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

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


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

Reply
Old 8th November 2018, 10:27 AM   #1721
NotEvenWrong
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 825
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Oh, but I thought you said the DNA was there through secondary transfer?

Make up you mind.
Vixen,
Guede and Raffaele are different people who have different DNA. No point in lumping them together. Unless you're trying to make some idiotic argument, then I could see the purpose in that.

Rudy's DNA was there through direct transfer during the murder. We know this because of the quantity collected and the fact he didn't live in the house -- the only time he was present in the cottage was during the murder.

Raffaele's DNA only showed up on a bra clasp that was known to be contaminated. It didn't show up at all during the first sweep of the murder room. He had been to the house on multiple occasions, meaning his DNA was at the scene prior to the murder making secondary transfer possible.

Amanda's was never found in the murder room. Found in other areas of the house, of course, because she lived there and people kinda deposit DNA in places they live, ya know.

See the differences? Not coincidentally, this interpretation is consistent with all of the other evidence, the scientific method, and proper forensic practice in general.

This is why intelligent people have known for a really long time now that there was no Samhain murder ritual involving 3 people who didn't know each other, and *gasp* the burgler did it by himself.
NotEvenWrong 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 8th November 2018, 10:50 AM   #1722
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,604
Originally Posted by NotEvenWrong View Post
Raffaele's DNA only showed up on a bra clasp that was known to be contaminated. It didn't show up at all during the first sweep of the murder room. He had been to the house on multiple occasions, meaning his DNA was at the scene prior to the murder making secondary transfer possible.

Amanda's was never found in the murder room. Found in other areas of the house, of course, because she lived there and people kinda deposit DNA in places they live, ya know.

See the differences? Not coincidentally, this interpretation is consistent with all of the other evidence, the scientific method, and proper forensic practice in general.

This is why intelligent people have known for a really long time now that there was no Samhain murder ritual involving 3 people who didn't know each other, and *gasp* the burgler did it by himself.
The Scientific Police even photographed themselves collecting the bra-clasp - first picking it up with obviously dirty gloves, then replacing it onto the floor so that they could get a picture of where it had been picked up from - sterling, first-class forensic practice....
The reason for the constant reposting of this pic is because of the constant claim from remaining nutters, that "there was an abundance of Raffaele's DNA found on the clasp."

This is why the Italian Supreme Court exonerated the pair in 2015, with this rationale.....
Quote:
Nevertheless, even if attribution (of Knox having had blood on her hands) is certain, the trial element would not be unequivocal as a demonstration of posthumous contact with that blood, as a likely attempt to remove the most blatant traces of what had happened, perhaps to help someone or deflect suspicion from herself, without this entailing her certain direct involvement in the murder. Any further and more meaningful value would be, in fact, resisted by the fact - which is decisive - that no trace leading to her was found at the scene of the crime or on the victim’s body, so that - if all the above is accepted - her contact with the victim’s blood would have occurred after the crime and in another part of the house.
This, too, will be repeated every time some nutter makes a claim other wise.
__________________
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 8th November 2018, 12:48 PM   #1723
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,556
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Wow, that was pretty despicable, even for you.
I wonder if Vixen can figure out why not a single person in this group has agreed with her twisted interpretation of my post regarding the Kerchers.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 12:52 PM   #1724
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 14,274
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Really? And you base this on what? Surely not on Stefanoni's court testimony, as she repeatedly claimed to not have the numbers. When asked to clarify the quantity of DNA she responded;



She also testified that the DNA sample contained six times more DNA from Meredith than Raffaele.


We can then apply basic math. 1ng / 7 = 142.8pg. According to Promega (top google hit for LCN definition) LCN is;


Again, using basic math we can conclude that 142.8pg fits within the range of "<100-200pg", ergo the amount of Raffaele's DNA in the sample falls within the definition of LCN. The total sample, which was a mixed sample, was not LCN but then, no one ever said it was.

So now, I realize we've been to this movie a few times now, but would you care to explain what Stefanoni got wrong, or where my math is going wrong or, perhaps what's wrong with Promega's LCN definition. Thanks.
I have lost the will...
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 12:55 PM   #1725
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 14,274
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Much of the media coverage kept referring to the jacket as a sweatshirt which would be technically incorrect it it were a tracksuit jacket. However, Sophie referred to it as a light blue jacket with a hood. TMoMK mistranslated what Sophie actually said in her testimony.

TMoMK:

S. Purton's testimony:

Google translation: Of jeans I would say quite large, a light blue jacket, light blue with a hood, I think it was Adidas.

No mention of a sweatshirt AND a jacket from Sophie. Also no mention of a sweatshirt in the police report, either.

In the Massei MR it says Robyn Butterworth described MK as wearing
I often wear a tracksuit top with a hood indoors in winter.

Outdoor clothing is a 100% pure wool trench coat.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 01:21 PM   #1726
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,556
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
FYI Mez was NOT 'still wearing her outdoor clothing'. She had on a t-shirt and a vest.
Do you deny that MK wore her tracksuit style jacket OUTSIDE when she walked to her friends' apartment on Nov. 1?

Do you deny that the Brit girls did not include any other kind of coat or jacket in their testimony of what MK wore that day/night?

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I often wear a tracksuit top with a hood indoors in winter.
No one has said a tracksuit jacket cannot be worn inside. But only you would claim a tracksuit jacket, jeans, and a t-shirt are not outdoor clothing.

I see you ignore the fact that she had not turned on the heat. If she were still so cold that she was wearing her outdoor clothes 2 to 2 1/2 hours after arriving home and at 11:00-11:30 at night, then she would have turned on the heat. Additionally, she left her friends' apt. at 9:00 because she was tired after partying until dawn that morning. Yet you think she was still up 2 hours later, fully clothed in her day clothes on a cold winter night home alone.

Quote:
Outdoor clothing is a 100% pure wool trench coat.
That is one of them most bizarre things I've ever read. Not even you can believe that.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 01:22 PM   #1727
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,556
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I have lost the will argument...
FIFY
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 02:04 PM   #1728
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,604
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I wonder if Vixen can figure out why not a single person in this group has agreed with her twisted interpretation of my post regarding the Kerchers.
Vixen has ignored it, and cycled back to other long since debunked things.

Don't worry, the one consistent thing is her appropriation of intimacy of the victim's family. That's the real creepy part.
__________________
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 8th November 2018, 02:16 PM   #1729
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,692
I would agree that a hoodie is perfectly normal indoor wear. However, this was November and it would be pretty unusual for someone to be out well after dark without any outer clothing on top of what they were wearing indoors, so for me the question is, was this "hooded jacket" something she was wearing on top of her indoor clothes, or was she, very unusually, not wearing an outer jacket of any sort despite the season?

The trainers are another point. It's very unusual to come in and keep on outdoor footwear like trainers.

If she came in and was so cold she didn't want to take off her outdoor clothes for as much as a couple of hours, why not simply switch on the heating? It's either so balmy that you don't need the heating (but if so, why keep your outdoor clothes on?) or it's so chilly you don't want to take your jacket off (in which case, why not switch on the heating?) I presume the girls weren't so short of money that they routinely sat around in a cold house with their coats on because they couldn't afford to heat the place.

Even so, it's much cosier to take your trainers off and put on a pair of slippers.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe 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 8th November 2018, 02:51 PM   #1730
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,556
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I would agree that a hoodie is perfectly normal indoor wear. However, this was November and it would be pretty unusual for someone to be out well after dark without any outer clothing on top of what they were wearing indoors, so for me the question is, was this "hooded jacket" something she was wearing on top of her indoor clothes, or was she, very unusually, not wearing an outer jacket of any sort despite the season?

The trainers are another point. It's very unusual to come in and keep on outdoor footwear like trainers.

If she came in and was so cold she didn't want to take off her outdoor clothes for as much as a couple of hours, why not simply switch on the heating? It's either so balmy that you don't need the heating (but if so, why keep your outdoor clothes on?) or it's so chilly you don't want to take your jacket off (in which case, why not switch on the heating?) I presume the girls weren't so short of money that they routinely sat around in a cold house with their coats on because they couldn't afford to heat the place.

Even so, it's much cosier to take your trainers off and put on a pair of slippers.
According to Sophie Purton and one of the other girls (Bidwell?), Kercher was not wearing any other coat except for the tracksuit style jacket.
Kercher left for the Brit girls' apartment around 4:00 when it wasn't as cold so only wore the lighter jacket. Vixen would have us believe that jacket wasn't "outdoor" clothing.

Not only was she still wearing her trainers, but the prosecution and the PGP want us to believe Kercher still had her bra on at 11:00-11:30 PM. I find that extremely unlikely. Every woman I know, including myself, would have taken her bra off long before.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 03:04 PM   #1731
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 14,274
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I would agree that a hoodie is perfectly normal indoor wear. However, this was November and it would be pretty unusual for someone to be out well after dark without any outer clothing on top of what they were wearing indoors, so for me the question is, was this "hooded jacket" something she was wearing on top of her indoor clothes, or was she, very unusually, not wearing an outer jacket of any sort despite the season?

The trainers are another point. It's very unusual to come in and keep on outdoor footwear like trainers.

If she came in and was so cold she didn't want to take off her outdoor clothes for as much as a couple of hours, why not simply switch on the heating? It's either so balmy that you don't need the heating (but if so, why keep your outdoor clothes on?) or it's so chilly you don't want to take your jacket off (in which case, why not switch on the heating?) I presume the girls weren't so short of money that they routinely sat around in a cold house with their coats on because they couldn't afford to heat the place.

Even so, it's much cosier to take your trainers off and put on a pair of slippers.
For crying out loud. This was a twenty-one year old student in a grotty ticky-tacky apartment. No luxury pile carpet; draughts coming through the rattling single-glaze windows, etc. Only the middle-aged and upwards wear 'comfy slippers'! (Or, maybe Crocs, with white socks, if you're 37-year old ice hockey player.)

You can't possibly know 'she didn't turn on the heater'. More likely than not the persons who interfered with her body and locked her in her room reasoned it would delay discovery by keeping the temperature cold, hence the killer/s (someone who knew where all the switches were, too) was the most likely to have turned it off.

When I was that age I often went out scantily clad for the sake of fashion. Never felt the cold.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb

Last edited by Vixen; 8th November 2018 at 03:09 PM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 03:06 PM   #1732
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,692
I don't take my bra off until I'm undressing for bed. Wouldn't even occur to me.

It's not so much the nature of the "jacket" as the normal habit of putting something on as you leave the house, and taking it off as you come back in. Not in the heat of summer, obviously, but certainly in November. In a mild climate that something might easily be a light jacket though.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe 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 8th November 2018, 03:11 PM   #1733
Methos
Muse
 
Methos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 696
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Thanks for suppling this information about Charge D against Guede from the Micheli motivation report by means of your link:

"D)
del delitto di cui agli arrt. 110,624 C.P., perché, in concorso con KNOX AMANDA MARIE e SOLLECITO RAFFAELE, per procurarsi un ingiusto profitto, nelle circostanze di tempo e di luogo di cui ai capi A) e C), si impossessavano della somma di € 300,00 circa, di due carte di credito, della Abbey Bank e deila Nationwide, entrambe del Regno Unito, e di due telefoni cellulari, appartenenti a KERCHER MEREDITH, sottraendoli alla stessa che li deteneva."

In my post, I misstated that Guede had not been charged with the theft of the money. My error was that I had not examined the charges as listed in the Italian text, and relied on a translation that did not include the list of charges.

In fact, Guede had been charged and acquitted of all thefts, with the specification that he had not committed that crime.

The Google translation (with my help) of Charge D:

D)
of the crime referred to in Articles 110 [and] 624 [Criminal Code] CP, because, in concert with KNOX AMANDA MARIE and SOLLECITO RAFFAELE, to obtain an unfair profit, in the circumstances of time and place referred to in Charges A) and C), they took possession of the sum of about € 300.00, of two credit cards, from Abbey Bank and deila Nationwide, both from the United Kingdom, and two mobile phones belonging to KERCHER MEREDITH, taking them away from the person that [rightfully] held them.

The acquittal original text is:

"Assolve Guede Rudi Hermann dall'imputazione a lui ascritta al capo D), per non aver commesso il fatto"

which Google translates, with some help, to:

Acquits Guede Rudi Hermann of the accusation ascribed to him under Charge D), for not having committed the act [of the crime].
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Thanks, Methos. It's still ridiculous that they'd acquit Guede of the theft when his, and only his, freaking DNA was on the purse and he was found with a stolen phone just a week or so before.
Well, I just love how judge Nencini handled the matter. He is apparently p... o... that he can't convict Knox for the theft of the money because there is already a final judgement in place.
But this one, I think is priceless:
Nencini Motvations page 317
Quote:
(il fatto che insistentemente il Guede riferisca la circostanza in tutti gli interrogatori, unita al rilievo che vi è prova in causa che effettivamente una cifra di 300 euro era stata accantonata dalla vittima per il pagamento del canone di locazione, rende obiettivamente credibile il racconto dell'ivoriano).
So Guede is credible because he knows the exact ammount of money he has stolen...
__________________
"Found a typo? You can keep it..."
Methos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 03:14 PM   #1734
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 14,274
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Do you deny that MK wore her tracksuit style jacket OUTSIDE when she walked to her friends' apartment on Nov. 1?

Do you deny that the Brit girls did not include any other kind of coat or jacket in their testimony of what MK wore that day/night?



No one has said a tracksuit jacket cannot be worn inside. But only you would claim a tracksuit jacket, jeans, and a t-shirt are not outdoor clothing.

I see you ignore the fact that she had not turned on the heat. If she were still so cold that she was wearing her outdoor clothes 2 to 2 1/2 hours after arriving home and at 11:00-11:30 at night, then she would have turned on the heat. Additionally, she left her friends' apt. at 9:00 because she was tired after partying until dawn that morning. Yet you think she was still up 2 hours later, fully clothed in her day clothes on a cold winter night home alone.



That is one of them most bizarre things I've ever read. Not even you can believe that.
You don't live in the UK.

The penny is now dropping as to why Knox took a shower with the door swinging open on a cold November morning (or so she claims) and without heating.She didn't want to expedite the proccess of decay of the body she knew was hidden behind Mez' door.

Oh and someone was responsible for the 'washing machine cycle just coming to an end'.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 03:23 PM   #1735
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 14,274
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I don't take my bra off until I'm undressing for bed. Wouldn't even occur to me.

It's not so much the nature of the "jacket" as the normal habit of putting something on as you leave the house, and taking it off as you come back in. Not in the heat of summer, obviously, but certainly in November. In a mild climate that something might easily be a light jacket though.
A witness made a statement to police that he chanced upon three persons crouching by the bins to the side of the cottage, smashed out of their heads, of whom he recognised Guede, as having once worked with him. It transpired according to Rudy that they were waiting for a 'friend'. So Mez had her stalker/s lying in wait for her. She may have been falsely imprisoned for quite a while before being savagely murdered. There were 47 wounds on her body, including numerous flick wounds from the point of a knife.

Why would you take off your sweatshirt'hoodie, trainers or bra if you come home to discover unwelcome guest and your awful room mate off her head trying to force you into sex with a guy she picked up in Grimana Square?

You'd definitely keep them on, ready to flee.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 03:30 PM   #1736
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,604
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You can't possibly know 'she didn't turn on the heater'. More likely than not the persons who interfered with her body and locked her in her room reasoned it would delay discovery by keeping the temperature cold, hence the killer/s (someone who knew where all the switches were, too) was the most likely to have turned it off.

When I was that age I often went out scantily clad for the sake of fashion. Never felt the cold.
LOL!! You tell others they couldn't possibly know something, and then - the very next sentence - spout off on stuff you cannot possibly know.

You are, at least, consistent.
__________________
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 8th November 2018, 03:39 PM   #1737
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,556
Originally Posted by Methos View Post
Well, I just love how judge Nencini handled the matter. He is apparently p... o... that he can't convict Knox for the theft of the money because there is already a final judgement in place.
But this one, I think is priceless:
Nencini Motvations page 317

So Guede is credible because he knows the exact ammount of money he has stolen...
What an illogical conclusion for Nencini to come to. Since Guede knows how much money was stolen, it's supposed to lend credence to his story? Of course he'd know how much money was stolen if he stole it in the first place. What a stupid thing for Nencini to say.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 03:57 PM   #1738
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 644
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You don't live in the UK.

The penny is now dropping as to why Knox took a shower with the door swinging open on a cold November morning (or so she claims) and without heating.She didn't want to expedite the proccess of decay of the body she knew was hidden behind Mez' door.

Oh and someone was responsible for the 'washing machine cycle just coming to an end'.
Vixen constantly bangs on about Amanda and Raffaele telling lies has a habit of repeating the same lies in her posts. Vixen has told the lie about the washing machine running before. It is not difficult to imagine the vitriol Vixen would direct at Amanda and Raffaele if they repeated the same lies over and over again. I am still waiting for Vixen to answer the question why does she need to resort to lying if the case against Amanda and Raffaele was such a slam dunk or does Vixen not understand this simple question.
Welshman is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 04:00 PM   #1739
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,556
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Do you deny that MK wore her tracksuit style jacket OUTSIDE when she walked to her friends' apartment on Nov. 1?

Do you deny that the Brit girls did not include any other kind of coat or jacket in their testimony of what MK wore that day/night?



No one has said a tracksuit jacket cannot be worn inside. But only you would claim a tracksuit jacket, jeans, and a t-shirt are not outdoor clothing.

I see you ignore the fact that she had not turned on the heat. If she were still so cold that she was wearing her outdoor clothes 2 to 2 1/2 hours after arriving home and at 11:00-11:30 at night, then she would have turned on the heat. Additionally, she left her friends' apt. at 9:00 because she was tired after partying until dawn that morning. Yet you think she was still up 2 hours later, fully clothed in her day clothes on a cold winter night home alone.



That is one of them most bizarre things I've ever read. Not even you can believe that.
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You don't live in the UK.

The penny is now dropping as to why Knox took a shower with the door swinging open on a cold November morning (or so she claims) and without heating.She didn't want to expedite the proccess of decay of the body she knew was hidden behind Mez' door.

Oh and someone was responsible for the 'washing machine cycle just coming to an end'.
You didn't answer my questions, highlighted above. Why not? Give it a go.

First you don't believe Knox ever showered in the first place, going so far as to claim earlier that her hair didn't look freshly washed and it wasn't neatly coiffed. Now you want to claim that she did shower but turned off the heat and left the door open in order to delay the body from decaying? Make up your mind. You're grasping at straws and your ideas just get more bizarre.

Oh, lord. Are you back to the 'washing machine cycle just coming to an end' nonsense again? Get a grip on reality and stop believing everything written in 2007, especially when it was from an unnamed source and later showed to be wrong. Neither of the postales who were first on scene claimed they ever heard the washing machine at all in court or anywhere else. Can you figure out why?
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 04:27 PM   #1740
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,556
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
A witness made a statement to police that he chanced upon three persons crouching by the bins to the side of the cottage, smashed out of their heads, of whom he recognised Guede, as having once worked with him. It transpired according to Rudy that they were waiting for a 'friend'. So Mez had her stalker/s lying in wait for her. She may have been falsely imprisoned for quite a while before being savagely murdered. There were 47 wounds on her body, including numerous flick wounds from the point of a knife.

Why would you take off your sweatshirt'hoodie, trainers or bra if you come home to discover unwelcome guest and your awful room mate off her head trying to force you into sex with a guy she picked up in Grimana Square?

You'd definitely keep them on, ready to flee.
Oh, my.... back to the olive throwing witness! Think about this for a minute and you may be able to figure out why Kokomani was not credible. On second thought, I'd better help with this.

1. Kokomani claimed he saw AK and RS with an American uncle of Knox's in a Perugia caf before Knox was ever in Perugia, before she met Sollecito, and no uncle of Knox's was ever in Perugia.

2. Why on earth would AK, RS, and RG need to be out in the cold street lying in wait hiding behind bins for MK? It's not like there was a nice warm cottage right there for them to lie in wait for their victim, is it? "Olive throwing" Kokomani's testimony was called "often incoherent" by The Scotsman(28 March 2009).

Read more at: https://www.scotsman.com/news/murder...nife-1-1351358

His earlier statements to the police did not match up with what he said in court either. He only mentioned the olive/cell phone throwing and punching Sollecito in the face in court.

Dredging up Kokomani is sheer desperation. Why not bring up Fabio Gioffredi who was just as reliable as Kokomani?

Last edited by Stacyhs; 8th November 2018 at 06:21 PM.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2018, 10:20 PM   #1741
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,428
Originally Posted by Methos View Post
Well, I just love how judge Nencini handled the matter. He is apparently p... o... that he can't convict Knox for the theft of the money because there is already a final judgement in place.
But this one, I think is priceless:
Nencini Motvations page 317

So Guede is credible because he knows the exact ammount of money he has stolen...
Methos, thanks again for your finding of this.

I have not been able to find the section in the Micheli motivation report with the reasoning justifying the acquittal of Guede on Charge D (theft of the money, credit card, and phones). If you have been able to find that section, or are able to find it, would you be so kind as to point it out? I think it would be informative to see what Micheli's exact reasoning was, and I have been unable to find that section.

Last edited by Numbers; 8th November 2018 at 10:22 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2018, 03:24 AM   #1742
Methos
Muse
 
Methos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 696
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Methos, thanks again for your finding of this.

I have not been able to find the section in the Micheli motivation report with the reasoning justifying the acquittal of Guede on Charge D (theft of the money, credit card, and phones). If you have been able to find that section, or are able to find it, would you be so kind as to point it out? I think it would be informative to see what Micheli's exact reasoning was, and I have been unable to find that section.
It's this quite reasoning on pages 91-93:
Quote:
L'attività di cosiddetto depistaggio, svoltasi in un secondo momento, non fu orientata a bella posta per incastrare il GUEDE. E' pur sempre verosimile ritenere che il GUEDE non vi prese parte, cconfrmemente all'assunto accusatorio: del resto, se avesse avuto modo e ragione di tornare in quella casa, si sarebbe preoccupato con un minimo di oculatezza di far sparire le feci dal water, che costituivano una specie di sottoscrizione della sua presenza. E non può sernbrare strano che vi sia tornato solo qualcuno, date le circostanze concitate - contestuali al grido percepito dalla Signora CAPEZZALI, che tutti i presenti si resero conto essere potenziale fattore di arrivo di curiosi o forze dell'ordine - in cui si determinò l'allontanamento degli aggressori: come più volte ricordato, la teste udi il rumore di passi di corsa sul viottolo, poi lungo le scale di metallo e nell'altra direzione, nel giro di "due secondi, un minuto" dall'urlo che le aveva fatto accapponare la pelle, un tempo assai breve che di sicuro non poté consentire lo svolgimento integrale della messinscena nella stanza della ROMANELLI, o le verosimili attivita di pulizia.

Ne consegue che la decisione di rientrare nell’abitazione fu presa quando chi era scappato si era già separato dagli altri fuggitivi, perché si era portato in una di quelle direzioni, mentre altri erano andati nella seconda: e, se nella seconda direzione ci fosse andato proprio RUDI, gli altri non avevano neppure un suo recapito cellulare per avvertirlo dell'idea di tornare, ammesso che chi lo decise avesse interesse a coinvolgerlo.

Ulteriore conseguenza logico-deduttiva, però, è quella dell'impossibilità di collocare in uno piuttosto che in un altro di quei momenti la sottazione dei telefoni cellulari e del denaro della vittima: l'evenienza che ciò accadde quando scapparono tutti dopo il grido (e RUDI faceva parte del gruppo) ha lo stesso valore di quella che vuole la refurtiva trafugata nello stesso contesto delie pulizie, della rottura della finestra e delle manipolazioni del cadavere. In concreto, anzi, l'ultima tesi si palesa più probabile, giacché il momento della fuga iniziale fu necessariamente connotato da precipitazione, e una condotta cosi meditata come quella di prendere i telefoni non per fini di lucro ma per farli sparire mal si concilia con la fretta: le risultanze processuali che irnpongono di giungere a ritenere il GUEDE colpevole di concorso in omicidio aggravato dalla violenza sessuale non possono, pertanto, ritenersi sufficienti per dichiararne la penale responsabilita anche in ordine ali'ulteriore delitto contro il patrimonio, a lui contestato.

Ne può risultare decisiva a tal fine la circostanza del rinvenimento della mistura di DNA del prevenuto, assieme a quello della vittima, sulla borsa di costei: in base alle testimonianze raccolte, pare che MEREDITH avesse il costume di tenere almeno uno dei telefoni in una tasca dei pantaloni o comunque indosso, e non sta scritto da nessuna parte che i 300,00 euro ipoteticameate sottratti si trovassero a propria volta in quella borsa.

Le amiche della ragazza, infatti, la ricordano abituata ad andarsene in giro con una quantità assai inferiore di contanti, ed ella non avrebbe avuto motivo per uscire con una somma del genere al seguito, potendo custodida in casa con maggior cura. Senza trascurare un dato assai significativo, suggerito dalle domande formulate dal c.t.p. dott.ssa BARBARO alla dott.ssa STEFANONI: a differenza di quanto rilevato per la felpa, dove venne individuato l'aplotipo Y dell'imputato ma non una mistura di DNA nella forma del profilo genetico nucleare, sulla borsa vi sono entrambi; e se una P.C.R. può non riprodurre due DNA coesistenti quando uno sia in quantità nettamente inferiore all'altro, venendo così amplificato solo il più abbondante, ciò significa che su quel reperto vi era parecchio materiale biologico, anche riferibile al GLUEDE.

La localizzazione della traccia, più o meno a metà della cerniera, fa dora ritenere che la presa energica più probabile della borsa servi a sollevarla ed a spostarla (per far che, non è necessario dimostrarlo), come si può fare stringendo nel mezzo la chiusura lampo piuttosto che afferrarne i manici, non già ad aprirla per frugare all'interno: né dentro la borsa in questione sono state trovate altre tracce, o macchie di sangue.
__________________
"Found a typo? You can keep it..."

Last edited by Methos; 9th November 2018 at 03:41 AM.
Methos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2018, 03:52 AM   #1743
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,692
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
A witness made a statement to police that he chanced upon three persons crouching by the bins to the side of the cottage, smashed out of their heads, of whom he recognised Guede, as having once worked with him. It transpired according to Rudy that they were waiting for a 'friend'. So Mez had her stalker/s lying in wait for her. She may have been falsely imprisoned for quite a while before being savagely murdered. There were 47 wounds on her body, including numerous flick wounds from the point of a knife.

Why would you take off your sweatshirt'hoodie, trainers or bra if you come home to discover unwelcome guest and your awful room mate off her head trying to force you into sex with a guy she picked up in Grimana Square?

You'd definitely keep them on, ready to flee.

More laughing dogs I think. I'm losing count of all that's wrong with that.



First, this scenario has Knox and Sollecito at the cottage before nine. That's not possible, they had alibis, that's why you're so desperate to move the time of death so much later.

Second, I thought she was supposed to have been lying around on her bed playing with her phone for a couple of hours (and not actually phoning her mum). Now she's held captive by people who couldn't actually have been there at the time? Make up your mind.

Third, this is where we came in. This time window goes well past the point where food would inevitably have begun to pass into the duodenum.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe 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 9th November 2018, 04:14 AM   #1744
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 644
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Oh, my.... back to the olive throwing witness! Think about this for a minute and you may be able to figure out why Kokomani was not credible. On second thought, I'd better help with this.

1. Kokomani claimed he saw AK and RS with an American uncle of Knox's in a Perugia caf before Knox was ever in Perugia, before she met Sollecito, and no uncle of Knox's was ever in Perugia.

2. Why on earth would AK, RS, and RG need to be out in the cold street lying in wait hiding behind bins for MK? It's not like there was a nice warm cottage right there for them to lie in wait for their victim, is it? "Olive throwing" Kokomani's testimony was called "often incoherent" by The Scotsman(28 March 2009).

Read more at: https://www.scotsman.com/news/murder...nife-1-1351358

His earlier statements to the police did not match up with what he said in court either. He only mentioned the olive/cell phone throwing and punching Sollecito in the face in court.

Dredging up Kokomani is sheer desperation. Why not bring up Fabio Gioffredi who was just as reliable as Kokomani?
Vixen attacks Amanda for telling blatant lies but has no problem with a witness who blatantly lied providing testimony against Amanda and Raffaele. If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was such a slam dunk why does Vixen have to resort to using evidence which has been discredited a long time ago.
Welshman is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2018, 06:42 AM   #1745
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,428
Here's a relevant ECHR judgment finding a violation of Article 6.1 (right to a fair trial) linked to a violation of Article 6.3(c) (right to defense at all stages of a criminal proceeding, including interrogation); from the summary of the ECHR's press release:

In today’s [9 Nov 2018] Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Beuze v. Belgium (application no. 71409/10) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:

a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair trial, right to legal assistance).

The case concerned the denial of legal assistance at the pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings.

The Court found that the criminal proceedings, when considered as a whole, had not remedied the procedural defects occurring at the pre-trial stage. The restrictions on the right of access to a lawyer had been particularly extensive and in those circumstances, without being sufficiently informed of
his right to remain silent, Mr Beuze had made detailed statements while in police custody.

His statements had subsequently been included in the evidence before the Assize Court, which had failed to conduct an appropriate examination of how they had been obtained or to consider the impact of the lawyer’s absence. The Court of Cassation had focused on the lack of legal assistance in
police custody but had not assessed the consequences for the applicant’s defence rights of the lawyer’s absence during his subsequent police interviews, examinations by the investigating judge and other acts during the judicial investigation.

In the Court’s view, the combination of these various factors had rendered the proceedings unfair as a whole.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2018, 06:51 AM   #1746
AnimalFriendly
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 91
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You don't live in the UK.

She didn't want to expedite the proccess of decay of the body she knew was hidden behind Mez' door.
Oh, Jesus Christ, hours early she was "smashed" and in the a.m. she "didn't want to expedite the process of decay". What utter tripe. One (of many, many) things that amuses me about the (very few remaining) guilters is their convenient forgetfulness. Instead of worrying about locked doors and tiered "clean-ups", Sollecito just happened to own a car. It would have been simpler for him to have just removed MK's body altogether from the cottage & dumped it in a lake somewhere. And then left the country. Which neither he nor AK did despite ample opportunity to do so. Like Guede did.
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 9th November 2018, 08:56 AM   #1747
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,604
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Methos, thanks again for your finding of this.

I have not been able to find the section in the Micheli motivation report with the reasoning justifying the acquittal of Guede on Charge D (theft of the money, credit card, and phones). If you have been able to find that section, or are able to find it, would you be so kind as to point it out? I think it would be informative to see what Micheli's exact reasoning was, and I have been unable to find that section.
Some people use the Library of Congress, others have paid researchers scour the Internet.

Mostly, we just use Methos.
__________________
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 9th November 2018, 12:44 PM   #1748
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,556
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
More laughing dogs I think. I'm losing count of all that's wrong with that.



First, this scenario has Knox and Sollecito at the cottage before nine. That's not possible, they had alibis, that's why you're so desperate to move the time of death so much later.

Second, I thought she was supposed to have been lying around on her bed playing with her phone for a couple of hours (and not actually phoning her mum). Now she's held captive by people who couldn't actually have been there at the time? Make up your mind.

Third, this is where we came in. This time window goes well past the point where food would inevitably have begun to pass into the duodenum.
Indeed, this does put AK, RS, and RG at the cottage before 9:00 when the evidence shows this was not possible due to both a credible witness and computer activity.

Isn't it incredible that some people find witnesses like Kokomani, Curatolo, Quintavalle, and Capezalli credible yet dismiss, disparage and denigrate as "bent" and "shills" experts like Douglas, Gill, Conti and Vecchiotti? Such is the absolute hold confirmation bias and the inability to admit error has in some people.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2018, 01:08 PM   #1749
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,692
It seems to me that Vixen is simply making stuff up as she goes along. Any scenario off the top of her head will do, so long as it seems to counter the point she wishes wasn't there. It doesn't matter how much other evidence shows that scenario didn't happen, or that it was conclusively dosproved a decade ago, or that it flatly contradicts the scenario Vixen put forward about five posts earlier.

I'm not quite sure why she bothers.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe 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 9th November 2018, 01:36 PM   #1750
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,556
Vixen does just make things up off the top of her head. It explains why she fails to provide any evidence to support most of her posts.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2018, 02:38 PM   #1751
bagels
Master Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,030
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
More laughing dogs I think. I'm losing count of all that's wrong with that.



First, this scenario has Knox and Sollecito at the cottage before nine. That's not possible, they had alibis, that's why you're so desperate to move the time of death so much later.

Second, I thought she was supposed to have been lying around on her bed playing with her phone for a couple of hours (and not actually phoning her mum). Now she's held captive by people who couldn't actually have been there at the time? Make up your mind.

Third, this is where we came in. This time window goes well past the point where food would inevitably have begun to pass into the duodenum.
Vixen has Popovic as a bent witness iirc, which actually demonstrates a little more lucidity than the other guilters who blindly create these non linear impossibly constrained time lines without a second thought.
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 9th November 2018, 03:12 PM   #1752
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,692
Well why is she so determined to dispute the time of death then?
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe 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 9th November 2018, 03:54 PM   #1753
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,556
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
Vixen has Popovic as a bent witness iirc, which actually demonstrates a little more lucidity than the other guilters who blindly create these non linear impossibly constrained time lines without a second thought.
As I recall, Vixen also proposed that there never was any suitcase that was to be picked up at the bus station by Popovic because sending an unaccompanied suitcase or package on a bus was just not done.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2018, 03:56 PM   #1754
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,556
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Well why is she so determined to dispute the time of death then?
I assume that's a rhetorical question?
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2018, 04:20 PM   #1755
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 14,274
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
More laughing dogs I think. I'm losing count of all that's wrong with that.



First, this scenario has Knox and Sollecito at the cottage before nine. That's not possible, they had alibis, that's why you're so desperate to move the time of death so much later.

Second, I thought she was supposed to have been lying around on her bed playing with her phone for a couple of hours (and not actually phoning her mum). Now she's held captive by people who couldn't actually have been there at the time? Make up your mind.

Third, this is where we came in. This time window goes well past the point where food would inevitably have begun to pass into the duodenum.
Citation please, of where I am supposed to have said, 'she was supposed to have been lying around on her bed playing with her phone for a couple of hours (and not actually phoning her mum).'
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2018, 04:27 PM   #1756
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 14,274
Originally Posted by AnimalFriendly View Post
Oh, Jesus Christ, hours early she was "smashed" and in the a.m. she "didn't want to expedite the process of decay". What utter tripe. One (of many, many) things that amuses me about the (very few remaining) guilters is their convenient forgetfulness. Instead of worrying about locked doors and tiered "clean-ups", Sollecito just happened to own a car. It would have been simpler for him to have just removed MK's body altogether from the cottage & dumped it in a lake somewhere. And then left the country. Which neither he nor AK did despite ample opportunity to do so. Like Guede did.
It's not that easy to remove a body in a built up area. Cadaver dogs would sniff it out in your car boot, for a start.

Being ultra arrogant in the glib manner of a classic sociopath, the perps reasoned it would be a great laugh and an opportunity to demonstrate cleverness in manipulating police into thinking it was a random burglary.

It is surprisingly common for people to fake a burglary. Knox boasted she actually did it and caused distress to a chum, and Raff that he knew of some guy who topped his wife and faked a burglary to deflect attention away from himself.

Rudy allegedly offered Kokomani €300 to borrow his car during the crouching behind the bins incident.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2018, 04:29 PM   #1757
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,556
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Citation please, of where I am supposed to have said, 'she was supposed to have been lying around on her bed playing with her phone for a couple of hours (and not actually phoning her mum).'
Rolfe isn't saying you said that Kercher was supposed to be lying around on her bed playing with the phone. That was part of Massei's conjecture. The fact that you think Massei's conclusions were so well reasoned implies you agree with him. I've never yet seen you disagree with Massei on anything.

Massei Report – p330

Quote:
Nothing compels [us], among the circumstantial evidence available, to consider that the assault took place in the minutes between 21.58 and 22.00 of 1.11, and not rather merely moments of relaxation during which Meredith Kercher, still alone in the house and probably just lying on her own bed, was absent-mindedly playing with the mobile phone in her hand.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2018, 04:34 PM   #1758
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 14,274
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Some people use the Library of Congress, others have paid researchers scour the Internet.

Mostly, we just use Methos.
Let me sum it up for you. Micheli reasoned that as the purpose of the removal of the phones was to prevent Mez from calling for help, and the fact they were immediately disposed of at the first opportunity, meant the aim was not theft (=taking something that is not yours for personal gain).

Had Rudy taken them, is the reasoning, he would surely have cleaned them up and sold them on.

He had no motive to prevent Mez calling for help, as he knew she was dead when he left her.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2018, 04:37 PM   #1759
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 14,274
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
It seems to me that Vixen is simply making stuff up as she goes along. Any scenario off the top of her head will do, so long as it seems to counter the point she wishes wasn't there. It doesn't matter how much other evidence shows that scenario didn't happen, or that it was conclusively dosproved a decade ago, or that it flatly contradicts the scenario Vixen put forward about five posts earlier.

I'm not quite sure why she bothers.
Unlike you, I have read the court documents.

Your claim Mez 'must have been murdered at 9:05 prompt, therefore Knox and Raff cannot be involved' is wishful thinking and based on nothing but poor logic and an attempt to manipulate the truth.

Fact is, the court finding was that Mez died sometime within the region of 10:30, give or take quarter of an hour.

This was cross-examined in great detail in court.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2018, 04:38 PM   #1760
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 14,274
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
Vixen has Popovic as a bent witness iirc, which actually demonstrates a little more lucidity than the other guilters who blindly create these non linear impossibly constrained time lines without a second thought.
How come we have heard nothing more of Popovic since the trial?

She was used by Raff.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:57 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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

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