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 !MOD BOX WARNING! , Amanda Knox , Italy cases , Meredith Kercher , murder cases , Raffaele Sollecito

Reply
Old 11th February 2019, 03:02 PM   #3001
Methos
Muse
 
Methos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 706
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Doug Preston writes in his book, "The Monster of Florence", that he never really "got" what the Italian legal system was all about, until someone in Italy pulled him aside and explained what "dietrology" was.

As explained, many in Italy (and perhaps elsewhere) pride themselves in knowing something you don't know, some "behind the scenes something" that is not perceptible to an outsider. It's why many North Americans found it mystifying sitting through the various trials which plagued this case - the presentations of lawyers resembled more theatre than law; and appeals to what something "really was", rather than what it simply was, were common orders of the day.

As Preston said, when he wrapped his head around that, he could understand more about what had gone on with him in his encounter with Mignini.

It's not exactly a "conspiracy theory" but it is close. I've lost count of the number of times that guilter-posters on this very thread had appealed to their own understanding of what is "really going on" to explain why (for instance) Hellmann acquitted the pair. "Hellmann liked fast cars, and the Masons knew how to bride him." Machiavelli here called the president of the appeals division in Perugia, Wladimir De Nunzio, a criminal for appointing Hellmann, and M. claimed to know the "real reason" De Nunzio prejudiced things like that.

Indeed, Andrea Vogt even wrote in 2010:
Quote:
Legal observers in Perugia, however, maintain the change of magistrates from Sergio Matteini Chiari to Claudio Pratillo Hellmann was simply an "internal administrative issue."

Matteini Chiari, a judge who prosecuted the controversial Andreotti appeals trial over the mafia murder of an Italian journalist, is apparently in line to head the juvenile court. Knox's attorney Luciano Ghirga referred to both judges as "respected and experienced."
Yet others read great significance in the change of magistrates - ie. dietrology.
Just for the record: Last minute replacement? Looks like someone on IIP cleared the Matteini Chiari nonsense back in late 2014 (most links are still working )

It's interesting that this one:
Corruption Of Appeal: Angry Top Criminal Judge Chiari Is Blatantly Forced Aside now dated "October 31, 2010" is nowhere to be found in the wayback archives of TJMK from October 2010...
__________________
"Found a typo? You can keep it..."

Last edited by Methos; 11th February 2019 at 03:08 PM.
Methos 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 11th February 2019, 03:32 PM   #3002
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 14,924
When all is said and done she voluntarily incriminated herself, lawyer or no lawyer.

So her contradictory garbage such as her email to everyone in her address book which gives yet a different story is barred as evidence in the trial.

But it remains for all to see.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
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 11th February 2019, 03:41 PM   #3003
Kauffer
Master Poster
 
Kauffer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,382
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
When all is said and done she voluntarily incriminated herself, lawyer or no lawyer.

So her contradictory garbage such as her email to everyone in her address book which gives yet a different story is barred as evidence in the trial.

But it remains for all to see.
You should read James Raper over on TJMK.

He's got three pro Knox posts up because the penny has dropped and he's worked out that she should have had a lawyer before she made a statement at 1:45.

And the ballerina stalker hasn't realised....yet.
Kauffer 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 11th February 2019, 04:00 PM   #3004
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,729
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
When all is said and done she voluntarily incriminated herself, lawyer or no lawyer.

So her contradictory garbage such as her email to everyone in her address book which gives yet a different story is barred as evidence in the trial.

But it remains for all to see.
"Voluntarily incriminated herself". ROTFLMAO! Why on earth would she voluntarily incriminate herself but before and after that interrogation affirm she had nothing whatsoever to do with the murder? I guess all that gentle (but firm) questioning, cakes and chamomile tea caused her to stop and think "Wow. Let me put myself at the scene of the murder!"

That email repeated what she had already told the police and what she would continue to say after that interrogation. The ODD thing out was what she "voluntarily" said the night of that lawyerless and unrecorded interrogation. It's out there for all to see. Well, except for those who have dug themselves so deep into the guilter hole that they can't get out.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 04:00 PM   #3005
Kauffer
Master Poster
 
Kauffer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,382
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
When all is said and done she voluntarily incriminated herself, lawyer or no lawyer.

So her contradictory garbage such as her email to everyone in her address book which gives yet a different story is barred as evidence in the trial.

But it remains for all to see.
Doh! That's why you have a lawyer, because without one, it's not voluntary. Even Gemelli knew that much and he's an Italian judge. Who the hell makes voluntary, self incriminating statements at 1:45 in the morning? Ficcarra testified that the questioning of Knox was predicated on Sollecito's coerced statement removing her alibi.
Kauffer 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 11th February 2019, 04:26 PM   #3006
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,638
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
When all is said and done she voluntarily incriminated herself, lawyer or no lawyer.

So her contradictory garbage such as her email to everyone in her address book which gives yet a different story is barred as evidence in the trial.

But it remains for all to see.


Hahaha you SO don't know what you're talking about! The Baghdad Bob impersonation continues to provide great entertainment though

"Voluntarily" AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

"Lawyer or no lawyer" AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 04:38 PM   #3007
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,729
I found this jewell of illogical thinking over on TJMK:
Quote:
As for the Article 6 breaches, the ECHR rejects Italy’s claim that a lawyer was offered but declined, as it wasn’t noted in the police minutes. However, in the submissions sent to it and which it quotes, Knox claims she was *told* that if she accepted the offer of a lawyer it would look bad, as though she was refusing to cooperate.

Quite aside from Knox by her own account confirming a lawyer *was* offered her (thus repudiating her own claim), I wonder if anybody for a minute believes such a ridiculous story; i.e., that the police offered her a lawyer but then threatened her with an accusation of non-cooperation if she accepted? It’s a blatant likely story. By no stretch of imagination would the police willingly breach protocol and potentially damage their case.

Anybody in that position would have said yes, straightaway. Unless you are guilty and want to keep up a charade of nonchalance.
Knox never claimed she was offered a lawyer. She said she asked if she needed one. She brought it up, not the police, so how the the author of the above concludes that Knox repudiated her own claim is just plain wrong. But the poster is right about one thing: no one would believe such a ridiculous story of the police offering a lawyer and then telling the suspect they're better off without one. Which is why the police didn't offer a lawyer as Knox has always said.

The police neither recorded that they offered Knox a lawyer nor that she asked for one. The reasons for both are abundantly clear: they never offered her a lawyer and they didn't want to acknowledge that she had asked if she needed one but was advised against it. Both, of course, broke protocol.

I particularly like this gem:

"Anybody in that position would have said yes, straightaway. Unless you are guilty and want to keep up a charade of nonchalance."

If a guilty person wanted to keep up a "charade of nonchalance" they wouldn't be likely to have brought up the subject of a lawyer in the first place. With this kind of logic, no wonder this poster can't see the forest for the trees.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 11th February 2019 at 04:42 PM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 04:42 PM   #3008
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,638
Originally Posted by Kauffer View Post
Doh! That's why you have a lawyer, because without one, it's not voluntary. Even Gemelli knew that much and he's an Italian judge. Who the hell makes voluntary, self incriminating statements at 1:45 in the morning? Ficcarra testified that the questioning of Knox was predicated on Sollecito's coerced statement removing her alibi.

Exactly.

For a very long time, it's been my contention that what happened on the night of 5th/6th November was a carefully choreographed set of events, devised and authorised by senior police officers and the PM (and I've outlined my belief in these threads for many, many years now.....).

OF COURSE they suspected Knox at that point (i.e. by the early evening of the 5th at least). There's ample evidence that they did. And they needed her in custody before her mother arrived on the 6th. They thought that Sollecito was covering up for Knox out of misplaced "love" and manipulation. Or if not that, Sollecito himself was involved in the murder. They thought that a black man had committed the murder itself (they may or may not have had Lumumba in the frame at that point), and that Knox was in league with this man.

So the plan was devised. First they'd get Sollecito to break, having a) convinced him that it was stupid and illegal for him to cover for Knox, that he owed the bitch nothing, and that he himself could get into huge trouble unless he stopped covering for her; and b) told him they had solid evidence of Knox's involvement in the murder in any case.

