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

Closed Thread
Old 13th February 2018, 12:21 PM   #1561
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,125
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Saying, 'the forensic police must have taken the lamp into the room' is pure London John - style conjecture.
It still doesn't explain why Knox did not report it missing or why her fingerprints were not on it.
1) It's been explained to you, but you just ignore it because it doesn't fit your needs. Just as you ignore all the 530.2 "did not commit the fact" evidence placed before you EIGHT FREAKING TIMES. There was no reason for her to notice a missing table lamp that she did not need to turn on as the police video I provided clearly shows. As Knox testified...and as the police video shows...not only did ample light come in through her window but there was light coming in from the corridor that had windows to the terrace. No, you'll just go on claiming her room was "dark".

2) Please provide evidence (as in the test results or testimony) that no fingerprints were found on the lamp and not just merely unidentifiable
prints from being overlaid or smudges. Provide evidence that the lamp was "wiped clean".


Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The scientific forensic team would NOT introduce an item of potential contamination into the murder room. That is a stupid suggestion.
After everyone was hustled out of the cottage to wait outside, the postales or carabinieri could easily have taken the lamp from Amanda's room to get a better view of Meredith's room. I've looked through all their testimonies and none of them testified anything about the lamp that I could find. As far as I can find, they were not even asked if they brought in the lamp. Can you?
The postales and the carabinieri were not part of the scientific forensic team. As for them not introducing potential contamination, we have the very clear testimony from Silenzi that Battistelli did enter Meredith's bedroom (with no shoe covers) which Battistelli denies. Now, which of these two would have motive to lie about that?
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 12:41 PM   #1562
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,568
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
After everyone was hustled out of the cottage to wait outside, the postales or carabinieri could easily have taken the lamp from Amanda's room to get a better view of Meredith's room. I've looked through all their testimonies and none of them testified anything about the lamp that I could find. As far as I can find, they were not even asked if they brought in the lamp. Can you?
The postales and the carabinieri were not part of the scientific forensic team. As for them not introducing potential contamination, we have the very clear testimony from Silenzi that Battistelli did enter Meredith's bedroom (with no shoe covers) which Battistelli denies. Now, which of these two would have motive to lie about that?
Judge Massei in his 2010 motivations report, cites Monica Napoleoni's testimony that the 118 Medical Staff had not been wearing anti-contamination garb when they checked the condition of the body on the afternoon of Nov 2:
Originally Posted by Massei in 2010
(Napoleoni) was wearing shoe covers and sterile gloves. ‚I then saw this girl who was on the floor with her face lying towards the right of the viewer, with a terrible wound. Was semi-naked, had the t-shirt rolled up above the breast and lots of blood and spatters of blood even on the breast‛ (page 229).

Everyone who entered had gloves and shoe covers on except the 118 personnel who certified the death. Soon afterwards, Dr. Chiacchiera and colleagues from the Scientific Police arrived.
Yet the pro-guilt PR-campaign considers the victim's room to have been kept forensically clean for 46 days....
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 12:50 PM   #1563
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,125
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You do know that Amanda and Raff were hanging around in her room as witnessed by the police. What a marvellous coincidence Knox' cash in hand is exactly the same as the amount stolen from Mez, and how fortuitous she remembered to remove all her effects, including her passport whilst she was there!
1) You mean AK and RS were in her room checking for her valuables just like Filomena was in her room doing the exact same thing?

2) What evidence do you have that AK's "cash on hand" was exactly the same amount stolen from Meredith? How do you know how much money was in MK's wallet besides her rent money? How do you know how much cash AK had? You don't. Stop making things up.

3) Knox never said she collected her passport from her room that morning. As already mentioned, she most likely had it on her as she was traveling to Gubbio. I also keep my passport with me while abroad as identification as I don't bother taking my driver's license.

Amanda's testimony regarding what she looked for:
Quote:
FM: Let's return to via della Pergola. I'm almost finished. When you returned to the house in via della Pergola with Sollecito, and noticed the window that was broken, did you check in your own room if anything was missing?

AK: Just like that. I saw that my computer was there...

FM: But yesterday you said that you had money.

AK: Yes, I had some money.

FM: Did you check the money?

AK:I don't remember.

FM: You don't remember. So you can't tell us if the money was stolen or not?

AK: I honestly can't tell you. I can't remember whether or not I took a look in the little drawer. The thing I remember is that my computer was there, so I thought "Oh, if they haven't taken the computer," because it's a good quality portable computer, so I would have thought it would be the first thing a person would take from my room. And it was right there near the door, on the table.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 01:14 PM   #1564
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,125
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Judge Massei in his 2010 motivations report, cites Monica Napoleoni's testimony that the 118 Medical Staff had not been wearing anti-contamination garb when they checked the condition of the body on the afternoon of Nov 2:
Yet the pro-guilt PR-campaign considers the victim's room to have been kept forensically clean for 46 days....
We can all expect Vixen to continue to repeat her disproved or unsupported claims as fact. She will continue to state that 530.2 does not allow the use of the absolutory formula "non lo ha commesso il fatto". She will continue to claim AK's room was "dark" as well as Raffaele reported "a burglary". She will continue to claim that the lamp was "wiped clean". She will continue to claim that Amanda's cash in hand is exactly the same as the amount stolen from Meredith. And on and on and on....
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 01:56 PM   #1565
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,847
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You do know that Amanda and Raff were hanging around in her room as witnessed by the police. What a marvellous coincidence Knox' cash in hand is exactly the same as the amount stolen from Mez, and how fortuitous she remembered to remove all her effects, including her passport whilst she was there!

I am still waiting for a credible alibi - bearing in mind Raff's press conference during the Appeal to announce he cannot vouch for where Knox was between 20:45 and 01:00 on the murder night - and a credible alternative theory as to who Rudy's accomplices were. Or are we back to her star witness Aviello again?
We have been through this before. I am just disappointed that your recall is so poor. Italian law requires you to carry ID at all times (when in public), if Knox had been out without her ID she would have been committing an offence. That Knox had her ID on her and had not left her passport at home merely shows how law-abiding she was.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 02:07 PM   #1566
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 14,006
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
We have been through this before. I am just disappointed that your recall is so poor. Italian law requires you to carry ID at all times (when in public), if Knox had been out without her ID she would have been committing an offence. That Knox had her ID on her and had not left her passport at home merely shows how law-abiding she was.
LOL The Knox version of, 'They always helped little old ladies to cross the road'.























....the notorious Kray twins, East End gangsters connected to extortion, protection rackets, money laundering and murder.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 02:12 PM   #1567
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,072
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
We can all expect Vixen to continue to repeat her disproved or unsupported claims as fact. She will continue to state that 530.2 does not allow the use of the absolutory formula "non lo ha commesso il fatto". She will continue to claim AK's room was "dark" as well as Raffaele reported "a burglary". She will continue to claim that the lamp was "wiped clean". She will continue to claim that Amanda's cash in hand is exactly the same as the amount stolen from Meredith. And on and on and on....
I'm still waiting for Vixen to explain WHY, if Amanda and Raffaele had brought the lamp into the room, would they have wiped it down. For over six years I've followed this case and I've never heard anyone try to explain this. Maybe Vixen can explain it.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 02:23 PM   #1568
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,847
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You do know that Amanda and Raff were hanging around in her room as witnessed by the police. What a marvellous coincidence Knox' cash in hand is exactly the same as the amount stolen from Mez, and how fortuitous she remembered to remove all her effects, including her passport whilst she was there!

I am still waiting for a credible alibi - bearing in mind Raff's press conference during the Appeal to announce he cannot vouch for where Knox was between 20:45 and 01:00 on the murder night - and a credible alternative theory as to who Rudy's accomplices were. Or are we back to her star witness Aviello again?
I seem to remember there was a 'credible' witness placing Knox and Sollecito elsewhere. "Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in the Piazza, between 9:30pm and midnight" from themurderofmeredithkercher.com. If they were in the Piazza until midnight then they cannot have staged a break in, committed a robbery, assault, murder, and then cleaned up. Remember when the ear witnesses heard the scream, when a 'credible' eyewitness called by the prosecution placed them elsewhere.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 02:50 PM   #1569
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,847
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
This.

And thus the reason why the guilter-PR machine house-of-cards ultimately falls. It's the reason why they have never, ever put together a time-line for this crime; a reason picked up by the final acquitting court when it had in March 2015 overturned the Nencini conviction.

Fundamentally, they do not know what to do with Raffaele, or where he fits into the prosecution theory(ies) of the crime. If the prosecution was going to present that early evidence of Amanda's involvement, then Raffaele quite correctly said, "What's that then got to do with me?"

The answer? Nothing. And if Raffaele is suddenly free from suspicion - he becomes AMANDA'S ALIBI! That's how this guilt house of cards ultimately collapses.

In the first 6 months after the two had been jailed (precautionary detention) even Giuliano Mignini gave voice to this: he was perplexed as to why Raffaele had not turned on Amanda, ratting her out for some reduced sentence. Even Raffaele's own family had wondered that!

The police and prosecutor had pulled a random knife from Raffaele's, right in front of him, to pressure him. After the real killer, Guede, had replaced Lumumba as part of the crime, it was then that they had to return to the cottage 46 days later to go get something against Raffaele.... the bra-clasp....

.... which had not been collected originally, and subsequentially had been allowed to rust away in Stefanoni's care.

It really is this simple: the earliest evidence against Amanda, however coerced or imaginary, had had nothing to do with Raffaele. And if true, then Raffaele becomes her alibi. There's no way around that.

That's why it is eventually fatal to the guilt-PR campaign to keep harping on that press conference - claiming that at that time, Raffaele had withdrawn his alibi for Knox. If that had been true does that mean that Raffaele is suddenly scot-free in the guilter's timeline?

What timeline? Until the guilter-PR campaign deals with this, the last word on it belongs to the final acquitting court which had said that Judge Nencini had erred in his findings of time of death vis a vis alibi:
Please also note that the M/B report calls Raffaele's presence at the cottage only "alleged". "Alleged" for the purposes of considering Nencini's lack of logic in placing him there.

Until the guilter-PR machine can put together a time-line that deals with all the evidence (or lack of same) there is no reason to doubt the ultimate outcome of this case.

Guede is guilty. Knox and Sollecito are innocent.
The earliest evidence was against Sollecito. His trainer's shoe prints were 'identified' in the victim's bedroom. (Although this evidence collapsed.) His footprint was 'identified' on the bathmat (although at best this was not incompatible with). His DNA was found on the bra strap (after being kicked around for six weeks). The knife with the victim's DNA on (the sample that Steffanoni recorded as having undetectable DNA) was found at his flat.

This is the dead give away that the case against Knox is non evidence based prejudice. If the argument was being evidence led, then the case made would be that Sollecito lied to the police, evidence places Sollecito at the crime scene, Knox is giving Sollecito an alibi. Sollecito was the one with violent Manga and a collection of knives. That would then explain why Sollecito did not give up Knox, because she was his alibi, not vice versa. Guede said Knox was not involved but a man was.

You can make a strong case against Guede, you can make a case against Sollecito, but once you try and make Knox the lead it all falls down.

The police fell right in to the trap of the Sollecito family, putting the one potential witness in jail where she was vulnerable to pressure from the family. It almost makes one think there was a conspiracy to keep the one witness who could testify against Sollecito where she was most vulnerable to pressure rather than getting her out of the country where she could be protected by the FBI or US Marshalls.

Last edited by Planigale; 13th February 2018 at 02:54 PM.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 02:55 PM   #1570
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,125
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
LOL The Knox version of, 'They always helped little old ladies to cross the road'.


....the notorious Kray twins, East End gangsters connected to extortion, protection rackets, money laundering and murder.
If you have time to post this kind of irrelevant nonsense, then you should have time to provide evidence:

1) "that AK's "cash on hand" was exactly the same amount stolen from Meredith",

2) that the lamp was wiped clean of fingerprints and not that just no identifiable prints were found on it,

3) that Knox's room was "dark" and that she required a lamp to change clothes or do anything else in it that day,

4) that Sollecito reported a "burglary" and not a "break-in",

5) and that Knox did collected her passport from her room on Nov. 2.

When you can do any or all of the above, then you might gain some credibility.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 03:10 PM   #1571
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,568
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
If you have time to post this kind of irrelevant nonsense, then you should have time to provide evidence:

1) "that AK's "cash on hand" was exactly the same amount stolen from Meredith",

2) that the lamp was wiped clean of fingerprints and not that just no identifiable prints were found on it,

3) that Knox's room was "dark" and that she required a lamp to change clothes or do anything else in it that day,

4) that Sollecito reported a "burglary" and not a "break-in",

5) and that Knox did collected her passport from her room on Nov. 2.

When you can do any or all of the above, then you might gain some credibility.
While Vixen is at it, she can ask those guilters who read here to help, by giving an example of any forensic-DNA expert who supports Stefanoni's forensics.

No good citing Prof Novelli, he confirmed that Stefanoni had not followed protocol for multiple amplifications. No good citing Dr. Balding, he said he was "guessing" that the samples had been collected, handled and stored properly, but in any event had never seen any negative controls.

Given the confidence the nutters have in their position, you'd think they'd come up with one, and cue up Vixen to post it here.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 03:50 PM   #1572
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 631
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You do know that Amanda and Raff were hanging around in her room as witnessed by the police. What a marvellous coincidence Knox' cash in hand is exactly the same as the amount stolen from Mez, and how fortuitous she remembered to remove all her effects, including her passport whilst she was there!

I am still waiting for a credible alibi - bearing in mind Raff's press conference during the Appeal to announce he cannot vouch for where Knox was between 20:45 and 01:00 on the murder night - and a credible alternative theory as to who Rudy's accomplices were. Or are we back to her star witness Aviello again?
There is a reason why PIP have not given a theory as to who alternative accomplancies to Guede were and that is becaus the evidence suggests he acted alone. PGP criticise PIP for not coming up with credible alternative accomplices for Guede when the PGP scenario Amanda and Raffaele were accomplices to Guede has no credibility is full of holes as my points below demonostrate:-

• Amanda barely knew Rudy, Raffaele did not know Rudy at all and Amanda and Raffaele had only been dating six days. Three virtual strangers came together to commit a brutal sex crazed murder.

• Amanda only had brief contact with Guede and in six years the prosecution could not find any evidence of regular contact with Amanda and Guede and Raffaele had never met Guede. Despite this they were able to plan a murder.

• As the links below show witness testimony stated Amanda had a good relationship with Meredith and no evidence has existed Amanda had any animosity towards Meredith. Despite this Amanda was prepared to help a stranger carry out a brutal sexual assault and murder against Meredith.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda...ehavior-myths/

• The phones of Amanda and Raffaele were tapped in the three days between the discovery of Meredith’s body and the interrogations. Despite this Amanda and Raffaele make no mention of Rudy a man they were supposed to have committed a brutal murder and sexual assault with.

• Amanda spoke only basic Italian and Rudy did not speak English. Despite this Amanda and Rudy were able to plan a murder together.

• There is no contact between Amanda and Raffaele with Rudy after the murder. Is it credible that people could committ a brutal sexual assault and murder together and never contact each other again.

• As per the link below, the evidence which should have existed if Amanda and Rafffaele killed Meredith with Rudy is missing.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI2.html

• A woman was supposedly willing to help a stranger carry out a brutal sexual assault and murder against another woman. A scenario with no known precedent.

• The evidence against Guede was solid, credible and irrefutable as seen in the link below.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/rudy-guede/

The evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was full of holes and had no credibility. The knife was an example of this as can be seen from my post below. If Amanda, Raffaele and Guede committed the same crime together, how is the difference in the quality of the evidence explained?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...7#post11377317

• The methods the prosecution had to resort to with regards to Amanda and Raffaele were clearly the methods prosecutors would resort to when they have a weak case, lack of evidence and the facts don’t support their case as can be seen from the links below. The prosecution didn’t have to resort to these tactics when it came to Guede which indicated the prosecution had plenty of evidence and a slam dunk case. How is this massive difference explained if Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy committed the same crime?


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

• The evidence suggests Meredith was killed between 9.00 pm and 10.00 pm. Raffaele was using his computer at 9.10 pm and 9.26 pm which gives them an alibi for the time Guede murdered Meredith.

• The posts below show some of the falsehoods by Vixen in her posts showing PGP have to resort to lying to argue the case for Amanda and Raffaele’s guilt. I have never heard anyone resorting to lying to argue the case for Rudy’s guilt. How is this difference explained if Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy committed the same crime?

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

Last edited by Welshman; 13th February 2018 at 03:52 PM.
Welshman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 03:54 PM   #1573
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,125
After looking over some of TJMK's latest "articles", I'm struck by just how many of their "facts" are nothing more than assumptions, speculation, and are just downright false. No one challenges them there. No one asks for any evidence. They just feed each other more of the same reinforcing their beliefs. It's no wonder they believe what they do when that's what they base their beliefs on. It's nothing but a guilt echo chamber.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 04:38 PM   #1574
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,523
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
After looking over some of TJMK's latest "articles", I'm struck by just how many of their "facts" are nothing more than assumptions, speculation, and are just downright false. No one challenges them there. No one asks for any evidence. They just feed each other more of the same reinforcing their beliefs. It's no wonder they believe what they do when that's what they base their beliefs on. It's nothing but a guilt echo chamber.

Having just had a gander, it really is reaching an epic level of bizarre rationalisation over there. Quennell seems almost psychotically intent on convincing both himself and his small number of fellow travellers that "it's looking more and more like the endgame for Knox" - he/they genuinely seem to harbour warped (and utterly unsupportable) fantasies of Knox (and presumably also Sollecito) somehow being made to "pay" for the crime they've convinced themselves she committed. And every SINGLE thing is converted into either a) evidence of Knox's/Sollecito's guilt, or b) evidence that Knox/Sollecito are demonically manipulating the media and public in order to conceal their guilt, or c) evidence of just how successful the pro-guilt "campaign" (hehehehe) is proving. It's truly extraordinary - and genuinely pathetic (in the original sense of the word) - to observe.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 04:44 PM   #1575
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,523
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Saying, 'the forensic police must have taken the lamp into the room' is pure London John - style conjecture.

Hehehehehehehehehe No further comment necessary.


But to address the substance (hehe) of that sentence, it takes quite some chutzpah with strawmen to misrepresent an argument of:

You also have no idea , none how the lamp made its way into that bedroom. How do you know that a detective didn't remove it from Amanda's bedroom to illuminate the crime scene without disturbing it. You DON'T. None of us do.

as:

Saying, 'the forensic police must have taken the lamp into the room' is... conjecture


Not unsurprising though, eh....?
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 05:08 PM   #1576
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,568
Originally Posted by Vixen
Saying, 'the forensic police must have taken the lamp into the room' is pure London John - style conjecture.
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Hehehehehehehehehe No further comment necessary.


But to address the substance (hehe) of that sentence, it takes quite some chutzpah with strawmen to misrepresent an argument of:

You also have no idea , none how the lamp made its way into that bedroom. How do you know that a detective didn't remove it from Amanda's bedroom to illuminate the crime scene without disturbing it. You DON'T. None of us do.

as:

Saying, 'the forensic police must have taken the lamp into the room' is... conjecture


Not unsurprising though, eh....?
This kind of strawman posting has been going on for (coming up to) 3 years now. Upthread I'd summarized one of Vixen's first threads of posts about this very issue - the lamp. It's had been pointed out to her that the lamp had neither been forensically collected the day of the grisy discovery, nor even 46 days later when they decided to go get some evidence to frame against Raffaele. It was even later than that.... and there was more, but.....

..... at the end Vixen had just returned to, "Amanda took the lamp into the murder room, which is proof she'd been there...."

I can't believe that any of us, me included, has hung out this long with this silliness.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 05:24 PM   #1577
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,125
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Having just had a gander, it really is reaching an epic level of bizarre rationalisation over there. Quennell seems almost psychotically intent on convincing both himself and his small number of fellow travellers that "it's looking more and more like the endgame for Knox" - he/they genuinely seem to harbour warped (and utterly unsupportable) fantasies of Knox (and presumably also Sollecito) somehow being made to "pay" for the crime they've convinced themselves she committed. And every SINGLE thing is converted into either a) evidence of Knox's/Sollecito's guilt, or b) evidence that Knox/Sollecito are demonically manipulating the media and public in order to conceal their guilt, or c) evidence of just how successful the pro-guilt "campaign" (hehehehe) is proving. It's truly extraordinary - and genuinely pathetic (in the original sense of the word) - to observe.
Some of my favorite TJMK claims:

Quote:
12. At trial she confirmed she was provided with refreshments and helped to get some sleep. She was never refused bathroom breaks and confirmed she was not hit.
Yes, she confirmed she was given something to eat and drink AFTER the interrogation, not DURING it. Her testimony:


Quote:
CP:Listen, but you were accompanied to the bar, they offered you a cappuccino over the night? They assisted you through the night?

AK: I was offered tea after I had made declarations.
Quote:
LG:After all that, that whole conversation, that you told us about, and you had a crying crisis, did they bring you some tea, coffee, some cakes, something? When was that exactly?

AK:They brought me things only after I had made some declarations.
For Quennell to write that Amanda "confirmed she was not hit" is beyond comprehension when she testified that she was. We've all read it for ourselves already.

Quennell, Vixen and their fellow TJMKers live in a world of denial.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 05:54 PM   #1578
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 18,953
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Saying, 'the forensic police must have taken the lamp into the room' is pure London John - style conjecture. It still doesn't explain why Knox did not report it missing or why her fingerprints were not on it.
Yes it is conjecture as is your questioning that it means something. All we know is that it found it's way into the room. That's the point Vixen. It's simply a data point and nothing else.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post

The scientific forensic team would NOT introduce an item of potential contamination into the murder room. That is a stupid suggestion.
Nonsense. The lamp easily may have been brought in to prevent contamination.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Maybe I'll meet you at the Gates of St Peter one day. Then you can tell me whether you believe in the afterlife or not. I'll go and stand around the throne of the Lamb and sing his praises for eternity, and you can go socialise on the other side of the gate with the list of people as itemised in Revelation 22:15.
And maybe we'll meet in Valhalla, or maybe Islam's version of hell since neither of us believe in that. There is no evidence of Allah, Yahweh, Vishnu, Wotan etc...etc..etc. As I said, I require evidence and all you require is a good story.
__________________
“ 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 Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 06:17 PM   #1579
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,523
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
For Quennell to write that Amanda "confirmed she was not hit" is beyond comprehension when she testified that she was. We've all read it for ourselves already.

Yes - this is just (yet) another strawman from the great minds of the pro-guilt illuminati (or should that be "extinguati" )

They magically transform "Knox didn't say she was hit" (the position held by both Knox herself and her lawyers throughout and beyond the Massei trial) into "Knox said she was not hit". Even a six-year-old, I contend, could spot the sleight-of-hand misrepresentation going on there.

And of course it's thoroughly understandable - given the zeal and power of the police and prosecutor in the investigation, pre-trial and trial processes - that Knox would have been well advised not to allege police misconduct at that point. She only felt compelled to bring these allegations to light once it had become clear that the courts were going to convict her of criminal slander against Lumumba.

Had the courts had the perspicacity and had held the police up to the light in the correct way (and had the incredible decision not been made (by Massei?) to try the Lumumba criminal slander charge alongside the murder-related charges), then Knox ought to have been acquitted on the criminal slander charge (as well, of course, on all the other charges). And Knox would never have had to risk another criminal slander charge for accusing the police of pretty serious misconduct. Therefore, the timing and manner of her allegations is entirely compatible with the misconduct actually having occurred.

Oh, and let's not forget that rather unpleasant testimony from (I think) Giobbi about hearing Knox screaming and sobbing from quite some distance away inside the police HQ. And of course while that in itself doesn't prove that Knox was being improperly treated in that interrogation, most sane people would (IMO) tend to think that this evidence somewhat supports Knox's allegation.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 11:16 PM   #1580
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,568
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
The earliest evidence was against Sollecito. His trainer's shoe prints were 'identified' in the victim's bedroom. (Although this evidence collapsed.) His footprint was 'identified' on the bathmat (although at best this was not incompatible with). His DNA was found on the bra strap (after being kicked around for six weeks). The knife with the victim's DNA on (the sample that Steffanoni recorded as having undetectable DNA) was found at his flat.

This is the dead give away that the case against Knox is non evidence based prejudice. If the argument was being evidence led, then the case made would be that Sollecito lied to the police, evidence places Sollecito at the crime scene, Knox is giving Sollecito an alibi. Sollecito was the one with violent Manga and a collection of knives. That would then explain why Sollecito did not give up Knox, because she was his alibi, not vice versa. Guede said Knox was not involved but a man was.

You can make a strong case against Guede, you can make a case against Sollecito, but once you try and make Knox the lead it all falls down.

The police fell right in to the trap of the Sollecito family, putting the one potential witness in jail where she was vulnerable to pressure from the family. It almost makes one think there was a conspiracy to keep the one witness who could testify against Sollecito where she was most vulnerable to pressure rather than getting her out of the country where she could be protected by the FBI or US Marshalls.
I'd completely forgotten about the trainers, initially id'ed as Sollecito's. I bet the police are happy followers of the case have forgotten about that!

But your theory is as plausible as any. Their big mistake was to try to make Knox the lead......

Which allowed all sorts of spurious "evidence" into the case, especially the memorale's from a 20-something foreigner who (at the time) barely spoke the language. Despite this she was able to narrate the memorale's in police-speak Italian, covering off the legal bases that the cops needed to try to get the statements to stand up in court.

Which did not happen anyway. But as per your theory, it led to Sollecito eventually asking, "What's any of that to do with me?" No trainers in sight!
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 13th February 2018 at 11:21 PM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th February 2018, 12:50 PM   #1581
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,568
Peter Quennell is a serial fantasist.

People are asking when Raffaele's apology to Mignini is coming out. Pete has no reply, but is sure that it's very soon that a reckoning is going to happen.

Snore.......
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th February 2018, 01:00 PM   #1582
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 14,006
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Peter Quennell is a serial fantasist.

People are asking when Raffaele's apology to Mignini is coming out. Pete has no reply, but is sure that it's very soon that a reckoning is going to happen.

Snore.......
'If it be not now, 'tis yet to come' ~ Shakespeare, Hamlet
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 14th February 2018, 01:04 PM   #1583
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 14,006
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Yes it is conjecture as is your questioning that it means something. All we know is that it found it's way into the room. That's the point Vixen. It's simply a data point and nothing else.


Nonsense. The lamp easily may have been brought in to prevent contamination.


And maybe we'll meet in Valhalla, or maybe Islam's version of hell since neither of us believe in that. There is no evidence of Allah, Yahweh, Vishnu, Wotan etc...etc..etc. As I said, I require evidence and all you require is a good story.
It's a basic law of physics: every action has a reaction.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 14th February 2018, 01:05 PM   #1584
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 14,006
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Peter Quennell is a serial fantasist.

People are asking when Raffaele's apology to Mignini is coming out. Pete has no reply, but is sure that it's very soon that a reckoning is going to happen.

Snore.......
Acbytesla is a cereal fantasist with his coco-pops.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 14th February 2018, 01:06 PM   #1585
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 14,006
Originally Posted by Welshman View Post
There is a reason why PIP have not given a theory as to who alternative accomplancies to Guede were and that is becaus the evidence suggests he acted alone. PGP criticise PIP for not coming up with credible alternative accomplices for Guede when the PGP scenario Amanda and Raffaele were accomplices to Guede has no credibility is full of holes as my points below demonostrate:-

• Amanda barely knew Rudy, Raffaele did not know Rudy at all and Amanda and Raffaele had only been dating six days. Three virtual strangers came together to commit a brutal sex crazed murder.

• Amanda only had brief contact with Guede and in six years the prosecution could not find any evidence of regular contact with Amanda and Guede and Raffaele had never met Guede. Despite this they were able to plan a murder.

• As the links below show witness testimony stated Amanda had a good relationship with Meredith and no evidence has existed Amanda had any animosity towards Meredith. Despite this Amanda was prepared to help a stranger carry out a brutal sexual assault and murder against Meredith.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda...ehavior-myths/

• The phones of Amanda and Raffaele were tapped in the three days between the discovery of Meredith’s body and the interrogations. Despite this Amanda and Raffaele make no mention of Rudy a man they were supposed to have committed a brutal murder and sexual assault with.

• Amanda spoke only basic Italian and Rudy did not speak English. Despite this Amanda and Rudy were able to plan a murder together.

• There is no contact between Amanda and Raffaele with Rudy after the murder. Is it credible that people could committ a brutal sexual assault and murder together and never contact each other again.

• As per the link below, the evidence which should have existed if Amanda and Rafffaele killed Meredith with Rudy is missing.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI2.html

• A woman was supposedly willing to help a stranger carry out a brutal sexual assault and murder against another woman. A scenario with no known precedent.

• The evidence against Guede was solid, credible and irrefutable as seen in the link below.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/rudy-guede/

The evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was full of holes and had no credibility. The knife was an example of this as can be seen from my post below. If Amanda, Raffaele and Guede committed the same crime together, how is the difference in the quality of the evidence explained?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...7#post11377317

• The methods the prosecution had to resort to with regards to Amanda and Raffaele were clearly the methods prosecutors would resort to when they have a weak case, lack of evidence and the facts don’t support their case as can be seen from the links below. The prosecution didn’t have to resort to these tactics when it came to Guede which indicated the prosecution had plenty of evidence and a slam dunk case. How is this massive difference explained if Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy committed the same crime?


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

• The evidence suggests Meredith was killed between 9.00 pm and 10.00 pm. Raffaele was using his computer at 9.10 pm and 9.26 pm which gives them an alibi for the time Guede murdered Meredith.

• The posts below show some of the falsehoods by Vixen in her posts showing PGP have to resort to lying to argue the case for Amanda and Raffaele’s guilt. I have never heard anyone resorting to lying to argue the case for Rudy’s guilt. How is this difference explained if Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy committed the same crime?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11938562
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11942852
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11598412
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1#post11427461
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post11951893
Welshman dissembles on an industrial scale.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 14th February 2018, 01:29 PM   #1586
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,125
I'm still waiting for anyone to present evidence confirming that there were NO prints on the lamp (i.e. wiped clean) rather than non-identifiable prints due to smearing, overlaying prints, etc. No one, no matter how many times I've asked in the last several years, has been able to do so. Yet, the PGP continually claim it was wiped clean indicating a clean up. As far as I've been able to find in the testimony of the fingerprint experts, the lamp is not even mentioned.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th February 2018, 01:33 PM   #1587
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,125
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
'If it be not now, 'tis yet to come' ~ Shakespeare, Hamlet
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It's a basic law of physics: every action has a reaction.
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Acbytesla is a cereal fantasist with his coco-pops.
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Welshman dissembles on an industrial scale.
So, ya got nuthin' as demonstrated by these inane posts.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th February 2018, 02:31 PM   #1588
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,847
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Welshman dissembles on an industrial scale.
This seems to be an ad hominem. Address the argument.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th February 2018, 03:48 PM   #1589
Methos
Muse
 
Methos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 692
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I'm still waiting for anyone to present evidence confirming that there were NO prints on the lamp (i.e. wiped clean) rather than non-identifiable prints due to smearing, overlaying prints, etc. No one, no matter how many times I've asked in the last several years, has been able to do so. Yet, the PGP continually claim it was wiped clean indicating a clean up. As far as I've been able to find in the testimony of the fingerprint experts, the lamp is not even mentioned.
It wasn't tested, therefore no prints...
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 14th February 2018, 04:57 PM   #1590
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 18,953
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Acbytesla is a cereal fantasist with his coco-pops.
It is Coco Puffs and it was a cereal I remember from when I was a child. Koo Koo for Coco Puffs.
__________________
“ 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 Back to Top
Old 14th February 2018, 04:58 PM   #1591
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,568
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Welshman dissembles on an industrial scale.
dis·sem·ble
dəˈsembəl
verb
3rd person present: dissembles

conceal one's true motives, feelings, or beliefs.

"an honest, sincere person with no need to dissemble"
synonyms: dissimulate, pretend, feign, act, masquerade, sham, fake, bluff, posture, hide one's feelings, put on a false front

"she's being honest and has no need to dissemble"
disguise or conceal (a feeling or intention).
"she smiled, dissembling her true emotion"

********************************

Welshman is doing the exact opposite. It seems there is yet another word you have no idea what it means.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th February 2018, 05:04 PM   #1592
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,125
Originally Posted by Methos View Post
It wasn't tested, therefore no prints...
Not tested? That in itself is extremely interesting. The only reasonable conclusion we can infer is that the police knew it was not related to the murder because they brought it into the room. Mignini asking Amanda if she owned the lamp was simply an attempt to link her to the murder room.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th February 2018, 05:09 PM   #1593
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,568
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Not tested? That in itself is extremely interesting. The only reasonable conclusion we can infer is that the police knew it was not related to the murder because they brought it into the room. Mignini asking Amanda if she owned the lamp was simply an attempt to link her to the murder room.
It demonstrates that Mignini knew damn well there was a problem putting Knox in that room. Why else clutch at that kind of straw?

This leads directly to the constant refrain found in the Marasca-Bruno report of 2015, that even if all of what the prosecution had claimed had been true, there still was the incontrovertible fact that Knox had not been in that room.

At best that meant, acc. to M/B, that Knox and Sollecito had been in another part of the cottage after the murder. This is something that AK and RS have always admitted to.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th February 2018, 08:07 AM   #1594
sept79
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 316
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Not tested? That in itself is extremely interesting. The only reasonable conclusion we can infer is that the police knew it was not related to the murder because they brought it into the room. Mignini asking Amanda if she owned the lamp was simply an attempt to link her to the murder room.

The highlighted two sentences summarize the entire fiasco of Mignini's attempt to tie the young, attractive, American female to the murder. Does this explain Giobbi's equally disgusting observation?

Last edited by sept79; 15th February 2018 at 08:58 AM.
sept79 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th February 2018, 09:12 AM   #1595
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,201
Coco Puffs and olives

Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
It is Coco Puffs and it was a cereal I remember from when I was a child. Koo Koo for Coco Puffs.
I seem to recall that Rose Montague once said words to the effect, "Kokomani is Coco Puffs." He allegedly threw olives at Amanda Knox.
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 15th February 2018, 10:07 AM   #1596
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,568
Wink

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
I seem to recall that Rose Montague once said words to the effect, "Kokomani is Coco Puffs." He allegedly threw olives at Amanda Knox.
I miss Rose Montague. I miss Grinder. Anglolawyer not so much!
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th February 2018, 10:54 AM   #1597
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 18,953
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
I seem to recall that Rose Montague once said words to the effect, "Kokomani is Coco Puffs." He allegedly threw olives at Amanda Knox.
There were a lot of bizarre elements to this story. So many that makes it difficult to decide which is the most bizarre but Kokomani is in the top 5.
__________________
“ 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 Back to Top
Old 15th February 2018, 11:33 AM   #1598
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,125
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
There were a lot of bizarre elements to this story. So many that makes it difficult to decide which is the most bizarre but Kokomani is in the top 5.
This entire case has the makings of a great movie. It's in the "truth is stranger than fiction" and "you can't make this stuff up!" category. They'd literally need a "crazy cast of characters" to play some of the people involved. I'm picturing Christopher Lloyd playing Curatolo and Elvira for Napoleoni.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th February 2018, 11:42 AM   #1599
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 18,953
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
This entire case has the makings of a great movie. It's in the "truth is stranger than fiction" and "you can't make this stuff up!" category. They'd literally need a "crazy cast of characters" to play some of the people involved. I'm picturing Christopher Lloyd playing Curatolo and Elvira for Napoleoni.
Even Mignini is bizarre, what with his consulting of psychics.
__________________
“ 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 Back to Top
Old 15th February 2018, 12:38 PM   #1600
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 14,006
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
It demonstrates that Mignini knew damn well there was a problem putting Knox in that room. Why else clutch at that kind of straw?

This leads directly to the constant refrain found in the Marasca-Bruno report of 2015, that even if all of what the prosecution had claimed had been true, there still was the incontrovertible fact that Knox had not been in that room.

At best that meant, acc. to M/B, that Knox and Sollecito had been in another part of the cottage after the murder. This is something that AK and RS have always admitted to.
Under cross-examination in the witness box, at no time did Knox claim, 'the police must have put the lamp there'.

In trying to disclaim the lamp as hers - feigning uncertainty - it tells us all we need to know.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Closed Thread

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 06:25 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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

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