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 , sexism issues

Reply
Old 18th April 2017, 01:33 PM   #281
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 8,830
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
You're so right. What makes me laugh is despite all of the demonizing and vilifying that Vixen et al have done I can't think of a single thing that Amanda has done that makes me think negatively about her. Not one. There have been paparazzi and reporters digging through her life for 10 years and what have we seen? Wild parties? DUIs? Drunk and disorderly? Assault? Vandalism? Possession of illegal drugs? Ex boyfriends trashing her? Nope, none of this. Instead we get pictures of Amanda leaving a thrift store or singing karaoke or on the UW campus. I hear about a couple of boyfriends and an occasional article in a small newspaper. For such a supposedly wild and out of control horrible young woman she sure manages to hide it very well. I don't think badly of Amanda accepting money from Trump and then having the courage to oppose his attempt to become President. In fact I highly approve. One should keep in mind that Trump almost NEVER donates his own money any way. Pretty much all of his donations came from his foundation which he contributed very little to.

Er, being present at the murder scene, washing off the victim's blood and covering up for Rudy. Yes, truly admirable, I am sure!
__________________
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä,
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä
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 18th April 2017, 01:37 PM   #282
Welshman
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 433
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Er, being present at the murder scene, washing off the victim's blood and covering up for Rudy. Yes, truly admirable, I am sure!
Amanda did none of the things described by Vixen.
Welshman 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 April 2017, 01:40 PM   #283
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 8,830
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
1) I didn't say she had no obligation to pay the fine. I said



Note I am not stating it as a fact but only as something I read, said I had no citation, and asked if anyone here could address it. Why the need for you to present it as anything other than what it is?

2) Another twisting of my words which were:


What part of "incorrectly believed" is eluding you? I made no claim one was found. But at the time of the interrogation, it is what the police believed because they had failed to wait for the forensic results. Massiei wrote "As for what appeared to be hair like filaments on the victim's body, when examined under a microscope they appeared to be strands of wool...". So the police suspected a black man was involved from this "evidence". Do you really think they didn't recognize the name "Lumumba" as being African when they asked about the misunderstood text message?

3) If you understand it was "early morning" then why did you write "in the middle of the night"? More dramatic effect? There is no evidence Lumumba was "still in bed" but that's a nice touch. He makes no mention of that at all in his infamous "I fired Foxy Knoxy" fantasy. Nor does he mention being dragged off by the police in his pajamas. What he does mention is being punched, kicked, and hit on the head by them.

I have a good memory and feel sure I read somewhere he was in his underpants when police called and he had to get dressed pretty quickly.

Judging by the number of Africans in the community at Perugia who came out in protest at Patrick's arrest, he clearly was not 'the only African in town', so simply finding some black fibre /hair did not ipso facto point to Patrick.

It was Amanda who pointed to him.

I believe Patrick.
__________________
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä,
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä
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 18th April 2017, 01:42 PM   #284
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,839
Originally Posted by Welshman View Post
When PGP attack Amanda for falsely accusing Lumumba of a crime, we see yet another example of grotesque and disgusting hypocrisy from PGP posters.

This is from Vixen’s post dated 20.03.2016 “and even defense forensic expert 'Photoshop' Vinci discovered Amanda's DNA on the bra, together with Rudy's.”. There is no evidence Vinci used photoshop.
As I have pointed in the post below, Vixen makes a false allegation Hellman was bribed.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...7#post11764307

PGP posters attack Amanda for falsely accusing Lumumba of a crime but spread lies that people have committed crimes. PGP posters constantly attack Amanda and lying and then spread malicious lies about people.
Quintavelle when questioned by the police shortly after the murder if he had seen Amanda in his shop, said he had not seen her. He gave a completely different account a year later to a newspaper reporter and said he had seen her which clearly indicates that Quintavelle lied. Curalto did not come forward until months later to say he had seen Amanda and Raffaele in the square which indicates he lied. Rudy Guede lied Amanda was at the cottage. PGP posters attack Amanda for making false accusations against Lumumba but feel it was perfectly acceptable for people to make false accusations against Amanda. PGP posters brand Amanda a liar but defend Quintavelle, Curalto and Rudy Guede who spread lies about Amanda.

Patrick Lumumb initially described brutal treatment by the police in an interview to the Daily Mail. His bar was kept shut by the police after he was released which deprived him of his livelihood. PGP posters are strangely silent about the brutal treatment Lumumba received from the police. As can be seen from the link below Lumumba told numerous lies and PGP posters defend Lumumba. Yet another example of PGP posters attacking Amanda and Raffaele for lying whilst supporting liars.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/patrick-lumumba/
The police knew that Patrick Lumumba had not raped nor had sexual contact (relevant to the time of her murder) with Meredith Kercher as early as Nov. 6, 2007. Despite this knowledge, the prosecutor continued to lie to the judicial authorities on this matter, including Amanda Knox's coerced statements against Lumumba, at the arrest hearings on Nov. 8.

"Why Was Lumumba Still A Suspect After November 6?

The Polizia Scientifica RTIGF Report listing all items seized during the investigation and the date each item was tested reveals nothing from Lumumba’s residence was ever analysed — yet he was suppose{d} to be the murderer and it was “case closed” on November 6, 2007.[4] There {were} just three results identified: his reference sample [a cheek swab], Rep.29, a yellow sponge, and a dust cloth from his bar which was tested on November 14. His reference sample was processed on November 6th, together with the vaginal swab from Meredith, Rep.12, and faeces sample Rep.26 from the unflushed toilet which were attributed to an unknown male [“Uomo 2”] that would later be identified as Rudy Guede. By comparing these samples, the police, prosecution and Polizia Scientifica knew beyond any doubt – probably by the evening of November 6th, that neither Lumumba or Sollecito was the rapist and killer.

All of this raises the question why Patrick Lumumba was kept in jail and why his bar remained closed for months and casts serious doubt on the motives and honesty of the police and prosecution commencing November 6, 2007."

Source: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/patrick-lumumba/

Last edited by Numbers; 18th April 2017 at 01:43 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
Old 18th April 2017, 01:42 PM   #285
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 8,830
Originally Posted by Welshman View Post
Amanda did none of the things described by Vixen.
Be that as it may, the Courts of law say she did.
__________________
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä,
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä
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 18th April 2017, 01:46 PM   #286
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 8,830
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Your ability to continually twist and distort to the point where things no longer even remotely resembles what they started out as is as impressive as it is disturbing.

You have no idea how much he donated yet you are now up to "enormously in Trump's debt". You have no idea how much money he donated but I get it - you need to build everything up for dramatic effect.

She considers him a racist because of his position on the Central Park Five. It has nothing to do with the fact that he donated to her defense fund. This is exactly the type of screwed up reasoning you use throughout this case.



It is a proven fact the police misinterpreted the SMS message and felt it was proof Amanda met Lumumba that evening. Not even the police dispute that is what they believed.

The interrogation was not recorded, no lawyer was provided and the "interpreter" they provided worked for the police and actively worked to convince Amanda she was repressing memories due to trauma. Not exactly overwhelming evidence that Amanda deliberately fingered Lumumba. Regardless, it was NOT Amanda's fault the police failed to do even the most basic of background checks on Lumumba before arresting him. If they had they would have uncovered several patrons who would confirm he was at his bar working. It wasn't Amanda that forced the police to go arrest him in his home in front of his wife and child. This was five days after the murder and he had been continuing his life, running his bar all along. There was absolutely no reason to suspect he was a risk for flight or further crimes. They could have put him under surveillance until the completed their investigation into him. And, I suppose, you think it was Amanda's fault the police kept the bar closed another six weeks after his release.

No, the police did what they did because they wanted to make a big splash and become international heroes. Similarly, you like to try to blame everything on Amanda because writing nasty things about innocent people is what you do.

A direct accusation by a young woman screaming, 'He did it, he's bad' is sufficient enough for police to decide to make an arrest in the case of a serious murder.

The difference between you and me is that I don't flinch from the truth. Yes, the truth can be nasty, but what is the point in pretending to believe something you know is untrue?
__________________
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä,
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä
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 18th April 2017, 01:48 PM   #287
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 8,830
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Manners? You still haven't pointed to anything remotely supportive of your wild claims, except claiming that receiving a donation to your defence binds you forever to any future folly of the donor.

Why? It's the moral equivalent to offering your seat to the elderly.

You still have not substantiated that Knox called him a racist or that he "bankrolled" her defence. But we knew that would happen.
Read the 'article' carefully.

Yes, 'manners maketh man'.
__________________
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä,
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä

Last edited by Vixen; 18th April 2017 at 01:50 PM.
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 18th April 2017, 01:54 PM   #288
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,393
This is a more complete quote of Vixen's post of 20.03.2016:

Quote:
In actual fact, Pascali, for the defense walked off the case after reviewing the DNA evidence (the same Pascali on the editorial board with Gill on the scientific journal Gill uses to self-serve his own self-serving hypotheses the bra clasp DNA was transferred from the door knob, to help his clients, the Raff defense) and even defense forensic expert 'Photoshop' Vinci discovered Amanda's DNA on the bra, together with Rudy's.
I see no citation supporting that Vinci used photoshop. However, there is also no evidence that Knox's DNA was on the bra.

Quote:
Francesco Vinci, a forensic science expert hired by Sollecito's legal team, said the DNA of all three suspects and two other unidentified people might be on the bra.
Note the "might be".

Quote:
Vinci said the DNA taken from Kercher's bra would not be admissible as evidence in a British or US court.
(The Guardian 27 Oct 2008)

Pascali did not "walk off the case after reviewing the DNA evidence". According to (guilt biased) Barbie Nadeau:

Quote:
Vincenzo Pascali, the chief forensic consultant who was set to give expert testimony about the possible contamination of the bra clasp, walked off the case last month, reportedly leaving a €50,000 bill.Back in September, Pascali, who declined to comment for this story, hinted that the clasp also contained Knox’s DNA.
Nadeau wrote the above in June 2008 which means Pascali left the case in May 2008, nine months after he "hinted that the clasp also contained Knox’s DNA".

The fact that Knox's (hinted) DNA on the bra was never brought up in court by the prosecution is evidence that it did not, in fact, exist.
Stacyhs is online now   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 April 2017, 02:16 PM   #289
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,393
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I have a good memory and feel sure I read somewhere he was in his underpants when police called and he had to get dressed pretty quickly.

Judging by the number of Africans in the community at Perugia who came out in protest at Patrick's arrest, he clearly was not 'the only African in town', so simply finding some black fibre /hair did not ipso facto point to Patrick.

It was Amanda who pointed to him.

I believe Patrick.
So, you "have a pretty good memory", heh? Like remembering that there were no bars on the grill under Filomena's window? Your "good memory" and feeling "sure that (you) read somewhere" is not evidence. Nowhere in his six figure story to the Daily Mail does he mention he was undressed or in bed. That would have been a nice touch, too. You know, "they dragged me from my bed in my underwear" yadda yadda. I just searched his testimony. Nowhere does he used the words "underwear", "underpants", "dressed", "pajamas" or "bed" or "asleep/sleeping".

Sure, there were lots of black men in Perugia. But only one whom the police believed Amanda was "planning to meet" later on the night of the murder; Patrick Lumumba. I'd think the connection there is pretty obvious.

You believe Patrick? Then you must also believe that the police kicked and punched him, hit him on the head, called him a "dirty black", etc. After all, that's what he told the Daily Mail when he sold them his story just after being released from jail.
Stacyhs is online now   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 April 2017, 02:24 PM   #290
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,393
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Read the 'article' carefully.

Yes, 'manners maketh man'.
Yes, John 8:32 "Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

March 2015: Knox and Sollecito are definitively acquitted and are free.
Stacyhs is online now   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 April 2017, 02:31 PM   #291
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,393
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Be that as it may, the Courts of law say she did.
And Nencini's court of law said Raffaele's DNA was on the knife.
Massei's court of law said Knox's footsteps were in blood despite negative TMB tests, and that Curatolo, Capezalli, and Quintavalle were credible witnesses.
Hellman's court of law said she did not commit the act.

Despite the M/B report, there is not a single piece of forensic evidence that supports Amanda washed her hands of blood or that the cells in the mixed samples were epithelial. That's why no evidence was cited.
Stacyhs is online now   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 April 2017, 02:45 PM   #292
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 14,463
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Read the 'article' carefully.

Yes, 'manners maketh man'.
Facts maketh a case.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon 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 April 2017, 02:46 PM   #293
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,393
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
A direct accusation by a young woman screaming, 'He did it, he's bad' is sufficient enough for police to decide to make an arrest in the case of a serious murder.

The difference between you and me is that I don't flinch from the truth. Yes, the truth can be nasty, but what is the point in pretending to believe something you know is untrue?
No, it is not. An accusation is not enough to go to a man's house and drag him out of his home telling him "You know what you did". Just as they had assumed Knox's and Sollecito's guilt, they assumed Lumumba's guilt with nothing more than a hysterical girl's claim. They could have brought him in for questioning and checked his alibi. They didn't even bother to do that before arresting him. By that night, Amanda has written her memorial where she clearly states her doubt as to the veracity of what she'd told the police:

Quote:
In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion.
Quote:
However, it was under this pressure and after many hours of confusion that my mind came up with these answers. In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw him at my front door. I saw myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming. But I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked.
Quote:
And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house.
Quote:
In these flashbacks that I'm having, I see Patrik as the murderer, but the way the truth feels in my mind, there is no way for me to have known because I don't remember FOR SURE if I was at my house that night.
Quote:
Who is the REAL murder [sic]? This is particularly important because I don't feel I can be used as condemning testimone [sic] in this instance.
That last one is very important. Why would she ask who the "real" murderer is if she "knows" it was Patrick?

So, no. The please screwed up and should never have arrested Lumumba and then kept him in jail for two weeks. This is why he was awarded compensation in his lawsuit against them.
Stacyhs is online now   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 April 2017, 03:09 PM   #294
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 8,830
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
No, it is not. An accusation is not enough to go to a man's house and drag him out of his home telling him "You know what you did". Just as they had assumed Knox's and Sollecito's guilt, they assumed Lumumba's guilt with nothing more than a hysterical girl's claim. They could have brought him in for questioning and checked his alibi. They didn't even bother to do that before arresting him. By that night, Amanda has written her memorial where she clearly states her doubt as to the veracity of what she'd told the police:


That last one is very important. Why would she ask who the "real" murderer is if she "knows" it was Patrick?

So, no. The please screwed up and should never have arrested Lumumba and then kept him in jail for two weeks. This is why he was awarded compensation in his lawsuit against them.
He was awarded compensation under art 341 cpp. for redress for unjust detention.

This is capped at €500 per diem.

All of the courts upheld Amanda's guilt in falsely accusing him.
__________________
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä,
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä
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 18th April 2017, 03:11 PM   #295
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 11,831
Originally Posted by Vixen
A direct accusation by a young woman screaming, 'He did it, he's bad' is sufficient enough for police to decide to make an arrest in the case of a serious murder.

The difference between you and me is that I don't flinch from the truth. Yes, the truth can be nasty, but what is the point in pretending to believe something you know is untrue?
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
No, it is not. An accusation is not enough to go to a man's house and drag him out of his home telling him "You know what you did". Just as they had assumed Knox's and Sollecito's guilt, they assumed Lumumba's guilt with nothing more than a hysterical girl's claim.
The fake wiki cites John Follain's book as its basic text in understanding this crime.

On one page, John Follain relates Mignini thinking that Knox is a liar. On the next, Follain had Mignini saying, "We had to arrest Lumumba, Knox accused him", or words to that effect.
__________________
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 April 2017, 03:14 PM   #296
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 11,831
Quote:
You still have not substantiated that Knox called him a racist or that he "bankrolled" her defence.
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Read the 'article' carefully.

Yes, 'manners maketh man'.
You still have not substantiated any of your claims.
__________________
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 April 2017, 03:15 PM   #297
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 8,830
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Yes, John 8:32 "Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

March 2015: Knox and Sollecito are definitively acquitted and are free.
Oh dear. A quote completely out of context yet again.
__________________
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä,
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä
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 18th April 2017, 03:35 PM   #298
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 11,831
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Be that as it may, the Courts of law say she did.
Be that as it may, that was only one court - the one hearing Raffaele's compensation claim, and it cited only one item. And that decision is under appeal!
__________________
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 April 2017, 03:40 PM   #299
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,393
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
He was awarded compensation under art 341 cpp. for redress for unjust detention.

This is capped at €500 per diem.

All of the courts upheld Amanda's guilt in falsely accusing him.
Yes, because he should not have been arrested in the first place. He should have been brought in for questioning and had his alibi checked before rushing to judge him guilty on Amanda's say so alone. Honestly, the fact that you cannot even admit that is mind-boggling.

Whether the calunnia was upheld or not has nothing to do with the police's failure to do a shred of investigating before rushing out to arrest Lumumba.
Stacyhs is online now   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 April 2017, 03:43 PM   #300
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,393
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Oh dear. A quote completely out of context yet again.
Yet so apropos. Although I have to admit I like abaddon's better.

Facts maketh a case.
Stacyhs is online now   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 April 2017, 04:00 PM   #301
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 12,724
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Er, being present at the murder scene, washing off the victim's blood and covering up for Rudy. Yes, truly admirable, I am sure!
There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE, NONE to support those claims. I challenge you to present ANY.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is online now   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 April 2017, 04:03 PM   #302
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 8,830
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE, NONE to support those claims. I challenge you to present ANY.
Noooooooooooooooo!

25 parts later....
__________________
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä,
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä
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 18th April 2017, 04:05 PM   #303
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,393
Vixen,

1) Why didn't Knox or Sollecito remove the bath rug with "his" bloody footprint on it?

2) Why didn't they clean the sink with the blood on it, especially if Knox knew she had been bleeding?

Why did they leave these two pieces of evidence for the police after going to such super human efforts to remove all evidence of themselves from Meredith's room?

We know they were aware of them because they pointed them out to the postal police. And please, don't tell me they didn't have time because the police "surprised" them. The pair were outside waiting for the carabinieri by then.
Stacyhs is online now   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 April 2017, 04:06 PM   #304
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 12,724
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Noooooooooooooooo!

25 parts later....
And still absolutely no evidence has ever been presented.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is online now   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 April 2017, 04:08 PM   #305
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 8,830
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Vixen,

1) Why didn't Knox or Sollecito remove the bath rug with "his" bloody footprint on it?

2) Why didn't they clean the sink with the blood on it, especially if Knox knew she had been bleeding?

Why did they leave these two pieces of evidence for the police after going to such super human efforts to remove all evidence of themselves from Meredith's room?

We know they were aware of them because they pointed them out to the postal police. And please, don't tell me they didn't have time because the police "surprised" them. The pair were outside waiting for the carabinieri by then.
Why did Leopold and Loeb leave bespoke eyeglasses near the body, which led to their arrest?
__________________
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä,
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä
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 18th April 2017, 04:10 PM   #306
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,393
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Er, being present at the murder scene, washing off the victim's blood and covering up for Rudy. Yes, truly admirable, I am sure!
Present a single piece of forensic evidence that places them at the cottage at the time of the murder or that Amanda washed off blood.

Does covering up for Rudy include removing all evidence of themselves from he murder room while leaving only Guede's?

If the bloody footprint on the mat belonged to Sollecito, they'd have either washed it or disposed of it. If it belonged to Guede, they'd have done the same thing if covering for him. They did neither. Why is that? I'd love to hear your explanation.
Stacyhs is online now   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 April 2017, 04:18 PM   #307
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,839
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Be that as it may, the Courts of law say she did.
When courts render arbitrary judgments of conviction at the end of unfair trials, they violate the human rights of the defendants.

One reason that a number of European states, including Italy, set up the Council of Europe (CoE) with its governing treaties, including the European Convention of Human Rights, and the European Court of Human Rights, with supervision of judgments by the CoE's Committee of Ministers, is to judge complaints of such violations and to direct states found to have committed such violations to provide redress to the individuals and to undertake appropriate general measures to prevent a recurrence of the violations.

The Marasca CSC panel issued a final and definitive acquittal of Knox and Sollecito on the murder/rape charges; that case is done, with the exception of, for example, providing compensation to Knox and Sollecito for the miscarriage of justice and unjust detention.

Knox's allegation of wrongful conviction due to an unfair trial for calunnia against Lumumba is awaiting review and judgment by the European Court of Human Rights. As previously posted on this forum, it is listed as a "noteworthy pending case" against Italy in the ECHR Country Profile for Italy.

Here's the text and citation, again:

"Amanda Marie Knox v. Italy (no. 76577/13)
Case communicated to the parties in April 2016
This case concerns criminal proceedings in which Ms Knox was found guilty of making a false accusation. The offending statements were taken while she was being questioned in the context of criminal proceedings for the murder and sexual assault of her flatmate. The applicant was accused of implicating another person whom she knew to be innocent.
Ms Knox alleges that the criminal proceedings in which she was convicted were unfair, relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a) (right to a fair trial – right to be informed promptly of the charge), (c) (right to legal assistance), (e) (right to assistance from an interpreter), Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention."

Source: http://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?.../factsheets&c=
Link: Italy Country Profile (PDF), p. 12

Last edited by Numbers; 18th April 2017 at 04:20 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
Old 18th April 2017, 04:20 PM   #308
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,393
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Why did Leopold and Loeb leave bespoke eyeglasses near the body, which led to their arrest?
They didn't leave them. They were reading glasses that Leopold hadn't worn in months. They fell out of his suit pocket unknowingly.

"In his book, Life Plus Ninety-Nine Years, Leopold recounts his phone conversation with Loeb:

'Well, you know I wore glasses for a couple of weeks last year. And the picture in the paper looks just like my pair. Then I looked all over for them and I can't find the damn things.' "

Leopold was unaware that his glasses were even missing, much less left them on purpose.
Stacyhs is online now   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 April 2017, 04:27 PM   #309
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,393
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Present a single piece of forensic evidence that places them at the cottage at the time of the murder or that Amanda washed off blood.

Does covering up for Rudy include removing all evidence of themselves from he murder room while leaving only Guede's?

If the bloody footprint on the mat belonged to Sollecito, they'd have either washed it or disposed of it. If it belonged to Guede, they'd have done the same thing if covering for him. They did neither. Why is that? I'd love to hear your explanation.
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Perhaps you and acbytesla can talk to each other because I have told you numerous times to no avail. You can help each other out.
Oh, brother. Yet another claim that you've already answered something when you haven't. All you've done is post what the court said but neither it, nor you, provided any single piece of FORENSIC evidence that places Knox at the cottage at the time of the murder or that she washed her hands of blood leaving epithelial cells which mixed with Kercher's blood.

Does covering up for Rudy include removing all evidence of themselves from the murder room while leaving only Guede's?
Stacyhs is online now   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 April 2017, 04:27 PM   #310
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 8,830
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
When courts render arbitrary judgments of conviction at the end of unfair trials, they violate the human rights of the defendants.

One reason that a number of European states, including Italy, set up the Council of Europe (CoE) with its governing treaties, including the European Convention of Human Rights, and the European Court of Human Rights, with supervision of judgments by the CoE's Committee of Ministers, is to judge complaints of such violations and to direct states found to have committed such violations to provide redress to the individuals and to undertake appropriate general measures to prevent a recurrence of the violations.

The Marasca CSC panel issued a final and definitive acquittal of Knox and Sollecito on the murder/rape charges; that case is done, with the exception of, for example, providing compensation to Knox and Sollecito for the miscarriage of justice and unjust detention.

Knox's allegation of wrongful conviction due to an unfair trial for calunnia against Lumumba is awaiting review and judgment by the European Court of Human Rights. As previously posted on this forum, it is listed as a "noteworthy pending case" against Italy in the ECHR Country Profile for Italy.

Here's the text and citation, again:

"Amanda Marie Knox v. Italy (no. 76577/13)
Case communicated to the parties in April 2016
This case concerns criminal proceedings in which Ms Knox was found guilty of making a false accusation. The offending statements were taken while she was being questioned in the context of criminal proceedings for the murder and sexual assault of her flatmate. The applicant was accused of implicating another person whom she knew to be innocent.
Ms Knox alleges that the criminal proceedings in which she was convicted were unfair, relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a) (right to a fair trial – right to be informed promptly of the charge), (c) (right to legal assistance), (e) (right to assistance from an interpreter), Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention."

Source: http://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?.../factsheets&c=
Link: Italy Country Profile (PDF), p. 12
Re: European Court, Art. 6 right to a fair trial, you may want to read from p. 38 on, 3. Fourth instance

Quote:
a. General principles
202. One particular category of complaints submitted to the Court comprises what are commonly referred to as "fourth-instance" complaints. This term – which does not feature in the text of the Convention and has become established through the case-law of the Convention institutions (Kemmache v. France (no. 3), § 44) – is somewhat paradoxical, as it places the emphasis on what the Court is not: it is not a court of appeal or a court which can quash rulings given by the courts in the States Parties to the Convention or retry cases heard by them, nor can it re-examine cases in the same way as a Supreme Court. Fourth-instance applications therefore stem from a frequent misapprehension on two levels.
203. Firstly, there is often a widespread misconception on the part of the applicants as to the Court’s role and the nature of the judicial machinery established by the Convention. It is not the Court’s role to substitute itself for the domestic courts; its powers are limited to verifying the Contracting States’ compliance with the human rights engagements they undertook in acceding to the Convention. Furthermore, in the absence of powers to intervene directly in the legal systems of the Contracting States, the Court must respect the autonomy of those legal systems. That means that it is not its task to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as such errors may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. It may not itself assess the facts which have led a national court to adopt one decision rather than another. If it were otherwise, the Court would be acting as a court of third or fourth instance, which would be to disregard the limits imposed on its action (García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], § 28). "

Thus, there is zero chance of the calunnia verdict being rescinded.
__________________
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä,
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä
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 18th April 2017, 04:30 PM   #311
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 8,830
Now, given that national courts are generally immune from revision by the European Court, what makes the case more likely to get an order for a "revision" trial?

Since Knox's calunnia case has been scrutinized by three levels of review, and her sentence confirmed each time, what makes her case so 'noteworthy" it will be taken to the 4th or 5th level? (The Council of Ministers?)

Can 'Numbers' even cite one case where Italy was ordered to hold a revision trial, and say how it is similar to Knox's situation? Most cases before the court result in a fine or rejection because it is reluctant to interfere in the national court's decision. It cannot rule on facts, only on procedure or a dramatic violation of the European Human Rights Code. Even in the extremely unlikely chance Italy is ordered to retry the case, what makes Numbers think she'll win this time?

In essence, the European Court isn't a "Court of Appeal", it's a body that ensures the states respects human rights of all.

Knox still owes Lumumba 40,000 Euros.
__________________
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä,
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä
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 18th April 2017, 04:32 PM   #312
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 8,830
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
They didn't leave them. They were reading glasses that Leopold hadn't worn in months. They fell out of his suit pocket unknowingly.

"In his book, Life Plus Ninety-Nine Years, Leopold recounts his phone conversation with Loeb:

'Well, you know I wore glasses for a couple of weeks last year. And the picture in the paper looks just like my pair. Then I looked all over for them and I can't find the damn things.' "

Leopold was unaware that his glasses were even missing, much less left them on purpose.

Exactly! She's got it. By Jove, she's got it.
__________________
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä,
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä
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 18th April 2017, 04:34 PM   #313
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 8,830
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Oh, brother. Yet another claim that you've already answered something when you haven't. All you've done is post what the court said but neither it, nor you, provided any single piece of FORENSIC evidence that places Knox at the cottage at the time of the murder or that she washed her hands of blood leaving epithelial cells which mixed with Kercher's blood.

Does covering up for Rudy include removing all evidence of themselves from the murder room while leaving only Guede's?
You have been directed and shown the comments of Dr Stefanoni in this matter, on several occasions, yet still you cannot understand it.

What hope an umpty-ninth time?
__________________
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä,
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä
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 18th April 2017, 05:24 PM   #314
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,839
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Re: European Court, Art. 6 right to a fair trial, you may want to read from p. 38 on, 3. Fourth instance




Thus, there is zero chance of the calunnia verdict being rescinded.
The ECHR case law and other documentation explaining its role must be read carefully and without bias.

The finding of an Article 3 and/or Article 6 violation of an unfair trial in which the rights of the convicted person were prejudiced results in the ECHR finding that the applicant (who was the person unfairly tried) must be allowed to seek redress by requesting a retrial (in Italy, called a revison trial) in which the applicant's Convention rights are fully respected. This is what the respondent state (Italy) would be obligated to allow under the Council of Europe treaty*. An Italian Constitutional Court ruling mandates that the Italian judiciary must consider the request for revision of a convicted person when the ECHR issues a final judgment that proceedings must be reopened as a result of an unfair trial.

* In contrast, an appeal court would simply quash the conviction. The ECHR does not quash convictions. It, with supervision by the Committee of Ministers, directs the respondent state to redress the unfair trial by holding a new trial at the request of the unfairly convicted person.
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 April 2017, 06:17 PM   #315
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,839
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
The ECHR case law and other documentation explaining its role must be read carefully and without bias.

The finding of an Article 3 and/or Article 6 violation of an unfair trial in which the rights of the convicted person were prejudiced results in the ECHR finding that the applicant (who was the person unfairly tried) must be allowed to seek redress by requesting a retrial (in Italy, called a revison trial) in which the applicant's Convention rights are fully respected. This is what the respondent state (Italy) would be obligated to allow under the Council of Europe treaty*. An Italian Constitutional Court ruling mandates that the Italian judiciary must consider the request for revision of a convicted person when the ECHR issues a final judgment that proceedings must be reopened as a result of an unfair trial.

* In contrast, an appeal court would simply quash the conviction. The ECHR does not quash convictions. It, with supervision by the Committee of Ministers, directs the respondent state to redress the unfair trial by holding a new trial at the request of the unfairly convicted person.
Here is an excerpt from an ECHR judgment on an Article 6 violation illustrating how the ECHR provides in its verdict for the opportunity of redress by a retrial or new trial to be conducted with the applicant's Convention rights fully respected (inline citations omitted):

"ALEKSANDR ZAICHENKO v. RUSSIA 39660/02 18/02/2010

65. The Court also reiterates that when an applicant has been convicted despite an infringement of his rights as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, he should, as far as possible, be put in the position that he would have been in had the requirements of that provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be trial de novo or the reopening of the proceedings, if so requested by the person concerned .... The Court observes, in that connection, that Article 413 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation provides that criminal proceedings may be reopened if the Court has found a violation of the Convention*...."

* A decision of the Constitutional Court of Italy (judgment 113 of 2011) provides for this reopening of proceedings by means of requesting a revision trial for cases in which the ECHR finds that an Italian trial was in violation of the Convention.

Last edited by Numbers; 18th April 2017 at 06:19 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
Old 18th April 2017, 07:17 PM   #316
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,393
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Exactly! She's got it. By Jove, she's got it.

Oh, lordy. Where's a face palm emoticon when I need one? When asked why Knox and Sollecito would leave incriminating evidence behind for the police to find you asked why would Loeb and Leopold leave bespoke glasses at the scene of their crime. The difference is that Knox and Sollecito KNEW the bathmat and blood were in the bathroom. They did not dispose of either, instead pointing them out to the police. Loeb and Leopold did NOT KNOW they had left Leopold's glasses behind. What is so hard to understand?
Stacyhs is online now   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 April 2017, 07:27 PM   #317
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,393
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Oh, brother. Yet another claim that you've already answered something when you haven't. All you've done is post what the court said but neither it, nor you, provided any single piece of FORENSIC evidence that places Knox at the cottage at the time of the murder or that she washed her hands of blood leaving epithelial cells which mixed with Kercher's blood.

Does covering up for Rudy include removing all evidence of themselves from the murder room while leaving only Guede's?
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You have been directed and shown the comments of Dr Stefanoni in this matter, on several occasions, yet still you cannot understand it.

What hope an umpty-ninth time?
This is one of your favorite tactics; claim someone's been shown something or that you've answered it before when, in fact, you haven't. You just hope we'll give up.

Stefanoni provided NO evidence that Amanda was at the cottage at the time of the murder. She TRIED to claim this by claiming her footprints were in blood. Gino provided evidence otherwise. I understand THAT perfectly. It is YOU who refuses to accept the science. What hope an umpty-ninth time of presenting that FACT will get through to you? Not much.

NO forensic evidence was presented that Amanda washed her hands of blood. You were asked to provide FORENSIC evidence of that and you never did...or could. And neither did the court. Stefanoni herself testified that the SOURCE of Amanda's DNA in the mixed DNA samples could not be identified. That is another fact you just ignore.
Stacyhs is online now   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 April 2017, 08:07 PM   #318
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 11,831
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
NO forensic evidence was presented that Amanda washed her hands of blood. You were asked to provide FORENSIC evidence of that and you never did...or could. And neither did the court. Stefanoni herself testified that the SOURCE of Amanda's DNA in the mixed DNA samples could not be identified. That is another fact you just ignore.
Worse, it was a fact that at least two courts chose to ignore. Instead of simply taking Stefanoni at her word, the prosecution's own "expert", the Massei court and the Nencini court went the further step to "help them out."

With no evidence led - none at all - they simply declared it as Vixen cites, a citation from motivation reports which in turn have no forensics to justify them.

But why let that stop you. That makes them judicial facts.

It is in this light that the Marasca-Bruno report cuts into the judges.....
Originally Posted by Marasca-Bruno
This cultural debate, while respecting the principle of freely-held opinion of the judge, also proposes to critically reexamine the now-obsolete and dubiously credible notion of the judge as “peritus peritorum” [expert of experts]. Indeed, this old maxim expresses a cultural model that is no longer current, and is in fact decidedly anachronistic, at least to the extent that it expects to assign to the judge a real ability to master the flow of scientific knowledge that the parties pour into the proceeding; a more realistic formulation, by contrast, sees the judge as wholly oblivious to those contributions, which are the fruit of a scientific training that he or she does not, need not, and cannot possess.
__________________
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 April 2017, 09:07 PM   #319
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,839
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Worse, it was a fact that at least two courts chose to ignore. Instead of simply taking Stefanoni at her word, the prosecution's own "expert", the Massei court and the Nencini court went the further step to "help them out."

With no evidence led - none at all - they simply declared it as Vixen cites, a citation from motivation reports which in turn have no forensics to justify them.

But why let that stop you. That makes them judicial facts.

It is in this light that the Marasca-Bruno report cuts into the judges.....
One significant issue in the Marasca CSC panel motivation report, at least according to the translation you quote, is that their argument against an Italian judge setting himself up as the "expert of the experts" and promoting an arbitrary and wrongful scientific or technical opinion will be only a guidance, and not a precedent, for future cases, because Italy relies on civil (fully codified) law rather than common (precedent-based) law.

It would be beneficial if the Italian parliament passed one or more laws that entered the Code of Criminal Procedure providing that the opinion of the judge must be firmly tied to the evidence, that forensic testing procedures must conform to international standards, and that the defense is to be given, on penalty of nullity of the case for non-compliance, true copies of all the original raw data of forensic testing and all other documentary evidence, both inculpatory and exculpatory.
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 April 2017, 09:14 PM   #320
bagels
Graduate Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,426
The PGP aren't angry that Amanda somehow managed to closely stage Rudy's unusual break-in style he had a criminal history of, thereby successfully lending at least some reasonable credibility to the break-in being genuine - aiding her defense.

The PGP aren't miffed that Amanda managed to clean the murder weapon of every trace of blood, and that the prosecution didn't even show interest in opening the knife up to see if a few hemoglobin molecules found their way into the seams.

The PGP don't care that the alleged semen stain next to a stripped naked murder victim was not analyzed.

The PGP aren't upset that Rudy was never pressed to testify against his alleged accomplices, despite the considerable leverage the prosecution could have used.

The PGP aren't mad at Quintavalle for being a bumbling fool that couldn't keep his story straight and couldn't seem to tell the police what he supposedly knew - weakening his testimony.

I consider the above a baseline that any PGP should adhere to, because it is a list of basic aspects of the factual realm of this case.

But this case isn't an A vs B discussion. Maybe it was in 2009, but it hasn't been in some time. This case is: what actually happened, which is a suspect was taken to trial on flaky evidence and unsurprisingly acquitted - and what some random people chose to believe based on nothing, which is that it was somehow an incontrovertible case with incontrovertible evidence.

If the was an A vs B type deal PGP arguing with the PIP conversations would look something like this "Yeah you're lucky this psycho girl got so lucky staging Rudy's break-in and the scene wasn't secured earlier...because otherwise the police would have been able to throughly document the staging and..."

But the conversations never go like that. They just use circular reasoning (it's staged because it's said to be staged) and then say she was acquitted because of the mafia. And then repeat themselves forever in a loop.

Like the PGP don't even have a position, they don't defend a position, they don't propose a position. They just have a starting axiom they decided to invent out of thin air, and for some reason we think that's worth engaging.

The question is why are 100% of the PGP like that. Why won't at least some of them have a real position. And the answer is because this case is so self evidently weak that no rational person can take up the other side at this point. They're filtered out.

But I'm sure any day now we'll have some reason to believe the case was solid coming from a voice other than some locked away obsessive internet board.
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
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 04:18 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.