Continuation Part Eight: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[carbonjam72]

Alterations and Originals in video

This is not as scary as you are making it out to be. I don't think that anyone has deliberately altered the aspect ratio of the images in order to deceive. I think what Dan O. is getting at is that they were likely recorded at 4:3 aspect ratio, then prepared for display at 16:9. Images and video on the web are typically run through resizing and re compression for display. If this process is an automated one, a person who is not trained in media might not realize that they had altered the aspect ratio when preparing and posting the media.

I think that your idea of having the "original" source images is not quite right. That would be the recording stored by the camera. Whatever you got from the web must have been resized/re compressed.

Fair point. But if we don't have the original clip from the camera itself, why would you assume the image must have been "resized/re compressed"?

Why would you assume that the TV show had transposed their image, thus distorting it, rather than cropping, or simply reducing file size and reducing the image proportionately?

I think looking at the original clip from the link, the frame aspect ratio is most certainly not 4:3.

I posted follow up, after you got to this post, and you may have already followed up as well, but I'm curious about your take on this. What I can tell you is I did not alter any image, all I did was copy paste. DanO specifically altered the image to "correct" it's proportions.

 

[Grinder]

Yes but didn't the written statement concern itself only with the evidence of some jailhouse snitch? I may be wrong. The key 'evidence' that Guede participated with Amanda and Raffaele was given t the PM in interrogations the results of which were presented at his fast track trial. In that trial, there was no live issue as to whether there were multiple killers since both sides agreed there were. That is unfair and goes on top of all the other unfair aspects of Guede's 'evidence'.

The first time that Rudy Guede appeared before the Corte di Assise during the criminal proceedings against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito was only when, after having seen the defense of the accused admit to this Court as witnesses Mario Alessi and other prisoners, in relation to what was revealed to them in prison by Rudy Guede about the two defendants’ [Knox and Sollecito] non-involvement [estraneità] in the act of the crimes for which they have been charged [chiamati a rispondere], the General Prosecutor requested that he be heard as a rebuttal witness [a prova contraria] on such alleged disclosures [confidenze]. The General Prosecutor, it should be said, did not request the admission of Rudy Guede so that he could respond regarding the facts of that night (if he was alone or together with the defendants or with others, what was the real unfolding of events in its details, etc…) but only to prove that he had not made to Mario Alessi and the other fellow prisoners any disclosure [confidenza].

Despite the admission of Rudy Guede as a witness limited to such facts (alleged disclosures in prison), the defense tried, given the presence finally of Rudy Guede at a hearing (hearing of 6.27.2011) before the Court and the defendants, to ask some questions directly regarding the facts of that night and not only concerning the alleged disclosures made to fellow prisoners.

But, in truth, even before the same Rudy Guede could assert that he did not want to respond on the facts of that night, the attorney that represented the aforementioned [Guede], Ms. Saccarelli, and the General Prosecutor (even if, having spoken off-microphone, his words are not found in the transcripts), to which the lawyer for the civil party Maresca gave full support, reminding [the court] of the limits of the cross-examination, they objected to the formulation of questions concerning directly the facts that occurred that night rather than merely the interactions [rapporti intrattenuti] with Alessi and the other prisoners, called to testify (Castelluci, De Cesare, Trincia).

It is sufficient to report an excerpt of the transcript to understand this:

“…DEFENSE ATTY. BONGIORNO – Your Honor, there is one thing to say, that since we’ve just listened to a reading [sentito dare lettura], [where] a letter has been read out which explicitly accuses my client and Amanda, [and] I’m doing a cross-examination, I believe it is at least my right to say to Mr. Guede, after years of pursuing him, whether he wants to recount to us the truth about this homicide​

 

[Dan O.]

DanO, I didn't follow you're analysis, I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve. Photo alteration is a serious business because the visual result is so hard to spot by the casual viewer.

There have existed frames from that car park video which we have studied for years. From this experience, we know what looks right and what looks wrong. You came here and presented an image that looked wrong. I told you that it looked wrong. I told you what looked wrong with it. I told you how to make a measurment that would verify if it was right or wrong. Then I did the measurment myself and presented the results. Either your one video is wrong or all of the other video's and stills from that camera that we have analized for years that came from different sources are all wrong. Which do you think is more likely?

You are diminishing your credibility to me by refusing to except the original source material as authoritative and accurate.

You have lost all value as a researcher by blindly accepting some image found on the Internet as authoritive and accurate. How are you going to prove that the image you found is accurate?

