• 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 31

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
In the context of Knox, Guede and Sollecito, which this thread is about, AFAIAA no EU country has racism enshrined in its constitution and laws, nor slavery for prisoners, unlike the U.S.A.

That is not to say Italy has a clean conscience. However, being only established in 1882, it hasn't colonised as extensively as the UK, France, Spain and Portugal. It committed atrocities in Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia and Libya before and during its Mussolini era and it has a new far right government in power.

Of course systemic racism is embedded in the UK, having been a major coloniser of one third of the world, with the ruling classes having acquired their wealth in generations past from the plunder of vast resourses - gold, ivory, tea, sugar, human labour, tea, coffee, jewels, etc, from India, the Americas and Africa. The class system is rigid, with little social mobility. In that respect it is systemic in the UK.

My answer could not have been plainer and starker.
Click to expand...

What is the source and significance of the date 1882 with respect to Italy as a nation?

The Kingdom of Italy was established on 17 March 1861. Rome was captured from the Papal States in 1871 and incorporated as the capital. See, for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unification_of_Italy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Rome

There's a Wikipedia article on the topic of Italian racism, which does exist. See, for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Italy

However, there is no concrete evidence that racism influenced any of the court judgments in the Knox - Sollecito case. However, IIUC, one of Mignini's arguments for the conviction of Knox and Sollecito was that since their alleged colleague in the murder/rape of Kercher, Guede, had already been convicted and happened to be Black, Knox and Sollecito should also be convicted, even, apparently, if the alleged evidence against them was unreliable.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
It is interesting that you claim ignorance of recent history. Italy is EU-directive regulated. Hate crime and discrimination, whilst it happens, is unlawful and even a criminal offence. In the U.S.A. people are allowed to express race hate under the first amendment. Segregation (similar to apartheid in South Africa) was enshrined in law until as recently as 1964 (Civil Rights Act). U.S.A., unlike Italy, has a Black colony* of former slaves and slavery was legal long after the slave trade was abolished.

Recent revelations show that America's favourite Black guy, Louis Armstrong recorded his resentment at Americans coming up to him saying how much they loved his music, yet at the same time refusing to serve him a drink or expecting him to sneak in through a back door, or 'use the Black hotel down the road'.

GUARDIAN

("The cheeky so-and-so: smiling at us, singing in his gravelly voice, 'What a Wonderful World' with a twinkle in his eye, and all the time the freaking bastard was calling us racist!!!")**

In the U.S.A. slavery is still enshrined in law under the 13th Amendment.

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

How this affects the U.S.A Black population, can be seen in the award-winning Netflix documentary 13th in respect of levels of imprisonment.

In the case of Meredith Kercher's murder, there was a huge U.S.A-based campaign to pin the entire crime onto the African guy, Rudy Guede, with a certain author claiming that he was a drifter from a poverty stricken country where people lived in shacks with tin roofs (omitting to mention the result of French colonisation) in the hope of stirring up race prejudice against the Black guy. There were even books claiming Guede was the 'sole killer', despite all three having been convicted at the time, through a fair and lengthy trial process.

There was even the hypocrisy of claiming to despise Donald Trump, yet nonetheless, happy to 'Boycott Italy' and accept Trump's donation towards only Knox' defence.

So when it came to pass and the political campaign succeeded in getting the pair's sentences annulled, with their having earned thousands of dollars from book sales and tv shows, the Black guy, Guede, now free after serving thirteen years plus two on remand, as per standard parole conditions for prisoners serving life (which Guede had discounted for accepting a 'fast trial') decides to bring out a book and the same Americans baying for the Black guy to take the rap for the murder committed by 'more than one person' ( a finding of fact), the cry is, 'He had better not play the race card!!!' ***

*'Black colony is the term used by the Black Panthers, borne out of being fed up with police killing unarmed Black guys and being permanently in prison as a result of generational poverty, violence and deprivation (for example, Ronald Reagan's three-strikes for crimes such as possession of drugs becoming Life [literally, unlike Italy, where 'life' means hope of parole).

**"A vile accusation", apparently.


***We are not allowed to challenge this claim.
Click to expand...

http://amandaknoxcase.com/rudy-guede/

Guede being black has been a very useful tool for his supporters as it enables them to play the race card as can be seen from the above post. As per the above link, there was overwhelming evidence against Guede which showed he acted alone. When people suggest that Guede acted alone and Amanda and Raffaele had no involvement in Meredith's murder, Guede's supporters can claim people only take this view due to racism and only believe Amanda and Raffaele are innocent because they are white rather than the evidence against Guede. Any attacks against Guede are due to racism.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
It is interesting that you claim ignorance of recent history. Italy is EU-directive regulated. Hate crime and discrimination, whilst it happens, is unlawful and even a criminal offence. In the U.S.A. people are allowed to express race hate under the first amendment. Segregation (similar to apartheid in South Africa) was enshrined in law until as recently as 1964 (Civil Rights Act). U.S.A., unlike Italy, has a Black colony* of former slaves and slavery was legal long after the slave trade was abolished.

Recent revelations show that America's favourite Black guy, Louis Armstrong recorded his resentment at Americans coming up to him saying how much they loved his music, yet at the same time refusing to serve him a drink or expecting him to sneak in through a back door, or 'use the Black hotel down the road'.

GUARDIAN

("The cheeky so-and-so: smiling at us, singing in his gravelly voice, 'What a Wonderful World' with a twinkle in his eye, and all the time the freaking bastard was calling us racist!!!")**

In the U.S.A. slavery is still enshrined in law under the 13th Amendment.

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

How this affects the U.S.A Black population, can be seen in the award-winning Netflix documentary 13th in respect of levels of imprisonment.

In the case of Meredith Kercher's murder, there was a huge U.S.A-based campaign to pin the entire crime onto the African guy, Rudy Guede, with a certain author claiming that he was a drifter from a poverty stricken country where people lived in shacks with tin roofs (omitting to mention the result of French colonisation) in the hope of stirring up race prejudice against the Black guy. There were even books claiming Guede was the 'sole killer', despite all three having been convicted at the time, through a fair and lengthy trial process.

There was even the hypocrisy of claiming to despise Donald Trump, yet nonetheless, happy to 'Boycott Italy' and accept Trump's donation towards only Knox' defence.

So when it came to pass and the political campaign succeeded in getting the pair's sentences annulled, with their having earned thousands of dollars from book sales and tv shows, the Black guy, Guede, now free after serving thirteen years plus two on remand, as per standard parole conditions for prisoners serving life (which Guede had discounted for accepting a 'fast trial') decides to bring out a book and the same Americans baying for the Black guy to take the rap for the murder committed by 'more than one person' ( a finding of fact), the cry is, 'He had better not play the race card!!!' ***

*'Black colony is the term used by the Black Panthers, borne out of being fed up with police killing unarmed Black guys and being permanently in prison as a result of generational poverty, violence and deprivation (for example, Ronald Reagan's three-strikes for crimes such as possession of drugs becoming Life [literally, unlike Italy, where 'life' means hope of parole).

**"A vile accusation", apparently.


***We are not allowed to challenge this claim.
Click to expand...

Vixen's post above is rather odd, considering that Guede, as well as Knox and Sollecito, were tried in Italy under Italian laws and against the background of Italian culture, and not in the US or any other country.

Racism certainly exists in the US, as it does in Italy. But no reasonable unprejudiced person would suggest that everyone, or every "white" person, in the US or in Italy was a racist.

The implication of Vixen's post, however, appears to be that anyone who found - based on the scientific and legal reasoning of experts - that the alleged evidence against Knox and Sollecito was absolutely deficient, and that therefore Knox and Sollecito must be considered not guilty under law, must be a racist, perhaps unless that person also considered Guide not guilty, despite the lack of any known deficiency in the alleged evidence against Guede, which differs in reliability, quantity, and quality from the alleged evidence against Knox and Sollecito.

Furthermore, there's no indication in the Marasca CSC panel motivation report or in the ECHR final judgment Knox v. Italy or any racism favoring Knox and Sollecito or Knox, respectively, against anyone else.

Thus, any argument that somehow US racism is behind the definitive final acquittal of Knox and Sollecito or the ECHR finding that Italy had violated Knox's rights under international law by convicting her of calunnia (malicious accusation) against Lumumba just does not make any sense.
 
Numbers said:
Vixen's post above is rather odd, considering that Guede, as well as Knox and Sollecito, were tried in Italy under Italian laws and against the background of Italian culture, and not in the US or any other country.

Racism certainly exists in the US, as it does in Italy. But no reasonable unprejudiced person would suggest that everyone, or every "white" person, in the US or in Italy was a racist.

The implication of Vixen's post, however, appears to be that anyone who found - based on the scientific and legal reasoning of experts - that the alleged evidence against Knox and Sollecito was absolutely deficient, and that therefore Knox and Sollecito must be considered not guilty under law, must be a racist, perhaps unless that person also considered Guide not guilty, despite the lack of any known deficiency in the alleged evidence against Guede, which differs in reliability, quantity, and quality from the alleged evidence against Knox and Sollecito.

Furthermore, there's no indication in the Marasca CSC panel motivation report or in the ECHR final judgment Knox v. Italy or any racism favoring Knox and Sollecito or Knox, respectively, against anyone else.

Thus, any argument that somehow US racism is behind the definitive final acquittal of Knox and Sollecito or the ECHR finding that Italy had violated Knox's rights under international law by convicting her of calunnia (malicious accusation) against Lumumba just does not make any sense.
Click to expand...


Since when did sense play any part in a point-of-view about this case that is based entirely on ignorance, illogic, scientific & judicial illiteracy, and an irrational vindictive witch-hunt against Knox and Sollecito?
 
Numbers said:
At the risk of injecting some reality into this discussion, I will point out that "arrest" has more than one definition.

Among the several definitions is "to stop". For example, one may speak of arresting the motion of an object.

Another definition is the legal one, which means generally "to stop and detain a person under the authority of law (for example, with authorization of a warrant, or based upon police observation of someone apparently committing a crime)".

See, for example:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arrest

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/arrest

It may not be clear which meaning of "arrest" was used in the media headlines.

It is clear that Sollecito was momentarily stopped and his passport taken by police, but from the reports in the media, he was not detained beyond that momentary interaction.
Click to expand...

I think you're bending over backward way too far here. When someone is arrested, they are not just momentarily detained or stopped: they are taken into custody and informed they are under arrest. As we hear a cop say so often on real life cop shows, "You're not under arrest, just being detained."

There is zero ambiguity of what the media meant by 'arrested'.
 
Vixen said:
In the context of Knox, Guede and Sollecito, which this thread is about, AFAIAA no EU country has racism enshrined in its constitution and laws, nor slavery for prisoners, unlike the U.S.A.
Click to expand...

You might want to move out of the past and into the present. Constitutional Amendments and current laws prohibit legal racism. The 13th Amendment is not racist because it includes all prisoners regardless of race, gender, or anything else.
 
Stacyhs said:
I think you're bending over backward way too far here. When someone is arrested, they are not just momentarily detained or stopped: they are taken into custody and informed they are under arrest. As we hear a cop say so often on real life cop shows, "You're not under arrest, just being detained."

There is zero ambiguity of what the media meant by 'arrested'.
Click to expand...

It's easy for us, and the media, to confuse several different elements of language and law. "Arrest" does have the plain English meaning of "stop" as well as the legal meaning of "stop (a person) to place in custody of authorities". I don't doubt that some media may have used "arrest" in their headlines to sensationalize the Italian police calling on Sollecito to seize his passport. After all, the purpose of a headline is to grab the attention of the reader in order to get the reader to read the article. I am not claiming that the media use of the term "arrest" was consistent with the Italian police action called an "arrest".

The police seizing (and retaining) one's property or possession, such as a passport, is not a minor action.

The laws under consideration must be those of Italy and the Council of Europe's Convention and ECHR case law.

Information on Italian law for arrest to place into custody may be found at, for example:

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/a...it-take-place-and-how-to-file-an-appeal-45599

https://canestrinilex.com/en/readings/arrest/

https://arnonesicomo.com/news/121/arrested-in-italy

ECHR case law on deprivation of liberty, including arrests and detentions, is summarized in:

https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_5_ENG.pdf

The ECHR case law may consider a police stop a deprivation of liberty if there is a measure of coercion - even legal coercion - in that stop. If the stop is lawful and not arbitrary, among other considerations, it would not be a violation of Convention Article 5. The ECHR doesn't get hung up on terminology such as what is an "arrest", but does consider elements such as whether or not a person is under the control of police, for example, by being in a police car or brought to a police station.

Following the appeal by the prosecution and re-opening of the charges for the Nencini court trial, Knox and Sollecito continued their Italian legal status as "accused persons". However, apparently, there was no move by the Italian prosecutors to arrest them for the purpose of placing them in preventive detention. Of course, for Knox, the Italian authorities would have needed to forward an extradition request to the US at that time. It's informative that there were no such efforts - it indicates possibly that the Italian authorities recognized that Knox and Sollecito offered no flight risk or danger to others.

Following the provisional conviction by the Nencini court, it is similarly interesting that (at the suggestion of the prosecutors?) Nencini ordered only the seizure of Sollecito's passport, limiting him to stay in Italy until the subsequent judgment by the CSC. In other words, Nencini did not regard Sollecito (or Knox, with no extradition request) as dangerous.* This reinforces my view that the Nencini provisional conviction was likely intended to help run out the clock on the crimes apparently committed by the police and Mignini during the interrogation rather than a serious attempt to finally convict Knox and Sollecito. Of course, since we're talking about the Italian judicial system, anything is possible; maybe Nencini always had the desire to write a 400+ page motivation report full of nonsense which perhaps could be made into an opera.

* Had Nencini seriously considered Sollecito a menace, under CPP Article 285, Nencini could have ordered the Italian police to immediately capture Sollecito and bring him to a prison. A request for the extradition of Knox would have originated from the public prosecutor of the Court of Appeals district (Florence, for Nencini) and would be directed to the Minister of Justice, who, if he agreed, would have forwarded the request to the US Secretary of State, in accordance with CPP Article 720.

See:

https://www.brocardi.it/codice-di-procedura-penale/libro-quarto/titolo-i/capo-ii/art285.html

https://www.brocardi.it/codice-di-p...-ii/capo-ii/art720.html?q=720+cpp&area=codici
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
I think you're bending over backward way too far here. When someone is arrested, they are not just momentarily detained or stopped: they are taken into custody and informed they are under arrest. As we hear a cop say so often on real life cop shows, "You're not under arrest, just being detained."

There is zero ambiguity of what the media meant by 'arrested'.
Click to expand...

A lawyer friend of mine once had the job of arresting boats. While the boats themselves were never 'taken into custody', anyone else including owners were prohibited from using it, boarding it, or moving it.

Okay, that's all I got.
 
Stacyhs said:
I think you're bending over backward way too far here. When someone is arrested, they are not just momentarily detained or stopped: they are taken into custody and informed they are under arrest. As we hear a cop say so often on real life cop shows, "You're not under arrest, just being detained."

There is zero ambiguity of what the media meant by 'arrested'.
Click to expand...

Another point about the media's use of legal terminology - sometimes they simply get the terminology wrong.

Take the following words from a 13 January 2015 AP report:

Amanda Knox appeals slander conviction to European Court of Human Rights

Lawyers for Amanda Knox filed an appeal of her slander conviction in Italy with the European Court of Human Rights ....
Click to expand...

What's wrong with the terminology?

1. The ECHR insists that one does not file an appeal to it. According to the ECHR's view, the concept of filing an appeal falsely suggests that an ECHR hearing is a continuation or 4th-instance trial continuing a domestic state's case.

The ECHR insists that the proper terminology is that an applicant files (lodges) an application to the ECHR with regard to a human rights case alleging the violation of one or more Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights.

2. The AP uses the translation "slander" for the Italian legal concept of "calunnia". But this misrepresents calunnia, which is not what English speakers think of as "slander", but rather a "malicious (knowingly false) accusation" that by definition must be made to an Italian judicial official (police, prosecutor, or judge) in order to be the crime of "calunnia".

Are these errors in the AP report some kind of attempt to mislead the reader? I think rather they represent sloppy writing by a writer who may not understand the legal terminology or uses familiar if inaccurate words in an attempt to make the reading of the article less difficult.

The same kind of error could be at play in the headlines that claimed Sollecito had been arrested when apparently all that happened was that he was approached by police who ordered him to surrender his passport.

Source:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/amanda-knox-appeals-slander-conviction-to-european-court-of-human-rights
 
Last edited:
Numbers said:
What is the source and significance of the date 1882 with respect to Italy as a nation?

The Kingdom of Italy was established on 17 March 1861. Rome was captured from the Papal States in 1871 and incorporated as the capital. See, for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unification_of_Italy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Rome

There's a Wikipedia article on the topic of Italian racism, which does exist. See, for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Italy

However, there is no concrete evidence that racism influenced any of the court judgments in the Knox - Sollecito case. However, IIUC, one of Mignini's arguments for the conviction of Knox and Sollecito was that since their alleged colleague in the murder/rape of Kercher, Guede, had already been convicted and happened to be Black, Knox and Sollecito should also be convicted, even, apparently, if the alleged evidence against them was unreliable.
Click to expand...

1882 must have been a rogue google reference to when Italy joined up with Austria and co.

Well, no, that is the point, there wasn't any racism exercised by the Italian justice system, aside perhaps from Guede being locked in a cage intended for violent mafia types in court.

Yet the Knox contingent in the U.S.A. including Trump, seemed utterly baffled by this.

In addition, when we say 'no racism' we haven't walked in Guede's shoes. Who is anyone to say he is not allowed to 'play the race card'?
 
Welshman said:
http://amandaknoxcase.com/rudy-guede/

Guede being black has been a very useful tool for his supporters as it enables them to play the race card as can be seen from the above post. As per the above link, there was overwhelming evidence against Guede which showed he acted alone. When people suggest that Guede acted alone and Amanda and Raffaele had no involvement in Meredith's murder, Guede's supporters can claim people only take this view due to racism and only believe Amanda and Raffaele are innocent because they are white rather than the evidence against Guede. Any attacks against Guede are due to racism.
Click to expand...

'All lives matter', right?
 
Numbers said:
Vixen's post above is rather odd, considering that Guede, as well as Knox and Sollecito, were tried in Italy under Italian laws and against the background of Italian culture, and not in the US or any other country.

Racism certainly exists in the US, as it does in Italy. But no reasonable unprejudiced person would suggest that everyone, or every "white" person, in the US or in Italy was a racist.

The implication of Vixen's post, however, appears to be that anyone who found - based on the scientific and legal reasoning of experts - that the alleged evidence against Knox and Sollecito was absolutely deficient, and that therefore Knox and Sollecito must be considered not guilty under law, must be a racist, perhaps unless that person also considered Guide not guilty, despite the lack of any known deficiency in the alleged evidence against Guede, which differs in reliability, quantity, and quality from the alleged evidence against Knox and Sollecito.

Furthermore, there's no indication in the Marasca CSC panel motivation report or in the ECHR final judgment Knox v. Italy or any racism favoring Knox and Sollecito or Knox, respectively, against anyone else.

Thus, any argument that somehow US racism is behind the definitive final acquittal of Knox and Sollecito or the ECHR finding that Italy had violated Knox's rights under international law by convicting her of calunnia (malicious accusation) against Lumumba just does not make any sense.
Click to expand...

Guede's D.N.A. was collected from the cottage at the same time as Knox' and Sollecito's. Ditto the luminol application.

As for the 'not guilty owing to insufficient evidence;, this is surely where the Supreme Court is defective, as the facts found in the merits trial still stands - the numerous lies of Knox and Sollecito - the staged burglary - Knox covering for Guede by naming Lumumba - Knox definitely present at the murder scene, Sollecito almost certainly so. Had the Supreme Court followed the correct and conventional procedure, they would have handed the case back down to the lower court clear directions to rectify whatever was claimed to be in error.

Marasca-Bruno did say Knox acted racistly in naming Lumumba as a substitute Black guy for Guede.
 
Stacyhs said:
You might want to move out of the past and into the present. Constitutional Amendments and current laws prohibit legal racism. The 13th Amendment is not racist because it includes all prisoners regardless of race, gender, or anything else.
Click to expand...


Skilled lying again, I notice.

"In Louisiana, Black people constituted 33% of state residents, but 52% of people in jail and 67% of people in prison."

Incarceration Trends in Louisiana - Vera Institutehttps://www.vera.org › downloads › pdfdownloads

Systemic:

"Systemic oppression is systematic and has historical antecedents; it is the intentional disadvantaging of groups of people based on their identity while advantaging members of the dominant group (gender, race, class, sexual orientation, language, etc.)."

Lens of Systemic Oppression - National Equity Project


So, totally pointless citing bent U.S. prosecutors as an example.
 
Numbers said:
Another point about the media's use of legal terminology - sometimes they simply get the terminology wrong.

Take the following words from a 13 January 2015 AP report:



What's wrong with the terminology?

1. The ECHR insists that one does not file an appeal to it. According to the ECHR's view, the concept of filing an appeal falsely suggests that an ECHR hearing is a continuation or 4th-instance trial continuing a domestic state's case.

The ECHR insists that the proper terminology is that an applicant files (lodges) an application to the ECHR with regard to a human rights case alleging the violation of one or more Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights.

2. The AP uses the translation "slander" for the Italian legal concept of "calunnia". But this misrepresents calunnia, which is not what English speakers think of as "slander", but rather a "malicious (knowingly false) accusation" that by definition must be made to an Italian judicial official (police, prosecutor, or judge) in order to be the crime of "calunnia".

Are these errors in the AP report some kind of attempt to mislead the reader? I think rather they represent sloppy writing by a writer who may not understand the legal terminology or uses familiar if inaccurate words in an attempt to make the reading of the article less difficult.

The same kind of error could be at play in the headlines that claimed Sollecito had been arrested when apparently all that happened was that he was approached by police who ordered him to surrender his passport.

Source:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/amanda-knox-appeals-slander-conviction-to-european-court-of-human-rights
Click to expand...

Another example is the U.S. press habit of claiming the pair were 'tried twice'.
 
Vixen said:
Guede's D.N.A. was collected from the cottage at the same time as Knox' and Sollecito's. Ditto the luminol application.
Click to expand...

Sollecito's was collected 46 days after Guede's. It was collected from the bra-clasp, which in turn was collected with obviously dirty gloves.




Vixen said:
Marasca-Bruno did say Knox acted racistly in naming Lumumba as a substitute Black guy for Guede.
Click to expand...
It said no such thing.
 
Vixen said:
Guede's D.N.A. was collected from the cottage at the same time as Knox' and Sollecito's. Ditto the luminol application.

As for the 'not guilty owing to insufficient evidence;, this is surely where the Supreme Court is defective, as the facts found in the merits trial still stands - the numerous lies of Knox and Sollecito - the staged burglary - Knox covering for Guede by naming Lumumba - Knox definitely present at the murder scene, Sollecito almost certainly so. Had the Supreme Court followed the correct and conventional procedure, they would have handed the case back down to the lower court clear directions to rectify whatever was claimed to be in error.

Marasca-Bruno did say Knox acted racistly in naming Lumumba as a substitute Black guy for Guede.
Click to expand...

As Vixen constantly attacks Amanda and Raffaele for telling numerous lies, a reminder of the numerous lies Vixen tells in her posts.

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

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13170726#post13170726

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13920821#post13920821
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom