|
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. |
10th August 2017, 07:27 AM | #441 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,637
|
"I've been told but I don't know"? What the hell does this piece of BS even mean? Do you have evidence that I am "prone to hero-worship or infatuation", as you directly claimed in your earlier post, Vixen? If you don't (and I'm very strongly guessing/suggesting you don't), then please do the intellectually-honest thing and withdraw/apologise. Assuming, that is, that you DO have intellectual honesty, Vixen.......? |
10th August 2017, 07:27 AM | #442 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,561
|
Originally Posted by Bill Williams
True, there's no proof of my claim - yet I can see it in your eyes! I can read it in your mind, much like you are able to know people's very thoughts. You could help me along by once in a while arguing something that does not originate from Mignini. Of course, this would mean ignoring Peter Quennell's TJMK and his "100s of lawyers". Quoting blindly from TJMK or the fake-Wiki will expose you to pure Mignini. (Look at all the fan-girl stuff you yourself have posted about how upright and honest he is! You'd have though he hadn't embarrassed himself at all with the Monster of Florence or the Kercher Murder trials.) Remember Marasca/Bruno's term? "Amnesiac investigation"? I bet Mignini loved that one. Tell you what - quote evidence from the Massei trial which Massei derived not from Mignini. There's plenty of it. Do you realize that Massei in 2010 wrote that this was Rudy's crime, and that he could not see why Knox would urge Rudy to do anything violent to Meredith? That the bad-urges were all Rudy's? Quote evidence from Crini and the second conviction.... Crini mailed that one in, and won anyway. Why is that? |
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else. |
|
10th August 2017, 07:30 AM | #443 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,637
|
Give us all a good laugh, Vixen, and remind us exactly how/why it came to be an "established fact" (an established judicial fact, that is - you seem unable to differentiate between an empirical fact and a judicial fact.....) that Knox was present at the scene of the murder. (Hint: you'll have to refer to Knox's criminal slander conviction ) |
10th August 2017, 07:35 AM | #444 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 33,707
|
Not sure, what that remark about other people's money means. Oh well, Raffaele has family money. So?
Obnoxious? And you said you don't dislike Amanda? You've never met Amanda and yet you refer to her that way. Why? If Patrick wants money. Why doesn't he deal with the morons that put him there, the Perugian authorities? In my view, Amanda doesn't owe him a dime. Nothing right about it. And how do you know that about Patrick? You don't. Just like the rest of it. You pulled it out of your backside. You don't know that. For someone who says they don't dislike Amanda, you sure make lots of petty remarks about her. Yes Amanda has a well known name. And she wouldn't be well known if publications worldwide didn't write stories about her. I guess the only person who shouldn't profit from her own name is Amanda? Amanda wanted to be a writer BEFORE she went to Italy. If you don't like Amanda so much, why read every article she writes? |
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. . |
|
10th August 2017, 07:40 AM | #445 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,561
|
|
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else. |
|
10th August 2017, 08:18 AM | #446 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 33,707
|
You say 'it is a fact' all the time. Which usually means it is not. This entire thread for the last 3 years has been you posting untruths and fabrication after obfuscation and calling them facts.
Common observation by the NUTJOBS over at TJMK and PMF? Can't you see, that you are desperately seeking out reasons to insult Amanda? I've been reading her columns and while I'm not always interested in her subjects I have found her grammar syntax and spelling to be just fine. Another out of your ass deduction. How many ways must you find to insult Amanda? Anything valuable had to come from someone else as opposed to the graduate student who speaks three languages and is a voracious reader? You don't think I know this? But it is a lie practiced by smarmy better than thou Christians all the time. They make me want to vomit. It's like you saying you don't dislike Amanda, you just dislike everything she does says and writes. It's disingenuous crap. |
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. . |
|
10th August 2017, 08:46 AM | #447 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,561
|
The link below is to a study by John Head, where his original intent was to argue that the transitions in Italy's criminal system did not have any direct bearing on the Kercher murder trials.
http://law.ku.edu/sites/law.ku.edu/f...-john-head.pdf Yet even the "Author's update" of Feb 2015 - a month prior to the eventual exonerations - provide an important commentary on the Knox/Sollecito case as it related to the system-transitions. It's an interesting read - probably because it is obviously NOT biased towards Knox/Sollecito, while at the same time being able to listen to defence advocates like Michael Scadron. Yet with this said, Head is of the opinion that these transitions did not, in themselves, create the problem Knox/Sollecito-defenders claim: What I am NOW looking for is anything he's written since March 2015 and the exonerations. I found this while looking for another paper written by a woman about the legal-transitions begun in 1989 in Italy, where she, too, used the AK/RS trials as a case in point. That one was far more favourable to innocence for AK/RS and how the transitions played a part in skewing the search for truth in Italy. But you think I can find it? |
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else. |
|
10th August 2017, 08:55 AM | #448 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,561
|
To repeat - even Judge Massei in his 2010 motivations report said that there was no forensic evidence, none at all, to support the notion that Knox had rubbed Meredith's blood from her hands. Even Stefanoni supported this notion in conceding that trace-DNA by definition cannot have its origin known.
Massei plainly said in 2010 that he came to this conclusion on other grounds, mainly that that notion was "compatible" with other evidence, which in turn was "compatible" with the overall thesis he thought of as valid. Massei built his thesis on compatibilities, not on evidence. And of note was that the compatibilities Massei found persuasive DO NOT ORIGINATE from the case Mignini brought - yet, Mignini surrogates here and at TJMK comtinue to argue Mignini's theories as if they'd ever been deemed as factual. |
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else. |
|
10th August 2017, 11:01 AM | #449 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,607
|
This is your response to Welshman writing "People who believe that someone's DNA being found in their own bathroom is incriminating are not in a position to accuse people of being stupid."
So Vixen, please explain how finding Amanda's DNA on Amanda's bathroom sink was so obviously helpful to the forensic investigation. I think there's a huge opportunity here for all of us to learn something because I'm pretty sure most of us here are of the opinion that Amanda's DNA should have been there, and since DNA can't be dated we don't really understand how it helped. Obviously we're all displaying a bit of "epitome of ignorance" here, so please help us out... |
10th August 2017, 11:23 AM | #450 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 49 North
Posts: 6,753
|
This is untrue. Why do you make up facts?
It was a civil case so there was no conviction. It was negligence not gross negligence. The respondents in the case were Pascali, Arbarrello and Vecchiotti. Vecchiotti et al were brought into the case in 2007, the murder occurred in 1991, the DNA of the murderer was identified by the carabinieri using LCN testing (a technique that Vecchiotti did not have access to) in 2011. So at most the period was 4 years, not 19 years. The big failing was that the police / prosecutor failed to listen to / transcribe an intercepted telephone call from 1991 in which the murderer admitted the murder until 2011. In Italy you cannot sue the police / prosecutor for incompetence, so Vecchiotti et al are a surrogate for the police failure over 19 years. The husband is quite clear who he blames in his posts. The payment was ordered to be made to a charity. The money partly funded scholarships at La Sapienza university, where Vecchiotti works, an implication that there was not strong animosity between the husband and Vecchiotti. |
10th August 2017, 11:59 AM | #451 |
Muse
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 884
|
Amanda lived in the cottage which means it was perfectly normal for Amanda to leave DNA in her own bathroom and DNA would have been deposited before the night of the murder. DNA can’t be dated which makes it impossible to establish when DNA has been deposited. When Guede murdered Meredith he carried Meredith’s blood into the bathroom which resulted in Meredith’s blood being mixed with Amanda’s DNA which was already in the bathroom. PGP posters can’t grasp this simple notion. To suggest Amanda’s DNA being found in her own bathroom is incriminating is ludicrous and anyone who believes this notion is not in a position to call anyone stupid.
|
10th August 2017, 12:24 PM | #452 |
Muse
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 884
|
In view of how Vixen has attacked Amanda for not being the sharpest tool in the box, the gross stupidity of PGP posters deserves to come under scrutiny. Instances of stupidity displayed by PGP :-
• PGP posters constantly and viciously attack Amanda and Raffaele for telling numerous lies. Below are some of the posts from Vixen containing falsehoods and details of the numerous instances where PGP have condoned and ignored the lies of others. PGP don’t understand the simple concept that it is hypocritical to attack someone for lying when habitually lying yourself and condoning the lies of others. 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 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post11333243 • Vixen constantly brags about the overwhelming evidence against Amanda and Raffaele. The conduct of the prosecution and the methods they had to resort to detailed below completely contradicts this. Basic common sense dictates a prosecution with a mountain of evidence and a slam dunk case don’t need to resort to suppressing evidence, destroying evidence, telling numerous lies, smear tactics etc. The conduct of the prosecution made it blatantly obvious the prosecution had a weak case, a lack of evidence, the facts didn’t support their case and there were major problems with the prosecution’s case. PGP can’t understand this simple concept. 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 • As can be seen from Vixen’s posts, PGP constantly have to resort to falsehoods to argue their case. If the prosecution have a slam dunk case, PGP don’t need to resort to lying to argue their case because there should be plenty of genuine evidence to argue your case on and the facts on your side. Having to resort to lying indicates there is a lack of genuine to argue your case on and the facts are not on your side. PGP don’t understand that having to resort to lying to argue their case contradicts the notion there was a mountain of evidence against Amanda and Raffaele and a slam dunk case. |
10th August 2017, 12:35 PM | #453 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
I've seen a lot of nasty, sick, and disgusting posts but this one literally made my jaw drop. And you have the audacity to claim you "neither like nor dislike" Amanda. I'd have a lot more to say if it weren't for the mods who would probably ban me for the language I'd use.
|
10th August 2017, 12:50 PM | #454 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
Quote me where I have said Mignini prosecuted them because he "didn't like them". Go on, Vix. Back up your claims (for a change). Of course, you won't because you can't. Par for the vixen course.
In the world of Vixen, writing She only got a column in West Seattle Herald because of the 'novelty value' in having a mu notorious criminal from Seattle writing for them, and the newspaper owner's son got to get his leg over. is only showing dislike for Amanda's "behavior" and not directed toward her personally. Really? Personal attacks on Knox and Sollecito don't make me angry. I expect them from years of reading them from PGP. It's what they do. It's all they have left. |
10th August 2017, 01:04 PM | #455 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 33,707
|
The presence of DNA can almost NEVER tell us anything but the probable presence of the person that DNA comes from. It doesn't tell us how or when or why. So when Vixen mocks the dismissal of finding Amanda's DNA found in her own bathroom as the epitome of ignorance of forensic investigation, she is demonstrating her own ignorance, not exposing someone else's.
Very Sad. |
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. . |
|
10th August 2017, 01:08 PM | #456 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,561
|
Originally Posted by Vixen
It's the core of bullying. The problem is, it's a tired-tactic, meant to build group cohesion on that side of the fence. There simply is not enough of them any more for this sort of bullying to gain traction. Yet Vixen pulls it from her bag of tricks. (What it's got to do with the name of this thread, is beyond me. But that's just me.) |
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else. |
|
10th August 2017, 01:12 PM | #457 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
What you sent does not support your claim. But, hey-ho...
Quote:
Quote:
Please don't post the law citation and the list of US states federal law in this matter as they do not support your claim. You've been asked many times before...and repeatedly failed...to present a criminal record for Amanda in the US. |
10th August 2017, 01:16 PM | #458 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,272
|
This is a bizarre case with what I call reverse groupies. Usually you get someone obviously guilty (Like Scott Peterson) that has a few oddball groupies or desperate family members denying the obvious and saying he must be innocent and it was a series of extremely unfortunate coincidences that lead to his conviction and the real killer is still out there etc.
In this case you have someone obviously guilty (Rudy Guede) but the oddball groupies aren't obsessed with him, they're obsessed with the random girl that happened to live at the same address he burglarized, and obsessed in the negative sense of wanting her punished. But the denial of the obvious (guy with a history of window climbing break-ins found at scene of a window climbing break-in - gee I wonder what happened) and the emotional obsession clouding all sensible reason is the same. |
10th August 2017, 01:53 PM | #459 |
Muse
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 733
|
|
__________________
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. Samuel Beckett |
|
10th August 2017, 04:43 PM | #460 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 33,707
|
|
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. . |
|
10th August 2017, 05:02 PM | #461 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,561
|
Ergon has waded in, in the comments section, with Mignini's view that "Amanda was there during the murder, that was proven at the March 2015 trial." And that then, after saying this, "The Supreme Court then inexplicably acquitted them." (Approximate quotes, so everyone relax! He also does not reference this as being Mignini's view, Ergon just puts it out there as if it was a fact everyone agrees to.)
If one gives up on the inanity of the former factoid, then all of a sudden the acquittal does not seem so inexplicable! That should be something everyone agrees to! But truly, the ONLY lawyer or officer of the court who believes as Mignini does is Mignini himself - and yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes Raffaele's compensation court, in denying Raffaele compensation, makes reference to this factoid! That's how these memes gather moss. Repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition....... ..... with no initial proof. |
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else. |
|
10th August 2017, 05:24 PM | #462 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 33,707
|
What I like about all of this is article after article written these days are very positive about Amanda. That has an effect.
No one is ever going to convince the hard core guilters like Ergon and Vixen etc, but hey you can't win them all. I'm thrilled that Amanda is able to make an income from her notoriety. It will never adequately compensate her for the injustice she endured. And as a special bonus, I like that it bothers the morons who can't let go. |
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. . |
|
10th August 2017, 05:26 PM | #463 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,637
|
Well look, there's one matter which ought to be addressed about this whole "fact" that Knox "was present in the cottage at the time of the murder". And this judicial "fact" has slid into this fiasco of a case courtesy solely of it being part of a bizarre (and soon likely to be remedied courtesy of the EHCR) guilty verdict on Knox's criminal slander charge. The final (settled) verdict on that charge decided, on a totally insane and unlawful basis, that Knox was lying in her 5/6 November 2007 statements to police when she stated that she'd met with Lumumba (and had taken him to the cottage whereupon he'd attacked and killed Kercher as she (Knox) cowered in the kitchen), but that she'd TOLD THE TRUTH when she stated that she'd been at the cottage at the time of the murder. And in a dreadful cross-contamination of judicial cases, it appears that the bolstering issue which gave rise to this awful verdict was the then presence of a (provisional) conviction for Knox in the murder trial. Obviously (the "reasoning" seems to have gone), if Knox took part in the murder, then she was there in the cottage at the time, and so therefore it was "reasonable" to conclude that the part about her going to the cottage was true, but the part about her taking Lumumba there was false. In fact, there was zero lawful reason how/why the settled verdict in Knox's criminal slander trial should ever have concluded that Knox was in the cottage at the time of the murder. Indeed, there was no reason whatsoever for the court trying that charge to have ever decided one way or the other on that matter - it should have been totally agnostic in any case, since it was SOLELY tasked with determining whether or not there was sufficient (credible, reliable) evidence to prove BARD that Knox had intentionally slandered Lumumba. And then, of course, this element of the Knox criminal slander verdict has - in a nasty circular case study which is so prevalent in Italian "justice" but which is eschewed in countries with modern fit-for-purpose systems - been re-imported into the murder trial verdicts (and compensation verdicts) for both Knox and (even more incredibly) Sollecito. Boy does the Italian criminal justice system stink........... |
10th August 2017, 05:31 PM | #464 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,637
|
Well, the way I see it is this: Knox has a story and experience which others want to hear about. If others want to hear about it - whether they pay Knox to tell them, or whether Knox does so in a voluntary capacity - then Knox has the perfect right to tell them about it. If I'm glad about anything, it's the apparent fact that Knox doesn't care one iota about trying to change the minds of those (predominantly the small cadre of hard-core crazy pro-guilt online commentators....) who still shout all over the internet that she and Sollecito are guilty/evil/ugly/etc. I hope Knox genuinely believes this in her heart (rather than, for example, merely articulating this thought because she feel she ought to say it). I'm sure that, similarly, NASA doesn't care about the crazies who still insist the Moon landings were faked, or that the US Government doesn't care about the crazies who still insist that 9/11 was an "inside job"........ |
10th August 2017, 05:43 PM | #465 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,561
|
I'm the one who goes on and on and on about what Marasca-Bruno really said about, even-if the "Knox rubbing Meredith's blood from her hands" is true, the court ruled that that still would not be enough to convict her (or Sollecito) since that would have had to have happened at a time later than the murder, and in another part of the cottage than the murder room....
I go on and on about that, but here's the deal. Marasca-Bruno, on behalf of Cassation, Italy's highest court, still said this about the interrogation: That is simply a bizarre thing to write. Do judges of Italy's highest court really - REALLY - think that a PM taking statements is a "context free of institutionally anomalous psychological pressures", when they are taken in the middle of the night, and when the suspect has been hit and called a liar - and cannot understand the language used? (When the interpreter becomes a mediator - Doninno's own description - rather than a neutral translator?) Just when one would want to say something nice about Marasca and Bruno, they drop that little gem in, they simply cannot resist protecting the systm at times..... ...... which makes it all the more startling when they lower the boom on that very same prosecutor for leading an "amnesiac investigation". There is one word which describes all this. Italy. |
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else. |
|
10th August 2017, 05:47 PM | #466 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,637
|
Haha keep looking! Head is clearly correct when he points out that one cannot expect a read-across comparison between the criminal justice systems of, say, the US or the UK and that of Italy. But at the same time - as he also clearly points out - one CAN make a valid observation about the massive (and systemic/institutional) failings within the Italian criminal justice system in respect of the adversarial trial process, both in general and as it applies to the Knox/Sollecito trials in particular. It's abundantly clear that the Italian judiciary and law enforcement agencies have a) found it extremely difficult to handle the transition to an adversarial system, and b) have actively acted to sabotage the transition (as Head points out, further legislation was deemed necessary to try - only marginally successfully as it turns out - to bring everyone into line. In the Knox/Sollecito trial, it was crystal clear that most of the judges felt some form of obligation to the now (supposedly) defunct inquisitorial system: they treated the PM as the "bringer of truth" (with the defence effectively being tasked with proving the PM's case false....), and they felt a clear need to construct a "truth" of the crime - rather than, as was solely required of them, to adjudicate simply whether there was sufficient evidence presented to them to prove BARD the guilt of the defendants on the specific charges brought against them. I've said it a gazillion times before, but here goes once again: the Italian criminal justice system needs to be torn up - both in terms of legislation and criminal codes/codes of criminal procedure - and rewritten from scratch. And then the judiciary must be properly retrained and then forced to act within the new statutes/codes fully and properly. But of course Italy is such a total basket case of a country that its legislature and executive are weak and here-today-gone-tomorrow, and therefore the real-world chances of sweeping legislative changes are effectively zero. On top of that, the judiciary and LEAs in Italy are disproportionately powerful, probably owing to the ongoing battles against organised crime and endemic corruption (including widescale political corruption....). So.... in short, nothing will change. Italy will continue to be a country where foreign industrialised nations hesitate massively before providing inward investment, and where anyone from outside Italy ought to think very carefully indeed before visiting on anything more than a short vacation. |
10th August 2017, 05:55 PM | #467 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,637
|
Oh I think the Marasca SC panel merely employed the same circle-the-wagons behaviour that one so often sees within justice systems. It's one thing to accuse actors within the system (whether courts or LEAs) of making mistakes - as the Marasca panel did (in spades) in respect of the PM/police investigation and the reasoning of the convicting lower courts - but it's a giant leap further to accuse actors within the system of malpractice, corruption or illegal activity. One need only look at Lord Lane's now-infamous "reasoning" in denying an early appeal of the Birmingham Six - after it was claimed that the investigating detectives had beaten "confessions" out of the men and had falsified written statements - in which he effectively stated that it was beyond the pale to consider that the police were corrupt or engaged in such conspiratorial malpractice/illegality, since (among other things) it would cause the public to lose trust in the police and would thus present a real risk to the maintenance of law and order across the country.... Frankly, only an ECHR ruling will - finally - destroy the myth created within Knox's criminal slander trial that she named Lumumba freely and with genuine intent. |
10th August 2017, 06:11 PM | #468 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 33,707
|
Well said LJ. I especially agree with the second paragraph. But I'm not sure if Amanda didn't believe it she would necessarily be saying that entirely for external reasons. Sometimes you fake it till you make it.
I think it is human nature to want to be liked and maybe annoyed at people that don't. Realizing that's just the way it is is part of growing up. But of course what Amanda experiences is much more extreme. Still, the solution is pretty much the same. Although it is easier said than done. Perhaps it's theschadenfreude in me, but I admit there is a part of me that takes joy that Amanda's success bothers them. I mean I wish they all would just go on with their lives. But as long as they don't, it gives me sweet satisfaction to hear them whine. |
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. . |
|
10th August 2017, 06:53 PM | #469 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,272
|
Is that the same letter where she wrote she was hit in the head and threatened with jail until she gave them a story they found acceptable?
Since it was written in conditions of "objective tranquillity, free from external conditioning" and since they have no interrogation tape to disprove it, I guess that will be very critical evidence for the ECHR |
10th August 2017, 06:56 PM | #470 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
|
10th August 2017, 07:07 PM | #471 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
Planigale has already corrected your false statements regarding the
|
10th August 2017, 07:23 PM | #472 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
The last of the active PGP claim that they want "justice" for Meredith. But I have to wonder just what do these few remaining TJMK die-hards think they can actually accomplish with their continuing crusade? After all, the case was definitively ended 2 1/2 years ago. Knox and Sollecito are not going to be tried again despite their desperate claims. They are not going to be convicted. They are not going to prison. So what exactly is their goal? . No one is asking themselves if the two are guilty or innocent anymore. People formed their opinions long ago. So why do they carry on posting? I can only think of one reason: because they get some kind of sick satisfaction and enjoyment out of spewing venom at Knox and, to a lesser extent, Sollecito. It feeds some psychological/emotional need. If it Knox and Sollecito weren't their targets, it would be someone else.
|
10th August 2017, 09:26 PM | #473 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
10th August 2017, 09:33 PM | #474 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
Not because of Mignini. A court hears all sides of evidence. It is mandatory for a prosecutor to suggest a motive in Italy, but after that, motive is for the court to decide. Had it found the pair not guilty, it would have adopted the defence arguments in its MR. It found the kids guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt despite Massei's prejudices against African immigrant Rudy, which you yourself point out, thus it is bound to adopt the prosecution's arguments in the MR, yet it was quite capable of unveiling its own variation of 'motive, which it decreed was a 'futile' one. In other words, a senseless act of depravity by sociopaths with no remorse, no feelings (except for themselves). Not even for each other. |
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
10th August 2017, 09:40 PM | #475 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
If she doesn't want people commenting on her conduct, she should stop making herself a public figure. I was only quoting what Christianity says. I am all for people finding their soulmate, of whatever gender. After all, Tom of Finland who made Gay Pride real, came from the next county to mine (Kaarina). |
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
10th August 2017, 09:44 PM | #476 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
10th August 2017, 09:47 PM | #477 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
The pattern of the blood drips over the sink and the bidet, was, in Stefanoni's experience, the same as that of a dripping knife.
However, because it reveals a bleeding Knox who bled the same time as the fatally wounded victim, it is a great help to the investigation. |
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
10th August 2017, 09:57 PM | #478 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
As a former member of the Peter Cook Appreciation Society, reading this post was strongly reminiscent for me of Peter Cook holding forth on a park bench as Spotty Muldoon, where he talks in a long monotone in a seemingly intellectual fashion of subjects of infinitely great wisdom. Thank you for your amusing invective and the wonderful impersonation.
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
10th August 2017, 09:59 PM | #479 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,561
|
What in the name of goodness are you smoking? I'd ask for a cite where I'd said this, but there isn't one. You just make things up.
Once again you cannot help yourself calling exonerated people sociopaths. Massei said no such thing - it comes purely from your overanxious imagination, in service as a surrogate for the mind that started this whole charade. Six posts in thirty minutes and not a fact among them. |
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else. |
|
10th August 2017, 10:00 PM | #480 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|