gabeygoat
Master Poster
He had a calendar?
Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32
- Thread starter LondonJohn
- Start date
AmyStrange
Philosopher
Well, that's another logical fallacy. For instance, I don't like what Roseanne Barr said, but I do like her olde TV show because it was funny. Just because you don't like someone, doesn't mean you hate them.
The problem with you is that you don't think. You just agree with everything that confirms your bias and ignore everything else.
For example, why don't you answer SpitfireIX's question:
Or, how about these from Stacyhs:
Do ENFSI guidelines include
1. not changing gloves between handling items at the crime scene,
2. only changing gloves when something is obviously dirty, or when the item is wet,
3. handing evidence around to several others,
74. collecting evidence without tongs,
5. storing evidence so that it rots or rusts?
These are easy Yes or No questions.
Or, these from Bill Williams:
Why did Nencini say that the other three male-profiles on the bra-clasp, were NOT evidence of those males being in the room when the victim was murdered? Compare and contrast that with why Nencini found that RS's profile found on the bra-clasp WAS evidence of him in the room at the time of the murder?
Given that Nencini had just established a judicial-fact with those claims, why did he further say that those other three male profiles, were, acc. to him, from 'amica'? Girlfriends, who he claimed regularly handled the bra? Obstensively, handled it in another place at another time? Why did that reasoning not apply to RS's profile?
Or is contamination an easier explanation? If not, why not?
What is the role of an appeal's court (cf. the Marasca-Bruno ISC panel) when presented with judicial facts like that?
I have some more if you care to see them.
Last edited:
The major problems with your posts are not your alleged affection for Guede. I understand or believe that you only like Guede because of your clearly negative feelings toward Knox, which accompany an extreme bias against Knox and Sollecito that goes beyondr the questions brought up in the case. Since the Italian authorities used Guede and his fast-track trial as an unlawful witness against Knox and Sollecito, you find positive attributes in Guede despite published reports in Italian media that, at a minimum, cast doubt on his character; these reports appeared soon after the Italian police identified Guede as a suspect.
The major problems in your posts are the contradictions or absences of fundamental legal principles, the failure to objectively evaluate evidence and its reliability, and failures of logical reasoning.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Oh right. Do you have any evidence people in Italy pay rent circa 5th November, and take out the cash from the bank a week in advance? Are you able to explain why the 'burglar' didn't go through the drawers of the other three housemates and the guys downstairs?
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
All asked and answered, or too frivolous and/or readily available in court documents.Well, that's another logical fallacy. For instance, I don't like what Roseanne Barr said, but I do like her olde TV show because it was funny. Just because you don't like someone, doesn't mean you hate them.
The problem with you is that you don't think. You just agree with everything that confirms your bias and ignore everything else.
For example, why don't you answer SpitfireIX's question:
Or, how about these from Stacyhs:
Do ENFSI guidelines include
1. not changing gloves between handling items at the crime scene,
2. only changing gloves when something is obviously dirty, or when the item is wet,
3. handing evidence around to several others,
74. collecting evidence without tongs,
5. storing evidence so that it rots or rusts?
These are easy Yes or No questions.
Or, these from Bill Williams:
Why did Nencini say that the other three male-profiles on the bra-clasp, were NOT evidence of those males being in the room when the victim was murdered? Compare and contrast that with why Nencini found that RS's profile found on the bra-clasp WAS evidence of him in the room at the time of the murder?
Given that Nencini had just established a judicial-fact with those claims, why did he further say that those other three male profiles, were, acc. to him, from 'amica'? Girlfriends, who he claimed regularly handled the bra? Obstensively, handled it in another place at another time? Why did that reasoning not apply to RS's profile?
Or is contamination an easier explanation? If not, why not?
What is the role of an appeal's court (cf. the Marasca-Bruno ISC panel) when presented with judicial facts like that?
I have some more if you care to see them.
AmyStrange
Philosopher
Nope, none of them are frivolous, except for someone with confirmation bias, and nope, you didn't answer any of them, so why don't you answer SpitfireIX's question:
If, as you contend, you can "see the truth" that the print on the bathmat was made by Raffaele's foot, then why is the yellow line that passes approximately through the tip of the big toe of the bathmat print more than one centimeter behind the tip of the big toe of Raffaele's reference print?
Or, how about these from Stacyhs:
Do ENFSI guidelines include
1. not changing gloves between handling items at the crime scene,
2. only changing gloves when something is obviously dirty, or when the item is wet,
3. handing evidence around to several others,
74. collecting evidence without tongs,
5. storing evidence so that it rots or rusts?
These are easy Yes or No questions.
Or, these from Bill Williams:
Why did Nencini say that the other three male-profiles on the bra-clasp, were NOT evidence of those males being in the room when the victim was murdered? Compare and contrast that with why Nencini found that RS's profile found on the bra-clasp WAS evidence of him in the room at the time of the murder?
Given that Nencini had just established a judicial-fact with those claims, why did he further say that those other three male profiles, were, acc. to him, from 'amica'? Girlfriends, who he claimed regularly handled the bra? Obstensively, handled it in another place at another time? Why did that reasoning not apply to RS's profile?
Or is contamination an easier explanation? If not, why not?
What is the role of an appeal's court (cf. the Marasca-Bruno ISC panel) when presented with judicial facts like that?
I have some more if you care to see them.
Last edited:
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
I don't like Guede at all. His was a disgusting crime. However, he served his time as charged so there is nothing outstanding here. As someone who invariably sticks up for the underdog, I despise the way people like Nina Burleigh try to appeal to people's basest prejudices instead of presenting the facts. So yes, it is obvious Knox and Sollecito dreamt up the 'watching Amélie' ruse - a sweet lovely girl - whilst turning off their phones, thinking how incredibly horror story-like and sinister to pretend to be this sweet Amélie character and pin the entire crime via PR agencies and shills on the guy without the same influences., even to carry on the charade of having watched freaking Amélie even in 2025 as if they think anyone is sucked in by this utter nonsense that AK is anything like this innocuous Amélie character.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
We already discussed ENFSI best practice. The defence had ample to time to present their reservations in court. Bill Williams is again discussing background noise in DNA analysis, at a crime scene that is far from sterile.Nope, none of them are frivolous, except for someone with confirmation bias, and nope, you didn't answer one of them, so why don't you answer SpitfireIX's question:
If, as you contend, you can "see the truth" that the print on the bathmat was made by Raffaele's foot, then why is the yellow line that passes approximately through the tip of the big toe of the bathmat print more than one centimeter behind the tip of the big toe of Raffaele's reference print?
Or, how about these from Stacyhs:
Do ENFSI guidelines include
1. not changing gloves between handling items at the crime scene,
2. only changing gloves when something is obviously dirty, or when the item is wet,
3. handing evidence around to several others,
74. collecting evidence without tongs,
5. storing evidence so that it rots or rusts?
These are easy Yes or No questions.
Or, these from Bill Williams:
Why did Nencini say that the other three male-profiles on the bra-clasp, were NOT evidence of those males being in the room when the victim was murdered? Compare and contrast that with why Nencini found that RS's profile found on the bra-clasp WAS evidence of him in the room at the time of the murder?
Given that Nencini had just established a judicial-fact with those claims, why did he further say that those other three male profiles, were, acc. to him, from 'amica'? Girlfriends, who he claimed regularly handled the bra? Obstensively, handled it in another place at another time? Why did that reasoning not apply to RS's profile?
Or is contamination an easier explanation? If not, why not?
What is the role of an appeal's court (cf. the Marasca-Bruno ISC panel) when presented with judicial facts like that?
I have some more if you care to see them.
Disbelief
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2007
- Messages
- 3,607
Your fanfic is still terrible.
AmyStrange
Philosopher
Nope, you kept saying your opinions were "facts" with nothing to support them, leaving you NO CREDIBILTY, but you can redeem yourself by REALLY answering SpitfireIX's question. I know you can do it:
If, as you contend, you can "see the truth" that the print on the bathmat was made by Raffaele's foot, then why is the yellow line that passes approximately through the tip of the big toe of the bathmat print more than one centimeter behind the tip of the big toe of Raffaele's reference print?
Or, how about these from Stacyhs:
Do ENFSI guidelines include
1. not changing gloves between handling items at the crime scene,
2. only changing gloves when something is obviously dirty, or when the item is wet,
3. handing evidence around to several others,
74. collecting evidence without tongs,
5. storing evidence so that it rots or rusts?
These are easy Yes or No questions.
Or, these from Bill Williams:
Why did Nencini say that the other three male-profiles on the bra-clasp, were NOT evidence of those males being in the room when the victim was murdered? Compare and contrast that with why Nencini found that RS's profile found on the bra-clasp WAS evidence of him in the room at the time of the murder?
Given that Nencini had just established a judicial-fact with those claims, why did he further say that those other three male profiles, were, acc. to him, from 'amica'? Girlfriends, who he claimed regularly handled the bra? Obstensively, handled it in another place at another time? Why did that reasoning not apply to RS's profile?
Or is contamination an easier explanation? If not, why not?
What is the role of an appeal's court (cf. the Marasca-Bruno ISC panel) when presented with judicial facts like that?
I have some more if you care to see them.
gabeygoat
Master Poster
I assume Italians, like many other people, pay rent monthly. I can explain why he didn't go downstairs by the fact that burglers spend time pissing and ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ themselves.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Not my fanfic. Here's what the BBC has to say:
"At times, the story feels overly romanticised. It even tries to emulate the film Amélie – the film which Knox and Sollecito (Giuseppe De Domenico) said they watched on the night of Kercher's murder – with colourful vignettes and magical realism: see the scene in which a gang of teddy bears applauds Knox performing as a clown as a child. Indeed, Steinberg told The Seattle Times: "The homage to Amélie was a great way to have the audience be introduced to Amanda, the person, before she became defined in the public imagination as the warped version."
Why the new Amanda Knox TV drama is misguided
Miniseries The Twisted Tale of Amanda Knox dramatises the famous miscarriage of justice, which saw her convicted – then acquitted – of the murder of fellow student Meredith Kercher.
www.bbc.com
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
As I already said, note the lack of thread on the bathmat as of that point.Nope, you kept saying your opinions were "facts" with nothing to support them, leaving you NO CREDIBILTY, but you can redeem yourself by REALLY answering SpitfireIX's question. I know you can do it:
If, as you contend, you can "see the truth" that the print on the bathmat was made by Raffaele's foot, then why is the yellow line that passes approximately through the tip of the big toe of the bathmat print more than one centimeter behind the tip of the big toe of Raffaele's reference print?
Or, how about these from Stacyhs:
Do ENFSI guidelines include
1. not changing gloves between handling items at the crime scene,
2. only changing gloves when something is obviously dirty, or when the item is wet,
3. handing evidence around to several others,
74. collecting evidence without tongs,
5. storing evidence so that it rots or rusts?
These are easy Yes or No questions.
Or, these from Bill Williams:
Why did Nencini say that the other three male-profiles on the bra-clasp, were NOT evidence of those males being in the room when the victim was murdered? Compare and contrast that with why Nencini found that RS's profile found on the bra-clasp WAS evidence of him in the room at the time of the murder?
Given that Nencini had just established a judicial-fact with those claims, why did he further say that those other three male profiles, were, acc. to him, from 'amica'? Girlfriends, who he claimed regularly handled the bra? Obstensively, handled it in another place at another time? Why did that reasoning not apply to RS's profile?
Or is contamination an easier explanation? If not, why not?
What is the role of an appeal's court (cf. the Marasca-Bruno ISC panel) when presented with judicial facts like that?
I have some more if you care to see them.
TellyKNeasuss
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 3,789
1) Kercher's rent was overdue at the time of her murder, meaning that her rent money was likely stolen before the night of her murder (she had withdrawn the money 2 days before the murder).
2) What motivation would Guede have had for taking Kercher's cell phones and then throwing them into a neighbor's flower bed?
Last edited:
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
Yes, there's a pattern of removed thread in the mat. Exactly what do you think that proves?
AmyStrange
Philosopher
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Explains the gap you refer to. Think of a shoe print in mud. You place your foot over a muddy floor but there is a hole or a gap in the floor with no mud - because gap in floor - so therefore the muddy footprint shows the same gap as of that point. Ditto the bathmat and the missing thread.
AmyStrange
Philosopher
More opinions with no facts to back them up.
Typical egoist answer, but thanks for helping to prove me right again.
Last edited:
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
You can see the gap with your own two eyes!
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
Jeebus, even by your pathetically low standards this is utter strawmannery.