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 , sexism issues

Reply
Old 15th April 2017, 06:54 AM   #161
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 11,833
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You don't think Psychology in Computer Behaviour or the Washington Post or members of the American Psychological Society are 'important source's?

I didn't see you objecting before.
Huh?
__________________
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 15th April 2017, 06:57 AM   #162
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 11,833
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You do love to dwell on the past.
...... learn the lessons of the past to avoid repetition in the future.

Ok, no problem. But it remains that you posted a further dozen or so posts just making up further stuff.

Let's move on. Agreed.
__________________
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 15th April 2017, 10:16 AM   #163
TruthCalls
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 488
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
...... learn the lessons of the past to avoid repetition in the future.

Ok, no problem. But it remains that you posted a further dozen or so posts just making up further stuff.

Let's move on. Agreed.
So having seen that Vixen can admit to being wrong, and in the interest of moving on, I ask Vixen to refer back to my post #136 in this thread and please comment on the points being made. I ask that you to stick to provable facts that can be supported with online resources and not just quote what a judge thought. Remember, this is supposed to be a discussion of the facts. I genuinely want to hear your take on each, and if you disagree along the way then please explain why and cite sources to back your position.

Thanks
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 15th April 2017, 11:05 AM   #164
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,406
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
So having seen that Vixen can admit to being wrong, and in the interest of moving on, I ask Vixen to refer back to my post #136 in this thread and please comment on the points being made. I ask that you to stick to provable facts that can be supported with online resources and not just quote what a judge thought. Remember, this is supposed to be a discussion of the facts. I genuinely want to hear your take on each, and if you disagree along the way then please explain why and cite sources to back your position.

Thanks
Hey! Get in line, Truth! I'm still waiting for these questions to be answered by Vixen:

1) Exactly how did Knox and Sollecito remove all traces of their DNA, fingerprints, and their bloody shoe/foot prints from Kercher's bedroom leaving only those of Guede?

2) Why would they leave the bath mat with its bloody footprint if it were Sollecito's?

3) Exactly how did Popovitch's testimony counter what Raff said?

4) If no TMB tests were performed as you claim, why did the prosecution not put Stefanoni on the stand to refute that the samples tested negative for blood?

I'm sure she's working on her answers to these and she'll get to your questions as soon as she's posted them.
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 15th April 2017, 11:21 AM   #165
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,406
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It's simply his PR chap, George Guido Lombardi, trying to make right wing connections in Europe (Marine Le Pen, for example) for the Donald.

In other words, fake news, pure marketing.

From: The New York Times


The issue about Amanda not supporting Trump in the elections was FIVE MONTHS ago, as reported here:

Quote:
Knox is now claiming, in her fervent support for the Democrats’ Hillary Clinton, that she despises Trump for his views on the Central Park Five, whom he still refers to as ‘guilty’, despite their exoneration, as contrasted with her, whom he described as ‘completely innocent’. She sees racism in his stance.

Oh, the irony of Knox having fingered an innocent black man for Meredith’s murder. Paradoxically, Knox seems to be saying, they are innocent and Trump calls them guilty, whereas I am guilty and Trump calls me innocent. All because he’s a racist.

Knox vocally states she does not stand with Trump and why should she vote for him, just because he supported her and helped fund her defence? These are all good commendable points. But before we get carried away, whoa! Let’s stop and take a reality check.
Why Donald Ttrump is upset with Amanda Knox.

I love the source for your quote! LOL! It couldn't get any better!

Evidence, please, that Knox " despises Trump for his views on the Central Park Five". She has written about why she did not vote for him and about his views of the Central Park Five, but nowhere does she say she "despises" him for it. And you have accused me of knowing what Amanda "thinks".

Last edited by Stacyhs; 15th April 2017 at 12:07 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 15th April 2017, 12:40 PM   #166
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 8,886
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I love the source for your quote! LOL! It couldn't get any better!

