• 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.

Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Zero Results....Really ??

RandyN said:
Psssst...ask how they were able to afford 30 thousand plus wire tapped phone conversations (that resulted in zero results btw) just in this case.

30 THOUSAND! Why Italy must be the richest country in the world....errrrr????Huh?
Click to expand...

Be sure and mention that rather startling and heretofore pretty much unknown...errrrr....'fact'..... to the lawyers that have to defend the (5) Sollecito Family members in their upcoming trial.

Dr Sollecito, the same guy who says he makes water run uphill with his money, unequivocally told Vanessa his disgraced *ex* Lieutenant daughter to stop what she was saying to him on the phone because........drumroll......the conversation was being recorded; i.e wire tapped

But surely, BTW, you knew that.
I must have 'misinterpreted what you meant'
Or, of course, I fail to see 'sarcasm'
Sure:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
pilot padron said:
Be sure and mention that rather startling and heretofore pretty much unknown...errrrr....'fact'..... to the lawyers that have to defend the (5) Sollecito Family members in their upcoming trial.

Dr Sollecito, the same guy who says he makes water run uphill with his money, unequivocally told Vanessa his disgraced *ex* Lieutenant daughter to stop what she was saying to him on the phone because........drumroll......the conversation was being recorded; i.e wire tapped

But surely, BTW, you knew that.
I must have 'misinterpreted what you meant'
Or, of course, I fail to see 'sarcasm'
Sure:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


These posts are getting worse. What the heck are you talking about?

A point is made that over 30,000 phone calls were recorded, as a counter to the claim that there was no money to record Amanda's interrogation, and to indicate that Mignini was lying when he claimed that. Then you say that the Sollecitos knew they were being recorded.

What???? And the logic here is what???
 
Re: The debate about the C&V report vs. Stefanoni et al.

All I need to know is that, after that bra clasp collection video was shown, Stefanoni continued to say that the collection, testing, etc. was perfect, and nothing was done wrong at any point.

Credibility, toast.
 
Yes, these posts are getting worse

Dougm said:
These posts are getting worse. What the heck are you talking about?

A point is made that over 30,000 phone calls were recorded, as a counter to the claim that there was no money to record Amanda's interrogation, and to indicate that Mignini was lying when he claimed that. Then you say that the Sollecitos knew they were being recorded.

What???? And the logic here is what???
Click to expand...

OK; I'll try and lower it a few reading comprehension levels (again):

1) The poster says all money was wasted recording calls
2) My reply stated that the recording actually result in indicting 5 Family members on serious charges relating to the case.

Therefore money is not 'wasted'

Logical enough ??

I could add #1 is minor premise, #2 is major premise, #3 is the logical conclusion.
But that would defeat reducing comprehension levels, wouldn't it?

TRY:
How is all money wasted if the money spent results in criminal indictments

OR
Euros spent catching criminals is not wasted money

OR
All the posts from both of the two guilters still bothering to argue here are "getting worse"
 
pilot padron said:
OK; I'll try and lower it a few reading comprehension levels (again):

1) The poster says all money was wasted recording calls
2) My reply stated that the recording actually result in indicting 5 Family members on serious charges relating to the case.

Therefore money is not 'wasted'

Logical enough ??

I could add #1 is minor premise, #2 is major premise, #3 is the logical conclusion.
But that would defeat reducing comprehension levels, wouldn't it?

TRY:
How is all money wasted if the money spent results in criminal indictments

OR
Euros spent catching criminals is not wasted money

OR
All the posts from both of the two guilters still bothering to argue here are "getting worse"
Click to expand...


Oh dear.

I'm guessing that you're ignorant of the fact that the charges against the five Sollecito family members - Francesco Sollecito (Raffaele's father), Vanessa Sollecito (his sister), Mara Papagni (his stepmother) Giuseppe Sollecito (his uncle) and Sara Achille (his aunt) - are all in relation to the alleged "leaking" of the crime scene video to Telenorba?

In other words, NONE of the charges against the five Sollecito family members relate to any evidence gathered from the gigantic (and without doubt extremely costly) phone tapping exercise conducted by Mignini and his police cronies.

So maybe you'd like to correct yourself and perhaps also
pause for thought before issuing forth little phrases such as "logical enough?".

Ironic enough?
 
Huh ??

LondonJohn said:
Oh dear.

I'm guessing that you're ignorant of the fact that the charges against the five Sollecito family members - Francesco Sollecito (Raffaele's father), Vanessa Sollecito (his sister), Mara Papagni (his stepmother) Giuseppe Sollecito (his uncle) and Sara Achille (his aunt) - are all in relation to the alleged "leaking" of the crime scene video to Telenorba?

