ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

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


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

Reply
Old 5th November 2019, 03:02 PM   #81
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,128
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
TruthCalls, thanks for this excellent presentation.

Another point to be made is that if even one locus of the sample DNA profile does not have an allele matching the DNA of a suspect, then one must conclude that the DNA of the sample does NOT contain any contribution from that suspect. If the sample does not contain any contribution from that suspect, that sample does not constitute evidence against that suspect.

Under Interpretation B, accepting all apparent peaks with no minimum RFU threshold applied, alleles of Knox's DNA are not present at loci D7S820, D13S317, D195433, and VWA. Therefore, Knox's DNA does not contribute to sample 165B, and sample 165B cannot be considered evidence against Knox.

Furthermore, because of the improper methods of collection, which did not protect against contamination, used for Sample 165B, that sample cannot, under Italian law, be considered as evidence against anyone accused of the murder/rape of Meredith Kercher. This was the conclusion of the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation in their final acquittal of Knox and Sollecito.
In the first locus there were eleven and twelve STR's (=Knox), 29 and 30 in the second, eight and eleven in the third, nothing in the fourth and a possible of fifteen in the fifth. Ten out of sixteen loci have peaks that match Knox.

The odds against that happening at random are extremely remote.

Vinci would say it 'can't be considered' wouldn't he, but Pascali walked off the case shortly after his report was published. A common reason for lawyers doing this is that they no longer believe their client.
__________________
Then let the way appear, steps unto heav'n.
All that thou sendest me, in mercy giv'n.'
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 5th November 2019, 03:05 PM   #82
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,128
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Your misrepresentation of the facts has been fixed.




Um...no. There was no sheet. There was a pillow under Kercher's hips and a duvet over the body. Please try and get the facts straight.



That's what you assume. How would bits of paper imply a burglary?



I do believe you are confusing the bedroom door with the broken front door lock. Or are you saying the Guede wouldn't know how to lock a door with a key? Are you saying that Guede couldn't find a key in MK's purse? A purse that had Guede's DNA on it? Are you really saying Guede was that stupid?

,

Not according to the independent experts who found it highly indicative of contamination. Or the other many experts who agree with them. Or the SC judges.




LOL. "Safe and strong"? You do know that it was overturned by the appellate court precisely because it wasn't 'safe' or 'strong' for reasons laid out in the MR.



Ah....back to the desperate allegations of bent judges and interference from outside sources, I see. What? No claims of the mafia and Masons? At least that's progress.
Wrong again. You haven't read the court documents. Meredith's body was moved onto a sheet, police believe in order to attempt disposal.
__________________
Then let the way appear, steps unto heav'n.
All that thou sendest me, in mercy giv'n.'
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 5th November 2019, 03:06 PM   #83
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,174
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It's well known the Department of State got involved. It's why the pair were released.


Oh it may be "well known" in crapholes such as TJMK (yeah, right, true justice for Meredith Kercher...) that the US State Department was instrumental in "getting (Knox and Sollecito) released".

But in the real, non-Tin-Hat world of critical thinkers, Vixen, it's not "well known" at all. In fact, more than that, there's not one shred of evidence that the US State Dept had any influence whatsoever on the reasoning and verdict of the Marasca SC panel.

Of course, if you DO happen to possess credible, reliable evidence that the US State Department intervened to the extent that it was that department's intervention that "got the pair released", then please supply it not only to us here, but also to the world's media. I'm nigh-on certain that if indeed there were such evidence, it would make media headlines at least in the US, the UK and Italy.

On the other hand, if you don't possess such evidence (and I know you don't, because no such evidence exists), then maybe stop making ridiculous and entirely unsupportable claims such as this. One might even correctly call them lies, 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 03:10 PM   #84
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,174
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Wrong again. You haven't read the court documents. Meredith's body was moved onto a sheet, police believe in order to attempt disposal.


LMAO

"Police believe".

Where's this sheet then, Vixen? Was it the sheet that was found, in situ, on Kercher's bed as her bottom sheet? Did someone remove Kercher's bed's bottom sheet, place it on the floor, move Kercher's body onto the sheet, pull the body using the sheet, then move the body back off the sheet, and re-make the bed with the (almost blood-free, other than the imprint of Guede's knife) bottom sheet?

Or was it some other sheet, Vixen? If so, where is this other sheet? What happened to it? Where had it been originally? Evidence: you know, that rather important component.........
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 5th November 2019, 03:11 PM   #85
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,128
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Explain to me where she has lied, then. Remember, you are the one accusing her of being a liar.
Er, she's claiming nine out of her own loci would match Knox's PCR showing.

If you can't calculate that is a likely lie - especially with her being Italian and Knox German and no known relationship - the chances of the pair sharing nine pairs of alleles is a massive fib and utterly despicable in someone claiming to be acting in the role of an independent forensic expert witness. Designed to bring her profession into disrepute.
__________________
Then let the way appear, steps unto heav'n.
All that thou sendest me, in mercy giv'n.'
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 5th November 2019, 03:12 PM   #86
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,174
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
In the first locus there were eleven and twelve STR's (=Knox), 29 and 30 in the second, eight and eleven in the third, nothing in the fourth and a possible of fifteen in the fifth. Ten out of sixteen loci have peaks that match Knox.

