The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stacyhs said:
Whoosh! That's the point going right past you.

The question was not about LEGAL 'truths'; it was about FACTUAL truths.
A LEGAL conviction does not change a FACTUAL innocence. My dad's LEGAL father was not his FACTUAL father. The law at one time declared slaves as 3/5ths of a person for LEGAL matters. Does that mean black people were FACTUALLY 3/5th of a person? Did they only have 1 arm and 1 leg until the law changed?
Click to expand...

It is said property is 9/10's of the law. The old slave owners resented their old slaves owning property so they got the lawmakers to pass a law saying slave could only own 100 acres or whatever it was and that their rights were 3/5's of non-ex-slaves.

As the old ex slave owners knew: the law is sovereign.

Law is quite separate from concepts such as justice or truth. A lot is about power. Hence the reason that for centuries, only the landowners were allowed to vote to elect the lawmakers.
 
Vixen said:
Oh dear. So ignorant. Yet another fanboy who hasn't read the actual court documents.
Click to expand...


Hmmmm.

1) I have read the court documents, thanks. And I understand them properly, particularly in the required context.

2) I'm not a "fanboy". Please see my earlier post on that matter (though if it makes things easier for you to continue engaging in the delusion that pro-acquittal/pro-innocence commentators are "fanboys" who consider Knox/Sollecito to be their "darlings", then carry on. As so many times before though, it'll say so much more about you than it does about those whom you seek to brand with those labels....)
 
Vixen said:
Exactly. As bent as a nine bob note. Or as wily as defence lawyer Barry Shenk when he declared 'if the glove does not fit OJ Simpson he must be innocent'.
Click to expand...

This post is a trollish post. You're now calling the judge "bent". This is the same court from which you draw what you claim are unalterable judicial fact(oid)s.

Which is it? Bent or factual? (or does that depend on what the topic is?)
 
LondonJohn said:
Please don't try to explain the scientific method to me via a wikipedia search. It's embarrassing. And it's abundantly clear from your earlier post that you don't understand it.


ETA: Oh and btw: acceleraton due to gravity is actually 10m per second per second. Or 32ft/sec/sec. So you handily demonstrated that a) you don't even know the dimension of gravity (which is an acceleration effect, whose dimension is "per second per second" or "per second squared" - rather than what you wrote, which is the dimension of velocity), and b) you didn't even stop to think whether "32km per second" (sic) could be accurate - if it were, a pen dropped from head height would hit the ground in less than 0.0001 seconds. But that didn't occur to you, did it?

"I'm a scientist" HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Click to expand...


What? I practised it. Had to produce fifteen laboratory reports and a dissertation based on a scientific experiment for my science degree with honours. My chemistry teacher said I was the one person in the class who always knew the answer.
 
I don't even know how to respond to that. Especially the pitiful second sentence....
 
LondonJohn said:
Hmmmm.

1) I have read the court documents, thanks. And I understand them properly, particularly in the required context.

2) I'm not a "fanboy". Please see my earlier post on that matter (though if it makes things easier for you to continue engaging in the delusion that pro-acquittal/pro-innocence commentators are "fanboys" who consider Knox/Sollecito to be their "darlings", then carry on. As so many times before though, it'll say so much more about you than it does about those whom you seek to brand with those labels....)
Click to expand...

I see. You can dish it out but can't take it. It is all right for you to be extremely rude and hurl ad hominim abuse but have a hissy fit if a goose says boo to you.
 
Vixen said:
I see. You can dish it out but can't take it. It is all right for you to be extremely rude and hurl ad hominim abuse but have a hissy fit if a goose says boo to you.
Click to expand...


What????

(And it's "ad hominem")
 
Vixen said:
Not for murder and extortion he didn't. He was done for tax evasion. Almost like a respectable business man or US president.

It doesn't comfort me. I am a coolly scientific analytical person. BS doesn't interest me.
Click to expand...

Self-awareness is not your strong suit, is it?

"DNA, being a protein.."
 
Vixen said:
What? I practised it. Had to produce fifteen laboratory reports and a dissertation based on a scientific experiment for my science degree with honours. My chemistry teacher said I was the one person in the class who always knew the answer.
Click to expand...
How old are you vixen? You actually remember all these compliments your teachers gave you? Sheesh. Vixen, you are not a scientist. You have no clue.

"If thrown from outside, the impact on the window/shutter (assuming it can get through the gap of the outter shutters, which Massei accept it could not have) would be weight of the object times distance travelled, which is say, 10lb x six feet (72")= 720lbs (kinetic energy) divided by the distance it comes to a halt."
 
whoanellie said:
How old are you vixen? You actually remember all these compliments your teachers gave you? Sheesh. Vixen, you are not a scientist. You have no clue.

"If thrown from outside, the impact on the window/shutter (assuming it can get through the gap of the outter shutters, which Massei accept it could not have) would be weight of the object times distance travelled, which is say, 10lb x six feet (72")= 720lbs (kinetic energy) divided by the distance it comes to a halt."
Click to expand...

Anyone can take anything out of context and take the piss out of it.

Truth is, where the boulder landed could not have been as the result of having been thrown from the car park.
 
Vixen said:
Mignini knows she did it. Why do you think she hates him so much her entire books is all about her vitriol towards him for arresting her. He knows she knows he knows she did it. Of course she hates him. Criminals hate their prosecutors, not to mention the police who arrest them. And the screws.
Click to expand...

Once again, your psychic abilities can tell us what Knox 'knows' and what she thinks.
What you don't do is quote Knox ever saying she hates Mignini. It's so much easier to just make things up, innit?
 
Vixen said:
Not for murder and extortion he didn't. He was done for tax evasion. Almost like a respectable business man or US president.

It doesn't comfort me. I am a coolly scientific analytical person. BS doesn't interest me.
Click to expand...

Good lord, Vix. YOU brought up Capone despite the fact he had nothing to do with any of what we're talking about. Besides, Capone was never charged with murder or extortion.
 
Vixen said:
Oh but it does. Your name on your birth certificate, the details on your marriage certificate, driving licence or passport are all 'judicial' (legal) facts and nobody gives a **** whether they are empirical facts or not. Our whole society is predicated on law: property, land, family, work. There is no point arguing the land belongs to you if the Land Registry shows no it does not.

By that criterion, it is a legal fact that Knox and Guede were together at the crime scene during the time 'the young Meredith Kercher was murdered' and Sollecito 'almost certainly'.
Click to expand...

Good. Lord. Hard to believe anyone could be so dense. What part of "by default" do you not understand? I did not say that no judicial facts are also empirical facts. I said that something being a judicial fact does not mean that it must be an empirical fact. SC didn't even claim your nonsense to be an empirical fact but even if they had, this wouldn't prevent it from not being an empirical fact.
 
Vixen said:
Anyone can take anything out of context and take the piss out of it.

Truth is, where the boulder landed could not have been as the result of having been thrown from the car park.
Click to expand...


Context has absolutely nothing to do with that stellar piece of "physics" "analysis", Vixen.

And truth is, where the boulder rock landed could absolutely have been as the result of having been thrown from the car park. Many, including myself, have provided reasoned (and scientifically accurate...) analysis here before to show exactly how a rock of that size and mass could have been thrown from the overhang of the car park, hit Romanelli's latched right-hand window pane (as viewed from the outside), hit Romanelli's unlatched (purely friction-closed) right-hand interior shutter, and ultimately come to rest on Romanelli's floor underneath the left-hand interior shutter.

But if your alternative "truth" is that this couldn't have happened, then I'm afraid the onus is wholly on you to prove that point.
 
Vixen said:
Exactly. As bent as a nine bob note. Or as wily as defence lawyer Barry Shenk when he declared 'if the glove does not fit OJ Simpson he must be innocent'.
Click to expand...

It's Barry Scheck. And he wasn't the one who said this. It was Johnnie Cochran who said "if it doesn't fit you must acquit". You remind me of that dumbbell Biff in Back to the Future saying "why don't you make like a tree and get out of here?"....um, it's "make like a tree and leave".

BTW, Susan Smith didn't accuse a "bushy-haired stranger" of killing her kids. That was Diane Downs. Susan Smith accused a fictional African American man of carjacking & kidnapping her 2 boys. And don't bother starting in with the stupid and false comparisons to Knox. This was Smith's story from the outset of her sons' disappearance.
 
Last edited:
AnimalFriendly said:
Good. Lord. Hard to believe anyone could be so dense. What part of "by default" do you not understand? I did not say that no judicial facts are also empirical facts. I said that something being a judicial fact does not mean that it must be an empirical fact. SC didn't even claim your nonsense to be an empirical fact but even if they had, this wouldn't prevent it from not being an empirical fact.
Click to expand...

As very few murderers admit to their heinous act then of course we have to go by the findings of the court. I'm afraid the merits court - the fact-finding court - which was extremely fair did find the pair guilty as charged and a very high bar is set for finding young adults guilty of such a serious crime. Contrary to your claims, I believe most police officers, judges and jurors were sympathetic towards Knox and Sollecito and did not act with ill will or vindictiveness. The pair had a very fair trial.

Unfortunately, as we have no other way of ascertaining the truth of what happened exactly then of course we only have the judicial fact of the matter, which I believe is very likely close to the actual truth.

Knox should consider herself extremely lucky to be set free despite the strong evidence and 'absolute certainty'of her presence at the murder instead of touring the world making unfounded and unwarranted claims against the Italians who were mostly very kind to her.
 
Vixen said:
Exactly. As bent as a nine bob note. Or as wily as defence lawyer Barry Shenk when he declared 'if the glove does not fit OJ Simpson he must be innocent'.
Click to expand...

edited: (just to get it right!) Johnny Cochran said "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit" Don't know what Scheck said.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom