It strikes me that going over these files we've been talking about when they don't even (perhaps?) know whether controls were done in the first place is a bit bizarre. Wouldn't their experts have been after this from day one if they thought there was a hope in hell that controls weren't actually done?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel
- Thread starter Skeptic Ginger
- Start date
- Status
Fulcanelli
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2009
- Messages
- 3,576
He has ZERO credibility, because he has been proven to have outright lied on multiple occasions!!! NOBODY who has followed this case for any length of time will put the slightest stock in a single word Chris Mellas has to say, aside from the gullible or the incredibly stupid or the agenda driven. Accepting his input on any matter is as laughable as going to Robert Mugabe for advice on social reform.
Fulcanelli
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2009
- Messages
- 3,576
It's not bizarre at all. That data is part of the case file which is accessed only by the court, the prosecution, defence teams and the team representing them victims. Who else requires access to it and why should they have it? Are they taking part in the case in the court room?
Which brings me on to my next point. If the claims by your scientists were so original, so astute and so scientific, why did they not appear as witnesses in the trial...why did the defence not call them?
I'll tell you why...because your scientists are talking pants...the sort of twaddle that was never intended for a court room (otherwise they'd be in it) but for digestion by a general public dazzled by the letters 'PhD'. In other words, it's nothing more then propaganda.
You have no source. There is no evidence whatsoever that the files were not released. You know, like a contempt of court case: or even a complaint from the defence that a court order was not complied with. Unless and until you can produce something which is to be expected, like that, then I will continue to assume the files were delivered to the defence as agreed to by Migninini and Comodi on 19/7/2009: by 31/7/09, as ordered by the judge. Mellas has lied about a lot of things and it seems he will say anything at all that suits his book
But I am interested in how long you have been in touch with him: that is something you do not seem to have mentioned before?
Fulcanelli
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2009
- Messages
- 3,576
Well, it's patently clear that they've gone over those files that they 'do' have and then made multiple assumptions from them and from those made public assertions. I don't know of anything 'less' scientific then that, not to mention arrogant.
Fulcanelli
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2009
- Messages
- 3,576
More to the point...it would have been raised in court. It wasn't. And it wasn't because there wasn't a shred of evidence to suggest it and the prosecution witnesses did more then enough to prove the integrity of both themselves and their lab.
It's just smoke and mirrors being thrown out by FOA recruits (no matter what letters they have after their names) to throw aspersions upon a trial they never took part in and didn't take part in for good reason.
Fulcanelli
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2009
- Messages
- 3,576
BobTheDonkey
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2009
- Messages
- 4,501
So, here we go with more of these mental gymnastics.
We're supposed to believe that the full disclosure of the DNA evidence was not provided. And yet there was enough provided to the defense (and world, I suppose) that these 9 (the letter only has 2 signatures...and as Fiona pointed out, quite a few of those 9 have vested interests in this matter) were able to write a letter claiming the DNA evidence was poorly or incorrectly analyzed.
Well, which was it?
Either the DNA evidence was not fully released or the DNA evidence was fully released and further analysis points to Amanda/Raf not being involved.
This is not a false dichotomy as these are necessarily mutually incompatible arguments. If the DNA evidence was able to be analyzed further, than the data was made available to the Defense. If the evidence was not made available, then how have these 2 authors been able to further analyze the data and show Stefanoni's lab's analysis to be incorrect?
Ahh, the mental gymnastics are almost refreshing after 2 days without power/internet access...almost.
We're supposed to believe that the full disclosure of the DNA evidence was not provided. And yet there was enough provided to the defense (and world, I suppose) that these 9 (the letter only has 2 signatures...and as Fiona pointed out, quite a few of those 9 have vested interests in this matter) were able to write a letter claiming the DNA evidence was poorly or incorrectly analyzed.
Well, which was it?
Either the DNA evidence was not fully released or the DNA evidence was fully released and further analysis points to Amanda/Raf not being involved.
This is not a false dichotomy as these are necessarily mutually incompatible arguments. If the DNA evidence was able to be analyzed further, than the data was made available to the Defense. If the evidence was not made available, then how have these 2 authors been able to further analyze the data and show Stefanoni's lab's analysis to be incorrect?
Ahh, the mental gymnastics are almost refreshing after 2 days without power/internet access...almost.
Now, now BobTheDonkey: Halides1 has been careful to say that he makes no claim for what these allegedly withheld files will show. He is only intent on smearing those who did the forensic work, the police, the witnesses who testified, and the prosecution. He does this by insinuation but he makes no positive claim. And he will wax all indignant about your "dishonesty" if you do not acknowledge that. Which will surely make you sad, and we can't have that.
The outsiders that cain't/won't shoot straight
We had the Sen. Cantwell ruckus and the unequivocal utterance by Knox and barrister Ghirga on the "correct" nature of the Perugia trial.
We had the Sen. Cantwell ruckus and the unequivocal utterance by Knox and barrister Ghirga on the "correct" nature of the Perugia trial.
Translation:
Keep out! Outside Scientists NOT WELCOME.
Keep out! Outside Scientists NOT WELCOME. It certainly is interesting to see how anxious some are to dismiss scenarios involving Rudy Guilty- which are known to be not uncommon- as implausible and unbelievable; while at the same time somehow managing to wrap their supposedly "skeptical" minds around a prosection scenario which, if true, is so unprecedented no one can offer a single parallel case.
Not the kind of reasoning that it is in the best tradition of JREF, I would say. But, nevertheless, fascinating in it's own way for the type of bias and underlying motives such thinking might reveal.
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
So you're saying that your proof in support of this claim ...
is an offhand reference of dubious relevance attributed to a defense lawyer in a newspaper article?
That's it?
Your claim alleges mishandling of evidence at best, tampering at worst. I would hope that you have something more substantial than that to share. A protest by that same lawyer in, say, the courtroom would be less dishonest, if you have something less dishonest to share.
Dan O.
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,594
quadraginta in now in my ignore file for being a total ass in the above post. It was not my claim that Raffaele's computer was tampered with. I was just forwarding the information I had read for both that the hard drive from Raffaele's laptop was not involved in the frying episode and the story that there was activity on Raffaele's computer after Raffeale was already locked up.
BobTheDonkey
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2009
- Messages
- 4,501
Hahahahaha.
He quoted your posts, and you somehow accuse him of making false accusations against you?
You made an assertion, he asked for evidence, you failed to provide substantial evidence - and he was being an ass?
hahahahahahaha.
Skeptics, bias, preposterous scenarios and the meaning of "correct"
I do not personally know any of the persons involved. It is not personal.
My skepticism leans towards the skeptics here. We have three accused that you could not believe a word they say. You have a long list of coincidences that point to guilt. You have a lack of alibi. You have these three obfuscators, mostly, and enough evidence to convince all judges hearing this case of the shared guilt of the accused.
You have a helpless defence that cannot come up with a narrative that will exonerate their clients.
This is a circumstantial case, meaning either the prosecution has its story straight or the defence does. THE BEST NARRATIVE WINS.
The prosecution's narrative makes sense to me. The accused themselves are the best proof for the prosecution.
It does not make sense that the three innocent angels cannot be helped by the robust defence team. It is supposed to be a "weak" case for the prosecution. The prosecution and the defence have gone before twenty-plus judges and all have ruled against the defendants.
It is ridiculous to re-try the case here at JREF. None of us on the outside has the evidence the judges have heard. The murder scene details were heard behind closed doors.
The best evidence we have comes after the guilty verdicts for Knox/Sollecito: Knox and her lawyer Ghirga both made it known that without a shadow of a doubt, truthfully and faithfully, this trial -where one party was sent to prison for 26 years and the other lost the biggest case of his life- was "correct". This, coming from the horse's mouth, no less.
My dog in this fight is called "Truth"., My bias leans towards the search for truth. Truth is my motive. My thoughts pursue the truth.
I do not personally know any of the persons involved. It is not personal.
My skepticism leans towards the skeptics here. We have three accused that you could not believe a word they say. You have a long list of coincidences that point to guilt. You have a lack of alibi. You have these three obfuscators, mostly, and enough evidence to convince all judges hearing this case of the shared guilt of the accused.
You have a helpless defence that cannot come up with a narrative that will exonerate their clients.
This is a circumstantial case, meaning either the prosecution has its story straight or the defence does. THE BEST NARRATIVE WINS.
The prosecution's narrative makes sense to me. The accused themselves are the best proof for the prosecution.
It does not make sense that the three innocent angels cannot be helped by the robust defence team. It is supposed to be a "weak" case for the prosecution. The prosecution and the defence have gone before twenty-plus judges and all have ruled against the defendants.
It is ridiculous to re-try the case here at JREF. None of us on the outside has the evidence the judges have heard. The murder scene details were heard behind closed doors.
The best evidence we have comes after the guilty verdicts for Knox/Sollecito: Knox and her lawyer Ghirga both made it known that without a shadow of a doubt, truthfully and faithfully, this trial -where one party was sent to prison for 26 years and the other lost the biggest case of his life- was "correct". This, coming from the horse's mouth, no less.
Last edited:
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
Why do you call them "three innocent angels"? Do you suppose that helps in your search for the truth?
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 10,017
Good point. In all fairness perhaps those scientists did not become invoved in the case until the end. The letter is dated November 19, 2009. But now that they are we will have to see if the defense does call on them to testify at the appeal. If they don't then you're right, just more propaganda.
Why do you call them "three innocent angels"? Do you suppose that helps in your search for the truth?
I have to grant you I should not have written that.
My apologies to the three defendants.
- Status