• 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 29

Status
Not open for further replies.
NotEvenWrong said:
This barn tangent is hilarious. It may seem seem like some weird one-off throwaway, but it is a shining example of the guilter mind. "Hey let's completely fabricate stuff in our head that sounds interesting and fantastical, not check any facts, and then voila it becomes true and we'll defend it to our graves never admitting any error."
Click to expand...
i wouldn't say this is typical of all the PGP, but it is certainly emblematic of Vixen's posts on this site.

Vixen
Edited by Agatha: 
Edited to remove breach of rule 12
still hasn't admitted that Amanda and her family took a commercial flight home despite the overwhelming evidence. Or that cell phone base station antennas don't rotate. And I am sure there are many other examples. Those are just the two things to come to mind.

But arguing with a an unabashed liar is a waste of time. But it is funny sometimes watching them squirm when they know they have been caught.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
acbytesla said:
i wouldn't say this is typical of all the PGP, but it is certainly emblematic of Vixen's posts on this site.

Vixen
Edited by Agatha: 
Edited to remove breach of rule 12
still hasn't admitted that Amanda and her family took a commercial flight home despite the overwhelming evidence. Or that cell phone base station antennas don't rotate. And I am sure there are many other examples. Those are just the two things to come to mind.

But arguing with a an unabashed liar is a waste of time. But it is funny sometimes watching them squirm when they know they have been caught.
Click to expand...

When all rational argument fails, resort to logical fallacy #101 the ad hominem.


Telephone antennae and flights are utterly irrelevant. Fact is, objective phone call logs are incriminating evidence against Knox and Sollecito.
 
Vixen said:
When all rational argument fails, resort to logical fallacy #101 the ad hominem.


Telephone antennae and flights are utterly irrelevant. Fact is, objective phone call logs are incriminating evidence against Knox and Sollecito.
Click to expand...



No they're not. Because you (and the prosecutors, and the pliant convicting courts) don't have the technical understanding to know what those call logs actually mean and imply (and what they don't mean or imply).

Next.


Oh, and how are you coming along with your lie that you possess reliable evidence of the Knox family embarking on a "$2 million PR campaign"? Those lies won't magically truth themselves, y'know :)
 
Vixen said:
When all rational argument fails, resort to logical fallacy #101 the ad hominem.


Telephone antennae and flights are utterly irrelevant. Fact is, objective phone call logs are incriminating evidence against Knox and Sollecito.
Click to expand...

Then why don't you own up to the fact that you were wrong about these things? Nobody put a gun to your head and forced you to post images of a moving radar dish and say it was a cell phone base station antenna. It wasn't other members on the thread who repeated multiple times that Amanda and her family flew a private jet home and when confronted with Youtube video evidence still wouldn't admit they were wrong. No one else here made up a story about Scandinavia heritage being the reason barns are red in America.

It's total nonsense to describe pointing out the Gish Gallop inflicted on this thread by a specific poster as an ad hominem. There is nothing personal identifying that the fabrications and falesehoods are not innocent. We know that because when overwhelming evidence is presented this person never ever ever says my "mistake, I was wrong" but instead repeats and insists they were right or alternatively disappears only to come back and repeat their fabrications.

And fixed antennas as opposed to rotating antennas would be important in pinpointing where a caller is as radio waves are directional.

We all make mistakes and there is no shame of saying something we believed to be true and admitting to being under a misapprehension. It is only shameful when we fabricate it out of thin air or being unwilling to admit our mistakes.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
When all rational argument fails, resort to logical fallacy #101 the ad hominem.


Telephone antennae and flights are utterly irrelevant. Fact is, objective phone call logs are incriminating evidence against Knox and Sollecito.
Click to expand...

When all rational argument fails, bring out the same nonsense that has been refuted over and over and over again and throw in some new "Look over there!" misdirection. May I remind you that it was YOU who brought up the 'rotating cell station antennae' and 'private, chartered flights' nonsense?

You can try and focus attention onto nonsense such as that all you want, but the fact remains that NO evidence of Knox and NO CREDIBLE evidence of Sollecito being in the room where Kercher was viciously and violently murdered was found unlike the numerous forensic evidence of Guede. So suck it up.
 
Stacyhs said:
You can try and focus attention onto nonsense such as that all you want, but the fact remains that NO evidence of Knox and NO CREDIBLE evidence of Sollecito being in the room where Kercher was viciously and violently murdered was found unlike the numerous forensic evidence of Guede. So suck it up.
Click to expand...

What do Harry Rag, Vixen, and Peter Quennell have in reply to this?

They'll throw all sorts of misdirection at you, but at the end of the day they claim that the Italian Courts **in this single case** were corrupted by Mafia and Masonic inspired, with an American Media funded conspiracy.

They haven't even bothered to demonstrate the existence of such a conspiracy as a wide ranging problem infecting even the Italian Supreme Court. It's just this one case, of a random Seattleite hippy chick and a urologist's son from the south of Italy.

Their theory is that the conspiracy is a one-off.

So, which are we to believe?
 
Bill Williams said:
What do Harry Rag, Vixen, and Peter Quennell have in reply to this?

They'll throw all sorts of misdirection at you, but at the end of the day they claim that the Italian Courts **in this single case** were corrupted by Mafia and Masonic inspired, with an American Media funded conspiracy.

They haven't even bothered to demonstrate the existence of such a conspiracy as a wide ranging problem infecting even the Italian Supreme Court. It's just this one case, of a random Seattleite hippy chick and a urologist's son from the south of Italy.

Their theory is that the conspiracy is a one-off.

So, which are we to believe?
Click to expand...

Harry, Vixen and fast Pete would also claim there is a "mountain of evidence" irrespective of Meredith's bedroom and therefore the lack of evidence in the room doesn't matter. It's called selective blindness while looking through a tunnel.
 
TruthCalls said:
Harry, Vixen and fast Pete would also claim there is a "mountain of evidence" irrespective of Meredith's bedroom and therefore the lack of evidence in the room doesn't matter. It's called selective blindness while looking through a tunnel.
Click to expand...

Harry Rag gets around this, so he thinks, by saying, "but the whole cottage is the crime scene."

Yet that is ignoring the issue. What Rag ignores is the obvious question: why is AK's forensic presence in the rest of the cottage suspicious? She lived there! And.......

There still is no forensic presence of her in the crime room! (Borrowing the rationale of the M/B report) **even if** that mountain of evidence is true, the decisive element is the lack of her presence in the crime room!

There it sits.
 
Bill Williams said:
Harry Rag gets around this, so he thinks, by saying, "but the whole cottage is the crime scene." Yet that is ignoring the issue. What Rag ignores is the obvious question: why is AK's forensic presence in the rest of the cottage suspicious? She lived there! And.......

There still is no forensic presence of her in the crime room! (Borrowing the rationale of the M/B report) **even if** that mountain of evidence is true, the decisive element is the lack of her presence in the crime room!

There it sits.
Click to expand...

And in the rest of the cottage we find a couple drops of Amanda's blood on her faucet. Sounds like it could be incriminating until one learns that no wounds were found on Amanda's body. No cuts, no wounds, no scratches. What supports its complete lack of connection to the murder is the fact that Amanda pointed it out to the police herself so she was aware of its existence.

What we do find is an infected ear piercing which could easily have dropped a small amount of blood on the faucet while Amanda was leaning over the sink. Instead, we have claims of Amanda "bleeding profusely". Just where all that blood went, only the guilters can imagine. I guess Amanda cleaned it all up but deliberately left her blood on the faucet. Go figure.

We still see the guilters claiming Kercher's blood was mixed with Amanda's DNA (and even her blood) in Filomena's room despite the negative TMB tests showing it wasn't blood, just the normal and expected mixed DNA from people who live there.

I fail to see how anything in the rest of the cottage implicates Knox or Sollecito. Guede? Definitely.
 
Stacyhs said:
And in the rest of the cottage we find a couple drops of Amanda's blood on her faucet. Sounds like it could be incriminating until one learns that no wounds were found on Amanda's body. No cuts, no wounds, no scratches. What supports its complete lack of connection to the murder is the fact that Amanda pointed it out to the police herself so she was aware of its existence.

What we do find is an infected ear piercing which could easily have dropped a small amount of blood on the faucet while Amanda was leaning over the sink. Instead, we have claims of Amanda "bleeding profusely". Just where all that blood went, only the guilters can imagine. I guess Amanda cleaned it all up but deliberately left her blood on the faucet. Go figure.

We still see the guilters claiming Kercher's blood was mixed with Amanda's DNA (and even her blood) in Filomena's room despite the negative TMB tests showing it wasn't blood, just the normal and expected mixed DNA from people who live there.

I fail to see how anything in the rest of the cottage implicates Knox or Sollecito. Guede? Definitely.
Click to expand...

You ain't no biologist.
 
LondonJohn said:
Is that really your best attempt at addressing that argument....? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

However, that actually **is** the best rebuttal Vixen can muster while being truthful. Meaning, that Vixen has de facto conceded that Stacyhs is correct, because at the end of the day all Vixen has in reply is a non sequitur.

Similarly, Stacyhs has made many claims that the BA flight Knox took back to the U.S. from London in 2011 was a regularly scheduled one. Vixen's rebuttal on that point would similarly be.....

"How would you know, you're no air-traffic controller!"

But let's also consider this, Vixen cannot name one forensic-DNA expert in the world (namely, a real biologist) who agrees with Stefanoni's original forensic conclusions, save for one who also conceded that she'd not followed international protocols, and another who admitted to never having seen the negative controls.

So..... that's what's called an "own goal" by bringing up the non sequitur that Vixen just chucked into the thread for no other reason.
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
And in the rest of the cottage we find a couple drops of Amanda's blood on her faucet. Sounds like it could be incriminating until one learns that no wounds were found on Amanda's body. No cuts, no wounds, no scratches. What supports its complete lack of connection to the murder is the fact that Amanda pointed it out to the police herself so she was aware of its existence.

What we do find is an infected ear piercing which could easily have dropped a small amount of blood on the faucet while Amanda was leaning over the sink. Instead, we have claims of Amanda "bleeding profusely". Just where all that blood went, only the guilters can imagine. I guess Amanda cleaned it all up but deliberately left her blood on the faucet. Go figure.

We still see the guilters claiming Kercher's blood was mixed with Amanda's DNA (and even her blood) in Filomena's room despite the negative TMB tests showing it wasn't blood, just the normal and expected mixed DNA from people who live there.

I fail to see how anything in the rest of the cottage implicates Knox or Sollecito. Guede? Definitely.
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
You ain't no biologist.
Click to expand...

I know this is an extremely long shot, but would you care to actually address a specific point with why it's incorrect?

1) Was any of Amanda's blood (or Sollecito's) found anywhere in the cottage aside from a couple small drops on her faucet spout?

2) Where any wounds found on Amanda's (or Sollecito's) body aside from recent ear piercings?

3) If Amanda was "bleeding profusely", was any evidence of this found?

4) Did the TMB tests on the samples in Filomena's room and on the luminol revealed prints elsewhere in the house result in positive for human blood or not?

5) Did, or did not, Stefanoni testify that TMB negative tests mean blood could still be present?

6) Did Amanda clean up, or attempt to hide, her own blood on the faucet and in the bathroom from the police?

7) Is there any forensic evidence of Amanda anywhere in the house that ties her explicitly to the murder?

I am no biologist but I don't need to be when biologists themselves point out that the only answer to every question above is "no".
 
Vixen said:
You ain't no biologist.
Click to expand...

What a great comeback. Well, Fixen, I AM in fact a (molecular) biologist, and I can verify everything Stacyh is saying is correct.

And even if you don't want to agree with me because I clearly don't subscribe to your "Bigfoot possessed Amanda Knox when she smoked weed and she turned into a sex crazed murder-bot", then you can actually read the opinions of EVERY OTHER PROFESSIONAL BIOLOGIST THAT HAS EXAMINED THE EVIDENCE AND THEY ALL AGREE AS WELL. And one of them is the founding father of forensic genetics.

[fx] Vixen's brain shuts off [/fx] "But what about the heroin addict witnesssss huh?!??"
 
Last edited:
NotEvenWrong said:
What a great comeback. Well, Fixen, I AM in fact a (molecular) biologist, and I can verify everything Stacyh is saying is correct.

And even if you don't want to agree with me because I clearly don't subscribe to your "Bigfoot possessed Amanda Knox when she smoked weed and she turned into a sex crazed murder-bot", then you can actually read the opinions of EVERY OTHER PROFESSIONAL BIOLOGIST THAT HAS EXAMINED THE EVIDENCE AND THEY ALL AGREE AS WELL. And one of them is the founding father of forensic genetics.

[fx] Vixen's brain shuts off [/fx] "But what about the heroin addict witnesssss huh?!??"
Click to expand...

But what about her body language? And her eyes? And the knickers she bought? And the April Fool's prank? And the going away party?
Reminds me of the Trumpers' "But Hillary's EMAILS" and "Benghazi!" nonsense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom