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 Today, 12:45 PM   #1881
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 12,724
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Police did not ask Amanda Knox any such question, as the finding of the merits court is that Amanda Knox herself and Raffaele staged the scene to deflect attention away from themselves:

We see Amanda Knox had a clear motive for drawing attention in her email script to 25 people in her address book, to an imputed act of anal sex, as explained by Massei:

The pathologists even went so far as to state that despite the suggested violent rape, there were fewer injuries than expected from such a scene (i.e., exaggerated):

The pathologists claim:

Given the few signs of resistance by Mez:

and

Massei, after hearing all of the evidence and the cross -examinations and presentations in minute intricate detail, concurs:

In other words, he is saying the sexual assault was intentional.

Massei speaks of the pity and reticence felt towards the object of the crime.

Puts into context Amanda Knox' deceptive claims in her email home. The police had zero reason to ask Amanda 'if Mez liked anal sex'.
It doesn't do this at all. The FACT is you don't know and I don't know what questions were asked of Amanda. We only have Amanda's email. The police have never said that this question wasn't posed to Amanda. Your convoluted logic does not support your wild speculation. Again, you start with your conclusion and use it to come up with the evidence.

Don't you know it's supposed to be the other way around?
__________________
“ 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 Today, 01:00 PM   #1882
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,133
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I never make anything up.



It seems the Lancet now claims 1995 that the tissue was mixed up with someone else's. Fact is, he died a horrible death with a festering anal fissure.
Indeed is there anything we can learn from this relevant to the topic at hand? The most recent review (The Lancet Vol 348, 16 November 1996, Pp 1363–1365), suggests that the misdiagnosis came about because of accidental laboratory contamination when carrying out PCR testing for HIV! This of course when they had actual lumps of liver and skin to test! Not invisible tissue on a knife. Also the authors emphasise 'Contrary to speculation mainly, but not wholly, in the non-medical press, investigations by EH have shown no evidence to suggest that “the Manchester sailor” (MS) was either homosexual or bisexual, or that he ever visited Africa.'
Planigale 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 Today, 01:23 PM   #1883
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 12,724
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
Indeed is there anything we can learn from this relevant to the topic at hand? The most recent review (The Lancet Vol 348, 16 November 1996, Pp 1363–1365), suggests that the misdiagnosis came about because of accidental laboratory contamination when carrying out PCR testing for HIV! This of course when they had actual lumps of liver and skin to test! Not invisible tissue on a knife. Also the authors emphasise 'Contrary to speculation mainly, but not wholly, in the non-medical press, investigations by EH have shown no evidence to suggest that “the Manchester sailor” (MS) was either homosexual or bisexual, or that he ever visited Africa.'
I think what is also interesting is the article says 'anal ulcer' not 'a gaping anal fissure that festered and supperated becoming larger and larger'. She also said 'He claimed he had never had gay sex, which I am sceptical'. It doesn't say this either. And Vixen speculates it was caused by 'penile thrusts'. Also not in the article.

Her penchant for wild exaggeration and unproven speculation is clearly not limited to this case.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

Last edited by acbytesla; Today at 01:43 PM.
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 Today, 01:41 PM   #1884
TruthCalls
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 483
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Police did not ask Amanda Knox any such question, as the finding of the merits court is that Amanda Knox herself and Raffaele staged the scene to deflect attention away from themselves:



The fact found of a simulated burglary stands. The trial courts believe to cover up for murder and sexual abuse. Marasca confirms the burglary was fake.



and, further




We see Amanda Knox had a clear motive for drawing attention in her email script to 25 people in her address book, to an imputed act of anal sex, as explained by Massei:



The pathologists even went so far as to state that despite the suggested violent rape, there were fewer injuries than expected from such a scene (i.e., exaggerated):



The pathologists claim:



Given the few signs of resistance by Mez:




and



Massei, after hearing all of the evidence and the cross -examinations and presentations in minute intricate detail, concurs:



In other words, he is saying the sexual assault was intentional.

Massei speaks of the pity and reticence felt towards the object of the crime:



Puts into context Amanda Knox' deceptive claims in her email home. The police had zero reason to ask Amanda 'if Mez liked anal sex'.
Pssst.. in case you hadn't heard, Massei and Nencini were both overturned so reminding us what they concluded is meaningless.

And NO, Marasca did NOT "confirms the burglary was fake" - just the opposite, but why let the facts get in the way of a good story, eh?

Under the heading of "More Bizarre Reasoning by Vixen"... could you possibly explain how, even if the courts had concluded the break-in was staged, how that would in any way prove the police didn't ask Amanda the question or how it proves Amanda and Raffaele left the Vaseline as part of a staging?

You had an opportunity to admit this was speculation on your part and that there was no evidence to support any of it, but humility and honesty just aren't in your nature. And this really is your problem in a nutshell. Everyone has opinions but only you pretend they are facts.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 02:04 PM   #1885
TruthCalls
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 483
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
It doesn't do this at all. The FACT is you don't know and I don't know what questions were asked of Amanda. We only have Amanda's email. The police have never said that this question wasn't posed to Amanda. Your convoluted logic does not support your wild speculation. Again, you start with your conclusion and use it to come up with the evidence.

Don't you know it's supposed to be the other way around?
Even more bizarre is Meredith was not violated anally, so in what way would Amanda want to draw attention to the concept? You'd think if this was her intent, and they went through the bother of finding room in her pocketbook to not only bring the large kitchen knife but to bring along an "empty" jar of Vaseline, that they would then have actually deposited some Vaseline on her. Otherwise, the obvious conclusion would be the Vaseline was there because Meredith used it on her lips like so many other people.

It just never occurs to Vixen that the reason both Amanda and Raffaele reference Vaseline is BECAUSE the police asked them questions related to it and anal sex and they both found that to be disturbing and extremely unusual.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 02:16 PM   #1886
bagels
Graduate Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,426
If Vixen wants to believe the police never asked Amanda what Amanda claims they did, what's the harm in letting her? I don't have a problem with it. This thread is about the trials of Amanda Knox. Not convince Vixen her personal opinion is wrong. She's not arguing it was part of the evidence against her at trial, which it wasn't. I have no problem with it.
bagels is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 02:35 PM   #1887
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 12,724
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Even more bizarre is Meredith was not violated anally, so in what way would Amanda want to draw attention to the concept? You'd think if this was her intent, and they went through the bother of finding room in her pocketbook to not only bring the large kitchen knife but to bring along an "empty" jar of Vaseline, that they would then have actually deposited some Vaseline on her. Otherwise, the obvious conclusion would be the Vaseline was there because Meredith used it on her lips like so many other people.

It just never occurs to Vixen that the reason both Amanda and Raffaele reference Vaseline is BECAUSE the police asked them questions related to it and anal sex and they both found that to be disturbing and extremely unusual.
It's one right after another. Wild speculation after wild speculation after wild speculation equals fact in her mind. They don't in mine.
__________________
“ 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 Today, 02:40 PM   #1888
bagels
Graduate Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,426
The PGP position is that the evidence presented against Knox at trial was so incontrovertible that it should be very plausible to a neutral observer that only overt corruption orchestrated by the mafia/freemasons could explain all the acquitting courts and decisions, from Hellmann, to C&V, to M&B - and anyone arguing for insufficient evidence is either a PR plant, or a mentally delusional Ted Bundy murder groupie. That is the position held by every remaining PGP (such as anyone that still posts on the PMFs or TJMK).

Vixen using extrajudicial evidence (bloody papers, what police asked Amanda, etc) to establish guilt actually undermines her own position, so I say let her.
bagels is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:29 PM   #1889
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,393
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
She has. She was prattling on about her and Sonja Wassername* in the tv show 'being wimmin sitting together on a sofa wrongly convicted' and launching into a spiel about how rare that must be.

*A cop killer who falsely claims to be 'exonerated'.
Link please? I have done a google search for Sonja/Sonia/Sonya Wassername" and got zero returns. I searched for "Wassername Amanda Knox" and still got zero returns. I searched for "Sonja/Sonia Wassername murder" and found still no returns. I searched for "being women sitting together on a sofa wrongly convicted" and found...you guessed it...zero.

Unless you can provide a link this "TV show", into the junk pile it goes.

Even if what you claim is true, it does not support your claim. As I said, Amanda supports the wrongfully convicted of both sexes. Your claim that she is out "speaking for oppressed women" remains a made up claim.

* is there anyone you believe was ever wrongly convicted?
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 Today, 03:39 PM   #1890
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 12,724
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Link please? I have done a google search for Sonja/Sonia/Sonya Wassername" and got zero returns. I searched for "Wassername Amanda Knox" and still got zero returns. I searched for "Sonja/Sonia Wassername murder" and found still no returns. I searched for "being women sitting together on a sofa wrongly convicted" and found...you guessed it...zero.

Unless you can provide a link this "TV show", into the junk pile it goes.

Even if what you claim is true, it does not support your claim. As I said, Amanda supports the wrongfully convicted of both sexes. Your claim that she is out "speaking for oppressed women" remains a made up claim.

* is there anyone you believe was ever wrongly convicted?
'Wassername' as in 'What's her name'? ROFLMAO
__________________
“ 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 Today, 03:43 PM   #1891
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,393
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Vinci reported Amanda's and Raff's DNA on the bra fabric. However, they were below ENFSI standards as being <10 alleles. They were only fragments of 8 -9 alleles and less. Pascali walked off the case after seeing Vinci's independent results (and we know how strongly biased Vinci was, to the extent of photoshopping a shoe to fit Rudy's size 45 to the print).
No, Vinci said it MIGHT be on the bra. From The Guardian:

Quote:
Prosecutors had previously said only the DNA of Sollecito, Knox's boyfriend, was on the clasp. They argued it proved his involvement in Kercher's murder last November in Perugia.
Francesco Vinci, a forensic expert hired by Sollecito's legal team, said the DNA of all three suspects and two other unidentified people might be on the bra.
and

Quote:
Vinci, speaking by telephone today, said the DNA taken from Kercher's bra would not be admissible as evidence in a British or US court. Reacting to the claim, Luciano Ghirga, a lawyer representing Knox, said: "This works in the favour of Knox and Sollecito."
From the Telegraph:

'The analysis of the profile [found on the bra] in our opinion shows clearly the presence of at least three individuals,' according to forensic expert Francesco Vinci, retained by Mr Sollecito's legal team.
There was a "mix" of DNA with the strongest trace from Miss Kercher but also traces from other individuals, both male and female, making it "impossible or nearly impossible" to draw any firm conclusions from the evidence, said Professor Vinci.

From La Repubblica:

Quote:
One of Sollecito's lawyers, Giulia Bongiorno, who on Friday had filed a technical report, argued that the trace of DNA found on the bra "is not a trace of an individual's genetic profile, but it is a mixture, given by a combination of course unintentional contamination , and then - said the lawyer - a test is not usable. "
Show me a quote or report from Vinci where he actually says that Amanda's DNA is on the bra. Since this was never claimed by the prosecution in any of the trials, could it possibly be because there wasn't any of her DNA on the bra?

Also, please provide evidence that "Pascali walked off the case after seeing Vinci's independent results". I'm not questioning that Pascali left the case, but you have provided no evidence as to WHY he left the case. People do leave cases for reasons other than because they change their minds about a suspect's guilt or innocence.

Last edited by Stacyhs; Today at 03:49 PM.
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 Today, 03:59 PM   #1892
whoanellie
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 211
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I never make anything up.
and yet there is this
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The word 'compatible' refers to all scientific forensic tests, be it fingerprinting or DNA.

If a forensic scientist says it's compatible it means there is a statistically highly confidence level and at least 95% significance level, but usually much higher, such as 99.9% (3.17 standard deviations); i.e., there is just one chance in a thousand the compatability match is incorrect.

...Enter the wild conspiracy theories: 'Rinaldi & Boemia are in cahoots with Mignini' to frame the kids.


'They are just charlatans who never even passed basic maths'.
whoanellie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:02 PM   #1893
whoanellie
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 211
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Knox' comments to the world were wholly inappropriate .
I realize it's gone over your head but I believe the point Knox was trying to make in her email was that the police questions to her about Kercher's sexual predilections seemed inappropriate to her.
whoanellie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:08 PM   #1894
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,393
New information:

Vixen was referring to Sonia Jacobs which is why there were no returns for Wassername. I read up on the case and Jacobs was not a "cop killer". From Murderpedia:

Quote:
In 1976, Sunny Jacobs, a white woman, was sentenced to death for killing two police officers in Florida. She spent five years in isolation on Florida’s Death Row and 17 years in a maximum-security prison before her conviction was overturned and she was finally released.

Sunny, her partner Jesse Tafero, and their two children were on vacation when they had car trouble and accepted a ride home from Walter Rhodes, who was on probation.

While they were at a rest stop on the Florida Interstate, two police officers approached the car to do a routine license and registration check and someone in the car shot them. Sunny stated that she was in the back seat of the car shielding her children and did not see what had happened.

The state charged all three adults with the murders. Gunpowder tests showed that Rhodes had fired a weapon; tests of Sunny and Jesse were inconclusive. Rhodes told the prosecutors that Sunny and Jesse had killed the officers and agreed to testify against them in exchange for a life sentence. Rhodes took a polygraph test, which the prosecutor claimed he passed, and this was used as the basis for giving Rhodes the deal.
Sunny had never been in trouble with the law and was shocked when she was charged with murder. She was terrified as she watched the state take away her children and in her first police statement she lied and said she didn’t know the two men, who had picked her and her children up hitchhiking. The prosecutor later used this lie to impeach Sunny’s claim that she had not shot the officers.

At her trial, the prosecutor presented Rhodes’ testimony, Sunny’s lie and the testimony of a jailhouse informant, in prison on drug charges, who claimed that Sunny had told her that she was “glad she had killed those cops,” to convince the jury of Sunny’s guilt.
The jury convicted both Jesse and Sunny. They sentenced Jesse to death but sentenced Sunny to life. However, the judge, a former Florida State Trooper who wore his old patrol hat to work and kept a miniature electric chair that gave off sparks on his desk, overrode the jury’s recommendation and sentenced Sunny to death. On appeal, Sunny’s death sentence was changed back to life imprisonment.

During the next several years, Rhodes recanted his testimony three times and admitted that he, not Sunny or Jesse, had shot the officers, but this evidence was not made available to Sunny, Jesse, or their lawyer (an underpaid court-appointed attorney). Sunny and Jesse’s convictions continued to stand.

In 1990, Sunny’s childhood friend, filmmaker Micki Dickoff, obtained the results of Rhodes’ polygraph test, which showed that Rhodes had failed the test, but more importantly, that he had given an explanation of the crime that contradicted his trial testimony.

Had the defense had this information, they could have used his inconsistent statements to impeach him. Micki also tracked down the jailhouse informant who admitted that she hadlied about Sunny’s “confession” in order to get a deal in her own case. With this new information Sunny’s conviction was finally reversed. Yet the state of Florida was unwilling to dismiss the case altogether. Sunny wanted to get out of prison as soon as possible and did not want to wait for another trial so she entered into an agreement with the state in which she pleaded guilty to second-degree murder, with the proviso that she could maintain her innocence. On Oct. 9, 1992, she walked out of jail a free woman.

Unfortunately, Jesse never had a chance to prove that his conviction and sentence should have been reversed as well. On May 4, 1990, the state of Florida strapped Jesse into the electric chair. It took three jolts of electricity to kill him. During that time his head caught on fire and two witnesses observed him breathing for several minutes before he died.
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 Today, 04:13 PM   #1895
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,393
More information on the Jacobs case:

Quote:
Sonia “Sunny” Jacobs and Jesse Joseph Tafero, the father of the younger of her two children, were tried separately, convicted, and sentenced to death by the same judge for the 1976 murders of two law enforcement officers at a rest stop off of Interstate 95 in Broward County, Florida.

Jacobs, Tafero, their 10-month-old daughter, Jacobs’ 6-year-old son, and Walter Norman Rhodes, a friend of Tafero’s, were sleeping in a car that was approached by Phillip Black, a Florida Highway Patrol trooper on routine patrol. With Black was a friend, Donald Irwin, a vacationing Canadian constable.

The murder and kidnaping

After Black learned via radio that Rhodes had a criminal record, gunfire broke out. Black and Irwin were slain, and the group sped off in the Black’s patrol car, driven by Rhodes. At a nearby apartment complex, Rhodes commandeered a car and kidnapped the man in it, Leonard Levinson. They were captured a little later when Rhodes lost control of the car in an attempt to evade a police roadblock.

Jacobs and Tafero maintained from the beginning that Rhodes had shot the officers, and that they had no choice but to go along with him after the shooting. Although there were two eyewitnesses to events surrounding the murders, neither contradicted Jacobs’ and Tafero’s version of what happened. Nor was their version contradicted by physical evidence. Both Tafero and Rhodes had gunpowder residue on their hands, a fact that was consistent with Tafero’s claim that Rhodes handed him the gun after shooting the officers. There was no gunpowder residue on Jacobs’ hands.
Quote:
Tafero was not so lucky. He remained on death row, despite growing doubts about the credibility of prosecution’s star witness. Both Tafero and Jacobs then sought federal writs of habeas corpus. His was denied, Tafero v. Wainwright, 796 F.2d 1314 (1986), but Jacobs won a hearing before a federal magistrate.

During that proceeding, Brenda Isham, the jailhouse informant who had helped send Jacobs to death row a decade earlier, admitted that she had committed perjury at the trial and that Jacobs, in fact, had not confessed. Isham said that, before she agreed to testify, detectives had warned her that she might “make an enemy” of the Broward County State Attorney if she refused to testify against Jacobs.
Not that the police would do anything illegal and pressure someone to say something....
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
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 04:22 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.