IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Amanda Knox , Italy cases , Meredith Kercher , murder cases , Raffaele Sollecito

Reply
Old 28th November 2021, 03:53 AM   #1961
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 25,701
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Maybe if that crack unit of forensic experts hadn't allowed those towels to rot and the bra hook to rust......but they did.

There is no evidence that Guede used those towels in an attempt to help Meredith. But his actions alone that night support he wasn't.

He was found not to have struck the final blow based on bad evidence of the time that was later shown to be completely unreliable. And you and he know that. So you tell me, Vix: why was there no blood on that knife? What could have removed all that blood and not destroyed any DNA along with it?

There is no 'proof of multiple assailants'. Again, that was based on discredited evidence. Once again, you have to fall back on 'judicial truths' because it's all you've got.

The merits trial happened, as did the merits/appeal. Conviction affirmed both times. The pair had every opportunity to present their cases, over a fair and lengthy trial, with their expensive lawyers and generous donation from Donald Trump and 'Friends of Amanda Knox'.


So Bongiorno lawyer for the mafia-accused (cf Andreotti) managed to pull strings and got bent judges to annul the sentences.

The judicial legal facts remain. Marasca and Bruno even added to them, stating that Knox in naming Lumumba was covering up for Guede.

Don't have a go at me, write to Micheli, Giordano and Marasca and Bruno.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2021, 04:29 AM   #1962
FergusMcDuck
Student
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Posts: 42
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
What the courts ruled

Micheli re proof of multiple assailants



So Guede in saying it was found he did not strike the fatal blow and that it was an other there who did, there is nothing Knox or Sollecito can do to gag him.


So much for Knox begging Guede to take the entire rap.
The other nonsense has been dealt with, but you know Micheli was appealed, right? And appeal court judge Borsini threw bits of it out:

Quote:
Furthermore, it seems more likely to this Court that the bra was removed from the victim during an escalation of violence enabling Guede to give vent to his sexual instincts on her, given that, based on the statements made by Dr. Stefanoni, the clasps present on the piece of clothing [bra], on which the genetic profile of Sollecito was found, were found to be twisted, showing that force had been applied to remove them, while the edge of the garment [bra] seemed to have a clean cut, suggesting that it was cut by a knife, during the frenzy of the sexual assault, made difficult by the victim’s resistance, who according to close relatives was not at all the petite girl unable to react that one would believe, having played sports and even taken a course in kick-boxing according to her sister, which explains the presence of blood on the strap of her bra as coming from the smallest wound made while the victim’s resistance was being overcome; to which we can add, according to the medical consultants nominated by Knox’s defense, the round spots of blood found on the front side of her thorax and arriving there through respiration after the lethal cut proving that the garment had already been removed, as it would not make sense, on the other hand, that it had been removed in the following phase during the clean-up of the traces.
The Supreme Court of Cassation did not overturn that, so by your logic, the fact of the case is that the sexual assault wasn't staged afterwards, and Micheli was wrong.
FergusMcDuck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2021, 07:37 AM   #1963
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 18,550
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The merits trial happened, as did the merits/appeal. Conviction affirmed both times. The pair had every opportunity to present their cases, over a fair and lengthy trial, with their expensive lawyers and generous donation from Donald Trump and 'Friends of Amanda Knox'.


So Bongiorno lawyer for the mafia-accused (cf Andreotti) managed to pull strings and got bent judges to annul the sentences.

The judicial legal facts remain. Marasca and Bruno even added to them, stating that Knox in naming Lumumba was covering up for Guede.

Don't have a go at me, write to Micheli, Giordano and Marasca and Bruno.

You don't understand the Italian criminal justice process.

You don't understand the role and remit of appeal courts in general.

You don't understand the necessary impact that the prior SC affirmation of Guede's conviction had on what the Marasca panel had to say in its own MR re the Knox/Sollecito annulments.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Oh, by the way: do you have any..... evidence to support your claim that Bongiorno "pulled strings" to the extent that she "got bent judges to annul the sentences"? What's that, Vixen? No, you you'd have the merest shred of evidence? Well, I must say I'm surprised! Shocked and surprised!
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2021, 08:57 AM   #1964
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,141
Originally Posted by FergusMcDuck View Post
The other nonsense has been dealt with, but you know Micheli was appealed, right? And appeal court judge Borsini threw bits of it out:



The Supreme Court of Cassation did not overturn that, so by your logic, the fact of the case is that the sexual assault wasn't staged afterwards, and Micheli was wrong.
There's a reason why for Mignini that Micheli is gospel. And as such, Vixen takes Mignini's lead and bangs her drum about that earlier finding.....

..... which was not a merits trial by the way, something else that Vixen bangs on about. Why default to Micheli? Micheli had not presided over a merit's trial, Vixen.

Because NONE of the merits trials, not even the two that convicted AK and RS even remotely agree with Mignini and his original case. None.

Starting with the alleged motive for AK and RS to have been involved to begin with. All the trials, merits or appeals, do not sustain Mignini and his fantasies. Not even his co-prosecutor, Comodi, agreed with him, threatening to resign from the prosecution if Mignini went to trial with his 'Satanic Rite' theory. So said Barbi Nadeau.

Massei in convicting completely ignored huge swaths of Mignini invented 'evidence', by inventing evidence of its own. Including but not limited to inventing out of whole cloth why Knox would be carrying Sollecito's kitchen knife - when even Massei found that AK and RS had arrived at the cottage to find Guede there, with no intention of killing anyone. That killing, acc. to Massei, had happened in an inexplicable 'choice for evil' that the kids made - otherwise it was a crime initiated by and well under way with Guede attacking the victim.

No wonder Mignini these days defaults to Micheli. And as if on cue, so does Vixen.

So far the two people Vixen goes to to make her case are Micheli and Rudy Guede. Readers here should then make up their own minds as to the veracity of those two sources.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2021, 09:20 AM   #1965
FergusMcDuck
Student
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Posts: 42
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
There's a reason why for Mignini that Micheli is gospel. And as such, Vixen takes Mignini's lead and bangs her drum about that earlier finding.....
Which is why I find it interesting that it was Micheli that, two years later, destroyed Mignini's ambitions when he refused to advance his Narducci case from pre-trial. The Micheli verdict (in the Narducci case) is such a thorough take-down of Mignini's reasoning, that I have to wonder if he felt a bit guilty in indulging him at the Kercher trial.
FergusMcDuck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2021, 09:54 AM   #1966
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 18,550
Originally Posted by FergusMcDuck View Post
Which is why I find it interesting that it was Micheli that, two years later, destroyed Mignini's ambitions when he refused to advance his Narducci case from pre-trial. The Micheli verdict (in the Narducci case) is such a thorough take-down of Mignini's reasoning, that I have to wonder if he felt a bit guilty in indulging him at the Kercher trial.

I just wonder if Micheli was coasting along in "old-school" mode - ie assuming that PMs were honest, scrupulous truth-seekers who'd only be bringing people to court if there was plenty of reliable evidence of their guilt - when he encountered Mignini's performance in the Knox/Sollecito process. Perhaps it opened his eyes to who & what Mignini really was.

If so, it would help to explain what happened next wrt the Narducci MoF matters.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2021, 09:55 AM   #1967
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,141
Originally Posted by FergusMcDuck View Post
Which is why I find it interesting that it was Micheli that, two years later, destroyed Mignini's ambitions when he refused to advance his Narducci case from pre-trial. The Micheli verdict (in the Narducci case) is such a thorough take-down of Mignini's reasoning, that I have to wonder if he felt a bit guilty in indulging him at the Kercher trial.
I'd not known that. It probably sucks to be Mignini, having always to cite the one judge who had once indulged him.... probably because Micheli too was stampeded by the need to solve the case of a murdered foreign student, in a student town.

The other thing that sucks about being Mignini? Having only Vixen to amplify him!!!
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 28th November 2021 at 10:08 AM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2021, 10:10 AM   #1968
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 18,550
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
I'd not known that. It probably sucks to be Mignini, having always to cite the one judge who had once indulged him.... probably because Micheli too was stampeded by the need to solve the case of a murdered foreign student, in a student town.

The other thing that socks about being Mignini? Having only Vixen to amplify him!!!

You forget about the "useful idiot" over at True Vilification for Amanda Knox - I still think it's eminently possible that Mignini has had some level of direct or indirect contact with that site as a proxy mouthpiece.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2021, 01:01 PM   #1969
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,141
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
You forget about the "useful idiot" over at True Vilification for Amanda Knox - I still think it's eminently possible that Mignini has had some level of direct or indirect contact with that site as a proxy mouthpiece.
That would be a bit of a relief to hear, if Mignini had been part of that den of vile maliciousness. That would mean that there'd have been at least one lawyer involved there!!!

Given Fast Pete's brag that "hundreds of lawyers" participated in the site's dietrology, all Pete would have to come with would be 99 more! Pete's almost there!
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2021, 06:54 PM   #1970
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 22,790
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The merits trial happened, as did the merits/appeal. Conviction affirmed both times. The pair had every opportunity to present their cases, over a fair and lengthy trial,
And convictions overturned both times because of the faulty and illogical reasoning of those much heralded convicting courts. You seem to suffer from the same amnesia the police did.


Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
with their expensive lawyers and generous donation from Donald Trump and 'Friends of Amanda Knox'.
Awwwww...so you think that only the prosecutors get to have free lawyers with the purse and resources of the state behind them? Seems about right for you.

And why do you always mention Trump? Do you think that adds any credibility to your nonsense? Hint: it doesn't.


Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
So Bongiorno lawyer for the mafia-accused (cf Andreotti) managed to pull strings and got bent judges to annul the sentences.




Wait...I thought it was the mafia...no...the Masons...no, wait...the Illuminati ...no...the US State Dept who did that. Do make up your mind.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The judicial legal facts remain. Marasca and Bruno even added to them, stating that Knox in naming Lumumba was covering up for Guede.
If Knox were trying to cover up for Guede, wouldn't she have flushed his crap down the toilet instead of pointing it out to the police? Like I said...illogical and faulty reasoning.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Don't have a go at me, write to Micheli, Giordano and Marasca and Bruno.
Nah, pointing out your nonsense is much more entertaining.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2021, 07:25 PM   #1971
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,141
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Originally Posted by Vixen
Don't have a go at me, write to Micheli, Giordano and Marasca and Bruno.
Nah, pointing out your nonsense is much more entertaining.
When Vixen says to check Micheli, Giordano, as well as Marasca-Bruno, invariably what she means is.....

...... listen only to what Mignini has said about them. Strangely, after telling us to consult Marasca-Bruno, and finding out what Mignini says about them, one finds Mignini accusing the Italian Supreme Court of violating Italian law by exonerating K and S.

But otherwise, Mignini also wants you to know that the ISC actually agreed with him!!!

Nice logic. It's no wonder that Mignini virtually stands alone within the Italian legal system in still pushing for S and K's guilt.

Everyone else has moved on.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:10 AM   #1972
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 25,701
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
It looks like the police weren't the only ones who suffered from "investigative amnesia", Vix.

1."Then there is the person who rang up Meredith's phones for one second and four seconds respectively the next day, not expecting an answer."

You've already had how this works explained to you. Do read it again and see if you can remember it this time. Once again, your ability to read other people's minds is amazing! How else would you know that the caller was "not expecting an answer"?

2."None of these reported Meredith as being missing."

Because, at that point, she wasn't 'missing'; she just hadn't answered her phone. Do you report someone missing to the police when they don't answer their phone for a couple of hours? The first call to Kercher on Nov. 2 was by Knox at 12:07. Sollecito called 112 at 12:51 after the break-in was found. They reported she couldn't be found in under 2 hours.

3."Guede's DNA was on the bag clasp, indicating lifting it to move it."

Wrong again. His DNA was not found on the clasp. This is where it was found:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2a2af11224.jpg

4. "...you do know that a long fair hair was found across the top where it opens?"

More convenient amnesia, I see. We've had this discussion before. Several times. None of the blonde hairs were found to be chemically processed as was Knox's.

5. "Police did find Mez' fingerprints on Knox' drawer."

Nope. They found her fingerprint on Knox's wardrobe door, not a drawer. Please learn the correct possessive form for words ending in 'x': x' ain't it.

You don't know they were looking at bleached hair as it got lost and thus, was never analysed.

Team Mez: it is very amusing you keep trying to 'correct' correct English grammar. An apostrophe: can indicate plural forms of acronyms (for example, "PC's") or dates (for example, "1980's") but most commonly indicates a missing letter (for example, 'doesn't'). Thus, if a word already ends in an 's' or an 's' sound (for example, 'z' or 'x'), there is no need to repeat it (for example, "Jones' house"). Tabloids will often add an unnecessary extra 's' which is not wrong but is also unnecessary, because they imagine their readers to be the great unwashed uneducated masses (for example, "Boris's") who might get confused if they do not. So please stop wasting bandwidth showing off your ignorance about apostrophes.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:16 AM   #1973
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 25,701
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
What Nick Pisa has Guede apologizing about, is failing to save the victim. When one reads it, he is not quoted as outright denying killing the victim, just that a "court ruled that there was more than one attacker", and he failed to staunch the bleeding with towels. So he's supportive of Mignini on that. He talks around it, and all-but blames Knox and Sollecito for the victim's death. Not quite. (At least the way Pisa wrote it. Perhaps even the Sun's editors are sensitive to the liability landscape these days. Who knows.)

No comment on whether or not he'll be deported.
Nick Pisa has made a lot of money churning out Knox stories. He seems to have been waiting around on the pavement for Guede to come along to footstep him. (I note Pisa has now moved on to [non] stories about Christian Brueckner in the Maddie McCann case.) Whilst Pisa can describe Guede as 'smirking' - tabloid-speak - you note he knows the sheer weight of evidence against the other two, so is enjoying playing them all off against each other.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:42 AM   #1974
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,141
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Nick Pisa has made a lot of money churning out Knox stories. He seems to have been waiting around on the pavement for Guede to come along to footstep him. (I note Pisa has now moved on to [non] stories about Christian Brueckner in the Maddie McCann case.) Whilst Pisa can describe Guede as 'smirking' - tabloid-speak - you note he knows the sheer weight of evidence against the other two, so is enjoying playing them all off against each other.
It's amazing what you offer as 'fact'. The ability to read people's minds or discern their motives from a newspaper article are truly amazing.

At least this one wasn't simply passing on what Mignini had once whined about, as to why he lost the 2nd biggest prosecution of his career, and why he lost it in epic fashion.

Me, I'd not known that Micheli had been involved in an epic smackdown of Mignini to do with his other wrongful prosecution, the Narducci affair. Did you know that Mignini was quoted in 2011 as saying that all his troubles began with the Narducci affair?

I'd go find the citation, but you've set the bar really low on actually demonstrating things - over against simply asserting them from 1000s of kms distant.

ETA - Yes, Pisa made a lot of money churching out those stories. He also told us his secret - it was to omit the 'fact-checking' phase of journalism. Yes, he said that. If he got a lurid tidbit, he rushed it to the tabloid to get the paycheque. Fact check meant no paycheque because another hack reporter would beat him to the scoop, that was the way Pisa rolled.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; Yesterday at 09:46 AM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:02 AM   #1975
bagels
Master Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,219
Do you guys think Curt Knox goes around telling people Matt Damon played him in a movie lol
bagels is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:09 AM   #1976
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,667
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
And I'm not insisting my hypothesis must be correct.

But the information available is puzzling.

The phone log you posted is apparently a search of calls to only non-Vodaphone phones. Is there another log available that contains the call(s) of interest, for example, to back up the 2 November police memo and/or the 3 November witness statement by Alessandro Capasso?

Current cell phones show a history of outgoing calls with number called and with time and date indicated. Is there an image of Capasso's phone display with that information for the relevant call? Or of the Biscarini family phone which received the call?
I've done a little more research on the topic of the prank call.

Elisabetta Lena states that the phone (regional area code prefix 075) that (allegedly) received the prank call was on (manged by) the FASTWEB S.p.A. network.

At the relevant time, November 2007, FASTWEB S.p.A. was majority owned by Swisscom AG, which was independent of Vodafone at that time*. Thus, the relevant (075 prefix) phone was NOT on the Vodafone network. This would explain why the phone log justifiably covers only calls to non-Vodafone phones.

Now, that phone log shows absolutely NO call from Capasso's (mother's) phone, identified without reference to a data source in the 2 November police memo-to-file, to ANY 075 prefix phone during the period 31 October - 3 November. Nor does the phone log show any call from Capasso's phone to any of the 3 other phones listed as belonging to the Biscarini - Lena family during that time period.

I suggest that this demonstrates that Capasso did not make the (alleged) prank call. I suggest that Capasso was brought in by the police as part of a cover story, and that he may have been known to be a person who would make this small confession of making a prank call either willingly or under some mild coercion. Note that the local police who contacted and questioned Capasso were from the Narcotics Section (Sez. Narcotici).

Note that the number Capasso claimed to have called is 9 digits long and ends in "95", and thus differs from the one that the Biscarini - Lena family identified as theirs, which is 8 digits long and ends in "9". I don't know what the effect of calling a number with that extra digit would have on the Italian phone system - would it have actually resulted in placing a call to the 8 digit phone.

I suggest that Capasso identified 31 October as the date of the prank call because of some misunderstanding or miscommunication among the police (even though one police officer from Perugia is listed among the questioners of Capasso).

Note that Lena identifies the prank caller as having the voice possibly of a 30 or 40 year old male of Indian nationality. Would Capasso (17 years old at the relevant time) have been that good a voice actor?

While there is a high degree of similarity between the statements of Lena and her two adult children, this need not mean that the prank call actually occurred as claimed. The family members would not intentionally contradict each other, and they may have been motivated to provide the police with a false reason for their calling the police by the police or even their own perceptions of danger.

I believe that this alleged prank call is an example of police malpractice (incompetence and/or misconduct) as early as 1 or 2 November.

* Swisscom Mobile had been 25% owned by Vodafone until Swisscom AG reacquired full ownership in 2007. Swisscom acquired over 80% of FASTWEB by May 22, 2007. Source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swisscom

Last edited by Numbers; Yesterday at 11:29 AM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:22 AM   #1977
bagels
Master Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,219
Hey Vixen did those rich American kids that killed a cop in Rome hire a mafioso lawyer and get President Trump and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to pull for their release yet?

I'll check back in 4 years to see if freed and going on Oprah.
bagels is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:28 PM   #1978
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 18,550
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Nick Pisa has made a lot of money churning out Knox stories. He seems to have been waiting around on the pavement for Guede to come along to footstep him. (I note Pisa has now moved on to [non] stories about Christian Brueckner in the Maddie McCann case.) Whilst Pisa can describe Guede as 'smirking' - tabloid-speak - you note he knows the sheer weight of evidence against the other two, so is enjoying playing them all off against each other.

LOL the naivete

Pisa sought out Guede. Because the squalid little stringer knew Guede could provide him with a reason to sell a story to the UK press. Pisa's a hustler. He needs to sell copy to get paid.

Which is also why it's very strongly in his own self-interest to avoid the line of "all the evidence points clearly to Guede as sole perpetrator" (boring story that won't get Pisa further commissions) and to stick to the line "maybe Knox and Sollecito were involved too!" (provocative, click-bait-y story which dangles out the line of repeat commissions for Pisa).

This one isn't that hard at all to figure out, if one realises what the motivation of someone like Pisa really is......
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:36 PM   #1979
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 18,550
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You don't know they were looking at bleached hair as it got lost and thus, was never analysed.

You have a special talent for (inadvertently) destroying your own argument, Vixen. Yes: the "world-class" forensics team, under the stellar leadership of not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni, lost the hair. They lost it, Vixen!

So we can all entirely disregard it as any sort of evidence in this case, can't we Vixen? Including you.



Quote:
Team Mez

What's "Team Mez"?


Quote:
it is very amusing you keep trying to 'correct' correct English grammar. An apostrophe: can indicate plural forms of acronyms (for example, "PC's") or dates (for example, "1980's") but most commonly indicates a missing letter (for example, 'doesn't'). Thus, if a word already ends in an 's' or an 's' sound (for example, 'z' or 'x'), there is no need to repeat it (for example, "Jones' house"). Tabloids will often add an unnecessary extra 's' which is not wrong but is also unnecessary, because they imagine their readers to be the great unwashed uneducated masses (for example, "Boris's") who might get confused if they do not. So please stop wasting bandwidth showing off your ignorance about apostrophes.

"Ignorance" LOLOLOLOL

Best you have a read of the "apostrophes" entry in the Guardian Style Guide. Take additional note of where it mentions words ending in Z or X (hint: it doesn't):

https://www.theguardian.com/guardian...-style-guide-a
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:57 PM   #1980
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 22,790
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You don't know they were looking at bleached hair as it got lost and thus, was never analysed.
So another example of their incompetence, heh? There were four blonde hairs found in Kercher's bedroom in addition to the one on the purse: two on the duvet covering her body, one on the bedsheet under her body, and one on a sock. Next excuse!

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Team Mez:

Team Mez? Now you're a 'team'?





Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
...it is very amusing you keep trying to 'correct' correct English grammar. An apostrophe: can indicate plural forms of acronyms (for example, "PC's") or dates (for example, "1980's") but most commonly indicates a missing letter (for example, 'doesn't'). Thus, if a word already ends in an 's' or an 's' sound (for example, 'z' or 'x'), there is no need to repeat it (for example, "Jones' house"). Tabloids will often add an unnecessary extra 's' which is not wrong but is also unnecessary, because they imagine their readers to be the great unwashed uneducated masses (for example, "Boris's") who might get confused if they do not. So please stop wasting bandwidth showing off your ignorance about apostrophes.
I've highlighted the only relevant part of this failed attempt at LOOK! SQUIRREL!. It's another one of your arsefacts because you simply made up the 'x' part. No citation provided. HMMMMM.... I wonder why that is?

Quote:
How to Use Apostrophes with Words Ending in ‘S’, ‘Z’ or ‘X’

The rules
Common nouns ending in an s, z or x sound should generally take an apostrophe and an s when indicating possession.

This is recommended by most style guides and authorities, including MLA, the BBC, The Economist and the OUP.



When we steal words from French, sometimes we end up with nouns that end in a silent s, z or x. I’m talking about words like faux-pas, vis-à-vis and hors d’oeuvres. Some of them are even words that we now consider English words, like Illinois or Arkansas. Although the extra s sound is always pronounced in possessive cases of these nouns, there is some debate about whether the extra s is required in writing.

✅ Bordeaux’s population versus Bordeaux’ population.

The reality is that both are acceptable. Some writers and editors won’t add the extra s; others will. If it’s not mentioned in your style guide or you’re not following one, it comes down to personal preference. Once again, stay consistent in your usage. I’d recommend adding the s, as it’s most likely how you’d pronounce the word, and it’s consistent with singular noun apostrophe rules.

Using apostrophes with plural nouns ending in a silent s, z or x
On the very rare occasion that you find yourself trying to form the plural possessive of a word ending in a silent s, z or x, it’s best to add an apostrophe and then an s (like you’d do for a singular possessive noun).

✅ The Verraux’s hometown is not far from here.
https://medium.com/writetoedit/how-t...x-637715f275f0

Note that "Knox" is not a French word so should always use an apostrophe S for the possessive.

This is called citing evidence, Vix. You might try it because your nether regions are not a credible source.

ETA: Ninja'd by LJ while I was researching!

Last edited by Stacyhs; Yesterday at 02:04 PM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:33 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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.