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 16th May 2018, 05:41 AM   #41
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,072
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Out of context again. You must stop doing that, BiWi.

The context was, someone argued that Rudy made up his story about a strange man 'on the threshold of Meridith Kercher's room'. I remarked that he managed to describe Raff surprisingly accurately, i.e., a fluently Italian man (and thus, not a sundry Albanian as claimed by Knox and Raff's defences viz a viz their star witness,Aviello), shorter than himself, brown hair (as opposed to Italian black), held the blade in his left hand, was wearing a jacket with a Napapirje logo and wore on his head a white beanie with a red stripe. He said the figure was backlit, from the dim light in Mez' room and the hall light having been switched off whilst he was in the loo.

The PR-gang jumped in and claimed (falsely) that (a) Raff was taller (b) was right-handed, so therefor could not be the man in Rudy's description (c) did not own any such clothing and (d) all Italians have mousy hair.

So, it is nothing to do with 'belief in Rudy', but rather, 'how did Rudy manage to describe Raff so accurately'?

Do try to keep focussed.
You do realize you never produced any evidence of how tall Raffaele is, right? Other than you claiming it, all we got was some evidence of Guede's height. And yes, he's Italian, speaks Italian and doesn't have black hair. That narrows the suspect list down to a few million men. Everything else about the description doesn't match Raffaele. That you see this as "describing Raff surprisingly accurately" is not surprising - those guilt-colored glasses are misleading you once again - but the rest of the 'specific' details don't match Raffaele. And the point was, if you're going to be holding a knife to attack (or defend) yourself, you're going to hold it in your dominant hand. Guede said the guy was holding it in his left hand and Raffaele is right handed. Why you can't understand (or refused to acknowledge) this rather simple concept is bewildering.

And btw, I realize sticking to the truth is difficult for you but you could at least be honest about Aviello. Aviello made the claim that his brother confessed to the killing. Neither Amanda or Raffaele, or their defense counsels had anything to do with him. He was hardly their "star witness", as you claim. Why do you feel the need to lie about such things? Do you think it aids in your credibility?
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 16th May 2018, 07:03 AM   #42
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 18,953
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
FYI it is illegal to carry an offensive weapon in a public place in England. This includes knives, batons and coshes.
A knife is not a weapon anymore than a hammer or a vehicle is a weapon. The only person I have ever cut with a knife is myself. Not deliberately of course.
__________________
“ 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 16th May 2018, 07:05 AM   #43
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,568
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
So, it is nothing to do with 'belief in Rudy', but rather, 'how did Rudy manage to describe Raff so accurately'?

Do try to keep focussed.
It was a typo when Mignini typed out for Rudy what he was supposed to say to merit a reduced sentence for murder.
__________________
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 16th May 2018, 07:06 AM   #44
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 18,953
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
When you come to Europe, leave your knives and guns behind.
This goes without saying. I can't carry a knife aboard a plane any more.
__________________
“ 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 16th May 2018, 07:42 AM   #45
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 18,953
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Out of context again. You must stop doing that, BiWi.

The context was, someone argued that Rudy made up his story about a strange man 'on the threshold of Meridith Kercher's room'. I remarked that he managed to describe Raff surprisingly accurately, i.e., a fluently Italian man (and thus, not a sundry Albanian as claimed by Knox and Raff's defences viz a viz their star witness,Aviello), shorter than himself, brown hair (as opposed to Italian black), held the blade in his left hand, was wearing a jacket with a Napapirje logo and wore on his head a white beanie with a red stripe. He said the figure was backlit, from the dim light in Mez' room and the hall light having been switched off whilst he was in the loo.

The PR-gang jumped in and claimed (falsely) that (a) Raff was taller (b) was right-handed, so therefor could not be the man in Rudy's description (c) did not own any such clothing and (d) all Italians have mousy hair.

So, it is nothing to do with 'belief in Rudy', but rather, 'how did Rudy manage to describe Raff so accurately'?

Do try to keep focussed.
Sorry, we don't own guilt glasses. Raffaele had been all over the news. Pretty damn easy if you ask me. And as Stacy pointed out it really wasn't that accurate.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

Last edited by acbytesla; 16th May 2018 at 09:38 AM.
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 16th May 2018, 08:29 AM   #46
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,072
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
FYI it is illegal to carry an offensive weapon in a public place in England. This includes knives, batons and coshes.
Typical misleading comment from Vixen. It is perfectly legal to carry a pocketknife in England - and Italy, which is really the only relevant issue here - as long as the blade is 3 inches or less. The knife Raffaele carried around with him was perfectly legal in Italy, and anyone not wearing guilty-colored glasses would view his walking into the police station with it as an indication of someone with nothing to hide. Conversely, if he had just committed a crime using a knife it's only logical to assume he would have wanted to distance himself from knives in general and certainly would never have walked into a police station with one in his pocket.
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 16th May 2018, 09:54 AM   #47
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 14,053
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
To make it simple. You get a parking ticket. You apeal it. You fail and are told to pay the penalty.

You then go to a Family Law court to finalise your divorce. The judge happens to write in his summing up that you succeeded in your appeal against your parking ticket.

Homework: what is the actual legal situation in respect of the parking ticket?

I'll just get into my listening pose.

If I take my parking ticket aboard an Amtrak train and demand that they let me ride to Knoxville, Tennessee, because obviously I have a ticket, they'll laugh at me (for a moment, before demanding actual payment in lieu of kicking me off the train). It's a ticket, but it's the wrong kind of ticket.

Similarly, if you jump aboard the train of history clutching your little "judicial fact," and demand that history be rerouted to your destination of seeing the Amanda Knox case your way, those aboard will continue to laugh at you, because the fact you have is the wrong kind of fact.

A judicial fact is not a historical fact. The only people expected to honor an Italian judicial fact are certain Italians who are part of the Italian judicial system. Just as I can't pay my parking ticket with an Amtrak ticket, because only Amtrak puts any value on Amtrak tickets, you cannot sway the historical record with an Italian judicial fact.

Now, here's the hell of it. Even though only Amtrak cares about Amtrak tickets, Amtrak doesn't actually have to honor Amtrak tickets if they don't feel like it. There's fine print on there somewhere that says so. It's a general fact of the world that those who make rules for themselves can and often do break those rules at will. The same is true of Italian judicial facts. The Italian judiciary has to honor Italian judicial facts... unless they don't feel like it. In which case they won't.

The end result is no one's getting railroaded to Knoxville this time.
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad 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 16th May 2018, 09:55 AM   #48
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 18,953
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Typical misleading comment from Vixen. It is perfectly legal to carry a pocketknife in England - and Italy, which is really the only relevant issue here - as long as the blade is 3 inches or less. The knife Raffaele carried around with him was perfectly legal in Italy, and anyone not wearing guilty-colored glasses would view his walking into the police station with it as an indication of someone with nothing to hide. Conversely, if he had just committed a crime using a knife it's only logical to assume he would have wanted to distance himself from knives in general and certainly would never have walked into a police station with one in his pocket.
Exactly. This is the difference that Vixen is blind to. It demonstrates how a guilty and an innocent person thinks and behaves. Raffaele knows he's innocent and even though it seems as if the police are talking to him and Amanda a lot, they don't think for a second that people are really looking at them as suspects. And even if they might be, they think that the truth will keep them immune. Raffaele owns a knife and thinks nothing of it. If he really murdered someone with a knife, no way in hell is he going into the questura with one.

Raffaele and Amanda were planning a trip to Gubbio. Had they had a consciousness of guilt, they would have gone putting as much distance between themselves and the crime. The body may have been discovered as much as 24 to 48 hours later. No, they sound the alert. They aren't lawyering up. They are being as helpful as possible.

In contrast, Rudy runs even though no one is looking for him.
__________________
“ 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 16th May 2018, 10:01 AM   #49
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 14,006
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
A knife is not a weapon anymore than a hammer or a vehicle is a weapon. The only person I have ever cut with a knife is myself. Not deliberately of course.
Be that as it may, in England & Wales you would be committing a criminal offence if you walk around with a knife as a weapon. It matters not a whit if the purpose is 'to defend myself'. Likewise a hammer.

Cars are covered by 'death by dangerous driving', 'Grievous Bodily Harm' (GBH) or attempted murder if deliberate, or even murder if you kill someone.
__________________
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 16th May 2018, 10:02 AM   #50
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 14,006
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
This goes without saying. I can't carry a knife aboard a plane any more.
You can still bring your hamburger kit.
__________________
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 16th May 2018, 10:04 AM   #51
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 14,006
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Typical misleading comment from Vixen. It is perfectly legal to carry a pocketknife in England - and Italy, which is really the only relevant issue here - as long as the blade is 3 inches or less. The knife Raffaele carried around with him was perfectly legal in Italy, and anyone not wearing guilty-colored glasses would view his walking into the police station with it as an indication of someone with nothing to hide. Conversely, if he had just committed a crime using a knife it's only logical to assume he would have wanted to distance himself from knives in general and certainly would never have walked into a police station with one in his pocket.
He wasn't carrying a pen knife.
__________________
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 16th May 2018, 10:09 AM   #52
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 14,006
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
If I take my parking ticket aboard an Amtrak train and demand that they let me ride to Knoxville, Tennessee, because obviously I have a ticket, they'll laugh at me (for a moment, before demanding actual payment in lieu of kicking me off the train). It's a ticket, but it's the wrong kind of ticket.

Similarly, if you jump aboard the train of history clutching your little "judicial fact," and demand that history be rerouted to your destination of seeing the Amanda Knox case your way, those aboard will continue to laugh at you, because the fact you have is the wrong kind of fact.

A judicial fact is not a historical fact. The only people expected to honor an Italian judicial fact are certain Italians who are part of the Italian judicial system. Just as I can't pay my parking ticket with an Amtrak ticket, because only Amtrak puts any value on Amtrak tickets, you cannot sway the historical record with an Italian judicial fact.

Now, here's the hell of it. Even though only Amtrak cares about Amtrak tickets, Amtrak doesn't actually have to honor Amtrak tickets if they don't feel like it. There's fine print on there somewhere that says so. It's a general fact of the world that those who make rules for themselves can and often do break those rules at will. The same is true of Italian judicial facts. The Italian judiciary has to honor Italian judicial facts... unless they don't feel like it. In which case they won't.

The end result is no one's getting railroaded to Knoxville this time.
Strangely enough, I have been to Knoxville, Tennessee.

As for your analogy: sad fact is, were Amtrak to take you to court over your parking ticket which you claim can be any ticket in the world of the anarchist, in whose favour do you think the judge will find?

Take your time now.
__________________
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 16th May 2018, 10:11 AM   #53
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 14,006
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Exactly. This is the difference that Vixen is blind to. It demonstrates how a guilty and an innocent person thinks and behaves. Raffaele knows he's innocent and even though it seems as if the police are talking to him and Amanda a lot, they don't think for a second that people are really looking at them as suspects. And even if they might be, they think that the truth will keep them immune. Raffaele owns a knife and thinks nothing of it. If he really murdered someone with a knife, no way in hell is he going into the questura with one.

Raffaele and Amanda were planning a trip to Gubbio. Had they had a consciousness of guilt, they would have gone putting as much distance between themselves and the crime. The body may have been discovered as much as 24 to 48 hours later. No, they sound the alert. They aren't lawyering up. They are being as helpful as possible.

In contrast, Rudy runs even though no one is looking for him.

Do you have any evidence the pair 'planned to go to Gubbio'?

Falls into the realms of the Popovic triangle.
__________________
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 16th May 2018, 10:17 AM   #54
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,568
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Do you have any evidence the pair 'planned to go to Gubbio'?

Falls into the realms of the Popovic triangle.
It was a typo?

Then again, what is funny is asking for evidence.
__________________
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 16th May 2018, 10:30 AM   #55
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,125
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
When you come to Europe, leave your knives and guns behind.
Oh, DARN! And here I was planning to carry a foot long unprotected kitchen knife in my purse for protection.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Out of context again. You must stop doing that, BiWi.

The context was, someone argued that Rudy made up his story about a strange man 'on the threshold of Meridith Kercher's room'. I remarked that he managed to describe Raff surprisingly accurately, i.e., a fluently Italian man (and thus, not a sundry Albanian as claimed by Knox and Raff's defences viz a viz their star witness,Aviello), shorter than himself, brown hair (as opposed to Italian black), held the blade in his left hand, was wearing a jacket with a Napapirje logo and wore on his head a white beanie with a red stripe. He said the figure was backlit, from the dim light in Mez' room and the hall light having been switched off whilst he was in the loo.

The PR-gang jumped in and claimed (falsely) that (a) Raff was taller (b) was right-handed, so therefor could not be the man in Rudy's description (c) did not own any such clothing and (d) all Italians have mousy hair.

So, it is nothing to do with 'belief in Rudy', but rather, 'how did Rudy manage to describe Raff so accurately'?

Do try to keep focussed.
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:

Quote:
He turned around and came at me. I backed off trying to defend… to wave my hands. Look, it happened in a flash, I didn't have time to…I asked: "What happened?" and that person turned around. It happened in a flash…and I tried to back away while protecting myself from his hands. So much so that during the interrogation and the trial I said that the moves of that person… I don't know what was in his hands., I said I thought it was a scalpel because I was cut.
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.
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 16th May 2018, 10:48 AM   #56
bagels
Master Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,020
Guede insisting on every occasion that the murder weapon was small and scalpel like, which is consistent with the murder weapon as described by the medical examiner, must mean the murder weapon was a giant cleaver - cold and objective analysis.
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 16th May 2018, 10:49 AM   #57
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,125
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Do you have any evidence the pair 'planned to go to Gubbio'?

Falls into the realms of the Popovic triangle.
Dr. Sollecito testified that Raffaele told him on Nov. 1 that he and Amanda were going to Gubbio on Nov. 2. He also said he called the next morning earlier than he normally would have because he knew they were going to Gubbio.

What motive could you possibly come up with for RS and AK to lie about planning to go to Gubbio?

Last edited by Stacyhs; 16th May 2018 at 10:53 AM.
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 16th May 2018, 10:55 AM   #58
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 18,953
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Do you have any evidence the pair 'planned to go to Gubbio'?

Falls into the realms of the Popovic triangle.
They said they were. Nevertheless, they still would not likely have been there for the discovery of the body. You can argue the opposite but just like the knife on Raffaele, you cannot draw any reliable inferences. Rudy's behavior is the only one of the three that fits a classic guilty conscience.

I'm not saying their behavior proves their innocence, I'm just saying that it doesn't support an assumption of guilt.
__________________
“ 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 16th May 2018, 11:02 AM   #59
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,072
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
He wasn't carrying a pen knife.
You're right, he was carrying a pocket knife and it was a legal knife to carry around in Italy. It wasn't an "offensive weapon" or whatever other biased term you wish to apply to it.
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 16th May 2018, 11:18 AM   #60
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,072
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Do you have any evidence the pair 'planned to go to Gubbio'?

Falls into the realms of the Popovic triangle.
For someone so willing to accept anything said by anyone without the slightest hint of evidence to back it up so long as it's anti-Amanda, you seem very concerned about acquiring definitive evidence to back up things favorable to her. Why is that? You're not biased, are you?

Popovic gave direct testimony of asking Raffaele to take her to the station and later returning to his place to tell him she no longer needed a ride. The scenario was confirmed by Popovic's mother, who did not ship the suitcase as originally planned. There were no contradictions to her testimony, it's confirmed by multiple people and she isn't a heroin addict. I'm amazed that you still question her testimony but vigorously defend the testimony of Curatolo and all the problems that came with it. Hmmm...

As for evidence of the planned trip to Gubbio, I know Raffaele's father confirmed he was aware of their plans. I'm sure that fails the Vixen sniff test. Since the police never questioned this, I don't know if Laura or Filomena were asked if they were aware of their plans. They were going to drive so there would be no travel tickets to prove it. It is what they told the police from the very start and they've never wavered. Since you've claimed to be unbiased and open minded I guess you'll just have to trust them.
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 16th May 2018, 11:20 AM   #61
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,125
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Typical misleading comment from Vixen. It is perfectly legal to carry a pocketknife in England - and Italy, which is really the only relevant issue here - as long as the blade is 3 inches or less. The knife Raffaele carried around with him was perfectly legal in Italy, and anyone not wearing guilty-colored glasses would view his walking into the police station with it as an indication of someone with nothing to hide. Conversely, if he had just committed a crime using a knife it's only logical to assume he would have wanted to distance himself from knives in general and certainly would never have walked into a police station with one in his pocket.
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
He wasn't carrying a pen knife.
TruthCalls never said it was a "pen knife"; he said it was a "pocket knife". Try and stay focused. The knife RS was carrying the night of his arrest was a pocket knife: a Spyderco Delica 4:
Overall Length:7.125"
Blade Length:2.90"
Cutting Edge:2.56"

Pocket knife definition: a knife with a folding blade or blades, suitable for carrying in a pocket.
RS's knife was a folding knife about 4 inches when folded. You know...designed to be carried in a pocket.
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 16th May 2018, 11:20 AM   #62
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 18,953
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
You're right, he was carrying a pocket knife and it was a legal knife to carry around in Italy. It wasn't an "offensive weapon" or whatever other biased term you wish to apply to it.
The knife he carries looks a lot like a couple of mine. Although, if I'm not mistaken his was more expensive than the one I carry. The Buck knife I use to carry wasn't cheap, but I broke the tip on it.
__________________
“ 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 16th May 2018, 11:26 AM   #63
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 18,953
36 million American men own a pocket knife.
__________________
“ 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 16th May 2018, 11:27 AM   #64
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,072
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Dr. Sollecito testified that Raffaele told him on Nov. 1 that he and Amanda were going to Gubbio on Nov. 2. He also said he called the next morning earlier than he normally would have because he knew they were going to Gubbio.

What motive could you possibly come up with for RS and AK to lie about planning to go to Gubbio?
Isn't it obvious... so she can add it to the stack of "lies" told by Amanda and Raffaele. Then she can also say you can't say "they could have just gone to Gubbio as planned and let someone else find the body", which could be construed as favorable to Amanda and Raffaele, because, 'as we all know, they didn't have any such plans'. Ten years of this narrative building... you should be able to see the signs from a mile away.

