Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Dougm]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_40237532eb4a0b2454.jpg[/qimg]

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!

 

[carbonjam72]

acbytesla,

Yes, indeed. My point is that one would rebut one argument by showing the video and listing out requirements to change gloves and use disposable tweezers. Rebutting the other argument would be done differently.

Isn't that what happened at Hellman, and the courtroom audience laughed harder than a pink panther movie?

 

[NancyS]

There is a huge number of reports and sources about Knox's personality, reports and sources of every kind

The alleged meaning of "Burleigh passage" is only a straw man by which you attempt to attack me.


There is a huge number of reports and sources about Knox's personality, reports and sources of every kind. Knox was alone, was a narcissistic, everything is in plain sight.
You don't need to try desperately cherry pick one just in an attempt to pose as if you got something against Machiavelli. I know you are frustrated, but you don't need to always let it out in a so childish fashion.

I think you're going all Cluster B again

 

[acbytesla]

No, it is not made up.

I'll tell you something: the passage from Burleigh's book is irrelevant to my conclusion.

If you don't find that passage, never mind. It doesn't change anything. As I said, there is a huge number of reports and sources about Knox's personality, reports and sources of every kind.

LMAO Of course it's made-up. You don't know Amanda and don't actually know anyone who knows her. All you have is anecdotal stories most of which are highly incredulous and observations from a distance. This is the height of narcissism and arrogance. I'm flabbergasted that anyone would persist with declarations that one simply could not know.

You see Machiavelli, unlike you I KNOW what I don't know and I don't base judgments of others on superficial or third party info. I also wouldn't make up stories about them which you continue to do.

 

[Matthew Best]

I'll tell you something: the passage from Burleigh's book is irrelevant to my conclusion.

Then why did you feel the need to make it up?

 

[Dougm]

No it isn't!!

There is a huge number of reports and sources about Knox's personality, reports and sources of every kind

The alleged meaning of "Burleigh passage" is only a straw man by which you attempt to attack me.


There is a huge number of reports and sources about Knox's personality, reports and sources of every kind. Knox was alone, was a narcissistic, everything is in plain sight.
You don't need to try desperately cherry pick one just in an attempt to pose as if you got something against Machiavelli. I know you are frustrated, but you don't need to always let it out in a so childish fashion.

 

[Machiavelli]

Then why did you feel the need to make it up?

I didn't make up anything.

 

[acbytesla]

There is a huge number of reports and sources about Knox's personality, reports and sources of every kind

The alleged meaning of "Burleigh passage" is only a straw man by which you attempt to attack me.


There is a huge number of reports and sources about Knox's personality, reports and sources of every kind. Knox was alone, was a narcissistic, everything is in plain sight.
You don't need to try desperately cherry pick one just in an attempt to pose as if you got something against Machiavelli. I know you are frustrated, but you don't need to always let it out in a so childish fashion.

Name one from someone in the US that actually knows her. I challenge you to do that. After all Amanda has lived in the US for all but 4 years of her life. I am not it is reasonable to quote guards at a prison or Meredith's friends who barely spent any time with her. So please tell us about school mates at Seattle Prep or at the UW. You won't be able to.... So my question to you is "why not"?

 

[NancyS]

I didn't make up anything.

Maybe you dreamt it, along with the girl-on-girl sexytime stuff

 

[Machiavelli]

LMAO Of course it's made-up. You don't know Amanda and don't actually know anyone who knows her. All you have is anecdotal stories most of which are highly incredulous and observations from a distance. This is the height of narcissism and arrogance. I'm flabbergasted that anyone would persist with declarations that one simply could not know.

You see Machiavelli, unlike you I KNOW what I don't know and I don't base judgments of others on superficial or third party info. I also wouldn't make up stories about them which you continue to do.

Those stories are caled witnesses reports. They are absolutely credible and detailed. But that's not the only thing we have. We (observers) also have the whole of Knox's writings, her declarations in court, interviews and books, and direct observations of her behaviour.

But tell me, by the way, what do the innocentisti know about Mignini? About Stefanoni? About the Supreme Court?
And what about posters who make up even word declinations?
What about claiming about "media frenzy" by newspapers they have never known? Do the innocentisti crowd know about what the Italian newspapers actually said about the things they brag about, like say, bleach receipts?
Do the innocentisti know the people they accuse of pushing "satanic theories" or other things? Do they know anything of the legal and social context they go on judgeing and accusing?

How does this crowd dare to object that a citizen states his opinion about Knox's personality?

 

[Machiavelli]

Name one from someone in the US that actually knows her. I challenge you to do that. (...)

But I am not that interested in opinions. I am interested about facts.

And I am not interested in "people who know Amanda Knox" (present tense). I am focused instead on the 20-year old Amanda Knox in Perugia.

Example: is it true that Amanda Knox copied exactly Laura Mezzetti's ear piercings? (it's just an example of factual report)

 

[NancyS]

Those stories are caled witnesses reports. They are absolutely credible and detailed. But that's not the only thing we have. We (observers) also have the whole of Knox's writings, her declarations in court, interviews and books, and direct observations of her behaviour.

But tell me, by the way, what do the innocentisti know about Mignini? About Stefanoni? About the Supreme Court?
And what about posters who make up even word declinations?
What about claiming about "media frenzy" by newspapers they have never known? Do the innocentisti crowd know about what the Italian newspapers actually said about the things they brag about, like say, bleach receipts?
Do the innocentisti know the people they accuse of pushing "satanic theories" or other things? Do they know anything of the legal and social context they go on judgeing and accusing?

How does this crowd dare to object that a citizen states his opinion about Knox's personality?

So if you have all this information, why do you make stuff up?

Surely you would object if I told you that I'd heard somewhere, possibly in a book, that Mignini spent his weekends at an adult baby club? This has the same amount of truth as what you claim about AK

 

[acbytesla]

I didn't make up anything.

Of course you did. You said that Amanda sobbed for two hours Halloween citing the book and page number. Then when that was proven to be false you said you got it from another book. But this time you didn't cite what book or the page. I challenged you to give us the cite for this mysterious other book..but you did not reply and disappeared for hours. A tactic you employ frequently when you are called on the carpet for your fabrications. But I will take back my assertion that you lack integrity and that you make up elaborate lies to prove your fantastical and malicious stories if you provide that other book and page number. My bet is you will disappear again.

 

[carbonjam72]

So if you have all this information, why do you make stuff up?

Surely you would object if I told you that I'd heard somewhere, possibly in a book, that Mignini spent his weekends at an adult baby club? This has the same amount of truth as what you claim about AK

Except its somehow more believable.

 

[Kaosium]

This is absolutely false. It has been already shown that such narrative about Stefanoni’s statements is a lie, Kaosium only refuses to accept it.
The truth is Stefanoni declared immediately, on her first hearing (Oct. 2008) that “we tried several kinds of tests” on the luminol stains but by “trials they did in their laboratories” they know that those tests on latent stains “most often yield a false negative”.

Just because you deny it doesn't make it untrue. I posted my cite, from the original convicting judge's own Motivations Report where he quotes Dr Gino without rebuttal from the prosecution. He was there in court with Stefanoni too, and vague generic statements that couldn't have been regarding the TMB negatives (“trials they did in their laboratories”) do not excuse her omitting the TMB negatives and then denying they did them in court. She could not have determined that the luminol hits were 'false negatives' without a confirmatory test and those weren't done--or if they were those also were omitted and never discovered.

It is not true that said “we only laid luminol there” when asked about a trace, but (this was one of the subsequent instances) there was one moment when lawyer Maori (IIRC) using a laser pointer on a picture asked her if on a specific point (below the door) they “laid other chemical substances”.

You're the one who posted the citation from the the trial transcript, as I recall your argument (then) was that he wasn't referring to the luminol hits but something someone was talking about many pages back. Why don't you post that citation again? It was pretty clear to me it was the luminol hits and Dr. Gino and Massei concurred.

Besides this, let’s not forget that defence expe rt prof. Potenza was assisting the testing session in the corridor on Dec. 17.

Then it was a poor idea to omit the inconvenient TMB negatives and then lie about them in court.

Let’s not forget that the prosecution answered “yes” to the defence request and offered to give the documents themselves.

Those documents were released July 30, 2009 for a trial which began around October of the previous year, that the prosecution was caught out on this does not excuse them trying to hide them and lying about them in court.

Let’s also not forget that nobody among prosecution or Stefanoni was found having lied in court about such tests. Your statement above "they lied about in court" - one of the many, delusional innocentisti myths - is manifestly unfounded and false.

This is not the only instance that Stefanoni lied, and you deny them all regardless of how apparent it is. She also lied about the amount and method of quantification for the knife blade where which she tried to give the impression it was a high template sample as well as trying to hide the existence of other contributors to the bra clasp by pretending those peaks were 'stutter' and hiding the data that would reveal that.

Just because you deny it doesn't make it untrue; just because she was caught doesn't mean that it's all right that she tried to hide the data and lie about it. That the Italian courts allowed this without (serious) sanction is indicative of a very serious problem the Italian Courts have.

 

[Dougm]

Name one from someone in the US that actually knows her. I challenge you to do that. After all Amanda has lived in the US for all but 4 years of her life. I am not it is reasonable to quote guards at a prison or Meredith's friends who barely spent any time with her. So please tell us about school mates at Seattle Prep or at the UW. You won't be able to.... So my question to you is "why not"?

The truth is, after all this salacious stuff (that was also made up) came out about her in the tabloids, those same tabloids, who were willing to pay for and then run with even the slightest negative factoid, sent reporters to Seattle, and found almost nothing. It's actually amazing they couldn't find more than they did, given the low standards they have for what they are willing to publish.

Come on, Mach! Stop your hatin'! This horrible witch you keep persecuting is just a normal young woman. Kinder than most, actually.

 

[NancyS]

Except its somehow more believable.

He's definitely the 'type'

 

[Machiavelli]

Maybe you dreamt it, along with the girl-on-girl sexytime stuff

As I showed, there is even an eloquent - and quite equivalent - account of that episode in their own books.

Sollecito's report that "She wanted to go out with Meredith that night, but didn't answer her sms".
Look, he even tells us that explicitly. But how could he even know about it, or put it in his story, if that "refusal" was unimportant?

 

[NancyS]

As I showed, there is even an eloquent - and quite equivalent - account of that episode in their own books.

Sollecito's report that "She wanted to go out with Meredith that night, but didn't answer her sms".
Look, he even tells us that explicitly. But how could he even know about it, or put it in his story, if that "refusal" was unimportant?

And from this you imagine girl-on-girl sexytime - you really have been glued to the Adult Channel

 

[Dougm]

As I showed, there is even an eloquent - and quite equivalent - account of that episode in their own books.

Sollecito's report that "She wanted to go out with Meredith that night, but didn't answer her sms".
Look, he even tells us that explicitly. But how could he even know about it, or put it in his story, if that "refusal" was unimportant?

You're grasping at straws. Give it up. Your argument is on life support.