criminal thinks"? Anything about you we should know?
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2019, 12:25 PM   #338
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 14,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoanellie View Post
(11/15/2019)

KrissyG (11/13/2019): 'So, blood on the bath mat, on the tap, in the sink, excrement in the toilet - and yet no attempt to flush it nor to wipe the sink clean.'
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You might think 'all night long' is a long time but you'd be amazed at how time flies when you have some much to do and so little time to do it in. Maybe only six hours and no wonder you need the adrenaline rush of Nirvana at 5:00 in the morning after all that rushing around.
Hmmmmm. Not a very well thought out excuse. Let's see what the problem with your logic is.

1. They had "maybe only six hours" to clean up. Yet they were the ones who initiated the discovery of the body by calling Filomena and the police about the break in. If they needed more time to clean up, why start the discovery process?

2. Since the "blood on the bath mat, on the tap, in the sink, excrement in the toilet" were all pointed out by Knox and Sollecito to the police, they obviously knew about them BEFORE they called the police. If they needed more time to clean up, why start the discovery process?

3. The 5:30 AM activation of RS's phone places them at his apartment, not the cottage. If they needed more time to clean up, why go back to his apartment instead of finishing the clean up? If they needed more time to clean up, why start the discovery process hours later at 12:08 PM when Knox calls Filomena and at 12:51 when Sollecito calls the police to report the break in?

Quote:
...Whoops! Left the lamp on the floor of Meredith's room..._DOH!
Whoops! There is no evidence that they placed the lamp in Meredith's room in the first place. DOH!
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2019, 12:26 PM   #339
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,461
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You might think 'all night long' is a long time but you'd be amazed at how time flies when you have some much to do and so little time to do it in. Maybe only six hours and no wonder you need the adrenaline rush of Nirvana at 5:00 in the morning after all that rushing around.

...Whoops! Left the lamp on the floor of Meredith's room..._DOH!
Well let's see now... Meredith's bedroom has NO evidence of clean-up, so clearly they didn't spend any time there. The hallway still had Guede's bloody shoe prints, so I guess the only cleaning they did there was within the 3 foor square between the bedroom doors and the bathroom. The small bathroom had diluted blood on the sink, the cotton box, the bidet and the light switch, so aside from cleaning the heel print (but NOT the print on the mat) it doesn't look like they spent much time there.

So exactly WHAT was all that "so much to do" that they had to rush to complete in six hours?
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2019, 12:34 PM   #340
bagels
Master Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,213
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Knox could hardly name him without incriminating herself. Once she got the bright idea to blame A N Other all she could do was hint and gently - even crudely [showing Napoleoni the **** in the toilet] - in his direction.

Guess you'll never be a cop, as you have no idea how a criminal thinks.
Knox can hardly name anyone without incriminating herself, and yet she mysteriously named Patrick instead of Guede.

Doesn't really make any sense from a guilter standpoint, but it makes perfect sense if she doesn't name Guede because she wasn't there and doesn't know he's guilty, but the police are harassing and manipulating her into naming their star suspect, the "dirty black" that "deserves the electric chair" Patrick Lumumba.
bagels is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2019, 12:38 PM   #341
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 14,410
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Tsk, tsk,tsk. A grammar policeman who didn't know the correct form is either 'tortuous' or 'torturous' and have different meaning depending on how they are used. Logic cannot be 'tortured', not being a sentient being capable of feeling thus, nor being acted upon so.

Talk about murdering the English language...
LOL! Instead of addressing the points of my post, you resort to this?

By the way, you're wrong.

Quote:
A path with a confusing proliferation of turns is tortuous (from a French root meaning “twisted”). But “torturous” (meaning painful or unpleasant, like torture) is very frequently confused with it. So often has “tortuous logic” (tangled, twisted logic) been misspelled as “torturous logic” that it has given rise to a now independent form with its own meaning, “tortured logic.” Few people object to the latter, but if you want to describe your slow progress along a twisting path, the word you want is “tortuous.”
https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/05/25/torturous/
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2019, 12:54 PM   #342
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 14,410
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
The PGP have never been able to make up their minds whether Knox was setting up Guede or protecting him. They choose whichever one fits their current situation.

If she were protecting Guede, why point out the feces in the toilet? Why stage a break-in consistent with Guede's history? Why leave his visible bloody shoe prints? But if she were setting him up why accuse Lumumba instead? Why not break down during the interrogation and say it was Guede and he'd threatened to kill her if she squealed on him? Neither makes sense. The only logical explanation is that she was neither protecting him nor setting him up because she didn't know he was involved at all.
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Knox could hardly name him without incriminating herself. Once she got the bright idea to blame A N Other all she could do was hint and gently - even crudely [showing Napoleoni the **** in the toilet] - in his direction.

Guess you'll never be a cop, as you have no idea how a criminal thinks.
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Nope. All Knox had to do was say what Massei concluded himself: she and RS were in her bedroom, door closed, while Guede was talking and/or 'making out' with Kercher. Guede then attacked Kercher and killed her by himself. They could have done what Guede did: covered what they knew could be incriminating evidence. They went into the bedroom and tried to 'save' Kercher thereby explaining any footprints/DNA/fingerprints. Same with the bathroom. No clean up needed, no staged burglary needed, no missing credit cards needed, no alibi needed. Call the police and hysterically tell them Guede had just killed Meredith.

Was she also " gently - even crudely" hinting that Raffaele was involved when she pointed out the bathmat that you claim had his bloody footprint on it? Was she " gently - even crudely" leading them to herself when she pointed out the blood on the faucet which was hers?

Are you now claiming to know "how a criminal thinks"?

On the other hand, former FBI profiler John Douglas (you know, the guy who actually invented profiling) does know how criminals think. His professional opinion is that Guede fits the profile of who would have killed Kercher. Knox and Sollecito do not.
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Ah, but you do know they told police they didn't do it, they wuzn't there? They wuz at Raff's all evening. Remember?
Try reading the exchange above again and see if you can find the problem with your last post. HINT: pay special attention to your highlighted statement.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2019, 12:56 PM   #343
whoanellie
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 704
So, reading Vixen's tortuous attempts at arguing for Knox's guilt can be torturous. Did I get that right?
whoanellie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2019, 01:12 PM   #344
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 14,410
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Well let's see now... Meredith's bedroom has NO evidence of clean-up, so clearly they didn't spend any time there. The hallway still had Guede's bloody shoe prints, so I guess the only cleaning they did there was within the 3 foor square between the bedroom doors and the bathroom. The small bathroom had diluted blood on the sink, the cotton box, the bidet and the light switch, so aside from cleaning the heel print (but NOT the print on the mat) it doesn't look like they spent much time there.

So exactly WHAT was all that "so much to do" that they had to rush to complete in six hours?
Now, now, TC! As we all know, Knox and Sollecito cleaned all evidence of themselves from the bedroom by using a special kit (which Amanda had craftily brought) that revealed and identified their invisible DNA and fingerprints. Once done, the pair used bleach they had bought at Quintavalle's store to remove them, cunningly leaving only evidence of Guede. This was to set up Guede to take the fall. We know this because Knox told the police Meredith, whom she'd seen earlier, had mentioned she was seeing Guede later that night.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2019, 01:13 PM   #345
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 14,410
Originally Posted by whoanellie View Post
So, reading Vixen's tortuous attempts at arguing for Knox's guilt can be torturous. Did I get that right?
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2019, 01:18 PM   #346
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,277
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
The negative or defensive reaction of some posters in the PIP (or [supposedly] "rational, objective group") to mentions of possible (or probable) "framing" or "conspiracy" by the police and prosecutors is interesting.

....

With respect to "conspiracy" (an agreement - explicit or implicit - between two or more persons to commit an illegal act), there is apparently a defensive reaction to use of this word by some PIP, since it brings to mind the phrase "conspiracy theory" (roughly, an unshakeable and irrational belief, contrary to evidence, that a covert organization or powerful persons are responsible for certain events).

It should be pointed out, however, that conspiracies are not uncommon, and may sometimes be observed among people that work together as a team. For example, recently, the Houston Astros Major League Baseball team allegedly has been involved in a baseball pitching sign-stealing conspiracy; they allegedly violated baseball rules by using electronic means to steal signs.*

So it should not be seen as too unusual for a team of police, including the scientific police, all working under the direction of a prosecutor (as provided under Italian law for an active investigation) should engage in a conspiracy to "solve" a tough case when they were under high levels of pressure from the media and probably their own government; see the Marasca CSC panel motivation report for its mention that "errors" in an investigation likely result from such pressure.

Recall also that Stefanoni testified falsely on one or more critical points, including on the mass (size) of the alleged Kercher DNA sample on the knife, misstating that it was far above the LT-DNA range, and how it was measured (she stated it had been obtained by real time PCR; it was actually found "too low" by Qubit Fluorometer). And recall: as a consultant (technical consultant to the prosecution), she was allowed to use her notes and report for assistance in her responses to questions.

