Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
-

platonov said:
I explained it to you on the occasion of it's first usage?
Click to expand...
-

Please.

To me, it's just that most of times, your post seem to me to be written in some kind of secret code, but once in a while you do say something straight, and it's a good point, but that's rare.

I apologize if that seems a little harsh, but come on, do me a solid and this one time explain something like who Britney is.

Please,

d

-
 
AmyStrange said:
-


-

Please.

To me, it's just that most of times, your post seem to me to be written in some kind of secret code, but once in a while you do say something straight, and it's a good point, but that's rare.

I apologize if that seems a little harsh, but come on, do me a solid and this one time explain something like who Britney is.

Please,

d

-
Click to expand...

Platonov is trolling this thread.
 
Trolling

Trolling:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.​
Click to expand...
 
platonov said:
I certainly didn’t decipher the physical presence of RS’s legal team in the most recent TV appearance [The press conference was months ago] – RS in a one to one on Italian TV.
You must have missed it. Which is surprising given all the comment it provoked on this thread – OK I’m kidding, it gained very little traction in cartwheel world.

The upshot of this interview was that RS most definitely can’t account for AK’s presence on the night of the murder – he was extremely non committal on the whole business.
You should check it out, the TV interview that is. Apparently RS’s imagination w.r.t his ‘interrogation’ on the 5th is not as fertile as yours. He restricts himself to ‘he wasn’t sure which night’ the police were asking him about. One wonders if he has groupies in Italy who deconstruct what he really meant.

Obviously he doesn’t read this thread and thus doesn’t know what he is talking about :)
Click to expand...

Platonov, Platonov, Platonov! Was Mr Sollecito with Ms Knox when the murder was committed? Is Mr Sollecito innocent?

Oh Platonov! Have you no answers?
 
Last edited:
Practice makes perfect.

Kauffer said:
Platonov, Platonov, Platonov! Was Mr Sollecito with Ms Knox when the murder was committed? Is Mr Sollecito innocent?

Oh Platonov! Have you no answers?
Click to expand...


Kauffer please, its platonov ..... platonov :)

As to your various Q’s if posts like this from 3 pages back haven’t cleared the matter up for you I’m not sure this confusion is amenable to a text based resolution.

Still, my advice – read the thread.
 
Ah yes, platonov's "Sollecito stabbed Meredith theory".

Perhaps you should share this piece of evidence with the prosecution or the court as they seem to have missed it.

Is it in the same missing file that contains all the evidence that Sollecito and Knox were present in the cottage at the time of the murder?
 
platonov said:
Kauffer please, its platonov ..... platonov :)

As to your various Q’s if posts like this from 3 pages back haven’t cleared the matter up for you I’m not sure this confusion is amenable to a text based resolution.

Still, my advice – read the thread.
Click to expand...

Just wanted your final confirmation.....and now I have it....that the question of whether or not Mr Sollecito is Ms Knox's alibi witness, or whether you think he disavowed her, has absolutely no bearing whatsoever in your mind on the guilt or innocence of Ms Knox, given that you believe Mr Sollecito and Ms Knox were together and took part in a 3 on 1 attack on Ms Kercher.

It is now crystal clear that whether Mr Sollecito said that both he and Ms Knox were in his apartment when the murder was committed or, alternatively, said that Ms Knox went out while he stayed in, makes no difference to you, since both claims would be untrue - the truth instead is that they both went to Via Pergola and participated together, in the murder of Ms Kercher, according to you.

There is not now, nor has there ever been, anything Mr Sollecito could have said about his or Ms Knox's whereabouts on the night of the murder, which would cause or would have caused you to doubt his or her guilt.

Are there any other points that you would like to make or are you finished, finally, with this redundant subject?
 
I'm more interested to know what the guilters think Raffaele is hoping to achieve if he is indeed planning to throw Amanda under the bus. Or has done so already, depending on one's interpretation.

What does Raffaele achieve with this strategy? platonov - any thoughts?
 
lonepinealex said:
I'm more interested to know what the guilters think Raffaele is hoping to achieve if he is indeed planning to throw Amanda under the bus. Or has done so already, depending on one's interpretation.

What does Raffaele achieve with this strategy? platonov - any thoughts?
Click to expand...

Which bus do you think he means - a disco bus or one of the regular ones?
 
Kauffer said:
Platonov, Platonov, Platonov! Was Mr Sollecito with Ms Knox when the murder was committed? Is Mr Sollecito innocent?

Oh Platonov! Have you no answers?
Click to expand...

Has Platonov posted anything able to even be discussed?
If not, might I recommend just ignoring the poster?
 
Diocletus said:
This guy is too funny. He has to be related to Bagdad Bob.
Click to expand...

....while "Jackie" is like one of those strange uncles no-one lets near the children. He's got confused again by Zaichenko and has asked "Catnip" for an opinion. There's nothing like going to the top of the hierarchy of experts, is there?
 
Kauffer said:
....while "Jackie" is like one of those strange uncles no-one lets near the children. He's got confused again by Zaichenko and has asked "Catnip" for an opinion. There's nothing like going to the top of the hierarchy of experts, is there?
Click to expand...

Well, in fairness, Catnip does have a dictionary, which appears to be a more powerful legal tool than Jackie brings to the table.
 
Diocletus said:
Well, in fairness, Catnip does have a dictionary, which appears to be a more powerful legal tool than Jackie brings to the table.
Click to expand...


A dictionary, yes (even a Japanese one!), but unfortunately not much legal common sense (well, either that or a blinkered, biased determination to take a particular position regardless of the facts...).

This "esteemed" fellow, after all, recently embarrassed himself rather deliciously with a bogus and incorrect attempt to show how the Scottish (or "Scots", to use his unintentionally-disparaging adjective :D ) criminal justice system is just like the Italian one. His contention was that the two different forms of trial in Scotland - solemn procedure and summary procedure - are analogous to the systems of full trial and fast-track trial in Italy. In fact this is a laughably incorrect contention. The two different sorts of trial in Scotland are intended to deal with differing levels of criminal charges: minor charges are heard (usually in a Sheriff's court) in a summary procedure, while serious offences are tried (usually in the High Court) under the solemn procedure.

In fact, pretty much the identical system is used in the courts of England and Wales: minor criminal cases are heard in the magistrates' court, usually before a single magistrate, while more serious cases are heard in the crown court, before a jury (although a defendant has the right to have the case decided by a single judge instead).

And neither of these systems is in any way comparable to the Italian "fast-track" vs full trial system. In Scotland or England/Wales, a person on trial for (e.g.) murder cannot opt for a short-form magistrates' (or sheriffs') court trial - a full crown court (or high court) trial is mandatory. Whereas in Italy, a person on trial for any offence, however serious, can opt for the short-form "fast-track" trial before a single judge.

The highly amusing coda to this is our "esteemed" friend's closing salvo, which implies that others (pro-acquittal others, obviously) would not have the intellectual firepower to understand that (per his bogus and incorrect contention) Scotland operates the same system as the Italian system that has come under such criticism from those ignorant pro-acquittal peeps. Oh the irony :D :D
 
Vecchiotti's lab is being closed/suspended or whatever, for mishandling of corpses:

http://www.rainews.it/dl/rainews/articoli/ContentItem-0b1fc709-e64e-493f-bb7e-95ef82b6bba5.html

.... closed for reasons of hygiene and health.

There are two ways to spin this, I suppose, in relation to ultimate guilt or innocence of AK and RS, and how the DNA investigation has been handled.

Guilters will say, "I told you so," and quote again from the March 2013 reversal of the acquittals.

Innocentisti will say, "What is wrong with Italy when it comes to forensics?"

Either way, you'll hear more about this, I am sure.
 
platonov said:
I explained it to you on the occasion of it's first usage?
Click to expand...



Well, once I've deciphered the poor grammar in this post, am I to believe that "Britney" actually refers to Amanda Knox? If so, then it would be advisable to refer in future to this individual as "Amanda", "Knox" or "Amanda Knox". To my knowledge, Knox has never self-identified as "Britney", so it would be incorrect and somewhat offensive to refer to her by that moniker. Thanks in advance.
 
Bill Williams said:
Vecchiotti's lab is being closed/suspended or whatever, for mishandling of corpses:

http://www.rainews.it/dl/rainews/articoli/ContentItem-0b1fc709-e64e-493f-bb7e-95ef82b6bba5.html

.... closed for reasons of hygiene and health.

There are two ways to spin this, I suppose, in relation to ultimate guilt or innocence of AK and RS, and how the DNA investigation has been handled.

Guilters will say, "I told you so," and quote again from the March 2013 reversal of the acquittals.

Innocentisti will say, "What is wrong with Italy when it comes to forensics?"

Either way, you'll hear more about this, I am sure.
Click to expand...


Well, whatever the circumstances, my position would be this: is Vecchiotti's work in relation to the Kercher case competent, in line with internationally-agreed protocols, defensible and supported by other international experts? And the answer is yes. And that's really all that matters in relation to the Kercher case, and the case against Knox and Sollecito.

Exactly the same applies to Stefanoni of course. It doesn't really matter whether or not "in general" she is the world's most competent and fastidious forensic examiner (and crime scene examiner). What matters is the near-unbelievable number and level of hideous errors she provably made in relation to the Kercher case.

(Although there's one caveat for Stefanoni: her risible claim never to have had a contamination event does have knock-on implications for the Kercher case, both in terms of the way the lab was run (and how it was set up to look for contamination), and in more direct terms related to her claims of the impossibility of contamination in the Kercher case.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom