IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts 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.
Reply
Old 30th January 2024, 05:44 PM   #1281
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,705
Quote:
"If an individual is incorrect regarding a given wrongful conviction, does that make him or her more or less likely to be receptive toward arguments from the opposite side on the next case?"
I find the answer is mostly "no". As we've seen in this very forum by several members, when people form an opinion on something, the usually just dig in no matter what evidence is provided short of a video of the event. And even then, they'll often claim the video was fake/ manipulated by the other side.

People don't like to be wrong. They see it as a weakness, an embarrassment, of being a 'loser' that their fragile egos cannot take. The more narcissistic, the less able to cope with being wrong.
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 30th January 2024, 06:00 PM   #1282
bagels
Master Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,272
Sometimes I still think about the fact that if you think Amanda Knox is super guilty your view of the interrogation is basically Knox repeatedly incriminating herself, and then immediately, in a blatant lie, blaming the police for abusing and beating a statement out of her, and the police just going...."Gosh! Shoot! We forgot to record the interrogation proving what a psycho liar she is and documenting all her incriminating statements, darn, this dumb foreign kid is going to completely get away with saying we beat and manipulated her, cause we forgot to press one button! crap! rookie mistake!" Like that literally has to be your view of the police, there isn't an alternative. That's so freakin insane 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 30th January 2024, 06:20 PM   #1283
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,556
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
These opinions have not aged well, but Mr. Fino was not alone and all of these comments predate the Conti-Vecchiotti report. As I read them, I found myself asking, "If an individual is incorrect regarding a given wrongful conviction, does that make him or her more or less likely to be receptive toward arguments from the opposite side on the next case?"
Me, I'm not immune from reaching hard and fast opinions about things - reached BEFORE I have all the relevant information.

What was interesting about the investigation and trials to do with the Kercher murder, was how much people actually resisted compiling relevant information. The Massei court, it actually refused to have an independent DNA analysis done - which the Hellmann court did with Conti-Vecchiotti (despite the bleating of guilters, C-V reached independent conclusions, which added to and clarified the record.)

Police and initial courts didn't think it was strange that no one tested the presumed semen stain, found on a pillow below the hips of a sexual assault victim. It was neither tested to see if it was semen, nor was it tested to find out its owner. The intellectual gymnastics that the Massei court in 2010 managed to justify not taking that sample are simply elided over by guilters as if there was nothing to see there.

There are dozens of more examples - of how a court had sentenced two innocents to 2 1/2 decades in prison, while those same courts seemed disinterested in putting actual evidence (or lack of same) to the test.

Watching the lengths that guilters and courts would go to do this, was part of what made it so compelling to follow - obsessively so!
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 30th January 2024 at 06:25 PM.
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 1st February 2024, 10:23 AM   #1284
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,556
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Me, I'm not immune from reaching hard and fast opinions about things - reached BEFORE I have all the relevant information.
The thing which should keep all of us more humble, is that we often don't know what we don't know. I mean before the Hellmann court and before the C-V report on the original DNA evidence, who actually 'knew' that Stefanoni's original data-collection, then analysis was junk?

Not me, not for sure. However, with that said, I had not been impressed by Judge Massei's 2010 reasoning for NOT allowing independent analysis, to double check Stefanoni's work. (Massei's spurious reasoning? The worst that any 'independent' study could do is refute Stefanoni, leaving Massei as the 'expert of the experts' to break the tie. I mean, he'd not even wanted to hear what an independent DNA voice would say!)

Note where some guilters themselves parked themselves, parking their opinions even after reluctantly, grudgingly accepting the eventual exoneration.

Their observation? "Knox still knows something she's not telling us!"

Indeed, in that comment, their blame still piles-on to Knox, as if she is the font of all knowledge, and as if she is withholding something that would have cracked this case wide open. Barbie Nadeau wrote copiously in The Daily Beast on this theme, 'the ten questions Knox needs to answer," now that she was deemed innocent.

Sometimes the relevant information just isn't for having. And without it, our justice system should acquit, rather than blame the accused for camouflaging it....
__________________
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 1st February 2024, 05:48 PM   #1285
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,705
When the story first broke, I assumed the pair was likely guilty as most people did. We all want to believe the police wouldn't arrest and charge people unless they had damn good evidence of their guilt. But I've learned a lot since then on just how wrong they can be when they decide someone is guilty. Not only the police, but prosecutors who care more about winning a case than the truth. And it IS true that interrogations are not about getting the truth, but about getting a confession from the person they already believe is the guilty party.
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 1st February 2024, 06:53 PM   #1286
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,556
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
When the story first broke, I assumed the pair was likely guilty as most people did. We all want to believe the police wouldn't arrest and charge people unless they had damn good evidence of their guilt. But I've learned a lot since then on just how wrong they can be when they decide someone is guilty. Not only the police, but prosecutors who care more about winning a case than the truth. And it IS true that interrogations are not about getting the truth, but about getting a confession from the person they already believe is the guilty party.
My reading on the subject of interrogations is that that's the ONLY role of them, to have the suspect confirm the theory that the police bring into the room. Indeed, the Reid Technique of interrogation is to divert the suspect from even entertaining innocence, and steer the person from 'innocence talk' to 'guilt talk' which confirms the cops.

(When you think about it, why are the cops interrogating someone unless they're sure they have the right one in the room? Why waste everyone's time? An interrogation is not a fishing trip, nor is it part of the investigation, it is meant to rap things up.)

There's no evidence that in 2007 the Perugian police used the Reid technique, I'll admit. Yet that technique sometimes tries to get the suspect to 'imagine' how the crime might have been done, again with that person being encouraged to see themselves as perhaps even innocently involved. That certainly sounds like how Ficarra, Donnino and Mignini conducted themselves that night, 'what do you imagine might have happened? How do you imagine Lumumba might have done it?'

When the case first came into my radar in 2010 I simply assumed that Knox was guilty, simply because I read that thy had had her DNA at the scene. My only thought was, "foreigners do stupid things when they're in another country." The 2011 provisional exoneration at the 2nd level trial, convinced me that both Raffaele and Knox had been, in fact, innocent. Yet it was not until early 2012 that I reversed myself on calunnia against Lumumba, I had thought until then that Knox had been fairly convicted on that.

It was reading Mignini's own account of the night of interrogation that opened my eyes to that one.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 1st February 2024 at 06:56 PM.
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 2nd February 2024, 08:44 AM   #1287
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,605
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
When the story first broke, I assumed the pair was likely guilty as most people did. We all want to believe the police wouldn't arrest and charge people unless they had damn good evidence of their guilt. But I've learned a lot since then on just how wrong they can be when they decide someone is guilty. Not only the police, but prosecutors who care more about winning a case than the truth. And it IS true that interrogations are not about getting the truth, but about getting a confession from the person they already believe is the guilty party.
Totally unrelated to this case, but the parallels are interesting... has anyone watched American Nightmare on Netflix? It's a three part documentary on the case of Denise Huskins and Aaron Quinn. Anyone who thinks cops don't suffer from confirmation bias, tunnel vision, and who will lie through their teeth seriously needs to watch this.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2024, 10:49 AM   #1288
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,556
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Totally unrelated to this case, but the parallels are interesting... has anyone watched American Nightmare on Netflix? It's a three part documentary on the case of Denise Huskins and Aaron Quinn. Anyone who thinks cops don't suffer from confirmation bias, tunnel vision, and who will lie through their teeth seriously needs to watch this.
The parallels with the Kercher case were unnerving.

Aaron went into the 'interview' willingly, thinking that all he was doing was helping the cops search for his girlfriend. What does this remind you of? They tell him, in essence, he's just someone 'informed of the facts', that this is not an interrogation. What does this remind you of?

Let's face it, Aaron tells a story of a kidnapping which is, on the face of it, an unbelievable narrative. It's then that the 'interview' turns overtly into an interrogation, without the cops telling Aaron that.

They flat out lie to him. They say that blood was found at the scene of the 'kidnapping'. They omit to say what that 'find' had to do with anything, they press him to explain what they've just claimed. What does this remind you of? He's supposed to have the answers, which he obviously did not.

But they press. At one time he specifically asks for a lawyer. his request is briefly ignored as they press on. What does this remind you of?

Eventually they do grant him his rights as a suspect - but even that was forced onto the cops once a lawyer came on the scene. The lawyer said one of the first things he did was tell the cops, 'me and my client are leaving. If you want to stop us, you'll have to arrest him.' IIRC the cops did not arrest Aaron at that point, even as they had given him prison garb, to replace the clothes that Aaron had earlier voluntarily surrendered as 'evidence', and as Aaron had also done a lie detector test, as well as surrendered mouth swabs - all thinking at the time, that he was helping the cops in a search for his girlfriend.

At the conclusion of the lie detector test, he was grilled by the FBI operator who said (leaning accusingly into his face) that Aaron had failed, and had failed miserably. With what the documentary showed, the operator was not specific about the things Aaron was supposed to have got wrong, leaving Aaron confused and muddled. Aaron was forcefully asked to explain why he'd failed, when in fact he had no idea why. In fact, the cop had not even told him the technical details which showed he had lied. Aaron himself had not been competent to judge that - the FBI guy just unhooked him and pressed forcefully with accusations!

When in fact it was not Aaron's job to explain why the Lie Detector machine had **allegedly** called him a liar - the burden of proof should have been somewhere else.

What does this remind you of? He was then asked to fill in the blanks that the cops themselves could not fill in - the equivalent of Knox being asked to imagine how Kercher could have been killed by Lumumba. As if a 20-year-old's sleep deprived imaginings was going to make up for hard evidence.

SPOILER ALERT - DO NOT READ FURTHER IF YOU HATE SPOILERS.

It was a jaw dropper when Denise Huskins returned, saying that she had, in fact, been kidnapped - and had walked into her home in Huntington Beach, that return caught on security camera. So much for the lie detector test, and the immediate accusations which had followed it.

The police theory that Aaron had killed Denise turned out to be wrong, and galactically wring - and until that time, Aaron seemed dangerously close to simply confessing that he'd killed her. He was grilled so much, while not being charged, that he sometimes was found in the fetal position in the interview room.

What does that remind you of? It reminds me of the two decade old case in Saskatchewan in Canada, where a young man was being grilled/accused of a rape that later evidence excluded him from.

But the complication was that he'd eventually confessed, under pressure at interrogation. He'd 'buckled and told us what we already knew'. When asked why he would do that, he said, "I'm not sure why, at the time it just seemed that they would not let up until I did, so I thought, 'why not', at least this interrogation would be over. It was like an out of body experience, there I was looking at myself, confessing to something I knew I hadn't done."

Or words to that effect.

Who does that remind you of?

The in episode two of American Nightmare, the police come up with an even more bizarre theory of a fake-kidnapping gone wrong. While not an exact parallel to the Kercher investigation what that reminded me of was how once the police are exposed of having had a completely wrong theory, how easy it is to turn to an equally wrong, second theory.

How many theories did the Perugian cops/courts/Florence courts throw at the Kercher case? From sex-games gone wrong, to Satanic rite murders, to disputes over rent money.... you name it.

All of which, sequentially, Knox was asked to explain for them - when she couldn't, they just called her a liar. When one 'theory collapsed' they then blamed that, too, on her for not being forthcoming, and then moved to the next theory - where the whole thing was repeated.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 3rd February 2024 at 11:06 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 7th February 2024, 01:12 PM   #1289
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,605
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
The parallels with the Kercher case were unnerving.
.
.
.
Excellent summary, Bill. I think it's a perfect example of how an investigation can run off the rails right from the start based on first impressions of the investigating team. In the case of Meredith's murder, the police jumped to the conclusion the break-in was staged, and thanks to Sherlock Mignini, that the killer had to be female because the body was covered. It goes south from there, and as you say, the parallels are uncanny and unnerving.

A couple of other points. The FBI agent told Aaron he failed the lie detector test miserably (as you note) but it was revealed later in the program that the actual results were inconclusive. The FBI agent lied to him in an effort to break him (again, sound familiar?). Also, Denise's lawyer alleged the police delayed performing a rape kit until Denise answer questions, though apparently the Vallejo police denied the claim. Based on how the case was handled, I tend to believe this (that it was delayed). And finally, apparently there are some in the Vallejo police dept that still think they faked the kidnapping, just as Mignini and others still claim they believe Amanda and Raffaele are guilty.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2024, 02:30 AM   #1290
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 884
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Excellent summary, Bill. I think it's a perfect example of how an investigation can run off the rails right from the start based on first impressions of the investigating team. In the case of Meredith's murder, the police jumped to the conclusion the break-in was staged, and thanks to Sherlock Mignini, that the killer had to be female because the body was covered. It goes south from there, and as you say, the parallels are uncanny and unnerving.

A couple of other points. The FBI agent told Aaron he failed the lie detector test miserably (as you note) but it was revealed later in the program that the actual results were inconclusive. The FBI agent lied to him in an effort to break him (again, sound familiar?). Also, Denise's lawyer alleged the police delayed performing a rape kit until Denise answer questions, though apparently the Vallejo police denied the claim. Based on how the case was handled, I tend to believe this (that it was delayed). And finally, apparently there are some in the Vallejo police dept that still think they faked the kidnapping, just as Mignini and others still claim they believe Amanda and Raffaele are guilty.
This is an issue I have raised before about the phenomena of imprinting which is dangerous in criminal cases. Imprinting is when people became fixated on the first suspects and the belief suspects are guilty become fixed and can't be changed. The belief is dangerous because if police become fixated on the first suspects and develop the fixed belief they are guilty and they will continue to prosecute suspects, ignore evidence of innocence and refuse to accept new evidence other people have committed a crime. Imprinting may explain why Mignini still believes Amanda and Raffaele are guilty and railroaded Amanda and Raffaele. Imprinting explains why guilters such as Vixen elieve Amanda and Raffaele are guilty regardless of the facts. Steve Moore argued imprinting explains why the the Kerchers believe Amanda and Raffaele are guilty.
Welshman is online now   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 8th February 2024, 07:41 PM   #1291
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,556
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Also, Denise's lawyer alleged the police delayed performing a rape kit until Denise answer questions, though apparently the Vallejo police denied the claim. Based on how the case was handled, I tend to believe this (that it was delayed). And finally, apparently there are some in the Vallejo police dept that still think they faked the kidnapping, just as Mignini and others still claim they believe Amanda and Raffaele are guilty.
Even when the police in Vallejo declined to arrest Denise, they STILL sent out a cop to tell the media that she had wilfully misled them - that she had caused valuable public resources to be wasted.

When they couldn't charge her because of a lack of evidence, instead they trashed her reputation - publicly.

Remind you of anything?
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 8th February 2024 at 07:43 PM.
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 9th February 2024, 06:11 AM   #1292
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,734
Originally Posted by Welshman View Post
This is an issue I have raised before about the phenomena of imprinting which is dangerous in criminal cases. Imprinting is when people became fixated on the first suspects and the belief suspects are guilty become fixed and can't be changed. The belief is dangerous because if police become fixated on the first suspects and develop the fixed belief they are guilty and they will continue to prosecute suspects, ignore evidence of innocence and refuse to accept new evidence other people have committed a crime. Imprinting may explain why Mignini still believes Amanda and Raffaele are guilty and railroaded Amanda and Raffaele. Imprinting explains why guilters such as Vixen elieve Amanda and Raffaele are guilty regardless of the facts. Steve Moore argued imprinting explains why the the Kerchers believe Amanda and Raffaele are guilty.
Nothing to do with 'imprinting', it is to do with looking objectively at each case on its own individual merits. The idea that the Valejo case 'must be the same as the Knox/Sollecito case' is ludicrous to me.

I did see the Netflix programme and once again, it is always worth remembering when watching a documentary or 'docu-series' that it is simply the producer/s putting forward his or her own POV, it doesn't even have to be factual, true or even rational. People think that 'documentary' means factually verified and true, but no, it doesn't. As long as you are aware that a documentary can be about whatever the producer wants it to be about and that oftimes all kind sof persuasive tactics and influencing methods will be used, whether the documentary be about, climate change, the death penalty, gun ownership, election fraud or 'miscarriage of justice'. Usually, documentary makers in the mass media time to be fair, balanced and well argued. However, there is an underside, with the less scrupulous using the documentary form to push a dishonest argument, which I believe the Netflix shows 'Making a Murderer', 'Filthy Rich', the one about Maddie McCann and Amanda Knox were so heavily one-sided they could not be considered the best true picture and in the case of Amanda Knox, actually inserting blatant lies and untrue claims, together with failing to mention the strong evidence against the pair. The standard formula for these less-than-honest 'true crime documentaries' appears to consist of (a) a defence lawyer utterly convinced of the innocence of his or her client (well, of course, they have to at least pretend they are), (b) setting the viewer up with a plausible 'counter scenario' (as in the Valejo case, where the scenario is presented as how suspicious cops would view it) and then the (c) denouement / epiphany that reveals - tada! - the police and (by implication) you, the viewer, got it all wrong, eh, because my client was innocent all along and they were acquitted/ have never been convicted / are still walking free/ got massive compensation. Boom-Boom!

I did like the one about the Killing of Jill Dando. OK, so the guy got away with it but I liked how the producers allowed the view of the Met Police detectives that Barry George may have got away with it but they are still utterly convinced of his guilt. We don't normally get that vital balance.

I have no idea as to the merits of the Valejo case but I did get irritated by the standard 'defence lawyer with a cause' tired stereotype, plus all of the theatrical eye-dabbing by the female victim every time she came to an 'emotional' part of her story. Also the 'hero policewoman' who saw the strand of blond hair on the kidnapper's goggles and immediate knew it must have belonged to aforesaid victim. So corny!!! (I don't doubt it must have been highly traumatic for those concerned in real life.)

So, having followed the Kercher case from Day One of the murder and read tens of thousands of court documents as well as following all of the public court hearings, my belief in the guilt of all three of the defendants remains unchanged. Watching documentaries about other cases in which people presumed guilty were then found to be innocent has no influence on my opinion on the Kercher case. I always find it strange when people don't bother with logic or objectivity but instead argue along the lines of sentimentality or by comparing it with other case. For example, 'My daughter is just like Knox (in age, demographic, etc) and no way would she have done such a thing!" or 'Bring the American home!!!' or 'These Italians are so backward they must have railroaded these nice kids and framed them' or even, 'those two guys in Valejo were presumed guilty by the cops and it turned out they were innocent all along! Ergo, Knox and Sollecito mus have been innocent all along!!!' or even, 'Yeah, well, the evidence might be strong but that strong evidence must be the result of a bent forensic scientist and as for the prosecutor: he had a grudge against sweet young American innocents and er, er, a belief in, - ah! - satanism, that's it, Mignini wanted to believe Amanda Knox was a witch!!! What a bloody sneaky foreign catholic bastard!!!!!"
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig

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 9th February 2024, 06:13 PM   #1293
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 884
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Nothing to do with 'imprinting', it is to do with looking objectively at each case on its own individual merits. The idea that the Valejo case 'must be the same as the Knox/Sollecito case' is ludicrous to me.

I did see the Netflix programme and once again, it is always worth remembering when watching a documentary or 'docu-series' that it is simply the producer/s putting forward his or her own POV, it doesn't even have to be factual, true or even rational. People think that 'documentary' means factually verified and true, but no, it doesn't. As long as you are aware that a documentary can be about whatever the producer wants it to be about and that oftimes all kind sof persuasive tactics and influencing methods will be used, whether the documentary be about, climate change, the death penalty, gun ownership, election fraud or 'miscarriage of justice'. Usually, documentary makers in the mass media time to be fair, balanced and well argued. However, there is an underside, with the less scrupulous using the documentary form to push a dishonest argument, which I believe the Netflix shows 'Making a Murderer', 'Filthy Rich', the one about Maddie McCann and Amanda Knox were so heavily one-sided they could not be considered the best true picture and in the case of Amanda Knox, actually inserting blatant lies and untrue claims, together with failing to mention the strong evidence against the pair. The standard formula for these less-than-honest 'true crime documentaries' appears to consist of (a) a defence lawyer utterly convinced of the innocence of his or her client (well, of course, they have to at least pretend they are), (b) setting the viewer up with a plausible 'counter scenario' (as in the Valejo case, where the scenario is presented as how suspicious cops would view it) and then the (c) denouement / epiphany that reveals - tada! - the police and (by implication) you, the viewer, got it all wrong, eh, because my client was innocent all along and they were acquitted/ have never been convicted / are still walking free/ got massive compensation. Boom-Boom!

I did like the one about the Killing of Jill Dando. OK, so the guy got away with it but I liked how the producers allowed the view of the Met Police detectives that Barry George may have got away with it but they are still utterly convinced of his guilt. We don't normally get that vital balance.

I have no idea as to the merits of the Valejo case but I did get irritated by the standard 'defence lawyer with a cause' tired stereotype, plus all of the theatrical eye-dabbing by the female victim every time she came to an 'emotional' part of her story. Also the 'hero policewoman' who saw the strand of blond hair on the kidnapper's goggles and immediate knew it must have belonged to aforesaid victim. So corny!!! (I don't doubt it must have been highly traumatic for those concerned in real life.)

So, having followed the Kercher case from Day One of the murder and read tens of thousands of court documents as well as following all of the public court hearings, my belief in the guilt of all three of the defendants remains unchanged. Watching documentaries about other cases in which people presumed guilty were then found to be innocent has no influence on my opinion on the Kercher case. I always find it strange when people don't bother with logic or objectivity but instead argue along the lines of sentimentality or by comparing it with other case. For example, 'My daughter is just like Knox (in age, demographic, etc) and no way would she have done such a thing!" or 'Bring the American home!!!' or 'These Italians are so backward they must have railroaded these nice kids and framed them' or even, 'those two guys in Valejo were presumed guilty by the cops and it turned out they were innocent all along! Ergo, Knox and Sollecito mus have been innocent all along!!!' or even, 'Yeah, well, the evidence might be strong but that strong evidence must be the result of a bent forensic scientist and as for the prosecutor: he had a grudge against sweet young American innocents and er, er, a belief in, - ah! - satanism, that's it, Mignini wanted to believe Amanda Knox was a witch!!! What a bloody sneaky foreign catholic bastard!!!!!"
If there was strong evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, how do you explain the arguments Vixen and other PGP have to resort to? Why do PGP have to resort to making claims with more holes in them than a string vest and bear absolutely no relation to reality. For instance, if as Vixen claims there was strong evidence against Amanda and Raffaele why is this claim full of holes :-

*If the prosecution had strong evidence against Amanda and Raffaele why did they not make use of this evidence in the interrogation where Amanda and Raffaele were not presented with a single piece of evidence.

*Raffaele was forced into dropping Amanda’s alibi and signing a statement and Amanda was forced to name Lumumba and then the police tried to force a confession out of Lumumba. Why would the police need to rely on coerced confessions with strong evidence at their disposal?

*The evidence against had no credibility and was full of holes and how do you reconcile this with the notion the prosecution had strong evidence? An example is the knife with the following characteristics which would have made it impossible for the knife to have been used to stab Meredith or have Meredith’s DNA on it.
The circumstances surrounding the collection of the knife are highly suspect. Only one knife was taken from Raffaele’s apartment and no knives were taken from the cottage. Below is Inspector Finzi’s testimony about the knife. As can be seen Inspector Finzi’s says he had not seen the wounds. Inspector Finzi had no data on the size of the knife wounds and there is no record the prosecution measured the knife to compare with the knife wounds. In view of this how was Inspector Finzi able to tell this was the knife used in the murder?
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/freque...ked-questions/
• The knife did not match a bloody imprint on the bed.
• The knife did not match the wounds and was too big to have caused the wounds.
• There was no blood on the knife.
• When C&V tested the knife it was negative for the human species which meant there was no human biological material on the knife.
• Vixen and other PGP like to claim two knives were used. The problem with this argument is that when Inspector Finzi gave his testimony regarding the collection of the knife, he said nothing about two knives and that Raffaele’s knife had only caused one of the wounds. If the two knife theory was valid, why did the prosecution not claim this from the start? The circumstances surrounding the collection of the knife are highly suspect. Only one knife was taken from Raffaele’s apartment and no knives were taken from the cottage. Below is Inspector Finzi’s testimony about the knife. As can be seen Inspector Finzi’s says he had not seen the wounds. Inspector Finzi had no data on the size of the knife wounds and there is no record the prosecution measured the knife to compare with the knife wounds. In view of this how was Inspector Finzi able to tell this was the knife used in the murder?

*If the prosecution had strong evidence at their disposal, why would they need to use with evidence with zero credibility such as a knife whose characteristics would have made it impossible to have been used to stab Meredith or contain her DNA. If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was so solid why is it with six years to argue their case, this is the best evidence the prosecution can come up with? In addition, why does Vixen have to argue the case for guilt on the basis of such evidence?

*If there is strong evidence the last people who want the evidence tested are the suspects and their defence lawyers. The defence had no objection to the knife being opened and wanted independent experts to examine Stefanoni’s work. If there was strong evidence against Amand and Raffaele why did the defence want the evidence tested?

*Why did the prosecution not want the evidence tested? The prosecution didn’t want the knife opened and let the bra clasp rust which made it useless for testing.

*Prosecutors don’t need to lie when they have strong evidence. As can be seen from the links the prosecution told numerous lies. Why did the prosecution have to resort to lying if they had strong evidence?

knoxsollecito.wordpress.com/list-of-prosecution-and-press-lies-told-about-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito/

Lies & Misinformation (injusticeinperugia.org)

*Why does Vixen have to resort to lying which is what you resort to when you have no actual evidence to argue your case. How does Vixen explain if there was strong evidence against Amanda and Raffaele?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11938562
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11942852
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11598412
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1#post11427461
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post11951893
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post11982023
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6#post12107306
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post12200863
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post12297573
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5#post12297575
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6#post13170726
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1#post13920821
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1#post13941551

*Vixen said that the notion that lying is something you resort to when there is a lack of evidence is following a script. If there was strong evidence against Amanda and Raffale why would it be necessary to use such an absurd argument which makes no sense at all?
Welshman is online now   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 9th February 2024, 06:25 PM   #1294
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 884
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Nothing to do with 'imprinting', it is to do with looking objectively at each case on its own individual merits. The idea that the Valejo case 'must be the same as the Knox/Sollecito case' is ludicrous to me.

I did see the Netflix programme and once again, it is always worth remembering when watching a documentary or 'docu-series' that it is simply the producer/s putting forward his or her own POV, it doesn't even have to be factual, true or even rational. People think that 'documentary' means factually verified and true, but no, it doesn't. As long as you are aware that a documentary can be about whatever the producer wants it to be about and that oftimes all kind sof persuasive tactics and influencing methods will be used, whether the documentary be about, climate change, the death penalty, gun ownership, election fraud or 'miscarriage of justice'. Usually, documentary makers in the mass media time to be fair, balanced and well argued. However, there is an underside, with the less scrupulous using the documentary form to push a dishonest argument, which I believe the Netflix shows 'Making a Murderer', 'Filthy Rich', the one about Maddie McCann and Amanda Knox were so heavily one-sided they could not be considered the best true picture and in the case of Amanda Knox, actually inserting blatant lies and untrue claims, together with failing to mention the strong evidence against the pair. The standard formula for these less-than-honest 'true crime documentaries' appears to consist of (a) a defence lawyer utterly convinced of the innocence of his or her client (well, of course, they have to at least pretend they are), (b) setting the viewer up with a plausible 'counter scenario' (as in the Valejo case, where the scenario is presented as how suspicious cops would view it) and then the (c) denouement / epiphany that reveals - tada! - the police and (by implication) you, the viewer, got it all wrong, eh, because my client was innocent all along and they were acquitted/ have never been convicted / are still walking free/ got massive compensation. Boom-Boom!

I did like the one about the Killing of Jill Dando. OK, so the guy got away with it but I liked how the producers allowed the view of the Met Police detectives that Barry George may have got away with it but they are still utterly convinced of his guilt. We don't normally get that vital balance.

I have no idea as to the merits of the Valejo case but I did get irritated by the standard 'defence lawyer with a cause' tired stereotype, plus all of the theatrical eye-dabbing by the female victim every time she came to an 'emotional' part of her story. Also the 'hero policewoman' who saw the strand of blond hair on the kidnapper's goggles and immediate knew it must have belonged to aforesaid victim. So corny!!! (I don't doubt it must have been highly traumatic for those concerned in real life.)

So, having followed the Kercher case from Day One of the murder and read tens of thousands of court documents as well as following all of the public court hearings, my belief in the guilt of all three of the defendants remains unchanged. Watching documentaries about other cases in which people presumed guilty were then found to be innocent has no influence on my opinion on the Kercher case. I always find it strange when people don't bother with logic or objectivity but instead argue along the lines of sentimentality or by comparing it with other case. For example, 'My daughter is just like Knox (in age, demographic, etc) and no way would she have done such a thing!" or 'Bring the American home!!!' or 'These Italians are so backward they must have railroaded these nice kids and framed them' or even, 'those two guys in Valejo were presumed guilty by the cops and it turned out they were innocent all along! Ergo, Knox and Sollecito mus have been innocent all along!!!' or even, 'Yeah, well, the evidence might be strong but that strong evidence must be the result of a bent forensic scientist and as for the prosecutor: he had a grudge against sweet young American innocents and er, er, a belief in, - ah! - satanism, that's it, Mignini wanted to believe Amanda Knox was a witch!!! What a bloody sneaky foreign catholic bastard!!!!!"
More holes in the idea there was strong evidence against Amanda and Raffaele

* Why would the prosecution need to resort to these tactics if they have strong evidence?

The prosecution hid the results of early and decisive DNA testing excluding Sollecito as the sexual assailant, securing on improper grounds the pretrial incarceration of Sollecito and Knox (and Lumumba) to the severe prejudice of the defense.

The prosecution concealed the initial results for tests performed on the two key items of evidence , i.e., the kitchen knife (Rep. 36B) and the bra-clasp (Rep. 165B), and instead, produced only the results of suspicious “do over” tests (reruns), without disclosing the data from the initial tests or even the fact that the subsequent tests are “do overs”.

The prosecution concealed that the kitchen knife profile was generated within a series of tests for which 90 percent of the results have been suppressed, strongly suggesting the occurrence of a severe contamination event that the prosecution continues to hide.

The prosecution claims that contamination of the bra clasp was impossible, even though the bra clasp profile was processed during a series of tests for which there is documented proof of contamination.

The prosecution falsely portrayed the DNA lab as pristine and perfectly maintained, even though the lab’s own documents demonstrate that it was plagued with repeated contamination events and machine malfunctions that were known to the lab.

The prosecution has withheld the results from a massive number of DNA tests (well over 100), including probably exculpatory profiles relating to the sexual assault and the secondary crime scene downstairs.

The prosecution has hidden all of the records of the DNA amplification process—the most likely place for laboratory contamination to have occurred—including all of the contamination control tests for this process.


*A feature of strong evidence is you can't rebut it. If the prosecution had strong evidence why were there several examples where the evidence was demolished :-

The defence destroyed the prosecution's evidence and made effective arguments for the Hellman appeal for which I have attached a link and the supreme court.

C&V demolished Stefanoni's work.

Hellman and the supreme court made effective arguments in their motivation reports.

*If the prosecution had strong evidence, why couldn't Vixen's idol Stefanoni answer basic questions such as how much of Meredith's DNA was on the knife and the amount of Raffaele's DNA on the clasp.

www.injusticeinperugia.org/Appeal.html
Welshman is online now   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 9th February 2024, 06:34 PM   #1295
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,556
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Nothing to do with 'imprinting', it is to do with looking objectively at each case on its own individual merits. The idea that the Valejo case 'must be the same as the Knox/Sollecito case' is ludicrous to me.
.... as it is to me.

Yet experts who have studied the phenomenon of wrongful prosecutions have written about commonalities. The way the Vallejo police tried to sully the reputation of a victim of a crime is similar to the way the Perugian police substituted slut-shaming a wrongfullly arrested person for actual evidence.

If you have read those 10,000 pages, you will know that no less than Guiliano Mignini wondered, months after the arrests, why Raffaele Sollecito had not turned against Knox. What he was worried about was that without Sollecito doing that, there actually was no evidence against Knox.

You wil have also read about the eventual Sollecito defense separation strategy that worked well for him. The question was, "the prosecution says they have all this evidence against Knox, well, what does that have to do with Sollecito?" The answer turned out to be, that the stuff they alleged against Knox had had nothing to do with Sollecito. And with Sollecito demonstrably innocent of the allegations, what then was the evidence against Knox?

There was none. As the final Supreme Court panel wrote, no manner of alleged evidence could make up for there being a lack of evidence in the murderroom itself, save for the evidence all of which pointed to Rudy Guede.

So, thanks so much for misreading what had been posted above about the Vallejo, California, case - that there MUST be a direct parallel between it and the Perugian odyssey.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
.......... and Amanda Knox were so heavily one-sided they could not be considered the best true picture and in the case of Amanda Knox, actually inserting blatant lies and untrue claims, together with failing to mention the strong evidence against the pair.
You mean when Nick Pisa said on camera and for the record that he never fact-checked any of the stuff he wrote about the Perugian murder, lest taking time to verify rob him of a scoop and a paycheck? You mean like when Mignini said on camera and for the record that the murderer had to have been a woman, because only a woman would cover a body with a duvet?

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
........ evidence must be the result of a bent forensic scientist and as for the prosecutor: he had a grudge against sweet young American innocents and er, er, a belief in, - ah! - satanism, that's it, Mignini wanted to believe Amanda Knox was a witch!!! What a bloody sneaky foreign catholic bastard!!!!!"
You mean that Mignini belonged to groups and spoke seriously about 'Satan and the Law', and that co-prosecutor Maneula Comodi threatened to quit the case if Mignini went to trial with Satanism as part of the motive (cf: Barbie Nadeau)?



__________________
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 9th February 2024, 07:04 PM   #1296
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,556
For those who claim that they've read 10,000 pages of court documents, I would recommend that they read 62 more, from the University of Cincinnati about wrongful convictions in Canada.

https://scholarship.law.uc.edu/uclr/vol80/iss4/19

Once again, no one would claim that wrongful convictions MUST have these commonalities. But when one actually reads such studies, they find similarities. For instance, this study mentions:

- even though false confessions are one cause of wrongful convictions, Canada (back then) refused to implement safeguards at interrogation to prevent them.

- the absence of a comprehensive legal definition of 'police negligence', prevents police from being held to account when it happens

- the commonality of identified police 'tunnel vision' in the more famous wrongful conviction cases, still did not result in Criminal Code reform on interrogations and identification.

And on and on and on. It's a good read - only 62 pages!
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 9th February 2024 at 07:05 PM.
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 10th February 2024, 07:23 AM   #1297
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,589
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
So, having followed the Kercher case from Day One of the murder and read tens of thousands of court documents as well as following all of the public court hearings, my belief in the guilt of all three of the defendants remains unchanged. Watching documentaries about other cases in which people presumed guilty were then found to be innocent has no influence on my opinion on the Kercher case. I always find it strange when people don't bother with logic or objectivity but instead argue along the lines of sentimentality or by comparing it with other case. For example, 'My daughter is just like Knox (in age, demographic, etc) and no way would she have done such a thing!" or 'Bring the American home!!!' or 'These Italians are so backward they must have railroaded these nice kids and framed them' or even, 'those two guys in Valejo were presumed guilty by the cops and it turned out they were innocent all along! Ergo, Knox and Sollecito mus have been innocent all along!!!' or even, 'Yeah, well, the evidence might be strong but that strong evidence must be the result of a bent forensic scientist and as for the prosecutor: he had a grudge against sweet young American innocents and er, er, a belief in, - ah! - satanism, that's it, Mignini wanted to believe Amanda Knox was a witch!!! What a bloody sneaky foreign catholic bastard!!!!!"

...demonstrating, once again, your abject ignorance on this matter, coupled with your glaring inability to assess scientific evidence and afford it appropriate weight (or lack of weight). Adding in an unhealthy dose of pathetic, hyperbolic, entirely-made-up attributions as to why people believe Knox and Sollecito had nothing to do with the murder.

Simply put: you're wrong. Pretty much every single one of your assessments and conclusions is totally wide of the mark. Scientifically-literate observers know that there's not one single piece of credible, reliable evidence connecting either Knox or Sollecito to the murder (while at the same time, there's more than ample evidence connecting Guede to the murder, and an entirely feasible/plausible narrative making Guede the sole offender).

In any case, your opinions regarding this crime - all of which are wrong - are of no value or relevance these days. The Italian courts have finally (though extremely belatedly) come to the correct conclusions. The conclusions which we scientifically-literate and judicially-literate commentators had already correctly reached by around 2011. Knox and Sollecito have correctly been exonerated regarding the murder. The ECHR has had to step in to sort out Knox's unjust conviction on the criminal slander charge, and I have little doubt that she'll be formally acquitted within the next year or so. There's no more debate to be had. We were right, and you were wrong.
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 10th February 2024, 08:57 AM   #1298
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,734
So what was all that with the bleach, mopping up and intricate showering?

https://www.internationalskeptics.co...6#post10714056
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig

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 10th February 2024, 03:26 PM   #1299
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,556
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
So what was all that with the bleach, mopping up and intricate showering?

https://www.internationalskeptics.co...6#post10714056
Sigh.

You point to a 2015 post by Grinder (I miss Grinder!) that DEBUNKED the use of bleach. That's your answer to "what was all that with the bleach, mopping up and intricate showering?"

This is reminiscent of you posting a picture of the window underneath Filomena's window, saying that it proved that there were no bars on that lower window, bars that a climber could stand stand upon and already be shoulder height to Filomena's ledge.....

Except.....

The picture you posted was one WITH bars on that lower window.

So I (for one) am baffled as to what you're trying to prove.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 10th February 2024 at 03:28 PM.
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 10th February 2024, 04:35 PM   #1300
MarkCorrigan
Penultimate Amazing
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,840
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Sigh.

You point to a 2015 post by Grinder (I miss Grinder!) that DEBUNKED the use of bleach. That's your answer to "what was all that with the bleach, mopping up and intricate showering?"

This is reminiscent of you posting a picture of the window underneath Filomena's window, saying that it proved that there were no bars on that lower window, bars that a climber could stand stand upon and already be shoulder height to Filomena's ledge.....

Except.....

The picture you posted was one WITH bars on that lower window.

So I (for one) am baffled as to what you're trying to prove.
I'm not surprised in the slightest.
MarkCorrigan 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 10th February 2024, 07:31 PM   #1301
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,556
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I always find it strange when people don't bother with logic or objectivity but instead argue along the lines of sentimentality or by comparing it with other case.
I'm like you, because, I, too, find things to be strange. Like when people post pictures which prove the opposite of what they'd been claiming, or post links to 2015 ISF posts which actually say the opposite of what they've been claiming. No one forced those citations on to you....

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
For example, 'My daughter is just like Knox (in age, demographic, etc) and no way would she have done such a thing!" or 'Bring the American home!!!' or 'These Italians are so backward they must have railroaded these nice kids and framed them' or even, 'those two guys in Valejo were presumed guilty by the cops and it turned out they were innocent all along! Ergo, Knox and Sollecito mus have been innocent all along!!!' or even, 'Yeah, well, the evidence might be strong but that strong evidence must be the result of a bent forensic scientist and as for the prosecutor: he had a grudge against sweet young American innocents and er, er, a belief in, - ah! - satanism, that's it, Mignini wanted to believe Amanda Knox was a witch!!! What a bloody sneaky foreign catholic bastard!!!!!"
Two of those non sequiturs are actually true. Of the ones that aren't - no one ever claimed that since what happened in Vallejo, California, had been a miscarriage of justice, then it MUST have been a miscarriage in Perugia, et al. No one ever claimed that.

The two that were true....? Yes, Stefanoni's forensic work was 'bent', as has been demonstrated numerous times, by worldwide forensic experts. In fact, there is not one forensic expert who has ever sided with Stefanoni. One who obstensively testified in support of Stefanoni let slip.... that she had not followed international protocols. So that one doesn't count.

And Guiliano Mignini DID believe that Satanism was part of this case, so much so that acc. to author Barbie Nadeau, co-prosecutor Comodi threatened to quit if he went to trial with that as a theory. Does his documented participation in the 'Satanism and the Law' conference not give you pause?



__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 10th February 2024 at 07:36 PM.
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 11th February 2024, 01:03 AM   #1302
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,734
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Sigh.

You point to a 2015 post by Grinder (I miss Grinder!) that DEBUNKED the use of bleach. That's your answer to "what was all that with the bleach, mopping up and intricate showering?"

<snip>
I was drawing your attention to the police photo of Sollecito's newly acquired bottles of bleach. Are you saying the police photos including cleaning materials and latex gloves, together with the u-bend which caused 'flooding to half the house', dismantled presumably by the pair because it got blocked by all of their cleaning in the middle of the night, are all signs that a bent forensic scientist or prosecutor or cops must have planted them?
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig

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 11th February 2024, 01:06 AM   #1303
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,734
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
I'm like you, because, I, too, find things to be strange. Like when people post pictures which prove the opposite of what they'd been claiming, or post links to 2015 ISF posts which actually say the opposite of what they've been claiming. No one forced those citations on to you....



Two of those non sequiturs are actually true. Of the ones that aren't - no one ever claimed that since what happened in Vallejo, California, had been a miscarriage of justice, then it MUST have been a miscarriage in Perugia, et al. No one ever claimed that.

The two that were true....? Yes, Stefanoni's forensic work was 'bent', as has been demonstrated numerous times, by worldwide forensic experts. In fact, there is not one forensic expert who has ever sided with Stefanoni. One who obstensively testified in support of Stefanoni let slip.... that she had not followed international protocols. So that one doesn't count.

And Guiliano Mignini DID believe that Satanism was part of this case, so much so that acc. to author Barbie Nadeau, co-prosecutor Comodi threatened to quit if he went to trial with that as a theory. Does his documented participation in the 'Satanism and the Law' conference not give you pause?

https://www.internationalskeptics.co...af3cd3ec23.jpg

https://www.internationalskeptics.co...b0993a6920.jpg


You do know that the defence lawyers did witness Stefanoni's forensic testing of the DNA? It is all done by computer printout so there is no way she could have fiddled it for Mez' DNA to appear on Sollecito's knife. The defense forensic expert made no complaint about Stefanoni's methods.
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig

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 11th February 2024, 05:48 AM   #1304
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 884
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Sigh.

You point to a 2015 post by Grinder (I miss Grinder!) that DEBUNKED the use of bleach. That's your answer to "what was all that with the bleach, mopping up and intricate showering?"

This is reminiscent of you posting a picture of the window underneath Filomena's window, saying that it proved that there were no bars on that lower window, bars that a climber could stand stand upon and already be shoulder height to Filomena's ledge.....

Except.....

The picture you posted was one WITH bars on that lower window.

So I (for one) am baffled as to what you're trying to prove.
Vixen boasts about the strong evidence against Amanda and Raffaele but if this was the case why would it be necessary to resort to blatant lies such as saying there was no bar under Filomena's window when photos disprove this. I am still awaiting for an answer from Vixen
Welshman is online now   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 11th February 2024, 07:31 AM   #1305
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,556
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I was drawing your attention to the police photo of Sollecito's newly acquired bottles of bleach. Are you saying the police photos including cleaning materials and latex gloves, together with the u-bend which caused 'flooding to half the house', , are all signs that a bent forensic scientist or prosecutor or cops must have planted them?
Huh?

Did you read Grinder's debunking of the so-called 'bleach evidence'?

Quote:
.....dismantled presumably by the pair because it got blocked by all of their cleaning in the middle of the night
Using the word 'presumably' indicates that this claim is not derived from evidence. It means it's derived from evidenceless speculation, in a rush to get that picture to fit a theory.

There is no evidence of a clean up. Even the convicting judges conceded that. The best convicting judge Massei could say was he could not explain the lack of evidence, particularly in the short hall between the victim's room and the bathroom. So he too substituted speculation for evidence, and convicted on that basis...

.... that evidence was supposed to fit his theory, rather than have his theory fit the evidence.

This is one similarity with the Vallejo case cited above. How the cops there similarly were guided by confirmation bias, a well know factor in most wrongful convictions.
__________________
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 11th February 2024, 04:19 PM   #1306
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,589
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You do know that the defence lawyers did witness Stefanoni's forensic testing of the DNA? It is all done by computer printout so there is no way she could have fiddled it for Mez' DNA to appear on Sollecito's knife. The defense forensic expert made no complaint about Stefanoni's methods.

You do know that not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni's lab was in no way whatsoever set up - whether in required equipment or required protocols - to work with low-template DNA? You probably don't even understand what low-template DNA is, and why it must be handled and tested in a radically different and far more scrupulous way than "regular" quantities of DNA.

Ever heard of the expression "Garbage in, garbage out"?

Frankly, your anti-scientific and scientifically-illiterate attempts to construct a case against Knox and Sollecito are as funny as they are woeful. And as I said before, nobody cares what you think about this case, because you're wrong and we're right.
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 11th February 2024, 10:12 PM   #1307
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 6,308
For those interested in following the details of the CSC judgment annulling the conviction of Amanda Knox for calunnia against Lumumba, which includes referral for retrial, the function of the CSC - Ministry of Justice website SentenzeWeb has been restored. However, it appears that the motivation report for the Knox CSC judgment is not available online and is redacted ("La sentenza richiesta č in fase di oscuramento."), perhaps until the retrial.

However, some other CSC motivation reports for CPP Article 628-bis cases are available online, as I have mentioned in previous posts. For example, the CSC MR for MARCELLO VIOLA v. Italy (no. 2) 77633/16* is at:

https://www.italgiure.giustizia.it/x...1@tS.clean.pdf

* https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-53045

I thank Stacyhs for providing important help in the search for the CSC MR for the Knox calunnia conviction annulment with referral.

Last edited by Numbers; 11th February 2024 at 10:14 PM.
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 12th February 2024, 03:34 AM   #1308
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,734
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
You do know that not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni's lab was in no way whatsoever set up - whether in required equipment or required protocols - to work with low-template DNA? You probably don't even understand what low-template DNA is, and why it must be handled and tested in a radically different and far more scrupulous way than "regular" quantities of DNA.

Ever heard of the expression "Garbage in, garbage out"?

Frankly, your anti-scientific and scientifically-illiterate attempts to construct a case against Knox and Sollecito are as funny as they are woeful. And as I said before, nobody cares what you think about this case, because you're wrong and we're right.
Grow up. Your crude, uncouth - and frankly childish - insults are not becoming for a grown adult. Yes, the sample on the knife was low copy number and under the Italian Criminal Code article 380 (or was it 360) it is the law for the defence lawyers to be invited to observe the testing of it as there is only one opportunity. Sollecito, having a rich father, sent along one of Italy's top DNA forensic experts. He did not raise any objections or reservations about the testing which he witnessed. The PCR - which you cannot fake - showed a clear profile (with two clear peaks on each part of the RFU's) of Meredith Kercher with an astonishing 15 alleles unique to her, almost her full profile. It doesn't matter how small the sample was, it is the clear scientific objective result that counts and the result is inescapable, as is the full DNA profile of Sollecito on the victim's bra clasp which was under the victim's body, together with a later DNA test by Rome's top forensic Police Scientist showing Knox' DNA at the other end of the same blade as Meredith's DNA. It is absolutely bonkers to claim these objective and factual results, which also corroborate with chronology and strong circumstantial evidence (all-night cleaning and proven lies about what they did), were somehow 'fixed' by the police, to fit in with your fawning sentimental attachment to the perp.
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig

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 12th February 2024, 03:39 AM   #1309
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,734
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Huh?

Did you read Grinder's debunking of the so-called 'bleach evidence'?



Using the word 'presumably' indicates that this claim is not derived from evidence. It means it's derived from evidenceless speculation, in a rush to get that picture to fit a theory.

There is no evidence of a clean up. Even the convicting judges conceded that. The best convicting judge Massei could say was he could not explain the lack of evidence, particularly in the short hall between the victim's room and the bathroom. So he too substituted speculation for evidence, and convicted on that basis...

.... that evidence was supposed to fit his theory, rather than have his theory fit the evidence.

This is one similarity with the Vallejo case cited above. How the cops there similarly were guided by confirmation bias, a well know factor in most wrongful convictions.
Quite frankly, if a guy claims his girlfriend was zip taped and kidnapped in front of him, of course he becomes an initial suspect. The police's top priority is the safety of his girlfriend so whilst uncomfortable for him, yes, they did give him a hard time but as he was innocent and she turned up by walking in at her parent's hometown, there was nothing to worry about. The issue of the pair being charged with creating a hoax, is - like Knox being charged with calunnia - a complete side show to the more serious charge of murder (Mez) and kidnapping (the Vallejo lady). The idea that police set out to frame people is ridiculous.
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig

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 12th February 2024, 09:21 AM   #1310
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 6,308
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Grow up. Your crude, uncouth - and frankly childish - insults are not becoming for a grown adult. Yes, the sample on the knife was low copy number and under the Italian Criminal Code article 380 (or was it 360) it is the law for the defence lawyers to be invited to observe the testing of it as there is only one opportunity. Sollecito, having a rich father, sent along one of Italy's top DNA forensic experts. He did not raise any objections or reservations about the testing which he witnessed. The PCR - which you cannot fake - showed a clear profile (with two clear peaks on each part of the RFU's) of Meredith Kercher with an astonishing 15 alleles unique to her, almost her full profile. It doesn't matter how small the sample was, it is the clear scientific objective result that counts and the result is inescapable, as is the full DNA profile of Sollecito on the victim's bra clasp which was under the victim's body, together with a later DNA test by Rome's top forensic Police Scientist showing Knox' DNA at the other end of the same blade as Meredith's DNA. It is absolutely bonkers to claim these objective and factual results, which also corroborate with chronology and strong circumstantial evidence (all-night cleaning and proven lies about what they did), were somehow 'fixed' by the police, to fit in with your fawning sentimental attachment to the perp.
Repeating nonsensical statements does not make those statements true.

Readers of this forum may be well acquainted with the actual facts.

Here are some references for those wishing to recall some of the issues that show that the allegedly incriminating DNA profile from the knife blade attributed to Kercher was not at all reliable, and gave no evidence of guilt of Knox or Sollecito:

Quote:
A court-ordered review of the contested DNA evidence by independent experts noted numerous basic errors in the gathering and analysis of the evidence, and concluded that no evidential trace of Kercher's DNA had been found on the alleged murder weapon, which police had found in Sollecito's kitchen.*
https://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com/...cation-of-dna/

https://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com/...is-of-item-36/

For the bra clasp allegedly incriminating DNA evidence showing Sollecito's DNA,
the following references show why that alleged evidence was not at all reliable and not at all incriminating:

Quote:
The review found the forensic police examination showed evidence of multiple males' DNA fragments on the bra clasp, which had been lost on the floor for 47 days, the court-appointed expert testified the context strongly suggested contamination.*
https://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com/...5b-bra-clasps/


* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_Knox

Also see, for procedures required because of the artifacts associated with Low Copy Number DNA profile analysis:

https://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com/...te-dna-lt-dna/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...72497316300333

Note that the last reference, a paper by Peter Gill in the scientific journal Forensic Science International: Genetics, was published after the 2015 final and definitive acquittal of Knox and Sollecito for the murder/rape of Kercher by the Marasca CSC panel.

Last edited by Numbers; 12th February 2024 at 10:15 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 12th February 2024, 10:42 AM   #1311
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,342
So now Vixen's an expert on DNA sequencing. An expert in naval architecture, fire investigation, and now this. Is there no limit to her expertise?
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote 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 12th February 2024, 11:12 AM   #1312
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,589
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
So now Vixen's an expert on DNA sequencing. An expert in naval architecture, fire investigation, and now this. Is there no limit to her expertise?

It's manifestly obvious that Vixen's "arguments" regarding this case are terminally scientifically illiterate. In respect of low-template DNA analysis (just for example), she clearly doesn't understand that specific and rigorous protocols & processes need to take place in order to reduce the risk of contamination to acceptably low levels - and that the ignorant, mendacious, not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni rode a coach and horses through those required protocols/processes. In a wider context, her "arguments" are also terminally lacking in critical thinking application. Her views on Knox's/Sollecito's culpability can safely be entirely disregarded
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 12th February 2024, 11:20 AM   #1313
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,342
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
It's manifestly obvious that Vixen's "arguments" regarding this case are terminally scientifically illiterate. In respect of low-template DNA analysis (just for example), she clearly doesn't understand that specific and rigorous protocols & processes need to take place in order to reduce the risk of contamination to acceptably low levels - and that the ignorant, mendacious, not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni rode a coach and horses through those required protocols/processes. In a wider context, her "arguments" are also terminally lacking in critical thinking application. Her views on Knox's/Sollecito's culpability can safely be entirely disregarded
Well she didn't know that welding involves melting metal, so that's par for the course.
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote 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 12th February 2024, 12:21 PM   #1314
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 6,308
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
It's manifestly obvious that Vixen's "arguments" regarding this case are terminally scientifically illiterate. In respect of low-template DNA analysis (just for example), she clearly doesn't understand that specific and rigorous protocols & processes need to take place in order to reduce the risk of contamination to acceptably low levels - and that the ignorant, mendacious, not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni rode a coach and horses through those required protocols/processes. In a wider context, her "arguments" are also terminally lacking in critical thinking application. Her views on Knox's/Sollecito's culpability can safely be entirely disregarded
Indeed, it appears that Stefanoni in her testimony and perhaps in her testing activities and intentional failure to provide the raw DNA profile data may have committed violations of Italian criminal law, although one or more of those laws were enacted only after the 2015 final and definitive acquittal of Knox and Sollecito on the murder/rape charges by the Marasca CSC panel.

The relevant criminal laws include CP Article 373, False expert testimony or interpretation, CP Article 375, Fraud or misdirection in criminal proceedings, CP Article 377, Obstruction of justice, and CP Article 372, False testimony.
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 12th February 2024, 01:54 PM   #1315
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,734
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Repeating nonsensical statements does not make those statements true.

Readers of this forum may be well acquainted with the actual facts.

Here are some references for those wishing to recall some of the issues that show that the allegedly incriminating DNA profile from the knife blade attributed to Kercher was not at all reliable, and gave no evidence of guilt of Knox or Sollecito:



https://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com/...cation-of-dna/

https://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com/...is-of-item-36/

For the bra clasp allegedly incriminating DNA evidence showing Sollecito's DNA,
the following references show why that alleged evidence was not at all reliable and not at all incriminating:



https://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com/...5b-bra-clasps/


* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_Knox

Also see, for procedures required because of the artifacts associated with Low Copy Number DNA profile analysis:

https://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com/...te-dna-lt-dna/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...72497316300333

Note that the last reference, a paper by Peter Gill in the scientific journal Forensic Science International: Genetics, was published after the 2015 final and definitive acquittal of Knox and Sollecito for the murder/rape of Kercher by the Marasca CSC panel.
That's what defence lawyers are paid to do. It is their job to try to undermine the evidence. The courts having heard ALL of the evidence found that the weight of the prosecution evidence outweighed that of the defence.

The only reason the sentencing was annulled was a political one and had nothing to do with new evidence. In fact the final Supreme Court repeated the incriminating facts, which remain as facts, and added a few choice words of its own, stating that Knox named Lumumba because she was covering up for Guede. It reaffirmed the burglary was staged, that Knox was definitely at the cottage when Mez was murdered and that she did wash Mez' blood from her hands.

It is only thanks to the bent business judge, Hellmann that the perp was able to leave the country, with Hillary Clinton via the US State Department sticking in her oar and averring that she would never be extradited. Plus Trump putting up a load of cash and telling everyone to 'boycott Italy'. Yes, money and politics is why the pair got away with a brutal cold-blooded murder for kicks.
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig

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 12th February 2024, 01:57 PM   #1316
Disbelief
Illuminator
 
Disbelief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,300
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
That's what defence lawyers are paid to do. It is their job to try to undermine the evidence. The courts having heard ALL of the evidence found that the weight of the prosecution evidence outweighed that of the defence.

The only reason the sentencing was annulled was a political one and had nothing to do with new evidence. In fact the final Supreme Court repeated the incriminating facts, which remain as facts, and added a few choice words of its own, stating that Knox named Lumumba because she was covering up for Guede. It reaffirmed the burglary was staged, that Knox was definitely at the cottage when Mez was murdered and that she did wash Mez' blood from her hands.

It is only thanks to the bent business judge, Hellmann that the perp was able to leave the country, with Hillary Clinton via the US State Department sticking in her oar and averring that she would never be extradited. Plus Trump putting up a load of cash and telling everyone to 'boycott Italy'. Yes, money and politics is why the pair got away with a brutal cold-blooded murder for kicks.
And back to the land of conspiracy and made up ********.
__________________
Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same?

Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman
Disbelief 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 12th February 2024, 02:02 PM   #1317
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,734
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
It's manifestly obvious that Vixen's "arguments" regarding this case are terminally scientifically illiterate. In respect of low-template DNA analysis (just for example), she clearly doesn't understand that specific and rigorous protocols & processes need to take place in order to reduce the risk of contamination to acceptably low levels - and that the ignorant, mendacious, not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni rode a coach and horses through those required protocols/processes. In a wider context, her "arguments" are also terminally lacking in critical thinking application. Her views on Knox's/Sollecito's culpability can safely be entirely disregarded
Stop lying. Stefanoni has an impeccable background in DNA testing. She helped identify the tsunami victims. She is a doctor as that is what Italians call someone with her qualifications. Your method of arguing by degrading the subjects of the debate is pathetic. Anyone can argue ad hominem. It shows you are at the last-chance-saloon when you have to dwell on individual characteristics. "Der, the policeman was bent. The kids were framed, railroaded and set up because, er, because, um, the prosecutor didn't like Americans. Yeah that's right, and the DNA was bent and the luminol footprints were all planted by the feds and ah, ahem, the knife planted and of course the kids spent half the night cleaning up, its's ah um what kids like to do. Ah and what's more...' [cont. p 94]
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig

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 12th February 2024, 02:05 PM   #1318
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,734
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Indeed, it appears that Stefanoni in her testimony and perhaps in her testing activities and intentional failure to provide the raw DNA profile data may have committed violations of Italian criminal law, although one or more of those laws were enacted only after the 2015 final and definitive acquittal of Knox and Sollecito on the murder/rape charges by the Marasca CSC panel.

The relevant criminal laws include CP Article 373, False expert testimony or interpretation, CP Article 375, Fraud or misdirection in criminal proceedings, CP Article 377, Obstruction of justice, and CP Article 372, False testimony.
Untrue. Nencini confirmed that Stefanoni did deposit the said records with the courts.

It's a pretty pass when people have to fabricate untrue factoids to misrepresent the real situation. ('It's not that my client is a criminal M'Lud', it's that you the judge, the forensic scientists and the pigs are all bent. Honest.')
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig

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 12th February 2024, 03:11 PM   #1319
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,734
Originally Posted by Disbelief View Post
And back to the land of conspiracy and made up ********.
I note you are not actually familiar with the case.

https://truejustice.org/ee/index.php...hasnt_answered
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig

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 12th February 2024, 03:15 PM   #1320
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,589
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Untrue. Nencini confirmed that Stefanoni did deposit the said records with the courts.

It's a pretty pass when people have to fabricate untrue factoids to misrepresent the real situation. ('It's not that my client is a criminal M'Lud', it's that you the judge, the forensic scientists and the pigs are all bent. Honest.')

As I was saying: it's abundantly clear that your "arguments" don't demonstrate the first clue about low-template DNA collection/storage/testing/interpretation. On the other hand, those of us with scientific minds, a ready capacity to learn, and adequate critical thinking skills, were able to work all of this out a very long time ago.

And (albeit horribly belatedly) the Italian Supreme Court managed to apply the law properly: it effectively - and entirely correctly - threw out all of the so-called probative forensic evidence which the lower courts had used to unjustly convict Knox and Sollecito. Which is precisely what we scientifically-literate commentators in this thread had properly concluded a long time previously.

By all means continue with your scientifically-ignorant opinions, coupled with your fanciful (and risibly incorrect) assertions that commentators in this thread were relying on some combination of superficial sentimentality and reflexive anti-Italian-judiciary anti-Italian-police-and-prosecutor bias to underpin our believe in Knox's/Sollecito's innocence. None of what you say matters any longer.
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
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

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 08:43 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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.