• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 24

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
I have a strong suspicion that Stacyhs has posted something that Pete Quennell took down from his site (under 'comments') as soon as he became aware of it.

Thus it is shocking that Stacyhs seeks to tar all PGP with the same brush when she must be 100% aware the indelicately worded post no longer exists.

How telling that she has kept a copy of it so that she can use it in an underhand way on a public forum to inflame public sentiment.

How revealing that her chums have leapt in to cover up for her disgraceful false news.
Click to expand...

Just knock it off. You're being silly. I think you're all creeps for the trash you guys write. That said, some of you are better then others.
 
Numbers said:
Vixen, you are being so dainty to use this wording!

Can you please explain how her post is "disgraceful false news"?

Is this somehow related to your claims that specific US lawyers who accept fees to defend clients in criminal cases, in accordance with US law, are conducting "innocence fraud"? Or your statements that specific DNA experts, such as Dr. Peter Gill, who have published professional opinions on the DNA evidence in the Knox - Sollecito case are giving the opinions as a money-seeking activity? Are those comments true or false, based upon evidence you have or have seen? Please supply citations with actual evidence in support of your statements, if you claim they are true.

Otherwise, we will know that your comments are truly "disgraceful false news" that you have posted because you have no valid arguments or evidence to support your position in this debate.
Click to expand...

Check out this article located here:
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index...his_proven_miscarriage_of_justice_false_clai/

and:

Check out this article located here:
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index...ill_an_opportunistic_expert_never_at_trial_1/

Your claim that I said US lawyers were not allowed to represent their clients is a blatant lie, so please desist from repeating it.

your claims that specific US lawyers who accept fees to defend clients in criminal cases, in accordance with US law, are conducting "innocence fraud"
Click to expand...
= a blatant lie by Numbers.
 
Vixen said:
Please explain how Zellner earned her $ 'millions if she is entirely pro bono, as you claim.
Click to expand...

Now read this very slowly and you may comprehend it this time.

I never said she is "entirely" pro bono or "all" pro bono as you have twice now claimed.

Oh, for crying out loud, Vixen. Do you think she ONLY does pro bono work? Of course not.

Please point out to me where I said, or even implied, she "does it all 'pro bono'"
Click to expand...

You have failed to do so because you cannot quote me as it does not exist.

What I did say is that The Innocence Project's services are all pro bono. Zellner has her own practice where she, of course, charges a fee for her services.

Now stop misrepresenting what I've said. We can all read what I said.
 
Vixen said:
Thanks for the link. However, I can see no threat made there. Perhaps you or Stacey would like to point it out, given anybody is free to visit Seattle whensoever they wish.
Click to expand...

Grahame Rhodes said:
I am personally quite comfortable with people knowing that if I had any chance of doing Knox harm then I would gladly provide it.
Click to expand...
What is so difficult to understand about the highlighted part?

Vixen said:
Bear in mind, Amanda herself published her Mom Edda's address, so she obvious does not feel she is in any danger.
Click to expand...
Source for that, please.
 
acbytesla said:
Just knock it off. You're being silly. I think you're all creeps for the trash you guys write. That said, some of you are better then others.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of creeps on the PIP side. For example, the woman who sends the Kerchers pictures of vaseline jars and offers to supply highly sensitive and private autopsy pictures to people on twitter.

There is another chap who thinks it amusing to gloat over an incredibly nice lady who died of cancer, simply because she supported justice for Meredith Kercher, as well as publishing pictures of someone's young children in his mistaken belief over that particular person's identity.

I guess that is the type of person Amanda attracts as her supporters. The aforesaid woman can only have got these autopsy pictures from the Amanda and Raff's defence attorneys. How despicable to make them public.

How would you like it if it was someone in your family?
 
Vixen said:
Thanks for the link. However, I can see no threat made there. Perhaps you or Stacey would like to point it out, given anybody is free to visit Seattle whensoever they wish.

Bear in mind, Amanda herself published her Mom Edda's address, so she obvious does not feel she is in any danger.
Click to expand...


You can see "no threat" in this sentence?

I am personally quite comfortable with people knowing that if I had any chance of doing Knox harm then I would gladly provide it.
Click to expand...

harm:
1. physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted.
"it's fine as long as no one is inflicting harm on anyone else"


synonyms: injury, hurt, pain, trauma; More
damage, impairment, mischief

verb

1. physically injure.
"the villains didn't harm him"


I find it disturbing that you defend Rhodes' post. But not surprised.
 