Also recall that Donnino, the police agent "interpreter", testified to the Boninsegna court that she recognized that Knox's phone text message could very well mean "see you later" as a greeting, as a direct translation from English, but she did not make this point known to her police colleagues. (As reported in the Boninsegna court motivation report.)

*https://www.nbcnews.com/news/sports/...signs-n1081041
Here's some clarification my definition of "conspiracy". I do not mean that there is a specific Italian criminal law equivalent to a US federal or state law called "conspiracy"; in Italian law, it appears (if I understand correctly) that working together with others to plan or commit a crime may not be a separate offense, but rather an aggravating circumstance affecting the punishment of an offense actually committed.

What I am mean by use of the word "conspiracy" is that the actions of the Italian police and prosecutor in the Knox - Sollecito case, if they had been carried out in the US, would fall under the provisions of typical US conspiracy statutes. In the US, a conspiracy does not need to have been planned in secret to meet the definition of the crime of conspiracy, and an agreement to accomplish a legal end by means of illegal actions also is considered to meet the definition of the crime of conspiracy.

We know that the interrogations of Knox and Sollecito were planned in advance, based on the testimony of VQA (vice-chief of police) Giobbi, and in fact Sollecito had been called hours before the interrogations by the police to come to the station for questioning. According to Sollecito's book, the aim of the police questioning was to get him to drop his alibi of Knox, and this line of interrogation apparently started essentially immediately. From the Boninsegna MR, we know that the police called Mignini as soon as the police coerced Knox to sign a statement.

Sources:

https://www.justia.com/criminal/offe...es/conspiracy/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(criminal)

https://criminal.findlaw.com/crimina...onspiracy.html

https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/conspiracy/

Last edited by Numbers; 19th November 2019 at 03:12 PM. Reason: Added sources. Inserted a word for clarity.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2019, 03:09 PM   #347
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,750
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
...Whoops! Left the lamp on the floor of Meredith's room..._DOH!
What was the lamp used for? Take your time.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2019, 03:40 PM   #348
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,461
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Now, now, TC! As we all know, Knox and Sollecito cleaned all evidence of themselves from the bedroom by using a special kit (which Amanda had craftily brought) that revealed and identified their invisible DNA and fingerprints. Once done, the pair used bleach they had bought at Quintavalle's store to remove them, cunningly leaving only evidence of Guede. This was to set up Guede to take the fall. We know this because Knox told the police Meredith, whom she'd seen earlier, had mentioned she was seeing Guede later that night.
I was going to sarcastically suggest that it takes time to do a clean-up at the molecular level but decided against - I figured I would be feeding her an excuse that she would likely adopt. It's not really any more far-fetched as many of her other theories and explanations.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2019, 03:45 PM   #349
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,461
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
What was the lamp used for? Take your time.
I don't know what it was used for, but I've heard it from numerous guilters that they wiped their prints off of it because they knew they were going to forget it in the bedroom. Talk about incredibly careless attention to detail; skillfully planning for the unplanned.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2019, 04:05 PM   #350
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,840
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
LOL! Instead of addressing the points of my post, you resort to this?

By the way, you're wrong.


https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/05/25/torturous/

Indeed. Vixen makes the rookie error of believing language to be set in stone. Rather, words only ever mean what we want them to mean. The only important thing is that the communicator and the recipient both understand that meaning.

Another example might be the word "fabulous". Nobody would object if I wrote "I had a fabulous evening out with friends yesterday", and everyone would know that I meant that I had had an extremely enjoyable evening. Yet this definition of "fabulous" is comparatively new: its original definition and etymology was - as the word implies - "the stuff of fables and myths". However, no English-language speaker would possibly think I was using the word in that original definition when I talked of having a "fabulous evening with friends"......

But back to the subject at hand: Vixen's latest contributions do indeed only serve to point further at her tortured logic (). First she claims that Knox and Sollecito were actively trying to implicate Guede, then she points out that K&S were claiming to have been alone together in Sollecito's apartment all evening/night, so how and why would/could they have known of Guede's presence and participation in the murder, and therefore how/why would/could they have known to try to implicate Guede? Obviously there are almost-literally countless further examples of such "logic" within Vixen's posts.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2019, 04:10 PM   #351
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,840
Originally Posted by whoanellie View Post
So, reading Vixen's tortuous attempts at arguing for Knox's guilt can be torturous. Did I get that right?


Quite. In fact, it's tautological to talk of tortured or tortuous logic when referring to most of Vixen's contributions. She also needs to be taught tort law (in respect of the Lumumba "criminal" slander charges against Knox). Now for a delicious slice of torte.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2019, 04:14 PM   #352
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,461
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Here's some clarification my definition of "conspiracy". I do not mean that there is a specific Italian criminal law equivalent to a US federal or state law called "conspiracy"; in Italian law, it appears (if I understand correctly) that working together with others to plan or commit a crime may not be a separate offense, but rather an aggravating circumstance affecting the punishment of an offense actually committed.

What I am mean by use of the word "conspiracy" is that the actions of the Italian police and prosecutor in the Knox - Sollecito case, if they had been carried out in the US, would fall under the provisions of typical US conspiracy statutes. In the US, a conspiracy does not need to have been planned in secret to meet the definition of the crime of conspiracy, and an agreement to accomplish a legal end by means of illegal actions also is considered to meet the definition of the crime of conspiracy.

We know that the interrogations of Knox and Sollecito were planned in advance, based on the testimony of VQA (vice-chief of police) Giobbi, and in fact Sollecito had been called hours before the interrogations by the police to come to the station for questioning. According to Sollecito's book, the aim of the police questioning was to get him to drop his alibi of Knox, and this line of interrogation apparently started essentially immediately. From the Boninsegna MR, we know that the police called Mignini as soon as the police coerced Knox to sign a statement.

Sources:

https://www.justia.com/criminal/offe...es/conspiracy/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(criminal)

https://criminal.findlaw.com/crimina...onspiracy.html

https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/conspiracy/
I've cited the case before but I think the murder of Riley Fox and the wrongful conviction of her father, Kevin, is the perfect example of how an investigation can rapidly run off the rails.

The police assumed the father because in those cases it often is the father and he didn't seem to be, in their opinion, acting as an innocent father should act. Once they focused on Kevin, they failed to see anything else. The found a pair of sneakers at the crime scene with "Eby" written inside (the name of the real killer) but the police did NOTHING with them. They had DNA but they failed to properly test it and quickly determined it wasn't useful. A house just down the road had been burglarized the night of the murder but the police ignored it. His interrogation was coercive but the results fit the theory and so it was accepted. The DA prosecuted the case even though the only evidence they had was his coerced interrogation. Judge and jury convicted him on the basis of NO evidence and sent him to prison. He spent eight months there before Vixen's favorite lawyer, Kathleen Zellner, forced the issue by having the DNA tested by an independent lab and matched it to known criminal Scott Eby. Eby eventually confessed to the murder and was later connected to the burglary as well.

So was this a deliberate framing of Kevin? Was it a conspiracy between the police, the CSI team, the lab technicians, the DA and the court to convict Kevin? Were the townspeople paid off to turn hateful against Kevin and the family? Or maybe, just maybe, it was an incompetent investigation, driven by confirmation bias and tunnel vision and everyone else fell in line. Once Zellner was able to break down that barrier people were absolutely astonished at how much evidence linking Eby to the murder there was.

While I will always believe Mignini's pride and arrogance played a role in this case, I think the first week of the investigation was legitimate but it was steered by tunnel vision. They locked onto Amanda and from that point on everything was seen within that context. But I do not believe this was a conspiracy or a deliberate effort to frame them, nor does it take a conspiracy or deliberate framing to explain what happened.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2019, 04:14 PM   #353
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,840
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
I don't know what it was used for, but I've heard it from numerous guilters that they wiped their prints off of it because they knew they were going to forget it in the bedroom. Talk about incredibly careless attention to detail; skillfully planning for the unplanned.


It certainly would make a great deal of sense for them to clean their fingerprints from the lamp prior to handling it once more to transport it back to Knox's room (where the presence of their fingerprints on the lamp would not in any way be incriminating in any case...).

Oh, wait...................................

(In effect, this sort of pro-guilt "logic" can only mean that Knox and Sollecito must have cleaned off their fingerprints, while already having the intent to leave the lamp within Kercher's room. Yup, that sounds convincing!)
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2019, 04:19 PM   #354
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 14,410
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Indeed. Vixen makes the rookie error of believing language to be set in stone. Rather, words only ever mean what we want them to mean. The only important thing is that the communicator and the recipient both understand that meaning.

Another example might be the word "fabulous". Nobody would object if I wrote "I had a fabulous evening out with friends yesterday", and everyone would know that I meant that I had had an extremely enjoyable evening. Yet this definition of "fabulous" is comparatively new: its original definition and etymology was - as the word implies - "the stuff of fables and myths". However, no English-language speaker would possibly think I was using the word in that original definition when I talked of having a "fabulous evening with friends"......

