The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 28

[Methos]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

Doug Preston writes in his book, "The Monster of Florence", that he never really "got" what the Italian legal system was all about, until someone in Italy pulled him aside and explained what "dietrology" was.

As explained, many in Italy (and perhaps elsewhere) pride themselves in knowing something you don't know, some "behind the scenes something" that is not perceptible to an outsider. It's why many North Americans found it mystifying sitting through the various trials which plagued this case - the presentations of lawyers resembled more theatre than law; and appeals to what something "really was", rather than what it simply was, were common orders of the day.

As Preston said, when he wrapped his head around that, he could understand more about what had gone on with him in his encounter with Mignini.

It's not exactly a "conspiracy theory" but it is close. I've lost count of the number of times that guilter-posters on this very thread had appealed to their own understanding of what is "really going on" to explain why (for instance) Hellmann acquitted the pair. "Hellmann liked fast cars, and the Masons knew how to bride him." Machiavelli here called the president of the appeals division in Perugia, Wladimir De Nunzio, a criminal for appointing Hellmann, and M. claimed to know the "real reason" De Nunzio prejudiced things like that.

Indeed, Andrea Vogt even wrote in 2010:

Quote:

Legal observers in Perugia, however, maintain the change of magistrates from Sergio Matteini Chiari to Claudio Pratillo Hellmann was simply an "internal administrative issue."

Matteini Chiari, a judge who prosecuted the controversial Andreotti appeals trial over the mafia murder of an Italian journalist, is apparently in line to head the juvenile court. Knox's attorney Luciano Ghirga referred to both judges as "respected and experienced."

Yet others read great significance in the change of magistrates - ie. dietrology.

Just for the record: Last minute replacement? Looks like someone on IIP cleared the Matteini Chiari nonsense back in late 2014 (most links are still working )

It's interesting that this one:
Corruption Of Appeal: Angry Top Criminal Judge Chiari Is Blatantly Forced Aside now dated "October 31, 2010" is nowhere to be found in the wayback archives of TJMK from October 2010...

[Vixen]

When all is said and done she voluntarily incriminated herself, lawyer or no lawyer.

So her contradictory garbage such as her email to everyone in her address book which gives yet a different story is barred as evidence in the trial.

But it remains for all to see.

[Kauffer]

Originally Posted by Vixen

When all is said and done she voluntarily incriminated herself, lawyer or no lawyer.

So her contradictory garbage such as her email to everyone in her address book which gives yet a different story is barred as evidence in the trial.

But it remains for all to see.

You should read James Raper over on TJMK.

He's got three pro Knox posts up because the penny has dropped and he's worked out that she should have had a lawyer before she made a statement at 1:45.

And the ballerina stalker hasn't realised....yet.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

When all is said and done she voluntarily incriminated herself, lawyer or no lawyer.

So her contradictory garbage such as her email to everyone in her address book which gives yet a different story is barred as evidence in the trial.

But it remains for all to see.

"Voluntarily incriminated herself". ROTFLMAO! Why on earth would she voluntarily incriminate herself but before and after that interrogation affirm she had nothing whatsoever to do with the murder? I guess all that gentle (but firm) questioning, cakes and chamomile tea caused her to stop and think "Wow. Let me put myself at the scene of the murder!"

That email repeated what she had already told the police and what she would continue to say after that interrogation. The ODD thing out was what she "voluntarily" said the night of that lawyerless and unrecorded interrogation. It's out there for all to see. Well, except for those who have dug themselves so deep into the guilter hole that they can't get out.

[Kauffer]

Originally Posted by Vixen

When all is said and done she voluntarily incriminated herself, lawyer or no lawyer.

So her contradictory garbage such as her email to everyone in her address book which gives yet a different story is barred as evidence in the trial.

But it remains for all to see.

Doh! That's why you have a lawyer, because without one, it's not voluntary. Even Gemelli knew that much and he's an Italian judge. Who the hell makes voluntary, self incriminating statements at 1:45 in the morning? Ficcarra testified that the questioning of Knox was predicated on Sollecito's coerced statement removing her alibi.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Vixen

When all is said and done she voluntarily incriminated herself, lawyer or no lawyer.

So her contradictory garbage such as her email to everyone in her address book which gives yet a different story is barred as evidence in the trial.

But it remains for all to see.

Hahaha you SO don't know what you're talking about! The Baghdad Bob impersonation continues to provide great entertainment though

"Voluntarily" AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

"Lawyer or no lawyer" AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!

[Stacyhs]

I found this jewell of illogical thinking over on TJMK:

Quote:

As for the Article 6 breaches, the ECHR rejects Italy’s claim that a lawyer was offered but declined, as it wasn’t noted in the police minutes. However, in the submissions sent to it and which it quotes, Knox claims she was *told* that if she accepted the offer of a lawyer it would look bad, as though she was refusing to cooperate.

Quite aside from Knox by her own account confirming a lawyer *was* offered her (thus repudiating her own claim), I wonder if anybody for a minute believes such a ridiculous story; i.e., that the police offered her a lawyer but then threatened her with an accusation of non-cooperation if she accepted? It’s a blatant likely story. By no stretch of imagination would the police willingly breach protocol and potentially damage their case.

Anybody in that position would have said yes, straightaway. Unless you are guilty and want to keep up a charade of nonchalance.

Knox never claimed she was offered a lawyer. She said she asked if she needed one. She brought it up, not the police, so how the the author of the above concludes that Knox repudiated her own claim is just plain wrong. But the poster is right about one thing: no one would believe such a ridiculous story of the police offering a lawyer and then telling the suspect they're better off without one. Which is why the police didn't offer a lawyer as Knox has always said.

The police neither recorded that they offered Knox a lawyer nor that she asked for one. The reasons for both are abundantly clear: they never offered her a lawyer and they didn't want to acknowledge that she had asked if she needed one but was advised against it. Both, of course, broke protocol.

I particularly like this gem:

"Anybody in that position would have said yes, straightaway. Unless you are guilty and want to keep up a charade of nonchalance."

If a guilty person wanted to keep up a "charade of nonchalance" they wouldn't be likely to have brought up the subject of a lawyer in the first place. With this kind of logic, no wonder this poster can't see the forest for the trees.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Kauffer

Doh! That's why you have a lawyer, because without one, it's not voluntary. Even Gemelli knew that much and he's an Italian judge. Who the hell makes voluntary, self incriminating statements at 1:45 in the morning? Ficcarra testified that the questioning of Knox was predicated on Sollecito's coerced statement removing her alibi.

Exactly.

For a very long time, it's been my contention that what happened on the night of 5th/6th November was a carefully choreographed set of events, devised and authorised by senior police officers and the PM (and I've outlined my belief in these threads for many, many years now.....).

OF COURSE they suspected Knox at that point (i.e. by the early evening of the 5th at least). There's ample evidence that they did. And they needed her in custody before her mother arrived on the 6th. They thought that Sollecito was covering up for Knox out of misplaced "love" and manipulation. Or if not that, Sollecito himself was involved in the murder. They thought that a black man had committed the murder itself (they may or may not have had Lumumba in the frame at that point), and that Knox was in league with this man.

So the plan was devised. First they'd get Sollecito to break, having a) convinced him that it was stupid and illegal for him to cover for Knox, that he owed the bitch nothing, and that he himself could get into huge trouble unless he stopped covering for her; and b) told him they had solid evidence of Knox's involvement in the murder in any case.

And having done that, they'd go and arrest the "volpe cattiva" Knox - the manipulative murderous whore - probably with the media in attendance. They'd tell her that Sollecito had broken and admitted that she'd gone out without him on the night of the murder, and that they had solid evidence of her involvement in the murder. They'd tell her that the best pathway for her now was to confess everything, and testify against the man who'd committed the murder itself. If she did that, she'd get off relatively lightly. If she did not, then she'd probably end up convicted of murder itself, with a 30-year prison sentence awaiting her.

What's more, they'd elicit the confession/accusation from her without the need to involve a lawyer, and once they'd got a signed written statement, they'd call in the PM who would act as if he was her friend, and get her to "tell me again exactly what happened, so I can hear it from you directly" - which he could then categorise as a "spontaneous declaration" that could then hopefully be used against Knox at trial.

And that's more-or-less what happened. I think their plan was slightly thwarted by Knox coming into the police HQ, since it denied them the opportunity of doing a high-profile arrest in the presence of the TV and newspaper cameras. The rest went like clockwork though. As Perugia police chief De Felice tellingly bragged to journalists on the 6th, Knox eventually buckled and told the police what they ALREADY KNEW to be the truth.........

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I found this jewell of illogical thinking over on TJMK:


Knox never claimed she was offered a lawyer. She said she asked if she needed one. She brought it up, not the police, so how the the author of the above concludes that Knox repudiated her own claim is just plain wrong. But the poster is right about one thing: no one would believe such a ridiculous story of the police offering a lawyer and then telling the suspect they're better off without one. Which is why the police didn't offer a lawyer as Knox has always said.

The police neither recorded that they offered Knox a lawyer nor that she asked for one. The reasons for both are abundantly clear: they never offered her a lawyer and they didn't want to acknowledge that she had asked if she needed one but was advised against it. Both, of course, broke protocol.

I particularly like this gem:

"Anybody in that position would have said yes, straightaway. Unless you are guilty and want to keep up a charade of nonchalance."

If a guilty person wanted to keep up a "charade of nonchalance" they wouldn't be likely to have brought up the subject of a lawyer in the first place. With this kind of logic, no wonder this poster can't see the forest for the trees.

AHAHAHAHAHA! Was that the legendary "Krissy G"? Or Quennell?

Obviously the police blocked/deflected Knox's requests for a lawyer. And most of the pro-guilt idiots STILL appear not to understand that in Italy it's not even a matter of the preference of the suspect. In Italy, a lawyer MUST be appointed and consulted the moment someone becomes a suspect.

And in Knox's case, that moment has to have been at the very least the second immediately following her verbal "confession/accusation". Though, as Raper has now correctly realised, since the police forced Sollecito to (confusedly and incorrectly) tell them that Knox had in fact gone out without him on the night of the murder BEFORE they even called Knox in for interrogation, they must necessarily have considered Knox a suspect of a serious criminal offence before she even sat down in that room. She should, under Italian law, have been cautioned immediately, with no interrogation having happened. She should have been given access to a lawyer, and from then on only the PM should have been allowed to interrogate her, always with her lawyer present.

Of course, my own personal belief (see my previous post) is that the police and PM considered both Knox and Sollecito suspects before they even called Sollecito into the police HQ that night. They suspected Sollecito of lying to protect Knox (at a minimum), and they suspected Knox of lying to them and of some level of involvement in the murder. So even Sollecito should never have been interrogated by the police that night.

But the police and PM knew exactly what they were doing. They'd probably done variations on the same method many, many times before. They knew how to subvert the system (and the law) in order to get what they wanted: confessions, "spontaneous declarations", convictions, and praise.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Kauffer

Doh! That's why you have a lawyer, because without one, it's not voluntary. Even Gemelli knew that much and he's an Italian judge. Who the hell makes voluntary, self incriminating statements at 1:45 in the morning? Ficcarra testified that the questioning of Knox was predicated on Sollecito's coerced statement removing her alibi.

Knox did, in the early hours of Sunday after the murder.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Exactly.

For a very long time, it's been my contention that what happened on the night of 5th/6th November was a carefully choreographed set of events, devised and authorised by senior police officers and the PM (and I've outlined my belief in these threads for many, many years now.....).

OF COURSE they suspected Knox at that point (i.e. by the early evening of the 5th at least). There's ample evidence that they did. And they needed her in custody before her mother arrived on the 6th. They thought that Sollecito was covering up for Knox out of misplaced "love" and manipulation. Or if not that, Sollecito himself was involved in the murder. They thought that a black man had committed the murder itself (they may or may not have had Lumumba in the frame at that point), and that Knox was in league with this man.

So the plan was devised. First they'd get Sollecito to break, having a) convinced him that it was stupid and illegal for him to cover for Knox, that he owed the bitch nothing, and that he himself could get into huge trouble unless he stopped covering for her; and b) told him they had solid evidence of Knox's involvement in the murder in any case.

And having done that, they'd go and arrest the "volpe cattiva" Knox - the manipulative murderous whore - probably with the media in attendance. They'd tell her that Sollecito had broken and admitted that she'd gone out without him on the night of the murder, and that they had solid evidence of her involvement in the murder. They'd tell her that the best pathway for her now was to confess everything, and testify against the man who'd committed the murder itself. If she did that, she'd get off relatively lightly. If she did not, then she'd probably end up convicted of murder itself, with a 30-year prison sentence awaiting her.

What's more, they'd elicit the confession/accusation from her without the need to involve a lawyer, and once they'd got a signed written statement, they'd call in the PM who would act as if he was her friend, and get her to "tell me again exactly what happened, so I can hear it from you directly" - which he could then categorise as a "spontaneous declaration" that could then hopefully be used against Knox at trial.

And that's more-or-less what happened. I think their plan was slightly thwarted by Knox coming into the police HQ, since it denied them the opportunity of doing a high-profile arrest in the presence of the TV and newspaper cameras. The rest went like clockwork though. As Perugia police chief De Felice tellingly bragged to journalists on the 6th, Knox eventually buckled and told the police what they ALREADY KNEW to be the truth.........

Claptrap. Raff is an Italian man from a professional Italian family. Every single Italian - male and female - and even Albanian mobster Kokomani, knew the protocol in Italy was to take your lawyer to the Questura with you. Giacomo Silenzi knew it, even though he had spent the weekend skiing with friends and family, Filomena and Laura knew it.

So, what was the problem with Raff not having a lawyer? Truth is, he he made a decision not to bother with one, whilst all the while spinning the cops a 'sack of ****' as he states in his signed police statement of the 6 Nov 2007.

So yes, the pair were putting on an act of nonchalance, whilst everybody else treated the matter solemnly.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Claptrap. Raff is an Italian man from a professional Italian family. Every single Italian - male and female - and even Albanian mobster Kokomani, knew the protocol in Italy was to take your lawyer to the Questura with you. Giacomo Silenzi knew it, even though he had spent the weekend skiing with friends and family, Filomena and Laura knew it.

So, what was the problem with Raff not having a lawyer? Truth is, he he made a decision not to bother with one, whilst all the while spinning the cops a 'sack of ****' as he states in his signed police statement of the 6 Nov 2007.

So yes, the pair were putting on an act of nonchalance, whilst everybody else treated the matter solemnly.

I don't even know where to start pointing out the inherent illogic, ignorance and lack of objectivity contained within this post

*shakes head slowly and backs away*

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Knox did, in the early hours of Sunday after the murder.

Ummmmmm, if you're referring to Knox's "confession/accusation" at the police HQ, that happened in the early hours of the Tuesday after the murder..........

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Claptrap. Raff is an Italian man from a professional Italian family. Every single Italian - male and female - and even Albanian mobster Kokomani, knew the protocol in Italy was to take your lawyer to the Questura with you. Giacomo Silenzi knew it, even though he had spent the weekend skiing with friends and family, Filomena and Laura knew it.

So, what was the problem with Raff not having a lawyer? Truth is, he he made a decision not to bother with one, whilst all the while spinning the cops a 'sack of ****' as he states in his signed police statement of the 6 Nov 2007.

So yes, the pair were putting on an act of nonchalance, whilst everybody else treated the matter solemnly.

Oh. My. God. So it's SOLLECITO'S fault he didn't have a lawyer! Victim blaming much? Sad, Vixen, just sad.

GUILTY people demand a lawyer far more than innocent people do. Innocent people don't think they need one because they haven't done anything wrong. Guilty people know they have and need a lawyer.

[Stacyhs]

Vixen, please explain just why Knox would voluntarily incriminate herself in the murder. Go on. Try and make sense of that ridiculous statement.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Vixen, please explain just why Knox would voluntarily incriminate herself in the murder. Go on. Try and make sense of that ridiculous statement.

And.....................

Why would Knox spend all that time faking a burglary - one in a manner which matched the way Rudy Guede broke into places.......

Why would Knox miraculously remove two of three sets of forensics - to the molecular level with her magic lamp.....

And then waltz into police headquarters and voluntarily and nonchalantly accuse someone else?

(Yes, others have pointed this out, but still.....)

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

And.....................

Why would Knox spend all that time faking a burglary - one in a manner which matched the way Rudy Guede broke into places.......

Why would Knox miraculously remove two of three sets of forensics - to the molecular level with her magic lamp.....

And then waltz into police headquarters and voluntarily and nonchalantly accuse someone else?

(Yes, others have pointed this out, but still.....)

I hope we get some advance warning of Vixen's (attempt) to explain this so I can make some popcorn first.
The explanation should be as good as her attempt to explain why Knox would point out to the police her own blood in the bathroom and her 'accomplice's' bloody footprint on the bath rug.

[Kauffer]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

And.....................

Why would Knox spend all that time faking a burglary - one in a manner which matched the way Rudy Guede broke into places.......

Why would Knox miraculously remove two of three sets of forensics - to the molecular level with her magic lamp.....

And then waltz into police headquarters and voluntarily and nonchalantly accuse someone else?

(Yes, others have pointed this out, but still.....)

It’s just not possible to reconcile the pro guilt position on the murder and it’s afternath with the pro guilt position on the interrogation.

It just doesn’t work.

Guilty Amanda says one of:

1) Nothing
2) “Get me a lawyer”

Or guilty Amanda has already left Perugia or has already lawyered up or both.

Innocent, naiive Amanda does....well, what she actually did.

Putting herself at the scene of the crime and implicitly admitting she’s been lying is nuts, if she’s guilty. And if she’s guilty her intention was that Guede would be uncovered, because she’s deliberately preserved his evidence while cleaning away hers. Naming Lumumba can’t help her either.

Irreconcilable parts of theories are proofs that whole theories are wrong.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Kauffer

It’s just not possible to reconcile the pro guilt position on the murder and it’s afternath with the pro guilt position on the interrogation.

It just doesn’t work.

Guilty Amanda says one of:

1) Nothing
2) “Get me a lawyer”

Or guilty Amanda has already left Perugia or has already lawyered up or both.

Innocent, naiive Amanda does....well, what she actually did.

Guilty Guede flees Italy for Germany. Guilty Knox flees Italy for her grandmother's in Germany. Innocent Knox stays and tried to help police .

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I hope we get some advance warning of Vixen's (attempt) to explain this so I can make some popcorn first.
The explanation should be as good as her attempt to explain why Knox would point out to the police her own blood in the bathroom and her 'accomplice's' bloody footprint on the bath rug.

Originally Posted by Kauffer

It’s just not possible to reconcile the pro guilt position on the murder and it’s afternath with the pro guilt position on the interrogation.

It just doesn’t work.

Guilty Amanda says one of:

1) Nothing
2) “Get me a lawyer”

Or guilty Amanda has already left Perugia or has already lawyered up or both.

Innocent, naiive Amanda does....well, what she actually did.

I'm just waiting - oh please, would she! - for Vixen to say that Knox had had to switch gears because Sollecito had begun to remove his alibi for her. Knox had had to quickly come up with a "Plan B", now that the coverup was crumbling!

Aside from the fact that that "Plan B" would have almost certainly have had to start the process of naming Guede (now that Sollecito was eroding the deal the three of them had made to throw suspicion elsewhere).....

This would have meant that, just like Matteini had said at the hearing two days later, that the cops had regarded Knox as a suspect as soon as Sollecito had started cracking!

That's always been the trouble with the guilter-hater "narrative", and perhaps the reason why they rarely, if ever, attempt to construct a detailed one.

The narrative should converge, rather than diverge. For a narrative from the guilter-haters to work, it has to ignore salient facts at some points to allow others to stand, and then visa versa depending on what they're trying to prove at any one moment.

I don't know - maybe this new person over at TJMK - Krissy G - will be the first to manage a guilter-hater narrative that actually stays together!

[Kauffer]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I hope we get some advance warning of Vixen's (attempt) to explain this so I can make some popcorn first.
The explanation should be as good as her attempt to explain why Knox would point out to the police her own blood in the bathroom and her 'accomplice's' bloody footprint on the bath rug.

Precisely.

Or why, having selectively cleaned invisible traces of herself elsewhere she didn’t give the bathroom a wipe down - would have taken no time....or why the mat wasn’t disposed of...and so on...

[Welshman]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Hate to break it to you but it is a legally established fact in perpetuity [res judicata] that Amanda falsely accused Lumumba knowingly of a heinous crime.

Get over it. It's not as if Knox cares a toss about you.

Vixen totally ignores the disgusting hypocrisy I pointed out where Vixen attacks Amanda for falsely accusing Lumumba when Vixen falsely accuses people of committing crimes.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Welshman

Vixen totally ignores the disgusting hypocrisy I pointed out where Vixen attacks Amanda for falsely accusing Lumumba when Vixen falsely accuses people of committing crimes.

As posted by Stacyhs, Vixen ignores that it is a legally established fact in perpetuity [res judicata]*that Knox and Sollecito were found completely innocent of murder.

Reposted until the penny drops for Vixen, is Maneula Comodi's views on the matter....

[TruthCalls]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Knox did, in the early hours of Sunday after the murder.

So I assume that horrific screaming and crying, such as what Amanda did, as testified to by several people, is normal for someone who is voluntarily providing information to friendly police who are serving up chamomile tea and pastries?

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by TruthCalls

So I assume that horrific screaming and crying, such as what Amanda did, as testified to by several people, is normal for someone who is voluntarily providing information to friendly police who are serving up chamomile tea and pastries?

It took me a year to realize that the hater-nutters don't read much more than John Follain's "A Death in Italy." The way he describes the interrogation, Knox HAD TO confess simply to stop being showered with all those kindnesses.

I mean, with all those pastries forced on her, one must still watch one's waist.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Vixen

But it remains for all to see.

Yes, so much so, in fact, that from an overwhelmingly pro-guilt opening page for this thread's first incarnation, you are the only remaining guilter. Sounds like the evidence convinced everyone but you the other way.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

Doug Preston writes in his book, "The Monster of Florence", that he never really "got" what the Italian legal system was all about, until someone in Italy pulled him aside and explained what "dietrology" was.

As explained, many in Italy (and perhaps elsewhere) pride themselves in knowing something you don't know, some "behind the scenes something" that is not perceptible to an outsider. It's why many North Americans found it mystifying sitting through the various trials which plagued this case - the presentations of lawyers resembled more theatre than law; and appeals to what something "really was", rather than what it simply was, were common orders of the day.

As Preston said, when he wrapped his head around that, he could understand more about what had gone on with him in his encounter with Mignini.

It's not exactly a "conspiracy theory" but it is close. I've lost count of the number of times that guilter-posters on this very thread had appealed to their own understanding of what is "really going on" to explain why (for instance) Hellmann acquitted the pair. "Hellmann liked fast cars, and the Masons knew how to bride him." Machiavelli here called the president of the appeals division in Perugia, Wladimir De Nunzio, a criminal for appointing Hellmann, and M. claimed to know the "real reason" De Nunzio prejudiced things like that.

//Slight Hijack// I agree 100% with this and strongly second Preston's book for anyone who has a hard time "getting" the mentality of our ages "Miscarriage of Justice" Fandom.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by TruthCalls

So I assume that horrific screaming and crying, such as what Amanda did, as testified to by several people, is normal for someone who is voluntarily providing information to friendly police who are serving up chamomile tea and pastries?

The screaming and crying was almost certainly due to Knox having burned herself on the hot chamomile tea.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Kauffer

Precisely.

Or why, having selectively cleaned invisible traces of herself elsewhere she didn’t give the bathroom a wipe down - would have taken no time....or why the mat wasn’t disposed of...and so on...

As I recall, Vixen's explanation was that, in essence, Knox and Sollecito were trying to arrogantly 'put one over' on the police. The two thought they were so smart and the cops couldn't figure out to whom the blood and footprint belonged. Well, she was right about one thing: they couldn't figure out whose footprint it was.

[TruthCalls]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

As I recall, Vixen's explanation was that, in essence, Knox and Sollecito were trying to arrogantly 'put one over' on the police. The two thought they were so smart and the cops couldn't figure out to whom the blood and footprint belonged. Well, she was right about one thing: they couldn't figure out whose footprint it was.

This is the very essence of what makes people like Vixen so very entertaining - they concoct some harebrained theory about something, and when someone points out the obvious lack of logic in it, rather than admit her mistake, she'll double down on an even more harebrained theory to explain the last one.

...she just couldn't admit cell antennas don't rotate, but rather than say she had misspoken, months later she posts a video of a satellite dish. And then, as if that wasn't funny enough, she then suggests, based on this fine piece of evidence she located, that she apparently knows more than those who corrected her.

I mean, this is great stuff!

[Numbers]

Originally Posted by TruthCalls

This is the very essence of what makes people like Vixen so very entertaining - they concoct some harebrained theory about something, and when someone points out the obvious lack of logic in it, rather than admit her mistake, she'll double down on an even more harebrained theory to explain the last one.

...she just couldn't admit cell antennas don't rotate, but rather than say she had misspoken, months later she posts a video of a satellite dish. And then, as if that wasn't funny enough, she then suggests, based on this fine piece of evidence she located, that she apparently knows more than those who corrected her.

I mean, this is great stuff!

The long list of guilter misrepresentations and obviously logically-flawed arguments reveals that the pro-guilt case is merely a hoax.

Some of the hoaxers, when their misrepresentations or misinterpretations are pointed out to them, simply double down on these lies and logical falacies.

That is certainly entertaining (if there's nothing better on TV or otherwise).

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by TruthCalls

This is the very essence of what makes people like Vixen so very entertaining - they concoct some harebrained theory about something, and when someone points out the obvious lack of logic in it, rather than admit her mistake, she'll double down on an even more harebrained theory to explain the last one.

...she just couldn't admit cell antennas don't rotate, but rather than say she had misspoken, months later she posts a video of a satellite dish. And then, as if that wasn't funny enough, she then suggests, based on this fine piece of evidence she located, that she apparently knows more than those who corrected her.

I mean, this is great stuff!

Well, technically, satellite dishes (as the term is commonly used) don't rotate either. those are mostly trained on geostationary sats and would cease to function if they did rotate.

No, hilarious, what she posted was an astronomical radio telescope, which simply makes the blunder even more hilarious.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by abaddon

Well, technically, satellite dishes (as the term is commonly used) don't rotate either. those are mostly trained on geostationary sats and would cease to function if they did rotate.

No, hilarious, what she posted was an astronomical radio telescope, which simply makes the blunder even more hilarious.

There are other equally plausible explanations for the "error". One is that this thread is being trolled.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

There are other equally plausible explanations for the "error". One is that this thread is being trolled.

Sure.

But for anyone who wants to cross-check, she posted the VLBA on Mauna-Kea as an example of a rotating cell antenna.

Link for the interested.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Numbers

The long list of guilter misrepresentations and obviously logically-flawed arguments reveals that the pro-guilt case is merely a hoax.

Some of the hoaxers, when their misrepresentations or misinterpretations are pointed out to them, simply double down on these lies and logical falacies.

That is certainly entertaining (if there's nothing better on TV or otherwise).

Can anyone remember, or better still cite an instance of when one of the guilter-haters called out another guilter hater for blatant inaccuracies?

The closest I can think of is when TJMK pulled the rug out from under serial plagiarist Nick van der Leek who on first look is a guilter hater. TJMK warned their readers to beware of NvdL and his writings.

I still remember the PMF.ORG moderator (Peggy Ganong) calling out "friendly" posters for using the "s" word to describe Amanda Knox.

Anything else?

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

Can anyone remember, or better still cite an instance of when one of the guilter-haters called out another guilter hater for blatant inaccuracies?

The closest I can think of is when TJMK pulled the rug out from under serial plagiarist Nick van der Leek who on first look is a guilter hater. TJMK warned their readers to beware of NvdL and his writings.

I still remember the PMF.ORG moderator (Peggy Ganong) calling out "friendly" posters for using the "s" word to describe Amanda Knox.

Anything else?

No one on TJMK has ever called out Slick Pete for his claim that Sollecito and Gumbel had come to a 'deal' with Mignini and would be publicly apologizing for lying about him in HB. That was a year ago last October. Mostly, they just compliment each other for their wonderful 'work'.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

No one on TJMK has ever called out Slick Pete for his claim that Sollecito and Gumbel had come to a 'deal' with Mignini and would be publicly apologizing for lying about him in HB. That was a year ago last October. Mostly, they just compliment each other for their wonderful 'work'.

There was once on TJMK where a minor poster posted that it would be a good idea if Peter would simply stop making predictions. But that request went both unnoticed and unsanctioned on the website.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

There was once on TJMK where a minor poster posted that it would be a good idea if Peter would simply stop making predictions. But that request went both unnoticed and unsanctioned on the website.

Yeah, Pete's predictions have a sad accuracy record.

I still have a bit of schadenfreude when it comes to the PGP celebratory champagne bought for the 2015 SC ruling.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Yeah, Pete's predictions have a sad accuracy record.

For full transparency, my own record is dismal. I have not predicted one court decision correctly. As Numbers might tell you, I was also really skeptical that the ECHR would rule in Knox's favour.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

For full transparency, my own record is dismal. I have not predicted one court decision correctly. As Numbers might tell you, I was also really skeptical that the ECHR would rule in Knox's favour.

Remind me not to ask you which horse at Santa Anita you like.