Last edited by TruthCalls; 16th May 2018 at 11:32 AM.
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 16th May 2018, 11:28 AM   #65
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,125
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
For someone so willing to accept anything said by anyone without the slightest hint of evidence to back it up so long as it's anti-Amanda, you seem very concerned about acquiring definitive evidence to back up things favorable to her. Why is that? You're not biased, are you?
Popovic gave direct testimony of asking Raffaele to take her to the station and later returning to his place to tell him she no longer needed a ride. The scenario was confirmed by Popovic's mother, who did not ship the suitcase as originally planned. There were no contradictions to her testimony, it's confirmed by multiple people and she isn't a heroin addict. I'm amazed that you still question her testimony but vigorously defend the testimony of Curatolo and all the problems that came with it. Hmmm...

As for evidence of the planned trip to Gubbio, I know Raffaele's father confirmed he was aware of their plans. I'm sure that fails the Vixen sniff test. Since the police never questioned this, I don't know if Laura or Filomena were asked if they were aware of their plans. They were going to drive so there would be no travel tickets to prove it. It is what they told the police from the very start and they've never wavered. Since you've claimed to be unbiased and open minded I guess you'll just have to trust them.
Hypocrisy at its best, innit?

Vixen considers a still photo of Raffaele holding a knife in his left hand as evidence he's left-handed but rejects video of him writing with his right hand. She accepts as evidence the cap police collected at his apartment... which did not match Guede's description. She accepts as evidence Guede's claim of a Naparijini jacket yet ignores the fact that no such jacket was ever found or shown to have ever been worn or owned by RS. The list just goes on and on and on.
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 16th May 2018, 11:31 AM   #66
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,125
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Isn't it obvious... so she can add it to the stack of "lies" told by Amanda and Raffaele. Then she can also say you can't say "they could have just gone to Gubbio as planned and let someone else find the body", which could be construed as favorable to Amanda and Raffaele. Ten years of this narrative building... you should be able to see the signs from a mile away.
Of course she wants to claim it as a 'lie' but that doesn't answer the question as to what possible motive could they have had for lying about it in the first place? I'm just curious what she could come up with.
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 16th May 2018, 11:57 AM   #67
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 14,053
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Strangely enough, I have been to Knoxville, Tennessee.

Bless your heart. Why is that strange?

Quote:
As for your analogy: sad fact is, were Amtrak to take you to court over your parking ticket which you claim can be any ticket in the world of the anarchist, in whose favour do you think the judge will find?

A question is not a fact, sad or otherwise.

Amtrak could not take me to court over my parking ticket. They would have no standing. My parking ticket does not represent any kind of tort against them or crime over which they have jurisdiction. (They could perhaps cooperate in a state or local prosecution of me for trespassing, disturbing the peace, etc. were I to behave in a criminal or tortious manner, but that's not what you've asked about so no need to address it.)

Similarly, the Italian judicial facts you cite and the lies you tell have no standing to enter or alter the narrative of history. History cares about historical facts, as determined by the best available research and analysis of the evidence. Consequently it has recorded and shall continue to clarify in this case a clear narrative of unjust prosecution of innocent suspects which ultimately failed when it was overturned by clearer-thinking and less corrupt jurists in higher offices.
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad 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 16th May 2018, 12:00 PM   #68
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 18,953
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Hypocrisy at its best, innit?

Vixen considers a still photo of Raffaele holding a knife in his left hand as evidence he's left-handed but rejects video of him writing with his right hand. She accepts as evidence the cap police collected at his apartment... which did not match Guede's description. She accepts as evidence Guede's claim of a Naparijini jacket yet ignores the fact that no such jacket was ever found or shown to have ever been worn or owned by RS. The list just goes on and on and on.
If one ever wanted to shiow cognitive bias and selective analysis in action, Vixen's posts would provide an excellent demonstration,
__________________
“ 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 16th May 2018, 12:04 PM   #69
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,072
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Of course she wants to claim it as a 'lie' but that doesn't answer the question as to what possible motive could they have had for lying about it in the first place? I'm just curious what she could come up with.
Ah, OK.. but I'll bet she'll use the same 'reasoning' anyway -- that is, they came up with that story just so they could then claim not going was an indication of innocence because, after all, if they were guilty they surely they would have gone and allowed the body to be discovered by someone else.

We've been to this movie a few times before.

