Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
No offence intended, but Americans are mere beginners when it comes to English language. Some of your sentence structures are excruciating.
Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito
- Thread starter Agatha
- Start date
- Status
No offence intended, but Americans are mere beginners when it comes to English language. Some of your sentence structures are excruciating.
NotEvenWrong
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2014
- Messages
- 910
You said English isn't your first language. Do you think some of these "Americans" might have a better command of English than you? You know, guys like Cormac McCarthy, Ralph Ellison, John Steinbeck... Americans. These guys were beginners?
Or is this one of your "I know forensic genetics better than Peter Gill" moments?
NotEvenWrong
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2014
- Messages
- 910
I would like to remind everyone that Vixen is absolutely sure Amanda is a narcissist.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Might I ask the same from you? You wrote "It's contemptible you expect us to believe they are lovebirds." I never said that nor implied it. Seeing "genuine warmth" in no way suggests they are "lovebirds".
"two people who are obviously very much in love with each other:
Look at those two lovebirds holding hands and gazing into each other's eyes."
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/lovebirds
I even quoted a British dictionary so you wouldn't be offended by the use of a lowly American dictionary.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
I love American literature, sure, such as John Steinbeck, Louise Ehrdrich, Hemingway, Scott Fitzgerald, Eugene O'Neill, JD Salinger, Kurt Vonnegut Jnr, Sinclair Lewis, Harper Lee, Jonathan Franzen. However, I was actually referring to grammar, not insulting US authors or its citizens. There are all sorts of strange grammatical rules in the US, no doubt, which have come about because of its diverse immigrant base. For example, 'you must not put a preposition at the end of a sentence'. I hate the way you 'meet with' people when you do not need the 'with'.
I have not said I know better than Peter Gill. Of course he knows far more about genetics than me. That doesn't mean I cannot criticise his offering himself as a gun for hire for the defence.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
No, it's my opinion only within the context of certain situations.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
NotEvenWrong
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2014
- Messages
- 910
Ah, ok. So when you said "Americans are mere beginners when it comes to English language", you actually meant you didn't like some of the grammatical rules. Do you think Hemingway would agree or disagree with you -- someone who said English isn't even their first language? Are Harper Lee's sentence structures... 'excruciating', as you put it? (Not to insult Americans, of course.)
Hmm. An interesting conundrum you have put yourself in. If you know far less about genetics than Peter Gill, how do you know he didn't publish his work in a peer reviewed academic journal simply because his decades of experience showed him that Stefanoni's work was flawed? Since that conclusion matches the conclusion of every other forensic geneticist, wouldn't the natural narrative be "Gill (and every other forensic scientist) wrote what they wrote because Stefanoni's work was flawed?" If they ALL know more about forensic genetics than you, what method did you use to determine they were all paid off by the defense?
Is it the famed Vixen "I know Amanda is guilty therefore all of the forensic scientists must have been paid off" method? Walk us through it, please.
Last edited:
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
To bring the discussion of the thread back toward its topic, here is an excerpt - the concluding request for information and the questions - from the Communication to Italy in Knox v. Italy (translated from the original French by Google Translate with some of my own effort):
Communiquée le 29 avril 2016
PREMIÈRE SECTION
Requête no 76577/13
Amanda Marie KNOX
contre l’Italie
introduite le 24 novembre 2013
Application number 76577/13
Amanda Marie KNOX
Against Italy
Lodged 24 November 2013
INFORMATION REQUEST
1. The applicant is requested to produce a copy of the judgment of the Perugia court of 5 December 2009 regarding her conviction for false accusation and a copy of the appeal and of the appeal regarding this procedure.
2. The parties are invited to indicate whether the judgment of the Florence Court of 14 January 2016 was appealed or if it has become final and to provide copies of relevant documents.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant exhausted the domestic remedies available to her to complain about the violation of Article 3 of the Convention, concerning the slaps (scappellotti) allegedly suffered, and Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3 a), c) and e) and 8 of the Convention?
2. If so:
a) Was the applicant subjected, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, to inhuman or degrading treatment?
b) Was the applicant, as required by Article 6 § 3 a) of the Convention, informed promptly, in a language she could understand and in detail, of the nature and cause of the charges against her for false accusation?
c) Did the applicant have the assistance of counsel of her choice, as required by Article 6 § 3 c) of the Convention, especially during the interrogation of 6 November 2007?
d) Did the applicant obtain the free assistance of an interpreter, within the meaning of Article 6 § 3 e) of the Convention?
e) Did the psychological pressure allegedly suffered by the applicant during the interrogations of 6 November 2007, violate the right of the applicant to a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and the right to respect for private life protected by Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?
_____
Comments:
Regarding the first request, the ECHR would presumably analyze the conviction for calunnia and the appeals and appellate judgments for evidence of arbitrariness. Arbitrary judgments are inherently unfair under Convention Article 6.1, according to ECHR case-law.
The ECHR states its desire to learn if the Florence (Boninsegna) court judgment is final and to obtain the documents of the trial. This may include the record of testimony as well as the motivation report. The significance of the Boninsegna MR reasoning has been discussed above.
The Article 3 allegations fall under the heading of "inhuman or degrading treatment", rather than "torture"; the inflated claims of "torture" were, as far as I know, generally the claims of PGP seeking to discredit Knox's allegations.
The issue of when and how Knox was informed of the charge of calunnia (false accusation) is interesting; had the police followed Italian procedural law, under Article 64, there would have been a warning relating to becoming a witness if the person questioned makes a statement regarding "facts concerning the liability of others".
It will be interesting to learn how Italy will respond to the question of counsel during interrogation, especially in light of the Boninsegna MR. (Italy's response will most likely not become public until the ECHR publishes its judgment, which may not be until some time in 2017 at best.)
There may be some uniqueness in the reference to Article 8 with respect to the interrogation, while the inclusion of Article 3 is, of course, present as expected. The reference to Article 8 may reference some of the "good cop" behavior of the police, such as, for example, one cop - the interpreter and self-described mediator - suggesting that Knox may be suffering from traumatic amnesia, while the "bad cops" yell, threaten, and slap her to coerce a statement.
Communiquée le 29 avril 2016
PREMIÈRE SECTION
Requête no 76577/13
Amanda Marie KNOX
contre l’Italie
introduite le 24 novembre 2013
Application number 76577/13
Amanda Marie KNOX
Against Italy
Lodged 24 November 2013
INFORMATION REQUEST
1. The applicant is requested to produce a copy of the judgment of the Perugia court of 5 December 2009 regarding her conviction for false accusation and a copy of the appeal and of the appeal regarding this procedure.
2. The parties are invited to indicate whether the judgment of the Florence Court of 14 January 2016 was appealed or if it has become final and to provide copies of relevant documents.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant exhausted the domestic remedies available to her to complain about the violation of Article 3 of the Convention, concerning the slaps (scappellotti) allegedly suffered, and Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3 a), c) and e) and 8 of the Convention?
2. If so:
a) Was the applicant subjected, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, to inhuman or degrading treatment?
b) Was the applicant, as required by Article 6 § 3 a) of the Convention, informed promptly, in a language she could understand and in detail, of the nature and cause of the charges against her for false accusation?
c) Did the applicant have the assistance of counsel of her choice, as required by Article 6 § 3 c) of the Convention, especially during the interrogation of 6 November 2007?
d) Did the applicant obtain the free assistance of an interpreter, within the meaning of Article 6 § 3 e) of the Convention?
e) Did the psychological pressure allegedly suffered by the applicant during the interrogations of 6 November 2007, violate the right of the applicant to a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and the right to respect for private life protected by Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?
_____
Comments:
Regarding the first request, the ECHR would presumably analyze the conviction for calunnia and the appeals and appellate judgments for evidence of arbitrariness. Arbitrary judgments are inherently unfair under Convention Article 6.1, according to ECHR case-law.
The ECHR states its desire to learn if the Florence (Boninsegna) court judgment is final and to obtain the documents of the trial. This may include the record of testimony as well as the motivation report. The significance of the Boninsegna MR reasoning has been discussed above.
The Article 3 allegations fall under the heading of "inhuman or degrading treatment", rather than "torture"; the inflated claims of "torture" were, as far as I know, generally the claims of PGP seeking to discredit Knox's allegations.
The issue of when and how Knox was informed of the charge of calunnia (false accusation) is interesting; had the police followed Italian procedural law, under Article 64, there would have been a warning relating to becoming a witness if the person questioned makes a statement regarding "facts concerning the liability of others".
It will be interesting to learn how Italy will respond to the question of counsel during interrogation, especially in light of the Boninsegna MR. (Italy's response will most likely not become public until the ECHR publishes its judgment, which may not be until some time in 2017 at best.)
There may be some uniqueness in the reference to Article 8 with respect to the interrogation, while the inclusion of Article 3 is, of course, present as expected. The reference to Article 8 may reference some of the "good cop" behavior of the police, such as, for example, one cop - the interpreter and self-described mediator - suggesting that Knox may be suffering from traumatic amnesia, while the "bad cops" yell, threaten, and slap her to coerce a statement.
Last edited:
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
It's genuinely extraordinary, isn't it. The distinction is crystal clear to anyone with a) any grasp of the English language, and b) the most basic ability to read, comprehend and synthesise the definitions of - and differences between - the two different figures of speech. Yet here we have, in full-on Baghdad Bob style, somebody (un)heroically clinging to their incorrect position in the face of cast-iron evidence to the contrary.
It is comparable to somebody saying (for example) that Owen Wilson is the current President of the United States of America, then being shown categorically and unequivocally that Barack Obama is the actual President, then saying "No! I know I'm right. Owen Wilson is the President!" And then, to boot, accusing the person who has shown them to be wrong of some sort of bizarre fault related to (AFAICS) use of google or dictionaries......
And as others have suggested here, I think that this little episode - as peripheral and somewhat trivial as it was - is nonetheless very illuminating in trying to figure out how/why so many pro-guilt commentators hold their beliefs in the guilt of Knox and Sollecito and harbour so much hostility towards them (and anyone who speaks out in favour of their acquittals and/or innocence). And in turn, I think it can provide a useful education in how easy it is to forget that so many righteous "arguments" (9/11 conspiracy theories, Moon-landing-hoax theories, belief in the guilt of Knox/Sollecito) are not based on what we would necessarily consider to be sound logic, testable (and rigorously tested) hypotheses, objectivity, critical thinking and intellectual honesty. Most of us would view these elements as fundamental and mandatory, but some do not. And the abandonment of these golden rules of decent argument and debate can, sadly, result in evangelical, self-supporting positions which not only remain immune to attack from logic, reason and intellectual sincerity - but also these positions often actually get hardened and even more entrenched when under attack in this way.
When I first engaged in the online discussion/debate about this case, I exclusively read and wrote on PMF (I'd never even heard of JREFF-as-was at that point). Even though I started my online odyssey with a belief in guilt (based upon "facts" in Darkness Descending which I later found to be false or misrepresented), I was still disquieted by two things in particular: the near-beatification of Meredith Kercher by (seemingly) most of those who believed in the guilt of Knox/Sollecito; and the certitude of the pro-guilt community that the Knox interrogation of 5th/6th November was entirely "Kosher" and that the evil Knox had blurted out Lumumba's name out of thin air amidst an idyllic scene of herbal tea and cakes and a gentle invitation to tell the police more about the night of the murder. Furthermore, when I asked more questions about both of those areas (pointing out that the alleged personal qualities of Kercher were of very limited relevance to the case, and that it was rationally impossible to escape at least the suggestion that Knox was improperly coerced in that 5th/6th Nov interrogation), I was quickly met with hostility from the mob.
It was around that time that I realised that there were strange things going on amid the internet commentary groups in regard to this case, and particularly and specifically among the pro-guilt community. At the same time, I educated myself much further in the case. And within weeks, things started to become very clear indeed.
Poor woman attended some crap school in London that even LondonJohn has never heard of, and yet she claims impeccable authority over every subject from the English language to molecular genetics. And holds Amazon self-publishers above reproach and Peter Gill beneath contempt.
Apparently Vixen was no better understood by the admissions offices of the good schools to which she applied than she is by her interlocutors, here.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Hemingway's macho 'direct action' structure isn't entirely to my liking, but he gets away with it as he is so good. Not so keen on Harper Lee's Go Set A Watchman as the first, but she is a great novelist. Good eye for character, fine social eye and very humourous.
The issue with Gill is that he was prepared to prostitute himself to earn a few bob.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Crap school? As attended by the scriptwriter of the Carry On films? http://www.olduffs.org/normanhudis_telegraph_bcc.jpg
And Wing Commander Cliff Alabaster http://www.olduffs.org/alabster3.jpg
Last edited:
NotEvenWrong
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2014
- Messages
- 910
That's great that you appreciate American literature. Perhaps Americans aren't "mere beginners" at the English language, as someone once said. Not that we're keeping track with our 99% accurate memory or anything like that. Too much work. Being honest, that is.
That, as per the usual, is not my question.
Gill published a bunch of stuff in support of Amanda and Raffaele. Some of it in top peer reviewed journals. Most people would say that, since his opinions are consistent with the rest of the relevant literature and the rest of scientific opinion, it is correct.
You are saying it isn't. Yet you admittedly don't know as much genetics as the top forensic geneticist in the world (lol). You are saying he simply "prostituted himself" to earn some money.
How do you know this? How are you sure he didn't just publish the correct analysis, and he did so because he felt it was an important issue? Remember, he is a forensic geneticist, so his entire career is based on proper analysis of forensic evidence. This is a topic of interest for him. Also, how do you know he was paid?
Does Gill's opinion differ from ANY OTHER EXPERT IN THE WORLD? Can you name one expert who agrees with you yet?
Last edited:
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Just have a look Massei's motivation report, it has a whole list of forensic experts of the opinion the DNA/luminol/pathology interpretations are sound.
So you keep telling us 'Dr Gill is the father of DNA-testing'. However, that doesn't make him immune from, how shall we say, improper submissions in order to get his paid masters' client off the hook by virtue of his reputation.
His whole submission about how there was a dismally remote chance of 'tertiary transfer' from door knob to bra clasp was underhand, as he didn't put himself up for cross-examination and he didn't argue the same for Rudy, for whom you could argue exactly the same re the sweater.
Not Gill's fault per se, he's ony saying what he's paid to say, but Bruno-Marasca allowed Bongiorno two and a half days worth of submissions, compared to everybody else's twenty minutes, with Gill's treatise attached to the back of the appeal submissions.
NotEvenWrong
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2014
- Messages
- 910
No it doesn't.
Because he is. He invented many of the techniques used in modern forensic genetic testing.
Do you have ANY evidence at all that this is true? Gill would not put his reputation at risk over a few dollars. You realize we all know that you and your crazy friends just concocted this nonsense in your heads right?
There is plenty of evidence in the published literature that tertiary transfer is possible and happens routinely. He had no need to "argue the same for Rudy" because the evidence against him was overwhelming. Yes some of it may have been due to tertiary transfer because the crime scene investigators were incompetent. That doesn't get around the bloody hand print, shoe prints, or his DNA in Meredith's vagina.
This is complete and utter nonsense. And I am talking about his paper published in Forensic Science International.
Vixen, answer this for me:
Is Gill's analysis of the evidence in this case correct or incorrect?
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
John Follain, more than anyone else, is responsible for that canard. Both the Hellmann court in the series of murder trials, as well as the Boninsegna court in acquitting Knox of calunnia against the police/translator have fleshed out more (for the official record) as to the character of the interrogation(s).
The way Follain writes it in "A Death in Italy" it is as if Knox had to do something dramatic to end all the good treatment she was getting. One imagines her with a mouthful of biscuits mumbling Lumumba's name between sips of tea,
- Status