Evidence, please, that Knox " despises Trump for his views on the Central Park Five". She has written about why she did not vote for him and about his views of the Central Park Five, but nowhere does she say she "despises" him for it. And you have accused me of knowing what Amanda "thinks".
Er, I'd say the following comment expresses it:

Quote:
But Trump claimed the exact opposite in the Central Park Five case, calling for the death penalty to be reinstated in New York, even though their rape convictions rested solely on false confessions resulting from coercive interrogations. Even now he views them as guilty, though they were exonerated when the true perpetrator, a serial rapist, confessed to the crime. Why did Trump defend me and condemn them? Is it because I was an American on trial in a foreign country? Is it because I’m a white woman?

<snip>
And like some of my supporters, Trump had his own ideas and his own way; he called for the U.S. to sanction Italy until they released me—a pronouncement which only amplified anti-American sentiment towards me in the courtroom. Even if Trump means well, his schemes tend to be blunt, selfish, and short-sighted, rather than nuanced, empathetic, and thought through.
__________________
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä,
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä
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 15th April 2017, 01:28 PM   #167
bagels
Graduate Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,426
So what you're saying is, a hippie chick from Seattle doesn't like Donald J Trump?

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 15th April 2017, 01:31 PM   #168
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 8,886
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
So what you're saying is, a hippie chick from Seattle doesn't like Donald J Trump?

She was happy to take his money.

If you disagree strongly with someone's morals you don't accept gifts from them.
__________________
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä,
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä
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 15th April 2017, 01:34 PM   #169
bagels
Graduate Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,426
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
She was happy to take his money.

If you disagree strongly with someone's morals you don't accept gifts from them.

Maybe she wanted to put it to good use for once, feeding poor starving Italian lawyers. Did you ever think of that? It was that or another gold plated sink.
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 15th April 2017, 02:00 PM   #170
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 8,879
An axiom of DNA profiling

"There is no information inherent in the DNA profile that provides information about ‘how’ or ‘when’ the profile was transferred."
DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics: Recommendations on the evaluation of STR typing results that may include drop-out and/or drop-in using probabilistic methods, Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2012 Dec; 6(6): 679–688.
P. Gill, L. Gusmão, H. Haned, W.R. Mayr, N. Morling, W. Parson, L. Prieto, M. Prinz, H. Schneider, P.M. Schneider, and B.S. Weir link to abstract

This is an important principle in DNA profiling. I have even heard it referred to as an axiom.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill
Chris_Halkides 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 15th April 2017, 02:12 PM   #171
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,139
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
"There is no information inherent in the DNA profile that provides information about ‘how’ or ‘when’ the profile was transferred."
DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics: Recommendations on the evaluation of STR typing results that may include drop-out and/or drop-in using probabilistic methods, Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2012 Dec; 6(6): 679–688.
P. Gill, L. Gusmão, H. Haned, W.R. Mayr, N. Morling, W. Parson, L. Prieto, M. Prinz, H. Schneider, P.M. Schneider, and B.S. Weir link to abstract

This is an important principle in DNA profiling. I have even heard it referred to as an axiom.
I am afraid these are all shills, as no doubt are the editors of the journal, this article was merely part of the Knox PR machine.

So now we have dismissed the science we can carry on expressing nonsense to argue for the guilt of Knox.

Thank you for the reference. Another relevant paper is discussed elsewhere on this site, but some science is so dangerous that it can only be discussed in a silo.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2017, 03:28 PM   #172
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 12,854
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
She was happy to take his money.

If you disagree strongly with someone's morals you don't accept gifts from them.
Frankly, if you're handing out money I'm taking it. I could give a damn about your morals. In fact I'm more than happy to do it. I bet her lawyers didn't care about the source either.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2017, 03:46 PM   #173
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 8,886
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Frankly, if you're handing out money I'm taking it. I could give a damn about your morals. In fact I'm more than happy to do it. I bet her lawyers didn't care about the source either.
So I am more principled than you are.
__________________
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä,
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä
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 15th April 2017, 04:01 PM   #174
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 12,854
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
So I am more principled than you are.
What principle is that? Stupidity?
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2017, 04:05 PM   #175
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,406
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Er, I'd say the following comment expresses it:
Quote:
But Trump claimed the exact opposite in the Central Park Five case, calling for the death penalty to be reinstated in New York, even though their rape convictions rested solely on false confessions resulting from coercive interrogations. Even now he views them as guilty, though they were exonerated when the true perpetrator, a serial rapist, confessed to the crime. Why did Trump defend me and condemn them? Is it because I was an American on trial in a foreign country? Is it because I’m a white woman?

<snip>
And like some of my supporters, Trump had his own ideas and his own way; he called for the U.S. to sanction Italy until they released me—a pronouncement which only amplified anti-American sentiment towards me in the courtroom. Even if Trump means well, his schemes tend to be blunt, selfish, and short-sighted, rather than nuanced, empathetic, and thought through.
Err...I'd say it doesn't. Not at all.

Everything Knox says about Trump is true. Trump believed the five boys to be guilty of the 1989 crime. They were all later exonerated by the DNA evidence that identified the real perpetrator, along with his confession. Despite their exonerations, Trump continues to believe them guilty:

Quote:
"They admitted they were guilty. The police doing the original investigation say they were guilty. The fact that that case was settled with so much evidence against them is outrageous. And the woman, so badly injured, will never be the same."
This is typical Trump; never, ever admit you are wrong about anything. When proved wrong, just double down on your claim. It's a common trait among narcissists.

Do you disagree with Knox' assessment that Trump's "schemes tend to be blunt, selfish, and short-sighted, rather than nuanced, empathetic, and thought through"?

But nothing she has said here indicates she "despises" Trump as your...ahem..."link" claims due to his "views on the Central Park Five". She may well despise him. Many of us do. But we despise him for much, much more than his views on the CP5.

Yes, let us "stop and take a reality check", shall we? Trump made the "the CP5 are still guilty" statement in Oct 2016...the month before the election. Trump donated money to her case years before. Knox supported Clinton over Trump a long time before he made his CP5 statement. If she despises him, which well she could, it is not due to his CPF statement, as you claimed. Although I have no doubt it helped cement her views of him. How could they not?
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 15th April 2017, 04:07 PM   #176
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 8,886
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
What principle is that? Stupidity?
It's the understanding that 'dirty money' comes from people like arms/drugs/people traders, money launderers, tax evaders and criminals.
__________________
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä,
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä
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 15th April 2017, 04:11 PM   #177
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 12,854
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It's the understanding that 'dirty money' comes from people like arms/drugs/people traders, money launderers, tax evaders and criminals.
So what? I didn't steal it. Better I spend it then them.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2017, 04:11 PM   #178
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 8,886
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Err...I'd say it doesn't. Not at all.

Everything Knox says about Trump is true. Trump believed the five boys to be guilty of the 1989 crime. They were all later exonerated by the DNA evidence that identified the real perpetrator, along with his confession. Despite their exonerations, Trump continues to believe them guilty:



This is typical Trump; never, ever admit you are wrong about anything. When proved wrong, just double down on your claim. It's a common trait among narcissists.

Do you disagree with Knox' assessment that Trump's "schemes tend to be blunt, selfish, and short-sighted, rather than nuanced, empathetic, and thought through"?

But nothing she has said here indicates she "despises" Trump as your...ahem..."link" claims due to his "views on the Central Park Five". She may well despise him. Many of us do. But we despise him for much, much more than his views on the CP5.

Yes, let us "stop and take a reality check", shall we? Trump made the "the CP5 are still guilty" statement in Oct 2016...the month before the election. Trump donated money to her case years before. Knox supported Clinton over Trump a long time before he made his CP5 statement. If she despises him, which well she could, it is not due to his CPF statement, as you claimed. Although I have no doubt it helped cement her views of him. How could they not?
Amanda makes it very clear she despises him for his perceived racist stance on the Central Park Five. Her article spells a direct link between his motives on funding her and declaring her innocent (before the trial was even over) compared to his stated views on the Central Park Five.

She also factors in that Trump's bigoted utterances about Italy, made for even more anti-US sentiment in the court room. This reason does seem unfair, as she didn't have to accept the gift.
__________________
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä,
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä
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 15th April 2017, 04:13 PM   #179
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,406
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
She was happy to take his money.

If you disagree strongly with someone's morals you don't accept gifts from them.
When did she take the money he offered? It was well before her March 2015 acquittal, perhaps years earlier. Trump didn't even announce his presidency run until June 2015 , so 3 months after her full acquittal. Exactly what do you think she knew of his "morals" BEFORE he even announced his run for POTUS and we all got to see what kind of person he is? Give me a break.
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 15th April 2017, 04:13 PM   #180
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 8,886
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
So what? I didn't steal it. Better I spend it then them.
Some of us have to maintain high standards.
__________________
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä,
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä
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 15th April 2017, 04:17 PM   #181
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 8,886
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
When did she take the money he offered? It was well before her March 2015 acquittal, perhaps years earlier. Trump didn't even announce his presidency run until June 2015 , so 3 months after her full acquittal. Exactly what do you think she knew of his "morals" BEFORE he even announced his run for POTUS and we all got to see what kind of person he is? Give me a break.
New York building concrete is more expensive in New York than anywhere else because of mafia activity. In addition, he allegedly hasn't paid any tax for twenty years, as if you declare a loss, you can keep rolling it over.

Should money that morally ought to have gone to the IRS taxman have been given as a gift to someone charged with aggravated murder?
__________________
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä,
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä
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 15th April 2017, 04:23 PM   #182
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,406
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It's the understanding that 'dirty money' comes from people like arms/drugs/people traders, money launderers, tax evaders and criminals.
Wow.. so now you're saying that Trump's money was "dirty"?
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 15th April 2017, 04:29 PM   #183
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,406
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
New York building concrete is more expensive in New York than anywhere else because of mafia activity. In addition, he allegedly hasn't paid any tax for twenty years, as if you declare a loss, you can keep rolling it over.

Should money that morally ought to have gone to the IRS taxman have been given as a gift to someone charged with aggravated murder?
Oh, good lord.

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 15th April 2017, 04:30 PM   #184
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,406
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Some of us have to maintain high standards.
Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.

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 15th April 2017, 04:40 PM   #185
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 12,854
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Some of us have to maintain high standards.
I'm really not sure what standard you're talking about. Poverty perhaps?
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2017, 04:44 PM   #186
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 12,854
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
New York building concrete is more expensive in New York than anywhere else because of mafia activity. In addition, he allegedly hasn't paid any tax for twenty years, as if you declare a loss, you can keep rolling it over.

Should money that morally ought to have gone to the IRS taxman have been given as a gift to someone charged with aggravated murder?
So it should have stayed in Trump's bank account instead? If the government wants Trump's money, they no where to find him. I believe he lives in government housing.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

Last edited by acbytesla; 15th April 2017 at 05:33 PM.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2017, 05:12 PM   #187
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,666
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
So it should have stayed inTrump's bank account instead? If the government wants Trump's money, they no where to find him. I believe he lives in government housing.

Exactly. Either he owes tax (including the possibility of criminal tax evasion) or he doesn't. To date, he has never been pursued by the authorities over his tax affairs, so the current presumption has to be that his tax affairs have always been fully in accordance with legislation and other rules.

Frankly, all this crap about Trump and the money he gave to Knox's defence is just more stupidity. At the point when he gave the money (and the attendant support), Trump was a private individual who espoused very few (if any) political views (I don't think he'd ever said anything that could be construed as inflammatory or jaw-droppingly controversial at that point), and he was a totally law-abiding citizen. In addition, of course, he was at that point a very well-known personality within the US (and, to an extent, internationally), so his support could be viewed as having influential benefits. If I had been in the shoes of Knox and her family at that point, I'd have gratefully taken the money and the support, provided there were no strings attached.

Knox and her family are not answerable for anything Trump has said or done since he made the donation and statement of support. Knox should certainly not feel beholden to support his presidency. And she should in no way feel morally obligated to give any or all of the donation back.