Stacyhs said:
Now read this very slowly and you may comprehend it this time.

I never said she is "entirely" pro bono or "all" pro bono as you have twice now claimed.



You have failed to do so because you cannot quote me as it does not exist.

What I did say is that The Innocence Project's services are all pro bono. Zellner has her own practice where she, of course, charges a fee for her services.

Now stop misrepresenting what I've said. We can all read what I said.
Click to expand...


It does not change the fact, Zellner has made a lot of money by taking on high profile cases like Steven Avery, without any thought for the pain and suffering being caused to the Halbach family, in never having a body to properly bury.
 
Vixen said:
Check out this article located here:
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index...his_proven_miscarriage_of_justice_false_clai/

and:

Check out this article located here:
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index...ill_an_opportunistic_expert_never_at_trial_1/

Your claim that I said US lawyers were not allowed to represent their clients is a blatant lie, so please desist from repeating it.

= a blatant lie by Numbers.
Click to expand...

Vixen posted #2823:

"Please do not quote me out of context. I said some cases could be seen as innocence fraud, such as a killer pretending to be the victim."

The cases - by which you are necessarily referring to legal cases - have lawyers representing clients. If your oddly worded statement, "a killer pretending to be the victim" is taken to mean that a defendant or a convicted person claims to be not guilty, then that person in the US has (except in cases when the defendant or convict is his own lawyer) a lawyer. So you are strongly implying that lawyers in such cases are involved in "innocence fraud".

You referred to Zellner and Scheck and associated them with alleged unethical behavior and alleged improperly obtained income; for example, Scheck's fees from the Simpson case.
 
Stacyhs said:
You can see "no threat" in this sentence?



harm:
1. physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted.
"it's fine as long as no one is inflicting harm on anyone else"


synonyms: injury, hurt, pain, trauma; More
damage, impairment, mischief

verb

1. physically injure.
"the villains didn't harm him"


I find it disturbing that you defend Rhodes' post. But not surprised.
Click to expand...

I have not defended the post. However, if you think the only meaning for 'harm' is 'physical injury', then your grasp of English is poor.

I took it to mean 'harm' in the sense of 'obstruct'.
 
Vixen said:
I have a strong suspicion that Stacyhs has posted something that Pete Quennell took down from his site (under 'comments') as soon as he became aware of it.

Thus it is shocking that Stacyhs seeks to tar all PGP with the same brush when she must be 100% aware the indelicately worded post no longer exists.

How telling that she has kept a copy of it so that she can use it in an underhand way on a public forum to inflame public sentiment.

How revealing that her chums have leapt in to cover up for her disgraceful false news.
Click to expand...

Well, now, your "suspicions" were wrong, weren't they? Your accusations above are all false, too. I quoted a comment by Rhodes. How is that seeking to "tar all PGP with the same brush"? I mentioned no other PGP except Rhodes.

I have no need to "save a copy" of Rhodes' comment. It's still there for all to see. If you had bothered to do a modicum of research before posting your nonsense, you could have saved yourself this embarrassment. Of course, you'll never admit you are wrong. You and a certain president have that in common.
 
Numbers said:
Vixen posted #2823:

"Please do not quote me out of context. I said some cases could be seen as innocence fraud, such as a killer pretending to be the victim."

The cases - by which you are necessarily referring to legal cases - have lawyers representing clients. If your oddly worded statement, "a killer pretending to be the victim" is taken to mean that a defendant or a convicted person claims to be not guilty, then that person in the US has (except in cases when the defendant or convict is his own lawyer) a lawyer. So you are strongly implying that lawyers in such cases are involved in "innocence fraud".

You referred to Zellner and Scheck and associated them with alleged unethical behavior and alleged improperly obtained income; for example, Scheck's fees from the Simpson case.
Click to expand...

I see. So you think by twisting my words you can present me as saying something really stupid such as, 'it is illegal for lawyers in the US to represent their clients'.

Please desist making your ridiculous misrepresentation.

Amanda does not qualify as 'exonerated' by your own definition which you posted here from Uni Michigan (?)

I did not say Scheck 'improperly obtained income' from OJ Simpson'. Stop twisting my words.

Amanda is touring the country claiming to be 'exonerated' and 'innocent' and AFAIAC this is innocence fraud, as she has not been found innocent, is not exonerated, and, in fact, she remains a convicted criminal.

AFAIAA Neither Zellner nor Scheck is representing Amanda.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
I have not defended the post. However, if you think the only meaning for 'harm' is 'physical injury', then your grasp of English is poor.

I took it to mean 'harm' in the sense of 'obstruct'.
Click to expand...


Yeah. Sure. Right.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
It does not change the fact, Zellner has made a lot of money by taking on high profile cases like Steven Avery, without any thought for the pain and suffering being caused to the Halbach family, in never having a body to properly bury.
Click to expand...

It does not change the fact that your claim of what I said is wrong.
Just be an adult and admit you were wrong. Go on. Try it.

No one has ever said or implied that Zellner does not make a lot of money but that has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion or your false accusations of me. It's merely more smoke you blow. But we can see right through it. We're used to it.
 
Vixen said:
I see. So you think by twisting my words you can present me as saying something really stupid such as, 'it is illegal for lawyers in the US to represent their clients'.

Please desist making your ridiculous misrepresentation.Amanda does not qualify as 'exonerated' by your own definition which you posted here from Uni Michigan (?)

I did not say Scheck 'improperly obtained income' from OJ Simpson'. Stop twisting my words.Amanda is touring the country claiming to be 'exonerated' and 'innocent' and AFAIAC this is innocence fraud, as she has not been found innocent, is not exonerated, and, in fact, she remains a convicted criminal.

AFAIAA Neither Zellner nor Scheck is representing Amanda.
Click to expand...

I suggest you take your own advice.
 
Vixen said:
I agree it is not something I would condone. However, I cannot see any mention of physical harm.

Have you complained to Pete about it? What has it got to do with me?

As for the address, it is written pretty large, here:

http://www.westseattleherald.com/2017/03/21/opinion/amandas-view-back-breaking-heavy-lifting
Click to expand...

No street name is given in that picture. However, it's very easy for anyone to find out someone's address by a simple google search. It took me 5 seconds to find the full address. Or do you think the likes of Rhodes doesn't already know that?

Give it a break, will ya?
 
Vixen said:
I have not defended the post. However, if you think the only meaning for 'harm' is 'physical injury', then your grasp of English is poor.

I took it to mean 'harm' in the sense of 'obstruct'.
Click to expand...

It is good you have not defended the post.

Yet, you've tried to pivot from it, including a patented Vixen-redefinition of words, this time, "harm".

You've done that with "hypothesize". You've done that with "exonerate". You've done that when Nencini said he'd found Raffale's DNA on the knife... except you called that one a "typo", which is a redefinition of "typo" to mean that Nencini was comfortable just inventing things to put two innocents into jail.

Maybe Nencini did not mean them any harm.

But back to Rhodes. You could have just said, "I have not defended the post," and left it at that. But you did not.
 
Vixen said:
I agree it is not something I would condone. However, I cannot see any mention of physical harm.
Click to expand...
Grahame Rhodes said:
I am personally quite comfortable with people knowing that if I had any chance of doing Knox harm then I would gladly provide it.
Click to expand...
Is playing word games all you have now?

Vixen said:
Have you complained to Pete about it? What has it got to do with me?
Click to expand...
Why should I have to complain to Pete about it? That he allows to let comments like that one stand, shows clearly that TJMK is about everything but "Truth and justice for Meredith Kercher"...

What has it got to do with you?

Well, first you said, Stacyhs was making things up, when shown that she didn't make it up, you said, that the comment had been taken down, when shown, that the comment is still there, you try to play word games and ask, if I have complained?

I guess that should answer the question...

Am I responsible to let Pete know that GR is making threats again? I guess one of the ever present 100+ "Total now reading" is Pete himself...

Vixen said:
As for the address, it is written pretty large, here:

http://www.westseattleherald.com/2017/03/21/opinion/amandas-view-back-breaking-heavy-lifting
Click to expand...
That (I guess you are refering to the picture) is just a number on a mailbox. I guess there are quite a few houses in a city like Seattle with that number on the mailbox...

The funny thing about this is, that it was GR who posted the adress of Chris and Edda Mellas on TJMK lately (yes, the comment is still there and I have a link to it), only problem is that in his comment he labled the adress as the one of Amanda Knox...
 
Stacyhs said:
It take a disturbed mind to write this kind of thing:

Edited by Agatha: 
Edited content breaching rule 1

(http://www.amandaknox.com/2015/04/03/the-seattle-times-oggi-1/


Of course, anyone who frequents TJMK knows of Rhodes and the sick things he writes. Awful. Just awful.
Click to expand...

You really have to wonder about how much worse Rhodes has been on TJMK and PMF when he has brazenly written this kind of stuff in the comment sections of press articles.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom