|
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. |
![]() |
#3001 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 703
|
Just for the record: Last minute replacement? Looks like someone on IIP cleared the Matteini Chiari nonsense back in late 2014
![]() ![]() 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... |
__________________
"Found a typo? You can keep it..." |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3002 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 14,885
|
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. |
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3003 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,376
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3004 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,704
|
"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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3005 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,376
|
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.
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3006 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,632
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3007 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,704
|
I found this jewell of illogical thinking over on TJMK:
Quote:
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3008 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,632
|
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......... |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3009 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,632
|
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3010 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 14,885
|
|
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3011 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 14,885
|
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. |
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3012 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,632
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3013 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,632
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3014 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,704
|
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3015 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,704
|
Vixen, please explain just why Knox would voluntarily incriminate herself in the murder. Go on. Try and make sense of that ridiculous statement.
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3016 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,764
|
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.....) |
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3017 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,704
|
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3018 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,376
|
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3019 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,704
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3020 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,764
|
Originally Posted by Stacyhs
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! |
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3021 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,376
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3022 |
Muse
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 667
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3023 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,764
|
|
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3024 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,127
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3025 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,764
|
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. |
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3026 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 78,245
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3027 |
Self Employed
Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 15,903
|
|
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset - "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal - "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3028 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,704
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3029 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,704
|
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.
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3030 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,127
|
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! |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3031 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,625
|
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). |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3032 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,260
|
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. |
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3033 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,764
|
|
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3034 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,260
|
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. |
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3035 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,764
|
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? |
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3036 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,704
|
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'.
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3037 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,764
|
|
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3038 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,704
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3039 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,764
|
|
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3040 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,704
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
|
|