And having done that, they'd go and arrest the "volpe cattiva" Knox - the manipulative murderous whore - probably with the media in attendance. They'd tell her that Sollecito had broken and admitted that she'd gone out without him on the night of the murder, and that they had solid evidence of her involvement in the murder. They'd tell her that the best pathway for her now was to confess everything, and testify against the man who'd committed the murder itself. If she did that, she'd get off relatively lightly. If she did not, then she'd probably end up convicted of murder itself, with a 30-year prison sentence awaiting her.

What's more, they'd elicit the confession/accusation from her without the need to involve a lawyer, and once they'd got a signed written statement, they'd call in the PM who would act as if he was her friend, and get her to "tell me again exactly what happened, so I can hear it from you directly" - which he could then categorise as a "spontaneous declaration" that could then hopefully be used against Knox at trial.

And that's more-or-less what happened. I think their plan was slightly thwarted by Knox coming into the police HQ, since it denied them the opportunity of doing a high-profile arrest in the presence of the TV and newspaper cameras. The rest went like clockwork though. As Perugia police chief De Felice tellingly bragged to journalists on the 6th, Knox eventually buckled and told the police what they ALREADY KNEW to be the truth.........
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 04:54 PM   #3009
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,638
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I found this jewell of illogical thinking over on TJMK:


Knox never claimed she was offered a lawyer. She said she asked if she needed one. She brought it up, not the police, so how the the author of the above concludes that Knox repudiated her own claim is just plain wrong. But the poster is right about one thing: no one would believe such a ridiculous story of the police offering a lawyer and then telling the suspect they're better off without one. Which is why the police didn't offer a lawyer as Knox has always said.

The police neither recorded that they offered Knox a lawyer nor that she asked for one. The reasons for both are abundantly clear: they never offered her a lawyer and they didn't want to acknowledge that she had asked if she needed one but was advised against it. Both, of course, broke protocol.

I particularly like this gem:

"Anybody in that position would have said yes, straightaway. Unless you are guilty and want to keep up a charade of nonchalance."

If a guilty person wanted to keep up a "charade of nonchalance" they wouldn't be likely to have brought up the subject of a lawyer in the first place. With this kind of logic, no wonder this poster can't see the forest for the trees.


AHAHAHAHAHA! Was that the legendary "Krissy G"? Or Quennell?

Obviously the police blocked/deflected Knox's requests for a lawyer. And most of the pro-guilt idiots STILL appear not to understand that in Italy it's not even a matter of the preference of the suspect. In Italy, a lawyer MUST be appointed and consulted the moment someone becomes a suspect.

And in Knox's case, that moment has to have been at the very least the second immediately following her verbal "confession/accusation". Though, as Raper has now correctly realised, since the police forced Sollecito to (confusedly and incorrectly) tell them that Knox had in fact gone out without him on the night of the murder BEFORE they even called Knox in for interrogation, they must necessarily have considered Knox a suspect of a serious criminal offence before she even sat down in that room. She should, under Italian law, have been cautioned immediately, with no interrogation having happened. She should have been given access to a lawyer, and from then on only the PM should have been allowed to interrogate her, always with her lawyer present.

Of course, my own personal belief (see my previous post) is that the police and PM considered both Knox and Sollecito suspects before they even called Sollecito into the police HQ that night. They suspected Sollecito of lying to protect Knox (at a minimum), and they suspected Knox of lying to them and of some level of involvement in the murder. So even Sollecito should never have been interrogated by the police that night.

But the police and PM knew exactly what they were doing. They'd probably done variations on the same method many, many times before. They knew how to subvert the system (and the law) in order to get what they wanted: confessions, "spontaneous declarations", convictions, and praise.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 05:39 PM   #3010
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 14,924
Originally Posted by Kauffer View Post
Doh! That's why you have a lawyer, because without one, it's not voluntary. Even Gemelli knew that much and he's an Italian judge. Who the hell makes voluntary, self incriminating statements at 1:45 in the morning? Ficcarra testified that the questioning of Knox was predicated on Sollecito's coerced statement removing her alibi.
Knox did, in the early hours of Sunday after the murder.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
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 11th February 2019, 05:47 PM   #3011
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 14,924
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Exactly.

For a very long time, it's been my contention that what happened on the night of 5th/6th November was a carefully choreographed set of events, devised and authorised by senior police officers and the PM (and I've outlined my belief in these threads for many, many years now.....).

OF COURSE they suspected Knox at that point (i.e. by the early evening of the 5th at least). There's ample evidence that they did. And they needed her in custody before her mother arrived on the 6th. They thought that Sollecito was covering up for Knox out of misplaced "love" and manipulation. Or if not that, Sollecito himself was involved in the murder. They thought that a black man had committed the murder itself (they may or may not have had Lumumba in the frame at that point), and that Knox was in league with this man.

So the plan was devised. First they'd get Sollecito to break, having a) convinced him that it was stupid and illegal for him to cover for Knox, that he owed the bitch nothing, and that he himself could get into huge trouble unless he stopped covering for her; and b) told him they had solid evidence of Knox's involvement in the murder in any case.

And having done that, they'd go and arrest the "volpe cattiva" Knox - the manipulative murderous whore - probably with the media in attendance. They'd tell her that Sollecito had broken and admitted that she'd gone out without him on the night of the murder, and that they had solid evidence of her involvement in the murder. They'd tell her that the best pathway for her now was to confess everything, and testify against the man who'd committed the murder itself. If she did that, she'd get off relatively lightly. If she did not, then she'd probably end up convicted of murder itself, with a 30-year prison sentence awaiting her.

What's more, they'd elicit the confession/accusation from her without the need to involve a lawyer, and once they'd got a signed written statement, they'd call in the PM who would act as if he was her friend, and get her to "tell me again exactly what happened, so I can hear it from you directly" - which he could then categorise as a "spontaneous declaration" that could then hopefully be used against Knox at trial.

And that's more-or-less what happened. I think their plan was slightly thwarted by Knox coming into the police HQ, since it denied them the opportunity of doing a high-profile arrest in the presence of the TV and newspaper cameras. The rest went like clockwork though. As Perugia police chief De Felice tellingly bragged to journalists on the 6th, Knox eventually buckled and told the police what they ALREADY KNEW to be the truth.........
Claptrap. Raff is an Italian man from a professional Italian family. Every single Italian - male and female - and even Albanian mobster Kokomani, knew the protocol in Italy was to take your lawyer to the Questura with you. Giacomo Silenzi knew it, even though he had spent the weekend skiing with friends and family, Filomena and Laura knew it.

So, what was the problem with Raff not having a lawyer? Truth is, he he made a decision not to bother with one, whilst all the while spinning the cops a 'sack of ****' as he states in his signed police statement of the 6 Nov 2007.

So yes, the pair were putting on an act of nonchalance, whilst everybody else treated the matter solemnly.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb

Last edited by Vixen; 11th February 2019 at 05:49 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 11th February 2019, 06:00 PM   #3012
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,638
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Claptrap. Raff is an Italian man from a professional Italian family. Every single Italian - male and female - and even Albanian mobster Kokomani, knew the protocol in Italy was to take your lawyer to the Questura with you. Giacomo Silenzi knew it, even though he had spent the weekend skiing with friends and family, Filomena and Laura knew it.

So, what was the problem with Raff not having a lawyer? Truth is, he he made a decision not to bother with one, whilst all the while spinning the cops a 'sack of ****' as he states in his signed police statement of the 6 Nov 2007.

So yes, the pair were putting on an act of nonchalance, whilst everybody else treated the matter solemnly.


I don't even know where to start pointing out the inherent illogic, ignorance and lack of objectivity contained within this post

*shakes head slowly and backs away*
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 06:04 PM   #3013
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,638
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Knox did, in the early hours of Sunday after the murder.

Ummmmmm, if you're referring to Knox's "confession/accusation" at the police HQ, that happened in the early hours of the Tuesday after the murder..........
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 06:12 PM   #3014
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,729
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Claptrap. Raff is an Italian man from a professional Italian family. Every single Italian - male and female - and even Albanian mobster Kokomani, knew the protocol in Italy was to take your lawyer to the Questura with you. Giacomo Silenzi knew it, even though he had spent the weekend skiing with friends and family, Filomena and Laura knew it.

So, what was the problem with Raff not having a lawyer? Truth is, he he made a decision not to bother with one, whilst all the while spinning the cops a 'sack of ****' as he states in his signed police statement of the 6 Nov 2007.

So yes, the pair were putting on an act of nonchalance, whilst everybody else treated the matter solemnly.
Oh. My. God. So it's SOLLECITO'S fault he didn't have a lawyer! Victim blaming much? Sad, Vixen, just sad.

GUILTY people demand a lawyer far more than innocent people do. Innocent people don't think they need one because they haven't done anything wrong. Guilty people know they have and need a lawyer.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 11th February 2019 at 06:18 PM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 06:21 PM   #3015
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,729
Vixen, please explain just why Knox would voluntarily incriminate herself in the murder. Go on. Try and make sense of that ridiculous statement.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 06:33 PM   #3016
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,784
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Vixen, please explain just why Knox would voluntarily incriminate herself in the murder. Go on. Try and make sense of that ridiculous statement.
And.....................

Why would Knox spend all that time faking a burglary - one in a manner which matched the way Rudy Guede broke into places.......

Why would Knox miraculously remove two of three sets of forensics - to the molecular level with her magic lamp.....

And then waltz into police headquarters and voluntarily and nonchalantly accuse someone else?

(Yes, others have pointed this out, but still.....)
__________________
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 11th February 2019, 06:57 PM   #3017
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,729
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
And.....................

Why would Knox spend all that time faking a burglary - one in a manner which matched the way Rudy Guede broke into places.......

Why would Knox miraculously remove two of three sets of forensics - to the molecular level with her magic lamp.....

And then waltz into police headquarters and voluntarily and nonchalantly accuse someone else?

(Yes, others have pointed this out, but still.....)
I hope we get some advance warning of Vixen's (attempt) to explain this so I can make some popcorn first.
The explanation should be as good as her attempt to explain why Knox would point out to the police her own blood in the bathroom and her 'accomplice's' bloody footprint on the bath rug.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 07:13 PM   #3018
Kauffer
Master Poster
 
Kauffer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,382
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
And.....................

Why would Knox spend all that time faking a burglary - one in a manner which matched the way Rudy Guede broke into places.......

Why would Knox miraculously remove two of three sets of forensics - to the molecular level with her magic lamp.....

And then waltz into police headquarters and voluntarily and nonchalantly accuse someone else?

(Yes, others have pointed this out, but still.....)

It’s just not possible to reconcile the pro guilt position on the murder and it’s afternath with the pro guilt position on the interrogation.

It just doesn’t work.

Guilty Amanda says one of:

1) Nothing
2) “Get me a lawyer”

Or guilty Amanda has already left Perugia or has already lawyered up or both.

Innocent, naiive Amanda does....well, what she actually did.

Putting herself at the scene of the crime and implicitly admitting she’s been lying is nuts, if she’s guilty. And if she’s guilty her intention was that Guede would be uncovered, because she’s deliberately preserved his evidence while cleaning away hers. Naming Lumumba can’t help her either.

Irreconcilable parts of theories are proofs that whole theories are wrong.

Last edited by Kauffer; 11th February 2019 at 07:37 PM.
Kauffer 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 11th February 2019, 07:28 PM   #3019
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,729
Originally Posted by Kauffer View Post
It’s just not possible to reconcile the pro guilt position on the murder and it’s afternath with the pro guilt position on the interrogation.

It just doesn’t work.

Guilty Amanda says one of:

1) Nothing
2) “Get me a lawyer”

Or guilty Amanda has already left Perugia or has already lawyered up or both.

Innocent, naiive Amanda does....well, what she actually did.
Guilty Guede flees Italy for Germany. Guilty Knox flees Italy for her grandmother's in Germany. Innocent Knox stays and tried to help police .
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 07:30 PM   #3020
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,784
Originally Posted by Stacyhs
I hope we get some advance warning of Vixen's (attempt) to explain this so I can make some popcorn first.
The explanation should be as good as her attempt to explain why Knox would point out to the police her own blood in the bathroom and her 'accomplice's' bloody footprint on the bath rug.
Originally Posted by Kauffer View Post
It’s just not possible to reconcile the pro guilt position on the murder and it’s afternath with the pro guilt position on the interrogation.

It just doesn’t work.

Guilty Amanda says one of:

1) Nothing
2) “Get me a lawyer”

Or guilty Amanda has already left Perugia or has already lawyered up or both.

Innocent, naiive Amanda does....well, what she actually did.
I'm just waiting - oh please, would she! - for Vixen to say that Knox had had to switch gears because Sollecito had begun to remove his alibi for her. Knox had had to quickly come up with a "Plan B", now that the coverup was crumbling!

Aside from the fact that that "Plan B" would have almost certainly have had to start the process of naming Guede (now that Sollecito was eroding the deal the three of them had made to throw suspicion elsewhere).....

This would have meant that, just like Matteini had said at the hearing two days later, that the cops had regarded Knox as a suspect as soon as Sollecito had started cracking!

That's always been the trouble with the guilter-hater "narrative", and perhaps the reason why they rarely, if ever, attempt to construct a detailed one.

The narrative should converge, rather than diverge. For a narrative from the guilter-haters to work, it has to ignore salient facts at some points to allow others to stand, and then visa versa depending on what they're trying to prove at any one moment.

I don't know - maybe this new person over at TJMK - Krissy G - will be the first to manage a guilter-hater narrative that actually stays together!
__________________
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 12th February 2019, 04:19 AM   #3021
Kauffer
Master Poster
 
Kauffer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,382
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I hope we get some advance warning of Vixen's (attempt) to explain this so I can make some popcorn first.
The explanation should be as good as her attempt to explain why Knox would point out to the police her own blood in the bathroom and her 'accomplice's' bloody footprint on the bath rug.
Precisely.

Or why, having selectively cleaned invisible traces of herself elsewhere she didn’t give the bathroom a wipe down - would have taken no time....or why the mat wasn’t disposed of...and so on...
Kauffer 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 12th February 2019, 04:23 AM   #3022
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 668
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Hate to break it to you but it is a legally established fact in perpetuity [res judicata] that Amanda falsely accused Lumumba knowingly of a heinous crime.

Get over it. It's not as if Knox cares a toss about you.
Vixen totally ignores the disgusting hypocrisy I pointed out where Vixen attacks Amanda for falsely accusing Lumumba when Vixen falsely accuses people of committing crimes.
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 12th February 2019, 06:37 AM   #3023
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,784
Originally Posted by Welshman View Post
Vixen totally ignores the disgusting hypocrisy I pointed out where Vixen attacks Amanda for falsely accusing Lumumba when Vixen falsely accuses people of committing crimes.
As posted by Stacyhs, Vixen ignores that it is a legally established fact in perpetuity [res judicata]*that Knox and Sollecito were found completely innocent of murder.

Reposted until the penny drops for Vixen, is Maneula Comodi's views on the matter....

__________________
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 12th February 2019, 08:44 AM   #3024
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,129
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Knox did, in the early hours of Sunday after the murder.
So I assume that horrific screaming and crying, such as what Amanda did, as testified to by several people, is normal for someone who is voluntarily providing information to friendly police who are serving up chamomile tea and pastries?
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 12th February 2019, 09:24 AM   #3025
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,784
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
So I assume that horrific screaming and crying, such as what Amanda did, as testified to by several people, is normal for someone who is voluntarily providing information to friendly police who are serving up chamomile tea and pastries?
It took me a year to realize that the hater-nutters don't read much more than John Follain's "A Death in Italy." The way he describes the interrogation, Knox HAD TO confess simply to stop being showered with all those kindnesses.

I mean, with all those pastries forced on her, one must still watch one's waist.
__________________
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 12th February 2019, 09:31 AM   #3026
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 78,466
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
But it remains for all to see.
Yes, so much so, in fact, that from an overwhelmingly pro-guilt opening page for this thread's first incarnation, you are the only remaining guilter. Sounds like the evidence convinced everyone but you the other way.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 12th February 2019, 09:41 AM   #3027
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 16,007
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Doug Preston writes in his book, "The Monster of Florence", that he never really "got" what the Italian legal system was all about, until someone in Italy pulled him aside and explained what "dietrology" was.

As explained, many in Italy (and perhaps elsewhere) pride themselves in knowing something you don't know, some "behind the scenes something" that is not perceptible to an outsider. It's why many North Americans found it mystifying sitting through the various trials which plagued this case - the presentations of lawyers resembled more theatre than law; and appeals to what something "really was", rather than what it simply was, were common orders of the day.

As Preston said, when he wrapped his head around that, he could understand more about what had gone on with him in his encounter with Mignini.

It's not exactly a "conspiracy theory" but it is close. I've lost count of the number of times that guilter-posters on this very thread had appealed to their own understanding of what is "really going on" to explain why (for instance) Hellmann acquitted the pair. "Hellmann liked fast cars, and the Masons knew how to bride him." Machiavelli here called the president of the appeals division in Perugia, Wladimir De Nunzio, a criminal for appointing Hellmann, and M. claimed to know the "real reason" De Nunzio prejudiced things like that.
//Slight Hijack// I agree 100% with this and strongly second Preston's book for anyone who has a hard time "getting" the mentality of our ages "Miscarriage of Justice" Fandom.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue 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 12th February 2019, 11:04 AM   #3028
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,729
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
So I assume that horrific screaming and crying, such as what Amanda did, as testified to by several people, is normal for someone who is voluntarily providing information to friendly police who are serving up chamomile tea and pastries?
The screaming and crying was almost certainly due to Knox having burned herself on the hot chamomile tea.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 11:12 AM   #3029
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,729
Originally Posted by Kauffer View Post
Precisely.

Or why, having selectively cleaned invisible traces of herself elsewhere she didn’t give the bathroom a wipe down - would have taken no time....or why the mat wasn’t disposed of...and so on...
As I recall, Vixen's explanation was that, in essence, Knox and Sollecito were trying to arrogantly 'put one over' on the police. The two thought they were so smart and the cops couldn't figure out to whom the blood and footprint belonged. Well, she was right about one thing: they couldn't figure out whose footprint it was.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 12:14 PM   #3030
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,129
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
As I recall, Vixen's explanation was that, in essence, Knox and Sollecito were trying to arrogantly 'put one over' on the police. The two thought they were so smart and the cops couldn't figure out to whom the blood and footprint belonged. Well, she was right about one thing: they couldn't figure out whose footprint it was.
This is the very essence of what makes people like Vixen so very entertaining - they concoct some harebrained theory about something, and when someone points out the obvious lack of logic in it, rather than admit her mistake, she'll double down on an even more harebrained theory to explain the last one.

...she just couldn't admit cell antennas don't rotate, but rather than say she had misspoken, months later she posts a video of a satellite dish. And then, as if that wasn't funny enough, she then suggests, based on this fine piece of evidence she located, that she apparently knows more than those who corrected her.

I mean, this is great stuff!
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 12th February 2019, 12:40 PM   #3031
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,642
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
This is the very essence of what makes people like Vixen so very entertaining - they concoct some harebrained theory about something, and when someone points out the obvious lack of logic in it, rather than admit her mistake, she'll double down on an even more harebrained theory to explain the last one.

...she just couldn't admit cell antennas don't rotate, but rather than say she had misspoken, months later she posts a video of a satellite dish. And then, as if that wasn't funny enough, she then suggests, based on this fine piece of evidence she located, that she apparently knows more than those who corrected her.

I mean, this is great stuff!
The long list of guilter misrepresentations and obviously logically-flawed arguments reveals that the pro-guilt case is merely a hoax.

Some of the hoaxers, when their misrepresentations or misinterpretations are pointed out to them, simply double down on these lies and logical falacies.

That is certainly entertaining (if there's nothing better on TV or otherwise).
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 12th February 2019, 04:09 PM   #3032
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,286
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
This is the very essence of what makes people like Vixen so very entertaining - they concoct some harebrained theory about something, and when someone points out the obvious lack of logic in it, rather than admit her mistake, she'll double down on an even more harebrained theory to explain the last one.

...she just couldn't admit cell antennas don't rotate, but rather than say she had misspoken, months later she posts a video of a satellite dish. And then, as if that wasn't funny enough, she then suggests, based on this fine piece of evidence she located, that she apparently knows more than those who corrected her.

I mean, this is great stuff!
Well, technically, satellite dishes (as the term is commonly used) don't rotate either. those are mostly trained on geostationary sats and would cease to function if they did rotate.

No, hilarious, what she posted was an astronomical radio telescope, which simply makes the blunder even more hilarious.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
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 12th February 2019, 04:26 PM   #3033
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,784
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Well, technically, satellite dishes (as the term is commonly used) don't rotate either. those are mostly trained on geostationary sats and would cease to function if they did rotate.

No, hilarious, what she posted was an astronomical radio telescope, which simply makes the blunder even more hilarious.
There are other equally plausible explanations for the "error". One is that this thread is being trolled.
__________________
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 12th February 2019, 04:30 PM   #3034
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,286
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
There are other equally plausible explanations for the "error". One is that this thread is being trolled.
Sure.

But for anyone who wants to cross-check, she posted the VLBA on Mauna-Kea as an example of a rotating cell antenna.

Link for the interested.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
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 12th February 2019, 04:41 PM   #3035
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,784
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
The long list of guilter misrepresentations and obviously logically-flawed arguments reveals that the pro-guilt case is merely a hoax.

Some of the hoaxers, when their misrepresentations or misinterpretations are pointed out to them, simply double down on these lies and logical falacies.

That is certainly entertaining (if there's nothing better on TV or otherwise).
Can anyone remember, or better still cite an instance of when one of the guilter-haters called out another guilter hater for blatant inaccuracies?

The closest I can think of is when TJMK pulled the rug out from under serial plagiarist Nick van der Leek who on first look is a guilter hater. TJMK warned their readers to beware of NvdL and his writings.

I still remember the PMF.ORG moderator (Peggy Ganong) calling out "friendly" posters for using the "s" word to describe Amanda Knox.

Anything else?
__________________
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 12th February 2019, 05:45 PM   #3036
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,729
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Can anyone remember, or better still cite an instance of when one of the guilter-haters called out another guilter hater for blatant inaccuracies?

The closest I can think of is when TJMK pulled the rug out from under serial plagiarist Nick van der Leek who on first look is a guilter hater. TJMK warned their readers to beware of NvdL and his writings.

I still remember the PMF.ORG moderator (Peggy Ganong) calling out "friendly" posters for using the "s" word to describe Amanda Knox.

Anything else?
No one on TJMK has ever called out Slick Pete for his claim that Sollecito and Gumbel had come to a 'deal' with Mignini and would be publicly apologizing for lying about him in HB. That was a year ago last October. Mostly, they just compliment each other for their wonderful 'work'.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 06:16 PM   #3037
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,784
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
No one on TJMK has ever called out Slick Pete for his claim that Sollecito and Gumbel had come to a 'deal' with Mignini and would be publicly apologizing for lying about him in HB. That was a year ago last October. Mostly, they just compliment each other for their wonderful 'work'.
There was once on TJMK where a minor poster posted that it would be a good idea if Peter would simply stop making predictions. But that request went both unnoticed and unsanctioned on the website.
__________________
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 12th February 2019, 06:25 PM   #3038
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,729
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
There was once on TJMK where a minor poster posted that it would be a good idea if Peter would simply stop making predictions. But that request went both unnoticed and unsanctioned on the website.
Yeah, Pete's predictions have a sad accuracy record.

I still have a bit of schadenfreude when it comes to the PGP celebratory champagne bought for the 2015 SC ruling.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 06:36 PM   #3039
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,784
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Yeah, Pete's predictions have a sad accuracy record.
For full transparency, my own record is dismal. I have not predicted one court decision correctly. As Numbers might tell you, I was also really skeptical that the ECHR would rule in Knox's favour.
__________________
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 12th February 2019, 06:40 PM   #3040
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,729
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
For full transparency, my own record is dismal. I have not predicted one court decision correctly. As Numbers might tell you, I was also really skeptical that the ECHR would rule in Knox's favour.
Remind me not to ask you which horse at Santa Anita you like.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
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 04:29 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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

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