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 17th May 2018, 12:07 PM   #121
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Let me get this straight (after wading through all the feces): you're now claiming that Popovic never asked Raffaele to take her to the station to pick up a suitcase? That it was all a lie? That Popovic colluded with Vanessa S. to provide an alibi? You get more and more ludicrous as time goes on. It's why I keep coming back for more of your comedy. It's better than anything on TV.
I am sceptical. Who puts an unattended suitcase on a train (arriving at midnight) and Raff is needed to drive to the station. (Which, like his ordination to be Pope and the trip to Gubbio, never happened.)
__________________
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 17th May 2018, 12:12 PM   #122
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
Another trait for sociopathy is stabbing a girl in cold blood, feeling no remorse about it, then going on TV smiling about your made up date with her and shedding crocodile tears about being slut shamed for the sexual assault you perpetrated.
FIFY
__________________
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 17th May 2018, 12:43 PM   #123
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,790
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Good piece of sophistry. Very advanced.
You claim this is sophistry. Please explain how this is a false argument; if you are unable to show that this is a false argument then you will have to agree this is a legal fact.
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 17th May 2018, 12:52 PM   #124
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
You claim this is sophistry. Please explain how this is a false argument; if you are unable to show that this is a false argument then you will have to agree this is a legal fact.
There is a legal difference between someone who has never been tried, and someone who has been tried and yet another between someone found 'not guilty' (Italian paragraph 1) and 'not guilty due to insufficient evidence' (paragraph 2).
__________________
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 17th May 2018, 01:00 PM   #125
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,790
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
There is a legal difference between someone who has never been tried, and someone who has been tried and yet another between someone found 'not guilty' (Italian paragraph 1) and 'not guilty due to insufficient evidence' (paragraph 2).
Yet Italian law is explicitly clear. Persons are innocent until their conviction is confirmed by cassation. It is irrelevant the exact words used unless guilty they are innocent. This is a binary choice, their is no grey. The legal fact is Sollecito and Knox are innocent of murder, theft etc.
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 17th May 2018, 01:08 PM   #126
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,540
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
There is a legal difference between someone who has never been tried, and someone who has been tried and yet another between someone found 'not guilty' (Italian paragraph 1) and 'not guilty due to insufficient evidence' (paragraph 2).
O Lordy. You're not on about this again are you? Despite being proven wrong multiple times - with nothing but re-assertions from you - you simply.....

.... wait a few days and reassert that the Italian section 1 acquittal is different than a section 2 acquittal.

It's pointless to repost subsequent Italian courts' interpretations of what had happened on March 27, 2015, namely that subsequent courts in Italy were very comfortable calling that action both an acquittal and an exoneration.

And around and around the merry-go-round we go......!!!
__________________
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 17th May 2018, 01:18 PM   #127
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
Yet Italian law is explicitly clear. Persons are innocent until their conviction is confirmed by cassation. It is irrelevant the exact words used unless guilty they are innocent. This is a binary choice, their is no grey. The legal fact is Sollecito and Knox are innocent of murder, theft etc.
Only insofar there is 'insufficient evidence', notwithstanding the Supreme Court setting out the facts that:
  • Amanda Knox was definitely present at the murder and washed Meredith Kercher's blood from her hands (blood is only wet for 30" - 60" , at the outside, so she was there whilst the blood was viscuous.
  • That Raffaele Sollecito was 'almost certainly' also there.
  • That it was not credible the murder was by a 'random burglar' (i.e., Rudy Guede) as the killing had the hallmarks of a serial killer (cold sadism).
  • Amanda and Raff lied and lied and lied again. They remain 'strongly suspicious'.
  • In telling police Patrick Lumumba was the rapist .murderer - and as witnessed by Amanda Knox herself - she was covering up for Rudy Guede.
  • The burglary WAS staged. (Ask yourself, who would have a motive to fake a burglary?)
  • There were multiple attackers.
  • The imputed 'other attackers' are not being sought.


This is certainly not 'an exoneration'. If anything, by Marasca sitting on the fence, things remain pretty damning of Knox and Raff.

They can't claim compensation because of their behaviour and they cannot claim libel as it is set in law that the facts are as above. A defence to libel is, that it is true. Can't get truer than a court certification.
__________________
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 17th May 2018, 01:55 PM   #128
bagels
Master Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,020
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
[*]That it was not credible the murder was by a 'random burglar' (i.e., Rudy Guede) as the killing had the hallmarks of a serial killer (cold sadism).
Many killers start out as burglars:

Quote:
Here, only 3 offenders had a history of prior sexual offenses while 12 (28%) had a record of burglary. Four of the 12 (33%) combined burglary with assault on the female occupant
Source: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/455...637a1b1941.pdf

Interesting read. Describes Guede to a T, 8 years before he sliced open Kercher's neck and sexually assaulted her then left her to choke on her own blood and bleed out while he dug through her purse for goodies.
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 17th May 2018, 01:59 PM   #129
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,505
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Napapijri is the Norwegian Laplander (Saami) for 'Arctic Circle', derived from the Finnish for the Artic Circle, napapiiri hence the term is correctly interchangeable by me.

I speak from a superior vantage to you.

No. You are simply wrong. A brand name is a brand name. End of. I don't give a toss that it might have an alternative spelling in a whole other context entirely unrelated to a brand of apparel. It's NOT "interchangeable by you". The apparel company is called Napapijri. It is not called Napapiiri. Or Napapirje (another of your misspellings - do you remember misspelling it in that way too?).

Where do you actually get off with this sort of crap? Something isn't so simply because you announce it is so. And, in this instance (one of literally tens of dozens over the pages of these threads emanating from you), you don't get to decide how the brand name of an apparel company "could" be spelled, just because you happen to know a crappy Nordic word which might have informed the brand name originally.

The apparel company's name is spelled N A P A P I J R I, Vixen. No other collection of letters. You're unbelievable, so very often. "Superior vantage to me" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHA Jesus.

Last edited by LondonJohn; 17th May 2018 at 03:39 PM.
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 17th May 2018, 02:01 PM   #130
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,790
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Only insofar there is 'insufficient evidence', notwithstanding the Supreme Court setting out the facts that:
  • Amanda Knox was definitely present at the murder and washed Meredith Kercher's blood from her hands (blood is only wet for 30" - 60" , at the outside, so she was there whilst the blood was viscuous.
  • That Raffaele Sollecito was 'almost certainly' also there.
  • That it was not credible the murder was by a 'random burglar' (i.e., Rudy Guede) as the killing had the hallmarks of a serial killer (cold sadism).
  • Amanda and Raff lied and lied and lied again. They remain 'strongly suspicious'.
  • In telling police Patrick Lumumba was the rapist .murderer - and as witnessed by Amanda Knox herself - she was covering up for Rudy Guede.
  • The burglary WAS staged. (Ask yourself, who would have a motive to fake a burglary?)
  • There were multiple attackers.
  • The imputed 'other attackers' are not being sought.


This is certainly not 'an exoneration'. If anything, by Marasca sitting on the fence, things remain pretty damning of Knox and Raff.

They can't claim compensation because of their behaviour and they cannot claim libel as it is set in law that the facts are as above. A defence to libel is, that it is true. Can't get truer than a court certification.
You are correct. Technically this was not an exoneration. Someone who is and according to law always was innocent cannot be exonerated. What happened was that an innocent person was imprisoned for three tears.

Italian law is clear, until confirmation of conviction by court of cassation, a person is innocent. As the conviction was not confirmed Sollecito and Knox were and always had been innocent.

I note you do not disagree with legal fact. What you do is throw mud. What you quote is evidence that the court of cassation determined did not meet the standard to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt as required by Italian law. Since they were not guilty they are innocent. That is a legal fact. If they are not guilty then they are innocent.
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 17th May 2018, 02:03 PM   #131
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,505
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Only insofar there is 'insufficient evidence'..... <snip>

Nope, you still won't stop trying to misdirect with this "insufficient evidence" stuff, will you? Just as predicted.........
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 17th May 2018, 02:07 PM   #132
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,505
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
There is a legal difference between someone who has never been tried, and someone who has been tried and yet another between someone found 'not guilty' (Italian paragraph 1) and 'not guilty due to insufficient evidence' (paragraph 2).

Hahahahahaha oh this is rich! And indicative of a gross ignorance of judisprudence and the law.

There is NO legal difference between a) someone who was never charged with a crime, and b) someone who was charged with a crime and acquitted (and acquitted in any manner).

Even in Italy.

I really do suggest you read some reliable information on 1) general jurisprudence in modern democracies, and 2) Italian legislation as it pertains to charging and acquittal. You may gain some enlightenment and education. Though judging from the ongoing combination of ignorance, misdirection, latent subjective bias, low intellect and echo-chamber-mantra-repeating of all your "arguments" to date, I suspect the chances of that are pretty low indeed.
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 17th May 2018, 02:09 PM   #133
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,505
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
FIFY

Knox didn't participate in the Kercher murder. (Unless you are privy to credible, reliable evidence proving her participation, Vixen). Surely even YOU know this by now. Don't you?
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 17th May 2018, 02:13 PM   #134
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,505
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I am sceptical. Who puts an unattended suitcase on a train (arriving at midnight) and Raff is needed to drive to the station. (Which, like his ordination to be Pope and the trip to Gubbio, never happened.)

Ahhh, a GENUINE logical fallacy: argument from incredulity.

So I'm guessing Popovic's claims were exposed as fabricated in the course of the trial process, then? What's that? No they weren't? Oh, right. It just happens to be that Popovic allowed herself to be drawn into a (criminal) conspiracy, which - if uncovered and exposed - could have resulted in her own conviction on perjury-related charges and a significant prison sentence. Yes, that sounds about right. To an illogical, low-intellect nutter.
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 17th May 2018, 02:22 PM   #135
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,505
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Wrong. It could have given them a Paragraph 1 acquittal, but it did not. It gave them a 'not proven' one instead. ('The politicians loophole' [cf Berlusconi and the other chap].)

NO.

The Marasca panel, for the last time, could not have issued 530.1 acquittals. Do you know why not, Vixen? (Again that's entirely rhetorical: you obviously don't know the reason).

Here's the reason. Read carefully and try to comprehend this time. OK? Ready? So:

The Marasca panel could, in practice, only have acquitted under 530.1 if either a) it had deemed that no crime had even taken place (and clearly a crime DID indeed take place here - Kercher was murdered by SOMEONE), or b) Knox or Sollecito could have PROVEN their factual innocence (and they could not - but crucially (even though I know you either fail or refuse to understand this point) that is in no way an indicator of guilt, and indeed every single person within, say, 30 miles of Perugia that evening who could not PROVE they could not possibly have been at the cottage at around the time of the murder would be in exactly the same boat).

So neither of the available reasons to acquit under 530.1 was ever even available to the Marasca panel. You still, however, manifestly and stubbornly refuse to (or are intellectually unable to) understand that a 530.2 acquittal is NOT a "not proven" verdict, and similarly you still refuse (or are intellectually unable to) understand the true difference between 530.1 and 530.2, and the relative implications of each.
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 17th May 2018, 02:26 PM   #136
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,505
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Wrong. It was not a 'selfie'. Raff took a mate to the questura with him; if you followed the news reports, you'd know this. It was his chum who took the pics.

Yes. I see now that it was a third party who took the photos.

However:

1) I only ever stated that it "might" have been the case that Sollecito took the photos himself using a selfie stick. I didn't state it as fact (you might want to take note of the difference for your own "arguments".....);

2) You interestingly avoided the entire rest of my post - 7/8 of which was unrelated to that one narrow aspect of the "selfie stick supposition", and which instead dealt with other hugely significant reasons why your position was illogical and untenable. As I said...... INTERESTING.........
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 17th May 2018, 02:31 PM   #137
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,505
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Here in the British Army, we have the officers' mess.

1) "Here in the British Army"?

2) UK military messes are not at all analogous to US military mess halls. A US military mess hall is purely a place where meals are prepared and served. Whereas a UK military mess is a far more broad-ranging construct, and usually refers to a building (or complex of buildings) where military personnel have bedrooms, conference rooms, leisure facilities, bars and eating facilities.
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 17th May 2018, 02:53 PM   #138
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
You are correct. Technically this was not an exoneration. Someone who is and according to law always was innocent cannot be exonerated. What happened was that an innocent person was imprisoned for three tears.

Italian law is clear, until confirmation of conviction by court of cassation, a person is innocent. As the conviction was not confirmed Sollecito and Knox were and always had been innocent.

I note you do not disagree with legal fact. What you do is throw mud. What you quote is evidence that the court of cassation determined did not meet the standard to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt as required by Italian law. Since they were not guilty they are innocent. That is a legal fact. If they are not guilty then they are innocent.
Logical fallacy. A 'not proven' verdict means neither guilty nor innocent.

An example of why a court 'sitting on the fence' is not doing its job.
__________________
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 17th May 2018, 03:10 PM   #139
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 624
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I suspect it's contrived to help out Raff.

We have not seen or heard anything more of her since.
Vixen makes the allegation Popovich had lied. If there was any evidence Popovich has lied why was this never used by the prosecution? Vixen conveniently forgets the several witnesses who testified against Amanda and Raffaele where the was conclusive proof they had lied :-

Hekuran Kokomani claimed he saw Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy together on the night of the murder. Kokomani was proved to have lied because he said Amanda had gaps in her teeth and an Italian uncle.

Fabio Gioffredi said he saw Amanda, Raffaele, Meredith and Rudy on the October 30th 2007 between 4.30 and 5.30 pm. Raffaele's computer shows itense activity from 5.30 pm to 6.30 pm which proved Fabio had lied.

Quintavelle the shop owner initially said he did not see Amanda in his shop the morning after the murder and then changed his story a year later to say he had seen Amanda in his shop. There is no doubt Quintavelle lied. He either saw Amanda in his shop and lied about it in his interview to the police or lied about seeing Amanda in his shop a year later.

Curalto like Quintavelle said nothing about seeing Amanda and Raffaele in the square and changed his story months later. Like Quintavelle Curalto either saw Amanda and Raffaele in the square and lied when questioned by the police or later lied he saw Amanda and Raffaele months later.

As can be seen from the link below the British girls were caught lying in court when their court testimony differed from their original testimonies.
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/the-british-girls/

Vixen has defended witnesses where there was conclusive evidence they had lied. Vixen has no problem with witnesses lying as long as their testimony works against Amanda and Raffaele and only has an issue with witnesses lying if their testimony is favourable to Amanda and Raffaele but is too dishonest to admit this. Yet another example of disgusting hypocrisy by PGP.
Welshman 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 17th May 2018, 03:33 PM   #140
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,505
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Logical fallacy. A 'not proven' verdict means neither guilty nor innocent.

An example of why a court 'sitting on the fence' is not doing its job.

Will you never stop?

1) Knox and Sollecito were NOT found "not proven". And that is NOT what 530.2 means or implies.

2) There are only an extremely narrow - and extremely rare - number of reasons when a defendant can actually be found "innocent" (i.e. factually innocent) in a trial process. This has been explained to you numerous times. Virtually all acquitted defendants in criminal trial processes (in E&W and the US as well as in Italy) are acquitted for reasons that would map onto 530.2. And we call those people found "not guilty" at trial. Not "innocent". Do you still actually think, for example, that a person acquitted in an E&W trial is ever found "innocent" by the court? Rather, that person is found "not guilty". There are very important ethical and jurisprudence reasons why this should be so, but I won't bother to explain them here because I am near-certain that you will either be incapable of, or unwilling to, understand them.

3) The SC panel in the Knox/Sollecito trial process was not "sitting on the fence". And a 530.2 acquittal in Italy is NOT "sitting on the fence". Once again, I strongly suggest that you at least try to properly acquaint yourself with proper intellectually-sound research into these matters.

4) PLEASE stop mis-employing the term "logical fallacy". It's neither big nor clever when you use the term to describe something which is NOT, in fact, a logical fallacy (amusingly, it's the polar opposite of big or clever....).

Last edited by LondonJohn; 17th May 2018 at 03:34 PM.
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 17th May 2018, 03:57 PM   #141
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,540
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Logical fallacy. A 'not proven' verdict means neither guilty nor innocent.

An example of why a court 'sitting on the fence' is not doing its job.
This is not Scotland. This thread has been through this 100 times. You repeat it as if it hasn't been disproved.

There are no gradations of not guity/innocence in Italy. But you'll no doubt repeat it again.
__________________
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 17th May 2018, 04:44 PM   #142
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,556
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Oh, DARN! And here I was planning to carry a foot long unprotected kitchen knife in my purse for protection.



It's sad, but unsurprising, that you resort once again to this nonsense. After failing to ever produce a single piece of evidence that RS ever owned or wore a Naparijini jacket or a cap with a red stripe, you trot this out again.

Guede not only said that the man held the knife in his left hand, but that he attacked him:


Leosini-Guede interview January 21, 2016

A person would not attack someone with a knife with his non-dominant hand. As I showed in the video, RS writes with his right hand.

You think that brown hair is uncommon in Italy? REALLY? All Italians have "Italian black" hair? LOL! Brown is the most common hair color in Italy, not black. Comodi, Maresca, Massei, Bongiorno, Romanelli and others were brunettes. So Guede describing a brunette who spoke Italian in Italy was really taking a chance with getting the odds right, heh? And no one claimed "all Italians have mousy hair". Stop fibbing.By the way, that pic you love to show of RS holding the knife also shows his hair completely covered by the cap. Hmmmmm.
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Wrong again. Please read more carefully. You claimed that there was nothing remarkable about Rudy saying the supposed intruder he chanced upon 'had brown hair'. I pointed out that this was not a given. My Italian friend Luigi from Sicily has a head of curly black hair (and a lot of female interest). Another London Italian friend, Guiseppe, has fair hair, and another, Bernie, has long dark hair down his back.
I never said it was "a given". I said that Guede claiming the man had brown hair in a country where the most common hair color (at 60%*) is brown is going with the odds. What your Italian friends' hair colors are is irrelevant. Stop trying to muddy the waters with unimportant nonsense.


Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
So getting the 'brown hair' right (let's say odds of 1/3), plus a native-speaking Italian in a city that is choccabloc with foreigners (lets say odds of 50:50) plus 'he held a blade in his left hand (1/5 to reflect % 'sinister' population), plus Napapirje-style clothing (1/10) and a beanie (1/3), plus 'shorter than Rudy' (50:50) gives us a probability of :

(0.33333 x 0.5 x 0.2 x 0.10 x 0.33 x 0.5) = 0.000005499

Or, five in ten thousand.

So, a good description of Raff.
LOL! Ummm..no. Let's not say 1/3 or 50-50 or any of the other percentages as those are just numbers you pulled out of your favorite fact repository that have nothing to do with actual statistics. As for the "he held the knife in his left hand" bit, let's not forget that he writes with is right hand...you know...his dominant hand. Let's also not forget that you have provided no evidence of his being left-handed except for a photo of him holding something in his left hand. Nor have you (or anyone else) provided a single piece of evidence of RS owning or wearing a Napapijri jacket or owning a cap with a red stripe. ROTFLMAO! Can you imagine presenting that as evidence in court? Not even Mignini tried to pull something that ludicrous. Take a note of that.

So, not a good description of Raff.


*(https://www.google.com/search?q=blon...1GMG4r1B8obdM:)
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 17th May 2018, 05:01 PM   #143
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,556
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Suppose the law says a man's legally adopted son is his son. As far as the law is concerned the son is the issue of the man and he is entitled to inherit (at least in Europe). The history books will say whatever the law decrees. Assuming it never comes to light that the son was actually adopted, it will still remain a historical fact that the boy was not the man's biological son.

A historical fact still must be true or it is not a fact, but a historical error.
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
An adopted child becomes a de facto legitimate child in law. There are many adopted people who never found out they were adopted.

What you are thinking about is in the days when a child borm out of wedlock was described in church records as a 'base child' or even 'bastard'.

Yes, in those cases, historians will ascribe the correct status, which in those days was Church (Cannon) Law.

In modern times, if a person decides to keep their adoption status a secret, then who is to know? They have the same rights as a birth child.

(Step children do not.)
That is not what I was talking about at all. The point I was making seems to have eluded you. I am not talking about the legalities. I am talking about a historical fact vs a historical error. A fact must be true or it is not a fact no matter what the history books or the law state.
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 17th May 2018, 05:04 PM   #144
AnimalFriendly
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 67
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I suspect it's contrived to help out Raff.

We have not seen or heard anything more of her since.
Nor have we seen or heard anything more of that Swiss professor since. I suspect he "contrived" that alibi to help out Lumumba.
AnimalFriendly 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 17th May 2018, 05:05 PM   #145
bagels
Master Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,020
Things Vixen has admitted in the first 4 pages of this new thread:

1. Popovic presents a strong challenge to the PGP timeline and must be assumed a bent witness to make it work.

2. Rudy Guede cannot in clear and indisputable terms describe Raffaele Sollecito, despite being his supposed accomplice, and we have to subjectively interpret vague inferences based on random photos to even attempt to connect Raffaele and Rudy.

3. The small knife Raffaele is seen holding is compatible with the murder weapon as described by Rudy Guede, thus the murder weapon is not a giant kitchen knife.

Vixen slowly morphing into a PIP?
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 17th May 2018, 05:26 PM   #146
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,556
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Hahahaha Papa Sollecito, like Raff's sister, Vanessa's friend in Milan who got Janne Popovich (_sp?) to supply an alibi Raff and Knox were together [hence a visit in person rather than a quick text], helpfully provided his boy with an alibi.

Alas, the scam came back to haunt Raff at the Florence Court who said the testimonies of the fine upright stalwart Dr F Sollecito MD and Miss Popovich meant Raff was lying in his alibi.Isn't it marvellous, Popovich arranged with her Mom (friend of Vanessa) to send a suitcase down from Milan on a four hour journey to Perugia to arrive circa midnight
, Raff arranged to be ordained as Pope next day, Amanda and Raff arranged to go to Gubbio and Amanda was to sign a record contract with Simon Cowell later that day. Unfortunately, at eight Popovic's mum changed her mind, s Popvich raced around to Raff's just in time to catch the pair together at 8:40, her medical class having finished at 8:30 to let Raff know the imaginary suitcase wasn't arriving after all, sadly Raff was excommunicated so the ordination didn't happen, the roommate was found murdered so the trip to Gubbio didn't transpire and sadly Simon Cowell reneged on the contract, but he did see the pair together on Skype between 8:45 and 00.30, so it can't have been them.
You've got several things wrong here:

1. Jovana's mother did not know Vanessa Sollecito. Jovana testified she met Raffaele through a mutual friend named Giovani who lived on Corso Garibaldi.

2. The suitcase was to be put on a bus, not a train.

3. Jovana's mother did not "change her mind". When she tried to give the suitcase to the bus driver, he refused to take it. Jovana said it was "not like in Serbia" where, apparently, this was not unusual.



Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I am sceptical. Who puts an unattended suitcase on a train (arriving at midnight) and Raff is needed to drive to the station. (Which, like his ordination to be Pope and the trip to Gubbio, never happened.)

No one in Italy. But, according to Jovana, it was done in Serbia where she and her mother were from. It was a simple cultural misunderstanding and not the conspiracy you'd like to believe.

Try reading the court testimony.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 17th May 2018 at 06:30 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 17th May 2018, 05:53 PM   #147
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,540
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Will you never stop?

1) Knox and Sollecito were NOT found "not proven". And that is NOT what 530.2 means or implies.

3) The SC panel in the Knox/Sollecito trial process was not "sitting on the fence". And a 530.2 acquittal in Italy is NOT "sitting on the fence". Once again, I strongly suggest that you at least try to properly acquaint yourself with proper intellectually-sound research into these matters.
What is truly bizarre is that Vixen still claims all this about the 2015 Cassation acquittal, despite subsequent courts explicitly saying that as a matter of both fact and law that the pair were both acquitted and exonerated.

For most people Judge Boninsegna's comments would settle it. Most would accept they'd been wrong.

Vixen? She calls those words "typing errors".

To all the lurkers out there.... do you find Vixen's views convincing?
__________________
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 17th May 2018, 06:36 PM   #148
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,556
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
What is truly bizarre is that Vixen still claims all this about the 2015 Cassation acquittal, despite subsequent courts explicitly saying that as a matter of both fact and law that the pair were both acquitted and exonerated.

For most people Judge Boninsegna's comments would settle it. Most would accept they'd been wrong.

Vixen? She calls those words "typing errors".

To all the lurkers out there.... do you find Vixen's views convincing?
Add to that the "truly bizarre" claim that Guede "described Sollecito accurately" when it has never been shown (or even claimed by the prosecution) that RS owned a Napapijri jacket or a beanie with a red stripe. Odd that the prosecution never brought up Guede's description of that jacket, beanie, and RS being left-handed as evidence he actually saw RS that night. Well... not odd to anyone who understands why they didn't.
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 17th May 2018, 06:45 PM   #149
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,388
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
What is truly bizarre is that Vixen still claims all this about the 2015 Cassation acquittal, despite subsequent courts explicitly saying that as a matter of both fact and law that the pair were both acquitted and exonerated.

For most people Judge Boninsegna's comments would settle it. Most would accept they'd been wrong.

Vixen? She calls those words "typing errors".

To all the lurkers out there.... do you find Vixen's views convincing?
The guilters need some excuse, even an absurd one, to hide from the reality of the case - that Knox and Sollecito did not commit the murder/rape of Kercher and were definitively and finally acquitted of those charges by the Supreme Court of Cassation, by a judgment fully compliant with Italian law.

Boninsegna's judgment is of such importance that the ECHR published an excerpt from it in the ECHR's Communication to Italy, which formally launched the case Knox v. Italy from Knox's application to the ECHR.
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 17th May 2018, 07:25 PM   #150
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,060
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I am sceptical. Who puts an unattended suitcase on a train (arriving at midnight) and Raff is needed to drive to the station. (Which, like his ordination to be Pope and the trip to Gubbio, never happened.)
Just curious, Vixen... exactly when did Amanda and Raffaele come up with this story and when did they meet with the Popovic's to get the story straight? They told the police about Popovic coming to Raffaele's apartment when they were questioned at the Questura, so did they come up with the story before the murder or did they swing by in the middle of the night, after the murder? And why do you suppose both Jovana and her mother would both agree to lie about this in order to protect two people being investigated for murder?

I honestly thought you were joking. I should have known better. You really are pathetic.
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 17th May 2018, 08:30 PM   #151
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,556
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Just curious, Vixen... exactly when did Amanda and Raffaele come up with this story and when did they meet with the Popovic's to get the story straight? They told the police about Popovic coming to Raffaele's apartment when they were questioned at the Questura, so did they come up with the story before the murder or did they swing by in the middle of the night, after the murder? And why do you suppose both Jovana and her mother would both agree to lie about this in order to protect two people being investigated for murder?

I honestly thought you were joking. I should have known better. You really are pathetic.
Stay tuned for the next edition of Entertainment, Vixen Style!
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 17th May 2018, 08:48 PM   #152
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,388
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
What is truly bizarre is that Vixen still claims all this about the 2015 Cassation acquittal, despite subsequent courts explicitly saying that as a matter of both fact and law that the pair were both acquitted and exonerated.

For most people Judge Boninsegna's comments would settle it. Most would accept they'd been wrong.

Vixen? She calls those words "typing errors".

To all the lurkers out there.... do you find Vixen's views convincing?
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
The guilters need some excuse, even an absurd one, to hide from the reality of the case - that Knox and Sollecito did not commit the murder/rape of Kercher and were definitively and finally acquitted of those charges by the Supreme Court of Cassation, by a judgment fully compliant with Italian law.

Boninsegna's judgment is of such importance that the ECHR published an excerpt from it in the ECHR's Communication to Italy, which formally launched the case Knox v. Italy from Knox's application to the ECHR.
For the benefit of any lurkers and other readers, I repeat here, with minor modifications for clarity of some of my introductory comments and the numbering of the annotations, a previous post which includes an annotated translation of the relevant excerpt in the ECHR Communication of Knox v. Italy.
_______

Amanda was acquitted of continuing aggravated calunnia against the police and Mignini by the Boninsegna court, and the Italian authorities - that is, the prosecutor in that case - did not appeal that judgment of acquittal, making it final.

The ECHR has mentioned the Boninsegna judgment in its Communication to Italy, even including an excerpt from the Boninsegna motivation report in its summary of the history of the case. The attention of the ECHR to the Boninsegna MR suggests how the ECHR will judge the merits of the case.

Here is a translation of the ECHR's excerpt (Section 2(i) of the “EXPOSÉ DES FAITS” [Statement of Facts]):

"Meanwhile, the applicant was the subject of another criminal trial for false accusation, in particular concerning the statements she had made on 13 March, 12 June and 13 June 2009 against the police officers who carried out her interrogations. {1} By a judgment of 14 January 2016, the Florence Court {of Judge Boninsegna} acquitted the applicant.

In particular, {2} the court considered that the applicant had been subjected to intense psychological pressure from the investigators, leading her to formulate the name of Mr. DL {Diya (Patrick) Lumumba} for the sole purpose of terminating a treatment contrary to the {legally guaranteed} rights of a person under investigation. The relevant passages of this judgment, as far as the present application is concerned, read as follows:

"{3} The investigation activities (...) concerning the applicant {Knox, the accused in the case} are characterized by numerous procedural irregularities which led the Court of Cassation to consider [1 April 2008] that the statements collected were not usable. (...)

{4} Due to the deficiencies of the [investigation] activities, the minutes are not reliable as to the starting time of the activities. Moreover, the minutes do not indicate the closing times. (...)

{5} The totally inappropriate choice of interpreters was also irregular. These were agents of the Perugia Police Bureau. Thus they were placed in a situation of professional collaboration with the colleagues who were carrying out the investigations. This resulted in emotionally empathic behavior [with the applicant]. This was taking place in an extremely delicate context, not only for the investigations (the declarations relating to them having been considered {by the CSC} unusable thereafter) but also concerning the position [of the applicant] who was at that time under investigation.

{6} This ambiguous quality of the person performing auxiliary duties for the police and, at the same time, belonging to the investigators' own team was accompanied by maternal attitudes and overwhelmingly strong emotion (in particular regarding the behavior not required and at least atypical of [two interpreters] and one of the police officers [some having taken familiar attitudes tending to create empathy with the applicant and the other having taken her hand in hand and hugging {embracing} (abbracciata) her while she was making accusations against Mr. DL)] (...).

{7} The interpreters should have been uninvolved and neutral in relation to the ongoing criminal procedure with the obvious and basic aim of avoiding contaminations that affect the professional performance of the auxiliary {task of interpretation}. (...)

{8} All these circumstances do not appear in the minutes (...). {9} The only appropriate approach in this case was to inform the person under investigation of her rights of defense, declared inviolable in our Constitution. This was for the obvious reason that she was a person who was to be put in a position to defend her personal freedom in relation to the authority of the State, the latter having already attributed to [the applicant], by the investigators' bias, the quality of the person being a suspect. (...)

{10} This situation is in contradiction with the applicant's immediate subsequent detention, although she had just been treated with a maternal attitude and kind affection. This course of events certainly created some embarrassment, especially for the person concerned, which should have been avoided (...) in order to safeguard the dignity [of the applicant] (...), as well as her personal freedom as a fundamental and inviolable right of the person, which constitutes an aspect ... of fundamental human rights. (...)

[In this context]{11} the principle of the presumption of innocence was also ignored. (...) »"

Translated from the ECHR original (in French) by Google translate with my help.


The ECHR's task - which relevant to Knox v. Italy is to judge whether or not there have been any violation(s) of Knox's rights under the European Convention of Human Rights - is to declare in its judgment any such violation(s), and to indicate in its judgment what it considers the necessary individual and general measures required to redress any such violation(s), which may include suggestions for reforms in the practices or laws of a respondent state (in this case, Italy) found to have violated the Convention.

Here's an annotated list of some of the implications of the excerpt for the ECHR case Knox v. Italy.

1. The Boninsegna court found Knox's allegations, in light of the testimony of the witnesses, to have credibility: "the chosen investigative practices induced in the defendant the conviction, or the reasonable doubt, that she was being subjected to a planned, oppressive and unfair investigative action - this also takes into account Knox’s definitive acquittal in the main criminal trial because she did not commit the crime of murder - in light of the overall way in which her interrogation was performed.

There is, therefore, an absence of the evidence to place beyond a reasonable doubt that the events did not indeed occur as the girl related and that she was fully aware of the non-involvement of the Prosecutor in the way the investigations concerning her were performed.

Pursuant to article 530 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure,
acquits Knox Amanda Marie for the charge under letter a), because the facts do not exist, and for the charge under letter b), because the facts do not exist and because the act does not constitute an offense, as regards the accusations addressed to Dr. Giuliano Mignini."

2. Intense psychological pressure, especially when accompanied by the denial of defense rights such as warnings of the right to remain silent and the right to have a lawyer present, and the provision of an uninvolved, neutral interpreter, in an interrogation by investigators to obtain a statement to incriminate the person questioned or another person is highly likely to be considered a violation of Convention Article 3 by the ECHR, not as torture, but as inhuman or degrading treatment.

3. The statements made by Knox during the interrogations of Knox on Nov. 5/6 by the police and Mignini had already been declared unusable against her by the Gemelli CSC panel. The use of her statements against her for the charge of calunnia against Lumumba because of her "defensive" statement after the interrogation, as allowed by that CSC panel, may be considered arbitrary and a violation of the Convention by the ECHR, because she was still denied a lawyer, required under Italian law and ECHR case-law, at the relevant time. Mignini apparently did not follow Italian law in denying lawyers for Knox and Sollecito in the period Nov. 5 to Nov. 8.

4. The police and prosecutor are obligated under Italian law to record, using audio or audiovisual methods, questioning of a detained person. Even if the audio or audiovisual equipment were unavailable, detailed minutes are required by Italian law, including the start and finish times, who was present, and of course, the questions and answers, when a suspect is questioned. The presence of a defense lawyer for the suspect is also required, except under specified circumstances, and must be validated in writing and approved by a magistrate.

5. An interpreter is required at all stages of a criminal proceeding, including questioning of a suspect, when the suspect does not fully understand the language used in the questioning, according to the Convention. The interpreter must be neutral and fair.

6. The measures adopted by the police and their interpreter of suggesting amnesia and also of embracing and/or touching Knox would be likely to constitute violations of the Convention under Article 8. While not all violations of Article 8 against a suspect imply violations of Article 6 (unfair trial), it is likely these do, because of the intent to induce the person questioned to make a statement against herself or another person.

7. A clear statement by Boninsegna of the issues indicating a violation of Convention regarding the interpreters, when the statements obtained in the questioning are used against the person questioned or another person.

8. Again, Boninsegna indicates (indirectly) the violation of Italian law in the way the activities of the questioning of Nov. 5/6 were not recorded. This type of violation of domestic law which results in use of statements obtained from the questioning to convict someone is likely to be considered a violation of the Convention.

9. The Boninsegna MR language is a point-blank statement that Knox's defense rights were violated. The ECHR will note that the rights violated, such as the right to remain silent, the right to have a lawyer during questioning, and the right to a fair and neutral interpreter, were among those guaranteed by the Convention and ECHR case-law. Thus, based upon the publicly known information on the case, the ECHR would be bound by the Convention - the international law that it operates by - to declare that Italy had violated Knox's rights under the Convention.

10. The Boninsegna MR language is likely to give the ECHR exactly the type of information it seeks to find a violation of Convention Article 6 with Article 3, because in its case-law, violations of the dignity of a person under the control of the authorities is a violation of Article 3 (inhuman or degrading treatment).

11. This language may induce the ECHR to find a violation of the presumption of innocence, whether or not Knox listed that specific allegation in her application. The ECHR will sometimes, as the master of the facts and the law under the Convention, specify violations of the Convention based upon the facts, even when not specifically requested by the applicant.

Last edited by Numbers; 17th May 2018 at 08:54 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2018, 09:25 PM   #153
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 18,445
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Just curious, Vixen... exactly when did Amanda and Raffaele come up with this story and when did they meet with the Popovic's to get the story straight? They told the police about Popovic coming to Raffaele's apartment when they were questioned at the Questura, so did they come up with the story before the murder or did they swing by in the middle of the night, after the murder? And why do you suppose both Jovana and her mother would both agree to lie about this in order to protect two people being investigated for murder?

I honestly thought you were joking. I should have known better. You really are pathetic.
Exactly. They were questioned in great detail hours after the murder. And I don't know about you, but I'm not going to lie for neighbor to provide them with an alibi for a murder.

This idea of hers that Popovic was lying is almost as bizarre as the menage a trois murder fantasy of strangers she insists that happened. No, on second thought, it's bizarre, just not that bizarre.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla 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 17th May 2018, 10:28 PM   #154
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,556
Vixen mentioned that RS opened his laptop with his left hand. She sees this as evidence he is left-handed. As I was opening mine a few seconds ago, I noticed that I, too, used my left hand to lift the lid while holding it down with my right. I guess that makes me left-handed dominant despite the fact that I am most definitely right-handed. Maybe someone taught me to only write with my right-hand and suppress my natural left-handed dominance. Could be it's just trauma induced amnesia.
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 17th May 2018, 10:52 PM   #155
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,790
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
You've got several things wrong here:

1. Jovana's mother did not know Vanessa Sollecito. Jovana testified she met Raffaele through a mutual friend named Giovani who lived on Corso Garibaldi.

2. The suitcase was to be put on a bus, not a train.

3. Jovana's mother did not "change her mind". When she tried to give the suitcase to the bus driver, he refused to take it. Jovana said it was "not like in Serbia" where, apparently, this was not unusual.

No one in Italy. But, according to Jovana, it was done in Serbia where she and her mother were from. It was a simple cultural misunderstanding and not the conspiracy you'd like to believe.

Try reading the court testimony.
In the more rural areas of the UK I have seen the same thing happen. Someone flags down a bus, puts on a cardboard box buys a ticket, tells the driver someone will pick it up at another stop, gets off, and the bus drives on with the box. A little later someone flags down the bus and picks up the package. This is one of the ways small businesses survive in the countryside.
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 17th May 2018, 11:25 PM   #156
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,556
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
You've got several things wrong here:

1. Jovana's mother did not know Vanessa Sollecito. Jovana testified she met Raffaele through a mutual friend named Giovani who lived on Corso Garibaldi.

2. The suitcase was to be put on a bus, not a train.

3. Jovana's mother did not "change her mind". When she tried to give the suitcase to the bus driver, he refused to take it. Jovana said it was "not like in Serbia" where, apparently, this was not unusual.






No one in Italy. But, according to Jovana, it was done in Serbia where she and her mother were from. It was a simple cultural misunderstanding and not the conspiracy you'd like to believe.

Try reading the court testimony.
4. Jovana had not just finished a "medical class" as you claimed. She had just finished a music lesson.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 17th May 2018 at 11:26 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 18th May 2018, 02:09 AM   #157
Wilson85
Student
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 37
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
What is truly bizarre is that Vixen still claims all this about the 2015 Cassation acquittal, despite subsequent courts explicitly saying that as a matter of both fact and law that the pair were both acquitted and exonerated.

For most people Judge Boninsegna's comments would settle it. Most would accept they'd been wrong.

Vixen? She calls those words "typing errors".

To all the lurkers out there.... do you find Vixen's views convincing?
Vixen thinks "Article 530 Paragraph 2" is just the second paragraph of "Article 530,1": http://www.internationalskeptics.com...e#post12167187
What is written in "Article 530,2" is not known (Vixen never provided the content of what she believes is written in 530,2).

Of course we all know that "Article 530,2" is "Article 530 Paragraph 2". In the linked post above Vixen stated that 530,2 is part of Art 530 para 1 and therefore admitted that she doesn't understand the content of 530,2.
Wilson85 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2018, 03:38 AM   #158
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Great tweet here. It is a reproduction of the court testimony in which Amanda Knox confesses that she offered Patrick Lumumba's name freely and voluntarily, without any pressure from the police.

https://twitter.com/Robyn__Duncan/st...49261300305921

Bang goes another PR lie.
__________________
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 18th May 2018, 03:43 AM   #159
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by Wilson85 View Post
Vixen thinks "Article 530 Paragraph 2" is just the second paragraph of "Article 530,1": http://www.internationalskeptics.com...e#post12167187
What is written in "Article 530,2" is not known (Vixen never provided the content of what she believes is written in 530,2).

Of course we all know that "Article 530,2" is "Article 530 Paragraph 2". In the linked post above Vixen stated that 530,2 is part of Art 530 para 1 and therefore admitted that she doesn't understand the content of 530,2.

Paragraph one, (530.1) has four sub-sections numbered one to four. Subsection no 2 of 530.1 is NOT Article 530.2.

530.1 paras 1,2,3,4 is completely separate and different from 530.2, which has no subsections.


The misapprehension has arisen, because whoever compiled the wikipedia in this, omitted article 530.2, leading people to believe 530.1, para 2, was what the Supreme Court was referring to.
__________________
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 18th May 2018, 03:47 AM   #160
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,876
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
Many killers start out as burglars:



Source: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/455...637a1b1941.pdf

Interesting read. Describes Guede to a T, 8 years before he sliced open Kercher's neck and sexually assaulted her then left her to choke on her own blood and bleed out while he dug through her purse for goodies.
This is one of the most common of logical fallacies: 'Homer is a man, therefore, all men are Homer'.
__________________
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
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 08:15 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.