The odds against that happening at random are extremely remote.

Vinci would say it 'can't be considered' wouldn't he, but Pascali walked off the case shortly after his report was published. A common reason for lawyers doing this is that they no longer believe their client.


I repeat:

Where's Knox's allele 9 at locus D7S820 then, Vixen?

I doubt you even begin to understand the implications of that allele not being present at that locus. But do have a go at it. (Hint: there are huge implications)
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 5th November 2019, 03:13 PM   #87
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,128
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Where's Knox's allele 9 at locus D7S820 then, Vixen?

I doubt you even begin to understand the implications of that allele not being present at that locus. But do have a go at it. (Hint: there are huge implications)
Not all DNA samples collected at a crime scene are complete. That's why courts have laid down minimum allele guidelines.
__________________
Then let the way appear, steps unto heav'n.
All that thou sendest me, in mercy giv'n.'
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 5th November 2019, 03:14 PM   #88
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,174
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Er, she's claiming nine out of her own loci would match Knox's PCR showing.

If you can't calculate that is a likely lie - especially with her being Italian and Knox German and no known relationship - the chances of the pair sharing nine pairs of alleles is a massive fib and utterly despicable in someone claiming to be acting in the role of an independent forensic expert witness. Designed to bring her profession into disrepute.



You STILL don't understand what this is all about.....

Vecchiotti is NOT talking about her DNA typing matching with Knox's.

Vecchiotti is talking about her DNA typing matching with the large admixture of real peaks, stutters and noise on the eGram, to a greater degree than Knox's "match".

Seriously - you still can't understand this?
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 5th November 2019, 03:16 PM   #89
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,128
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Oh it may be "well known" in crapholes such as TJMK (yeah, right, true justice for Meredith Kercher...) that the US State Department was instrumental in "getting (Knox and Sollecito) released".

But in the real, non-Tin-Hat world of critical thinkers, Vixen, it's not "well known" at all. In fact, more than that, there's not one shred of evidence that the US State Dept had any influence whatsoever on the reasoning and verdict of the Marasca SC panel.

Of course, if you DO happen to possess credible, reliable evidence that the US State Department intervened to the extent that it was that department's intervention that "got the pair released", then please supply it not only to us here, but also to the world's media. I'm nigh-on certain that if indeed there were such evidence, it would make media headlines at least in the US, the UK and Italy.

On the other hand, if you don't possess such evidence (and I know you don't, because no such evidence exists), then maybe stop making ridiculous and entirely unsupportable claims such as this. One might even correctly call them lies, Vixen.
There is an email from Hillary Clinton in one of Wikileaks' leaked Clinton emails in which she promised, I believe, Maria Cantwell, she would look into it.
__________________
Then let the way appear, steps unto heav'n.
All that thou sendest me, in mercy giv'n.'
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 5th November 2019, 03:17 PM   #90
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,128
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
LMAO

"Police believe".

Where's this sheet then, Vixen? Was it the sheet that was found, in situ, on Kercher's bed as her bottom sheet? Did someone remove Kercher's bed's bottom sheet, place it on the floor, move Kercher's body onto the sheet, pull the body using the sheet, then move the body back off the sheet, and re-make the bed with the (almost blood-free, other than the imprint of Guede's knife) bottom sheet?

Or was it some other sheet, Vixen? If so, where is this other sheet? What happened to it? Where had it been originally? Evidence: you know, that rather important component.........
It wasn't a bed sheet AIUI but some similar type of fabric or cloth.
__________________
Then let the way appear, steps unto heav'n.
All that thou sendest me, in mercy giv'n.'
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 5th November 2019, 03:18 PM   #91
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,174
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Not all DNA samples collected at a crime scene are complete. That's why courts have laid down minimum allele guidelines.


*sigh*

YOU. DO. NOT. UNDERSTAND. THIS.

If a certain locus is investigated and the allele of a given individual is NOT present, then one can more-or-less rule out that individual as a contributor.

Please, please, please, please, please...... try to read up and understand about DNA science and forensic DNA typing properly before writing any more. It's tiring having to correct and educate you so much. Thank you.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 03:20 PM   #92
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,174
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It wasn't a bed sheet AIUI but some similar type of fabric or cloth.


What???

YOU said "sheet".

Now you're saying "some similar type of fabric or cloth" (which, by the way, smells very much like backtracking bat guano).

So where IS this "similar type of fabric or cloth", Vixen? What is/was its provenance? Where's the actual evidence of its existence and its use?
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 5th November 2019, 03:21 PM   #93
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,128
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
You STILL don't understand what this is all about.....

Vecchiotti is NOT talking about her DNA typing matching with Knox's.

Vecchiotti is talking about her DNA typing matching with the large admixture of real peaks, stutters and noise on the eGram, to a greater degree than Knox's "match".

Seriously - you still can't understand this?
She would have to share the same alleles to share the same number of peaks at each allele. She has taken you for a ride. I despise 'scientists' who use their professions and long list of qualifications to get clients off criminal charges by pretending false authority.

Vecchiotti's DNA would NOT have shown up on the PCR, least of all at nine loci.
__________________
Then let the way appear, steps unto heav'n.
All that thou sendest me, in mercy giv'n.'
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 5th November 2019, 03:22 PM   #94
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,174
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
There is an email from Hillary Clinton in one of Wikileaks' leaked Clinton emails in which she promised, I believe, Maria Cantwell, she would look into it.


And this somehow equates to (or even supports) your previous claim, in which you clearly stated that it was the US State Department's intervention which was the reason why Knox and Sollecito got acquitted?????

More and more pitiful. Just stop.
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 5th November 2019, 03:23 PM   #95
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,174
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
She would have to share the same alleles to share the same number of peaks at each allele. She has taken you for a ride. I despise 'scientists' who use their professions and long list of qualifications to get clients off criminal charges by pretending false authority.

Vecchiotti's DNA would NOT have shown up on the PCR, least of all at nine loci.


Oh boy.

As I said.......
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 5th November 2019, 03:51 PM   #96
bagels
Master Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,187
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It's well known the Department of State got involved. It's why the pair were released.
They were released in 2011 by the Hellmann court.
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 5th November 2019, 04:18 PM   #97
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,409
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Fine, and that's specifically what we're addressing. No one can find where Stefanoni suggests it, including you, and Vinci clearly states it's not possible to conclude Amanda's profile is present (Stacy provided the actual passage from his report - I have the full report, OCR'd into docx and then translated, so I KNOW he doesn't claim it's there).

But really, we know you're wrong on this. The point is why did you post this diversion regarding Raffaele's DNA... that's just so uncool. Stay on topic and if you can't support your claim with facts then just own up to it and move on.
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It was Stefanoni who carried out the PCR tests. Under Italian law, defence lawyers are legally obliged to witness this testing so they cannot complain later.

Stefanoni's machine readings show very clearly, strong, high RFU peaks for Amanda Knox in 9 out of 16 loci and ten out of sixteen overall. It indicates very clearly Knox touched Meredith's bra clasp at some point.
Can you please try and respond to the actual topic instead of these ridiculous diversions? The topic was your claim that Vinci said Knox's DNA was on the bra hook. You have not, and cannot, quote Vinci saying so from the report you provided as 'proof'. Instead, I have quoted directly from it showing he clearly says the opposite. I'm having flashbacks to your denials that Knox was acquitted of the money/c card theft even though I provided the court documents clearly stating so.

If the evidence showed "very clearly Knox touched Meredith's bra clasp at some point", then why was this evidence never presented in court by the prosecution as part of their case? Face it, Vix. You are wrong about this. Just admit it and move on.

Quote:
Luckily for Knox nine or ten alleles is not considered 'legal standard' in Italy, although it would have been in the UK/USA.
Please cite the evidence for the highlighted part.

Hmmmmmmm....you got the second part of that claim wrong:

Quote:
Vinci said the DNA taken from Kercher's bra would not be admissible as evidence in a British or US court.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...hkercher-italy
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 5th November 2019, 04:21 PM   #98
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,365
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Ten out of sixteen of Knox' alleles were highlighted by the PCR machines and the RFU's were high.

Vecchiotti claiming nine of hers would have also matched, shows her to be a corrupt liar, but then she knew that people like you would lap it up and actually believe it.
Wow, so you have Vecchiotti's DNA profile which you can produce here to prove she is lying? Or could this be just another one of your baseless claims pulled from your nether region?

Apparently you didn't understand the chart I posted, so let me refresh your memory;

Using the values cited in the RTIGF there were NO ALLELES unique to Amanda. In other words, ALL alleles matched either Meredith's or Raffaele's profile.

Using all peaks on the egram 50 RFU or above there are three alleles unique to Amanda. That yields a big fat ZERO on DNA probability.

What's clear to me is you have NO comprehension of DNA analysis, you have NO idea of what the peak values were and you're making up conclusions that are not supported by the lab results. Stefanoni did NOT testify Amanda's profile was on the clasp. Vinci did NOT conclude in his report that Amanda's profile as on the clasp. Balding stated Amanda's profile is not on the clasp. In fact, here's an excerpt from an article on the subject, which quotes Balding.

Quote:
Weak, noisy and incomplete: it’s easy to see why the genetic profiles constructed from tiny traces of crime scene DNA can fail to meet the high standards needed for criminal courts. But these low-template DNA (LTDNA) profiles could prove useful, thanks to new software.

Forensic scientists can now construct a partial DNA profile from just a few cells, says David Balding at University College London. However, natural contamination from DNA in the environment, together with the fact that it is impossible to build a complete genetic profile from so few cells, means that interpreting LTDNA evidence is challenging. Consequently, court cases where it plays a central role – such as the trial of Amanda Knox for the murder of Meredith Kercher – often become controversial.

That largely reflects a lack of proper statistical techniques to handle the data, Balding says. His software is a step towards improving that.

It compares a full DNA profile of a suspect with an incomplete DNA profile found at a crime scene. By incorporating factors such as the natural decay of a DNA sample, or the presence of DNA from another person entirely, the software can provide a probability score that a suspect was at the crime scene. Using the software on a sample from a bra clasp found near Kercher’s body suggests it is very unlikely that the item carries Knox’s DNA. Italy’s supreme court ruled in June that Knox and her then-boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, acquitted in 2011, should be retried for the murder.

