Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

Oh dear. You're clearly ignorant of the fact that the FSS (when it existed) did plenty of defence work as well as police/prosecution work. It never was "the police forensics team". That was the whole point. As Planigale already explained to you. And as you either didn't understand or ignored. As usual.

Once again you attempt to mislead the reader. The London police forensics team are employed by the Met. According to planigale this is corrupt.

http://content.met.police.uk/Site/forensicservices

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Gosh, you have no embarrassment at all. Talk about desperation! A good friend of mine actually lectured in Norwegian (often labelled 'Viking Studies' to attract the American students) in the German department, and I lunched at Senate House often as her guest. Another good friend did area studies at SSEES in Russian and we often met up to dine at SOAS, which had a marvellous daily menu and great student cameraderie. Another friend did her PhD at SOAS. I have no familiarity with London Uni. Really?


What one learns about UK-English linguistics is how it differs from other languages. That's how I am better informed than you about sentence structure in highly inflected languages. That's how I knew you were talking bollocks when you said it was impermissable to say, 'emptor caveat'. And you still refuse to admit you dropped a clanger.

Vixen,
In all seriousness, two questions for you:

1) Can you quote one source anywhere (you can choose any source in the entire world) that says "emptor caveat" instead of "caveat emptor". Not saying you're incompetent or a complete idiot or anything, but I have never heard it said "emptor caveat". Oddly, google doesn't seem to be coming up with anything either! So I'm hoping you could help me out.

My thought is that since it is a commonly used phrase related to contract law, "caveat emptor" is the correct way to say it. Changing it to "emptor caveat" is clunky, incorrect, and not used anywhere (which is why it doesn't show up on any google searchable documents on the internet). Even if you can change the words around and retain the meaning, that doesn't mean it isn't a clunky and sloppy way of saying it. It would be like saying "Sociopaths and losers, Vixen and her friends are, who write books to profit off Meredith's murder." While one can still glean the meaning from that sentence structure, it is awkward and looks silly.

2) While we are asking for citations: I have asked you several times to provide a citation of a single forensic scientist in the world who supports how the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was collected, analyzed, and interpreted in this case. i.e. someone that says Stefanoni's work was robust and reliable and it certainly implicates Amanda and/or Raf. Someone post-2008 that didn't work for the prosecution.

I have noticed you haven't provided such a person (remember, you have ALL of the forensic scientists in the world to choose from, aside from the ones working for Mignini. And you can pick just one to win this challenge. Bonus points if they give correct reasoning based on sound principles of molecular biology.) Now, I am not saying you DON'T have this person, and thus are a lunatic who fabricates fantastical beliefs in her head and are incapable of admitting when she is wrong. All I am saying is that I have asked for this single forensic science expert several times and you have yet to provide someone. Can you prove you aren't a lunatic who is simply here to shill for her buddies that are writing books to profit off Meredith's murder? It is a simple request Vixen. Thanks for cooperating.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Once again you attempt to mislead the reader. The London police forensics team are employed by the Met. According to planigale this is corrupt.

http://content.met.police.uk/Site/forensicservices

Vixen,
The point is that they are working for the police. Thus, being humans, they are likely to be biased. Not necessarily corrupt like they were in the Knox and Sollecito trial. But biased.

The FSS were independent and did work for BOTH the prosecution and defense. Thus they were unbiased.

You will note that Planigale never said the word "corrupt" in his post that started this string of replies. So it is again you simply fabricating facts in your head and running with it. Next thing you know you'll be accusing Planigale of being involved in a Samhain murder ritual and running to your buddies to write a book. There may be profit to be made here, Vixen. Better get on it.

 

[Bill Williams]

Your slavish admiration of the killers who forcibly restrained a decent lovely young woman on the brink of life and full of its joys and callously stabbed her in the neck, having previously armed themselves up to the gills with knives, is truly remarkable, and worthy of psychological evaluation. Stopped her from screaming, pulled back her hair, tearing out handfuls, and whilst her lifeless body was being dissected by Lalli's circular saw, the pair you call 'kids' celebrated with profanities, lewd behaviour and wild sex.

You knew you were being manipulated into lobbying their innocence and you played along with it.

What a terrible world view. What a jaundiced eye you must have.

ETA acbytesla even said he was 'proud' of Raff.

What Vixen is trying to say is that her and her sociopath buddies have some books to sell, facts be damned! Gotta make the sweet cash off Meredith's murder. Opportunities like this don't come around too often.

Vixen,
In all seriousness, two questions for you:

..... <sinister deletia> .....​

2) While we are asking for citations: I have asked you several times to provide a citation of a single forensic scientist in the world who supports how the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was collected, analyzed, and interpreted in this case. i.e. someone that says Stefanoni's work was robust and reliable and it certainly implicates Amanda and/or Raf. Someone post-2008 that didn't work for the prosecution.

I have noticed you haven't provided such a person (remember, you have ALL of the forensic scientists in the world to choose from, aside from the ones working for Mignini. And you can pick just one to win this challenge. Bonus points if they give correct reasoning based on sound principles of molecular biology.) Now, I am not saying you DON'T have this person, and thus are a lunatic who fabricates fantastical beliefs in her head and are incapable of admitting when she is wrong. All I am saying is that I have asked for this single forensic science expert several times and you have yet to provide someone. Can you prove you aren't a lunatic who is simply here to shill for her buddies that are writing books to profit off Meredith's murder? It is a simple request Vixen. Thanks for cooperating.

Read through the posts quoted.

You do realize, do you not, that you are the only one in this thread who believes that AK and RS had anything to do with this horrid crime!? You underlying assumption is, simply put, strawman at best - bat-pooh crazy at worst. Of all the victim-warriors, you are the last holdout - seemingly impervious to anything except your manic confirmation bias.

You apparently do believe that we here believe them to be guilty but only post facts, showing they are not, from some perverse joy.

Liz' book about the Manipulative Memoir of Amanda Knox has nothing at all to do with astrology.

All except that Liz Houle's method shines through. At base it is the application of non-scientific methods to analyzing things.

Any one of us here could write Liz's book for her. We've all heard the confirmation-biased pooh before. For one thing, Liz (and out) fail to outline just how AK's alleged "manipulation" managed to create the exoneration in March 2015? It is pure magical-thinking on your part and on hers.

And why not?

So Liz is an astrologist. I myself once studied astrology to a high level,

Explains a lot.

What does it explain?

A lot.

And through it all you still have not, "provide(d) a citation of a single forensic scientist in the world who supports how the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was collected, analyzed, and interpreted in this case. i.e. someone that says Stefanoni's work was robust and reliable and it certainly implicates Amanda and/or Raf. Someone post-2008 that didn't work for the prosecution."

Why is that?

 

[Bill Williams]

You will note that Planigale never said the word "corrupt" in his post that started this string of replies. So it is again you simply fabricating facts in your head and running with it. Next thing you know you'll be accusing Planigale of being involved in a Samhain murder ritual and running to your buddies to write a book. There may be profit to be made here, Vixen. Better get on it.

Please don't criticize Vixen on this point. I've had my suspicions about Planigale all along.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen,
In all seriousness, two questions for you:

1) Can you quote one source anywhere (you can choose any source in the entire world) that says "emptor caveat" instead of "caveat emptor". Not saying you're incompetent or a complete idiot or anything, but I have never heard it said "emptor caveat". Oddly, google doesn't seem to be coming up with anything either! So I'm hoping you could help me out.

My thought is that since it is a commonly used phrase related to contract law, "caveat emptor" is the correct way to say it. Changing it to "emptor caveat" is clunky, incorrect, and not used anywhere (which is why it doesn't show up on any google searchable documents on the internet). Even if you can change the words around and retain the meaning, that doesn't mean it isn't a clunky and sloppy way of saying it. It would be like saying "Sociopaths and losers, Vixen and her friends are, who write books to profit off Meredith's murder." While one can still glean the meaning from that sentence structure, it is awkward and looks silly.

2) While we are asking for citations: I have asked you several times to provide a citation of a single forensic scientist in the world who supports how the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was collected, analyzed, and interpreted in this case. i.e. someone that says Stefanoni's work was robust and reliable and it certainly implicates Amanda and/or Raf. Someone post-2008 that didn't work for the prosecution.

I have noticed you haven't provided such a person (remember, you have ALL of the forensic scientists in the world to choose from, aside from the ones working for Mignini. And you can pick just one to win this challenge. Bonus points if they give correct reasoning based on sound principles of molecular biology.) Now, I am not saying you DON'T have this person, and thus are a lunatic who fabricates fantastical beliefs in her head and are incapable of admitting when she is wrong. All I am saying is that I have asked for this single forensic science expert several times and you have yet to provide someone. Can you prove you aren't a lunatic who is simply here to shill for her buddies that are writing books to profit off Meredith's murder? It is a simple request Vixen. Thanks for cooperating.

This is what happens when you use google as your main source of education. Caveat emptor is a legal term, that's why it appears on google. Anyone with a knowledge of language will know it is perfectly OK to use emptor caveat in informal conversation, because a knowledgeable person knows Latin is highly inflected and thus word order is of much less importance than in English. Clear now?


I am not aware of what current research is being, or has been, done. Surely, it is up to you to seek out that which you are looking for. Why do you want me to do your research for you? You have the same resources as me.

I already referenced Professor Novelli for you, yet you appear to have a blind spot.

 

[Vixen]

Read through the posts quoted.

You do realize, do you not, that you are the only one in this thread who believes that AK and RS had anything to do with this horrid crime!? You underlying assumption is, simply put, strawman at best - bat-pooh crazy at worst. Of all the victim-warriors, you are the last holdout - seemingly impervious to anything except your manic confirmation bias.

You apparently do believe that we here believe them to be guilty but only post facts, showing they are not, from some perverse joy.


All except that Liz Houle's method shines through. At base it is the application of non-scientific methods to analyzing things.

Any one of us here could write Liz's book for her. We've all heard the confirmation-biased pooh before. For one thing, Liz (and out) fail to outline just how AK's alleged "manipulation" managed to create the exoneration in March 2015? It is pure magical-thinking on your part and on hers.

And why not?





And through it all you still have not, "provide(d) a citation of a single forensic scientist in the world who supports how the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was collected, analyzed, and interpreted in this case. i.e. someone that says Stefanoni's work was robust and reliable and it certainly implicates Amanda and/or Raf. Someone post-2008 that didn't work for the prosecution."

Why is that?

Liz did a simple comparison with what Amanda said in her book, and the facts according to court records and her own statements to the police and the courts. This is an enormous undertaking as the book is a complex elaborate hoax from page one to the finish, wherein she claims Marasca declared her 'innocent'.

Liz is one sharp, smart lady. Her personal beliefs have nothing to do with it. Why attack someone for their personal beliefs?

 

[Matthew Best]

Why attack someone for their personal beliefs?

If your personal beliefs demonstrate that you are either deluded or a charlatan, then it seems reasonable to do so.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

This is what happens when you use google as your main source of education.

And this is what happens when you don't have an education, and believe that an advanced search algorithm scouring the internet failing to match a phrase a single time anywhere means you are still using it correctly.

Caveat emptor is a legal term, that's why it appears on google.

Which is exactly what I said it was. Thanks for repeating what I said back to me. (BTW, you do this hilarious thing where someone proves you are wrong and a fool, then somehow twist it around pretending you are the one giving the other person a lecture, while repeating exactly the same thing the other person said to you. You are at least the 3rd guilter I've noticed who does this. Do you guys see the same psychiatrist?)

Anyone with a knowledge of language will know it is perfectly OK to use emptor caveat in informal conversation, because a knowledgeable person knows Latin is highly inflected and thus word order is of much less importance than in English. Clear now?

Lol you aren't having an informal Latin conversation, because we are having a conversation in English. You are using the (Latin) phrase as it is commonly used in English conversation. This is straight up the dumbest crap I have ever read.

You were using it in common language, and the common language way to say it is caveat emptor. I would call you an idiot but there are no words strong enough to describe the way you think, so I don't think that's fair.

If you were having an informal conversation in your made up Latin class, you may have a point. But, you don't. As usual. Looking forward to your lecture on how caveat emptor is a common phrase. And then probably accuse me and LJ of saying "emptor caveat". Because you are literally that nuts.

I am not aware of what current research is being, or has been, done. Surely, it is up to you to seek out that which you are looking for. Why do you want me to do your research for you? You have the same resources as me.

I have, and it doesn't exist.

Let me get this straight -- you have said the Salem witch trials are invalid because the legal rulings did not have a scientific basis.

You now appear to be saying there are NO scientific experts post-2008, that were not paid for by the prosecution, that refute Gill, Budowle, Hampikian, Conti, Vecchiotti, etc. In other words, ALL the independent, unbiased science supports the defense. The ONLY person who said Stefanoni did a bang up job was Stefanoni. Novelli even said she did not follow protocol in his testimony, AND HE WAS A PROSECUTION EXPERT.

So it looks like there is no science to support the initial Massei ruling, nor the Nencini ruling. It looks like all of the forensic scientists that have commented on the case, and the Italian Supreme Court exonerating Amanda and Raffaele, were all correct.

And now, it looks like you must agree that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent, since you can't find any science supporting your (former?) viewpoint. Remember -- you said for a legal ruling to be correct the evidence has to have a scientific basis. All of the world renowned forensic experts have said the evidence was bunk. And thus they must be innocent. It is now clear Massei and Nencini were wrong.

Unless, of course, you have ulterior motives and are shilling for some friends of yours who are trying to make a buck off Meredith's murder by publishing a dishonest, manipulative pack of lies in book form.

Are you sure you don't have a single forensic scientist on your side Vixen? I hope that isn't true; I thought better of you.

I already referenced Professor Novelli for you, yet you appear to have a blind spot.

Novelli worked for Mignini as a prosecution expert. And he straight up said in his own testimony Stefanoni didn't follow protocol. So this example fails on every front I asked you for. Try again? Or don't. Might hurt your buddy's book income if you were shown to be a fraud.

 

[acbytesla]

Hi everyone. I see the intervention is not producing many positive results. Seems as if we're at the same place we were 60 pages ago. Thought I'd drop by and say hi to the usual suspects.

 

[js202]

Hi everyone. I see the intervention is not producing many positive results. Seems as if we're at the same place we were 60 pages ago. Thought I'd drop by and say hi to the usual suspects.

Hi acbytesla,

Hope you've been well. Like you, I assume, these days I check in here primarily as a sort of armchair coroner (note use of the word "as", which makes this an example of a simile, if I am not incorrect) in order to confirm that the corpse - in this case, the rotting carapace enclosing what passes as Vixen's argument - is still dead.

Might I suggest, if you are tempted by the madness you see to get back into the exchange, as it were - caveat emptor! (Or, as a total of one known person in the world sez, emptor caveat!)


N.B. Incidentally, if you did miss out on the scintillating discussion on similes vs. metaphors, and are bored enough, one can be caught up to speed on how the matter was settled for sane persons using the link below. It's a quiz for 4th graders, and the very first question nicely frames the right and wrong of things, as they were all too painstakingly pointed out to Vixen:

https://www.ixl.com/ela/grade-4/identify-similes-and-metaphors

 

[Numbers]

Hi everyone. I see the intervention is not producing many positive results. Seems as if we're at the same place we were 60 pages ago. Thought I'd drop by and say hi to the usual suspects.

Hi, ac. Welcome back to the recycling of false PGP claims thread.

I wish to call attention to the Wikipedia entries on Amanda Knox and on the Murder of Meredith Kercher, which seem to be consistent with the known facts, with perhaps a few relatively minor errors. The ongoing ECHR case that Knox has lodged against Italy for alleged violations of her Convention rights in convicting her of calunnia against Lumumba is not mentioned.

Here's an excerpt from the conclusion of the Wikipedia article on Knox:

On March 27, 2015, the ultimate appeal by Knox and Sollecito was heard by the Supreme Court of Cassation; it ruled that the case was without foundation, thereby definitively acquitting them of the murder. Her Calunnia conviction was upheld.[69][129][130][131] Rather than merely declaring that there were errors in the earlier court cases or that there was not enough evidence to convict, the court ruled that Knox and Sollecito were innocent of involvement in the murder.[132] On September 7, 2015, the Court published the report on the acquittal, citing "glaring errors," "investigative amnesia," and "guilty omissions," where a five-judge panel said that the prosecutors who won the original murder conviction failed to prove a "whole truth" to back up the scenario that Knox and Sollecito killed Kercher.[133] They also stated that there were "sensational failures" (clamorose defaillance) in the investigation, and that the lower court had been guilty of "culpable omissions" (colpevoli omissioni) in ignoring expert testimony that demonstrated contamination of evidence.[134]

Here's an excerpt from the conclusion of the article on the Murder of Meredith Kercher:

On 27 March 2015, Italy's highest court, the Court of Cassation, ruled that Knox and Sollecito were innocent of murder, thereby definitively ending the case.[106][107][107][108][109] Rather than merely declaring that there were errors in the earlier court cases or that there was not enough evidence to convict, the court ruled that Knox and Sollecito had not committed the murder and were innocent of those charges, but upheld the conviction for the slander of Patrick Lumumba.[108][110]

After this verdict was announced, Knox, who had been in the United States continuously since 2011, said in a statement: "The knowledge of my innocence has given me strength in the darkest times of this ordeal."[111][112]

In September 2015, the delegate Supreme Judge, Court adviser Mr. Gennaro Marasca, made public the reasons of absolution. First, none of the evidence demonstrated that either Knox or Sollecito were present at the crime scene. Second, they cannot have "materially participated in the homicide", since there were absolutely no "biological traces that could be attributed to them in the room of the murder or on the body of the victim, where in contrast numerous traces were found attributable to Guede".[113]

ETA: Sources:

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

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

 

[LondonJohn]

Once again you attempt to mislead the reader. The London police forensics team are employed by the Met. According to planigale this is corrupt.

http://content.met.police.uk/Site/forensicservices

Oh, you mean the Forensic Services unit of the Metropolitan Police. There's no such thing as the "London police forensics team". Please try to be more precise and accurate.

 

[LondonJohn]

Hi acbytesla,

Hope you've been well. Like you, I assume, these days I check in here primarily as a sort of armchair coroner (note use of the word "as", which makes this an example of a simile, if I am not incorrect) in order to confirm that the corpse - in this case, the rotting carapace enclosing what passes as Vixen's argument - is still dead.

Might I suggest, if you are tempted by the madness you see to get back into the exchange, as it were - caveat emptor! (Or, as a total of one known person in the world sez, emptor caveat!)


N.B. Incidentally, if you did miss out on the scintillating discussion on similes vs. metaphors, and are bored enough, one can be caught up to speed on how the matter was settled for sane persons using the link below. It's a quiz for 4th graders, and the very first question nicely frames the right and wrong of things, as they were all too painstakingly pointed out to Vixen:

https://www.ixl.com/ela/grade-4/identify-similes-and-metaphors

And of course this whole charade is actually noticeable for three reasons, all of which are not directly connected to the correct definition of a simile and a metaphor (or, for that matter, the correct word order of "caveat emptor", or what the characteristics of an inflected language really are......) at all:

1) A continual sloppiness and imprecision, coupled with a paucity in research, resulting in the stating of incorrect information as fact;

2) A steadfast and arrogant refusal to accept correction, no matter how well-sourced or conclusive that correction might be, coupled with a stubborn and elaborate "hole digging" exercise to try to justify the original mistake with yet more mistakes and misrepresentations;

3) A vivid pointer to the dishonesty and invalidity of "arguments" pertaining to the Kercher case coming from the same source, which typically display the same characterising features.

 

[LondonJohn]

Thank you for sharing your bitter cynical world view with us all.

Ah, once again you misunderstand. I have plenty of sympathy and compassion for the people affected, directly and indirectly, by these atrocities. As I do for murder victims everywhere. I simply don't need to broadcast that to the world in some sort of weird display of "conspicuous compassion". I think psychiatrists have a special term for people who feel such a need to broadcast (usually to complete strangers) how caring and sympathetic they are...........

 

[LondonJohn]

Your slavish admiration of the killers who forcibly restrained a decent lovely young woman on the brink of life and full of its joys and callously stabbed her in the neck, having previously armed themselves up to the gills with knives, is truly remarkable, and worthy of psychological evaluation. Stopped her from screaming, pulled back her hair, tearing out handfuls, and whilst her lifeless body was being dissected by Lalli's circular saw, the pair you call 'kids' celebrated with profanities, lewd behaviour and wild sex.

You knew you were being manipulated into lobbying their innocence and you played along with it.

What a terrible world view. What a jaundiced eye you must have.

ETA acbytesla even said he was 'proud' of Raff.

Aaaaand I think we'll just leave this one lying out there without further comment, like the extremely telling but rather smelly turd that it is...........

 

[acbytesla]

It sounds like fun (feigning my excitement) I have been focusing my attention on the Presidential race threads.

Out of curiosity, has any PGP other than V made an appearance in the last few months? Also, any idea when the ECHR might rule?

 

[acbytesla]

And BTW, Vixen. I am extremely proud of Raffaele. Of course, I'm not harboring a cognitively dissonant view that he is a killer. I see him as thee classiest act in this farce.

 

[js202]

And of course this whole charade is actually noticeable for three reasons, all of which are not directly connected to the correct definition of a simile and a metaphor (or, for that matter, the correct word order of "caveat emptor", or what the characteristics of an inflected language really are......) at all:

1) A continual sloppiness and imprecision, coupled with a paucity in research, resulting in the stating of incorrect information as fact;

2) A steadfast and arrogant refusal to accept correction, no matter how well-sourced or conclusive that correction might be, coupled with a stubborn and elaborate "hole digging" exercise to try to justify the original mistake with yet more mistakes and misrepresentations;

3) A vivid pointer to the dishonesty and invalidity of "arguments" pertaining to the Kercher case coming from the same source, which typically display the same characterising features.

Well said. For any but the unhinged, this forum has transmogrified into a rather repetitive primer on logic & argumentation, parts of speech, and abnormal psychology.

 

[Bill Williams]

And of course this whole charade is actually noticeable for three reasons, all of which are not directly connected to the correct definition of a simile and a metaphor (or, for that matter, the correct word order of "caveat emptor", or what the characteristics of an inflected language really are......) at all:

1) A continual sloppiness and imprecision, coupled with a paucity in research, resulting in the stating of incorrect information as fact;

2) A steadfast and arrogant refusal to accept correction, no matter how well-sourced or conclusive that correction might be, coupled with a stubborn and elaborate "hole digging" exercise to try to justify the original mistake with yet more mistakes and misrepresentations;

3) A vivid pointer to the dishonesty and invalidity of "arguments" pertaining to the Kercher case coming from the same source, which typically display the same characterising features.

But you don't understand, LJ. Vixen has studied astrology.

Why she did not simply tell us this at the beginning, I'll never know. I would have taken her more seriously and posted about 1/7th what I've posted.