Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[Numbers]

Many claims by the PGP are absurd, and if true, simply point out that the Italian courts violated Italian law. More likely, the PGP claims are falsehoods made without knowledge of actual events and posted with the aim (possibly) of arousing an emotional response.

For example, there are claims that: 1. Sollecito's statement of Nov. 5/6 was a witness statement, not the statement of a suspect obtained in violation of Italian law; 2. Sollecito testified on this statement in court - then it is pointed out that Sollecito exercised his right to NOT TESTIFY in court, so this could not be true; 3. The police read Sollecito's statement in court, rather than Sollecito having read it - but any such reading by the police of a witness statement would be a violation of Italian law, specifically CPP Article 195.4 Criminal police officials and officers shall not testify on the content of the statements gathered from witnesses {the point being that the witnesses must be called to court to testify orally in person - there can be exceptions if the witness has since died or cannot be found}.

So was Sollecito's Nov. 5/6 statement read in court? I don't know. It may have simply been in the dossier (case file), and the PGP assume it was read. But if it was read by the police or anyone except Sollecito (who did not testify), the question of whether it was legal evidence must be considered. As stated in CPP Article 191.1, Evidence gathered in violation of the prohibitions set by law shall not be used.

 

[Lothian]

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed forum management content

[/QUOTE]José Mourinho is listed as the Manager of Manchester United on the Staff page of the official Man United website. I have not and I and will not provide a link to prove this.

Is my accusation clearly a falsehood because I have not provided a link to make good my claim?

Further, if I am correct because the website does not in fact contain a staff list does it mean that José Mourinho is not the Manchester United manager?

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed forum management content

 

[Numbers]

Edited by jsfisher: 

Moderated content redacted.

If one looks into the major factors of the AK - RS case, such as the lack of validity of the claimed evidence against Knox and Sollecito, the way the provisionally convicting courts admitted illegally obtained evidence (for example, of the alleged calunnia by Knox against Lumumba) and, contrary to Italian law, failed to admit relevant evidence requested by the defense, while interpreting the evidence in a grossly arbitrary and biased manner, then all the alleged arguments of the PGP become a nonsensical repetition of absurdities.

As established to the satisfaction of reasonable posters, the case has largely concluded with the final definitive acquittal of Knox and Sollecito for the murder/rape of Kercher, and the final definitive acquittal of Knox for the charge of calunnia against the police and Mignini. While the case awaits certain measures for full completion, including action by the ECHR on Knox's case against Italy for allegedly violating her rights in convicting her of calunnia against Lumumba, and the follow-up revision trial to acquit her should the ECHR rule in her favor (a "slam-dunk" in my opinion), and of course compensation from Italy to Knox and Sollecito for unfair detention and miscarriage of justice.

How these truths about the case should affect the actions of posters on this thread is, of course, up to each one of us.

 

[Lothian]

Edited by jsfisher: 

Moderated content redacted.

I would have thought that a skeptics site would look to debunk false claims. Seems that by definition requires both sides of a debate to be posting. If false claims are banned we can all go home.


Lothian 13,143 slow floods and counting.

 

[Bill Williams]

I would have thought that a skeptics site would look to debunk false claims. Seems that by definition requires both sides of a debate to be posting. If false claims are banned we can all go home.


Lothian 13,143 slow floods and counting.

There is truth to what you say. All except the last line, "Lothian 13,143 slow floods and counting". You have not cycled through false information on a regular basis; each time ignoring the last time your claim was disproved with citations.

Maybe you're more comfortable with the term "whack-a-mole." No, it's not what you do, but take a mo' and read through this thread. Have a large cup of coffee with you when you do. You'll see the way the themes/memes are cycled though.......

ETA - still, this thread remains a bone of contention with the mods. My point is that that bone is not unique, in 2010/11 it required the intervention of Jimbo Wales to correct a similar "wandering" from Wikipedia's reason for being - its brand - on this very topic. There's a reason for that. As many have said, this thread should have died years ago; if it were not for the decidedly unskeptical disinformation campaign by a few nutters. At some point a skeptic's site should acknowledge that one side has abandoned any pretense of applying that principle, which is first and foremost being skeptical of one's own opinions and running them through some sort of independent/logical checklist before embarrassing oneself.

Instead of this thread being illustrative of the principles of skepticism, recently it has become illustrative of how confirmation bias works. (Perhaps on both sides, but with this recent, "You know what I meant" principle, even you, Lothian, have to admit that there's a strain on credibility!!!)

But I do agree - the best antidote to bad speech is more and better speech. Then again, where's the limit on that!?

 

[TruthCalls]

That might well be because I didn't tell a "massive falsehood". You still seem unable to understand what i actually wrote. I invite you to go back and read it once again. I stated - totally correctly - that Sollecito was, in his police statement, accurately describing events/movements which (provably) took place on the night of Halloween, the night before the murder. I am well aware that Sollecito signed a statement saying that these were the events which happened on the night of the murder. What I'm suggesting is that Sollecito got mixed up - with the "help" of the police (who needed Sollecito to "confirm" to them that Knox had left his apartment on the night of the murder) - between the two nights. And, given that the events he recounts are provably the events which actually took place on Halloween night, this is, by any assessment, a wholly reasonable suggestion to make. Get it now?

Not only does Raffaele accurately describe events/movements that took place on the night of Halloween, but it is also proven those events/movements could not have taken place the following night because an eyewitness places Amanda at Raffaele's at a time when Raffaele said she wasn't there.

Vixen is not an idiot so I'm sure she gets it but she has also shown a complete inability to admit she is wrong about anything. Therefore, whether it's admitting she was wrong about testimony vs evidence, "," vs ".", autodownload or that Raffaele was describing events from Halloween, I seriously doubt she'll ever admit to being wrong about any of it.

 

[Vixen]

I hope the moderators would not take any action.

This last couple of days has exposed in as naked a fashion as possible the complete hypocrisy of Vixen's postings.

She feels entitled to make the most guilt-sounding claims possible, "Raffaele is braggin on Facebook he got away with murder," while providing NO citation.....

While at the same timedemanding..... no, DEMANDING that everyone cut her slack because we should have known what she REALLY meant when she said....

"Yet both Raff and Amanda are adamant they did not awake until 10:00-ish and Raff had a lie-in until midday, and testified to this effect in court."​

It's not even subtle. As TruthCalls has summarized, these are the iterations of the excuses Vixen has made for this glaring falsehood:

"It is the statement Raff gave to the police about his wheareabouts on the night of the murder.."

"It was testified by the police. It forms part of the court documents."

"When he signed his police statement, that became a witness statement. A witness statement is court testimony if used in court, which it was."

"You, LoJo and Stacy are not familiar with the passive tense? I said, 'as testified in court'."

"You knew perfectly well what I meant."​

Now she's trying to peddle that her "and" in her first gaffe, should OBVIOUSLY have been an "as".

Regardless, she's asking to be cut some slack for an obvious misstatement. Yet the stuff she writes, here and elsewhere, is based on a continual campaign of stuff which she allows no slack at all - and more importantly, no citations!

She's now claiming that Raffaele is openly bragging about getting away with murder. With the rules Vixen wants us to apply to her, what if this Raffaele-poser had simply forgotten to add the word, "not", as in, "Raffaele is not openly bragging about getting away with murder"?

IOC. It's only the nutter-guilters who should be cut slack on these things. Like Judge Nencini who in convicting the pair, said it was factual that Raffaele's DNA was found on the knife. He said this, even no one had ever claimed that, not even Mignini, nor Stefanoni, or the Chieffi court.

Vixen's response? "It's obviously a typo." Yes, that's it. Nencini had forgotten the "not" in "Raffaele's DNA was not found on the knife." Those are the rules in the nutter-guilter land that has plagued the popular view of this case since 2007.

If nothing else, the average lurker to these threads gets bored to flippin' tears reading this continual double standard which has been Vixen's hallmark since joining JREF/ISF in April 2015.

Herewith the article on Cronaca:

http://www.ilsussidiario.net/News/C...nia-su-Facebook-Oggi-19-gennaio-2017-/743385/


Apparently Raff has been posting on a misogynist hate site.


What a complete degenerate.

 

[Vixen]

There is truth to what you say. All except the last line, "Lothian 13,143 slow floods and counting". You have not cycled through false information on a regular basis; each time ignoring the last time your claim was disproved with citations.

Maybe you're more comfortable with the term "whack-a-mole." No, it's not what you do, but take a mo' and read through this thread. Have a large cup of coffee with you when you do. You'll see the way the themes/memes are cycled though.......

ETA - still, this thread remains a bone of contention with the mods. My point is that that bone is not unique, in 2010/11 it required the intervention of Jimbo Wales to correct a similar "wandering" from Wikipedia's reason for being - its brand - on this very topic. There's a reason for that. As many have said, this thread should have died years ago; if it were not for the decidedly unskeptical disinformation campaign by a few nutters. At some point a skeptic's site should acknowledge that one side has abandoned any pretense of applying that principle, which is first and foremost being skeptical of one's own opinions and running them through some sort of independent/logical checklist before embarrassing oneself.
Instead of this thread being illustrative of the principles of skepticism, recently it has become illustrative of how confirmation bias works. (Perhaps on both sides, but with this recent, "You know what I meant" principle, even you, Lothian, have to admit that there's a strain on credibility!!!)

But I do agree - the best antidote to bad speech is more and better speech. Then again, where's the limit on that!?

Don't do yourself down, Bill, there is always hope for redemption.

A decorator was painting the church walls when he decided to add some turpentine to the paint to make it spread further. Just as he was finishing it off a voice boomed from out of nowhere, making the man jump out of his skin.

He looked arouund, could see nobody, so carried on.


Again the voice thundered...











.......[scroll down].......














....[scroll down]....
















"Repaint, repaint, and thin no more!"

 

[Vixen]

First, you claim that Amanda and/or Raff testified to something in court when Raff never testified in court.

Secondly, you claim that statements taken by the police and produced in court as evidence is the same thing as testimony. It's not.

Thirdly, you changed what you actually said and then claim we don't understand the passive tense.


So now, in your fourth attempt to wiggle out of your false statement, we are supposed to know what you meant, not what you wrote!



[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/7166958815c57c03e3.jpg[/qimg]

Why, Vixen, why?

Your picture called to mind Highfield Road.

One needed advanced yoga to get into their seats.

 

[Vixen]

I would have thought that a skeptics site would look to debunk false claims. Seems that by definition requires both sides of a debate to be posting. If false claims are banned we can all go home.


Lothian 13,143 slow floods and counting.

Lothian, you are right.

 

[Bill Williams]

Herewith the article on Cronaca:

http://www.ilsussidiario.net/News/C...nia-su-Facebook-Oggi-19-gennaio-2017-/743385/


Apparently Raff has been posting on a misogynist hate site.


What a complete degenerate.

Wow. Your response in being shown to have lied in this thread is to change the subject.

Spin spin spin. Around we go, where we stop nobody knows. But the poster of proven lies to this thread thinks the antidote to that is to claim someone else is worse!

Hoots!

 

[Vixen]

Wow. Your response in being shown to have lied in this thread is to change the subject.

Spin spin spin. Around we go, where we stop nobody knows. But the poster of proven lies to this thread thinks the antidote to that is to claim someone else is worse!

Hoots!

So you have no comments about Raff's behavior: lying to the police, refusing to take the stand in court, saying he couldn't vouch for Amanda between 20:45 to 01:00 - in a weaselly attempt to shift suspicion away from himself - and now he is posting disgusting mysogynist filth on a private FB page full of perverts graphically describing their hate fantasies, and using Mez' name to make the crudest suggestions on how to hide a body or cut it up, such as 'We ********** the body'.

And you are only interested in the poster.

No surprise, given the awful antics of your hero.

 

[bagels]

So you have no comments about Raff's behavior: lying to the police, refusing to take the stand in court, saying he couldn't vouch for Amanda between 20:45 to 01:00 - in a weaselly attempt to shift suspicion away from himself - and now he is posting disgusting mysogynist filth on a private FB page full of perverts graphically describing their hate fantasies, and using Mez' name to make the crudest suggestions on how to hide a body or cut it up, such as 'We ********** the body'.

And you are only interested in the poster.

No surprise, given the awful antics of your hero.

Raff has always seemed a bit odd and aloof to me making some stupid comments over the years. But I don't think it's the PIP's job to babysit or cheerlead him.

 

[Bill Williams]

So you have no comments about Raff's behavior: lying to the police, refusing to take the stand in court, saying he couldn't vouch for Amanda between 20:45 to 01:00 - in a weaselly attempt to shift suspicion away from himself - and now he is posting disgusting mysogynist filth on a private FB page full of perverts graphically describing their hate fantasies, and using Mez' name to make the crudest suggestions on how to hide a body or cut it up, such as 'We ********** the body'.

And you are only interested in the poster.

No surprise, given the awful antics of your hero.

My comments are upthread. And as usual you are spreading unproven rumour from a gossip site.

Which is why it is far more relevant to focus on the one who deals in gossip, rumour, and (as upthread) proven lies.

It looks to me that your goal is to divert with ad hominem aimed at someone else, spiced up with phrases like "your hero".

Spin spin spin. Gossip gossip gossip. Yada yada yada.

 

[Stacyhs]

Your picture called to mind Highfield Road.

One needed advanced yoga to get into their seats.

I had to chuckle at your new excuse of it being a typo even though the sentence would make no sense.

Still can't admit you were wrong, eh? Not surprising.

 

[acbytesla]

That should obviously read 'as', not 'and'. In any case, Raff's statement to the police he went home alone, Amanda came home at one and he surfed until three WAS court evidence.

Who is the true deceiver?
We note you haven't lifted a finger to correct LoJo's massive falsehood that 'Raff was referring to Halloween, not the murder night'.

So now Raff is bragging about how he got away with it on Facebook groups. Yeah, buddy.

You are the true deceiver. Most of your posts are some combination of disingenuous half truths and total lies. Every one here KNOWS what day Raffaele was referring to. That you feel the need to keep distorting that point is just one example of your campaign of nonsense.

FYI: YOU LOST. Get over it. The world KNOWS they are innocent. The case is over. Going on 2 years since the FINAL Exoneration. All that is left is the ECHR decision on the violation of Knox's rights and Italy's capitulation.

 

[Welshman]

No, this is not the way to think (IMO). It's perfectly within the rules (and rightly so) for anyone to make any claims on here (provided that they are not potentially legally defamatory, and provided of course that they are not attacking another member ).

If someone wants to write within this thread a false statement - e.g. "Knox was proven to have held the knife which killed Kercher" - then all that happens is that this statement either stands or it is challenged/refuted by a statement from another poster. Just as in, for example, a 9/11 thread on this forum, anyone is entitled to write that (e.g.) Thermite brought down the Twin Towers.

Even if a member of this forum posts provable falsehoods and/or holds demonstrably illogical/irrational opinions, this is (correctly) within the rules. Fortunately, what tends to happen is that rational, logical, critical thinking ultimately trumps that sort of nonsense.

If Vixen only tells falsehoods in her posts, other members of the forum can point them out. The issue goes further than this. Vixen constantly accuses Amanda and Raffaele of telling numerous lies. If Vixen tells falsehoods in her posts and then accuses people of lying, there is a double standard. In addition, Vixen tells falsehoods about Amanda and Raffaele. The most recent one was saying Raffaele was boasting on Facebook he had got away with murder. To attack someone for lying and then spread lies about them shows a massive double standard. I feel Vixen has an obligation to explain these double standards.

Vixen constantly boasts about all the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele and how strong the case. Vixen should explain why she needs to resort to using falsehoods in her posts if there was a slam dunk case against Amanda and Raffaele.

A moderator asked how I can tell if Vixen is using falsehoods in her posts. Vixen makes accusations with no evidence to back them up. For instance, Vixen claims Raffaele boasted on Facebook he had got away with murder. Vixen provides no link to a Facebook page and this claim has not been mentioned anywhere else. If Raffaele had made such a claim, TJMK would without doubt have used it but this claim has not been used on TJMK. Bear in mind the authors of this website have a virulent hatred of Amanda and Raffaele and have attacked them relentlessly. If Raffaele had made such a claim there is no way TJMK would not have used it.

 

[LondonJohn]

Herewith the article on Cronaca:

http://www.ilsussidiario.net/News/C...nia-su-Facebook-Oggi-19-gennaio-2017-/743385/


Apparently Raff has been posting on a misogynist hate site.


What a complete degenerate.

Proof, please, that:

a) the site on which Sollecito has been posting is a "misogynist hate site";

b) the posts written by Sollecito have in any way espoused misogynist views (or have even been written in the reasonable understanding that they were contributing to a misogynist debate).

Thanks in advance

 

[LondonJohn]

So you have no comments about Raff's behavior: lying to the police, refusing to take the stand in court, saying he couldn't vouch for Amanda between 20:45 to 01:00 - in a weaselly attempt to shift suspicion away from himself - and now he is posting disgusting mysogynist filth on a private FB page full of perverts graphically describing their hate fantasies, and using Mez' name to make the crudest suggestions on how to hide a body or cut it up, such as 'We ********** the body'.

And you are only interested in the poster.

No surprise, given the awful antics of your hero.

Proof, please, of the actual words posted by Sollecito. Specifically, proof that they are "disgusting misogynist filth", that the FB page in question is "full of perverts graphically discussing their hate fantasies", and that Sollecito's actual words were "using Mez' Mez's Kercher's name to make the crudest suggestions on how to hide a body or cut it up" (I assume from your grammar that you're ascribing this last accusation to Sollecito rather than to others on the FB page - though of course it may be the case that your grammar is poor).

Again, thanks in advance!

 

[LondonJohn]

José Mourinho is listed as the Manager of Manchester United on the Staff page of the official Man United website. I have not and I and will not provide a link to prove this.

Is my accusation clearly a falsehood because I have not provided a link to make good my claim?

Further, if I am correct because the website does not in fact contain a staff list does it mean that José Mourinho is not the Manchester United manager

Unfortunately you've used a trite example, and have totally failed to understand the true philosophical issue here.

I urge you to read up on Bertrand Russell's "cosmic teapot" analogy - it will help you to understand the principle of the problem of unfalsifiable claims. In your trite example, it's ridiculously easy to prove with full certainty whether or not your claim that Mourinho is listed as the Man U manager on the Man U official website is true (or rather, that he WAS at the point when you made the claim, assuming he's not lost his job yet today).

However, how would you deal with my claim that "There's a new species of animal in Puerto Rico which is a simian-like creature with a body length of 4 feet, but with 15-foot-long arms; furthermore, it has evolved infra-red vision and can therefore hunt at night with ease"?

And it's the same "Russell's cosmic teapot" rule which can also be applied to certain "claims" about the Knox/Sollecito trial process and its aftermath. Just for example: the claim that Sollecito has been writing "disgusting misogynist filth" on a "private Facebook page"*, and "boasting about getting away with it (i.e. the murder of Meredith Kercher)".

Read about "Russell's cosmic teapot", and your understanding about unfalsifiable claims - and the resultant burden of proof - might improve.


* ETA: the only "information" about what may have been posted on this "private Facebook page" at the moment seems to be a combination of some selective screenshots done by a fringe Italian magazine, where context is impossible to divine, and some "commentary" by the same magazine which, on the face of it, appears to be somewhat partisan and agenda-driven in its interpretation. This is not therefore a claim which is capable of effective, reliable verification or falsification by any regular person - hence its inherent level of unfalsifiability.