More white noise and nonsense. End of.
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 15th April 2017, 05:30 PM   #188
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 12,854
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Exactly. Either he owes tax (including the possibility of criminal tax evasion) or he doesn't. To date, he has never been pursued by the authorities over his tax affairs, so the current presumption has to be that his tax affairs have always been fully in accordance with legislation and other rules.

Frankly, all this crap about Trump and the money he gave to Knox's defence is just more stupidity. At the point when he gave the money (and the attendant support), Trump was a private individual who espoused very few (if any) political views (I don't think he'd ever said anything that could be construed as inflammatory or jaw-droppingly controversial at that point), and he was a totally law-abiding citizen. In addition, of course, he was at that point a very well-known personality within the US (and, to an extent, internationally), so his support could be viewed as having influential benefits. If I had been in the shoes of Knox and her family at that point, I'd have gratefully taken the money and the support, provided there were no strings attached.

Knox and her family are not answerable for anything Trump has said or done since he made the donation and statement of support. Knox should certainly not feel beholden to support his presidency. And she should in no way feel morally obligated to give any or all of the donation back.

More white noise and nonsense. End of.
Of course. I can't see why she should have vetted donations made to her defense fund. Can you imagine Amanda in jail calling Mr Trump after he donated to her defense fund asking him if he was square with the tax man?
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2017, 06:09 PM   #189
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,666
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Of course. I can't see why she should have vetted donations made to her defense fund. Can you imagine Amanda in jail calling Mr Trump after he donated to her defense fund asking him if he was square with the tax man?

Well look (to introduce to good old reductio ad absurdum), if it had been, say, a high-ranking leader of the Ku Klux Klan looking to make a donation and pledge his support, then Knox and her family would have been well-advised to decline the donation and disavow the support. One might also argue the same had the donor/supporter been, say, a person previously convicted of a serious felony, or a person who had (say) written hate statements directed at women who sought abortions. One might even argue the same had the donor/supporter been a party politician (of any hue).

But at the time when Trump gave his donation and his support, he was of course none of these things - nor anywhere remotely near being any of these things.

But then, if someone has a zealous partisan position which requires a visceral dislike of Knox and nothing but criticism and disdain for her words & deeds, it's a piece of (Simnal) cake to find a reason to fault (nay, find immoral!) Knox's acceptance of Trump's donation back in 2010 or thereabouts. IT'S ALL FOR MEREDITH! CRUSADERS FOR JUSTICE!!
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 15th April 2017, 06:53 PM   #190
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,406
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Well look (to introduce to good old reductio ad absurdum), if it had been, say, a high-ranking leader of the Ku Klux Klan looking to make a donation and pledge his support, then Knox and her family would have been well-advised to decline the donation and disavow the support. One might also argue the same had the donor/supporter been, say, a person previously convicted of a serious felony, or a person who had (say) written hate statements directed at women who sought abortions. One might even argue the same had the donor/supporter been a party politician (of any hue).

But at the time when Trump gave his donation and his support, he was of course none of these things - nor anywhere remotely near being any of these things.

But then, if someone has a zealous partisan position which requires a visceral dislike of Knox and nothing but criticism and disdain for her words & deeds, it's a piece of (Simnal) cake to find a reason to fault (nay, find immoral!) Knox's acceptance of Trump's donation back in 2010 or thereabouts. IT'S ALL FOR MEREDITH! CRUSADERS FOR JUSTICE!!
Exactly. This is just another obvious example of interpreting anything and everything Knox related as nefarious and, somehow, indicative of guilt and her "immorality". It really has become quite humorous watching how some PGP twist everything. Of course, we're wise to it and it stands out like ...oh, let's say a luminol reaction on a policeman's disposable shoe covering.
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 15th April 2017, 06:54 PM   #191
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,406
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Of course. I can't see why she should have vetted donations made to her defense fund. Can you imagine Amanda in jail calling Mr Trump after he donated to her defense fund asking him if he was square with the tax man?
I'm sure he'd have been as forthcoming with his tax returns then as he is now.
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 15th April 2017, 06:58 PM   #192
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,406
I think Vixen may have missed these:

1) Exactly how did Knox and Sollecito remove all traces of their DNA, fingerprints, and their bloody shoe/foot prints from Kercher's bedroom leaving only those of Guede?

2) Why would they leave the bath mat with its bloody footprint if it were Sollecito's?

3) Exactly how did Popovitch's testimony counter what Raff said?

4) If no TMB tests were performed as you claim, why did the prosecution not put Stefanoni on the stand to refute that the samples tested negative for blood?

Hmmm...I'm beginning to think she's avoiding answering them. Or....she'll wait a bit and then claim she did answer them.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 15th April 2017 at 07:01 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 16th April 2017, 01:20 AM   #193
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 8,886
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Well look (to introduce to good old reductio ad absurdum), if it had been, say, a high-ranking leader of the Ku Klux Klan looking to make a donation and pledge his support, then Knox and her family would have been well-advised to decline the donation and disavow the support. One might also argue the same had the donor/supporter been, say, a person previously convicted of a serious felony, or a person who had (say) written hate statements directed at women who sought abortions. One might even argue the same had the donor/supporter been a party politician (of any hue).

But at the time when Trump gave his donation and his support, he was of course none of these things - nor anywhere remotely near being any of these things.

But then, if someone has a zealous partisan position which requires a visceral dislike of Knox and nothing but criticism and disdain for her words & deeds, it's a piece of (Simnal) cake to find a reason to fault (nay, find immoral!) Knox's acceptance of Trump's donation back in 2010 or thereabouts. IT'S ALL FOR MEREDITH! CRUSADERS FOR JUSTICE!!


If you are desperate take the money by all means (I wouldn't take money from persons I consider immoral). However, don't later on loudly brag how you ripped off the money, but you are going to tell the world how much you despise your benefactor (who, incidentally helped get you out of a life term sentence in jail) and that you are going to vote for his rival instead.

That is cruel and unnecessary, but then we are looking at someone with a cruel nature.
__________________
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä,
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2017, 01:25 AM   #194
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 8,886
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I think Vixen may have missed these:

1) Exactly how did Knox and Sollecito remove all traces of their DNA, fingerprints, and their bloody shoe/foot prints from Kercher's bedroom leaving only those of Guede?

2) Why would they leave the bath mat with its bloody footprint if it were Sollecito's?

3) Exactly how did Popovitch's testimony counter what Raff said?

4) If no TMB tests were performed as you claim, why did the prosecution not put Stefanoni on the stand to refute that the samples tested negative for blood?

Hmmm...I'm beginning to think she's avoiding answering them. Or....she'll wait a bit and then claim she did answer them.

As you ought to know, lack of DNA does not mean lack of presence.

Loeb & Leopold left behind their bespoke glasses, despite having planned their 'perfect murder' over a long time.

Read Martuscelli to find this out:

Quote:
However all of the versions offered by Sollecito are untrue not only because they are
contradictory, but also because many of them have been substantially disproved. For
example, the witness Popovic disproves that Sollecito returned to his home alone at
around 20:00/:30, although this is what he claimed in his last account which he never
withdrew. This witness testified that she visited Sollecito's house twice on the evening of 1
November 2007, at about 18:00 and at about 20:40, and that on both occasions saw Knox
there, from which it seems certain that both of the young people were at Sollecito's house
together at least up until the time of the later visit. In addition, examination of his
computer showed that it was in use, to watch a film, and showed signs of human
interaction, between the hours of 18:27 and 21:10. It is also disproved that the young man
was working at his computer on the evening of 1 November 2007 until 23:00/24:00. The
analysis of his computer shows that between 21:10 and 05:32 there was no human
interaction, though the machine remained switched on, downloading films in an
automated manner (although Sollecito's expert witness D'Ambrosio claims that a short
animated film was viewed between 21:26 and 21:46).
Stefanoni had already given her testimony and she was not called back to counter Gino's misapprehensions.
__________________
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä,
Taivas on sininen ja valkoinen
ja tähtösiä täynnä
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2017, 02:29 AM   #195
Welshman
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 433
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Some of us have to maintain high standards.
If Vixen has such high standards why does she slavishly defend a corrupt scumbag like Mignini.
Welshman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2017, 07:01 AM   #196
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 11,833
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
If you are desperate take the money by all means (I wouldn't take money from persons I consider immoral). However, don't later on loudly brag how you ripped off the money, but you are going to tell the world how much you despise your benefactor (who, incidentally helped get you out of a life term sentence in jail) and that you are going to vote for his rival instead.

That is cruel and unnecessary, but then we are looking at someone with a cruel nature.
How do these highlighted embellishments on your part help your argument?

I guess it's all part of having high standards.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 16th April 2017 at 07:05 AM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2017, 07:07 AM   #197
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,666
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
How do these highlighted embellishments on your part help your argument?

I'd love to know just how Trump "helped get (Knox) out of a life term sentence in jail" What a load of old crap.

(If anything, as Knox herself pointed out correctly, Trump's anti-Italy comments could only have potentially had an adverse effect for her. But of course the truth is that the Italian criminal justice system did not act under the influence of Trump, Cantwell, Clinton or anyone else: Marasca's SC panel independently and correctly determined that the whole case was a disastrous and ineptly-investigated pile of horsedung, and that there was zero credible, reliable evidence that Knox or Sollecito had anything whatsoever to do with the Kercher murder.)
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2017, 11:25 AM   #198
toto
Muse
 
toto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 596
Sorry if this has already been asked (or answered)but do we know how much money Trump donated , if at all? My understanding about Trump is that he is not actually that generous with his charitable donations.
__________________
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. Samuel Beckett
toto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2017, 11:39 AM   #199
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,406
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I think Vixen may have missed these:

1) Exactly how did Knox and Sollecito remove all traces of their DNA, fingerprints, and their bloody shoe/foot prints from Kercher's bedroom leaving only those of Guede?

2) Why would they leave the bath mat with its bloody footprint if it were Sollecito's?

3) Exactly how did Popovitch's testimony counter what Raff said?

4) If no TMB tests were performed as you claim, why did the prosecution not put Stefanoni on the stand to refute that the samples tested negative for blood?

Hmmm...I'm beginning to think she's avoiding answering them. Or....she'll wait a bit and then claim she did answer them.
Question #1:

[quote=Vixen;11801645]
Quote:
As you ought to know, lack of DNA does not mean lack of presence.
Loeb & Leopold left behind their bespoke glasses, despite having planned their 'perfect murder' over a long time.
That does not answer question.[/b] How did they remove all their fingerprints and DNA while leaving only Guede's? You cannot answer the question because it is not possible. Unlike eyeglasses, DNA and fingerprints are invisible.

Question #2: you have failed to answer... yet again.


Question #3:

Quote:
the witness Popovic disproves that Sollecito returned to his home alone at
around 20:00/:30,

LOL. You mean the story he told police during his unrecorded interrogation without a lawyer? The version where he asked for a calendar to verify the date and the police refused to let him check? The version whose details coincided precisely with the events of the night before as supported by witnesses? That version? His and Amanda's version, both before and after that, were supported by Popovic.

Question #4:

Quote:
Stefanoni had already given her testimony and she was not called back to counter Gino's misapprehensions.
That is not an explanation and you know it. Why was she not called back to counter Gino's testimony which was supported by the introduction of the SAL cards? There is no logical or credible reason that, if what Gino had said was untrue, why Stefanoni would not have been recalled to counter it. Your inability to admit this is mind-boggling, but unsurprising.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2017, 11:42 AM   #200
Stacyhs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,406
Originally Posted by toto View Post
Sorry if this has already been asked (or answered)but do we know how much money Trump donated , if at all? My understanding about Trump is that he is not actually that generous with his charitable donations.
I don't believe the amount has ever been revealed.
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
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 06:56 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.