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article...#ixzz64RqQHaVe
How about, instead of making baseless claims without a shred of data to support it, or posting long, rambling, senseless 'experiments', how about you post the actual data that supports anything you've claimed in this post. I won't hold my breath.

Last edited by TruthCalls; 5th November 2019 at 04:23 PM.
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 5th November 2019, 04:26 PM   #99
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,174
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Can you please try and respond to the actual topic instead of these ridiculous diversions? The topic was your claim that Vinci said Knox's DNA was on the bra hook. You have not, and cannot, quote Vinci saying so from the report you provided as 'proof'. Instead, I have quoted directly from it showing he clearly says the opposite. I'm having flashbacks to your denials that Knox was acquitted of the money/c card theft even though I provided the court documents clearly stating so.

If the evidence showed "very clearly Knox touched Meredith's bra clasp at some point", then why was this evidence never presented in court by the prosecution as part of their case? Face it, Vix. You are wrong about this. Just admit it and move on.



Please cite the evidence for the highlighted part.

Hmmmmmmm....you got the second part of that claim wrong:


https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...hkercher-italy


Vinci was actually (correctly) stating that the entire bra clasp's worth of DNA would be inadmissible in UK or US courts, owing to the combination of low-template quantities and the clear and obvious contamination issue (which also had the effect of creating so many peaks and stutters that it became exponentially more difficult to match any individual with any reasonable level of reliability).

But the Italian courts (at that time, at least) seemingly looked at all this on an ad hoc basis, with no ground rules drawn up for what would and would not be admissible. And when you add into that the unlawful propensity for the lower courts to take the prosecution case as the default narrative - with the defence needing actively to disprove elements of the prosecution case before their (the defence's) view was taken into consideration - the bra clasp fiasco was (unfortunately and unjustly) a foregone conclusion in courts such as Massei's and Nencini's.

But fortunately, Marasca's SC Panel (and Hellmann before that, let's not forget) was more scientifically objective, more enlightened, and more determined to actually follow Italian law......
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 5th November 2019, 04:31 PM   #100
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,409
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Vinci was a defence expert and handsomely paid to refute any evidence against his client. That is his job as a defence witness.
If that is how you think it works, then you must also apply that philosophy to the prosecution experts. So, it follows that:

Rinaldi, Boemia, Norelli, Introna, et al were prosecution experts and handsomely paid to refute any evidence not supporting the prosecution. That is their job as prosecution witnesses.

Have you ever stopped to consider how ridiculous it is to think that all these professionals are so corrupt that they'll lie under oath? That money is more important to them than losing their reputations and careers and quite possibly going to prison for perjury?
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 5th November 2019, 05:02 PM   #101
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,409
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
There is an email from Hillary Clinton in one of Wikileaks' leaked Clinton emails in which she promised, I believe, Maria Cantwell, she would look into it.
LOL!
Cantwell was very open about her concerns over the case. She posted about it on her Congressional Website on Dec. 04, 2009, including that she was going to request Clinton look into it.

Quote:
I will be conveying my concerns to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
https://www.cantwell.senate.gov/news...guilty-verdict

From that you make the gigantic and ridiculous leap to Clinton pressuring Italy to clear Knox.

Where is this alleged email from Clinton saying "she'll look into it", Vixen? I'd ask you to produce it, but why waste my time? We both know the outcome.

This is the problem with so many PGP; they take a tidbit of info and twist it into anything they want without evidence. Intellectual dishonesty.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 5th November 2019 at 05:29 PM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 05:07 PM   #102
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,409
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It wasn't a bed sheet AIUI but some similar type of fabric or cloth.
It wasn't only not a sheet, it wasn't any kind of fabric or cloth at all. I suggest you take your own advice and read the court testimony of what the police and coroner found, Vix. They mention nothing of the sort. They describe a pillow under her hips and a duvet over her. No sheet or other cloth/fabric outside of clothing is included.
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 5th November 2019, 05:23 PM   #103
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,409
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It was Stefanoni who carried out the PCR tests. Under Italian law, defence lawyers are legally obliged to witness this testing so they cannot complain later.

Stefanoni's machine readings show very clearly, strong, high RFU peaks for Amanda Knox in 9 out of 16 loci and ten out of sixteen overall. It indicates very clearly Knox touched Meredith's bra clasp at some point.

Luckily for Knox nine or ten alleles is not considered 'legal standard' in Italy, although it would have been in the UK/USA.
Please provide a citation for the highlighted part, especially the legal standard for admissibility in Italy pre-2015.
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 6th November 2019, 12:56 AM   #104
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,128
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Can you please try and respond to the actual topic instead of these ridiculous diversions? The topic was your claim that Vinci said Knox's DNA was on the bra hook. You have not, and cannot, quote Vinci saying so from the report you provided as 'proof'. Instead, I have quoted directly from it showing he clearly says the opposite. I'm having flashbacks to your denials that Knox was acquitted of the money/c card theft even though I provided the court documents clearly stating so.

If the evidence showed "very clearly Knox touched Meredith's bra clasp at some point", then why was this evidence never presented in court by the prosecution as part of their case? Face it, Vix. You are wrong about this. Just admit it and move on.



Please cite the evidence for the highlighted part.

Hmmmmmmm....you got the second part of that claim wrong:


https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...hkercher-italy
As you were told nine to ten alleles is not sufficient legal standard in Italy but would be in the UK or the USA.

Vinci did indeed say the DNA on the 'bra cloth with hook' was compatible with Knox - referring to the hook:

Here is his conclusion on pages 11-12.

Quote:

'in particulari questi profili genetici risultano compatibili con alcuni marcatori attributi a Amanda Knox e Rudy Guede'

English translation:

Quote:
'in particular these genetic profiles are compatible with some markers attributed to Amanda Knox and Rudy Guede
And this is the DEFENCE talking.

No doubt you and London John will be coming along shortly to offer up an 'alternative universe' explanation for this.
__________________
Then let the way appear, steps unto heav'n.
All that thou sendest me, in mercy giv'n.'
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 6th November 2019, 01:07 AM   #105
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,128
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Wow, so you have Vecchiotti's DNA profile which you can produce here to prove she is lying? Or could this be just another one of your baseless claims pulled from your nether region?

Apparently you didn't understand the chart I posted, so let me refresh your memory;

Using the values cited in the RTIGF there were NO ALLELES unique to Amanda. In other words, ALL alleles matched either Meredith's or Raffaele's profile.

Using all peaks on the egram 50 RFU or above there are three alleles unique to Amanda. That yields a big fat ZERO on DNA probability.

What's clear to me is you have NO comprehension of DNA analysis, you have NO idea of what the peak values were and you're making up conclusions that are not supported by the lab results. Stefanoni did NOT testify Amanda's profile was on the clasp. Vinci did NOT conclude in his report that Amanda's profile as on the clasp. Balding stated Amanda's profile is not on the clasp. In fact, here's an excerpt from an article on the subject, which quotes Balding.



How about, instead of making baseless claims without a shred of data to support it, or posting long, rambling, senseless 'experiments', how about you post the actual data that supports anything you've claimed in this post. I won't hold my breath.
Stefanoni did not testify in court the nine to ten alleles of Knox on the bra clasp because being the conscientious strictly professional individual she is, she stuck to the accepted legal and scientific standards of evidence and gave the criminal court of law what a criminal court of law demanded: a high standard of proof near to 99.9% significance.

It proves conclusively she was not 'out to get Knox and Sollecito' and 'tampered with the evidence'.
__________________
Then let the way appear, steps unto heav'n.
All that thou sendest me, in mercy giv'n.'
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 6th November 2019, 01:19 AM   #106
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,128
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
If that is how you think it works, then you must also apply that philosophy to the prosecution experts. So, it follows that:

Rinaldi, Boemia, Norelli, Introna, et al were prosecution experts and handsomely paid to refute any evidence not supporting the prosecution. That is their job as prosecution witnesses.

Have you ever stopped to consider how ridiculous it is to think that all these professionals are so corrupt that they'll lie under oath? That money is more important to them than losing their reputations and careers and quite possibly going to prison for perjury?
Rubbish: they were all members of staff and just earned their regular salary or consultant fees.

People like Gill and Douglas go into Defence forensics because they know that an individual accused of a serious crime that means a long time in prison or even the death penalty (which Knox , Guede and Sollecito would certainly have got in Washington state, or the alternative life-means-life in a hard tough penitentiary) will pay any amount of money to get off the rap. These privately hired defense scientists can earn an absolute fortune presenting their client as 'innocent' and with a view to getting some of the compensation money if their reputation - for which they are hired for and receive extortionate fees - manages to swing it and successfully plant the seed of doubt in the jury or court's mind.


I don't know if you ever saw Wolf of Wall Street but there is a scene in which Di Caprio is lounging about in his luxury yacht when he is approached by the FBI guys who are on his tail. He throws dollar bills at them sneering that he is rolling in wealth whilst they are on bum FBI wages.

You can be sure Bongionor, Dalla Vedova, Maori, Vecchiotti and Conti (I wonder how much they got paid to be in the Netflix movie?) were all in it for the money squeezing every last dollar and cent out of Knox and her chum.
__________________
Then let the way appear, steps unto heav'n.
All that thou sendest me, in mercy giv'n.'
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 6th November 2019, 01:24 AM   #107
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,128
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
LOL!
Cantwell was very open about her concerns over the case. She posted about it on her Congressional Website on Dec. 04, 2009, including that she was going to request Clinton look into it.


https://www.cantwell.senate.gov/news...guilty-verdict

From that you make the gigantic and ridiculous leap to Clinton pressuring Italy to clear Knox.

Where is this alleged email from Clinton saying "she'll look into it", Vixen? I'd ask you to produce it, but why waste my time? We both know the outcome.

This is the problem with so many PGP; they take a tidbit of info and twist it into anything they want without evidence. Intellectual dishonesty.
So, we have estabished:

1. You didn't know about the body being lifted onto a sheet

2. That Wikileaks did indeed release an email from Hillary Clinton re Amanda Knox into the public domain.
__________________
Then let the way appear, steps unto heav'n.
All that thou sendest me, in mercy giv'n.'
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 6th November 2019, 01:37 AM   #108
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,128
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Vinci was actually (correctly) stating that the entire bra clasp's worth of DNA would be inadmissible in UK or US courts, owing to the combination of low-template quantities and the clear and obvious contamination issue (which also had the effect of creating so many peaks and stutters that it became exponentially more difficult to match any individual with any reasonable level of reliability).

