IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Amanda Knox , Italy cases , Meredith Kercher , murder cases , Raffaele Sollecito

Closed Thread
Old 10th August 2017, 07:27 AM   #441
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,637
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I've been told but I don't know. That Knox' supporters are largely:

1. a band of white knights who want to rescue the damsel in distress (as per a well-worn Hollywood script, ever since King Kong in 1947)

2. People with a 'claim to fame', such as Stacyhs, with link's to Knox' family, friends or friends of friends.

3. paid shills and PR agents. It is a fact Curt Knox hired PR agency Gogerty-Marriott (now just Marriott) even before he got a defence lawyer.

4. Those 'bleeding hearts' who automatically support the likes of the so-called Lockerbie Bomber, Lundy, Avery, Dassey, Ferguson, Bamber: all these poor people oppressed by a Kafka-esque faceless bureaucracy.

I used to be #4 and then after the Kercher case, and the A1 murder case (Hanratty), I got wise to the tactics of the defence lawyers and subtley biased 'documentary' makers who now cynically use the documentary genre to put forward subversive propaganda in the guise of 'miscarriage of justice'.

If we have a good justice system, fair, objective and cold, we don't need all this emotional blackmail crap.


"I've been told but I don't know"
?

What the hell does this piece of BS even mean?

Do you have evidence that I am "prone to hero-worship or infatuation", as you directly claimed in your earlier post, Vixen?

If you don't (and I'm very strongly guessing/suggesting you don't), then please do the intellectually-honest thing and withdraw/apologise. Assuming, that is, that you DO have intellectual honesty, Vixen.......?
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 Back to Top
Old 10th August 2017, 07:27 AM   #442
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,561
Originally Posted by Bill Williams
It's not exactly hero-worship but it is becoming obvious that Vixen is among a small a vocal group of Mignini advocates. These are the things Mignini would want to say, when he feels insulted that Cassation put a stop to his predatory prosecution.

Except for his submission with regard to alleging that Maori and Lanagan had defamed him, he's too cowardly to say it for himself. So he relies on surrogates.
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
What a ridiculous take.
Well, I wouldn't say, "ridiculous". Fanciful maybe. At the very least it is on par with the dozens of bizarre controversies you, yourself, fabricate.

True, there's no proof of my claim - yet I can see it in your eyes! I can read it in your mind, much like you are able to know people's very thoughts.

You could help me along by once in a while arguing something that does not originate from Mignini. Of course, this would mean ignoring Peter Quennell's TJMK and his "100s of lawyers". Quoting blindly from TJMK or the fake-Wiki will expose you to pure Mignini. (Look at all the fan-girl stuff you yourself have posted about how upright and honest he is! You'd have though he hadn't embarrassed himself at all with the Monster of Florence or the Kercher Murder trials.)

Remember Marasca/Bruno's term? "Amnesiac investigation"? I bet Mignini loved that one.

Tell you what - quote evidence from the Massei trial which Massei derived not from Mignini. There's plenty of it. Do you realize that Massei in 2010 wrote that this was Rudy's crime, and that he could not see why Knox would urge Rudy to do anything violent to Meredith? That the bad-urges were all Rudy's?

Quote evidence from Crini and the second conviction.... Crini mailed that one in, and won anyway. Why is that?
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 10th August 2017 at 07:43 AM.
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 Back to Top
Old 10th August 2017, 07:30 AM   #443
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,637
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
As it is an established fact (so sue me!) that Knox was present during the murder at the scene of the crime (Marasca, Florence) then she could have rung the emergency services or banged on the door of a neighbour, immediately. A good 12-15 hours earlier, when the time of death could be established exactly and the crime scene sealed off and rendered untampered with by persons galloping around the scene, as they did.

Give us all a good laugh, Vixen, and remind us exactly how/why it came to be an "established fact" (an established judicial fact, that is - you seem unable to differentiate between an empirical fact and a judicial fact.....) that Knox was present at the scene of the murder.

(Hint: you'll have to refer to Knox's criminal slander conviction )
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 Back to Top
Old 10th August 2017, 07:35 AM   #444
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 33,710
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Millions of dollars of other people's money.
Not sure, what that remark about other people's money means. Oh well, Raffaele has family money. So?
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
When will the obknoxious Knox pay Patrick his €42K as ordered by the court?
Obnoxious? And you said you don't dislike Amanda? You've never met Amanda and yet you refer to her that way. Why? If Patrick wants money. Why doesn't he deal with the morons that put him there, the Perugian authorities? In my view, Amanda doesn't owe him a dime.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I note she never mentions her conviction and rightful four year's in prison concerning this big gentle Congolese man who was like an uncle to her and never hurt a fly.
Nothing right about it. And how do you know that about Patrick? You don't. Just like the rest of it. You pulled it out of your backside.
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
She only got a column in West Seattle Herald because of the 'novelty value' in having a mu notorious criminal from Seattle writing for them, and the newspaper owner's son got to get his leg over.
You don't know that. For someone who says they don't dislike Amanda, you sure make lots of petty remarks about her. Yes Amanda has a well known name. And she wouldn't be well known if publications worldwide didn't write stories about her. I guess the only person who shouldn't profit from her own name is Amanda? Amanda wanted to be a writer BEFORE she went to Italy. If you don't like Amanda so much, why read every article she writes?
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
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 Back to Top
Old 10th August 2017, 07:40 AM   #445
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,561
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
After all these years of "analysing" this case, you're STILL unaware of the fact that since the mid-1990s Italy has used the adversarial system of criminal justice (though some reactionary types such as Mignini and many judges still seem to wish it was the inquisitorial system, and appear to act as such)?

Oh dear.
It's all rather revealing. If people wouldn't have the urge to defame random Seattleites they might actually notice other more core things.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 10th August 2017, 08:18 AM   #446
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 33,710
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It is a fact Knox wrote rape/murder fantasies before she even arrived in Italy.
You say 'it is a fact' all the time. Which usually means it is not. This entire thread for the last 3 years has been you posting untruths and fabrication after obfuscation and calling them facts.
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It is a common observation that her grammar, syntax and spelling are appalling. You can see an alarming improvement when it is polished up - obviously by an editor when published by a glossy magazine or a proper newspaper, such as LA Times.
Common observation by the NUTJOBS over at TJMK and PMF? Can't you see, that you are desperately seeking out reasons to insult Amanda? I've been reading her columns and while I'm not always interested in her subjects I have found her grammar syntax and spelling to be just fine.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The stuff about philosophy, political theory and literary references obviously come from Party Rock, largely.
Another out of your ass deduction. How many ways must you find to insult Amanda? Anything valuable had to come from someone else as opposed to the graduate student who speaks three languages and is a voracious reader?

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
As an aside to your usual anti-Christian swipe, homosexuality is not considered a 'sin', it is homosexual sex that is said to be so, according to the scriptures.
You don't think I know this? But it is a lie practiced by smarmy better than thou Christians all the time. They make me want to vomit. It's like you saying you don't dislike Amanda, you just dislike everything she does says and writes. It's disingenuous crap.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.

Last edited by acbytesla; 10th August 2017 at 09:09 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 Back to Top
Old 10th August 2017, 08:46 AM   #447
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,561
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
After all these years of "analysing" this case, you're STILL unaware of the fact that since the mid-1990s Italy has used the adversarial system of criminal justice (though some reactionary types such as Mignini and many judges still seem to wish it was the inquisitorial system, and appear to act as such)?

Oh dear.
The link below is to a study by John Head, where his original intent was to argue that the transitions in Italy's criminal system did not have any direct bearing on the Kercher murder trials.

http://law.ku.edu/sites/law.ku.edu/f...-john-head.pdf

Yet even the "Author's update" of Feb 2015 - a month prior to the eventual exonerations - provide an important commentary on the Knox/Sollecito case as it related to the system-transitions.

It's an interesting read - probably because it is obviously NOT biased towards Knox/Sollecito, while at the same time being able to listen to defence advocates like Michael Scadron.
Quote:
Yet another criticism regarding the handling of the Amanda Knox case
suggests that members of the Italian judiciary – or specifically those
members of it involved in the case – have intentionally subverted the proper
machinery of justice in order to cover up a seriously compromised and mishandled
procedure . . . or, expressed more simplistically, that the system
itself is broadly corrupted by a sense (among some or many members of the
judiciary) that “patriotism prevails over justice”. (I am indebted to S.
Michael Scandron for drawing my attention to this criticism.) If there is
some validity to this criticism, then it would support not only an
abandonment of the conviction(s) and corrective action in Italy; it would also
serve to highlight the sort of difficulty that I emphasized in my article.
My
centerpiece proposition in the article (see pages 8-13 and 19-20, below) is
that any “transplantation” of elements from one legal system into another
legal system is bound to create discomfort and dissent. Indeed, Italy’s
adoption a quarter-century ago of an American-inspired accusatorialadversarial
approach to criminal procedure has created a great deal of such
discomfort and dissent, even to the extent of requiring a constitutional
amendment to overcome strenuous objections.
Yet with this said, Head is of the opinion that these transitions did not, in themselves, create the problem Knox/Sollecito-defenders claim:
Quote:
What I believe would not warrant close attention – and this is
my main purpose in using the Amanda Knox case to illustrate some key
themes I developed in my article – are those criticisms that rest on a
misunderstanding of certain fundamental differences between criminal
procedure in Italy (and civil law countries more generally) and criminal
procedure in the USA and other common law countries. While there are
undoubtedly several immutable principles of criminal procedure – fair
treatment of persons under investigation, competent handling of evidence,
adequate opportunity to mount a defense, independence and integrity of
judges, and the like – the existence of some structural and ideological
differences among various countries in their response to criminal conduct is
natural and legitimate.
What I am NOW looking for is anything he's written since March 2015 and the exonerations.

I found this while looking for another paper written by a woman about the legal-transitions begun in 1989 in Italy, where she, too, used the AK/RS trials as a case in point. That one was far more favourable to innocence for AK/RS and how the transitions played a part in skewing the search for truth in Italy.

But you think I can find it?
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 10th August 2017 at 08:47 AM.
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 Back to Top
Old 10th August 2017, 08:55 AM   #448
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,561
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Give us all a good laugh, Vixen, and remind us exactly how/why it came to be an "established fact" (an established judicial fact, that is - you seem unable to differentiate between an empirical fact and a judicial fact.....) that Knox was present at the scene of the murder.

(Hint: you'll have to refer to Knox's criminal slander conviction )
To repeat - even Judge Massei in his 2010 motivations report said that there was no forensic evidence, none at all, to support the notion that Knox had rubbed Meredith's blood from her hands. Even Stefanoni supported this notion in conceding that trace-DNA by definition cannot have its origin known.

Massei plainly said in 2010 that he came to this conclusion on other grounds, mainly that that notion was "compatible" with other evidence, which in turn was "compatible" with the overall thesis he thought of as valid.

Massei built his thesis on compatibilities, not on evidence. And of note was that the compatibilities Massei found persuasive DO NOT ORIGINATE from the case Mignini brought - yet, Mignini surrogates here and at TJMK comtinue to argue Mignini's theories as if they'd ever been deemed as factual.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 10th August 2017 at 09:21 AM.
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 Back to Top
Old 10th August 2017, 11:01 AM   #449
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,607
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
ROFLMAO

This is the epitome of ignorance of how forensics can help crime investigators."
This is your response to Welshman writing "People who believe that someone's DNA being found in their own bathroom is incriminating are not in a position to accuse people of being stupid."

So Vixen, please explain how finding Amanda's DNA on Amanda's bathroom sink was so obviously helpful to the forensic investigation. I think there's a huge opportunity here for all of us to learn something because I'm pretty sure most of us here are of the opinion that Amanda's DNA should have been there, and since DNA can't be dated we don't really understand how it helped. Obviously we're all displaying a bit of "epitome of ignorance" here, so please help us out...
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 Back to Top
Old 10th August 2017, 11:23 AM   #450
Planigale
Philosopher
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 49 North
Posts: 6,753
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The point is, they were not going to. Ask yourself why the Carabinieri were sent out to arrest them. Because Vecchiotti & Conti corruptly produced a DVD which they prepared to help the defence .

Vecchiotti was later convicted of gross negligence in another murder case where she refused to test the DNA of the murderer for 19 years until ordered to. She and Pascali were ordered to pay €150,000 each to the murder victim's husband.

This is a woman who abuses her office to help murderers avoid prison.
This is untrue. Why do you make up facts?

It was a civil case so there was no conviction. It was negligence not gross negligence. The respondents in the case were Pascali, Arbarrello and Vecchiotti.

Vecchiotti et al were brought into the case in 2007, the murder occurred in 1991, the DNA of the murderer was identified by the carabinieri using LCN testing (a technique that Vecchiotti did not have access to) in 2011. So at most the period was 4 years, not 19 years. The big failing was that the police / prosecutor failed to listen to / transcribe an intercepted telephone call from 1991 in which the murderer admitted the murder until 2011. In Italy you cannot sue the police / prosecutor for incompetence, so Vecchiotti et al are a surrogate for the police failure over 19 years. The husband is quite clear who he blames in his posts.

The payment was ordered to be made to a charity. The money partly funded scholarships at La Sapienza university, where Vecchiotti works, an implication that there was not strong animosity between the husband and Vecchiotti.
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 Back to Top
Old 10th August 2017, 11:59 AM   #451
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 884
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
This is your response to Welshman writing "People who believe that someone's DNA being found in their own bathroom is incriminating are not in a position to accuse people of being stupid."

So Vixen, please explain how finding Amanda's DNA on Amanda's bathroom sink was so obviously helpful to the forensic investigation. I think there's a huge opportunity here for all of us to learn something because I'm pretty sure most of us here are of the opinion that Amanda's DNA should have been there, and since DNA can't be dated we don't really understand how it helped. Obviously we're all displaying a bit of "epitome of ignorance" here, so please help us out...
Amanda lived in the cottage which means it was perfectly normal for Amanda to leave DNA in her own bathroom and DNA would have been deposited before the night of the murder. DNA can’t be dated which makes it impossible to establish when DNA has been deposited. When Guede murdered Meredith he carried Meredith’s blood into the bathroom which resulted in Meredith’s blood being mixed with Amanda’s DNA which was already in the bathroom. PGP posters can’t grasp this simple notion. To suggest Amanda’s DNA being found in her own bathroom is incriminating is ludicrous and anyone who believes this notion is not in a position to call anyone stupid.
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 Back to Top
Old 10th August 2017, 12:24 PM   #452
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 884
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I would have thought that what was done to Mez was something deviant, perverted, dirty, etc.

You have to admit Knox is not the sharpest knife in the tool box, automatically blaming 'the black man' and claiming amnesia for the night of the murder.

How dumb is it to believe the prosecutor fancies you.
In view of how Vixen has attacked Amanda for not being the sharpest tool in the box, the gross stupidity of PGP posters deserves to come under scrutiny. Instances of stupidity displayed by PGP :-
• PGP posters constantly and viciously attack Amanda and Raffaele for telling numerous lies. Below are some of the posts from Vixen containing falsehoods and details of the numerous instances where PGP have condoned and ignored the lies of others. PGP don’t understand the simple concept that it is hypocritical to attack someone for lying when habitually lying yourself and condoning the lies of others.

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

• Vixen constantly brags about the overwhelming evidence against Amanda and Raffaele. The conduct of the prosecution and the methods they had to resort to detailed below completely contradicts this. Basic common sense dictates a prosecution with a mountain of evidence and a slam dunk case don’t need to resort to suppressing evidence, destroying evidence, telling numerous lies, smear tactics etc. The conduct of the prosecution made it blatantly obvious the prosecution had a weak case, a lack of evidence, the facts didn’t support their case and there were major problems with the prosecution’s case. PGP can’t understand this simple concept.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contam...bwork-coverup/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredi...ry-corruption/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/evidence-destroyed/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/blood-...irs-apartment/
https://knoxsollecito.wordpress.com/...ele-sollecito/
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...4#post11071314

• As can be seen from Vixen’s posts, PGP constantly have to resort to falsehoods to argue their case. If the prosecution have a slam dunk case, PGP don’t need to resort to lying to argue their case because there should be plenty of genuine evidence to argue your case on and the facts on your side. Having to resort to lying indicates there is a lack of genuine to argue your case on and the facts are not on your side. PGP don’t understand that having to resort to lying to argue their case contradicts the notion there was a mountain of evidence against Amanda and Raffaele and a slam dunk case.
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 Back to Top
Old 10th August 2017, 12:35 PM   #453
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Millions of dollars of other people's money. When will the obknoxious Knox pay Patrick his €42K as ordered by the court?


I note she never mentions her conviction and rightful four year's in prison concerning this big gentle Congolese man who was like an uncle to her and never hurt a fly.

She only got a column in West Seattle Herald because of the 'novelty value' in having a mu notorious criminal from Seattle writing for them, and the newspaper owner's son got to get his leg over.
I've seen a lot of nasty, sick, and disgusting posts but this one literally made my jaw drop. And you have the audacity to claim you "neither like nor dislike" Amanda. I'd have a lot more to say if it weren't for the mods who would probably ban me for the language I'd use.
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 Back to Top
Old 10th August 2017, 12:50 PM   #454
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You really don't know the difference between justice as served in a court of law (no, the kids were not prosecuted 'because Mignini didn't like them', as you claim), satire (as in wry social observation, whether it be Trump or Knox), opinion: a comment on national and global news and personal attack (ad hominem based on hatred.

In the world of Stacyhs, any criticism at all of her darlings is 'a personal attack' and this makes her very angry.
Quote me where I have said Mignini prosecuted them because he "didn't like them". Go on, Vix. Back up your claims (for a change). Of course, you won't because you can't. Par for the vixen course.

In the world of Vixen, writing

She only got a column in West Seattle Herald because of the 'novelty value' in having a mu notorious criminal from Seattle writing for them, and the newspaper owner's son got to get his leg over.

is only showing dislike for Amanda's "behavior" and not directed toward her personally. Really?

Personal attacks on Knox and Sollecito don't make me angry. I expect them from years of reading them from PGP. It's what they do. It's all they have left.
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 Back to Top
Old 10th August 2017, 01:04 PM   #455
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 33,710
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
ROFLMAO

This is the epitome of ignorance of how forensics can help crime investigators.
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
This is your response to Welshman writing "People who believe that someone's DNA being found in their own bathroom is incriminating are not in a position to accuse people of being stupid."

So Vixen, please explain how finding Amanda's DNA on Amanda's bathroom sink was so obviously helpful to the forensic investigation. I think there's a huge opportunity here for all of us to learn something because I'm pretty sure most of us here are of the opinion that Amanda's DNA should have been there, and since DNA can't be dated we don't really understand how it helped. Obviously we're all displaying a bit of "epitome of ignorance" here, so please help us out...
The presence of DNA can almost NEVER tell us anything but the probable presence of the person that DNA comes from. It doesn't tell us how or when or why. So when Vixen mocks the dismissal of finding Amanda's DNA found in her own bathroom as the epitome of ignorance of forensic investigation, she is demonstrating her own ignorance, not exposing someone else's.

Very Sad.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
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 Back to Top
Old 10th August 2017, 01:08 PM   #456
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,561
Originally Posted by Vixen
She only got a column in West Seattle Herald because of the 'novelty value' in having a mu notorious criminal from Seattle writing for them, and the newspaper owner's son got to get his leg over.
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I've seen a lot of nasty, sick, and disgusting posts but this one literally made my jaw drop. And you have the audacity to claim you "neither like nor dislike" Amanda. I'd have a lot more to say if it weren't for the mods who would probably ban me for the language I'd use.
Vixen's post is slutshaming, but with a twist. That sort of post used to be part of the tittering and smirking at the PMF's when posters there went after Knox for the purpose of simply having a laugh. They'd often compete in making the most outrageous claim - the laugh at the expense of their victim was what they were going for.

It's the core of bullying. The problem is, it's a tired-tactic, meant to build group cohesion on that side of the fence. There simply is not enough of them any more for this sort of bullying to gain traction. Yet Vixen pulls it from her bag of tricks. (What it's got to do with the name of this thread, is beyond me. But that's just me.)
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 10th August 2017 at 01:09 PM.
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 Back to Top
Old 10th August 2017, 01:12 PM   #457
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I have sent you the law citation and the list of US states federal law in this matter on at least two previous occasions. I shall not do it again.
What you sent does not support your claim. But, hey-ho...

Quote:
What about obstruction of justice? You're guilty of obstruction if you do anything that hampers an ongoing case—destroying documents, intimidating witnesses, or lying under oath, for example. (Some courts have ruled that lying under oath is not sufficient for conviction on its own, though.)
Quote:
Generally, obstruction charges are laid when it is discovered that a person questioned in an investigation, other than a suspect, has lied to the investigating officers.
Note that Amanda was not under oath and she was a suspect at the time as verified by the Supreme Court in 2008.

Please don't post the law citation and the list of US states federal law in this matter as they do not support your claim.

You've been asked many times before...and repeatedly failed...to present a criminal record for Amanda in the US.
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 Back to Top
Old 10th August 2017, 01:16 PM   #458
bagels
Master Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,272
This is a bizarre case with what I call reverse groupies. Usually you get someone obviously guilty (Like Scott Peterson) that has a few oddball groupies or desperate family members denying the obvious and saying he must be innocent and it was a series of extremely unfortunate coincidences that lead to his conviction and the real killer is still out there etc.

In this case you have someone obviously guilty (Rudy Guede) but the oddball groupies aren't obsessed with him, they're obsessed with the random girl that happened to live at the same address he burglarized, and obsessed in the negative sense of wanting her punished. But the denial of the obvious (guy with a history of window climbing break-ins found at scene of a window climbing break-in - gee I wonder what happened) and the emotional obsession clouding all sensible reason is the same.
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 Back to Top
Old 10th August 2017, 01:53 PM   #459
toto
Muse
 
toto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 733
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
In the "author's notes" page in the back of "Waiting to be Heard", Amanda writes this:

" I wouldn't have been able to write this memoir without Linda Kulman. Somehow, with her Post-it Notes and questions, with her generosity, dedication, and empathy, she turned my rambling into writing, and taught me so much in the meantime. I am grateful to her family-Ralph, Sam, Julia- for sharing her with me for so long."

Amanda, who has a degree in Creative Writing, did not need Kulman to write her book for her. She needed someone to help her organize and refine it. But, of course, when one needs to disparage and belittle anything and everything Knox related, this cannot be acknowledged. No. That would just never do.
Sorry, I recently quoted this without realising you had already done so.
__________________
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. Samuel Beckett
toto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th August 2017, 04:43 PM   #460
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 33,710
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
It's all rather revealing. If people wouldn't have the urge to defame random Seattleites they might actually notice other more core things.
Looks like they will have another urge since Rolling Stone published an interview with Amanda today.

I thought this paragraph was perfect for Vixen.

Quote:
What are your thoughts about your doubters?

I feel like they probably have some kind of life experience or fears that they project onto me. That sounds so clinical, but what I mean is that all of us view the world through the lens of our own experiences and our own desires. If someone wants to think of me as a femme fatale for whatever reason or wants to think that I am guilty, then they are going to see that. There is nothing that I can do to change their minds, unless say, I happen to stumble upon them and interact with them in some way and they realize, "Oh, crap. She was a real person all along." Maybe then I can change a person's mind. But I'm not setting my heart on doing that, because I don't feel like that's my job. I feel like my job is to live my life and to heal from what happened to me. I don't owe an explanation to people who still think I am guilty. It was crazy enough that I had to prove my innocence in the first place.
http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/...iction-w497051
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
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 Back to Top
Old 10th August 2017, 05:02 PM   #461
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,561
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Looks like they will have another urge since Rolling Stone published an interview with Amanda today.

I thought this paragraph was perfect for Vixen.
Ergon has waded in, in the comments section, with Mignini's view that "Amanda was there during the murder, that was proven at the March 2015 trial." And that then, after saying this, "The Supreme Court then inexplicably acquitted them." (Approximate quotes, so everyone relax! He also does not reference this as being Mignini's view, Ergon just puts it out there as if it was a fact everyone agrees to.)

If one gives up on the inanity of the former factoid, then all of a sudden the acquittal does not seem so inexplicable! That should be something everyone agrees to!

But truly, the ONLY lawyer or officer of the court who believes as Mignini does is Mignini himself - and yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes Raffaele's compensation court, in denying Raffaele compensation, makes reference to this factoid!

That's how these memes gather moss. Repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition.......

..... with no initial proof.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 10th August 2017 at 05:13 PM.
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 Back to Top
Old 10th August 2017, 05:24 PM   #462
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 33,710
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Ergon has waded in, in the comments section, with Mignini's view that "Amanda was there during the murder, that was proven at the March 2015 trial." And that then, after saying this, "The Supreme Court then inexplicably acquitted them."

If one gives up on the inanity of the former factoid, then all of a sudden the acquittal does not seem so inexplicable!?

But truly, the ONLY lawyer or officer of the court who believes as Mignini does is Mignini himself - and yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes Raffaele's compensation court, in denying Raffaele compensation, makes reference to this factoid!

That's how these memes gather moss. Repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition.......

..... with no initial proof.
What I like about all of this is article after article written these days are very positive about Amanda. That has an effect.

No one is ever going to convince the hard core guilters like Ergon and Vixen etc, but hey you can't win them all.

I'm thrilled that Amanda is able to make an income from her notoriety. It will never adequately compensate her for the injustice she endured. And as a special bonus, I like that it bothers the morons who can't let go.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
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 Back to Top
Old 10th August 2017, 05:26 PM   #463
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,637
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Ergon has waded in, in the comments section, with Mignini's view that "Amanda was there during the murder, that was proven at the March 2015 trial." And that then, after saying this, "The Supreme Court then inexplicably acquitted them." (Approximate quotes, so everyone relax! He also does not reference this as being Mignini's view, Ergon just puts it out there as if it was a fact everyone agrees to.)

If one gives up on the inanity of the former factoid, then all of a sudden the acquittal does not seem so inexplicable! That should be something everyone agrees to!

But truly, the ONLY lawyer or officer of the court who believes as Mignini does is Mignini himself - and yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes Raffaele's compensation court, in denying Raffaele compensation, makes reference to this factoid!

That's how these memes gather moss. Repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition.......

..... with no initial proof.

Well look, there's one matter which ought to be addressed about this whole "fact" that Knox "was present in the cottage at the time of the murder".

And this judicial "fact" has slid into this fiasco of a case courtesy solely of it being part of a bizarre (and soon likely to be remedied courtesy of the EHCR) guilty verdict on Knox's criminal slander charge. The final (settled) verdict on that charge decided, on a totally insane and unlawful basis, that Knox was lying in her 5/6 November 2007 statements to police when she stated that she'd met with Lumumba (and had taken him to the cottage whereupon he'd attacked and killed Kercher as she (Knox) cowered in the kitchen), but that she'd TOLD THE TRUTH when she stated that she'd been at the cottage at the time of the murder.

And in a dreadful cross-contamination of judicial cases, it appears that the bolstering issue which gave rise to this awful verdict was the then presence of a (provisional) conviction for Knox in the murder trial. Obviously (the "reasoning" seems to have gone), if Knox took part in the murder, then she was there in the cottage at the time, and so therefore it was "reasonable" to conclude that the part about her going to the cottage was true, but the part about her taking Lumumba there was false.

In fact, there was zero lawful reason how/why the settled verdict in Knox's criminal slander trial should ever have concluded that Knox was in the cottage at the time of the murder. Indeed, there was no reason whatsoever for the court trying that charge to have ever decided one way or the other on that matter - it should have been totally agnostic in any case, since it was SOLELY tasked with determining whether or not there was sufficient (credible, reliable) evidence to prove BARD that Knox had intentionally slandered Lumumba.

And then, of course, this element of the Knox criminal slander verdict has - in a nasty circular case study which is so prevalent in Italian "justice" but which is eschewed in countries with modern fit-for-purpose systems - been re-imported into the murder trial verdicts (and compensation verdicts) for both Knox and (even more incredibly) Sollecito.

Boy does the Italian criminal justice system stink...........
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 Back to Top
Old 10th August 2017, 05:31 PM   #464
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,637
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
What I like about all of this is article after article written these days are very positive about Amanda. That has an effect.

No one is ever going to convince the hard core guilters like Ergon and Vixen etc, but hey you can't win them all.

I'm thrilled that Amanda is able to make an income from her notoriety. It will never adequately compensate her for the injustice she endured. And as a special bonus, I like that it bothers the morons who can't let go.

Well, the way I see it is this:

Knox has a story and experience which others want to hear about. If others want to hear about it - whether they pay Knox to tell them, or whether Knox does so in a voluntary capacity - then Knox has the perfect right to tell them about it.

If I'm glad about anything, it's the apparent fact that Knox doesn't care one iota about trying to change the minds of those (predominantly the small cadre of hard-core crazy pro-guilt online commentators....) who still shout all over the internet that she and Sollecito are guilty/evil/ugly/etc. I hope Knox genuinely believes this in her heart (rather than, for example, merely articulating this thought because she feel she ought to say it). I'm sure that, similarly, NASA doesn't care about the crazies who still insist the Moon landings were faked, or that the US Government doesn't care about the crazies who still insist that 9/11 was an "inside job"........
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 Back to Top
Old 10th August 2017, 05:43 PM   #465
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,561
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Well look, there's one matter which ought to be addressed about this whole "fact" that Knox "was present in the cottage at the time of the murder".

And this judicial "fact" has slid into this fiasco of a case courtesy solely of it being part of a bizarre (and soon likely to be remedied courtesy of the EHCR) guilty verdict on Knox's criminal slander charge. The final (settled) verdict on that charge decided, on a totally insane and unlawful basis, that Knox was lying in her 5/6 November 2007 statements to police when she stated that she'd met with Lumumba (and had taken him to the cottage whereupon he'd attacked and killed Kercher as she (Knox) cowered in the kitchen), but that she'd TOLD THE TRUTH when she stated that she'd been at the cottage at the time of the murder.
< .... sinister deletia .... >
And then, of course, this element of the Knox criminal slander verdict has - in a nasty circular case study which is so prevalent in Italian "justice" but which is eschewed in countries with modern fit-for-purpose systems - been re-imported into the murder trial verdicts (and compensation verdicts) for both Knox and (even more incredibly) Sollecito.

Boy does the Italian criminal justice system stink...........
I'm the one who goes on and on and on about what Marasca-Bruno really said about, even-if the "Knox rubbing Meredith's blood from her hands" is true, the court ruled that that still would not be enough to convict her (or Sollecito) since that would have had to have happened at a time later than the murder, and in another part of the cottage than the murder room....

I go on and on about that, but here's the deal.

Marasca-Bruno, on behalf of Cassation, Italy's highest court, still said this about the interrogation:
Quote:
considering that the libelous accusations which the aforementioned defendant made
against Lumumba owing to the impact of the alleged coercive acts were also
confirmed by her before a public prosecutor, during questioning, therefore, in a
context free of institutionally anomalous psychological pressures
; and were also
confirmed in a memorandum ["memoriale"] bearing her signature, at a moment
when the said accuser was alone with herself and her conscience, in conditions of
objective tranquillity
, free from external conditioning....
That is simply a bizarre thing to write. Do judges of Italy's highest court really - REALLY - think that a PM taking statements is a "context free of institutionally anomalous psychological pressures", when they are taken in the middle of the night, and when the suspect has been hit and called a liar - and cannot understand the language used? (When the interpreter becomes a mediator - Doninno's own description - rather than a neutral translator?)

Just when one would want to say something nice about Marasca and Bruno, they drop that little gem in, they simply cannot resist protecting the systm at times.....

...... which makes it all the more startling when they lower the boom on that very same prosecutor for leading an "amnesiac investigation".

There is one word which describes all this.

Italy.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 10th August 2017, 05:47 PM   #466
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,637
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
The link below is to a study by John Head, where his original intent was to argue that the transitions in Italy's criminal system did not have any direct bearing on the Kercher murder trials.

http://law.ku.edu/sites/law.ku.edu/f...-john-head.pdf

Yet even the "Author's update" of Feb 2015 - a month prior to the eventual exonerations - provide an important commentary on the Knox/Sollecito case as it related to the system-transitions.

It's an interesting read - probably because it is obviously NOT biased towards Knox/Sollecito, while at the same time being able to listen to defence advocates like Michael Scadron.
Yet with this said, Head is of the opinion that these transitions did not, in themselves, create the problem Knox/Sollecito-defenders claim:
What I am NOW looking for is anything he's written since March 2015 and the exonerations.

I found this while looking for another paper written by a woman about the legal-transitions begun in 1989 in Italy, where she, too, used the AK/RS trials as a case in point. That one was far more favourable to innocence for AK/RS and how the transitions played a part in skewing the search for truth in Italy.

But you think I can find it?

Haha keep looking!

Head is clearly correct when he points out that one cannot expect a read-across comparison between the criminal justice systems of, say, the US or the UK and that of Italy. But at the same time - as he also clearly points out - one CAN make a valid observation about the massive (and systemic/institutional) failings within the Italian criminal justice system in respect of the adversarial trial process, both in general and as it applies to the Knox/Sollecito trials in particular.

It's abundantly clear that the Italian judiciary and law enforcement agencies have a) found it extremely difficult to handle the transition to an adversarial system, and b) have actively acted to sabotage the transition (as Head points out, further legislation was deemed necessary to try - only marginally successfully as it turns out - to bring everyone into line. In the Knox/Sollecito trial, it was crystal clear that most of the judges felt some form of obligation to the now (supposedly) defunct inquisitorial system: they treated the PM as the "bringer of truth" (with the defence effectively being tasked with proving the PM's case false....), and they felt a clear need to construct a "truth" of the crime - rather than, as was solely required of them, to adjudicate simply whether there was sufficient evidence presented to them to prove BARD the guilt of the defendants on the specific charges brought against them.

I've said it a gazillion times before, but here goes once again: the Italian criminal justice system needs to be torn up - both in terms of legislation and criminal codes/codes of criminal procedure - and rewritten from scratch. And then the judiciary must be properly retrained and then forced to act within the new statutes/codes fully and properly. But of course Italy is such a total basket case of a country that its legislature and executive are weak and here-today-gone-tomorrow, and therefore the real-world chances of sweeping legislative changes are effectively zero. On top of that, the judiciary and LEAs in Italy are disproportionately powerful, probably owing to the ongoing battles against organised crime and endemic corruption (including widescale political corruption....).

So.... in short, nothing will change. Italy will continue to be a country where foreign industrialised nations hesitate massively before providing inward investment, and where anyone from outside Italy ought to think very carefully indeed before visiting on anything more than a short vacation.
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 Back to Top
Old 10th August 2017, 05:55 PM   #467
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,637
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
I'm the one who goes on and on and on about what Marasca-Bruno really said about, even-if the "Knox rubbing Meredith's blood from her hands" is true, the court ruled that that still would not be enough to convict her (or Sollecito) since that would have had to have happened at a time later than the murder, and in another part of the cottage than the murder room....

I go on and on about that, but here's the deal.

Marasca-Bruno, on behalf of Cassation, Italy's highest court, still said this about the interrogation:
That is simply a bizarre thing to write. Do judges of Italy's highest court really - REALLY - think that a PM taking statements is a "context free of institutionally anomalous psychological pressures", when they are taken in the middle of the night, and when the suspect has been hit and called a liar - and cannot understand the language used? (When the interpreter becomes a mediator - Doninno's own description - rather than a neutral translator?)

Just when one would want to say something nice about Marasca and Bruno, they drop that little gem in, they simply cannot resist protecting the systm at times.....

...... which makes it all the more startling when they lower the boom on that very same prosecutor for leading an "amnesiac investigation".

There is one word which describes all this.

Italy.

Oh I think the Marasca SC panel merely employed the same circle-the-wagons behaviour that one so often sees within justice systems. It's one thing to accuse actors within the system (whether courts or LEAs) of making mistakes - as the Marasca panel did (in spades) in respect of the PM/police investigation and the reasoning of the convicting lower courts - but it's a giant leap further to accuse actors within the system of malpractice, corruption or illegal activity.

One need only look at Lord Lane's now-infamous "reasoning" in denying an early appeal of the Birmingham Six - after it was claimed that the investigating detectives had beaten "confessions" out of the men and had falsified written statements - in which he effectively stated that it was beyond the pale to consider that the police were corrupt or engaged in such conspiratorial malpractice/illegality, since (among other things) it would cause the public to lose trust in the police and would thus present a real risk to the maintenance of law and order across the country....

Frankly, only an ECHR ruling will - finally - destroy the myth created within Knox's criminal slander trial that she named Lumumba freely and with genuine intent.
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 Back to Top
Old 10th August 2017, 06:11 PM   #468
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 33,710
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Well, the way I see it is this:

Knox has a story and experience which others want to hear about. If others want to hear about it - whether they pay Knox to tell them, or whether Knox does so in a voluntary capacity - then Knox has the perfect right to tell them about it.

If I'm glad about anything, it's the apparent fact that Knox doesn't care one iota about trying to change the minds of those (predominantly the small cadre of hard-core crazy pro-guilt online commentators....) who still shout all over the internet that she and Sollecito are guilty/evil/ugly/etc. I hope Knox genuinely believes this in her heart (rather than, for example, merely articulating this thought because she feel she ought to say it). I'm sure that, similarly, NASA doesn't care about the crazies who still insist the Moon landings were faked, or that the US Government doesn't care about the crazies who still insist that 9/11 was an "inside job"........
Well said LJ. I especially agree with the second paragraph. But I'm not sure if Amanda didn't believe it she would necessarily be saying that entirely for external reasons. Sometimes you fake it till you make it.

I think it is human nature to want to be liked and maybe annoyed at people that don't. Realizing that's just the way it is is part of growing up. But of course what Amanda experiences is much more extreme. Still, the solution is pretty much the same. Although it is easier said than done.

Perhaps it's theschadenfreude in me, but I admit there is a part of me that takes joy that Amanda's success bothers them. I mean I wish they all would just go on with their lives. But as long as they don't, it gives me sweet satisfaction to hear them whine.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
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 Back to Top
Old 10th August 2017, 06:53 PM   #469
bagels
Master Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,272
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post

Marasca-Bruno, on behalf of Cassation, Italy's highest court, still said this about the interrogation:

"a memorandum ["memoriale"] bearing her signature, at a moment
when the said accuser was alone with herself and her conscience, in conditions of
objective tranquillity, free from external conditioning...."
Is that the same letter where she wrote she was hit in the head and threatened with jail until she gave them a story they found acceptable?

Since it was written in conditions of "objective tranquillity, free from external conditioning" and since they have no interrogation tape to disprove it, I guess that will be very critical evidence for the ECHR
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 Back to Top
Old 10th August 2017, 06:56 PM   #470
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Well, the way I see it is this:

Knox has a story and experience which others want to hear about. If others want to hear about it - whether they pay Knox to tell them, or whether Knox does so in a voluntary capacity - then Knox has the perfect right to tell them about it.

If I'm glad about anything, it's the apparent fact that Knox doesn't care one iota about trying to change the minds of those (predominantly the small cadre of hard-core crazy pro-guilt online commentators....) who still shout all over the internet that she and Sollecito are guilty/evil/ugly/etc. I hope Knox genuinely believes this in her heart (rather than, for example, merely articulating this thought because she feel she ought to say it). I'm sure that, similarly, NASA doesn't care about the crazies who still insist the Moon landings were faked, or that the US Government doesn't care about the crazies who still insist that 9/11 was an "inside job"........
Ask Vixen as she often tells us exactly what Amanda really feels and thinks.


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 Back to Top
Old 10th August 2017, 07:07 PM   #471
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The point is, they were not going to. Ask yourself why the Carabinieri were sent out to arrest them. Because Vecchiotti & Conti corruptly produced a DVD which they prepared to help the defence .

Vecchiotti was later convicted of gross negligence in another murder case where she refused to test the DNA of the murderer for 19 years until ordered to. She and Pascali were ordered to pay €150,000 each to the murder victim's husband.

This is a woman who abuses her office to help murderers avoid prison.
Planigale has already corrected your false statements regarding the gross negligence conviction suit. However, speaking of a woman who "abuses her office" brings to mind Napoleoni who had her minions, including Zugarini, use the police computers to harass the psychologist who found in favor of her husband in their child custody case. Where are you harsh words for her? Crickets?
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 Back to Top
Old 10th August 2017, 07:23 PM   #472
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
The last of the active PGP claim that they want "justice" for Meredith. But I have to wonder just what do these few remaining TJMK die-hards think they can actually accomplish with their continuing crusade? After all, the case was definitively ended 2 1/2 years ago. Knox and Sollecito are not going to be tried again despite their desperate claims. They are not going to be convicted. They are not going to prison. So what exactly is their goal? . No one is asking themselves if the two are guilty or innocent anymore. People formed their opinions long ago. So why do they carry on posting? I can only think of one reason: because they get some kind of sick satisfaction and enjoyment out of spewing venom at Knox and, to a lesser extent, Sollecito. It feeds some psychological/emotional need. If it Knox and Sollecito weren't their targets, it would be someone else.
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 Back to Top
Old 10th August 2017, 09:26 PM   #473
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post

"I've been told but I don't know"
?

What the hell does this piece of BS even mean?

Do you have evidence that I am "prone to hero-worship or infatuation", as you directly claimed in your earlier post, Vixen?

If you don't (and I'm very strongly guessing/suggesting you don't), then please do the intellectually-honest thing and withdraw/apologise. Assuming, that is, that you DO have intellectual honesty, Vixen.......?
So what drives you to blind belief that everybody is wrong except you; rather like the mother watching her son on a parade, 'Oh, look, everybody is out of step except my boy!'
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig

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 Back to Top
Old 10th August 2017, 09:33 PM   #474
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Well, I wouldn't say, "ridiculous". Fanciful maybe. At the very least it is on par with the dozens of bizarre controversies you, yourself, fabricate.

True, there's no proof of my claim - yet I can see it in your eyes! I can read it in your mind, much like you are able to know people's very thoughts.

You could help me along by once in a while arguing something that does not originate from Mignini. Of course, this would mean ignoring Peter Quennell's TJMK and his "100s of lawyers". Quoting blindly from TJMK or the fake-Wiki will expose you to pure Mignini. (Look at all the fan-girl stuff you yourself have posted about how upright and honest he is! You'd have though he hadn't embarrassed himself at all with the Monster of Florence or the Kercher Murder trials.)

Remember Marasca/Bruno's term? "Amnesiac investigation"? I bet Mignini loved that one.

Tell you what - quote evidence from the Massei trial which Massei derived not from Mignini. There's plenty of it. Do you realize that Massei in 2010 wrote that this was Rudy's crime, and that he could not see why Knox would urge Rudy to do anything violent to Meredith? That the bad-urges were all Rudy's?

Quote evidence from Crini and the second conviction.... Crini mailed that one in, and won anyway. Why is that?

Not because of Mignini. A court hears all sides of evidence. It is mandatory for a prosecutor to suggest a motive in Italy, but after that, motive is for the court to decide. Had it found the pair not guilty, it would have adopted the defence arguments in its MR.

It found the kids guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt despite Massei's prejudices against African immigrant Rudy, which you yourself point out, thus it is bound to adopt the prosecution's arguments in the MR, yet it was quite capable of unveiling its own variation of 'motive, which it decreed was a 'futile' one.

In other words, a senseless act of depravity by sociopaths with no remorse, no feelings (except for themselves). Not even for each other.
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig

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 Back to Top
Old 10th August 2017, 09:40 PM   #475
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
You say 'it is a fact' all the time. Which usually means it is not. This entire thread for the last 3 years has been you posting untruths and fabrication after obfuscation and calling them facts.
Common observation by the NUTJOBS over at TJMK and PMF? Can't you see, that you are desperately seeking out reasons to insult Amanda? I've been reading her columns and while I'm not always interested in her subjects I have found her grammar syntax and spelling to be just fine.

Another out of your ass deduction. How many ways must you find to insult Amanda? Anything valuable had to come from someone else as opposed to the graduate student who speaks three languages and is a voracious reader?



You don't think I know this? But it is a lie practiced by smarmy better than thou Christians all the time. They make me want to vomit. It's like you saying you don't dislike Amanda, you just dislike everything she does says and writes. It's disingenuous crap.

If she doesn't want people commenting on her conduct, she should stop making herself a public figure.

I was only quoting what Christianity says. I am all for people finding their soulmate, of whatever gender. After all, Tom of Finland who made Gay Pride real, came from the next county to mine (Kaarina).
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig

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 Back to Top
Old 10th August 2017, 09:44 PM   #476
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
The link below is to a study by John Head, where his original intent was to argue that the transitions in Italy's criminal system did not have any direct bearing on the Kercher murder trials.

http://law.ku.edu/sites/law.ku.edu/f...-john-head.pdf

Yet even the "Author's update" of Feb 2015 - a month prior to the eventual exonerations - provide an important commentary on the Knox/Sollecito case as it related to the system-transitions.

It's an interesting read - probably because it is obviously NOT biased towards Knox/Sollecito, while at the same time being able to listen to defence advocates like Michael Scadron.
Yet with this said, Head is of the opinion that these transitions did not, in themselves, create the problem Knox/Sollecito-defenders claim:
What I am NOW looking for is anything he's written since March 2015 and the exonerations.

I found this while looking for another paper written by a woman about the legal-transitions begun in 1989 in Italy, where she, too, used the AK/RS trials as a case in point. That one was far more favourable to innocence for AK/RS and how the transitions played a part in skewing the search for truth in Italy.

But you think I can find it?

It's rather a giveaway he calls it 'the Amanda Knox case', in the same way the PIP insist this ISF thread be called 'The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito' and had a strop when someone changed it to 'Who killed Meredith Kercher?'
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig

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 Back to Top
Old 10th August 2017, 09:47 PM   #477
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
This is your response to Welshman writing "People who believe that someone's DNA being found in their own bathroom is incriminating are not in a position to accuse people of being stupid."

So Vixen, please explain how finding Amanda's DNA on Amanda's bathroom sink was so obviously helpful to the forensic investigation. I think there's a huge opportunity here for all of us to learn something because I'm pretty sure most of us here are of the opinion that Amanda's DNA should have been there, and since DNA can't be dated we don't really understand how it helped. Obviously we're all displaying a bit of "epitome of ignorance" here, so please help us out...
The pattern of the blood drips over the sink and the bidet, was, in Stefanoni's experience, the same as that of a dripping knife.

However, because it reveals a bleeding Knox who bled the same time as the fatally wounded victim, it is a great help to the investigation.
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig

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 Back to Top
Old 10th August 2017, 09:57 PM   #478
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
Originally Posted by Welshman View Post
In view of how Vixen has attacked Amanda for not being the sharpest tool in the box, the gross stupidity of PGP posters deserves to come under scrutiny. Instances of stupidity displayed by PGP :-
• PGP posters constantly and viciously attack Amanda and Raffaele for telling numerous lies. Below are some of the posts from Vixen containing falsehoods and details of the numerous instances where PGP have condoned and ignored the lies of others. PGP don’t understand the simple concept that it is hypocritical to attack someone for lying when habitually lying yourself and condoning the lies of others.

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

• Vixen constantly brags about the overwhelming evidence against Amanda and Raffaele. The conduct of the prosecution and the methods they had to resort to detailed below completely contradicts this. Basic common sense dictates a prosecution with a mountain of evidence and a slam dunk case don’t need to resort to suppressing evidence, destroying evidence, telling numerous lies, smear tactics etc. The conduct of the prosecution made it blatantly obvious the prosecution had a weak case, a lack of evidence, the facts didn’t support their case and there were major problems with the prosecution’s case. PGP can’t understand this simple concept.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contam...bwork-coverup/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredi...ry-corruption/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/evidence-destroyed/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/blood-...irs-apartment/
https://knoxsollecito.wordpress.com/...ele-sollecito/
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...4#post11071314

• As can be seen from Vixen’s posts, PGP constantly have to resort to falsehoods to argue their case. If the prosecution have a slam dunk case, PGP don’t need to resort to lying to argue their case because there should be plenty of genuine evidence to argue your case on and the facts on your side. Having to resort to lying indicates there is a lack of genuine to argue your case on and the facts are not on your side. PGP don’t understand that having to resort to lying to argue their case contradicts the notion there was a mountain of evidence against Amanda and Raffaele and a slam dunk case.
As a former member of the Peter Cook Appreciation Society, reading this post was strongly reminiscent for me of Peter Cook holding forth on a park bench as Spotty Muldoon, where he talks in a long monotone in a seemingly intellectual fashion of subjects of infinitely great wisdom. Thank you for your amusing invective and the wonderful impersonation.
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig

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 Back to Top
Old 10th August 2017, 09:59 PM   #479
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,561
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Not because of Mignini. A court hears all sides of evidence. It is mandatory for a prosecutor to suggest a motive in Italy, but after that, motive is for the court to decide. Had it found the pair not guilty, it would have adopted the defence arguments in its MR.

It found the kids guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt despite Massei's prejudices against African immigrant Rudy, which you yourself point out
What in the name of goodness are you smoking? I'd ask for a cite where I'd said this, but there isn't one. You just make things up.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
, thus it is bound to adopt the prosecution's arguments in the MR, yet it was quite capable of unveiling its own variation of 'motive, which it decreed was a 'futile' one.

In other words, a senseless act of depravity by sociopaths with no remorse, no feelings (except for themselves). Not even for each other.
Once again you cannot help yourself calling exonerated people sociopaths. Massei said no such thing - it comes purely from your overanxious imagination, in service as a surrogate for the mind that started this whole charade.

Six posts in thirty minutes and not a fact among them.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 10th August 2017 at 10:00 PM.
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 Back to Top
Old 10th August 2017, 10:00 PM   #480
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Quote me where I have said Mignini prosecuted them because he "didn't like them". Go on, Vix. Back up your claims (for a change). Of course, you won't because you can't. Par for the vixen course.

In the world of Vixen, writing

She only got a column in West Seattle Herald because of the 'novelty value' in having a mu notorious criminal from Seattle writing for them, and the newspaper owner's son got to get his leg over.

is only showing dislike for Amanda's "behavior" and not directed toward her personally. Really?

Personal attacks on Knox and Sollecito don't make me angry. I expect them from years of reading them from PGP. It's what they do. It's all they have left.
According to her own publicity, wasn't she supposed to be 'engaged to be married' to a rock star, Johnny Thunderstrike Sutherland at the time she was carrying on with the other guy?
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig

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 Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

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 10:57 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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.