And yes, the request for evidence and doubting the testimony is incredibly hypocritical but then that doesn't really comes as a surprise either. This is all part of being a PGP.
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 16th May 2018, 12:11 PM   #70
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,125
More entertainment from Slick Pete over on TJMK:


Quote:
TKMK slow? Our hoster is looking at the causes of the site slowing a lot now and then every day. It is just possibly an attack though similar experiences in the past were server-caused or software-caused.
Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/12/18 at 12:03 PM

Paranoid much, Petey? Like anyone cares enough about his irrelevant site enough to bother attacking it. Get over yourself.
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 16th May 2018, 12:16 PM   #71
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 631
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
It's worse than Trump - it's positively Soviet-era Pravda-esque!!

The really funny/tragic thing is that Quennell simply cannot/does not see the deeply-embedded ironic contradiction in his position. On the one hand, he is continually desperate to convince others (and himself...?) that "the sense that the Italians got things right can get to be unshakable". But he can only apply this "logic" to the two convicting lower courts (Massei and Nencini) and one of the SC-level courts (Chieffi). However, he is forced to avoid claiming "the Italians got things right" to the Hellmann court, and, critically, the Marasca SC panel.

So in other words, in Quennell's bizarro-world, the convicting courts show Italian criminal justice to be wonderful and infallible etc etc..... but the acquitting courts - including the SC panel which ultimately and definitively acquitted Knox and Sollecito on all murder-related charges - DO NOT show Italian criminal justice to be wonderful and infallible etc etc. And logically, this must by definition destroy Quennell's fanciful claims about the excellence of Italian criminal justice!! If he was making this claim in the aftermath of the Massei convictions and before the Hellmann appeal trial (as indeed he was), then at least logically he'd have a defensible position. But ever since the Hellmann acquittals, he simply cannot have it both ways.

The truth of the matter is this: lower level Italian courts - especially courts of first instance - appear to be of very poor quality and serve only a very limited role in the application of justice. In fact, they appear in so many ways to be similar in scope and remit to arraignment-level courts (or Grand Juries) in places such as the UK or US. The heavier lifting in Italy appears to get done in the appeal-level courts.

I'd add to this my opinion that the multi-level system in Italy for all significant "felony-level" criminal trials is a ridiculous waste of money, a poor way to apply justice, and hugely unnecessarily long and complex. All that is needed is a properly-constituted court to try the case once and once only. And if that court turns out to have acted improperly or unlawfully, or if evidence placed before that court turns out to have been presented improperly or unlawfully, or if new evidence comes to light, then there should be a fair opportunity for appeal. Italy's multi-level approach - where prosecutors get as many repeat bites at the cherry as the defence - appears, yet again, to be a hangover from the Mussolini era (for reasons which may be obvious....).

So: Italy's criminal justice system is hugely unfit for purpose. The fiasco of the Knox/Sollecito trial process only serves to illustrate this (while driving a coach and horses through Quennell's ridiculous claims about how great Italy's system is). Every disinterested observer can see this full well. There's an enormous amount of literature (both academic and journalistic) on the subject. Whether the Knox/Sollecito trial process will further serve to illuminate the massive problems inherent in the Italian system is, unfortunately for justice in Italy, questionable. We've seen how it effectively took a demand from the EU and the European Council to force Italy to abandon its dreadful inquisitorial system - and yet we've also seen how Italy managed to fudge even that with a clumsy, half-hearted legislative change which allowed way too much reactionary wiggle-room.

Italy is a broken state, unfortunately. It is riddled with corruption, political patronage, shocking public services, organised crime, and a more-or-less institutionalised grey/black economy. I tried brokering a significant business collaboration between a (very large) UK and Italian company in the early 2000s. But we had to abandon the whole thing when we dug deep enough to realise just how much embedded corruption, tax evasion, crazy courts system and two-faced dealings were going on. And I know for certain that this was very, very far from unique. The Knox/Sollecito trial fiasco is just another example of how broken Italy is. The only good thing that can be said about it is that in the Marasca SC panel Knox and Sollecito finally found a judicial entity that could see the case for what it actually was.
TJMK is run by deluded fantasists who make ridiculous claims where the total opposite is true. As LondonJohn says one of the most ludicrous claims TJMK make is the notion the Italian Justice System is a fair and efficient system which is pro defendant. Vixen once said the Italian Justice System bends over backwards for defendants. My post below and the website Amanda Knox Augaries of Innocence show how Amanda and Raffaele received vicious treatment and numerous injustices at the hands of the Italian Justice System which destroys the argument the Italian system is fair, efficient and favourable to defendants.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post12036493

https://amandaknoxauguriesofinnocence.wordpress.com/
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 16th May 2018, 12:21 PM   #72
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 631
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It is a legal fact that the pair are not exonerated.

Therefore, Boninsegna is incorrect. However, I don't believe his words have been accurately translated by your lot.

The defence arguments of Knox and Sollecito are predicated on lies, so no surprise their PR is also full of them.
Reminders of the vile hypocrisy PGP show when they attack people for lying :-

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post11997763

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...4#post12284534
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 16th May 2018, 12:23 PM   #73
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,523
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Bless your heart. Why is that strange?




A question is not a fact, sad or otherwise.

Amtrak could not take me to court over my parking ticket. They would have no standing. My parking ticket does not represent any kind of tort against them or crime over which they have jurisdiction. (They could perhaps cooperate in a state or local prosecution of me for trespassing, disturbing the peace, etc. were I to behave in a criminal or tortious manner, but that's not what you've asked about so no need to address it.)

Similarly, the Italian judicial facts you cite and the lies you tell have no standing to enter or alter the narrative of history. History cares about historical facts, as determined by the best available research and analysis of the evidence. Consequently it has recorded and shall continue to clarify in this case a clear narrative of unjust prosecution of innocent suspects which ultimately failed when it was overturned by clearer-thinking and less corrupt jurists in higher offices.

I entirely agree with your position on this

but....

.... there are of course situations where perverse and manifestly incorrect conclusions have been entered into the permanent, unchangeable historical record. The poster boy for such instances is probably the OJ Simpson case. History records that Simpson was acquitted (in the criminal trial) of the murder of his ex-wife and Ronald Goldman. So if one compares Simpson with Knox or Sollecito, Vixen's position on Knox/Sollecito would be (in the broadest possible sense - see below) analogous to someone arguing that Simpson in fact did kill his ex-wife and Goldman.

However............. one can argue for the factual guilt of Simpson (in conflict with the settled historical record) through the proper analysis of a large amount of credible, reliable evidence. Frankly, the blood evidence, the two gloves, the cut on his hand and the shoe print evidence would be enough to safely convict Simpson on their own (though there's much more incriminating evidence than that). On the other hand, there truly is ZERO credible, reliable evidence pointing to the factual guilt of Knox and/or Sollecito.

So therefore a critical thinker with intellectual honesty can cogently argue that the body which definitively acquitted Simpson made an incorrect decision, and that in fact there was easily sufficient evidence to prove Simpson's guilt BARD. And that position can be successfully argued through the correct application of logic, the scientific method, understanding of judicial procedures, and so on.

But by contrast, one has - by definition - to be incapable of critical thinking and/or intellectual honesty to argue that the body which definitively acquitted Knox/Sollecito made an incorrect decision, and that in fact there was easily sufficient evidence to prove Knox's/Sollecito's guilt BARD. Because that position cannot be argued through the correct application of logic, the scientific method, understanding of judicial procedures, and so on. Rather, in order to argue for the factual guilt of Knox/Sollecito, one literally has no choice but to ignore (or entirely fail to understand) the scientific method, the application of logic, the proper understanding of judicial processes, etc. And one has instead to substitute poor thinking skills, latent bias, shocking lack of logic/reason and some sort of need to defend an a priori belief in guilt by attempting to manufacture "evidence" in support of that position.
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 16th May 2018, 12:58 PM   #74
whoanellie
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 327
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
If I take my parking ticket aboard an Amtrak train and demand that they let me ride to Knoxville, Tennessee, because obviously I have a ticket, they'll laugh at me (for a moment, before demanding actual payment in lieu of kicking me off the train). It's a ticket, but it's the wrong kind of ticket.

Similarly, if you jump aboard the train of history clutching your little "judicial fact," and demand that history be rerouted to your destination of seeing the Amanda Knox case your way, those aboard will continue to laugh at you, because the fact you have is the wrong kind of fact.

A judicial fact is not a historical fact. The only people expected to honor an Italian judicial fact are certain Italians who are part of the Italian judicial system. Just as I can't pay my parking ticket with an Amtrak ticket, because only Amtrak puts any value on Amtrak tickets, you cannot sway the historical record with an Italian judicial fact.

Now, here's the hell of it. Even though only Amtrak cares about Amtrak tickets, Amtrak doesn't actually have to honor Amtrak tickets if they don't feel like it. There's fine print on there somewhere that says so. It's a general fact of the world that those who make rules for themselves can and often do break those rules at will. The same is true of Italian judicial facts. The Italian judiciary has to honor Italian judicial facts... unless they don't feel like it. In which case they won't.

The end result is no one's getting railroaded to Knoxville this time.
Brilliant!
whoanellie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2018, 01:21 PM   #75
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 18,953
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
If I take my parking ticket aboard an Amtrak train and demand that they let me ride to Knoxville, Tennessee, because obviously I have a ticket, they'll laugh at me (for a moment, before demanding actual payment in lieu of kicking me off the train). It's a ticket, but it's the wrong kind of ticket.

Similarly, if you jump aboard the train of history clutching your little "judicial fact," and demand that history be rerouted to your destination of seeing the Amanda Knox case your way, those aboard will continue to laugh at you, because the fact you have is the wrong kind of fact.

A judicial fact is not a historical fact. The only people expected to honor an Italian judicial fact are certain Italians who are part of the Italian judicial system. Just as I can't pay my parking ticket with an Amtrak ticket, because only Amtrak puts any value on Amtrak tickets, you cannot sway the historical record with an Italian judicial fact.

Now, here's the hell of it. Even though only Amtrak cares about Amtrak tickets, Amtrak doesn't actually have to honor Amtrak tickets if they don't feel like it. There's fine print on there somewhere that says so. It's a general fact of the world that those who make rules for themselves can and often do break those rules at will. The same is true of Italian judicial facts. The Italian judiciary has to honor Italian judicial facts... unless they don't feel like it. In which case they won't.

The end result is no one's getting railroaded to Knoxville this time.
Well said. Vixen can cry on about fictional judicial 'facts' the world as a whole, (not the nutters) see Amanda Knox as 'exonerated'. She has been described as an exoneree or as exonerated by
ABC News
CBS News
NBC News
CNN News
FOX News
Time
Wall Street Journal
Huffington Post
Washington Post
New York Times
BBC
Reuters
etc
etc
etc

That a few nutters in the bowels of the Internet suggest otherwise is really irrelevant. There are also climate deniers, anti-vaccers, Flat Earth Society. people who refuse to believe that men walked on the moon. There are millions of people all over the world who do not except Evolution.

There is no way to tell any of these people they are wrong. Still, they are all in the minority.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

Last edited by acbytesla; 16th May 2018 at 02:05 PM.
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 16th May 2018, 01:37 PM   #76
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,568
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Well said. Vixen can cry on about fictional judicial 'facts' the world as a whole, (not the nutters) see Amanda Knox as 'exonerated'. She has been described as an exonerate or as exonerated by
ABC News
CBS News
NBC News
CNN News
FOX News
Time
Wall Street Journal
Huffington Post
Washington Post
New York Times
BBC
Reuters
etc
etc
etc
Every one of them were filled with typing errors. What they all meant to say was that Knox was a she-devil.

How do we know? Ask Vixen.
__________________
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 16th May 2018, 01:42 PM   #77
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,394
Objective analysis based on ECHR case-law indicates that the ECHR will, in due time, rule that Italy violated Amanda Knox's rights under the European Convention of Human Rights by convicting her of calunnia against Diya (Patrick) Lumumba, and that she is entitled to a reopening of the judicial proceedings in Italy to correct this unfair conviction.

What will the guilters post when an ECHR ruling against Italy is published? I suggest one or more of the following:

1. The ECHR judges were too inexperienced to properly judge the case.

2. The ECHR judges corruptly gave a wrong judgment because of the influence of (choose one or more of the following):
a) a vast public relations campaign sponsored by Knox's family
b) the Mafia
c) the Masons
d) the Ministry of Funny Walks
e) Maria Cantwell (US Senator from the state of Washington)
f) the Martians
g) the Marines (US military or economic power)

3. The judgment was actually one big typo.

4. The judgment was written in English and/or in French, and so its text is misunderstood even by those who are native speakers of English or French. Only the guilters understand its true meaning.
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 16th May 2018, 02:10 PM   #78
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 18,953
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Every one of them were filled with typing errors. What they all meant to say was that Knox was a she-devil.

How do we know? Ask Vixen.
You have to wonder how the people around them react when they talk about Amanda these days. I'm sure we see a lot of this.
__________________
“ 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 16th May 2018, 03:02 PM   #79
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 14,006
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.
Please read comments properly. You claimed most Italians had brown hair. Plenty have black hair and few blonde. Writing with your right hand does NOT prove hand dominance. Raff holds his knife in his left hand and also opens his lap top with his left hand. THAT is his dominant hand. It is his hand of unconscious natural preference. He will have been taught to write with his right.

Please take debating lessons. Then you won't waste so much bandwidth with inanities.
__________________
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 16th May 2018, 03:15 PM   #80
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 14,006
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Dr. Sollecito testified that Raffaele told him on Nov. 1 that he and Amanda were going to Gubbio on Nov. 2. He also said he called the next morning earlier than he normally would have because he knew they were going to Gubbio.

What motive could you possibly come up with for RS and AK to lie about planning to go to Gubbio?
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.
__________________
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 04:44 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.