But back to the subject at hand: Vixen's latest contributions do indeed only serve to point further at her tortured logic (). First she claims that Knox and Sollecito were actively trying to implicate Guede, then she points out that K&S were claiming to have been alone together in Sollecito's apartment all evening/night, so how and why would/could they have known of Guede's presence and participation in the murder, and therefore how/why would/could they have known to try to implicate Guede? Obviously there are almost-literally countless further examples of such "logic" within Vixen's posts.
I'd say words mean what they commonly become accepted to mean. In the case of "tortured logic", it's a term that has become common usage as in these examples:
Quote:
Dick Cheney's tortured logic - The Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com › opinions › 2014/12/16

Quote:
Tortured logic of intelligence chief
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ure-mi5-terror

Quote:
Above the Fold: More Tortured Logic - Columbia Journalism ...
https://archives.cjr.org/full_court_...tortured_l.php
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2019, 04:26 PM   #355
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 14,410
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
I've cited the case before but I think the murder of Riley Fox and the wrongful conviction of her father, Kevin, is the perfect example of how an investigation can rapidly run off the rails.

The police assumed the father because in those cases it often is the father and he didn't seem to be, in their opinion, acting as an innocent father should act. Once they focused on Kevin, they failed to see anything else. The found a pair of sneakers at the crime scene with "Eby" written inside (the name of the real killer) but the police did NOTHING with them. They had DNA but they failed to properly test it and quickly determined it wasn't useful. A house just down the road had been burglarized the night of the murder but the police ignored it. His interrogation was coercive but the results fit the theory and so it was accepted. The DA prosecuted the case even though the only evidence they had was his coerced interrogation. Judge and jury convicted him on the basis of NO evidence and sent him to prison. He spent eight months there before Vixen's favorite lawyer, Kathleen Zellner, forced the issue by having the DNA tested by an independent lab and matched it to known criminal Scott Eby. Eby eventually confessed to the murder and was later connected to the burglary as well.

So was this a deliberate framing of Kevin? Was it a conspiracy between the police, the CSI team, the lab technicians, the DA and the court to convict Kevin? Were the townspeople paid off to turn hateful against Kevin and the family? Or maybe, just maybe, it was an incompetent investigation, driven by confirmation bias and tunnel vision and everyone else fell in line. Once Zellner was able to break down that barrier people were absolutely astonished at how much evidence linking Eby to the murder there was.

While I will always believe Mignini's pride and arrogance played a role in this case, I think the first week of the investigation was legitimate but it was steered by tunnel vision. They locked onto Amanda and from that point on everything was seen within that context. But I do not believe this was a conspiracy or a deliberate effort to frame them, nor does it take a conspiracy or deliberate framing to explain what happened.
Exactly. Well put. On the other hand, there's Vixen's often stated claims that the acquitting judges, defense experts, any expert anywhere who disagrees with Stefanoni's methods and findings, and any expert or journalist anywhere who says the evidence points solely to Guede is "bent" and/or has been bought off by the mafia, the Masons, or the US State Department.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2019, 04:36 PM   #356
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,461
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
It certainly would make a great deal of sense for them to clean their fingerprints from the lamp prior to handling it once more to transport it back to Knox's room (where the presence of their fingerprints on the lamp would not in any way be incriminating in any case...).

Oh, wait...................................

(In effect, this sort of pro-guilt "logic" can only mean that Knox and Sollecito must have cleaned off their fingerprints, while already having the intent to leave the lamp within Kercher's room. Yup, that sounds convincing!)
The amazing thing about this is this IS what many a guilter has claimed. That their were no prints because Amanda wiped it clean. Say what?? ...so she KNEW she was going to forget it so she wiped it clean so she couldn't be linked to it once it was discovered.

This kind of lunacy is exactly why this case has lived on for over twelve years with the few remaining guilters. Because they have an uncanny knack for being able to twist and distort anything into something incriminating. They live in a tunnel and confirmation bias owns them.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2019, 05:12 PM   #357
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 14,410
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
What was the lamp used for? Take your time.
The sleuths over on TJMK have determined from a photo that Knox had a 'ripped' ear lobe* caused during the struggle with Meredith. Never mind that the police/prosecution never mentioned said 'ripped' ear lobe. From this entirely unsupported bit of speculation, these sleuths deduced that Knox discovered this, retrieved her lamp from her room, then used it to find said earring. Having done so, she inadvertently left the lamp behind (after wiping it clean of fingerprints). Of course, all a guilty Knox had to say to explain its presence was that Meredith had borrowed it to use at her desk since her only night light sources were a lamp by her bedside and a small, one bulb wall sconce above the side of her bed across the room from her desk. After all, Knox was staying at Sollecito's so she had no need for the lamp at the time.

*Knox was wearing small studs in her new piercings. As someone who has worn earrings for 50 years and had several earrings accidentally "ripped" from my ear (usually when brushing my hair), I can attest that never has the hole 'ripped'.

ETA: fixed a couple typos.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 19th November 2019 at 05:49 PM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2019, 05:40 PM   #358
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,840
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
The sleuths over on TJMK have determined from a photo that Knox had a 'ripped' ear lobe* caused during the struggle with Meredith. Never mind that the police/prosecution never mentioned said 'ripped' ear lobe. From this entirely unsupported bit of speculation, these sleuths deduced that Knox discovered this, retrieved her lamp from her room, then used it to find said earring. Having done so, she inadvertently left the lamp behind (after wiping it clean of fingerprints). Of course, all a guilty Knox had to say to explain its presence was that Meredith had borrowed it to use at her desk since her only night light sources were a lamp by her bedside and a small, one bulb wall sconce above the side of her bed across the room from her desk. After all, Knox was staying at Sollecito's so she had no need for the lamp at the time.

*Knox was wearing small studs in her new piercings. As someone who has worn earrings for 50 years and had several earring accidentally "ripped" from my ear (usually when brushing my hair), I can attest that never the hole 'ripped'.


Good grief. I just waded into the Cesspit (only up to my ankles, fortunately) to see, straight from the horse's mouth (so to speak) what was being written there. My word, that small cadre of lunatics haven't lost any of their self-righteous zeal, have they?! (I imagine that moron Dylan Avery is still as zealous with his 9/11 conspiracy theories as well.....).

And gosh, "KrissyG" must have an awful lot of time on his/her hands to have come out with that latest turd tsunami of a post on there. The post and its comments are both illuminating and amusing (for their tortured logic () and sheer stupidity). I especially enjoyed the risible exchange of comments about the light switch in the small bathroom. For starters, "KrissyG" didn't even appear to know whose blood & DNA was and was not found on that light switch (only Kercher's blood and DNA was found). Then we were treated to a discourse of Raper's and "KrissyG"'s insight, the conclusion of which was - surprise, surprise - that one could conclude with reasonable certainty that it must have been Knox who operated the switch with Kercher's blood on her fingers. We can only thank the stars that none of these "commentators" is anywhere near a position of actual power and persuasion.

(Oh and there was another amusing/illuminating part where "KrissyG" and an unknown "friend" discussed the notion that the sink in the small bathroom must have contained Kercher's and Knox's blood comingled (and deposited at the same time) on account of the fact that the reasonable similarity of DNA chart peaks was incompatible with the relatively small amount of Knox's DNA that would have been deposited their through touch alone. Do these morons even realise that nobody's even talking about touch DNA being the alternative viable explanation?! Someone please tell them about cheek and gum cell DNA that's sloughed off and expelled when someone (Knox) spits out into the sink after brushing their teeth? And at the same time, that someone can tell them that Knox had without doubt bled from the ear into the sink the day before the murder, after a couple of her new ear piercings went bad? Sheeeeeeesh.....)
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2019, 06:42 PM   #359
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 14,410
Quote:
It is worth bearing in mind that Mignini is quoted as saying the blood stain on the light switch was the strongest evidence of Knox’ involvement for him.
http://truejustice.org/ee/

Since the light switch yielded no DNA or fingerprints of Knox, I wonder just what evidence of Knox's involvement the light switch presented. If Mignini did say that, then I'd suggest he needs to rethink what inculpating evidence actually is.

More from the same article:

Quote:
She [Stefanoni] did not believe then it might be different traces because of the continuity between the different drops. This is important, because pro-Knox defenders like to argue, ‘So what? Knox lived there, of course her DNA is mixed with Meredith’s.
LOL! Not exactly. The problem is not that it was a single trace, but the fact that it was collected with a long pressing motion which could have picked up any underlying, previously deposited trace that Knox had left in the sink during daily use. KrissyG is being dishonest in her claim.

Quote:
Indeed, the reader might be telling themself ‘So the perpetrator rinsed the knife. It doesn’t prove it was Knox’.
WHAT? I'm trying to figure out how that relates to the previous claim in any way.

By the way, someone should tell KrissyG that there is no such word as "themself" and that the possessive of Knox is Knox's. There is no such possessive as X'.

Quote:
However, the critical point is that, although the DNA mixed samples are separate, Stefanoni was able to prove conclusively to the satisfaction of the court that the DNA was deposited at the same time, together.
Stefanoni was wrong but Massei believed her because he knew no better.

Quote:
Dr. Gill also analyzed the DNA that was present in the bathroom of the residence that was shared by Knox and Kercher. Three samples in the bathroom showed Knox's DNA mixed with Kercher's blood. With respect to the mixed samples, Dr. Gill wrote: “There was little consideration about the preexisting background levels of DNA that would be present. Knox and Kercher shared the premises—their DNA will be everywhere."
Dr. Gill’s observations suggest that Knox’s DNA was residual DNA, not related to the crime. The killer most likely used the bathroom to clean up after the murder. In the process, Kercher’s blood was deposited on surfaces where Knox’s residual DNA was already present.
Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/c...#ixzz65mHpyAI9

Let's see.....whom to believe? "Dr." (4 yr. college degree) Stefanoni or

Quote:
Dr. Peter Gill is a world renowned DNA expert. Dr. Gill is a coauthor of the 1985 paper in Nature that introduced forensic DNA testing. After spending many years at the Forensic Science Service, Dr. Gill became professor of forensic genetics at the University of Oslo. He is chair of the DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics, and he has published more than 180 peer-reviewed papers. John Butler, the author of a respected textbook on DNA profiling, wrote: “In my opinion, over the past three decades no one has done more to advance forensic DNA analysis and interpretation than Peter Gill.”
That's like asking who knows better about how to treat your cancer: your x-ray technician or your oncologist.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 19th November 2019 at 07:01 PM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2019, 08:02 PM   #360
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,277
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
I've cited the case before but I think the murder of Riley Fox and the wrongful conviction of her father, Kevin, is the perfect example of how an investigation can rapidly run off the rails.

The police assumed the father because in those cases it often is the father and he didn't seem to be, in their opinion, acting as an innocent father should act. Once they focused on Kevin, they failed to see anything else. The found a pair of sneakers at the crime scene with "Eby" written inside (the name of the real killer) but the police did NOTHING with them. They had DNA but they failed to properly test it and quickly determined it wasn't useful. A house just down the road had been burglarized the night of the murder but the police ignored it. His interrogation was coercive but the results fit the theory and so it was accepted. The DA prosecuted the case even though the only evidence they had was his coerced interrogation. Judge and jury convicted him on the basis of NO evidence and sent him to prison. He spent eight months there before Vixen's favorite lawyer, Kathleen Zellner, forced the issue by having the DNA tested by an independent lab and matched it to known criminal Scott Eby. Eby eventually confessed to the murder and was later connected to the burglary as well.

So was this a deliberate framing of Kevin? Was it a conspiracy between the police, the CSI team, the lab technicians, the DA and the court to convict Kevin? Were the townspeople paid off to turn hateful against Kevin and the family? Or maybe, just maybe, it was an incompetent investigation, driven by confirmation bias and tunnel vision and everyone else fell in line. Once Zellner was able to break down that barrier people were absolutely astonished at how much evidence linking Eby to the murder there was.

While I will always believe Mignini's pride and arrogance played a role in this case, I think the first week of the investigation was legitimate but it was steered by tunnel vision. They locked onto Amanda and from that point on everything was seen within that context. But I do not believe this was a conspiracy or a deliberate effort to frame them, nor does it take a conspiracy or deliberate framing to explain what happened.
By "deliberate" framing do you mean "intentional" framing rather than an "accidental" framing? That is, are you claiming there was "framing", but it was unintended?

Are you stating that in your definition of "framing", it can only occur if the police and/or prosecutor sincerely believe the alleged suspect to be innocent? Thus, if the police and/or prosecutor sincerely believe the alleged suspect to be guilty, is it your position that any violation of defense rights, even intentional misrepresentations of alleged evidence or fabrications of evidence, cannot, by definition, be "framing"? Why is a confession or incriminating statement obtained from a coercive interrogation not to be considered "framing", even in the case of Keven Fox, or the case, still under appeal, of Melissa Calusinski?

Do you accept or reject the proposition that there was "official misconduct", such as violations of defense rights and, as claimed by Knox, threats and hitting, during the interrogations of Knox on November 5/6? If "official misconduct" including, for example, threats and hitting, is aimed at producing a confession, is it to be considered "framing" or defined in some other way? Does it matter for the word used in that situation whether or not the police and/or prosecutor sincerely believed the alleged suspect is guilty?

