The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

Status
Not open for further replies.
acbytesla said:
I see Vixen is back. Are you prepared Vixen to admit you were wrong about Knox and her family

flying on a private jet home?

Or that cell phone base station antennas don't rotate?
Click to expand...

Vixen,
Here as some more in a separate post. Vixen, we are wondering, given that you call other people pathological liars, if you will ever address these issues and admit you are wrong? It would help your credibility tremendously, I believe, and perhaps people will start to believe you when you say Amanda Knox is a pathological liar, narcissist, and murdered her roommate for no reason by teaming up with a guy she knew for less than a week and a random burglar she saw on the street in a pagan murder orgy ritual on the night (after) Halloween.

Wait, did I actually type that out? Has Vixen really been at this for 12 years? ****.
 
Vixen said:
Oh please. Stefanoni worked extensively in helping identify Tsunami victims of the 2004 disaster. People who volunteer their services in third world disaster areas do not tend to be narrow minded bigots.
Click to expand...


Outstanding logic, as per usual :D :thumbsup:
 
Vixen said:
It was almost certainly Knox who carried a knife dripping with Meredith's blood into the bathroom to rinse it. She was indeed considered at trial to be the killer.
Click to expand...



Evidence, please, for this "almost certainly" claim, Vixen.

(It should go without saying what kind of evidence I'm asking for. Not, in other words, unreliable and/or non-credible evidence....)
 
Vixen said:
Don't be so silly. The DNA fragments might just have easily come from whoever packaged the bra in the factory. It might have been new and straight out of the packet. Or someone handling it in the shop before Mez bought it.
Click to expand...



I don't know whether to shake my head or laugh. Or both.

Before posting inanities like this one, perhaps you ought to think about matters such as: 1) what happens to DNA when it's put through a washing machine on even a warm cycle with washing detergent; 2) that it was, in fact, wholly incumbent upon the prosecution in such a scenario to demonstrate precisely how & why it could interpret the presence of Sollecito's DNA as evidence that he'd physically touched that bra hook, while at the same time discounting the 2+ other male profiles on that hook as "contamination" (i.e. why Sollecito's couldn't have been contamination yet those other ones were).

It really is like shooting fish in a barrel, Vixen. Your "arguments" are specious and rooted in ignorance. But there's nothing new under the Sun....
 
Stacyhs said:
I also looked up the author of the Blastingnews* article. Krissy Allen seems a bit obsessed with Knox as that's about all she's written about in her very limited career there. When I clicked on her name, it took me to her writing history where I found 4-5 articles on Knox and one on Cheddar Man. I only mention the Cheddar Man article as you, Vixen, started a thread about Cheddar Man on ISF before. I thought you might enjoy reading Krissy's article:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=327033


Krissy Allen's writing style seems very, very familiar and her articles are all very critical of Knox. They are less than subtle with their snark. Funny thing is, a few minutes later, I clicked on her name again and the link to her writing history had just disappeared. Only a blank page appeared. It's a mystery.

* Wikipedia

Blasting News is an open site where anyone can post their 'news'. It's basically for wannabe writers and/or those with an agenda. It's certainly not a credible news site.
Click to expand...

You mean that Vixen is citing Krissy Allen as a legitimate source?

Where's a facepalm emoji when I need it?
 
Bill Williams said:
You mean that Vixen is citing Krissy Allen as a legitimate source?

Where's a facepalm emoji when I need it?
Click to expand...



Yeah - looks like Vixen needs something of an education in the art of research and trusted sources....... ;)


(I mean, the only thing that might be even worse than quoting some no-mark unverifiable writer - from an "article" on a dank corner of the interwebs for people who can't get anything published under a reputable banner - as a reliable source...... would be to quote oneself as a reliable source....)
 
LondonJohn said:
Yeah - looks like Vixen needs something of an education in the art of research and trusted sources....... ;)


(I mean, the only thing that might be even worse than quoting some no-mark unverifiable writer - from an "article" on a dank corner of the interwebs for people who can't get anything published under a reputable banner - as a reliable source...... would be to quote oneself as a reliable source....)
Click to expand...

There's always Nick van der Leek!:jaw-dropp
 
LondonJohn said:
Yeah - looks like Vixen needs something of an education in the art of research and trusted sources....... ;)


(I mean, the only thing that might be even worse than quoting some no-mark unverifiable writer - from an "article" on a dank corner of the interwebs for people who can't get anything published under a reputable banner - as a reliable source...... would be to quote oneself as a reliable source....)
Click to expand...

Well, she does quite often cite the fake wiki and, on occasion, Quennell's cesspool... do they count?
 
LondonJohn said:
I don't know whether to shake my head or laugh. Or both.

Before posting inanities like this one, perhaps you ought to think about matters such as: 1) what happens to DNA when it's put through a washing machine on even a warm cycle with washing detergent; 2) that it was, in fact, wholly incumbent upon the prosecution in such a scenario to demonstrate precisely how & why it could interpret the presence of Sollecito's DNA as evidence that he'd physically touched that bra hook, while at the same time discounting the 2+ other male profiles on that hook as "contamination" (i.e. why Sollecito's couldn't have been contamination yet those other ones were).

It really is like shooting fish in a barrel, Vixen. Your "arguments" are specious and rooted in ignorance. But there's nothing new under the Sun....
Click to expand...

I would imagine if you're trying to defend an incredibly weak and baseless position, as is habit for Vixen, making inane comments and observations must become part of the process.
 
NotEvenWrong said:
Vixen, is this true?

Why would you lie about this? Are you sure that, when you call Amanda Knox a pathological liar, you aren't projecting?

I once worked with someone who was a pathological liar, and a diagnosed narcissist and sociopath. He would always accuse others of being pathological liars, literally immediately after obviously lying about something. It was kind of scary, to be honest.

What do you think of Amanda Knox being acquitting by the Italian Supreme Court and the European Court of Human rights finding in her favor (and, it seems, forcing them to remedy the fraudulent calunnia conviction)? Does this upset you? You've spent about 12 years calling Amanda Knox a slut and pathological liar, yet now all of those in authority have unequivocally concluded she is innocent, according to all facts and empirical evidence. What has been your emotional reaction to this? Do you think you may eventually find someone else to target and call a slut and pathological liar, or is this going to be a lifelong thing with you?
Click to expand...

1. She has not been found innocent. The final Supreme Court spells out she was present during the murder and covered up for Guede.

2. She was promiscuous as per her own bragging about the fact.

3. Sorry, are you personalising your post? Who exactly are you referring to?
 
Welshman said:
Vixen lies on an industrial scale in her posts as can be seen from the links below and has the hypocrisy to attack Amanda for lying. Vixen doesn’t see this as immoral.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11938562#post11938562
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11942852#post11942852
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11598412#post11598412
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11427461#post11427461
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11951893#post11951893
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11982023#post11982023
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12107306#post12107306
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12200863#post12200863
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12297573#post12297573
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12297575#post12297575

* Vixen viciously attacks Amanda for lying when lies have been told about Amanda on numerous occasions as can be seen from the list at the bottom. Vixen doesn’t see this as immoral. This is like calling a victim of theft a thief.


* Vixen viciously attacks Amanda for lying whilst feeling it is perfectly acceptable to lie if it works against Amanda and only objects to lying if it works in Amanda’s favour but doesn't have the courage to admit this. For instance, when witnesses such as Quintavelle and Curalto lied they had seen Amanda and Raffaele, Vixen feels their lies were acceptable as they worked against Amanda. Vixen doesn’t see this as immoral.

* As can be seen from the link below, Vixen falsely accuses Amanda of lying. Vixen doesn’t see this as immoral.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12724199#post12724199

* Vixen viciously attacks Amanda for lying when as can be seen from the list of lies told by Vixen, there are numerous instances where Vixen has told lies about Amanda. Vixen doesn’t see this as immoral.

* Vixen doesn't it as immoral to project her lies on to Amanda.

* The facts that Vixen has to resort to lying to support the argument Amanda has told numerous lies and Amanda would not need to lie because the facts overwhelmingly support the case for innocence and go against the case for guilt, indicates Amanda has not lied. Vixen doesn’t see it as immoral to lie on an industrial scale and attack Amanda for lying when she has not lied.

Instances when lies have been used against Amanda

• The media spread false lies about Amanda :- http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-media-lies/ • Books, films and documentaries filled with falsehoods have told lies about Amanda John Kercher's book Meredith. The falsehoods are detailed on http://groundreport.com/amanda-knox-...l-convictions/ http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-media-lies/ http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.or...1e0c2cd6559958 The lifetime move the falsehoods are detailed in chapter 2 of finding justice in Perugia. Barbara Nadeu's book Angel Face. As with John Kercher's book the falsehoods are detailed on http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-media-lies/ and the chapter Injustice in Perugia on the media. A documentary on British Television is Amanda Knox guilty the rebuttal can be found by searching "is Amanda Knox guilty youtube rebuttal"

• There are several instances of witnesses who gave false testimony against Amanda and Raffaele. Hekuran Kokomani claimed he saw Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy together on the night of the murder. Kokomani was proved to have lied because he said Amanda had gaps in her teeth and an Italian uncle. Fabio Gioffredi said he saw Amanda, Raffaele, Meredith and Rudy on the October 30th 2007 between 4.30 and 5.30 pm. Raffaele's computer shows itense activity from 5.30 pm to 6.30 pm which proved Fabio had lied. The haters have never criticsed these witnesses for lying. The shop owner Quintavelle initially said he did not see Amanda in his shop the morning after the murder and then changed his story a year later to say he had seen Amanda in his shop. The fact the shop owner changed his story proved he has lied at least once. The haters have defended the shop owner. Curalto initially said he did not see Amanda and Raffaele but changed his story later to say he had seen Amanda and Raffaele. Like Quintavelle, Curalto lied at least once. As the link below shows the English friends of Meredith were caught giving false testimony against Amanda in court http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/the-british-girls/

• Amanda’s acquittal under Hellman was annulled on the basis of a motivation report full of lies. In addition Amanda was convicted by Nencini on the basis of a motivation report full of lies. The falsehoods can be found by searching "Injustice anywhere forum Nenci stupid errors" and "Injustice Anywhere forum Chieffi report errors". • As per the links below, the prosecution used lies against Amanda on numerous occasions. In addition to the lies listed below, Amanda was lied to she had HIV by the prosecution. Prosecutor Comodi lied to Amanda in court by asking Amanda why she called her mother at twelve when phone records show Amanda called her mother at 12.47. http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/ http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contamination-labwork-coverup/ http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredith-kercher-perjury-corruption/ http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/evidence-destroyed/ http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/blood-evidence-downstairs-apartment/ https://knoxsollecito.wordpress.com...old-about-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito/ http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html
Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah, everybody's a lair except the killer.
 
Stacyhs said:
Are you seriously claiming this proves that Aviello was bribed by Bongiorno? It does no such thing. That article is a year and a half old. Has Bongiorno or Francesco Sollecito (whom Aviello also accused of bribing him) been charged with any crime? No. Why is that?

I also found this in the Italian news:



https://www.umbria24.it/cronaca/mio-fratello-ha-ucciso-meredith-kercher-assolto-il-pentito-bugiardo

Looks more to me like Aviello was acquitted because, once again, the police screwed up.

I also looked up the author of the Blastingnews* article. Krissy Allen seems a bit obsessed with Knox as that's about all she's written about in her very limited career there. When I clicked on her name, it took me to her writing history where I found 4-5 articles on Knox and one on Cheddar Man. I only mention the Cheddar Man article as you, Vixen, started a thread about Cheddar Man on ISF before. I thought you might enjoy reading Krissy's article:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=327033


Krissy Allen's writing style seems very, very familiar and her articles are all very critical of Knox. They are less than subtle with their snark. Funny thing is, a few minutes later, I clicked on her name again and the link to her writing history had just disappeared. Only a blank page appeared. It's a mystery.

* Wikipedia

Blasting News is an open site where anyone can post their 'news'. It's basically for wannabe writers and/or those with an agenda. It's certainly not a credible news site.
Click to expand...

Wow, paranoid much?

Thanks for the compliments.
 
Stacyhs said:
We don't. But are you in the habit of wearing your intimates straight out of the package without washing them first? EW. Double EWWWWWW.
Click to expand...

As I do not buy my things from a jumble sale but from reputable stores such as John Lewis or Marks & Sparks, there is no problem wearing new clothes straight away without having to wash them. Not to mention the ecological waste of an unnecessary machine cycle.
 
LondonJohn said:
Yeah - looks like Vixen needs something of an education in the art of research and trusted sources....... ;)


(I mean, the only thing that might be even worse than quoting some no-mark unverifiable writer - from an "article" on a dank corner of the interwebs for people who can't get anything published under a reputable banner - as a reliable source...... would be to quote oneself as a reliable source....)
Click to expand...

Not like a certain Welsh person, I suppose.
 
Vixen said:
Wow, paranoid much?

Thanks for the compliments.
Click to expand...

It is apparent that you'll avoid like the plague answering a straight forward question.....

Did you just cite yourself as a third party reputable source? If you did, that takes the cake.

I've been on-lining since 1988. I've never seen someone cite themselves before.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom