Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32

[Vixen]

Another mischaracterization as Spitfire never "announced" any such thing. THIS is what he said:



How is watching Amelie from 6:27 p.m. to 9:10 p.m. their "key alibi" when the earliest Meredith could have been attacked was at 9:00? Additionally, the Naruto cartoon was downloaded and played between 9:26 and 9:46. Is it any wonder the prosecution needed the murder to happen closer to 11:00?

Any reasonable, objective person can see the problem with your claim.


Once again, you declare you know what is in Knox's mind.

As I said, WHEN the damn movie was DOWNLOADED has no evidentiary value because it makes NO difference to the case. When it was WATCHED does. Knox would have no need to research when it was downloaded so she's going by what she remembers. This is just another classic example of the PGP need to give every little, irrelevant, nitpicked detail a nefarious "guilt" spin because the relevant evidence for guilt is just not there.


Are you now claiming that people's "casual memory of past events" is NOT faulty? That we remember correctly all details of any past event or conversation?


Oh, just stop it. This is beyond pathetic.

If the film Wonderful World of Amelie was playing between 18:27 to 21:10, how come the pair were out and about town, by Sollecito's own account?

 

[Vixen]

Step right up, ladies and gentlemen! Madame Vixen sees all and tells all! Once again she has demonstrated her incredible ability to read the minds of others!

Please quote more carefully in future and stop mischaracterizing what is said. I never said Chiacchierra "confirm[ed] the magazines were 'all shrink-wrapped and unread'". I said, "Chiacchiera testified [the comics] could have been sealed and which he opened:


She asked if they were in cellophane and if he opened them. How could Chiachierra fall into Bongiorno's "trap" simply by telling the truth of a yes or no?

Since you like to assume what he (among others) was thinking and why, let's consider whether he didn't want to confirm he did, in fact, unwrap them thereby revealing that RS could not have read them. Maybe...just maybe...he knew he could that prosecution set-back and declare that it's only "absolutely possible". But, no... cops would never do that because they're all honest and aboveboard. Just like Stefanoni was aboveboard when she failed to mention the crucial negative TMB results and kept referring to the prints as "luminol revealed". Just like the cops who kept leaking false or prejudicial "info" to the tabloids like her diary.

Please don't call me names, thanks. Bongiorno bringing up the red herring of 'were they shrink wrapped' was simply doing what defence attorneys do, try and instil doubt in the jury's mind.




.



.

 

[Vixen]

And yet Marasca- Bruno declared the room was too small for Knox and Sollecito to have participated in the murder and leave no evidence of themselves.

Unfortunately, RS left his full profile DNA on the bra clasp, and AK her size 37 shoe print in the victim's blood on the pillow (so the said trainer was never found but who else would have been there to step in Mez' blood?), not to mention the two long blonde hairs, one literally gripped in Mez' hand in rigor mortis and the other across the top of her bag after the phones, credit card and money had been rifled from it. And no, fair hair is identical to bleached hair under the microscope, both being merely hair that is melanin-free ( but this wouldn't apply to grey hair, being of a different texture). Plus the glass trailed in from Filomena's room. Plus the torn up paper on top of the duvet, similar to the papers and cards scattered over Filomena's room, one of which bears the imprint of her shoe.



.

 

[Vixen]

And there is the hyperbole and mischaracterization. I'm 5'10", 57 years old and could make that climb.

Unfortunately, the term 'mischaracterisation' has come to mean in the UK a politician caught in a whopper denying he did any such thing, and it is a 'mischaracterisation' of his misbehaviour by the accuser, a journalist or fellow MP at PMQ. So when you and another poster started using this word excessively thinking it a putdown, in fact, it has the opposite effect of your trying to wriggle out of being caught out. I don't believe you could make that climb without leaving a trace or injuring yourself enough to leave DNA or fingerprints/shoeprints. In any case 'could' doesn't mean you 'did' or 'will'.


.

 

[TruthCalls]

And yet Marasca- Bruno declared the room was too small for Knox and Sollecito to have participated in the murder and leave no evidence of themselves.

What Vixen is ignoring is when the jury visited the cottage, none of the furniture that was in the room on the night of the murder was in the room. I detailed the dimensions of the room, and how much usable space existed with all the furniture in the room, but as usual, she ignored it.

Per the diagram of the room per the investigation, the "area utile" (which translates to Useful Area) is 160 x 130 cm. For the non-metric folk, that works out to about 5.2 x 4.2 feet. THAT is a small area for four people to be crowded into, all covered in blood, and no trace of two of them.

ETA: Up above you wrote "If a whole load of people can get in a lift a fraction of that size, of course four people can fit into Mez' room. 9' x 11' is spacious enough for a small bedroom." First of all, people stand upright and do nothing in a lift. Sexually assaulting and murdering someone is very different from riding a lift. But again, the room had furniture it in. Per the police's own diagram of her room, as noted above, it was a area of just over 5' x 4'.. that is very small.

 

[TruthCalls]

And there is the hyperbole and mischaracterization. I'm 5'10", 57 years old and could make that climb.

Yes, and had he actually stood up on the top rung the sill would be mid-chest height. It was not a difficult climb for a young, athletic guy like Guede.

 

[TruthCalls]

Please don't call me names, thanks. Bongiorno bringing up the red herring of 'were they shrink wrapped' was simply doing what defence attorneys do, try and instil doubt in the jury's mind.

Raffaele also claimed they were sealed. So we have the cop that collected them admitting he unwrapped some of them, and Raffaele claiming they were sealed, but we should ignore all of that because... well because it fits you creative little narrative if they were already open.

You know, if the police had done their work professionally, each and every magazine would have been documented, including whether it was in a sealed bag or not. That he can only guess at what he did is an embarrassment.

 

[junkshop]

I knew 'frame' wasn't quite the correct word but couldn't think of an alternative ATT. Good we have someone with a famous close relative who wrote comic strips, or comic books, who can point us in the right direction.

You're welcome, though I would never describe him as a 'close' relative.

 

[Welshman]

Unfortunately, RS left his full profile DNA on the bra clasp, and AK her size 37 shoe print in the victim's blood on the pillow (so the said trainer was never found but who else would have been there to step in Mez' blood?), not to mention the two long blonde hairs, one literally gripped in Mez' hand in rigor mortis and the other across the top of her bag after the phones, credit card and money had been rifled from it. And no, fair hair is identical to bleached hair under the microscope, both being merely hair that is melanin-free ( but this wouldn't apply to grey hair, being of a different texture). Plus the glass trailed in from Filomena's room. Plus the torn up paper on top of the duvet, similar to the papers and cards scattered over Filomena's room, one of which bears the imprint of her shoe.



.

Vixen constantly boasts about the strong evidence against Amanda and Raffaele but if this was the case why is it necessary for guilters to constantly resort to lying and repeat the same lies over and over again. Bearing in mind that members of this forum are familiar with the facts of the case and any lies people say in posts will be caught out. The lies about the size 37 prints and Amanda's shoeprint being on paper in Filomena's room have been repeated before

Post dated: 07.06.2016

Claim: A ladies size 37 footprint in Mez' blood.

Truth: There was no size 37 female footprint in Meredith’s room. The defence clearly showed all the footprints belonged to Rudy as detailed below

The Truth About the Shoe Prints in Meredith's Room

A site detailing the wrongful conviction of Amanda Knox & Raffaele Sollecito.

www.injusticeinperugia.org

Post dated: 06.06.2017

Claim: There is also the case of the paper scattered under Filomena's window which had Amanda Knox' footprint on it.

Truth: No such footprint exists.

The prosecution never claimed Amanda left her hair in Meredith's room. There was no full DNA profile of Raffaele on the clasp. This is what the defence found about the DNA on the clasp.

"The prosecution claimed that there was an abundant amount of DNA on the clasp. It was stated by the prosecution that Raffaele’s DNA on the clasp was abundant. This is not the case. Raffaele’s DNA was mixed with other DNA. Testing confirmed the victim’s DNA was present along with at least three other unidentified people. The defense argues that proper analysis the DNA on the clasp shows that Raffaele’s DNA is not abundant at all. With proper testing, Raffaele’s alleged DNA is only 1/6 of the total sample. The prosecution agreed with this analysis. That calculation is a best case scenario. In actuality, it could easily be less than 1/6. This lowers the genetic material that is attributed to Raffaele to well under 200 picograms, the standard minimum to be used for normal DNA analysis. In order for the sample to be tested properly, LCN analysis would have been necessary. LCN testing was not done by the prosecution’s experts on the clasp. The defense argues that proper testing shows that some strands do not match Raffaele’s DNA. The defense expert was only able to test a few strands. The court did not understand that if any strands did not match then it wasn’t Raffaele’s DNA. The defense argues that additional testing will prove that the DNA does not belong to Raffaele. This additional testing should be granted on appeal."

Guilters have shown disgusting hypocrisy when attacking Amanda, Raffaele and others for lying. Vixen constantly attacks Amanda and Raffaele for telling numerous lies whilst telling numerous lies in just one short post.

 

[Stacyhs]

The courts ruled - including the final Marasca-Bruno Supreme Court of 2015 - that the crIme scene was staged.

Hellmann found that it was not staged. I know you like to ignore that trial while constantly quoting Massei and Nencini despite those also being annulled.

It was a heavily theatrical scenario in which a super-large small boulder weighing almost 10lbs /4kg had been used to smash Filomena's window from the inside,

A "super-large small boulder"? Is that like "genuine imitation" or "working vacation" or "living dead"? The "almost 10 lbs" that was actually under 9 lbs? (4Kg= 8 lbs 13 oz) and is shown in the police video being picked up with one hand?

Filomena's clothes having first been scattered about the floor.

With glass both on top and under clothing as testified to by Filomena and contrary to prosecution claim.

A DNA mixture of AK/MK is scientifically conclusive of having been found in the room.

False. Why do you just dishonestly ignore scientific fact when it doesn't suit your narrative? DNA can be found in a room where a person has never been. It can even be found mixed with someone else's DNA who was not there either or was there at a different time.
Is the unidentified DNA of two men on the bra hook proof they were also in Meredith's room or had directly touched the hook?

Bits of paper and cards - one with Knox's shoe print - had been scattered about, including a couple on top of the duvet which was placed over the body AFTER* the murder - i.e., the murder happened before the paper scattering

Absolute rubbish. No shoe prints identified as Knox's were found in the cottage. Funny how "Knox's shoe print" on that paper was never presented in court as evidence. Those papers could have fallen on top the duvet while Guede was rummaging through her purse on the bed.

- the body being returned to AFTER the murder to undress it. This was ascertained by a forensic examination of expirated blood, which was on the bra some distance away from the body but not on the key points of the parts of the breasts it covered.

There was aspirated blood on both her bra and bare breasts meaning the bra was removed while she was still alive. Napoleoni testified,
“The girl was half naked, her shirt pulled above her breasts and lots of blood. There was blood splatter on her breasts as well."

Someone had either torn or cut off with a knife, the bra from the body. The bra claps with Sollecito's full DNA profile inside the bent hook was UNDER the body UNDER the pillow,

No one is denying RS's LOW COPY DNA was on one tiny hook but, yet again, you are mischaracterizing the situation. The bra clasp was FIRST FOUND under her body and pillow but was not collected until 6 weeks later in a totally different location across the room. So when and how his DNA got on that hook is the million-dollar question. The facts below indicated that it was contamination:
a) clasp only collected 6 weeks after the murder with multiple people accessing the cottage and bedroom,
b) no other evidence of RS in MK's bedroom,
c) police video showing multiple and egregious violations of anti-contamination protocols, and
d) the DNA of at least 2 other unidentified men on the same hook support contamination.

which did have a ladies size 37 trainer imprint in the victim's blood.

Sigh. Already discussed and shown to be false.

 

[Stacyhs]

If a whole load of people can get in a lift a fraction of that size, of course four people can fit into Mez' room. 9' x 11' is spacious enough for a small bedroom. Remember, a glass of water was knocked over and things dropped off the desk.

RS, RG and MK were all svelte and AK is quite diminutive. It's common sense that the jurors and prosecutor visiting being older are larger than when they were young adults. So seven of them stood around without getting close up and personal with each other.

Irrelevant as M-B ruled the room was too small for 3 people to participate in the murder and only one leave multiple forensic traces behind.

In fact, it was the defence that requested the visit to the cottage, bringing Delfo with them, but they shot themself in the foot as the jurors milling around the outside wall commented that anyone trying to climb that steep face was putting life and limb at risk.

Citation needed.

Poor old Delfo could only cling on at shoulder height and he was very tall and determined.

Berretti was also wearing dress shoes, not rubber bottomed trainers. Nor was he an athlete like Guede.

View attachment 60958

I told you how to easily resize photos but I see you still insist on oversized photos. Fixed that for you. Did you not understand the very simple instructions?

 

[Stacyhs]

If the film Wonderful World of Amelie was playing between 18:27 to 21:10, how come the pair were out and about town, by Sollecito's own account?


View attachment 60959

I've pointed that discrepancy out myself to you before, but thanks! Yes, just how could the Naruto cartoon be uploaded and played from 18:27 to 21:10 and the two of them be out at that time? They can't both be true. So, which is more likely to be true? The computer analysis that the prosecution did not contest and which all courts accepted, or a statement signed by RS during an unrecorded and lawyer-less interrogation? A 'confession' that contained statements proven to be impossible by witnesses as I've previously presented. Oh, wait...those witnesses were all 'bent'!

 

[Stacyhs]

Stacyhs said:
Step right up, ladies and gentlemen! Madame Vixen sees all and tells all! Once again she has demonstrated her incredible ability to read the minds of others!

Please quote more carefully in future and stop mischaracterizing what is said. I never said Chiacchierra "confirm[ed] the magazines were 'all shrink-wrapped and unread'". I said, "Chiacchiera testified [the comics] could have been sealed and which he opened:


She asked if they were in cellophane and if he opened them. How could Chiachierra fall into Bongiorno's "trap" simply by telling the truth of a yes or no?

Since you like to assume what he (among others) was thinking and why, let's consider whether he didn't want to confirm he did, in fact, unwrap them thereby revealing that RS could not have read them. Maybe...just maybe...he knew he could that prosecution set-back and declare that it's only "absolutely possible". But, no... cops would never do that because they're all honest and aboveboard. Just like Stefanoni was aboveboard when she failed to mention the crucial negative TMB results and kept referring to the prints as "luminol revealed". Just like the cops who kept leaking false or prejudicial "info" to the tabloids like her diary.

Please don't call me names, thanks.

Please don't mischaracterize what I and others have said. I had no idea "madame" was a derogatory name!

Bongiorno bringing up the red herring of 'were they shrink wrapped' was simply doing what defence attorneys do, try and instil doubt in the jury's mind.

There was no 'trap' or 'red herring'. That is your invention. If they had not been sealed, Chiacchiera could have denied opening them outright. He did not. He said it was "absolutely possible" they were and that he could have had opened them.

I doubt Bongiorno would have asked Chiacchiera if they were sealed if she thought he could or would answer "no". Why do you think that is? As the saying goes, "Never ask a witness a question you don't already know the answer to."
If you want to play the psychic "He thought" game, then my crystal ball suggests he may have said they "could" have been sealed because they were, but he didn't want to undermine the prosecution by outright saying they weren't. Or...maybe he just didn't remember. I don't expect everyone to have a perfect memory. Only AK and RS are not allowed to be human.

 

[Stacyhs]

Unfortunately, the term 'mischaracterisation' has come to mean in the UK a politician caught in a whopper denying he did any such thing, and it is a 'mischaracterisation' of his misbehaviour by the accuser, a journalist or fellow MP at PMQ.
So when you and another poster started using this word excessively thinking it a putdown, in fact, it has the opposite effect of your trying to wriggle out of being caught out. I don't believe you could make that climb without leaving a trace or injuring yourself enough to leave DNA or fingerprints/shoeprints. In any case 'could' doesn't mean you 'did' or 'will'.

Mischaracterize means "to characterize in an incorrect or misleading manner." I don't believe for a second that it has a different meaning in the UK related only to politicians.

When I say you have mischaracterized something, it's because you have. If you don't like having it called out, then stop doing it.

 

[Disbelief]

Unfortunately, the term 'mischaracterisation' has come to mean in the UK a politician caught in a whopper denying he did any such thing, and it is a 'mischaracterisation' of his misbehaviour by the accuser, a journalist or fellow MP at PMQ. So when you and another poster started using this word excessively thinking it a putdown, in fact, it has the opposite effect of your trying to wriggle out of being caught out. I don't believe you could make that climb without leaving a trace or injuring yourself enough to leave DNA or fingerprints/shoeprints. In any case 'could' doesn't mean you 'did' or 'will'.


.

I don't care how you try and redefine the word, but you are mischaracterizing by claiming it was difficult to climb to the window and that the climber could not do it (yet proven wrong on video). Gloves, long-sleeved shirt and jeans would easily allow me to make the climb without injury or leaving fingerprints. Leaf cover keeps shoeprints from being taken as well. Now a nearly 21 year old athletic guy would have an even easier time.

 

[Numbers]

If and when the ECHR examines a second Knox v. Italy case to examine the fairness of her retrial and re-conviction for calunnia against Lumumba, the ECHR will rely on its case law. One relevant case is Ayetullah Ay v. Turkey 20884/07 and 1191/08 published 27/10/2020. Here are some relevant excerpts from that final judgment, with inline citations omitted. Emphasis by bolding and italicizing is mine.



Source: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-205373

I am pointing out some key points from the post above that may simplify understanding of how the Italian courts got many of the judgments in the Knox - Sollecito case wrong:

126. In determining whether the proceedings as a whole were fair, regard must be had to whether the rights of the defence were respected. It must be examined in particular whether the applicant was given the opportunity to challenge the authenticity of the evidence and to oppose its use. In addition, the quality of the evidence must be taken into consideration, including whether the circumstances in which it was obtained cast doubt on its reliability or accuracy.... The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and any doubt should benefit the accused....

131. The Court reiterates that the right of everyone charged with a criminal offence to be effectively defended by a lawyer, assigned officially if need be, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 3 (c), is one of the fundamental features of a fair trial.... Prompt access to a lawyer constitutes an important counterweight to the vulnerability of suspects in police custody, the effect of which is amplified by the fact that legislation on criminal procedure tends to become increasingly complex, notably with respect to the rules governing the gathering and use of evidence.... The right to a lawyer also contributes to the prevention of miscarriages of justice....

To the above, for Knox's situation, should be added: the right to a fair interpreterer - who objectively conveys what the questioned person and the police or prosecutor are saying without interjecting prejudicial, suggestive, or psychologically manipulative comments - contributes to the prevention of miscarriages of justice, and the performance of an interpreter during pre-trial proceedings must be subject to effictive and objective judicial review when it is questioned.

Sources:

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-205373
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-189422 paragraphs 182 - 188.

 

[Stacyhs]

Vixen said:
In fact, it was the defence that requested the visit to the cottage, bringing Delfo with them, but they shot themself in the foot as the jurors milling around the outside wall commented that anyone trying to climb that steep face was putting life and limb at risk.

Request #2: Citation needed.

Vixen said:
Bits of paper and cards - one with Knox's shoe print - had been scattered about, including a couple on top of the duvet which was placed over the body AFTER* the murder - i.e., the murder happened before the paper scattering

Citation needed.

Anyone taking odds on getting either?

 

[Stacyhs]

Vixen: How is watching Amelie from 6:27 p.m. to 9:10 p.m. their "key alibi" when the earliest Meredith could have been attacked was at 9:00?
Did they get Guede and go murder Kercher between 9:10 and 9:26 when the Naruto cartoon was downloaded and watched until 9:46?

 

[SpitfireIX]

Unfortunately, the term 'mischaracterisation' has come to mean in the UK a politician caught in a whopper denying he did any such thing, and it is a 'mischaracterisation' of his misbehaviour by the accuser, a journalist or fellow MP at PMQ. So when you and another poster started using this word excessively thinking it a putdown, in fact, it has the opposite effect of your trying to wriggle out of being caught out.

Unfortunately, you just pulled that out of an orifice in a lame attempt to distract from the fact that you've been caught misrepresenting other people's statements and arguments so many times. (Note that this is of a piece with your bogus claim that "conspiracy theory" has come to mean a scenario that must involve reptilian overlords or international Jewish cabals, in an equally lame attempt to pretend that you don't promote conspiracy theories. )

Googling "'mischaracterisation' site:www.bbc.com" yields (only recent examples and not quoting foreigners, unless otherwise noted):

AI Overview​

​

The BBC's website has used the term "mischaracterised" in a variety of contexts, often when someone is claiming their words or actions have been unfairly represented​

.​

Here are some examples from BBC News:​

1. Claims of Misrepresentation:​

• Politicians and Public Figures: Politicians or public figures sometimes claim their statements have been "mischaracterised" by the media or opponents, according to the BBC.
• Organizations and Companies: Organizations or companies might assert that their actions or positions have been "mischaracterised" in reports or criticisms.

2. Contexts Where "Mischaracterised" is Used:​

• Political Discourse: The term often appears in political discussions when individuals or groups feel their views or actions have been misrepresented.
• Controversial Issues: It can be used in discussions about sensitive or controversial topics, where different interpretations of events or statements may exist.
• Media Reporting: The BBC itself, or other news outlets, may use the term when reporting on claims of misrepresentation made by individuals or organizations.

3. Examples of "Mischaracterised" in BBC News:​

• A politician might say their comments on a policy were "mischaracterised" after facing criticism.
• A company might claim that reports about its environmental impact have "mischaracterised" its practices.
• A person involved in a public debate might argue that their position has been "mischaracterised" by opponents.

Note: The BBC, like any news organization, strives for accuracy and impartiality in its reporting. The use of "mischaracterised" usually indicates that a claim of misrepresentation has been made, but it does not necessarily mean the BBC is endorsing that claim.​

Ordinarily, I wouldn't include an AI overview, of course, but I believe it's on point in this case, as Gemini is an LLM whose training dataset included the BBC website.

Facebook drives sceptics towards climate denial​

30 March 2022​

​

. . . Although this was a mischaraterisation of climate scientists' findings, it was not a prediction "all ice would melt by 2013".​

​

Birkenhead firm Wabtec denies plans to 'fire and rehire' workers​

23 February 2022​

​

. . . A spokesperson for Wabtec said there were no plans to "fire and rehire", describing it as a mischaracterisation.​

​

In the interest of full disclosure, Wabtec is described elsewhere in the article as a "US-based" company, but the word is not in quotation marks, and there is also no reason to assume that the spokesperson was an American or reading from a statement written by an American.

Row over 'anti-driver taxes' at FMQs​

21 April 2022​

​

[snip]​

• Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar claims the SNP has wasted £3bn of public money on "'delays, loan write offs, or avoidable spending" since it came to power
• Ms Sturgeon dismissed the figure, describing it as an "utter mischaracterisation"

Whether this qualifies as "caught in a whopper" and "misbehavior" is highly debatable at best, but I'll give you this one anyway. (Note for those who don't speak UKian: FMQs is First Minister's Questions, AKA FM's Question Time.)

Praise for Jersey woman raising awareness about cancer in young people​

2 October 2023​

. . . Ashley Ball-Gamble, chief executive of the Children's Cancer and Leukaemia Group, said by age 20, a person's risk of cancer is about one in 320.​

"The mischaracterisation that cancer in young people is rare is unhelpful, as it can mean cancer isn't considered when symptoms indicate otherwise," he said.​

Bibby Stockholm: Government to investigate migrants' baptisms​

8 February 2024​

​

. . . Following Prime Minister's Questions, the Archbishop of Canterbury issued the following statement: "Over the last week it has been disappointing to see the mischaracterisation of the role of churches and faith groups in the asylum system."​

​

'Hundreds feared dead in quake' and Reeves likened to Truss​

29 March 2025​

​

. . . The Daily Telegraph says Canada's Prime Minister, Mark Carney, has denied allegations of plagiarism after questions were asked about ten pages of his 1995 Oxford University thesis. His team has described the claims as an "irresponsible mischaracterisation".​

​

I'll also give you this one, even though Carney's Canadian, as he studied at Oxford and served as Governor of the Bank of England for seven years.

Scotland's papers: 'Maritime waster' and digital learning to continue​

28 April 2021​

. . . The Daily Telegraph reports that businessman Sir James Dyson has accused the BBC of a "grotesque mischaracterisation" of his ties to the Conservative Party after the broadcaster reported on text message exchanges sent between Sir James and Boris Johnson.​

Extinction Rebellion: Conditional discharge for Shell protest woman​

27 April 2021​

​

. . . "It should not be taken as any indication that any further cases of this nature will necessarily be dealt with in the same way or that the court takes the view that offences of this sort do not merit greater punishment.​

​

"That would be a mischaracterisation of what has happened today."​

​

Coal mine plan quashed by High Court​

13 September 2024​

​

. . . Lawyers for WCM said there had been "repeated mischaracterisation" of the plans and the development would have a "broadly neutral effect on the global release of greenhouse gas".​

​

Weston-super-Mare care home told to improve after inadequate rating​

. . . A spokesperson for Sherwood Lodge said the report was "fundamentally and fatally flawed, based on a misrepresentation and mischaracterisation of our service as a 'hospital', which it is not and never has been.​

In summation, from the last five years, and excluding cases where foreigners were quoted except as discussed, we have 10 cases where the word appears, and only two were from politicians or their spokespeople defending their or their governments' actions. So, again, you just made up your claim about "mischaracterisation" only being used in the UK by politicians to attack those calling out their lies or misbehavior.

I don't believe you could make that climb without leaving a trace or injuring yourself enough to leave DNA or fingerprints/shoeprints. In any case 'could' doesn't mean you 'did' or 'will'.

And yet another argument from personal incredulity.

ETA: I should have also mentioned that just because a politician accuses another politician or the media of mischaracterizing something he or she said, that doesn't mean it's a lie, because mischaracterization of one's political opponents or those disfavored certainly does happen, intentionally or otherwise.

Edit: Typos

 

[Vixen]

Request #2: Citation needed.


Citation needed.

Anyone taking odds on getting either?1.

1. John Follain

2. Do a search of the thread as this was discussed in depth before.

.