I seriously hope you're not suggesting I toyed with the image in any way?

You haven't even demonstrated that you have the capability^*. All I am saying and what I have demonstrated is that the images you presented are stretched by 35% horizontally. If you want to analize the apparence of a person in those images you either have to compensate for this stretching which I had done by shrinking the horizontal scale to 75% or find a more accurate original.

You could argue that all the other images that we have analized from that car park over the years were distorted. But then if we corrected those we would have evidence of Rudy (the blimp) Guede walking towards the cottage and obviously incapable of climbing the wall and physically too fat to squeeze into Filomena's narrow windows. Is that your ultimate goal, to prove that Amanda and Raffaele staged the breakin by showing that Rudy couldn't get his fat ass up there.

Or maybe you think that the car park itself is dimensionally unstable and distorts like a plate of Jello under the force of a spoon.


ETA: (*)But you have made the proper choice of computer so you have all the tools you need built in.

 

[Grinder]

More on the video animation

I do not believe there has ever been a credible report that Comodi was related to anyone in the company that produced it.

Exposed articulated And 'therefore based on this exposed that the prosecutor has called "articulated and detailed" that the regional attorney at the legal section for Umbria Court of Auditors has opened an investigation. As reported by the Daily Republic in the center of the investigation is the decision of prosecutors Giuliano Mignini and Manuela Comfortable to commission the video to support the charge against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

No comment from the two magistrates of Perugia pm no comments at the news. As learned, the prosecutors to date have not received any document relating to the investigation and learned the news from the press.

Video and database They were the ones who commissioned the video in 3d when you rebuild the dynamics of the murder of Meredith Kercher, according to the reconstruction by the prosecution, the private company Nventa Video Id never filed by prosecutors to prevent disclosure had been screened once in the courtroom during the trial of first instance. The Nventa, however, had already stated that in the past 180 thousand euro were also included a database that the company had created specifically to enter all the data of the prosecution. - See more at: http://translate.googleusercontent....fJseQh0ZV636ZmppbT7nZ7qg#sthash.dDpiUoYy.dpuf


ETA - I would request that if the person that accused Comodi doesn't have a credible source that they withdraw the remark.

 

[Kestrel]

Fair point. But if we don't have the original clip from the camera itself, why would you assume the image must have been "resized/re compressed"?

Why would you assume that the TV show had transposed their image, thus distorting it, rather than cropping, or simply reducing file size and reducing the image proportionately?

I think looking at the original clip from the link, the frame aspect ratio is most certainly not 4:3.

I posted follow up, after you got to this post, and you may have already followed up as well, but I'm curious about your take on this. What I can tell you is I did not alter any image, all I did was copy paste. DanO specifically altered the image to "correct" it's proportions.

The Italian TV station made a technical error by broadcasting a 4x3 video source in a 16x9 format. To do this properly, they should have used a letter box to preserve the aspect ratio of the original source.

Dan O. proved that the video broadcast on Italian TV had a distorted aspect ratio. You proved you are a * by attacking his posts.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I most certainly do not drive Chevrolets.


--

Vibio,

Do you have a citation for your, so far, unsubstantiated claims about DNA forensics? This is a skeptics forum.

 

[anglolawyer]

The first time that Rudy Guede appeared before the Corte di Assise during the criminal proceedings against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito was only when, after having seen the defense of the accused admit to this Court as witnesses Mario Alessi and other prisoners, in relation to what was revealed to them in prison by Rudy Guede about the two defendants’ [Knox and Sollecito] non-involvement [estraneità] in the act of the crimes for which they have been charged [chiamati a rispondere], the General Prosecutor requested that he be heard as a rebuttal witness [a prova contraria] on such alleged disclosures [confidenze]. The General Prosecutor, it should be said, did not request the admission of Rudy Guede so that he could respond regarding the facts of that night (if he was alone or together with the defendants or with others, what was the real unfolding of events in its details, etc…) but only to prove that he had not made to Mario Alessi and the other fellow prisoners any disclosure [confidenza].

Despite the admission of Rudy Guede as a witness limited to such facts (alleged disclosures in prison), the defense tried, given the presence finally of Rudy Guede at a hearing (hearing of 6.27.2011) before the Court and the defendants, to ask some questions directly regarding the facts of that night and not only concerning the alleged disclosures made to fellow prisoners.

But, in truth, even before the same Rudy Guede could assert that he did not want to respond on the facts of that night, the attorney that represented the aforementioned [Guede], Ms. Saccarelli, and the General Prosecutor (even if, having spoken off-microphone, his words are not found in the transcripts), to which the lawyer for the civil party Maresca gave full support, reminding [the court] of the limits of the cross-examination, they objected to the formulation of questions concerning directly the facts that occurred that night rather than merely the interactions [rapporti intrattenuti] with Alessi and the other prisoners, called to testify (Castelluci, De Cesare, Trincia).

It is sufficient to report an excerpt of the transcript to understand this:

“…DEFENSE ATTY. BONGIORNO – Your Honor, there is one thing to say, that since we’ve just listened to a reading [sentito dare lettura], [where] a letter has been read out which explicitly accuses my client and Amanda, [and] I’m doing a cross-examination, I believe it is at least my right to say to Mr. Guede, after years of pursuing him, whether he wants to recount to us the truth about this homicide​

If that was backing me up, but only if, thanks! Actually, I think it did. Hellman found them not guilty so was clearly not influenced by Guede's letter and Nencini is citing ISC findings that come from the separate process against Guede.

 

[carbonjam72]

Oh, the pictures we'll see

There have existed frames from that car park video which we have studied for years. From this experience, we know what looks right and what looks wrong. You came here and presented an image that looked wrong. I told you that it looked wrong. I told you what looked wrong with it. I told you how to make a measurment that would verify if it was right or wrong. Then I did the measurment myself and presented the results. Either your one video is wrong or all of the other video's and stills from that camera that we have analized for years that came from different sources are all wrong. Which do you think is more likely?





You have lost all value as a researcher by blindly accepting some image found on the Internet as authoritive and accurate. How are you going to prove that the image you found is accurate?





You haven't even demonstrated that you have the capability. All I am saying and what I have demonstrated is that the images you presented are stretched by 35% horizontally. If you want to analize the apparence of a person in those images you either have to compensate for this stretching which I had done by shrinking the horizontal scale to 75% or find a more accurate original.

You could argue that all the other images that we have analized from that car park over the years were distorted. But then if we corrected those we would have evidence of Rudy (the blimp) Guede walking towards the cottage and obviously incapable of climbing the wall and physically too fat to squeeze into Filomena's narrow windows. Is that your ultimate goal, to prove that Amanda and Raffaele staged the breakin by showing that Rudy couldn't get his fat ass up there.

Or maybe you think that the car park itself is dimensionally unstable and distorts like a plate of Jello under the force of a spoon.

Ok, if you reply in a post with the photos you worked on, and describe step by step what you did, I'll try to follow your method, and respond.

I know you believe you've explained this already, but it will save us the trouble of going back and forth between posts, and then getting confused about which frames we're referring to. So if you want to discuss you're analysis, and what you believe "looks right", I'm willing to have that discussion.

Concerning the source of the images I relied upon, it's straight from the website of the TV show that released the video. If they altered the imagery before I used it, I can't see why they would, but obviously beyond my control.

Again, here's the original link. I also used one from sky news that had a shorter clip, they look identical to my eye.

Please try playing the clip on their site, and pausing at the right frame (the fourth frame of her into the clip on this lady, out of only 9 of her in total). Maybe you'll see the same distortion on their site, and save us some time.

http://www.video.mediaset.it/video/...nuovi-particolari-nell-omicidio-meredith.html

Concerning my editorial skills, or lack thereof, thanks, I think. I rather be honestly mistaken than otherwise.

Again, I'm open to reviewing your method and trying to see if we can get on the same page. But please look at the clip on the TV show's site first, and see if its not just me.

 

[carbonjam72]

Getting lost here

The Italian TV station made a technical error by broadcasting a 4x3 video source in a 16x9 format. To do this properly, they should have used a letter box to preserve the aspect ratio of the original source.

Dan O. proved that the video broadcast on Italian TV had a distorted aspect ratio. You proved you are a * by attacking his posts.

Not sure I'm following.

How do you know "the Italian TV station made a technical error by broadcasting a 4x3 video source in a 16x9 format", unless you have access to the original source content? Is the raw camera footage available somewhere?

And are you suggesting that the 'unpreserved' video proportions, are also visible on the TV shows own site? Or does it only distort when I copy/paste it?

I'm trying to understand, so thanks for your patience.

 

[codyjuneau]

Bloomin' 'eck! Great system. Indefinite solitary, torture, mind-bending drugs, all night interrogation and extremely limited access to advice - that's bound to get a reliable confession isn't it?

.
I think the common theme is that the police and the judges sincerely believe that an innocent person would NEVER confess. Therefore all this might be uncomfortable for an innocent person, but since ONLY a guilty person will confess, the end result justifies the method.

Another way to say it, is that the police and judges are internally well intentioned, but ignorant of the fact that innocent people DO confess. Quite frequently it seems.
.

 

[codyjuneau]

Acbytesla, is it possible that the prosecutors have quietly told select friendly judges (perhaps not Hellman) that they have "secret proof" that the defendants were present and involved in the murder.
We saw how Mignini mistook Amanda's statement to her mother that "I was there" as her secretly-recorded admission that she was at her house, when to others (Hellman) it is understood from the context that Amanda was speaking of being at Raffaele's flat. Mignini (and Machiavelli) fought and fought for Mignini's interpretation, both because Mignini believes his interpretation to be right and because it serves his purpose. Mignini used it to justify the continued detention of Amanda.

This example caused me to wonder if the police and prosecution have other snippets of conversations which lead them to adamantly believe that the parties are guilty. Such snippets could be from recordings not just of the defendants, but of the defense lawyers or defendants' family members.

Perhaps Rudy or his lawyer said or inferred something which the prosecution regards (incorrectly) as proof that the three were together.

.
I have no doubt about that at all. The same kind of behind the scenes 'facts' that Machi used to bring up all the time. And I am certain that they had Stefanoni convinced enough that instead of being an unbiased scientist, she was actively working to convict Raffaele and Amanda, all the while believing she was fully justified in doing so.
.

 

[Dan O.]

Ok, if you reply in a post with the photos you worked on, and describe step by step what you did, I'll try to follow your method, and respond.

I know you believe you've explained this already, but it will save us the trouble of going back and forth between posts, and then getting confused about which frames we're referring to. So if you want to discuss you're analysis, and what you believe "looks right", I'm willing to have that discussion.

Concerning the source of the images I relied upon, it's straight from the website of the TV show that released the video. If they altered the imagery before I used it, I can't see why they would, but obviously beyond my control.

Again, here's the original link. I also used one from sky news that had a shorter clip, they look identical to my eye.

Please try playing the clip on their site, and pausing at the right frame (the fourth frame of her into the clip on this lady, out of only 9 of her in total). Maybe you'll see the same distortion on their site, and save us some time.

http://www.video.mediaset.it/video/...nuovi-particolari-nell-omicidio-meredith.html

Concerning my editorial skills, or lack thereof, thanks, I think. I rather be honestly mistaken than otherwise.

Again, I'm open to reviewing your method and trying to see if we can get on the same page. But please look at the clip on the TV show's site first, and see if its not just me.

I linked to a comparison photo that you could use in an earlier post. Or you could find one yourself. It just needs to come from a different source so it is not subject to the same distortion.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10017135#post10017135
http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/rudy-guede/
http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Rudy-Guede3.jpg


I told you what I would do in this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10017749#post10017749

And finally, I did it and showed my work in this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10023730#post10023730


Your Mac comes with everything you need to do this. Use Preview to take a screen capture of the same image in the two photos. [File -> Take Screen Shot -> From Selection …] using two well defined reference points that appear in both images. Use the Image Inspector in Preview [Tools -> Show Inspector] to see the Pixel Hight and Pixel Width of the selections. Use your Calculator to compute the ratio of the height to width for each of the selections. Show your results.

Do you get the same ratio? If you were to zoom one of your images before doing the scree capture, would the ratio change or stay the same? What does it tell you happened to the image if the ratio changes?

 

[js202]

I most certainly do not drive Chevrolets.


--

1) You are dating yourself. (Turns out the Citation was an incredibly ugly, boxy model produced by Chevrolet in the bad old days of 1980-1985. Who knew?)

2) Your bit of badinage is typical of trollish posters who frequent certain sites obsessed with the would-be guilt of two young college students, against whom there is no real evidence. Pressed to come up with a cogent argument for guilt, such individuals fall back on the flawed and repetitive talking points of their party line, and/or post juvenile nonsense.

 

[Bill Williams]

Acbytesla, is it possible that the prosecutors have quietly told select friendly judges (perhaps not Hellman) that they have "secret proof" that the defendants were present and involved in the murder.

We saw how Mignini mistook Amanda's statement to her mother that "I was there" as her secretly-recorded admission that she was at her house, when to others (Hellman) it is understood from the context that Amanda was speaking of being at Raffaele's flat. Mignini (and Machiavelli) fought and fought for Mignini's interpretation, both because Mignini believes his interpretation to be right and because it serves his purpose. Mignini used it to justify the continued detention of Amanda.
This example caused me to wonder if the police and prosecution have other snippets of conversations which lead them to adamantly believe that the parties are guilty. Such snippets could be from recordings not just of the defendants, but of the defense lawyers or defendants' family members.

Perhaps Rudy or his lawyer said or inferred something which the prosecution regards (incorrectly) as proof that the three were together.

When pinned down, Machiavelli made a startling admission about this, "I was there" statement. He bobbed and weaved, bobbed and weaved like a champion boxer but was eventually cornered.

Machiavelli eventually admitted that the plain-text reading of Amanda's secretly recorded conversation with her mother means that she'd been at Raffaele's all night, not at the cottage.

Startlingly, Machiavelli then said that Amanda and her mother were speaking in "mafia code", which when properly applied meant as Mignini said it meant, and in turn justified detention.

For some reason, Machiavelli needs Amanda (and he rarely comments about Raffaele) to be guilty, regardless of the evidence. When one stays with Machiavelli through his ponderous verbiage eventually he bottom's out on something.... like this "mafia code" business.

It is the same with the alleged claim that Machiavelli once said that Rudy Guede was Amanda's pimp. When challenged on that ridiculous claim, Machiavelli backed off into two or three retreat points.

The first was that he said Rudy was obviously Amanda's drug dealer, and that it was a well known practise among female students in Perugia to trade sex for drugs. He then backed off the implications of this, saying that he'd always said that Rudy being Amanda's drug dealer was only "compatible" with the facts, not necessarily a proven fact itself.

Then, astonishingly, Machiavelli backed off into another retreat point - he said all he was doing was trying to make a "compatibility argument" because he was tired of innocenters trying to claim that Amanda was a better person than Rudy, and therefore would not have hung out with him.

He then said that all he wanted people to consider was that it was feasible Amanda would have hung out with Rudy; which is a far cry from the original allegation made against Machiavelli that he'd once claimed that Rudy was Amanda's pimp.

Sticking it out with Machiavelli's long-winded dietrology is often worth it to discover how the Perugian prosecutorial mind works. Machiavelli is not a prosecutor, but he (and Andrea Vogt) are obviously apologists for Mignini, less concerned, really, about Amanda's or Raffaele's guilt than they are about Mignini's reputation. (Proof of this is Vogt's recent BBC3 documentary - it's a "theory of the case" which seeks to remediate Mignini, not promote Crini's case or even the case Nencini eventually tells about in his motivations.)

When one tracks the times Machiavelli has posted, it is an insight into what is happening behind the scenes with Mignini, and not even so much the Kercher murder trials.

 

[carbonjam72]

Oofahh!

I linked to a comparison photo that you could use in an earlier post. Or you could find one yourself. It just needs to come from a different source so it is not subject to the same distortion.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10017135#post10017135
http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/rudy-guede/
http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Rudy-Guede3.jpg


I told you what I would do in this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10017749#post10017749

And finally, I did it and showed my work in this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10023730#post10023730


Your Mac comes with everything you need to do this. Use Preview to take a screen capture of the same image in the two photos. [File -> Take Screen Shot -> From Selection …] using two well defined reference points that appear in both images. Use the Image Inspector in Preview [Tools -> Show Inspector] to see the Pixel Hight and Pixel Width of the selections. Use your Calculator to compute the ratio of the height to width for each of the selections. Show your results.

Do you get the same ratio? If you were to zoom one of your images before doing the scree capture, would the ratio change or stay the same? What does it tell you happened to the image if the ratio changes?

Ok, I see it now, you were right, my goof.

I didn't know the original raw CCTV footage was available to look at anywhere, so thanks for the link. I was just going off what the Italian TV show had posted, and had nothing to compare it to, no point of original reference. So, my mistake.

And you were right, looking at the original frames, and then comparing it to what the TV show posted, it was obvious that it didn't look right. So, again, my apologies.

Funny though, that the percentage of image broadening seems roughly equivalent to the difference between average body type and obesity.

As the issue though, is not whether the woman is Obese, but whether she is Amanda, I'm posting another frame clip I grabbed off the same TV program's site, showing a split screen view of the CCTV lady's and Amanda's faces.

Any ideas on whether Amanda's face is also widened?, Or ideas on how to normalize and compare the two women? (I still think the bulging cheeks is a point of dissimilarity).

 

[JREF2010]

.
I think the common theme is that the police and the judges sincerely believe that an innocent person would NEVER confess. Therefore all this might be uncomfortable for an innocent person, but since ONLY a guilty person will confess, the end result justifies the method.

Another way to say it, is that the police and judges are internally well intentioned, but ignorant of the fact that innocent people DO confess. Quite frequently it seems.
.

I could accept some police and average unaware people could believe this idea of innocents never confessing.

Anyone trained in interrogations would not have this naivety. This is not something that is rare in the police world or detective world. This happens a zillion times a month all over the world by trained forces.

Its a child borne of torturing people for admissions, but a more civilized approach obviously. But if done fairly and recorded and/or filmed it is less of a mystery.

In this case it was "the big mistake", the big unfairness, the big miscommunication....maybe even the Big Railroad job.

To have Migninni lie about it on CNN, only heightens the level of skullduggery.

 

[Strozzi]

.
I have no doubt about that at all. The same kind of behind the scenes 'facts' that Machi used to bring up all the time. And I am certain that they had Stefanoni convinced enough that instead of being an unbiased scientist, she was actively working to convict Raffaele and Amanda, all the while believing she was fully justified in doing so.
.

If Rudy was in fact alone and stated that to his attorney and it was recorded by police for the prosecutor, would Mignini have believed Rudy, thrown up his hands exclaiming "We got it wrong!", and withdrawn his charges against Amanda and Raffaele? Or would the prosecution fail to make the transcript of Rudy's and his lawyer's conversation available to the defense?

If Rudy's attorney, in an effort to negotiate in his client's best interests, told or implied to the police that Rudy was a bit player and that Amanda and Raffaele were involved, the police and prosecutor would readily accept it, high-five each other, take it as "secret proof" of guilt, and as honerable people protect/conceal/withhold Rudy's lawyer's confidential disclosure.

If the police recorded the Knox family in their living quarters and heard two of them (perhaps Amanda's young sisters) speaking in English say something that incorrectly appeared to indicate guilt, the police and prosecutor would take it as "secret proof" of Amanda's guilt (straight frim the family's mouth), while secretly concealing it due to it being the fruit of an illegal or at least publicly-embarrasing audio recording the Knox family's Perugia living quarters.

Someone commented here recently that she has a police officer friend in Britain who told her that police often falsify evidence when they "know" the individual is guilty. I believe that it must be universal.

 

[Vibio]

1) You are dating yourself. (Turns out the Citation was an incredibly ugly, boxy model produced by Chevrolet in the bad old days of 1980-1985. Who knew?)

2) Your bit of badinage is typical of trollish posters who frequent certain sites obsessed with the would-be guilt of two young college students, against whom there is no real evidence. Pressed to come up with a cogent argument for guilt, such individuals fall back on the flawed and repetitive talking points of their party line, and/or post juvenile nonsense.

No, your post is typical of trollish posters.

If you follow the thread, my post "No, not necessarily", which Halkides later quotes with no context (see his post *#6816), is a legitimate answer to Anode's question. See my post at #6762 as to why.

Halkides deserved the response I gave him.

BTW: The Citation was also the name of the top-of-the-line 1958 Edsel.

Gee…following your absurd logic, knowing that bit of trivia must make me really old.

--

 

[Chris_Halkides]

please give citations

Halkides deserved the response I gave him.

Baloney. I had already provided a citation, and I was asking you to do the same. In addition, I repeated my request with a follow-up at 10:50 Am (comment #6826). I am still waiting for you to support your claim or to withdraw it. Your post #6762 is irrelevant unless you provide some context or a citation to the case.

 

[Desert Fox]

No, your post is typical of trollish posters.

If you follow the thread, my post "No, not necessarily", which Halkides later quotes with no context (see his post *#6816), is a legitimate answer to Anode's question. See my post at #6762 as to why.

Halkides deserved the response I gave him.

BTW: The Citation was also the name of the top-of-the-line 1958 Edsel.

Gee…following your absurd logic, knowing that bit of trivia must make me really old.

--

Vibio:
Several of us have asked for exact links to the case where you argue a case where there is no physical evidence and the defendants were convicted.
Might I ask that you are unwilling to provide those references?