• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Has anyone else read this? As this is the first I've read about it. I Googled Raffaele and cocaine and acid and except typical guilter articles where people suggest this and a section in Honor Bound where he quotes Mignini saying that they were taking acid cocaine and Marijuana that night.. I find nothing


<SNIP> Vixen has warped and misrepresented the evidence <SNIP>.

What Knox actually wrote next to Sollecito's name on that list of sexual partners was this: "used to use extensive drugs".

And of course that ambiguous and nebulous statement opens itself up to all sorts of questions: what types of drugs? How "extensively"? How long ago?

So for Vixen to claim that Knox had written that Sollecito "took a lot of cocaine and acid" is, predictably, an <SNIP> incorrect misrepresentation <SNIP>. Not worth engaging with.

Seriously: Not. Worth. Engaging. With.

Edited by jsfisher: 
Edited for compliance with Rules 0 and 12 of the Membership Agreement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Seriously: Not. Worth. Engaging. With.

While I agree with this up to a point, Vixen is clearly engaging in propaganda when she lies and distorts facts to suit her agenda. The only way to combat propaganda is with truth. She is outright fabricating everything, and trying to discredit the top forensic scientists in the world on top of it, as crazy as that sounds to rational people.

At some point it makes sense to combat lies with truth, particularly when an individual is trying to systematically destroy someone's life and ruin her reputation for their own psychotic agenda. I know if I had a mob of lunatics coming after me on the internet... in this case whether it is because they have nothing better to do than hate on the pretty, talented American girl, they want to sell a few more copies of their book, or they are just plain crazy... I would hope people would have the courage to stand up for the truth.
 
Last edited:
While I agree with this up to a point, Vixen is clearly engaging in propaganda when she lies and distorts facts to suit her agenda. The only way to combat propaganda is with truth. She is outright fabricating everything, and trying to discredit the top forensic scientists in the world on top of it, as crazy as that sounds to rational people.

At some point it makes sense to combat lies with truth, particularly when an individual is trying to systematically destroy someone's life and ruin her reputation for their own psychotic agenda. I know if I had a mob of lunatics coming after me on the internet, some because they have nothing better to do than hate on the pretty, talented American girl, some because they want to sell a few more copies of their book, some because they are just plain crazy... I would hope people would have the courage to stand up for the truth.


If I were Knox or Sollecito, I truly wouldn't care less about insignificant little people telling lies about them on some fairly obscure internet forum, to be honest. Such mendacious internet commentators are not important or influential in any way, and thus they should be ignored and somewhat pitied (since I suspect that psychological projection and/or vicarious playing-the-victim are at play in many instances).

Personally, I see this thread as a way to debate the case in a meaningful manner, with the aim of education, information, argument and enlightenment. That's why I read and contribute (only occasionally these days) here. I'm interested in any and all accurate, reliable information related to this fascinating case, and in any intellectually-honest arguments that are based upon accurate, reliable information. I'm not therefore interested in engaging with people - regardless of their point of view on the case - who do not fall into that category. Full stop.
 
Seriously: Not. Worth. Engaging. With.

I have made a religious pledge not to engage V****, and it was js202 who administered the oath.

So you don't know how hard I had to bite my lip when V**** said that the striation in the kitchen-knife was visible in "special light". Acc. to Judge Massei, that "special light" was an ordinary desk lamp. The "special procedure" Stefanoni used to see a striation no one else in all of creation ever saw was to move the blade slightly from side to side under that lamp. (No, not *THAT* lamp!)

And for those who claim that the striation is now visible in photos.... both Stefanoni and Massei go out of their way to declare that the phantom-striation is NOT visible in photos.

So rather than suggest that V**** has, once again, simply invented something out of thin air, I will go back to my js202-afflicted discipline of not commenting.
 
Vixen,
Not that we all don't already realize you are making everything up, but answer this for me:

If it is required BY LAW (as you put it) for the defense to have a witness present when forensic evidence is analyzed, then when did the defense get in trouble BY LAW for not having an expert present at the analysis performed by Stefanoni? And did Rudy have an expert witness present when his samples were analyzed? Who was the expert witness present for Rudy? Did both prosecution and defense have witnesses present when 36i was analyzed by forensic experts in Rome (if so, cite. Because I have never in my life read that before, and you and your ilk have a penchant for making stuff up constantly.)?

And again, generally forensic evidence is analyzed and THEN a suspect is decided upon (as would actually make sense, because who accuses people with no evidence, right?), so how would the defense have an expert witness present when the defense doesn't exist yet? And you're saying this is required BY LAW? Is Italian law really this illogical? Or are you just lying to try to score points?

Are you sure you aren't just making stuff up again?

I'd suggest that V**** and everyone else on that side of the fence are victims of the Socratic method.

There, I said it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

This method, simply put, is to start with a hypothesis, and **then** go look for evidence which either sustains or refutes it, all with the purpose of reforming the hypothesis. The weakness is when one only allows evidence which supports the original hypothesis.

People like Galileo in the 17th Century did the unthinkable. He shifted the Enterprise of collecting evidence first and formulating a hypothesis only when enough data had been collected to justify one. This caused Galileo no end of trouble - most notably with the church which had "hypotheses" by the sackful, intertwined and precariously balanced.

And yet it still moved.

This is the sum total of the debate here, or what remains of it - off in this far corner of cyberspace.
 
<SNIP> Vixen has warped and misrepresented the evidence <SNIP>.

What Knox actually wrote next to Sollecito's name on that list of sexual partners was this: "used to use extensive drugs".

And of course that ambiguous and nebulous statement opens itself up to all sorts of questions: what types of drugs? How "extensively"? How long ago?

So for Vixen to claim that Knox had written that Sollecito "took a lot of cocaine and acid" is, predictably, an <SNIP> incorrect misrepresentation <SNIP>. Not worth engaging with.

Seriously: Not. Worth. Engaging. With.

Edited by jsfisher: 
Edited for compliance with Rules 0 and 12 of the Membership Agreement.

While this is hard to argue with, I despise what she does. <SNIP>

In Italy, one can go to prison for such actions.
Edited by jsfisher: 
Edited for compliance with Rules 0 and 12 of the Membership Agreement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is a series of posts on:

http://mostrodifirenze.forumup.it/about102-0-asc-4725-mostrodifirenze.html

Which looks to be a rather pedestrian discussion of this case in Italy, in Italian. After linking to an Italian language source of the Marasca report, this is the discussion. (What does this prove? Absolutely nothing, really. If anyone has any other source of "chatter" then it would be nice to have a look at it:

Mi pare una lettura "critica" fondamentale che davvero mette la parola fine su questa vicenda..

I think a "critical" reading really puts an end to this story ..

direi "spietata" verso quel modo d'agire di alcuna magistratura "mediatizzata" che molti di noi stigmatizzano; da sperare che faccia scuola.

I would say (it's) "ruthless" to the dealings of any judiciary (as well as the) "media coverage" that many of us condemn; Hopefully face school.

Magari...
Sarò pessimista io, ma temo che fino a quando non ci sarà un meccanismo sanzionatorio nulla cambierà.

Maybe ...
I'll be pessimistic, but I fear that (unless) there will be a sanction mechanism, nothing will change.

ahimè condivido il pessimismo.
certo qualcosa noi spettatori potremmo influire, se è vero che attualmente lo facciamo (guardando trasmissioni impreparate che si orientano in base alla percezione delle preferenze dell'opinione pubblica)

alas I share the pessimism.
certainly something we viewers might affect, if it is true that currently we do (looking unprepared broadcasts that are oriented according to the perception of the preferences of the public)

Ah, fosse per me permetterei solo trasmissioni con l'impostazione alla "Un Giorno in Pretura".
Nuda e cruda esposizione dei fatti.

Poi come al solito il problema vero, a mio avviso, risiede più nell'occhio di chi guarda, un pò come per la malizia....
In soldoni, è la totale mancanza di senso critico che troppe persone hanno a rendere possibili certi scempi.
Auspicare che i mezzi d'informazione abbiano un aspetto "pedagogico" purtroppo la ritengo una vera e propria utopia, non mi riferisco alle tue parole, è una considerazione generale.
Ed il discorso, ahimè, non riguarda solo la cronaca giudiziaria.

Solo un sano senso critico è l'unica difesa a disposizione dell'individuo.

Per quanto riguarda invece l'aspetto giudiziario, ciò di cui non mi capacito è come sia possibile che dei giudici sanzionino in maniera tanto "violenta" l'operato degli addetti ai lavori e da questi rilievi non ne discenda un qualche tipo di provvedimento.
Gli errori non dovrebbero essere sanzionabili solo se fatti con dolo, anche la sciatteria, l'incompetenza, in un ambito così essenziale come quello giudiziario dovrebbero essere causa di un qualche tipo di sanzione.

Ah, it was for me dare only broadcasts with the setting to "A Day in the District Court."
Unvarnished statement of the facts.

Then, as usual, the real problem, in my opinion, lies more in the eye of the beholder, a bit like the mischief ....
In a nutshell, it is the total lack of critical sense that too many people have to make possible some havoc.
Hope that the media have a look "pedagogical" unfortunately I think a real utopia, I refer to your words, it is a general consideration.
And speech, alas, is not just about the judicial reporting.

Only a healthy critical sense is the only defense available to the individual.

As for the legal aspect, what it is beyond me how it is that the judges sanction so much "violent" the work of the experts and these surveys do not descend some kind of measure.
The errors should not be sanctioned only if done intentionally, even sloppiness, incompetence, in an area so vital as the judiciary should be due to some kind of sanction.

marcaureli74: quoto and I agree 100% what you said.

Reading between the lines - Summary of one discussion in Italy about this - unless the Marasca report goes further than its condemnation of what has gone on before and recommends sanctions, then the mistakes will be repeated. In the face of the misinformation which came out through cops, courts and media about this case, the only recourse an individual has is their own critical thinking skills.
 
Okay Bill I went to the link and the top post was this one:

Sorry but it seems to me that you are turning the omelette: Having said that I also agree that it is better to have one or two killers at large that an innocent man to jail and in this case I'm sure the author of the murder but both RG I would submit that the judges assollto, or rather they had to fulfill the two lovebirds because investigators have polluted the evidence or otherwise conducted investigations so bad now is that if people had not behaved so badly we would have the absolute certainty alienness of the young as it is said that we would have the absolute certainty that the two were present or competitors in murder, they said that having combined a huge [CENSORED] was NOT possible to determine whether or not the two were competitors .You excuse but it is significantly different from how you would like to practice intendere.In doubt REMAINS and we can not be surprised then if the mother of the poor Meredith find something doubtful, moreover believe that Guede did EVERYTHING alone is very difficult and it is quite established that the victim's family remains slightly appalled, then all agreed to keep free of the guys who want to fortuitous circumstances want to considerable skill of the lawyers want to equally remarkable inability of the investigators got away from here but to demand that the Meredith's mother giosca for a ruling that sees RG guilty one and only such a murder seems quite presumptuous

It would seem the poster thinks the kids got away with murder.
 
Okay Bill I went to the link and the top post was this one:

Sorry but it seems to me that you are turning the omelette: Having said that I also agree that it is better to have one or two killers at large that an innocent man to jail and in this case I'm sure the author of the murder but both RG I would submit that the judges assollto, or rather they had to fulfill the two lovebirds because investigators have polluted the evidence or otherwise conducted investigations so bad now is that if people had not behaved so badly we would have the absolute certainty alienness of the young as it is said that we would have the absolute certainty that the two were present or competitors in murder, they said that having combined a huge [CENSORED] was NOT possible to determine whether or not the two were competitors .You excuse but it is significantly different from how you would like to practice intendere.In doubt REMAINS and we can not be surprised then if the mother of the poor Meredith find something doubtful, moreover believe that Guede did EVERYTHING alone is very difficult and it is quite established that the victim's family remains slightly appalled, then all agreed to keep free of the guys who want to fortuitous circumstances want to considerable skill of the lawyers want to equally remarkable inability of the investigators got away from here but to demand that the Meredith's mother giosca for a ruling that sees RG guilty one and only such a murder seems quite presumptuous

It would seem the poster thinks the kids got away with murder.

Grinder, do you pay any attention to any other cases?
There are people who think David Camm, the Norfolk Four, etc are still guilty.
 
Vixen,
Not that we all don't already realize you are making everything up, but answer this for me:

If it is required BY LAW (as you put it) for the defense to have a witness present when forensic evidence is analyzed, then when did the defense get in trouble BY LAW for not having an expert present at the analysis performed by Stefanoni? And did Rudy have an expert witness present when his samples were analyzed? Who was the expert witness present for Rudy? Did both prosecution and defense have witnesses present when 36i was analyzed by forensic experts in Rome (if so, cite. Because I have never in my life read that before, and you and your ilk have a penchant for making stuff up constantly.)?

And again, generally forensic evidence is analyzed and THEN a suspect is decided upon (as would actually make sense, because who accuses people with no evidence, right?), so how would the defense have an expert witness present when the defense doesn't exist yet? And you're saying this is required BY LAW? Is Italian law really this illogical? Or are you just lying to try to score points?

Are you sure you aren't just making stuff up again?


Good point since a lot of the DNA testing was done before any arrests on Nov 6th. As I recall, Amanda didn't even meet with an attorney until around Nov 8th, and that was before a scheduled hearing, which was likely the attorney's main focus that day.

It would likely have taken Amanda's defensive team several weeks to get to the point of even having a designated DNA expert attend Stefanoni's testing sessions, which would be very expensive and likely beyond the means of many defendants.

We know that Raffaele's family eventually had experts disprove many of the prosecution's claims, such as that Raffaele's Nikes had left the bloody footprints on Meredith's bedroom floor, etc.

Eventually, defense experts eviscerated the prosecution's case, but most of those experts came along later after most of Stefanoni's botched DNA work was already completed. Really, no need for defense experts to attend the DNA testing as long as the testing's EDFs are properly given to the defense, but that of course was never done.
 
Grinder, do you pay any attention to any other cases?
There are people who think David Camm, the Norfolk Four, etc are still guilty.

I'm under the impression that BW keeps saying the Italians are not upset with the decision.

I read this - .You excuse but it is significantly different from how you would like to practice intendere.In doubt REMAINS and we can not be surprised then if the mother of the poor Meredith find something doubtful, moreover believe that Guede did EVERYTHING alone is very difficult and it is quite established that the victim's family remains slightly appalled, then all agreed to keep free of the guys who want to fortuitous circumstances want to considerable skill of the lawyers want to equally remarkable inability of the investigators got away from here but to demand that the Meredith's mother giosca for a ruling that sees RG guilty one and only such a murder seems quite presumptuous


as being upset with the decision.
 
I'm under the impression that BW keeps saying the Italians are not upset with the decision.

I read this - .You excuse but it is significantly different from how you would like to practice intendere.In doubt REMAINS and we can not be surprised then if the mother of the poor Meredith find something doubtful, moreover believe that Guede did EVERYTHING alone is very difficult and it is quite established that the victim's family remains slightly appalled, then all agreed to keep free of the guys who want to fortuitous circumstances want to considerable skill of the lawyers want to equally remarkable inability of the investigators got away from here but to demand that the Meredith's mother giosca for a ruling that sees RG guilty one and only such a murder seems quite presumptuous


as being upset with the decision.

There will always be somebody upset but we are talking about the majority in any discussion and from what seems to be argued, the majority just basically want to close the chapter.
 
There will always be somebody upset but we are talking about the majority in any discussion and from what seems to be argued, the majority just basically want to close the chapter.

according to BW Mach is alone in his criticism.
 
according to BW Mach is alone in his criticism.

Why do you care?

I asked for pointers to the buzz of a hue and cry about Marasca. He declined. Others haven't. You, for instance, have managed to find 2x what Machiavelli found. We're up to three, relatively minor references when Mach is claiming a judicial injustice of the scope of the Spanish Inquisition!

Mach is tweeting Porta a Porta with the injustice. So far crickets.

As for me I cannot imagine Machiavelli being alone in this. There is more than likely a cabal around Mignini. Mignini now wants to write a book. Nencini and massei are not talking. Trouble is there's nowhere near the buzz one might expect - in Italy - if people there thought Marasca's court had, in Masonic fashion, snatched justice from the jaws of reason.
 
Last edited:
<SNIP> Vixen has warped and misrepresented the evidence <SNIP>.

What Knox actually wrote next to Sollecito's name on that list of sexual partners was this: "used to use extensive drugs".

And of course that ambiguous and nebulous statement opens itself up to all sorts of questions: what types of drugs? How "extensively"? How long ago?

So for Vixen to claim that Knox had written that Sollecito "took a lot of cocaine and acid" is, predictably, an <SNIP> incorrect misrepresentation <SNIP>. Not worth engaging with.

Seriously: Not. Worth. Engaging. With.

Edited by jsfisher: 
Edited for compliance with Rules 0 and 12 of the Membership Agreement.

You are seriously ignorant about this case and yet you put yourself forward as some kind of authority.


Even Pro-Knox advocate Nina Burleigh knows about Raff's cocaine and acid history.

I don't imagine for a minute you or acbytesla are gentlemen enough to apologise. In fact you see nothing wrong in dissembling, if you think it will fool the unwary.


http://tinyurl.com/qcjrp5n

<SNIP>
Edited by jsfisher: 
Reference to moderated content removed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm under the impression that BW keeps saying the Italians are not upset with the decision.

I read this - .You excuse but it is significantly different from how you would like to practice intendere.In doubt REMAINS and we can not be surprised then if the mother of the poor Meredith find something doubtful, moreover believe that Guede did EVERYTHING alone is very difficult and it is quite established that the victim's family remains slightly appalled, then all agreed to keep free of the guys who want to fortuitous circumstances want to considerable skill of the lawyers want to equally remarkable inability of the investigators got away from here but to demand that the Meredith's mother giosca for a ruling that sees RG guilty one and only such a murder seems quite presumptuous


as being upset with the decision.

In all fairness Grinder, I think you are mischaracterizing what Bill has been saying. In fact Bill has been searching for and asking others if there is much or any real opposition in the the Italian media. He has not been able to find much.

I think.we can expect a little. The question he has is there this great moral outrage in the country as some have suggested.
 
Has anyone else read this? As this is the first I've read about it. I Googled Raffaele and cocaine and acid and except typical guilter articles where people suggest this and a section in Honor Bound where he quotes Mignini saying that they were taking acid cocaine and Marijuana that night.. I find nothing

<SNIP> you sure are incredibly ignorant about the case.

Here's a reference, found within, oh, two seconds.

http://tinyurl.com/qcjrp5n
Edited by jsfisher: 
Edited for compliance with Rule 12 of the Membership Agreement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm under the impression that BW keeps saying the Italians are not upset with the decision.

I read this - .You excuse but it is significantly different from how you would like to practice intendere.In doubt REMAINS and we can not be surprised then if the mother of the poor Meredith find something doubtful, moreover believe that Guede did EVERYTHING alone is very difficult and it is quite established that the victim's family remains slightly appalled, then all agreed to keep free of the guys who want to fortuitous circumstances want to considerable skill of the lawyers want to equally remarkable inability of the investigators got away from here but to demand that the Meredith's mother giosca for a ruling that sees RG guilty one and only such a murder seems quite presumptuous


as being upset with the decision.

I seriously believe we're about to launch into a definition war as to what "the Italians" refers to.

Hoots!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom