Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

Slight exaggeration here I think!

One enters accountancy direct from university, they accept people with non accountancy degrees like psychology. You get a training contract with an accountancy organisation and take the exams whilst employed, yes it takes about four years. Solicitors if they have done an exempting law degree have to do a one year full time course (though may get sponsorship for this) before becoming a trainee solicitor for two years. If you are a graduate with a non exempting degree then you have two years before being able to take up a training contract. My friend from college did 3 years law degree, then a BCL, then one year at law school before becoming a trainee solicitor for two years. So 7 years of law training, 5 as a full time student to become a qualified solicitor.

OK, fair enough. It's just that when I've needed legal advice, nine times out of ten, I knew more about the law than they did. The only ones who ever impressed me were the QC's and the top barristers around Lincoln's Inn.

 

[bagels]

My interest will not lie until the perps are brought to justice.

Do you have any reason to believe the official and final court outcome will not stand for all time?

 

[Mike1711]

Questions rose as to how Amanda would know, 'She had her <explict deleted> throat cut' at the questura and Luca claimed later he had told Raff in fluent Italian. (So now Amanda does understand Italian after all: tourist phrase: I cut throat/ you cut throat / he cut throat/ we cut throat /they cut throat'.)

Battistelli claims he never mentioned this fact, but Luca claims he made a cut throat gesture.

Always good to delete "explicits"...don't want one of those hanging around your posts.

 

[Mike1711]

Not confused at all. I have passed three professional tax exams, including one specifically in VAT.

FWIW not to belittle law, but most lawyers I know, did a two year conversion course in law to qualify, after their main degree (one was in Zoology). One or two have law degrees, sure. One did a barristers course yet had no idea how to calculate 10%.

How does one calculate 10%? There is no such thing and accountants should know this.

 

[Mike1711]

To put it in the correct context, LJ and Mike were arguing how can a court possibly determine truth, when the facts they find may be very different from the 'truth', the truth of course being an absolute (except when you are Amanda, and then you can have a range of truths, from 'worse truth' to 'best truth' - all of which by definition are lies). I pointed out that as mmost murders and crimes are committed by stealth, the court had to find its facts by a process of fine-sifting evidence, which can be surprisingly accurate. For example, a fraudster might deny he did it, yet we can produce his faked signature and a sum transferred into his bank account which matches the amount stolen, etc.etc.

Even in crimes of passion - these are the rare murders, not the most common btw - the court has to be sure it's premeditated before applying the severest sentence. For example, if Ruth Ellis - who committed her crime in public - had not admitted to wanting to kill her lover when she took a loaded gun to him, the judge would not have pulled on his black cap.

If you go armed with a knife or gun, that probably points to premeditation.

Vixen, trust me when I say it can be surprisingly inaccurate as well. For example OJ Simpson and Oscar Pistorius.

Most crimes are "committed by stealth" (sic). - nonsense in so many ways.

 

[acbytesla]

To put it in the correct context, LJ and Mike were arguing how can a court possibly determine truth, when the facts they find may be very different from the 'truth', the truth of course being an absolute (except when you are Amanda, and then you can have a range of truths, from 'worse truth' to 'best truth' - all of which by definition are lies). I pointed out that as mmost murders and crimes are committed by stealth, the court had to find its facts by a process of fine-sifting evidence, which can be surprisingly accurate. For example, a fraudster might deny he did it, yet we can produce his faked signature and a sum transferred into his bank account which matches the amount stolen, etc.etc.

Even in crimes of passion - these are the rare murders, not the most common btw - the court has to be sure it's premeditated before applying the severest sentence. For example, if Ruth Ellis - who committed her crime in public - had not admitted to wanting to kill her lover when she took a loaded gun to him, the judge would not have pulled on his black cap.

If you go armed with a knife or gun, that probably points to premeditation.

This of course wasn't the point. I don't know how you get here. But this in a nutshell is what is wrong with the whole guilt position in this case. You apply inductive reasoning seizing on small bits of data and ignore others. And then you expand a whole ridiculous theory based on it. Even worse you lock yourself into one way of thinking despite a true mountain of contradictory evidence.

 

[acbytesla]

OK, fair enough. It's just that when I've needed legal advice, nine times out of ten, I knew more about the law than they did. The only ones who ever impressed me were the QC's and the top barristers around Lincoln's Inn.

Something tells me that you're wrong about this too. You just think you do.

 

[Bill Williams]

This thread should be closed.

It's devolved into a referendum on the posting style of one poster, and the way that poster:

1) assembles facts
2) advances unsubstantiated opinions
3) links to so-called "proofs" which prove nothing of the sort​

Time after time readers of this thread have been shown how contradictory some of those claims, and how specious they are.

I've lost track of the number of replies this person is allowed where the person simply posts a random non sequitur, then signs off with a terse:

Got it now?

A few weeks later it all starts again with content recycled from the debunking it took way back then.

Why is this being allowed to continue, esp. on a Skeptics Site?

 

[acbytesla]

This thread should be closed.

It's devolved into a referendum on the posting style of one poster, and the way that poster:

1) assembles facts
2) advances unsubstantiated opinions
3) links to so-called "proofs" which prove nothing of the sort​

Time after time readers of this thread have been shown how contradictory some of those claims, and how specious they are.

I've lost track of the number of replies this person is allowed where the person simply posts a random non sequitur, then signs off with a terse:

​

A few weeks later it all starts again with content recycled from the debunking it took way back then.

Why is this being allowed to continue, esp. on a Skeptics Site?

I agree Bill. Would the moderators close it?

 

[LondonJohn]

I agree Bill. Would the moderators close it?

I don't want it to close (and nor do I want there to be a meta-discussion on why/whether this thread should close taking place on this thread). There is still the very salient matter of Knox's application to the ECHR to discuss here, and more to be learned (some of which, for example, is coming out via the disastrous attempt to charge Knox with criminal slander against the police, and more of which will come out in the course of the ECHR investigation and ruling). And there is also the wider issue of the Italian criminal justice system to discuss - how (if at all) it will learn and change after the Knox/Sollecito murder trials fiasco, and how it will react to a decisive ECHR ruling.

Just because there is a single-source pro-guilt argument being made on this thread that is fundamentally incorrect, littered with misrepresentation, hyperbole and deception, and which is clearly heavily influenced by a deep-seated emotional response to Knox in particular, that doesn't mean that there's not a meaningful purpose to this thread in other ways.

 

[acbytesla]

I don't want it to close (and nor do I want there to be a meta-discussion on why/whether this thread should close taking place on this thread). There is still the very salient matter of Knox's application to the ECHR to discuss here, and more to be learned (some of which, for example, is coming out via the disastrous attempt to charge Knox with criminal slander against the police, and more of which will come out in the course of the ECHR investigation and ruling). And there is also the wider issue of the Italian criminal justice system to discuss - how (if at all) it will learn and change after the Knox/Sollecito murder trials fiasco, and how it will react to a decisive ECHR ruling.

Just because there is a single-source pro-guilt argument being made on this thread that is fundamentally incorrect, littered with misrepresentation, hyperbole and deception, and which is clearly heavily influenced by a deep-seated emotional response to Knox in particular, that doesn't mean that there's not a meaningful purpose to this thread in other ways.

I'm torn LJ. I certainly can appreciate your point. The nonstop lies and absurdity is difficult to ignore I find it to be unethical and immoral and that gets under my skin.

 

[Dougm]

I don't want it to close (and nor do I want there to be a meta-discussion on why/whether this thread should close taking place on this thread). There is still the very salient matter of Knox's application to the ECHR to discuss here, and more to be learned (some of which, for example, is coming out via the disastrous attempt to charge Knox with criminal slander against the police, and more of which will come out in the course of the ECHR investigation and ruling). And there is also the wider issue of the Italian criminal justice system to discuss - how (if at all) it will learn and change after the Knox/Sollecito murder trials fiasco, and how it will react to a decisive ECHR ruling.

Just because there is a single-source pro-guilt argument being made on this thread that is fundamentally incorrect, littered with misrepresentation, hyperbole and deception, and which is clearly heavily influenced by a deep-seated emotional response to Knox in particular, that doesn't mean that there's not a meaningful purpose to this thread in other ways.

I agree, there is no reason for it not to stay open, since there are still issues to be resolved (ECHR). I just wonder why, just because there is a single poster currently here making dishonest, inaccurate posts, do people have to continue to debate that poster as if his/her/it's posts provide legitimate basis for debate?

For example, if any of us was following other threads, anything from US elections, to the 911 conspiracy, to the existence of Bigfoot, would we feel the need to respond to a every post from one poster who continually posts strange, inaccurate arguments that not a single other participant agrees with?

Examples: "Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are both aliens". "Donald Trump is 10 years younger than HRC". Most people who claim to have seen Bigfoot say he looks like a small poodle." Wouldn't this person just get ignored, rather than people entering into some protracted debate about these assertions?

If there is a fear that somehow, this poster's wild assertions will catch on with the public, I can assure folks the chances of that are just about zero.

 

[acbytesla]

I agree, there is no reason for it not to stay open, since there are still issues to be resolved (ECHR). I just wonder why, just because there is a single poster currently here making dishonest, inaccurate posts, do people have to continue to debate that poster as if his/her/it's posts provide legitimate basis for debate?

For example, if any of us was following other threads, anything from US elections, to the 911 conspiracy, to the existence of Bigfoot, would we feel the need to respond to a every post from one poster who continually posts strange, inaccurate arguments that not a single other participant agrees with?

Examples: "Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are both aliens". "Donald Trump is 10 years younger than HRC". Most people who claim to have seen Bigfoot say he looks like a small poodle." Wouldn't this person just get ignored, rather than people entering into some protracted debate about these assertions?

If there is a fear that somehow, this poster's wild assertions will catch on with the public, I can assure folks the chances of that are just about zero.

But wait a minute Doug. They ARE aliens! I know because I read it in the paper.*

* National Enquirer March 7, 2016.

 

[Vixen]

What is a forum?

ISF is a fine forum
It's logical and clincal
Act with a little decorum
Be sceptical, not cynical.

Bill wants to wave his blue pencil
So only the PIP views are seen
Anything that's existential
Will pass through his shredding machine.

We say, "No, this not your thread,
Bill, put your instrument away!"
Can people get it into their head
We are all here to NICELY play.

Please address the arguments, Bill,
So "Shut gob and pin back lug'oles,"
Just swallow the bitterest pill
Before it goes down t'plug'ole.

If you want, you can start your own,
And then you can call all the shots,
So before you wail and you moan,
Be thankful for what you have got!

forum
[ˈfɔːrəm]
NOUN
a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged:
"we hope these pages act as a forum for debate"
synonyms: meeting · assembly · gathering · conference · seminar ·

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, trust me when I say it can be surprisingly inaccurate as well. For example OJ Simpson and Oscar Pistorius.

Most crimes are "committed by stealth" (sic). - nonsense in so many ways.

This is where a good barrister comes in, with good rhetoric, debating and oratorial skills.

Jurists were impressed by how Scheck spun the glove fact : (it's too small!)

Bongiorno gets by with theatrics, rather than any accurate representation of the facts.

To sum: you have the mundane "facts" which the courts find. Then comes the art of interpretation of those facts. Judge Massapei (_sp?) fell at this fence in the Pistorius case.

Of course criminals are stealthy. They'll rarely come to court and tell the truth. They lie about their alibi, they cover up certain facts, they're manipulative, spin sob stories, cry, blame another...why, sounds a bit like...er....

 

[Bill Williams]

ISF is a fine forum
It's logical and clincal
Act with a little decorum
Be sceptical, not cynical.

Bill wants to wave his blue pencil
So only the PIP views are seen
Anything that's existential
Will pass through his shredding machine.

We say, "No, this not your thread,
Bill, put your instrument away!"
Can people get it into their head
We are all here to NICELY play.

Please address the arguments, Bill,
So "Shut gob and pin back lug'oles,"
Just swallow the bitterest pill
Before it goes down t'plug'ole.

If you want, you can start your own,
And then you can call all the shots,
So before you wail and you moan,
Be thankful for what you have got!

forum
[ˈfɔːrəm]
NOUN
a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged:
"we hope these pages act as a forum for debate"
synonyms: meeting · assembly · gathering · conference · seminar ·

The point is, there is no reasonable post to address. One minute you're saying that the defence wanted the semen stain on the pillow tested, the next you're saying that Raffaele didn't want it tested, then you misquote his book saying the reason he didn't want it tested was because he was afraid it was his. (For the record, he actually wrote that he was afraid they were manufacturing evidence against him.)

You post pictures claiming they show one thing, and they show the exact opposite.

You post links which either don't address what you're trying to prove, or prove the exact opposite. You continually misread people's posts and address issues they've not raised.

Your poetry is great! So don't despair.

 

[whoanellie]

Jurists were impressed by how Scheck spun the glove fact

Do you ever have any idea what you are writing about?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[acbytesla]

ISF is a fine forum
It's logical and clincal
Act with a little decorum
Be sceptical, not cynical.

Bill wants to wave his blue pencil
So only the PIP views are seen
Anything that's existential
Will pass through his shredding machine.

We say, "No, this not your thread,
Bill, put your instrument away!"
Can people get it into their head
We are all here to NICELY play.

Please address the arguments, Bill,
So "Shut gob and pin back lug'oles,"
Just swallow the bitterest pill
Before it goes down t'plug'ole.

If you want, you can start your own,
And then you can call all the shots,
So before you wail and you moan,
Be thankful for what you have got!

forum
[ˈfɔːrəm]
NOUN
a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged:
"we hope these pages act as a forum for debate"
synonyms: meeting · assembly · gathering · conference · seminar ·

My issue is that you don't act in good faith. Instead of a sincere attempt to seek the truth you treat this as a game. A contest to be won. Only a wannabe demagogue does this. I value truth, logic and rationality above everything. If I'm wrong, show me I'm wrong. I'll actually thank you for that.

You OTOH respond with denial and obfuscation. You defend ignorance as if ignorance is worthy of defending. That mystifies me.

 

[Bill Williams]

ISF is a fine forum
It's logical and clincal
Act with a little decorum
Be sceptical, not cynical.

My issue is that you don't act in good faith. Instead of a sincere attempt to seek the truth you treat this as a game. A contest to be won. Only a wannabe demagogue does this. I value truth, logic and rationality above everything. If I'm wrong, show me I'm wrong. I'll actually thank you for that.

You OTOH respond with denial and obfuscation. You defend ignorance as if ignorance is worthy of defending. That mystifies me.

ISF is supposed to be logical and clinical, it's advertised as a skeptics site. Vixen is illogical and unclinical - simply asserting things, ignoring the proof that debunks her assertions, then she moves on.

As long as this issue dominates the forum, this thread should be shut. People are saying that there are outstanding issues - the ECHR being perhaps one. The satellite prosecutions that Mignini brought against everyone who looked at him sideways - Curt Knox, Edda Mellas, Andrew Gumbel, Raffaele Sollecito, Amanda Knox - are all disappearing as Italy seems to simply want all of this to go away.

Italy has mainly succeeded in making this go away by exonerating RS and AK on the main charges well more than a year ago. Indeed by the stats that ISF keeps, this thread has lost about 92% of it's viewers (lurking activity) and the same amount of posts. If Vixen had not flooded the thread since April 2105, the posts would have dropped 96% or more.

So until ECHR...................? What? Maybe Vixen can try some more strawman poems. At least she's talented that way (although I have a suspicion someone is ghostwriting for her!)

 

[acbytesla]

ISF is supposed to be logical and clinical, it's advertised as a skeptics site. Vixen is illogical and unclinical - simply asserting things, ignoring the proof that debunks her assertions, then she moves on.

As long as this issue dominates the forum, this thread should be shut. People are saying that there are outstanding issues - the ECHR being perhaps one. The satellite prosecutions that Mignini brought against everyone who looked at him sideways - Curt Knox, Edda Mellas, Andrew Gumbel, Raffaele Sollecito, Amanda Knox - are all disappearing as Italy seems to simply want all of this to go away.

Italy has mainly succeeded in making this go away by exonerating RS and AK on the main charges well more than a year ago. Indeed by the stats that ISF keeps, this thread has lost about 92% of it's viewers (lurking activity) and the same amount of posts. If Vixen had not flooded the thread since April 2105, the posts would have dropped 96% or more.

So until ECHR...................? What? Maybe Vixen can try some more strawman poems. At least she's talented that way (although I have a suspicion someone is ghostwriting for her!)

You just provided enough reason Bill that the thread is irrelevant these days so there really is no need to shut it down. Whereas I use to think it was important to not let guilter lies go unanswered, the court's ruling provided answer enough. Vixen's posts were maybe read seriously by people a year ago, but now no one cares enough to even bother.

Ignore her and come back when there is news.