But the Italian courts (at that time, at least) seemingly looked at all this on an ad hoc basis, with no ground rules drawn up for what would and would not be admissible. And when you add into that the unlawful propensity for the lower courts to take the prosecution case as the default narrative - with the defence needing actively to disprove elements of the prosecution case before their (the defence's) view was taken into consideration - the bra clasp fiasco was (unfortunately and unjustly) a foregone conclusion in courts such as Massei's and Nencini's.

But fortunately, Marasca's SC Panel (and Hellmann before that, let's not forget) was more scientifically objective, more enlightened, and more determined to actually follow Italian law......
Italy was one of the founder members of ENFSI which all of the European courts adhere to.
__________________
Then let the way appear, steps unto heav'n.
All that thou sendest me, in mercy giv'n.'
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 6th November 2019, 05:28 AM   #109
Disbelief
Master Poster
 
Disbelief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,651
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Rubbish: they were all members of staff and just earned their regular salary or consultant fees.

People like Gill and Douglas go into Defence forensics because they know that an individual accused of a serious crime that means a long time in prison or even the death penalty (which Knox , Guede and Sollecito would certainly have got in Washington state, or the alternative life-means-life in a hard tough penitentiary) will pay any amount of money to get off the rap. These privately hired defense scientists can earn an absolute fortune presenting their client as 'innocent' and with a view to getting some of the compensation money if their reputation - for which they are hired for and receive extortionate fees - manages to swing it and successfully plant the seed of doubt in the jury or court's mind.


I don't know if you ever saw Wolf of Wall Street but there is a scene in which Di Caprio is lounging about in his luxury yacht when he is approached by the FBI guys who are on his tail. He throws dollar bills at them sneering that he is rolling in wealth whilst they are on bum FBI wages.

You can be sure Bongionor, Dalla Vedova, Maori, Vecchiotti and Conti (I wonder how much they got paid to be in the Netflix movie?) were all in it for the money squeezing every last dollar and cent out of Knox and her chum.
So if you were an expert, how much would it cost to buy you off? What would be your asking price? How much to throw your career and reputation out the window?
__________________
Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same?

Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman
Disbelief 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 6th November 2019, 06:38 AM   #110
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,368
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
How about, instead of making baseless claims without a shred of data to support it, or posting long, rambling, senseless 'experiments', how about you post the actual data that supports anything you've claimed in this post. I won't hold my breath.
Guilter-nutters are long on claims and short on data.

Like the prosecution(s) and the convicting courts.
__________________
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 6th November 2019, 09:36 AM   #111
AnimalFriendly
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 169
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Rubbish: they were all members of staff and just earned their regular salary or consultant fees.
Perhaps Vix would care to divulge exactly how she "knows" what they "earned".

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
People like Gill and Douglas go into Defence forensics
I wonder if it ever occurred to Vix that "people like Gill & Dougas" have in all probability lent their expertise to, and testified for, prosecutors. Nah...probably not.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
will pay any amount of money to get off the rap.
No, most "individuals" won't do any such thing because most don't have the money with which to do so.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You can be sure Bongionor, Dalla Vedova, Maori, Vecchiotti and Conti (I wonder how much they got paid to be in the Netflix movie?) were all in it for the money squeezing every last dollar and cent out of Knox and her chum.
I wonder if Vix is "in" whatever job it is that she currently manages to hold "for the money". As for anyone getting paid for appearing in the Netflix documentary (learn the difference, Vix), since Knox wasn't, I doubt if anyone else was. But if some knowledgeable, i.e., non-Vix, person knows better, please correct me.
AnimalFriendly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2019, 10:44 AM   #112
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,365
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Stefanoni did not testify in court the nine to ten alleles of Knox on the bra clasp because being the conscientious strictly professional individual she is, she stuck to the accepted legal and scientific standards of evidence and gave the criminal court of law what a criminal court of law demanded: a high standard of proof near to 99.9% significance.

It proves conclusively she was not 'out to get Knox and Sollecito' and 'tampered with the evidence'.
Geezus Vixen, how many times must this be repeated before it sinks in???

EVEN if we use ALL peaks 50 RFU and above, there are only 3 (as in THREE) alleles that are unique to Amanda. There are 10 alleles that Amanda and Meredith share, and since we know Meredith's DNA is on the clasp, those are alleles you can NOT attribute to Amanda. Three more are shared by Raffaele, three more shared with Guede. So that's six more you also can NOT attribute to Amanda. That leaves you with 3 (THREE). Three alleles out of 30 (THIRTY). Is this sinking in yet?

Are you deliberately trying to make me throw up? "...being the conscientious strictly professional individual she is..."???? No Vixen, no one - including Stefanoni - attempted to suggest Amanda's DNA was on the clasp because it is all but definitively proven it is not. Why? Because aside from there being only 3 alleles unique to Amanda's profile detected, there are 11 that are missing. Do you understand the significance of this or does this too need to be spelled out for you?
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 6th November 2019, 11:04 AM   #113
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,409
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Can you please try and respond to the actual topic instead of these ridiculous diversions? The topic was your claim that Vinci said Knox's DNA was on the bra hook. You have not, and cannot, quote Vinci saying so from the report you provided as 'proof'. Instead, I have quoted directly from it showing he clearly says the opposite. I'm having flashbacks to your denials that Knox was acquitted of the money/c card theft even though I provided the court documents clearly stating so.

If the evidence showed "very clearly Knox touched Meredith's bra clasp at some point", then why was this evidence never presented in court by the prosecution as part of their case? Face it, Vix. You are wrong about this. Just admit it and move on.



Please cite the evidence for the highlighted part.

Hmmmmmmm....you got the second part of that claim wrong:


https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...hkercher-italy
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
As you were told nine to ten alleles is not sufficient legal standard in Italy but would be in the UK or the USA.
I asked for a citation, which once again, you have failed to produce that "nine to ten alleles is not sufficient legal standard in Italy but would be in the UK or the USA". Need I post again your own words regarding where the onus of proof lies, Vix? "As you have been told" does not meet even the minimum requirement of proof.


Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
did indeed say the DNA on the 'bra cloth with hook' was compatible with Knox - referring to the hook:
Correct! He said it was COMPATIBLE WITH SOME MARKERS...which does not mean it was Knox's DNA! This has been explained to you over and over again. Even that PGP favorite, Balding, has said his software shows it's not Knox's DNA on the clasp.

Here is his conclusion on pages 11-12.


Quote:
Quote:

'in particulari questi profili genetici risultano compatibili con alcuni marcatori attributi a Amanda Knox e Rudy Guede'
English translation:

Quote:
Quote:
'in particular these genetic profiles are compatible with some markers attributed to Amanda Knox and Rudy Guede
And this is the DEFENCE talking.

No doubt you and London John will be coming along shortly to offer up an 'alternative universe' explanation for this.[/quote]

How conveniently you cherry pick what you think supports your case when, in reality, it does not. You ignore Vinci's ultimate conclusion:

Quote:
Ultimately, given the extreme interpretative complexity of the trace in question which is made up of a single mixture of different DNA, where in addition to a major component (that of the victim) there are other male and female minor components (in turn present in different concentrations), therefore an unequivocal interpretation is impossible or at least extremely random; therefore it is to be considered that this trace is not absolutely usable for evidentiary purposes.

So tell me, Vix, exactly where does Vinci say that KNOX'S DNA IS ON THE BRA HOOK?


HINT: He doesn't. Which. Is. Why. You. Cannot. Quote. Him. Saying. So.
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 6th November 2019, 12:07 PM   #114
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,409
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Rubbish: they were all members of staff and just earned their regular salary or consultant fees.
In other words, they got paid to testify for the prosecution just as the defense experts were paid to testify. Norelli, Introna, Liviero, Marchionni were not "on staff"; they were private consultants just as the defense experts were. You have no idea how much any of these experts were paid, defense or prosecution so your claim is completely unsupported.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
People like Gill and Douglas go into Defence forensics because they know that an individual accused of a serious crime that means a long time in prison or even the death penalty (which Knox , Guede and Sollecito would certainly have got in Washington state, or the alternative life-means-life in a hard tough penitentiary) will pay any amount of money to get off the rap. These privately hired defense scientists can earn an absolute fortune presenting their client as 'innocent' and with a view to getting some of the compensation money if their reputation - for which they are hired for and receive extortionate fees - manages to swing it and successfully plant the seed of doubt in the jury or court's mind.
The above is beyond ridiculous in so many ways. "Defence forensics"? LOL. Are forensics different for the defense than for the prosecution?
Douglas? He isn't a forensic expert; he was an FBI profiler.
Your entire paragraph is simply made up nonsense.


Quote:
I don't know if you ever saw Wolf of Wall Street but there is a scene in which Di Caprio is lounging about in his luxury yacht when he is approached by the FBI guys who are on his tail. He throws dollar bills at them sneering that he is rolling in wealth whilst they are on bum FBI wages.
Really? You bring up a movie scene as some kind of evidence of your ridiculous claim above? ROTFLMAO!

Quote:
You can be sure Bongionor, Dalla Vedova, Maori, Vecchiotti and Conti (I wonder how much they got paid to be in the Netflix movie?) were all in it for the money squeezing every last dollar and cent out of Knox and her chum.
BWAAAHAAAAHAAAAA! How much was Mignini paid?

Do you have evidence that ANYONE was paid to appear in the documentary? No, of course you don't. Stop making crap up, Vixen.
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 6th November 2019, 12:23 PM   #115
whoanellie
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 532
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Geezus Vixen, how many times must this be repeated before it sinks in???
.
.
.
Do you understand the significance of this or does this too need to be spelled out for you?
Vixen does not understand the difference between DNA and protein. She thinks cells are components of a nucleus. She thinks males have 2 Y chromosomes. She will never understand the significance of the points you are making.
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 6th November 2019, 12:40 PM   #116
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,409
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
LOL!
Cantwell was very open about her concerns over the case. She posted about it on her Congressional Website on Dec. 04, 2009, including that she was going to request Clinton look into it.


https://www.cantwell.senate.gov/news...guilty-verdict

From that you make the gigantic and ridiculous leap to Clinton pressuring Italy to clear Knox.

Where is this alleged email from Clinton saying "she'll look into it", Vixen? I'd ask you to produce it, but why waste my time? We both know the outcome.

This is the problem with so many PGP; they take a tidbit of info and twist it into anything they want without evidence. Intellectual dishonesty.
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
RaffaeleSollecito's full DNA profile on the bra clasp hook where it was bent out of shape and found under the body, under a sheet - which was used to move the victim across the floor, itself under a duvet (placed there by a perp) which had paper scattered on top of it to imply a burglary (paradoxically after the murder) and the room firmly locked by a perp (and we all know who knew about locking it and where the key was kept) is a particularly strong piece of hard objective evidence against him, which together with all the other evidence, resulted in a strong, safe conviction after a very long fair trial, overturned only by a three-day paper-only court with a dodgy judge and interference from Hillary Clinton's US State Department and funds from Donald Trump to help Knox.
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
So, we have estabished:

1. You didn't know about the body being lifted onto a sheet

2. That Wikileaks did indeed release an email from Hillary Clinton re Amanda Knox into the public domain.
1. In what world has that been established, Vixen? No one testified there was a sheet under Kercher. NO ONE. Which is why you cannot produce it. ALL accounts state that Kercher lay under a duvet/quilt with a pillow beneath her hips. No mention of a sheet at all except the one on the bed. Why do you have such difficulty admitting you are just plain wrong?

2. Good lord. Can you produce this email? No. Can you provide evidence that Wikileaks released said email? No. Can you provide evidence of any email sent from Clinton to Cantwell? No. Can you provide evidence that the US State Dept. influenced, or attempted to influence, the outcome of any of the trials? No.
For most people that would be enough to stop claiming otherwise. For most people.

ETA: Even IF such an email exists, Clinton saying she'd 'look into it' is not evidence that Clinton or the State Dept. attempted to interfere in the trials in any way.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 6th November 2019 at 12:51 PM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2019, 01:15 PM   #117
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,409
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Stefanoni did not testify in court the nine to ten alleles of Knox on the bra clasp because being the conscientious strictly professional individual she is, she stuck to the accepted legal and scientific standards of evidence and gave the criminal court of law what a criminal court of law demanded: a high standard of proof near to 99.9% significance.

It proves conclusively she was not 'out to get Knox and Sollecito' and 'tampered with the evidence'.
Would you care to explain how this "strictly professional individual" could simply 'forget' to report several TMB negative tests on the luminol prints? Tests that were extremely important because they showed the prints were not in blood as the prosecution claimed? Prints that she repeatedly referred to as being 'luminol revealed" which, for many people, incorrectly means blood is present?

Would you care to explain why this "strictly professional individual" failed to change her gloves between handling pieces of evidence as the video proves?


Would you care to explain why this "strictly professional individual" failed to collect the bra clasp on Nov 2 when it was originally found?


Would you care to explain why this "strictly professional individual" failed to collect the bloody jacket the victim was wearing during the murder or her purse, socks and shoes on Nov. 2?
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 6th November 2019, 01:18 PM   #118
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,128
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
1. In what world has that been established, Vixen? No one testified there was a sheet under Kercher. NO ONE. Which is why you cannot produce it. ALL accounts state that Kercher lay under a duvet/quilt with a pillow beneath her hips. No mention of a sheet at all except the one on the bed. Why do you have such difficulty admitting you are just plain wrong?

2. Good lord. Can you produce this email? No. Can you provide evidence that Wikileaks released said email? No. Can you provide evidence of any email sent from Clinton to Cantwell? No. Can you provide evidence that the US State Dept. influenced, or attempted to influence, the outcome of any of the trials? No.
For most people that would be enough to stop claiming otherwise. For most people.

ETA: Even IF such an email exists, Clinton saying she'd 'look into it' is not evidence that Clinton or the State Dept. attempted to interfere in the trials in any way.
What am I, your nanny?

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/23135

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...anda-Knox.html
__________________
Then let the way appear, steps unto heav'n.
All that thou sendest me, in mercy giv'n.'
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 6th November 2019, 02:02 PM   #119
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,365
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Vixen, I'm confused. Stacy asked you; "Where is this alleged email from Clinton saying "she'll look into it", Vixen?" The email you've linked to is in reference to HarperCollins getting the rights to Amanda's memoir. It has nothing to do with Clinton saying she'd look into it. What am I missing?
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 6th November 2019, 02:35 PM   #120
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 17,128
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Vixen, I'm confused. Stacy asked you; "Where is this alleged email from Clinton saying "she'll look into it", Vixen?" The email you've linked to is in reference to HarperCollins getting the rights to Amanda's memoir. It has nothing to do with Clinton saying she'd look into it. What am I missing?
You're the self-professed IT boffin. You show Stacyhs how to research the internet.
__________________
Then let the way appear, steps unto heav'n.
All that thou sendest me, in mercy giv'n.'
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 12:53 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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

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