In other words, NONE of the charges against the five Sollecito family members relate to any evidence gathered from the gigantic (and without doubt extremely costly) phone tapping exercise conducted by Mignini and his police cronies.

So maybe you'd like to correct yourself and perhaps also
pause for thought before issuing forth little phrases such as "logical enough?".

Ironic enough?
Click to expand...



Under the heading of 'getting worse"
I am guessing you are ignorant of this fact.......
Just what in Gods green acre was the only subject of the leaked videos ? ? ?

OR

How far are you willing to 'stretch' simple facts to make them suit your 'arguments'.

Oh dear, indeed.
When you hold a majority today of about 200 to 2, the number of mindless atta boys the other 199 chose to adorn an argument with in no way is related to its significance or relevant errr... datum
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
Thanks - I try! :D

Curiously, I write quite a lot of consultancy reports which contain analysis of data; I'm one of the few people who insists on treating the word "data" as a plural noun (of which "datum" is the singular equivalent) - meaning that I will (e.g.) write "the data indicate that...." rather than "the data indicates that....". I get a tiny amount of perverse delight on hearing/reading people "correcting" me on this issue :)
Click to expand...

This use is correct in Latin, and is conventional in English in scientific and academic literature. However, 'data' is properly used as a non-countable mass noun (with a singular verb) when referring to a body of information, as opposed to several individual points, as well.
 
Caper said:
Mach you sound a bit like a 9/11 truther arguing that planes never hit the WTC, drolling over the minutia of every little news clip and word that was said...... while never stepping back to see just how stupid what you believe actually is.

Girl meets African drifter and decides to rape girls roommate. Completely unprecedented. We could post you 10 links of different proven false confessions... given in high pressure situations... and even low pressure situations.

You want innocent people that got themselves in trouble for getting details in their alibi wrong............. We got them too.

What do you have as far as precedence for what you believe? Nothing. I'm sure it's never happened in the history of the world.

Girl and new boyfriend, with no criminal history, spontaneously meet African drifter and decide to rape and murder girls roommate.

How completely and utterly stupid that is on it's face.

I don't know if it's hatred or a sense of Patriotism that allows you to cling to such a stupid belief. But it really is ridiculous.
Click to expand...


There's been plenty said and written on the whole issue surrounding the likelihood of Knox and/or Sollecito being the "sort of people" who'd commit such a murder. FWIW, my views on the subject are as follows:

1) It's absolutely possible (although very rare in the whole universe of murders) for individuals with the same age profile, status, background and ostensible character traits as Knox and Sollecito to participate in brutal murders. It's therefore incorrect to assert that Knox or Sollecito simply couldn't have been involved owing to these factors alone.

2) However, I believe that it's unprecedented in recorded crime for two people who have been in a relationship for less than a week to engage in precipitously nefarious and dangerous behaviour that ends up in sexual assault and murder. For two people to engage in such behaviour necessitates either a very high level of mutual trust or a very high level of psychological control by one of the individuals over the other. It's all very well for ignorant pro-guilt commentators to cite Fred/Rose West, Karla Homolka/Paul Bernardo, Hindley/Brady etc, but there's an absolutely massive difference between these cases and Knox/Sollecito. All of those other couples had been in intense relationships for at least two years before they started offending together. And, incidentally, in all of those cases the male partner had prior history of engaging in extremely deviant solo behaviour prior to (and/or in the early stages of) the relationship with the partner. And by deviant I mean multiple theft, Peeping Tom activities, rape or murder.

3) So it's therefore appropriate to suggest that in the specific circumstances of the Kercher murder and the nascent level of the relationship between Knox and Sollecito (not to mention the Guede factor) it's extraordinarily unlikely that Knox and Sollecito would have mutually supported each other in the orgy of violence and sexual deviance that took place in the Perugia cottage that night. In fact, it's overwhelmingly more likely that the murder and sexual assault was the work of a sole deviant individual working alone and indulging his dark fantasies. That individual, of course, was Rudy Guede.

4) However, I would argue that it's still inappropriate to completely rule out the participation of Knox and Sollecito purely on the above grounds. No matter how vanishingly unlikely it is that they grouped up to murder Meredith, it's important to understand that this leaves a real (although tiny) chance that they were in fact involved. And that's where it's necessary to examine the evidence. In this case, there's zero evidence pointing towards the participation of Knox and/or Sollecito in Meredith's murder, and in fact - given that the ToD was probably between 9om and 9.30pm, and certainly before 10pm - there's every reason to believe that Knox and Sollecito were in Sollecito's apartment at the time of the murder.

5) Therefore, a combination of sociological analysis and an investigation of the evidence leads to two inescapable conclusions: a) Knox and Sollecito are absolutely definitely not guilty in law of the murder of Meredith Kercher; and b) the very strong likelihood is that neither Knox nor Sollecito had anything whatsoever to do with the murder.
 
From P** - an insight to them ???
I came to this case completely open with no desire for anyone to be innocent or guilty. I identified with many things about Knox and for that reason felt she was capable. I felt I was capable. Many have been the times when I have planned someone's murder, going over each step of the way, trying to figure out how to get away with it. Every time, my fantasy ends with my being caught. It's just not worth it. As I have followed this case and learned more and more about Knox's behavior, I know I am not like her. I will never murder anyone. She is completely cold and despicable. She has to be a psychopath. I've only just read the beginning to the Follain book and her behavior up to and following the murder is described in so much more detail than we have discussed in the past. It really makes one sick to read it.
Click to expand...
 
pilot padron said:
Under the heading of 'getting worse"
I am guessing you are ignorant of this fact.......
Just what in Gods green acre was the only subject of the leaked videos ? ? ?
OR

How far are you willing to 'stretch' simple facts to make them suit your 'arguments'.

Oh dear, indeed.
When you hold a majority today of about 200 to 2, the number of mindless atta boys the other 199 chose to adorn an argument with in no way is related to its significance or relevant errr... datum
Click to expand...


Uhhhhhhh........what....?

First, re the highlighted part: the subject of the "leaked" videos was the crime scene in the cottage, including a short segment showing the body of Meredith Kercher. As far as I understand, the police became involved when the video was aired publicly on Bari TV station Telenorba. It didn't then take much police investigation to establish that the video had got into Telenorba's hands via the Sollecito family.

OK. Now then. Simple question: what part of the pending charges against the five members of the Sollecito family pertain to evidence gathered via phone tapping?
 
Grinder said:
From P** - an insight to them ???
Click to expand...


Holy Moly! Another prominent pro-guilt commentator exposes her underlying mental imbalance. I can't say I'm surprised in this instance: she's sometimes vying with Zorba to be the most disturbed pro-guilt commentator around.

I really do seriously think that an extremely interesting psychological/sociological study could be conducted into the internet commentary surrounding this case. Much of the behaviour on display is almost a case study in areas such as groupthink, desperation for group acceptance, the vindictiveness of mobs, the Dutch courage of anonymity, the deliberate use of multiple identities in an attempt to present multiple online personalities (Hi Stint7!) and the inflated grandiosity of little people from behind the cover of a keyboard (who, for example, could imagine that a lowly management accountant from the boondocks would be such a didactic expert!).
 
pilot padron said:
Under the heading of 'getting worse"
I am guessing you are ignorant of this fact.......
Just what in Gods green acre was the only subject of the leaked videos ? ? ?

OR

How far are you willing to 'stretch' simple facts to make them suit your 'arguments'.

Oh dear, indeed.
When you hold a majority today of about 200 to 2, the number of mindless atta boys the other 199 chose to adorn an argument with in no way is related to its significance or relevant errr... datum
Click to expand...

Pilot,

Let's get back to the original point that you completely whiffed on. The excuse for not recording Amanda's interrogations was budget cuts -- i.e., there was no money to pay for recording the interrogations. If this were true, then where did the money come from for recording all of the thousands of wiretaps the police executed on Amanda, Raffaele and family members?

The logical conclusion is there were no budgetary issues preventing the recording of the interrogations and that this was just another dismal attempted to cover up deliberately not recording the interrogations, so they could employ coercive tactics and not get caught, or to protect those who made the recordings disappear.

ETA: It's not a question of whether the money was well spent or not, but rather, whether budgetary cuts was a valid excuse for not recording the interrogations. Clearly this was a lie.
 
Last edited:
Prometheus said:
This use is correct in Latin, and is conventional in English in scientific and academic literature. However, 'data' is properly used as a non-countable mass noun (with a singular verb) when referring to a body of information, as opposed to several individual points, as well.
Click to expand...


Well, you're correct up to a point. But the mass noun usage of "data" is only due to repeated misuse that has entered the vernacular. We're currently seeing something similar happen with people misusing "phenomena" as a singular noun (e.g. "It's a very interesting phenomena"). Before long, it will likely be accepted that "phenomena" can be used either as a singular or plural noun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom