Guede broke into the cottage, stabbed Meredith to death, sexually assaulted her when she lay dying and falsely accused Amanda of being at the cottage but Vixen never condems Guede for inappropriate behaviour and being and callous and indifferent to Meredith.
Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32
- Thread starter LondonJohn
- Start date
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2011
- Messages
- 1,960
Oh yeah, they were heard as preferring to have some 'hot sex'... by a clerk who doesn't speak English, while Amanda was speaking to Raffaele in English.
I did not perceive the Netflix program implying a great love affair, nor have either of them ever made such a silly claim. They were together for six days, and were still learning who each other were.
Why do you insist on making all these silly comments? Meanwhile, you've still not apologized for lying about what I said - twice - nor have you addressed the clear evidence of a suspect centric analysis by Stefanoni. Seems to be your pattern... you make crazy claims, and when boxed into a corner, you just double down and make more crazy claims - I suppose the point being maybe everyone will forget your prior crazy claims.
You are not posting truth. You are at best posting arguments. Arguments that no longer have any possibility of being credible.
This has long ago ceased to be an exchange of views about current events. With the exception of some of the ongoing ECHR procedures under discussion, we're talking about history, and with no credible counterarguments from you or anyone else, the history is settled. AK and RS are innocent and the convicting courts were at best incompetent. You can keep repeating arguments based on falsehoods and distortions, like holocaust deniers and 9/11 Truthers do, but they've been heard and rightly dismissed.
1. You're hypothesizing that there is a point to apparently irrational (crazy) claims.
2. The point of the irrational claims might be to generate rational rebuttals based on facts that substantially support the innocence of Knox and Sollecito and reject the false claims of their guilt. That's my favorite hypothesis.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Sigh. Earlier you claimed was that Vinci was "reprimanded for using Photoshop to try to make RS' footprint look like RG's," and now it's only "accused of". You were asked by both TruthCalls and me to provide evidence of this and your only response was
Yet again, you failed to provide any evidence whatsoever of your claim. Has it really not dawned on you yet that this tactic does not work on us?
More accurately, Guede wore 2.5, not three, shoe sizes larger than RS (45 vs. 42.5) but that, along with the 'arch' claim does not change the fact that Vinci was never reprimanded or accused of using Photoshop to manipulate the photos.
What Vinci did use that R & B did not use was the actual rug and Crimescope to come to his conclusion. Are you confusing Crimescope with Photoshop? Crimescope's use by Vinci is in the 9-18-2009 testimony.
Uh-huh.
So why not use the key to retrieve Knox's lamp? Oh, let me guess! Because they only realized the lamp was in Kercher's room AFTER they'd gotten rid of the key! But they just couldn't remember WHERE they'd disposed of it so couldn't retrieve it. Right?
AGAIN? It's ironic that you declare AK's and RS' confusion/poor memory on certain details as evidence of lying, but fail to acknowledge your own memory lapses including this one from just last July 7:
You then attempted to quote and cite Follain's book as evidence, but it said NOTHING about RS and AK "dragging Napoleoni out of her car". It was just your usual hyperbolic misrepresentation. You must be great at playing Twister!
Why do I constantly have to ask how do you explain the arguments Vixen has to resort to if there was solid evidence and a slam dunk case against Amanda and Raffaele. Why does Vixen have to resort to dishonesty to claim the defence were unable to rebut the idea Raffaele's footprint was on the bathmat by falsely claiming they were reprimanded.Sigh. Earlier you claimed was that Vinci was "reprimanded for using Photoshop to try to make RS' footprint look like RG's," and now it's only "accused of". You were asked by both TruthCalls and me to provide evidence of this and your only response was
Yet again, you failed to provide any evidence whatsoever of your claim. Has it really not dawned on you yet that this tactic does not work on us?
More accurately, Guede wore 2.5, not three, shoe sizes larger than RS (45 vs. 42.5) but that, along with the 'arch' claim does not change the fact that Vinci was never reprimanded or accused of using Photoshop to manipulate the photos.
What Vinci did use that R & B did not use was the actual rug and Crimescope to come to his conclusion. Are you confusing Crimescope with Photoshop? Crimescope's use by Vinci is in the 9-18-2009 testimony.
Uh-huh.
So why not use the key to retrieve Knox's lamp? Oh, let me guess! Because they only realized the lamp was in Kercher's room AFTER they'd gotten rid of the key! But they just couldn't remember WHERE they'd disposed of it so couldn't retrieve it. Right?
AGAIN? It's ironic that you declare AK's and RS' confusion/poor memory on certain details as evidence of lying, but fail to acknowledge your own memory lapses including this one from just last July 7:
You then attempted to quote and cite Follain's book as evidence, but it said NOTHING about RS and AK "dragging Napoleoni out of her car". It was just your usual hyperbolic misrepresentation. You must be great at playing Twister!
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Unbelievable. Let me refresh your memory for you.
Your two quotes below were YOU calling her callous. There's no mention of the vigil nor any of Meredith's friends. Don't pee on my leg and try to bull◊◊◊◊ me that it's rain. You also failed to provide any evidence that Knox said ""◊◊◊◊ happens."
and
Oh, good God. Dalla Vedova did more than that: he successfully sued Fiorenza Sarzanini for using Knox's illegally leaked (by the police) journal and won damages of $55,0000 (40,000 euros) against her.
I'm not even going to bother with the rest of the rubbish in that comment except to say that Knox wasn't "yelling that she could 'murder for a pizza'." She WROTE:
No yelling, no murder.
Whoosh! Let me 'splain this to you, Lucy:
Sarzanini wasn't sued...and lost... because what she said was false. She was sued for a violation of privacy and illegal publication of court documents.
You really need to stop this tedious and futile campaign to try and connect the defense counsel and Raffaele's family to the mafia.
Once you become predictable, you're just boring.
There's some confusion upstream in one or more posts that there is an ECHR judgment that the UK or some other CoE country?) violated the Convention rights of Mustafa Kamel Mustafa (aka Abu Hamza). That's not correct. There was a decision of the ECHR finding his applications inadmissible because it was clear that his rights had not been violated. His application wa rejected as "manifestly ill-founded" by the ECHR.
The application regarding his application seeking to prevent his (and others) extradition to the US also resulted in a decision denying that he should not be extradited, since the allegations of potential treatment of him contrary to the Convention were found to be untrue.
See:
MUSTAFA (ABU HAMZA) v. THE UNITED KINGDOM 31411/07 18/01/2011
hudoc.echr.coe.int
Babar Ahmad and others v. the UnitedKingdom (dec.) nos. 24027/07,11949/08and 36742/08,6 July 2010
The application regarding his application seeking to prevent his (and others) extradition to the US also resulted in a decision denying that he should not be extradited, since the allegations of potential treatment of him contrary to the Convention were found to be untrue.
See:
MUSTAFA (ABU HAMZA) v. THE UNITED KINGDOM 31411/07 18/01/2011
HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights
The HUDOC database provides access to the case-law of the Court (Grand Chamber, Chamber and Committee judgments and decisions, communicated cases, advisory opinions and legal summaries from the Case-Law Information Note), the European Commission of Human Rights (decisions and reports) and the...
hudoc.echr.coe.int
Babar Ahmad and others v. the UnitedKingdom (dec.) nos. 24027/07,11949/08and 36742/08,6 July 2010
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Salduz is relevant to Knox because they were both denied a lawyer during under Art. 6.
No, he didn't. In fact, these were the three claims Hamza made under Art. 6:
NO violations were found by the EHCR under Art. 6:
None of that is relevant to Knox's case.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
She bought her undies on Nov. 3 and the vigil was on Nov. 6. Try again.
The fact that Scotto di Rinaldi's video had no sound makes it impossible to know what they were saying. We only have his say-so. But what motive would he have for inventing such a salacious dialogue? Maybe the fact he SOLD it to the media instead of taking it to the police who had to confiscated it after the fact? What would have gotten more money?
"Let's have wild, hot sex!" or "Now I don't have to borrow your boxers!"
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Truth can be proven with evidence. Lies cannot. Hmmm...
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Refusal to answer questions or provide requested evidence, goalpost moving, distraction, misdirection, misrepresentation, and accusations of bullying and victimization are standard tactics in the Guilters Handbook of Debate. You can't really blame them; it's all they have left.
Another confusion I see in some upstream posts relates to false claims that the ECHR has "clout" that it used for some "deserving" applicants but not for alleged "undeserving" applicants such as Knox and Sollecito. The reality is that the actions of the ECHR seen as "clout" are those called "interim measures" by the ECHR's Court Rules, in its Rule 39. These are measures include, most commonly, requiring a respondent state to pause an extradition to a non-CoE state while that non-CoE state sends written assurances that the extradited person will not be treated in a way contrary to the Convention and ECHR case law. Such interim measures have also been used when an imprisoned applicant or the applicant's lawyer shows that the respondent state is refusing to provide the applicant with medical treatment (such as therapy, surgery, or pharmaceuticals) necessary to preserve the applicant's health.
The following texts are excerpts from the ECHR Factsheet on Interim Measures (footnotes deleted for brevit; wors in square brackets are my clarification):
One of the example cases is that concerning the extradition of Mustafa Kamal Mustafa (Abu Hamza) and four others from the UK to the US:
Here's the link for the Rule 39 Factsheet on Interim Measures:
Here's the link for the judgment for the Babar Ahmad and Others v. The UK case:
hudoc.echr.coe.int
Conclusion: The Mustafa (Abu Hamza) case has no ECHR case law relationship to either of the ECHR cases Knox v. Italy or Sollecito v. Italy. It's a diversion, but may be of interest to those seeking further understanding of the ECHR and the kinds of cases before it.
The following texts are excerpts from the ECHR Factsheet on Interim Measures (footnotes deleted for brevit; wors in square brackets are my clarification):
One of the example cases is that concerning the extradition of Mustafa Kamal Mustafa (Abu Hamza) and four others from the UK to the US:
Here's the link for the Rule 39 Factsheet on Interim Measures:
Here's the link for the judgment for the Babar Ahmad and Others v. The UK case:
HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights
The HUDOC database provides access to the case-law of the Court (Grand Chamber, Chamber and Committee judgments and decisions, communicated cases, advisory opinions and legal summaries from the Case-Law Information Note), the European Commission of Human Rights (decisions and reports) and the...
hudoc.echr.coe.int
Conclusion: The Mustafa (Abu Hamza) case has no ECHR case law relationship to either of the ECHR cases Knox v. Italy or Sollecito v. Italy. It's a diversion, but may be of interest to those seeking further understanding of the ECHR and the kinds of cases before it.
Last edited:
There's another point of confusion upstream regarding whether or not Knox claimed a violation of Convention Article 8 in her application to the ECHR, and why the ECHR did not pursue the Article 8 claim. The simple answers: Knox claimed the violation of Article 8 because of the psychological pressure put on her during the interrogation. However, the ECHR followed its usual procedure and lumped that Article 8 claim into the claim of a violation of Convention Article 3. That's because the goal of mistreatment during an interrogation is, in general, psychological pressure.* Here's the relevant text from the ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy, Google translation, my emphasis by bolding:
Source: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-189422
* From the ECHR Knowledge Sharing Guide on Article 3:
Another point is that, contrary to one or more upstream posts, the violation of Convention Article 3 under the procedural limb in Knox v. Italy is neither an unimportant violation nor one of many such kinds of violations, but of only two. The other is a violation of Convention Article 3 under the substantive limb. There are, however, three kinds of mistreatment listed in the Convention under Article 3. The motivation for finding a violation because of an inadequate procedure is explained by the ECHR in this excerpt from the Guide on Article 3:
Source: https://ks.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr-ks/guide_art_3_eng
Source: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-189422
* From the ECHR Knowledge Sharing Guide on Article 3:
Another point is that, contrary to one or more upstream posts, the violation of Convention Article 3 under the procedural limb in Knox v. Italy is neither an unimportant violation nor one of many such kinds of violations, but of only two. The other is a violation of Convention Article 3 under the substantive limb. There are, however, three kinds of mistreatment listed in the Convention under Article 3. The motivation for finding a violation because of an inadequate procedure is explained by the ECHR in this excerpt from the Guide on Article 3:
Source: https://ks.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr-ks/guide_art_3_eng
Last edited:
Why would Vixen need to do the above if the case was so solid.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Once again, you ignore the thrust of the argument to concentrate on a non-sequitur.
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
Me, I'm waiting for Vixen to answer a question asked way, way, way upthread, that she has ignored, as well as simply doubled down on her belief in the veracity of Stefanoni's forensic DNA work.
Question: name one, just one forensic DNA scientist who agrees with Stefanoni's work in this case.
Answer, there are two. (I forget their names).
One said that Stefanoni's work could be said to be solid, except he had to reserve his opinion because he never saw the negative controls. (IIRC he implied that the negative controls had never been released, but am open to sorrection if that is not so.)
Another at court said that Stefanoni did good work, but then conceded that she had not followed international protocols in her lab. His excuse in asserting both, was that often a technician's experience can make up for not following international protocols. He also did not say if Stefanoni possessed that kind of experience. (That's even before accepting the premise of his comment, which many do not.)
There. Answered for Vixen. Can Vixen point to any other DNA forensic expert who sides with Stefanoni's work, or even better, sides with Stefanoni without those caveats?
Why would Vixen remain silent on this issue if the case was so solid?
Last edited:
FergusMcDuck
Scholar
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2021
- Messages
- 77
The blogger Segnini (my authority on all things MoF; very happy for him right now) reads the whole verdict on his YouTube channel. Highly recommend a watch:Our sensitive friend:
Diffamazione, Mignini perde il primo round contro il blogger Segnini sulla vicenda "Mostro di Firenze"
Per il Tribunale civile avrebbe esercitato il diritto di critica, ora la parola al giudice penalewww.perugiatoday.it
Regarding the Narducci thing or the MOF case he failed in a civil court against a blogger and tries it now in a criminal court.
AmyStrange
Philosopher
It's interesting that you would complain about something that you've been doing since you got here.
Last edited:
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2011
- Messages
- 1,960
A rather ironic statement coming from you.... the last time we were discussing "suspect centric", you tossed about a few non-sequitur comments before disappearing from the discussion. You weren't even honest enough to admit you were wrong, and that Stefanoni was quite obviously conducting her analysis from a suspect centric perspective.