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

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


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

Closed Thread
Old 29th July 2017, 10:42 AM   #41
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,748
Originally Posted by NotEvenWrong View Post
Vixen honestly does not realize anything has happened since Massei in 2009. Anyone else worried about her?
..... and that was 8 years ago.

I've run across folk who truly believe that John Follain's book is the actual, definitive account of "A Death in Italy." The problem with that book is its sources, and the fact that the 2011 acquittal by the Hellmann court is merely a short coda at the end.

It knows nothing of the 2013 ISC reversal of the Hellmann sourt, it knows nothing of the 2014 re-conviction of the pair, and (obviously) it knows nothing of the eventual 2015 ISC annulling of all the convicting courts.

Yet Follain is still being quoted as if it is the main source of information. Add to that, that Follain is nowhere to be seen these days - and is lucky that he's not been excoriated like Barbie Nadeau was in the Winterbottom film, or Nick Pisa was in the NetFlix documentary.

Consider that Follian's account is infinitely superior to Darkness Descending.... and yet people still quote from that.

Those who are left, that is.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th July 2017, 12:58 PM   #42
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,509
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The DNA evidence is just one piece of the gigantic jigsaw puzzle that points to just three perpetrators, and allows one to see the gestält:

Amanda Knox
Rudy Guede (whom Knox covered up for)
Raffaele Sollecito (who lost track of all his lies).
The DNA evidence is just one piece of the gigantic jigsaw puzzle that points to only one perpetrator because Guede's is the only indisputable DNA (besides Meredith's) found in the murder room. Other missing pieces that don't create a "multiple perpetrator" picture puzzle have been discussed ad nauseum. One might think that is why 6 out of 7 testifying experts concluded it either was, or could have been, a single perpetrator crime.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th July 2017, 02:19 PM   #43
whoanellie
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 264
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Simply stating this - and repeating it ad naseam - does not make it true. At some point you have to address the ten or twelve outstanding questions to you about this which you simply refuse to address.
No, she doesn't and she never will.
whoanellie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th July 2017, 03:19 PM   #44
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 551
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The court is the establishment. It has no need to bring out 'peer reviewed papers'. It has the hegemony.

If a panel of judges (including laymen and moronic bimbos through to barristers and high court judges) can come to a verdict of guilty after having been presented with all the evidence, and as Massei states, with great reluctance and heavy heart, and open xenophobia towards Rudy (just like Knox' supporters) then we can be sure the evidence was overwhelming and the verdict unavoidable.
Misconduct by police and prosecution

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

Falsehoods told by Vixen

Post dated 19.03.2016
Claim: The postal police claimed to hear the washing machine cycle come to a finish.
Truth: The washing machine was not running. The washing machine story was among the false claims fed to the police to the media. The washing machine running was never presented as evidence in court or used in motivation reports.

Post dated 19.03.2016
Claim: Police didn't think she'd had a shower.
Truth: The police never claimed Amanda had not showered. The testimony from an officer says the opposite from the link below. At trial it was not part of the prosecution’s case Amanda had not showered
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/freque...ked-questions/

Post dated 19.03.2016
Claim: Why would she buy bleach first thing in the morning?
Truth: Quintavelle in his testimony never said that Amanda purchased bleach. The till was checked and there was no record of any purchase of bleach receipts. No evidence has been presented that Amanda and Raffaele purchased bleach. The presence of bleach receipts was false story fed by the police to the media.

Post dated 20.03.2016
Claim: and even defense forensic expert 'Photoshop' Vinci discovered Amanda's DNA on the bra, together with Rudy's.
Truth: Amanda’s DNA was not on the clasp and this has never been part of the prosecution’s case. There is no record of the defence agreeing Amanda’s DNA was on the clasp and there is no evidence Vinci used Photoshop.

Post dated 22.03.2016
Claim: Blood was found on Raff’s underpants
Truth: No blood was every found on Raffaele’s clothing.
Post dated 22.03.2016
Claim: Stefanoni found 12 bits of tissue on the blade.
Truth: Stefanoni found no such tissue on the blade and the prosecution have never claimed there was any human biological material on the blade. When C&V tested the knife it was negative for the human species.

Post dated 24.03.2016
Claim: The bloody pulp incident happened (he claims) when Raff was already in jail.
Truth: Raffaele said in his book that the incident happened during the interrogation at the police station.
Post dated 10.05.2016
Claim: Only one was of sufficient quality to produce a near full profile (15 alleles : legal standard UK =10) of the murder victim, Mez.
Truth: The prosecution never claimed there were 15 alleles on the knife.

Post dated 11.05.2016
The defence on all sides have agreed without challenge that the DNA on the knife did indeed yield a near perfect profile of Mez.
Truth: The defence teams have never accepted there was a full DNA profile of Meredith on the knife and there is no record of this.
Post dated 24.05.2016
Claim: Forensic police believed the blood in the bidet, sink and cotton bud were signs of the murderer rinsing the knife off.
Truth: There is no record of the prosecution saying the blood in the bathroom came from drippings from a knife.

Post dated 24.05.2016
Claim: a long convoluted story surrounding a mop found propped up by the front door of the cottage when postal police arrived was concocted by the pair, which any marine would be proud of in the scheme of tallest of tall stories about burst pipes and leaks as of the time of the murder.
Truth: There is no record of the postal police asking about the mop and there is no record of any conversation regarding the mop between Amanda, Raffaele and the postal police. There was an actual leak in Raffaele’s apartment as seen in the link below
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/freque...ked-questions/

Post dated 24.05.2016
Claim: She rang her mother for the first time since arriving in Europe ahead of the discovery of the body.
Truth: Vixen provides no evidence from phone records to back up her claim Amanda had never previously phoned her mother when she was in Europe.

Post dated 07.07.2016
Claim: What was Raff’s near full DNA profile doing on Mez’s bra clasp (whom he claimed he had never met)
Truth: Raffaele has never said he had not met Meredith.
Post dated: 07.06.2016
Claim: and having Mez - who shook a mean mojito - 'steal' her job was all too much for the poor reject.
Truth: Meredith was never offered a job at Le Chic.

Posted dated: 07.06.2016
Claim: She has never shown one iota of regret or remorse, nor ever shed one little bitty tear for her 'friend'.

Truth: The testimony from witnesses contradict this as seen in the link below :-
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda...ehavior-myths/

Post dated: 07.06.2016
Claim: A ladies size 37 footprint in Mez' blood.
Truth: There was no size 37 female footprint in Meredith’s room. The defence clearly showed all the footprints belonged to Rudy as detailed below
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-04.html

Post dated 08.06.2016
Claim: Oh come off it. Raff's footprint on the bathmat, and the feint, smaller, female footprint nearby.
Truth: No evidence has been presented there was a female footprint by the bathmat.
Post dated: 12.06.2016
Claim: when all the courts, pathologists and forensic experts (aside from the defence flunkeys, paid to challenge) conclude and uphold, 'There was more than one perpetrator.'when all the courts, pathologists and forensic experts (aside from the defence flunkeys, paid to challenge) conclude and uphold, 'There was more than one perpetrator.'
Truth: This contradicts what the experts said. Experts who did not work for the defence could not rule out a single attacker. Dr Lali who carried out the autopsy could not say if there was more than one attacker. Dr Bacci who worked for the prosecution said the following :-
“the biological date cannot tell us if it was one or more persons who killed Meredith”
Dr Liviero, police doctor testifying for the prosecution said the following :-
“A single attacker could have done it”

Post dated: 13.06.2016
Claim: The defense experts came up with some of the most ridiculous 'expert opinion','Mez threw herself onto the one sliver of glass, and that caused the wounds found on her arms and hands'.
Truth: There is no record of the defence saying this.

Post dated: 04.12.2016
Claim: The court was satisfied that the prosecution forensic trajectory experts showed that the rock in all probability beyond reasonable doubt was thrown from inside the room, based on factors such as angle, resting place, distribution of glass and estimated velocity.

Truth: The prosecution never produced any experts on forensic trajectory. In fact the prosecution never had any expert witnesses to support a staged break in.

Post dated 05.06.2016

Claim: Amanda was getting through €300- cash daily - this certainly suggests a drug habit and it would appear Mez was ripped off her rent for dirty money.

Truth: Amanda’s bank statements are available in the link below and do not show 300 euros being taken out every day. The fact Amanda was willing to make her bank statements publicly available indicates Amanda was not taking huge sums from her bank account and was in such dire financial straits she would need to resort to stealing money.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-con...cords-2007.pdf

Post dated: 06.06.2017
Claim: There is also the case of the paper scattered under Filomena's window which had Amanda Knox' footprint on it.
Truth: No such footprint exists.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11598412

Vixen constantly bangs on about how the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was overwhelming. If this was true, why did the prosecution have to resort to the tactics above? If the prosecution had a slam dunk case, why is that the tactics the prosecution had to resort to were clearly the tactics prosecutors would resort when they have no case or evidence? I have listed some of the numerous falsehoods Vixen has said in her posts. If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was such a slam dunk, why do PGP have to lie on an industrial scale to argue their case?
Welshman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th July 2017, 04:33 PM   #45
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,924
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Kiszko's conviction was found unsafe because his doctor in endrinocology came forward to give expert testimony that Kiszko was infertile so unlikely he could have left his bodily fluids.

No, No. You're missing the whole point here.

And the point is this:

1) The court in Kiszko's trial determined that there was sufficient evidence to PROVE his guilt (of committing the sexual murder of Molseed) BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT.

2) It subsequently transpired that a) Kiszko could not possibly have committed the sex murder, and that b) there was proof BARD that a totally different man (who had zero connection to Kiszko) was actually the murderer.

So...... therefore........

How could Kiszko's original trial have found him guilty BARD, when we now know that Kiszko factually had nothing whatsoever to do with the murder?

Shall I tell you the (extremely simple and easy to divine) answer, Vixen?

It's this:

THE ORIGINAL TRIAL GOT IT WRONG.


Now, Vixen. How do you think we can apply the principle on display in the case of Stefan Kiszko to the Massei and Nencini verdicts in the Knox/Sollecito case...........?
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th July 2017, 04:51 PM   #46
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,365
Amanda Knox talks about being kidnapped (as a girl) and emerging as a woman.
I wonder which cases she is active in. She is a writer and no doubt a researcher I would hope to see her being specific. There is a lot of talk about injustice, less visible action.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...fined-her.html

I am not suggesting she owes anyone anything after her experience, more that there are things she can do because she is no longer waiting to be heard.

Last edited by Samson; 29th July 2017 at 04:53 PM.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th July 2017, 06:28 PM   #47
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,509
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Then why was that verdict definitively annulled?
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Political reasons.

The Italians didn't want to see their boy serve life whilst the person found guilty of the actual killing roams free in the USA.
Uh huh...political reasons. Sure. You really have no clue just how ludicrous that is, do you? In essence, you're saying that the Italians would rather have a sexual killer out and about amongst them rather than in jail just because his partner in crime was in the US. That wouldn't say much for them if it were true. But it's not because it's ridiculous.

Once again, you forget/ignore there is not a shred of evidence placing Knox in the bedroom where Kercher was clearly killed. Of course, she could have killed Kercher in the bathroom where her DNA was found (for clearly logical and innocent reasons) and then dragged her into the bedroom. No evidence of this exists either, but since when does that mean anything when one is desperate for excuses?
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th July 2017, 06:51 PM   #48
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,509
Originally Posted by Welshman View Post
Misconduct by police and prosecution

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

Falsehoods told by Vixen

Post dated 19.03.2016
Claim: The postal police claimed to hear the washing machine cycle come to a finish.
Truth: The washing machine was not running. The washing machine story was among the false claims fed to the police to the media. The washing machine running was never presented as evidence in court or used in motivation reports.

Post dated 19.03.2016
Claim: Police didn't think she'd had a shower.
Truth: The police never claimed Amanda had not showered. The testimony from an officer says the opposite from the link below. At trial it was not part of the prosecution’s case Amanda had not showered
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/freque...ked-questions/

Post dated 19.03.2016
Claim: Why would she buy bleach first thing in the morning?
Truth: Quintavelle in his testimony never said that Amanda purchased bleach. The till was checked and there was no record of any purchase of bleach receipts. No evidence has been presented that Amanda and Raffaele purchased bleach. The presence of bleach receipts was false story fed by the police to the media.

Post dated 20.03.2016
Claim: and even defense forensic expert 'Photoshop' Vinci discovered Amanda's DNA on the bra, together with Rudy's.
Truth: Amanda’s DNA was not on the clasp and this has never been part of the prosecution’s case. There is no record of the defence agreeing Amanda’s DNA was on the clasp and there is no evidence Vinci used Photoshop.

Post dated 22.03.2016
Claim: Blood was found on Raff’s underpants
Truth: No blood was every found on Raffaele’s clothing.
Post dated 22.03.2016
Claim: Stefanoni found 12 bits of tissue on the blade.
Truth: Stefanoni found no such tissue on the blade and the prosecution have never claimed there was any human biological material on the blade. When C&V tested the knife it was negative for the human species.

Post dated 24.03.2016
Claim: The bloody pulp incident happened (he claims) when Raff was already in jail.
Truth: Raffaele said in his book that the incident happened during the interrogation at the police station.
Post dated 10.05.2016
Claim: Only one was of sufficient quality to produce a near full profile (15 alleles : legal standard UK =10) of the murder victim, Mez.
Truth: The prosecution never claimed there were 15 alleles on the knife.

Post dated 11.05.2016
The defence on all sides have agreed without challenge that the DNA on the knife did indeed yield a near perfect profile of Mez.
Truth: The defence teams have never accepted there was a full DNA profile of Meredith on the knife and there is no record of this.
Post dated 24.05.2016
Claim: Forensic police believed the blood in the bidet, sink and cotton bud were signs of the murderer rinsing the knife off.
Truth: There is no record of the prosecution saying the blood in the bathroom came from drippings from a knife.

Post dated 24.05.2016
Claim: a long convoluted story surrounding a mop found propped up by the front door of the cottage when postal police arrived was concocted by the pair, which any marine would be proud of in the scheme of tallest of tall stories about burst pipes and leaks as of the time of the murder.
Truth: There is no record of the postal police asking about the mop and there is no record of any conversation regarding the mop between Amanda, Raffaele and the postal police. There was an actual leak in Raffaele’s apartment as seen in the link below
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/freque...ked-questions/

Post dated 24.05.2016
Claim: She rang her mother for the first time since arriving in Europe ahead of the discovery of the body.
Truth: Vixen provides no evidence from phone records to back up her claim Amanda had never previously phoned her mother when she was in Europe.

Post dated 07.07.2016
Claim: What was Raff’s near full DNA profile doing on Mez’s bra clasp (whom he claimed he had never met)
Truth: Raffaele has never said he had not met Meredith.
Post dated: 07.06.2016
Claim: and having Mez - who shook a mean mojito - 'steal' her job was all too much for the poor reject.
Truth: Meredith was never offered a job at Le Chic.

Posted dated: 07.06.2016
Claim: She has never shown one iota of regret or remorse, nor ever shed one little bitty tear for her 'friend'.

Truth: The testimony from witnesses contradict this as seen in the link below :-
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda...ehavior-myths/

Post dated: 07.06.2016
Claim: A ladies size 37 footprint in Mez' blood.
Truth: There was no size 37 female footprint in Meredith’s room. The defence clearly showed all the footprints belonged to Rudy as detailed below
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-04.html

Post dated 08.06.2016
Claim: Oh come off it. Raff's footprint on the bathmat, and the feint, smaller, female footprint nearby.
Truth: No evidence has been presented there was a female footprint by the bathmat.
Post dated: 12.06.2016
Claim: when all the courts, pathologists and forensic experts (aside from the defence flunkeys, paid to challenge) conclude and uphold, 'There was more than one perpetrator.'when all the courts, pathologists and forensic experts (aside from the defence flunkeys, paid to challenge) conclude and uphold, 'There was more than one perpetrator.'
Truth: This contradicts what the experts said. Experts who did not work for the defence could not rule out a single attacker. Dr Lali who carried out the autopsy could not say if there was more than one attacker. Dr Bacci who worked for the prosecution said the following :-
“the biological date cannot tell us if it was one or more persons who killed Meredith”
Dr Liviero, police doctor testifying for the prosecution said the following :-
“A single attacker could have done it”

Post dated: 13.06.2016
Claim: The defense experts came up with some of the most ridiculous 'expert opinion','Mez threw herself onto the one sliver of glass, and that caused the wounds found on her arms and hands'.
Truth: There is no record of the defence saying this.

Post dated: 04.12.2016
Claim: The court was satisfied that the prosecution forensic trajectory experts showed that the rock in all probability beyond reasonable doubt was thrown from inside the room, based on factors such as angle, resting place, distribution of glass and estimated velocity.

Truth: The prosecution never produced any experts on forensic trajectory. In fact the prosecution never had any expert witnesses to support a staged break in.

Post dated 05.06.2016

Claim: Amanda was getting through €300- cash daily - this certainly suggests a drug habit and it would appear Mez was ripped off her rent for dirty money.

Truth: Amanda’s bank statements are available in the link below and do not show 300 euros being taken out every day. The fact Amanda was willing to make her bank statements publicly available indicates Amanda was not taking huge sums from her bank account and was in such dire financial straits she would need to resort to stealing money.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-con...cords-2007.pdf

Post dated: 06.06.2017
Claim: There is also the case of the paper scattered under Filomena's window which had Amanda Knox' footprint on it.
Truth: No such footprint exists.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11598412

Vixen constantly bangs on about how the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was overwhelming. If this was true, why did the prosecution have to resort to the tactics above? If the prosecution had a slam dunk case, why is that the tactics the prosecution had to resort to were clearly the tactics prosecutors would resort when they have no case or evidence? I have listed some of the numerous falsehoods Vixen has said in her posts. If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was such a slam dunk, why do PGP have to lie on an industrial scale to argue their case?
Nice collection of falsehoods. I wasn't sure at first if this litany of falsehoods was Vixen's or Trump's. So much in common.You can add to the list her claim that Dr. Peter Gill said that DNA doesn't transfer after 24 hours and that there was no grill under Filomena's window at the time of the murder. There are more but there is, by necessity, a limit on how many can be posted due to space limitations.

Just to clarify the highlighted part: blood was found on Raff's underwear, but it was Knox's menstrual blood. Having no underwear due to her inability to access the cottage after the discovery of the murder, Amanda had to borrow Raff's underwear. This is why she bought the "sexy g-string lingerie" at Bubbles. Of course, it wasn't really sexy or a G-string (they were cotton with a cartoon cow on them), but why let facts get in the way of a good and lucrative story?
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th July 2017, 07:10 PM   #49
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,509
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Amanda Knox talks about being kidnapped (as a girl) and emerging as a woman.
I wonder which cases she is active in. She is a writer and no doubt a researcher I would hope to see her being specific. There is a lot of talk about injustice, less visible action.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...fined-her.html

I am not suggesting she owes anyone anything after her experience, more that there are things she can do because she is no longer waiting to be heard.
You say that you are not suggesting that she owes anyone anything but then immediately say that there is more that she can do. You also say that there is a lot of talk about injustice, less visible action. You seem to be contradicting yourself.

You are right about the fact that she owes no one anything. But bringing attention to wrongful convictions and how they happen is important. Knowledge can help prevent future wrongful convictions and help right past and current ones.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th July 2017, 10:38 PM   #50
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,365
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
You say that you are not suggesting that she owes anyone anything but then immediately say that there is more that she can do. You also say that there is a lot of talk about injustice, less visible action. You seem to be contradicting yourself.

You are right about the fact that she owes no one anything. But bringing attention to wrongful convictions and how they happen is important. Knowledge can help prevent future wrongful convictions and help right past and current ones.
Yes, indeed I am saying she owes no one anything. I could then say "but" there is more she could do. But I mean "however", as in.

1. Amanda Knox owes no one. eg Think Donald Trump
2. There is more she can do as she now has a voice.

Both statements are true, and of course I don't know what cases are occupying her. Typically she would make it known if she has a specific case, I guess I am curious. On IA people make it plain what cases they are working on for example.

I will give an example of a group in New Zealand PPIP I think
An independent body formed 2 years ago and said their first two cases were Michael October and Scott Watson, both convicted of murder.

I follow closely the local cases, and there has not been an utterance since I have been aware of. Well, not quite true I suppose Chris Gallavin made a substantial documentary on the Watson case.

May be I do too much stream of consciousness....

Last edited by Samson; 29th July 2017 at 10:56 PM.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th July 2017, 11:31 PM   #51
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,509
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Yes, indeed I am saying she owes no one anything. I could then say "but" there is more she could do. But I mean "however", as in.

1. Amanda Knox owes no one. eg Think Donald Trump
2. There is more she can do as she now has a voice.

Both statements are true, and of course I don't know what cases are occupying her. Typically she would make it known if she has a specific case, I guess I am curious. On IA people make it plain what cases they are working on for example.

I will give an example of a group in New Zealand PPIP I think
An independent body formed 2 years ago and said their first two cases were Michael October and Scott Watson, both convicted of murder.

I follow closely the local cases, and there has not been an utterance since I have been aware of. Well, not quite true I suppose Chris Gallavin made a substantial documentary on the Watson case.

May be I do too much stream of consciousness....
Ah...you have explained it a bit better now. However, as Amanda is not a lawyer or an investigator, I doubt that she is personally "working" on any cases. From what I have read and understand, she is more engaged in educating others on how and why wrongful convictions occur. For example, speaking at legal conferences and law schools helping lawyers and future lawyers become more aware of how and why they happen.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th July 2017, 06:18 AM   #52
NotEvenWrong
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 755
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
No, No. You're missing the whole point here.

And the point is this:

1) The court in Kiszko's trial determined that there was sufficient evidence to PROVE his guilt (of committing the sexual murder of Molseed) BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT.

2) It subsequently transpired that a) Kiszko could not possibly have committed the sex murder, and that b) there was proof BARD that a totally different man (who had zero connection to Kiszko) was actually the murderer.

So...... therefore........

How could Kiszko's original trial have found him guilty BARD, when we now know that Kiszko factually had nothing whatsoever to do with the murder?

Shall I tell you the (extremely simple and easy to divine) answer, Vixen?

It's this:

THE ORIGINAL TRIAL GOT IT WRONG.


Now, Vixen. How do you think we can apply the principle on display in the case of Stefan Kiszko to the Massei and Nencini verdicts in the Knox/Sollecito case...........?
<fx VIXEN HEAD SPINNING>

Seriously though, I don't know why we bother. Vixen is clearly unable to understand the concept of courts getting it wrong sometimes.
NotEvenWrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th July 2017, 06:34 AM   #53
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 11,175
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
No, No. You're missing the whole point here.

And the point is this:

1) The court in Kiszko's trial determined that there was sufficient evidence to PROVE his guilt (of committing the sexual murder of Molseed) BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT.

2) It subsequently transpired that a) Kiszko could not possibly have committed the sex murder, and that b) there was proof BARD that a totally different man (who had zero connection to Kiszko) was actually the murderer.

So...... therefore........

How could Kiszko's original trial have found him guilty BARD, when we now know that Kiszko factually had nothing whatsoever to do with the murder?

Shall I tell you the (extremely simple and easy to divine) answer, Vixen?

It's this:

THE ORIGINAL TRIAL GOT IT WRONG.


Now, Vixen. How do you think we can apply the principle on display in the case of Stefan Kiszko to the Massei and Nencini verdicts in the Knox/Sollecito case...........?

No, he was not found 'incontravertibly innocent', the verdict was found to be unsafe after his doctor came forward to vouch for his sperm count.


For all we know, his doctor might have done a 'Peter Gill'; ie., use his position and influence to get his client off the hook.

I am not saying he did this, but simply pointing out that it is not 'proof of innocence', just an expert opinion claiming that someone with Kiszko's condition was unlikely to produce much live sperm. You note, he didn't say 'none at all'. There have been cases of men deemed infertile, with weak or few spermotozoa successfully becoming fathers normally.

An undercover reporter on tv documentary 'Panorama', a respected BBC feature, demonstrated that by approaching various 'expert witnesses' who were listed on a register, under the guise of needing an expert to get him out of an accident charge, and with bogus details, deliberately designed to enable the 'expert' to see through the phoney claim, he was able to persuade almost all of them to agree to give expert evidence on his behalf to get him off the hook in court, subject to greasing their palms with money (or rather, 'fees').

Just sayin'.
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th July 2017, 06:42 AM   #54
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 11,175
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Amanda Knox talks about being kidnapped (as a girl) and emerging as a woman.
I wonder which cases she is active in. She is a writer and no doubt a researcher I would hope to see her being specific. There is a lot of talk about injustice, less visible action.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...fined-her.html

I am not suggesting she owes anyone anything after her experience, more that there are things she can do because she is no longer waiting to be heard.
She should grow up. Since when was a 20-year old a 'kid'? As for, 'the Black guys call me their "little baby girl"' - snorts of scepticism - and prancing about in a little red riding hood outfit, who is she kidding?

Mind you, they do say psychopaths are arrested at a young emotional age, usually because of a traumatic incident. For example, Mary Bell, child killer aged 8, was used by her prostitute mum as a toddler prostitute.
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim

Last edited by Vixen; 30th July 2017 at 06:44 AM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th July 2017, 07:22 AM   #55
bagels
Graduate Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,728
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post

For all we know, his doctor might have done a 'Peter Gill'; ie., use his position and influence to get his client off the hook.
Peter Gill wasn't a defense expert. He was never part of the case. Had nothing to do with Knox's exoneration. He was just a private citizen that took interest in a blatant miscarriage of justice and used his substantial expertise to give his own opinion. It's a real thorn in the side for the PGP, whose experts consist of online psychics and obsessive internet weirdos.
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 Back to Top
Old 30th July 2017, 07:44 AM   #56
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,748
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
She should grow up. Since when was a 20-year old a 'kid'? As for, 'the Black guys call me their "little baby girl"' - snorts of scepticism - and prancing about in a little red riding hood outfit, who is she kidding?

Mind you, they do say psychopaths are arrested at a young emotional age, usually because of a traumatic incident. For example, Mary Bell, child killer aged 8, was used by her prostitute mum as a toddler prostitute.
For someone who resists like the plague using the word "innocent" in relation to what the courts in Italy decided about Knox and Sollecito, you are immensely wreckless in chucking in the word "psychopath" in relation to this.

While it is true you'll use any opportunity to defame innocent people, it would be nice if once in a while there was an actual citation from some neutral source to justify your slander.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th July 2017, 07:47 AM   #57
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,924
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
No, he was not found 'incontravertibly innocent', the verdict was found to be unsafe after his doctor came forward to vouch for his sperm count.


For all we know, his doctor might have done a 'Peter Gill'; ie., use his position and influence to get his client off the hook.

I am not saying he did this, but simply pointing out that it is not 'proof of innocence', just an expert opinion claiming that someone with Kiszko's condition was unlikely to produce much live sperm. You note, he didn't say 'none at all'. There have been cases of men deemed infertile, with weak or few spermotozoa successfully becoming fathers normally.

An undercover reporter on tv documentary 'Panorama', a respected BBC feature, demonstrated that by approaching various 'expert witnesses' who were listed on a register, under the guise of needing an expert to get him out of an accident charge, and with bogus details, deliberately designed to enable the 'expert' to see through the phoney claim, he was able to persuade almost all of them to agree to give expert evidence on his behalf to get him off the hook in court, subject to greasing their palms with money (or rather, 'fees').

Just sayin'.

Did you miss the part where the real culprit was discovered because he had given a DNA sample in relation to another alleged offence, and his DNA matched that left on Molseed's underwear/body? And the real culprit had no connection whatsoever with Kiszko. THIS is the evidence which shows that Kiszko categorically had nothing to do with Molseed's murder - the evidence showing Kiszko could not produce sperm led to the vacation of his conviction, but his total innocence was proven by the discovery of the real culprit. I pointed this out pretty simply in both my previous posts. You seem not to have taken it on board......

So, Vixen: back to the actual matter at hand. The court in Kiszko's original trial decided that there was sufficient evidence to prove his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Yet we now know for certain that Kiszko definitely was not the culprit. So..... the original court, by definition, made a (serious) error in deciding that Kiszko had, beyond all reasonable doubt, been the man who sexually assaulted and murdered Lesley Molseed.

And then I ask you once again, Vixen: how do you imagine we can take the example of the court's error of judgement in the Kiszko case, and apply it to the Massei and Nencini courts in the Knox/Sollecito case?
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th July 2017, 07:47 AM   #58
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,748
Originally Posted by Vixen
For all we know, his doctor might have done a 'Peter Gill'; ie., use his position and influence to get his client off the hook.
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
Peter Gill wasn't a defense expert. He was never part of the case. Had nothing to do with Knox's exoneration. He was just a private citizen that took interest in a blatant miscarriage of justice and used his substantial expertise to give his own opinion. It's a real thorn in the side for the PGP, whose experts consist of online psychics and obsessive internet weirdos.
Why does Vixen have to lie to make points in this thread. As you say, bagels, no one close to this case was ever Dr. Peter Gill's "client".

Instead of hurling abuse at people, rather than dealing with/refuting their claims, why does Vixen not provide one, just one forensic-DNA expert who actually agrees with Stefanoni's original work?

It seems that slander and abuse is the only tool in Vixen's toolbox.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th July 2017, 08:01 AM   #59
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,748
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
She should grow up.
What possible relevance does this comment have in relation to the horrible murder in Perugia in 2007? The comment shows a completely unhealthy obsession with a public figure - like tuning into BBC4 to hear the latest about Diana.

However, if this thread ever becomes one of examining the challenges facing exonerees - including the dynamics of being subject to multiyear abuse, slut-shaming and stalking from unhinged individuals - perhaps that comment would at least be in the ballpark of interest.....

..... as a case in point.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th July 2017, 08:17 AM   #60
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,365
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
No, he was not found 'incontravertibly innocent', the verdict was found to be unsafe after his doctor came forward to vouch for his sperm count.


For all we know, his doctor might have done a 'Peter Gill'; ie., use his position and influence to get his client off the hook.

I am not saying he did this, but simply pointing out that it is not 'proof of innocence', just an expert opinion claiming that someone with Kiszko's condition was unlikely to produce much live sperm. You note, he didn't say 'none at all'. There have been cases of men deemed infertile, with weak or few spermotozoa successfully becoming fathers normally.

An undercover reporter on tv documentary 'Panorama', a respected BBC feature, demonstrated that by approaching various 'expert witnesses' who were listed on a register, under the guise of needing an expert to get him out of an accident charge, and with bogus details, deliberately designed to enable the 'expert' to see through the phoney claim, he was able to persuade almost all of them to agree to give expert evidence on his behalf to get him off the hook in court, subject to greasing their palms with money (or rather, 'fees').

Just sayin'.
A joke that spun off the track for those young girls. Tragic. Cases become complex only when the wrong guys end up in jail, and that was one of them.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th July 2017, 08:22 AM   #61
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,509
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
She should grow up. Since when was a 20-year old a 'kid'? As for, 'the Black guys call me their "little baby girl"' - snorts of scepticism - and prancing about in a little red riding hood outfit, who is she kidding?

Mind you, they do say psychopaths are arrested at a young emotional age, usually because of a traumatic incident. For example, Mary Bell, child killer aged 8, was used by her prostitute mum as a toddler prostitute.
I see you didn't bother to read the article as Knox did not refer to herself as a "kid" in it. She said "'I went into prison as not yet a woman and I came out an adult woman and that period defined me." But, yes, she has referred to herself as a "girl" or "kid" when she went to Perugia in 2007. And she was. Legally and physically she was an adult, but for you to nitpick about her being a "kid" at barely 20 is just yet another example of a need to disparage her at every opportunity. I look back at myself at 20 and know I was emotionally still a "kid" who thought she was a mature adult. My life, like Amanda's, had consisted of going to school, odd jobs, and a life sheltered by a loving family. Neither of us was a mature woman.

Please cite your source for your quote "'the Black guys call me their "little baby girl". Amanda is not responsible for what other people call her.

Regarding her "Red Riding Hood" pictures, why do you have such a problem with a few fantasy pictures with her boyfriend while vacationing in Germany? Is everyone who takes these kinds of fun photos to be disparaged or only Knox?

Please stop diagnosing Knox as a "psychopath" as she has not been diagnosed as such nor does she meet the criteria. Oh, wait... I forgot she was diagnosed as a psychopath by a recent college grad who falsely paraded herself as a psychologist on TJMK. Quennell and others on TJMK embraced and lauded "Miss Represented". They ended up with egg on their faces when she was exposed as a complete and utter liar.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th July 2017, 08:22 AM   #62
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,365
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
She should grow up. Since when was a 20-year old a 'kid'? As for, 'the Black guys call me their "little baby girl"' - snorts of scepticism - and prancing about in a little red riding hood outfit, who is she kidding?

Mind you, they do say psychopaths are arrested at a young emotional age, usually because of a traumatic incident. For example, Mary Bell, child killer aged 8, was used by her prostitute mum as a toddler prostitute.
She explained in the article where she grew up, with drug dealers and thieves. At least she escaped. I agree with you on one matter, it was political interference from US state department that got the right result. Of course for the wrong reasons, but that seems to be the Italian scenic route.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th July 2017, 08:49 AM   #63
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 551
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Nice collection of falsehoods. I wasn't sure at first if this litany of falsehoods was Vixen's or Trump's. So much in common.You can add to the list her claim that Dr. Peter Gill said that DNA doesn't transfer after 24 hours and that there was no grill under Filomena's window at the time of the murder. There are more but there is, by necessity, a limit on how many can be posted due to space limitations.

Just to clarify the highlighted part: blood was found on Raff's underwear, but it was Knox's menstrual blood. Having no underwear due to her inability to access the cottage after the discovery of the murder, Amanda had to borrow Raff's underwear. This is why she bought the "sexy g-string lingerie" at Bubbles. Of course, it wasn't really sexy or a G-string (they were cotton with a cartoon cow on them), but why let facts get in the way of a good and lucrative story?
One of the most ridiculous claims made by the PGP is the notion there was a mountain of evidence and a solid case against Amanda and Raffaele when the conduct of the police/prosecution and the fact PGP have to resort to lying to argue their case indicates the complete opposite. The tactics the police/prosecution had to resort to are a textbook example of the tactics police/prosecutors would use when they have a weak case and a lack of evidence and the facts don’t support the prosecution’s case. For instance, there is a golden rule the prosecution should never have to resort to lying when they have a slam dunk case. As can be seen from the link I attached in a previous post, the prosecution told numerous lies. Vixen constantly bangs on about Amanda and Raffaele telling umpteen lies whilst slavishly defending corrupt prosecutors who told umpteen lies. One of numerous examples where PGP posters have defended liars whilst viciously attacking Amanda and Raffaele for lying.

I have attached the appeal documents for Amanda and Raffaele for the Hellman court and the Supreme Court ruling. The appeal documents for Amanda and Raffaele made very effective arguments which punched massive holes in the prosecution’s case. The Supreme Court motivation report ripped the prosecution’s case to shreds. How is this explained if there was a slam dunk case against Amanda and Raffaele?

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

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/appeal4.html

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-con...ons-Report.pdf

Vixen likes to argue that there must be overwhelming evidence and a solid case if courts found Amanda and Raffaele guilty. This indicates PGP posters can’t think for themselves and automatically regard something as valid because a court says so. Courts can come to the wrong decision. In a country like Italy courts may find defendants guilty because an innocent verdict would undermine the reputation of the justice system. Judges may take the side of the prosecution.

Last edited by Welshman; 30th July 2017 at 08:51 AM.
Welshman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th July 2017, 08:51 AM   #64
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,509
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
No, he was not found 'incontravertibly innocent', the verdict was found to be unsafe after his doctor came forward to vouch for his sperm count.


For all we know, his doctor might have done a 'Peter Gill'; ie., use his position and influence to get his client off the hook.

I am not saying he did this, but simply pointing out that it is not 'proof of innocence', just an expert opinion claiming that someone with Kiszko's condition was unlikely to produce much live sperm. You note, he didn't say 'none at all'. There have been cases of men deemed infertile, with weak or few spermotozoa successfully becoming fathers normally.

An undercover reporter on tv documentary 'Panorama', a respected BBC feature, demonstrated that by approaching various 'expert witnesses' who were listed on a register, under the guise of needing an expert to get him out of an accident charge, and with bogus details, deliberately designed to enable the 'expert' to see through the phoney claim, he was able to persuade almost all of them to agree to give expert evidence on his behalf to get him off the hook in court, subject to greasing their palms with money (or rather, 'fees').

Just sayin'.
If this is true of defense experts, it must also be true of prosecution experts. Rinaldi and Boemia were paid experts. Were they also shills paid to give evidence to support the prosecution? How about Norelli, the only expert who said there had to be multiple killers? Or Torricelli? All paid prosecution experts.

Who weren't paid experts for either the defense or prosecution? Conti and Vecchiotti. They were independent.

When you have to resort to accusing or implying that any expert who doesn't support your confirmation bias is somehow bought off or a shill, it only undermines your position. To suggest a person's private physician would lie under oath about his patient's infertility is just sheer desperation.

Just sayin'.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 30th July 2017 at 08:58 AM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th July 2017, 08:53 AM   #65
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,509
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
She explained in the article where she grew up, with drug dealers and thieves. At least she escaped. I agree with you on one matter, it was political interference from US state department that got the right result. Of course for the wrong reasons, but that seems to be the Italian scenic route.
Can you please cite the source for this? Give a link?

There is no evidence whatsoever that the US State Dept. interfered in this case at all.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 30th July 2017 at 08:59 AM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th July 2017, 09:01 AM   #66
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,365
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Can you please cite the source for this? Give a link?
I mean in Capanne prison, making another assumption that most women are in for drugs and property offences. I will try to be less confusing.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th July 2017, 03:19 PM   #67
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,392
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
If this is true of defense experts, it must also be true of prosecution experts. Rinaldi and Boemia were paid experts. Were they also shills paid to give evidence to support the prosecution? How about Norelli, the only expert who said there had to be multiple killers? Or Torricelli? All paid prosecution experts.

Who weren't paid experts for either the defense or prosecution? Conti and Vecchiotti. They were independent.

When you have to resort to accusing or implying that any expert who doesn't support your confirmation bias is somehow bought off or a shill, it only undermines your position. To suggest a person's private physician would lie under oath about his patient's infertility is just sheer desperation.

Just sayin'.
Also if you look at the forensic pathologists the only one who said that there had to be more than one assailant was the pathologist acting for the party with a financial interest in the conviction of Knox and Sollecito. Neither the defence nor the prosecution experts said that the assault could not have been the result of a single assailant. This seems to be an example of a paid shill.

ECHR case law requires that where there is doubt the court must follow an assumption of innocence. If Marasca understood the significance of ECHR case law he had no option than to state 'the physical findings from the post mortem were compatible with a single assailant (but could not exclude more than one)'. The evidence from the post mortem cannot be used to support the case against Sollecito or Knox.

So proper application of the law by Marasca would have excluded the DNA findings from the bathroom and the post mortem findings as evidence of guilt. 'All the evidence' seems to be rapidly disappearing into court rulings that are contrary to ECHR case law and thus invalid.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th July 2017, 04:00 PM   #68
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,509
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
Also if you look at the forensic pathologists the only one who said that there had to be more than one assailant was the pathologist acting for the party with a financial interest in the conviction of Knox and Sollecito. Neither the defence nor the prosecution experts said that the assault could not have been the result of a single assailant. This seems to be an example of a paid shill.

ECHR case law requires that where there is doubt the court must follow an assumption of innocence. If Marasca understood the significance of ECHR case law he had no option than to state 'the physical findings from the post mortem were compatible with a single assailant (but could not exclude more than one)'. The evidence from the post mortem cannot be used to support the case against Sollecito or Knox.

So proper application of the law by Marasca would have excluded the DNA findings from the bathroom and the post mortem findings as evidence of guilt. 'All the evidence' seems to be rapidly disappearing into court rulings that are contrary to ECHR case law and thus invalid.
You make excellent points. Why is it that Vixen never considers that the prosecution experts could be paid shills? Is it only defense experts who lack the morals and ethical fortitude to withstand the temptation of money?
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th July 2017, 04:21 PM   #69
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,509
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I mean in Capanne prison, making another assumption that most women are in for drugs and property offences. I will try to be less confusing.
I still can't find the source for that quote. I did ask Vixen for it and we'll see if she actually provides it. Miracles do happen occasionally.

Update: I found it. Her actual quote was "The black impoverished men took me in and called me their baby girl." She was referring to others who had similar experiences.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 30th July 2017 at 04:47 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 Back to Top
Old 30th July 2017, 04:34 PM   #70
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,365
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Can you please cite the source for this? Give a link?

There is no evidence whatsoever that the US State Dept. interfered in this case at all.
There is plenty. Charlie Wilkes has detailed exactly how the state department lawyers were educated. He will not state it, but the inference is unavoidable. I started a thread,

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=295661

Considering this was a first in Italian law, both nicking an American girl then acquitting at final recourse, go figure.
But you should bump the thread. It is to me the most interesting aspect of the case.

Last edited by Samson; 30th July 2017 at 04:35 PM.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th July 2017, 04:38 PM   #71
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,365
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I still can't find the source for that quote. I did ask Vixen for it and we'll see if she actually provides it. Miracles do happen occasionally.
I simply embellish her article where she says she entered prison not a woman, and emerged a woman. She was living for 4 years with mainly petty criminals clearly. I really thought my meaning was straight forward, but then it has been suggested here English may be my second language...
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th July 2017, 04:50 PM   #72
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,509
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
There is plenty. Charlie Wilkes has detailed exactly how the state department lawyers were educated. He will not state it, but the inference is unavoidable. I started a thread,

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=295661

Considering this was a first in Italian law, both nicking an American girl then acquitting at final recourse, go figure.
But you should bump the thread. It is to me the most interesting aspect of the case.
I'll take a look at it. I have no idea who Charlie Wilkes is.

I did find the video, as edited above, and produced the actual quote.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th July 2017, 04:51 PM   #73
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,509
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I simply embellish her article where she says she entered prison not a woman, and emerged a woman. She was living for 4 years with mainly petty criminals clearly. I really thought my meaning was straight forward, but then it has been suggested here English may be my second language...
I assumed it is also your second language.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th July 2017, 04:59 PM   #74
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,748
Originally Posted by Stacyhs
Can you please cite the source for this? Give a link?

There is no evidence whatsoever that the US State Dept. interfered in this case at all.
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
There is plenty. Charlie Wilkes has detailed exactly how the state department lawyers were educated. He will not state it, but the inference is unavoidable. I started a thread,

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=295661

Considering this was a first in Italian law, both nicking an American girl then acquitting at final recourse, go figure.
But you should bump the thread. It is to me the most interesting aspect of the case.
I don't see how it's possible to conclude that the US State Dept did not "interfere" in this case - it all depends on what you mean by the word "interfere".

At the very least the US State Dept might have been formally asked by someone from Italy what American politicians like Senator Cantwell meant with her own remarks about the way the prosecution(s) proceeded. Informally, it is easy to imagine one rep from each government sitting down over a glass of wine, with the American laying out what American forensic-DNA experts (for instance) were saying about the nature of the evidence.

Given that no one can name one - not even one - forensic-DNA expert in either the US or in Italy who agreed with Stefanoni's work, all the Italian would have been able to fall back upon (over wine) would be the implied insult to the Italian legal system.

What would not be forthcoming from the Italian would be anyone - Italian, American or otherwise - who would stand by Stefanoni's work. It might even resemble the last 2 years of posting here on ISF - one guilter, Vixen, makes citationless claims, and the rest of us ask for citations which never come.

It's not much of a stretch to imagine a State Department official saying something akin to, "Do what you want with your own citizen, but on the basis of what we've seen there would be no extradition from the US over this."

As an aside, Andrea Vogt claims to have some info in this regard, but even she has admitted that the 2015 acquittals were definitive, and there's no point in trying to suggest otherwise.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th July 2017, 05:04 PM   #75
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,509
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
I don't see how it's possible to conclude that the US State Dept did not "interfere" in this case - it all depends on what you mean by the word "interfere".
At the very least the US State Dept might have been formally asked by someone from Italy what American politicians like Senator Cantwell meant with her own remarks about the way the prosecution(s) proceeded. Informally, it is easy to imagine one rep from each government sitting down over a glass of wine, with the American laying out what American forensic-DNA experts (for instance) were saying about the nature of the evidence.

Given that no one can name one - not even one - forensic-DNA expert in either the US or in Italy who agreed with Stefanoni's work, all the Italian would have been able to fall back upon (over wine) would be the implied insult to the Italian legal system.

What would not be forthcoming from the Italian would be anyone - Italian, American or otherwise - who would stand by Stefanoni's work. It might even resemble the last 2 years of posting here on ISF - one guilter, Vixen, makes citationless claims, and the rest of us ask for citations which never come.

It's not much of a stretch to imagine a State Department official saying something akin to, "Do what you want with your own citizen, but on the basis of what we've seen there would be no extradition from the US over this."

As an aside, Andrea Vogt claims to have some info in this regard, but even she has admitted that the 2015 acquittals were definitive, and there's no point in trying to suggest otherwise.
Exactly. I don't consider the state department discussing it as "interfering" but as "doing their job". The implication that pressure was put on Hellmann and Marasca/Bruno to acquit/annul against their wishes is absurd.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th July 2017, 05:14 PM   #76
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,365
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I'll take a look at it. I have no idea who Charlie Wilkes is.

I did find the video, as edited above, and produced the actual quote.
Charlie Wilkes was an activist and friend to Amanda from an outlying island near Seattle. He posted extensively here till a couple of years ago.
You may find it interesting to breeze through the early days at Injustice anywhere thread. His avatar is always the blue and red pills. At the risk of offending others, he is regarded by some as the finest writer and analyst anywhere on crime.

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.co...php?f=20&t=747

It is truly archival, 56,000 posts starting 2011.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th July 2017, 07:54 PM   #77
TruthCalls
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 762
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Political reasons.

The Italians didn't want to see their boy serve life whilst the person found guilty of the actual killing roams free in the USA.
If that were the case then why did Cheffi annul Hellmann and why did Nencini convict them - all while Amanda was already back home in the USA. Do you ever think before you comment?
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th July 2017, 11:16 PM   #78
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 11,175
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
Peter Gill wasn't a defense expert. He was never part of the case. Had nothing to do with Knox's exoneration. He was just a private citizen that took interest in a blatant miscarriage of justice and used his substantial expertise to give his own opinion. It's a real thorn in the side for the PGP, whose experts consist of online psychics and obsessive internet weirdos.
Not quite true is it? Peter Gill is quoted extensively in Raff's appeal to Fifth Chambers.

We have all these obsessive PIP internet weirdos who want to reinvent the truth and infantalise a 30 year old woman and idolise anyone who takes up their cause, including two people who had their sentences commuted as cop killers. We have people justifying Jacobs buying a cop killer his guns.
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th July 2017, 11:18 PM   #79
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 11,175
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Did you miss the part where the real culprit was discovered because he had given a DNA sample in relation to another alleged offence, and his DNA matched that left on Molseed's underwear/body? And the real culprit had no connection whatsoever with Kiszko. THIS is the evidence which shows that Kiszko categorically had nothing to do with Molseed's murder - the evidence showing Kiszko could not produce sperm led to the vacation of his conviction, but his total innocence was proven by the discovery of the real culprit. I pointed this out pretty simply in both my previous posts. You seem not to have taken it on board......

So, Vixen: back to the actual matter at hand. The court in Kiszko's original trial decided that there was sufficient evidence to prove his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Yet we now know for certain that Kiszko definitely was not the culprit. So..... the original court, by definition, made a (serious) error in deciding that Kiszko had, beyond all reasonable doubt, been the man who sexually assaulted and murdered Lesley Molseed.

And then I ask you once again, Vixen: how do you imagine we can take the example of the court's error of judgement in the Kiszko case, and apply it to the Massei and Nencini courts in the Knox/Sollecito case?

The gaping difference between the Molseed case and this one is that Knox and Sollecito have not been exonerated.
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th July 2017, 11:20 PM   #80
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 11,175
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
What possible relevance does this comment have in relation to the horrible murder in Perugia in 2007? The comment shows a completely unhealthy obsession with a public figure - like tuning into BBC4 to hear the latest about Diana.

However, if this thread ever becomes one of examining the challenges facing exonerees - including the dynamics of being subject to multiyear abuse, slut-shaming and stalking from unhinged individuals - perhaps that comment would at least be in the ballpark of interest.....

..... as a case in point.
Why does this woman constantly seek publicity? Why does she fill our papers with fake news?
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:57 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.