Continuation The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 27

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Didn't you say the cops went after Amanda because they were relying on their 'gut instincts'?

In other words, she must have been giving off 'criminal' vibes, rather than the sweet American Pie one you keep trying to push in your other argument as to why she could not have possibly killed her room mate.

Logical fallacy, Vix. Yes, I did say the police relied on their "gut feelings" but it does not follow that it was because Amanda was giving off "criminal" vibes or that her demeanor was "dodgy". For Giobbi, her "dodgy behavior" and "criminal demeanor" was eating pizza a few days after the murder. because if his roommate had been murdered, he'd be in bed crying. It was at that moment he "knew she was guilty". As he said,

Quote:

We were able to establish guilt by carefully observing the suspects psychological and behavioral reactions during the interrogation. We didn’t need to rely on other kinds of investigation as this method enabled us to get the guilty parties in very quick time.

No evidence, just their behavior...or how they interpreted their behavior based on what they "knew to be the truth". And all this before a shred of forensic evidence had been analyzed.

For the cop who took the chef knife out of Raffaele's kitchen drawer, it was his "gut feeling" that that particular knife was "suspiciously clean" and looked like the murder weapon even though he had seen no pictures of the wounds and admitted he didn't even know how large or deep they were. Idiot didn't even bother to take any of the other knives out of the drawer. His "gut feelings" were enough.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I thought this thread was about the Kercher case and the administrative clerical error of forgetting to put Raff's right to a lawyer (which he had anyway) in writing by his back office staff.

You thought wrong.

[bagels]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Imagine there has been a crime committed. You are interviewed by the police.

If you are innocent, you just tell the truth.

No.

[Stacyhs]

Edited by novaphile:

There were a lot of broken quote tags in this post. Let me know if they weren't all quotes from the same poster

Originally Posted by Vixen

Think about it. Advertising, or the 'art of persuasion' is all about telling lies, or at least 'overcoming people's resistance'.

I have thought about it. And your post is a load of nonsense. Statement analysis has nothing to do with the art of persuasion/advertising.

Originally Posted by Vixen

If the plain brown caremelised liquid known as 'coca-cola' was sold in a plain tin, there is no way it would cost >£1 a tin, nor would Coca-Cola have a larger profit that the GDP of the entire state of Mexico

Irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Vixen

Extrapolate this into criminal law. Imagine there has been a crime committed. You are interviewed by the police.

If you are innocent, you just tell the truth. If guilty, you have to come up with an 'innocent' script. This involves acting. You have to imagine how an innocent person would act in your position, and what they might say.

This is the crux of your problem. Innocent people do tell the truth. The problem comes in when the police decide you aren't telling the truth. As in the cases of the rape victims in the article I provided. As in the cases of false confessions that are on record. As in the cases of proven false convictions.

Originally Posted by Vixen

Thus we saw a situation in the Kercher murder of all of the other room mates and witnesses immediately seeking an attorney. Knox and Sollecito imagined that an innocent person wouldn't do this, so casually pretended they didn't need one and declined to appoint one.

All the Italian roommates and witnesses did, indeed, get attorneys. That in itself tell you something about the Italian system when even completely innocent people who have strong alibis feel the need to get a lawyer before speaking to police. How easily you try and twist AK's and RS's not getting a lawyer immediately into a sign of guilt. Most people would say that is a sign of innocence. Once again, you are assigning yourself the ability to know what AK and RS were thinking. You don't.

Originally Posted by Vixen

Now, because a guilty person aiming to evade justice has to dream up a pack of lies, in effect, of course statement analysis is useful, as we can pick out contradictions, changes in stories (Raff changed his five times), changes in reported emotions. One minute Knox claims she was frantic with worry about Mez, banging on her door and shouting her name, in her email to the world, yet all witnesses at the scene when the police arrived report she was entirely laid back about the locked door, even going so far as to telling Battistelli the door was often locked.

Knox only changed her story once during the Nov 5/6 interrogation which she recanted within hours. Sollecito's story also "changed" during that interrogation. As for the story by the reporter, who knows what was said during that? All we have is her word...no recordings and no witnesses.

Knox was not "entirely laid back about the locked door". Stop making things up. As for Kercher locking her door or not, who would know better? The girl who shared a bathroom with Kercher, whose room was immediately next door to Kercher's and who spent more time with Kercher or Filomena who spent little time with Kercher beyond some meals?

Originally Posted by Vixen

The problem with lying is that people forget their lies, so when we examine Knox and Sollecito's babblings, and compare their book, tv and film narratives with what they told the police and the courts, we see a fascinating phenomenon of one lie after another and a fake alibi.

We see no such thing. What we see are what the police say was said during interrogations that were not recorded and when there were no lawyers present.

Originally Posted by Vixen

Crini explained in his submissions that a fake alibi was a piece of evidence in itself.

Crini didn't explain this; he claimed it. Crini also "explained" how Curatolo being a drug addled addict and describing seeing the pair on Halloween night was not evidence of being unreliable. Hoots!

Originally Posted by Vixen

Thus, statement analysis is invaluable to courts and this is exactly what barristers are getting at when they cross-examine. They are aiming to highlight contradictions, fabrications and anomalies, which will go into their closing submissions.

Nice wrap up but it fails to address the fact that statement analysis is not, as you claimed, the same thing as the "art of persuasion" and "advertising". Which was my point.

[bagels]

*In Vixen voice* advertising is very important for changing public opinion

[bagels]

I can't believe someone who is wrong about literally almost everything has failed to figure out this case. What a shock.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Polygraphs (lie detectors) work, because they measure the rate of perspiration (which we have no control over, although savvy crooks know how to take drugs to suppress this). The sweat arises because lying is stressful. The mositure causes an electronic impulse to register on galvanometer, which can be graphed.

Of course some people are more nervous than others. This is why the pyschologist performing the test will ask a few neutral questions first to discover the individual's baseline. A lie will manifest itself as above the normal baseline, whatever that was.

Psychopaths can often lie without any sweat, and drugs can inhibit a true physiological response, which is why lie detectors are not considered valid evidence on their own. However, for detectives, it can help rule out who is not a suspect. (The WM3 all failed the lie detector on five key questions. One weirdo who insisted he was the killer passed the test despite his fake claims.)

You are starting off with a fallacy by stating that polygraphs "work". The fact is, they work sometimes.
Polygraphs measure three physiological responses:
heart rate/blood pressure, respiration, and skin conductivity. The theory is that lying increases sweat. While this can be true, it is not always the case which is one reason why these tests are not considered reliable. There are many factors that can also affect their reliability. According to the American Psychological Association:

Quote:

Most psychologists agree that there is little evidence that polygraph tests can accurately detect lies.

Quote:

The accuracy (i.e., validity) of polygraph testing has long been controversial. An underlying problem is theoretical: There is no evidence that any pattern of physiological reactions is unique to deception. An honest person may be nervous when answering truthfully and a dishonest person may be non-anxious. Also, there are few good studies that validate the ability of polygraph procedures to detect deception. As Dr. Saxe and Israeli psychologist Gershon Ben-Shahar (1999) note, "it may, in fact, be impossible to conduct a proper validity study." In real-world situations, it's very difficult to know what the truth is.

A particular problem is that polygraph research has not separated placebo-like effects (the subject's belief in the efficacy of the procedure) from the actual relationship between deception and their physiological responses. One reason that polygraph tests may appear to be accurate is that subjects who believe that the test works and that they can be detected may confess or will be very anxious when questioned. If this view is correct, the lie detector might be better called a fear detector.

Quote:

The cumulative research evidence suggests that CQTs detect deception better than chance, but with significant error rates, both of misclassifying innocent subjects (false positives) and failing to detect guilty individuals (false negatives).

Research on the processes involved in CQT polygraph examinations suggests that several examiner, examinee, and situational factors influence test validity, as may the technique used to score polygraph charts. There is little research on the effects of subjects' differences in such factors as education, intelligence, or level of autonomic arousal.

http://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx

[Welshman]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I thought this thread was about the Kercher case and the administrative clerical error of forgetting to put Raff's right to a lawyer (which he had anyway) in writing by his back office staff.

It is funny how PGP come up with pathetic excuses as to why Raffaele was denied access to lawyers.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Welshman

It is funny how PGP come up with pathetic excuses as to why Raffaele was denied access to lawyers.

Don't be silly, Welshman. Vixen has told us that Raffaele and Amanda cleverly figured out that not having lawyers would make them look innocent! It was all part of their Machiavellian plan.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Polygraphs (lie detectors) work, because they measure the rate of perspiration (which we have no control over, although savvy crooks know how to take drugs to suppress this). The sweat arises because lying is stressful. The mositure causes an electronic impulse to register on galvanometer, which can be graphed.

Of course some people are more nervous than others. This is why the pyschologist performing the test will ask a few neutral questions first to discover the individual's baseline. A lie will manifest itself as above the normal baseline, whatever that was.

Psychopaths can often lie without any sweat, and drugs can inhibit a true physiological response, which is why lie detectors are not considered valid evidence on their own. However, for detectives, it can help rule out who is not a suspect. (The WM3 all failed the lie detector on five key questions. One weirdo who insisted he was the killer passed the test despite his fake claims.)

I will here note that I have successfully misled a polygraph more than once. There are ways to do it physically and mentally. As republickers might wish to know those I won't disclose them here - but I got black (the able to go behind the security fence ) i.d. card while in the military at Detrick.......

[Numbers]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Amazingly, but not unsurprisingly, inaccurate and hyperbolic claims.

Amanda has never, ever claimed she was "tortured for 54 hours". What she has said is that she was smacked on the back of the head 3 times during the Nov.5/6 interrogation. It is only during that particular interrogation that she claimed verbal and physical abuse. But why let facts get in the way?

Amanda also never claimed there were "tag teams of twelve" interrogating her. Twelve officers were scheduled for the night of Nov.5/6 (some brought in from Rome), but they were divided into interrogating Amanda and Raff. Amanda only says there were sometimes several in the room at the same time and explicitly mentions Ficarra, the "silver haired" officer and a few others. The fact that SEVEN police officer sued her for defamation (and lost) is evidence that there were seven interrogating her that night.

Amanda did report being hit. It's in her memorial of Nov. 6 and she also told the prison doctor and nurse who examined her upon her arrest. Please cite evidence of your claim that "Under Italian law Dalla Vedova had a duty and obligation to report the police abuse".

Your claim that the ECHR case is not moving along is belied by the facts that have been reported here on the case status. This is just another example of you pulling a "fact" right out of thin air (and elsewhere).

There is no medical report of torture because she has never claimed she was "tortured" physically. Since when do three hand slaps to the back of the head result in physical damage? Again, this is just another classic example of your need to grossly exaggerate in an effort to support your position. And it fails miserably.

Knox v. Italy remains a communicated case that is among the "noteworthy pending cases" against Italy.

The ECHR is working its way through the cases against Italy, but it must also devote its time to the many cases against certain other Council of Europe states.

However, the ECHR is making progress at clearing the backlog of noteworthy cases against Italy. For example, it recently (22 Nov. 2017) held a Grand Chamber hearing of the case of Berlusconi v Italy, which may have been given some precedence because it involves an allegation of a violation of democratic election practices. The Chamber that received the Berlusconi case referred it to the Grand Chamber the day after it received it.

Both cases were communicated to Italy in 2016 - Knox v. Italy in April, and Berlusconi v. Italy in July. The Berlusconi case is listed on page 12 and the Knox case on page 13 of the Country Profile for Italy.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Numbers

Knox v. Italy remains a communicated case that is among the "noteworthy pending cases" against Italy.

The ECHR is working its way through the cases against Italy, but it must also devote its time to the many cases against certain other Council of Europe states.

However, the ECHR is making progress at clearing the backlog of noteworthy cases against Italy. For example, it recently (22 Nov. 2017) held a Grand Chamber hearing of the case of Berlusconi v Italy, which may have been given some precedence because it involves an allegation of a violation of democratic election practices. The Chamber that received the Berlusconi case referred it to the Grand Chamber the day after it received it.

Both cases were communicated to Italy in 2016 - Knox v. Italy in April, and Berlusconi v. Italy in July. The Berlusconi case is listed on page 12 and the Knox case on page 13 of the Country Profile for Italy.

Thank you, Numbers. This is what I was referring to. So much for Vixen's (untrue) claims.

[Stacyhs]

Quote:

Please cite evidence of your claim that "Under Italian law Dalla Vedova had a duty and obligation to report the police abuse".

Still waiting.

[Planigale]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Think about it. Advertising, or the 'art of persuasion' is all about telling lies, or at least 'overcoming people's resistance'.

If the plain brown caremelised liquid known as 'coca-cola' was sold in a plain tin, there is no way it would cost >£1 a tin, nor would Coca-Cola have a larger profit that the GDP of the entire state of Mexico.

Extrapolate this into criminal law. Imagine there has been a crime committed. You are interviewed by the police.

If you are innocent, you just tell the truth. If guilty, you have to come up with an 'innocent' script. This involves acting. You have to imagine how an innocent person would act in your position, and what they might say.

Thus we saw a situation in the Kercher murder of all of the other room mates and witnesses immediately seeking an attorney. Knox and Sollecito imagined that an innocent person wouldn't do this, so casually pretended they didn't need one and declined to appoint one.

Now, because a guilty person aiming to evade justice has to dream up a pack of lies, in effect, of course statement analysis is useful, as we can pick out contradictions, changes in stories (Raff changed his five times), changes in reported emotions. One minute Knox claims she was frantic with worry about Mez, banging on her door and shouting her name, in her email to the world, yet all witnesses at the scene when the police arrived report she was entirely laid back about the locked door, even going so far as to telling Battistelli the door was often locked.

The problem with lying is that people forget their lies, so when we examine Knox and Sollecito's babblings, and compare their book, tv and film narratives with what they told the police and the courts, we see a fascinating phenomenon of one lie after another and a fake alibi.

Crini explained in his submissions that a fake alibi was a piece of evidence in itself.

Thus, statement analysis is invaluable to courts and this is exactly what barristers are getting at when they cross-examine. They are aiming to highlight contradictions, fabrications and anomalies, which will go into their closing submissions.

Why do you continually tell untruths?

Courtesy wikipedia, "Mexico's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in purchasing power parity (PPP) was estimated at US $2,143.499 billion in 2014, and $1,261.642 billion in nominal exchange rates."

NY Times, "Profit for the year rose to $7.4 billion, a 3 percent gain over $7.1 billion in 2014."

So ratio between Mexico GDP:Coca Cola profit is 2,000:7

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by Vixen

If the plain brown caremelised [sic] liquid known as 'coca-cola' was sold in a plain tin, there is no way it would cost >£1 a tin, nor would Coca-Cola have a larger profit that the GDP of the entire state of Mexico.

Extrapolate this into criminal law.

Quite apart from the mistakes (Coke doesn't cost more than £1 a tin, nor does Coca-Cola have a larger profit than the GDP of Mexico), this is simply hiliarious.

[Methos]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I thought this thread was about the Kercher case and the administrative clerical error of forgetting to put Raff's right to a lawyer (which he had anyway) in writing by his back office staff.

... Aaand back to Continuation part 24 we go now...

[Numbers]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

Quite apart from the mistakes (Coke doesn't cost more than £1 a tin, nor does Coca-Cola have a larger profit

I think the PGP "syllogism" (silly-ism) is as follows:

A can or "tin" (330 ml) of Coca Cola costs more than 1 British pound, and
The profit of the Coca Cola company is more than the GDP of Mexico, therefore
Amanda Knox is a witch and guilty

The PGP view becomes more understandable when thus organized. And the truth or falsity of the first two statements (the premises) of the "syllogism" is irrelevant to the PGP belief in the conclusion.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Numbers

I think the PGP "syllogism" (silly-ism) is as follows:

A can or "tin" (330 ml) of Coca Cola costs more than 1 British pound, and
The profit of the Coca Cola company is more than the GDP of Mexico, therefore
Amanda Knox is a witch and guilty

The PGP view becomes more understandable when thus organized. And the truth or falsity of the first two statements (the premises) of the "syllogism" is irrelevant to the PGP belief in the conclusion.

The silly-isms continue.

That grand archivist, Methos, is able to link back to threads here, when Vixen (lacking anything new to post about) drops in a factoid long since discredited.

But every so often some silliness is truly new. By itself this is remarkable given that it is more than a decade past the original, horrid crime and almost 3 years past RS and AK being definitively acquitted of it.

Yet when Giuliano Mignini's defamation case against Sollecito and Gumbel is thrown out of court, and Mignini withdraws his private civil suit against the pair.......

...... we're told this is really a victory for Mignini. We're told this is to pave the way for an apology to Mignini from RS and AG.

How's that going?

The other recent silliness regards Nick van der Leek, whom Vixen (apparently) no longer posts about. Suddenly stopped.

[Stacyhs]

Quote:

Please cite evidence of your claim that "Under Italian law Dalla Vedova had a duty and obligation to report the police abuse".

Still waiting.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Planigale

Why do you continually tell untruths?

Courtesy wikipedia, "Mexico's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in purchasing power parity (PPP) was estimated at US $2,143.499 billion in 2014, and $1,261.642 billion in nominal exchange rates."

NY Times, "Profit for the year rose to $7.4 billion, a 3 percent gain over $7.1 billion in 2014."

So ratio between Mexico GDP:Coca Cola profit is 2,000:7

It's quite easy to prove one's case when one can simply make up "facts".
Most certainly Amelia Earhart was never really missing as she was, undoubtedly, really a Japanese agent who, as we know, defected to Japan. You have been told.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

It's quite easy to prove one's case when one can simply make up "facts".
Most certainly Amelia Earhart was never really missing as she was, undoubtedly, really a Japanese agent who, as we know, defected to Japan. You have been told.

The PGP method would be.....

So what there's no evidence that Amelia Earhart was Tokyo Rose. It's up to you to prove she wasn't. Until then, you have been told - she's Tokyo Rose.

[Methos]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

The silly-isms continue.

That grand archivist, Methos, is able to link back to threads here, when Vixen (lacking anything new to post about) drops in a factoid long since discredited.

But every so often some silliness is truly new. By itself this is remarkable given that it is more than a decade past the original, horrid crime and almost 3 years past RS and AK being definitively acquitted of it.

[...]

Well, I'm just lazy.
The search function on this board works very well, so why should I re-write posts I've aready written?

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

The PGP method would be.....

So what there's no evidence that Amelia Earhart was Tokyo Rose. It's up to you to prove she wasn't. Until then, you have been told - she's Tokyo Rose.

But there most certainly is evidence! Statement analysis of her last communications has revealed, without a doubt, that she was hiding the fact of her Japanese connections. If you watch the newsreels of her, she is acting quite dodgy and, as we know, was displaying criminal demeanor. As we can all see, she doesn't look the reporters in the eye when they ask her questions and her eyes are shifty. You can see the guilt in them!

[Welshman]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Think about it. Advertising, or the 'art of persuasion' is all about telling lies, or at least 'overcoming people's resistance'.

If the plain brown caremelised liquid known as 'coca-cola' was sold in a plain tin, there is no way it would cost >£1 a tin, nor would Coca-Cola have a larger profit that the GDP of the entire state of Mexico.

Extrapolate this into criminal law. Imagine there has been a crime committed. You are interviewed by the police.

If you are innocent, you just tell the truth. If guilty, you have to come up with an 'innocent' script. This involves acting. You have to imagine how an innocent person would act in your position, and what they might say.

Thus we saw a situation in the Kercher murder of all of the other room mates and witnesses immediately seeking an attorney. Knox and Sollecito imagined that an innocent person wouldn't do this, so casually pretended they didn't need one and declined to appoint one.

Now, because a guilty person aiming to evade justice has to dream up a pack of lies, in effect, of course statement analysis is useful, as we can pick out contradictions, changes in stories (Raff changed his five times), changes in reported emotions. One minute Knox claims she was frantic with worry about Mez, banging on her door and shouting her name, in her email to the world, yet all witnesses at the scene when the police arrived report she was entirely laid back about the locked door, even going so far as to telling Battistelli the door was often locked.

The problem with lying is that people forget their lies, so when we examine Knox and Sollecito's babblings, and compare their book, tv and film narratives with what they told the police and the courts, we see a fascinating phenomenon of one lie after another and a fake alibi.

Crini explained in his submissions that a fake alibi was a piece of evidence in itself.

Thus, statement analysis is invaluable to courts and this is exactly what barristers are getting at when they cross-examine. They are aiming to highlight contradictions, fabrications and anomalies, which will go into their closing submissions.

There is one thing you are guaranteed to see on this forum and that is Vixen complaining about Amanda and Raffaele telling umpteen lies and Vixen will make vitriolic attacks on Amanda and Raffaele for lying. Recently Vixen said that Amanda must be a psychopath because lying is the sign of a psychopath. As can be seen from the links below Vixen uses falsehoods on an industrial scale in her posts and PGP have a lied and supported liars on an industrial scale.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11938562
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11942852
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11598412
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1#post11427461
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post11951893
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post11982023
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post11333243
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post11997763

Is Vixen’s accusation that Amanda and Raffaele have told umpteen lies justified? There are two things PGP use to support the notion Raffaele lied. Firstly, Raffaele said in his diary he might have pricked Meredith with his knife. This was a private thought in his diary which only came to light when Raffaele’s diary was stolen. A lie can only be classed as a lie when it is communicated. PGP use what Raffaele said in his interrogation as a lie which was not a deliberate lie as explained in my post below.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1#post11944311

Below are instances when Vixen has falsely accused Amanda of lying. I recall a post where Vixen mentions an interview where Amanda mentions she underwent 53 hours interrogation over a period of three days. Vixen claims this was a lie when in fact Amanda was telling the truth. Vixen constantly repeats the falsehood the supreme said Amanda and Raffaele told numerous lies. If Amanda and Raffaele were such prolific liars as Vixen constantly claims, why do PGP have to resort to lying support this notion? In addition if Amanda and Raffaele have told so many lies, why do PGP have to resort to using instances when Amanda and Raffaele have not actually lied such as a private thought in a diary and difficulty recollecting events in an interrogation? The PGP falsely accuse Amanda and Raffaele of lying and then brand them as liars which is typical of the disgusting hypocrisy we see from PGP.

Post dated 24.05.2016
Claim: a long convoluted story surrounding a mop found propped up by the front door of the cottage when postal police arrived was concocted by the pair, which any marine would be proud of in the scheme of tallest of tall stories about burst pipes and leaks as of the time of the murder.
Truth: There is no record of the postal police asking about the mop and there is no record of any conversation regarding the mop between Amanda, Raffaele and the postal police. There was an actual leak in Raffaele’s apartment as seen in the link below
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/freque...ked-questions/
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5#post11849235

Why do PGP who lie in their posts and support liars on an industrial scale viciously attack Amanda and Raffaele for lying particularly when Amanda and Raffaele have not actually lied? I raised the question in a previous post what would psychiatrist make of people who viciously attack people for doing something whilst doing the same thing themselves. In response another poster said Freud would call this behaviour projection. I feel this theory makes sense and explains why the PGP constantly attack Amanda and Raffaele for lying because the PGP are projecting their lies onto Amanda and Raffaele. The below link is a good explanation of projection.

http://changingminds.org/explanation...projection.htm

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

Quite apart from the mistakes (Coke doesn't cost more than £1 a tin, nor does Coca-Cola have a larger profit than the GDP of Mexico), this is simply hiliarious.

...IMF loan, or whatever it was. Fact remains, Coca-Cola has one of the biggest net profits if not the biggest of any MNC.

How is the seige in Oxford Circus coming along, hmm?

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by fuelair

I will here note that I have successfully misled a polygraph more than once. There are ways to do it physically and mentally. As republickers might wish to know those I won't disclose them here - but I got black (the able to go behind the security fence ) i.d. card while in the military at Detrick.......

If you want to fool a lie detector, just hold your breath, or change your breathing pattern. But don't let the tester see, though.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Vixen

If you want to fool a lie detector, just hold your breath, or change your breathing pattern. But don't let the tester see, though.

Just a question.... have you figured out yet that Bongiorno had had nothing to do with Mignini prosecuting this case in 2009 while he himself stood provisionally criminally convicted of abuse of office?

Ok one more. Are you willing to concede that it was not a victory for Mignini to have had (a few weeks ago) his defamation claim against RS and AG thrown out of court, or for him to withdraw his own civil suit?

Will you concede that Mignini will get no apology, and that the claims in Sollecito's book stand as printed?

Will you concede that Nick van der Leek has embarassed himself, being referred to by all sides as a plagiarist?

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Vixen

...IMF loan, or whatever it was. Fact remains, Coca-Cola has one of the biggest net profits if not the biggest of any MNC.

How is the seige in Oxford Circus coming along, hmm?

Is there any actual reason to give a care that CC has a big net profit. I don't personally. Also, the Knox thing is dead in the water due to the massive failings of the Italian police/forensics/courts - so nothing the persons(?) worried about it or theorizing and arguing about it will have the slightest importance or effect.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Under Italian law Dalla Vedova had a duty and obligation to report the police abuse.

Maybe the folks over on TJMK and dotnut can help you with finding a citation for this.

[Planigale]

Originally Posted by Vixen

...IMF loan, or whatever it was. Fact remains, Coca-Cola has one of the biggest net profits if not the biggest of any MNC.

How is the seige in Oxford Circus coming along, hmm?

Why do you continually pile one lie on top of another? Do you not realise that if trivial easily verifiable statements that you make are demonstrably untrue it suggests that any statement of yours is likely to be untrue? Coca-cola is not even a top 50 earner.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ies-worldwide/

Sorry I forgot you are the accountant who does not understand the difference between VAT exempt and zero rating. As an insolvency practitioner the concept of profits is probably a bit novel. So the accountant says one lot of ill defined money is bigger than another. I'd hate to think that you were looking at the balance sheet of an company. Well this figure, it may be a loan, it may be turn over, or revenue, is bigger than that one because it starts with 7 whilst this figure with a 1 and lots of zeros must be smaller because those are all small numbers.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Planigale

Why do you continually pile one lie on top of another? Do you not realise that if trivial easily verifiable statements that you make are demonstrably untrue it suggests that any statement of yours is likely to be untrue? Coca-cola is not even a top 50 earner.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ies-worldwide/

Sorry I forgot you are the accountant who does not understand the difference between VAT exempt and zero rating. As an insolvency practitioner the concept of profits is probably a bit novel. So the accountant says one lot of ill defined money is bigger than another. I'd hate to think that you were looking at the balance sheet of an company. Well this figure, it may be a loan, it may be turn over, or revenue, is bigger than that one because it starts with 7 whilst this figure with a 1 and lots of zeros must be smaller because those are all small numbers.

Of course I know the difference. I have NVQ4 in both business tax and personal tax. Plus a VAT specific one. Not to mention financial strategy as part of my fully chartered qualification. I have submitted tax returns and filed accounts hundreds of times, including TOMS and EC sales lists

You don't know the difference between Revenues and net profit.

Fact is coca-cola remains near top http://www.coca-colacompany.com/coca...brands-ranking

My source is Mark Thomas, who did a whole comedy tour of the UK about Coca-Cola and its practices. I have his book which gives the low down, which is how I know Coca-Cola's profits are greater than Mexico's debt to IMF.

https://youtu.be/LH0r84W3LgU

For the avoidance of doubt, how does this tie in with Amanda Knox? Her father knew the value of PR and advertising - coca-cola is branded by its tin! - and paid an advertising agency to promote her phony case even before he hired a lawyer.

So Staceyhs claim that there is no such thing as manipulation of statements and that 'statement analysis' is a 'pseudo science' is pure bunkum.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Maybe the folks over on TJMK and dotnut can help you with finding a citation for this.

I don't know how you feel qualified to even discuss this case when you don't even know basic Italian law.

After all these years, you have no idea that Italian attorneys are obliged to report abuse of their clients by police.

[Matthew Best]

My source for this is a comedian.

Gold, I tell you. Gold!

[TruthCalls]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Think about it. Advertising, or the 'art of persuasion' is all about telling lies, or at least 'overcoming people's resistance'.

If the plain brown caremelised liquid known as 'coca-cola' was sold in a plain tin, there is no way it would cost >£1 a tin, nor would Coca-Cola have a larger profit that the GDP of the entire state of Mexico.

Extrapolate this into criminal law. Imagine there has been a crime committed. You are interviewed by the police.

If you are innocent, you just tell the truth. If guilty, you have to come up with an 'innocent' script. This involves acting. You have to imagine how an innocent person would act in your position, and what they might say.

Thus we saw a situation in the Kercher murder of all of the other room mates and witnesses immediately seeking an attorney. Knox and Sollecito imagined that an innocent person wouldn't do this, so casually pretended they didn't need one and declined to appoint one.

Now, because a guilty person aiming to evade justice has to dream up a pack of lies, in effect, of course statement analysis is useful, as we can pick out contradictions, changes in stories (Raff changed his five times), changes in reported emotions. One minute Knox claims she was frantic with worry about Mez, banging on her door and shouting her name, in her email to the world, yet all witnesses at the scene when the police arrived report she was entirely laid back about the locked door, even going so far as to telling Battistelli the door was often locked.

The problem with lying is that people forget their lies, so when we examine Knox and Sollecito's babblings, and compare their book, tv and film narratives with what they told the police and the courts, we see a fascinating phenomenon of one lie after another and a fake alibi.

Crini explained in his submissions that a fake alibi was a piece of evidence in itself.

Thus, statement analysis is invaluable to courts and this is exactly what barristers are getting at when they cross-examine. They are aiming to highlight contradictions, fabrications and anomalies, which will go into their closing submissions.

No, the PGP discover "one lie after another". What everyone else finds is a remarkably consistent accounting of the evening with the lone exception being statements extracted during a coercive interrogation. Remove statements made during this "inadmissible" interrogation and the accounting of the evening is, for ten years, remarkably consistent. The PGP's claim that Raffaele changed his story five times is laughable. His story has ALWAYS been the same, sans the interrogation confusion (which clearly represents what happened on Halloween, but why let the obvious get in your way).

Do you care to explain what a "fake alibi" is? Amanda and Raffaele claim to have been at his place for the evening. There is substantial evidence that supports this alibi for portions of the evening, but not all of it. This is not unusual as most of us would have a hard time proving we spent an evening at home, alone or with our spouse. Conversely, the prosecution could never prove the alibi was not valid.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by TruthCalls

No, the PGP discover "one lie after another". What everyone else finds is a remarkably consistent accounting of the evening with the lone exception being statements extracted during a coercive interrogation. Remove statements made during this "inadmissible" interrogation and the accounting of the evening is, for ten years, remarkably consistent. The PGP's claim that Raffaele changed his story five times is laughable. His story has ALWAYS been the same, sans the interrogation confusion (which clearly represents what happened on Halloween, but why let the obvious get in your way).

Do you care to explain what a "fake alibi" is? Amanda and Raffaele claim to have been at his place for the evening. There is substantial evidence that supports this alibi for portions of the evening, but not all of it. This is not unusual as most of us would have a hard time proving we spent an evening at home, alone or with our spouse. Conversely, the prosecution could never prove the alibi was not valid.

This.

The PGP cannot explain why Raffaele did not turn on Amanda in all those years. Indeed, the reason for Mignini:s recent failed defamation claim against RS and AG is precisely that Raffaele claimed in his book is that he had been pressured by police-prosecutor to turn against her.

[TruthCalls]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Of course I know the difference. I have NVQ4 in both business tax and personal tax. Plus a VAT specific one. Not to mention financial strategy as part of my fully chartered qualification. I have submitted tax returns and filed accounts hundreds of times, including TOMS and EC sales lists

You don't know the difference between Revenues and net profit.

Fact is coca-cola remains near top http://www.coca-colacompany.com/coca...brands-ranking

My source is Mark Thomas, who did a whole comedy tour of the UK about Coca-Cola and its practices. I have his book which gives the low down, which is how I know Coca-Cola's profits are greater than Mexico's debt to IMF.

https://youtu.be/LH0r84W3LgU

For the avoidance of doubt, how does this tie in with Amanda Knox? Her father knew the value of PR and advertising - coca-cola is branded by its tin! - and paid an advertising agency to promote her phony case even before he hired a lawyer.

So Staceyhs claim that there is no such thing as manipulation of statements and that 'statement analysis' is a 'pseudo science' is pure bunkum.

Marriott is a Public Relations firm, not an "advertising agency". But I'm sure this was just an honest typo on your part.

I honestly believe the PGP made Marriott a major issue as a means of deflecting attention away from the fact that the true PR Supertanker in this case was the media, whose motivation was to sell stories no matter how false or who it hurt. Even to this day we have TJMK and the fake wiki that continues to spread lies, distortions and heavily biased opinion. If anyone is an advertising agency promoting a phony case it would be them.

I recently concluded an exchange with a prominent True Crimes author who previously held Amanda and Raffaele were guilty. I won't speak for her and what her opinion now is regarding guilt or innocence, but will say she admits she developed an opinion of Amanda based on media coverage and that this had a dramatic influence on how she interpreted the overall case.

[TruthCalls]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

This.

The PGP cannot explain why Raffaele did not turn on Amanda in all those years. Indeed, the reason for Mignini:s recent failed defamation claim against RS and AG is precisely that Raffaele claimed in his book is that he had been pressured by police-prosecutor to turn against her.

Yes, but you do have to give the PGP credit.. they took a creative legal strategy by Raffaele in his appeal to the ISC and twisted it to suggest he no longer was supporting Amanda, or alternately, was changing his story. They are nothing if not imaginative!

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by TruthCalls

Yes, but you do have to give the PGP credit.. they took a creative legal strategy by Raffaele in his appeal to the ISC and twisted it to suggest he no longer was supporting Amanda, or alternately, was changing his story. They are nothing if not imaginative!

Ah.... the separation strategy.

They were either both guilty or neither was guilty. There was no way one could be guilty without the other. To convict Knox they had to convict Raffaele, or get him to cop a plea.

So after the Nencini conviction, Bongiorno says, "Òk. You say Amanda did 'X'. What does that have to do with Raffaele?" It's what was meant by Raffaele always being collateral damage, they actually probably did not want to prosecute him, except that to not have a case against him meant not having a case against Knox.

[TruthCalls]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I don't know how you feel qualified to even discuss this case when you don't even know basic Italian law.

After all these years, you have no idea that Italian attorneys are obliged to report abuse of their clients by police.

If this is basic Italian law then it should be easy for you to provide a citation to support the law you say exists.

But I am curious; since Amanda didn't have a lawyer present when the abuse took place, and since the police claim they didn't record the interview, what evidence would an attorney cite when reporting the abuse?

You really can't stop yourself from making things up, can you.

[TruthCalls]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

Ah.... the separation strategy.

They were either both guilty or neither was guilty. There was no way one could be guilty without the other. To convict Knox they had to convict Raffaele, or get him to cop a plea.

So after the Nencini conviction, Bongiorno says, "Òk. You say Amanda did 'X'. What does that have to do with Raffaele?" It's what was meant by Raffaele always being collateral damage, they actually probably did not want to prosecute him, except that to not have a case against him meant not having a case against Knox.

Exactly, but the PGP (and the media, btw. Even seven years into the case the media was still pedaling lies and distortions) still claimed it was proof Raffaele was no longer providing Amanda an alibi - and, per the fake wiki, this was a further different 'story' Raffaele provided... one of the 'five' Vixen claimed earlier.

In all fairness, it has to be difficult to argue something for ten years when you are constantly being proven wrong, so I guess it's understandable that the PGP would resort to such obvious distortions... there are so few straws left to grasp at.