Why did Mignini and the police level a criminal charge of calunnia against Knox for her statements (testimony) in the Massei court trial, and in her appeals, giving her account of the interrogations of Nov. 5/6? The criminal charge of calunnia, as shown in the Boninsegna MR, claimed that Knox was falsely claiming, by implication, in her statements that the police and Mignini had committed 4 crimes (related to abuse of power) under Italian law, with 3 aggravating circumstances. The criminal charge of calunnia against the police and Mignini resulted in Knox being put on trial and eventually being acquitted; that is, no judge dismissed the case on the basis that Knox's statements should were not descriptive (by implication) of specific violations of Italian criminal law. Knox was acquitted on the basis that there was no evidence that her statements describing the actions of the police and prosecutor during the interrogation were false.

Now, what is your definition of "conspiracy"? While I've posted mine, you have only provided an attempt at reductio ad absurdum by counter-example ("Were the townspeople paid off to turn hateful against Kevin and the family?")

The interrogations of Nov. 5/6 were planned or scheduled events, although not necessarily scripted in detail. Under US law, which I am using for my definition, a "conspiracy" does not require the kind of secret and explicit agreement that you are suggesting. The conspirators don't need to be paid off or otherwise benefit from participating in the conspiracy. The conspiracy does not need to be directed against specific persons or to actually accomplish its ends.

For example, if two jail guards working together allegedly decide to take naps and spend time online during their guard duty, while not conducting their appointed rounds of the jail cells, and allegedly falsely document that they conducted their rounds, among the charges which may be brought against them is "conspiracy".*

*https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/19/n...-arrested.html

"Guards Accused of Napping and Shopping Online the Night Epstein Died

The two jail staff members were charged with falsifying records and conspiring to defraud the United States."

Here's another example, this of a police officer convicted of conspiracy:

https://wtop.com/baltimore/2019/06/r...to-conspiracy/

"A retired Baltimore police sergeant accused of planting a BB gun at the scene of an arrest and telling another officer to lie about the incident to federal investigators has pleaded guilty to conspiracy.

Fifty-one-year-old Keith Allen Gladstone of New Park, Pennsylvania, pleaded guilty Monday to conspiring to deprive a man arrested in the incident of his civil rights."

Here's another example, where 3 Chicago police officers were charged with conspiracy in how they reported another officer came to shoot and kill a young man armed with a knife; their accounts were contradicted by dashcam videos. These officers were acquitted (some observers claimed the acquittal was an example of the lack of accountability of the police):

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...sh/2573940002/

The relevance of conspiracy (US law definition) to the Knox - Sollecito case includes but is not limited to: 1) if an police agent hit Knox during the interrogation, and the other police witnessing the incident did not notify authorities of that crime, under US law they would be chargeable with conspiracy. 2) The interpreter admitted in testimony to the Boninsegna court, according to the MR, that she was aware during the interrogation that Knox's text message was possibly the English language greeting "See you later" translated into Italian, but the interpreter did not inform the other police. 3) The interpreter provided an account of her personal history of traumatic amnesia apparently to influence Knox. 4) In denying Knox an attorney during the interrogation, even after her first incriminating statement, the police and prosecutor failed to follow Italian procedural law. 5) The police and prosecutor failed to take any investigatory action following either of Knox's two hand-written statements, documenting her claims of mistreatment, following the interrogation.

All these actions, and others, show intent by the police and prosecutor to violate Knox's rights. The failures to provide a lawyer and to investigate the claim of police misconduct in Knox's first Memoriale appear to be clear violations of Italian procedural laws at the relevant time. The police and prosecutor did this as a group, even if some took part at different times and performed different acts contributing to the misconduct, and the misconduct was coordinated either by implicit or explicit agreement.

Stefanoni's misconduct in testimony, forensic interpretations, suppression of data, and forensic methods, occurring later, can be lumped into the violations of rights. Stefanoni actually wrote a response to Judge Micheli stating that to request her raw DNA data was to accuse her of falsification of data - suggesting to me that she believed the raw DNA data would incriminate her. (Honest forensic scientists, such as Berti and Barni, simply and generously provide their raw data to the defense for potential examination in court.)

Under US law, these facts would justify a charge of conspiracy against the police, including the scientific police, and the prosecutor.

Sorry, no charge of conspiracy against the towns people from the facts of the interrogation or forensics.

Last edited by Numbers; 19th November 2019 at 09:45 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:30 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.