Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #16

[SkewedView]

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

Ok that truly made me chuckle too funny

Thanks, it's good to lighten the mood every so often.

That said, I am interested in everyone's thoughts on the contents of the pair of posts, as what I discovered has pushed me over toward the possible evidence tampering side of the fence (not that it's much of a stretch to get from perjury and submission of forged documents to tampering, but still, I hadn't realized how easy it would have been).

 

[Nova]

The drinking the koolaid phrase is so disrespectful of the women forced to watch their children injected with poison, the people who ran for their lives from that pavillion only to get shot in the back, and the men who had to "assist" their families into death. At that point, they probably wanted to drink the koolaid themselves. I know you were quoting someone else, but I just wanted to express that using that phrase makes fun of mass suicide and murder.

You're right, but it's been 35 years and "drinking the Kool-Aid" has secured its place in our language.

 

[SkewedView]

You're right, but it's been 35 years and "drinking the Kool-Aid" has secured its place in our language.

That is true, but it should be pointed out that its place is as a very nasty insult to the intellect of the persons it is being directed at. In the case of Otto's original post, a large number of WS members. Nice, huh?

 

[dgfred]

BBM

This again is blatently false as per his court case which he won

He won the case regarding the spending 2 weeks in jail but being completely innocent... not being beaten.

 

[dgfred]

I simply have to ask as I am at my breaking point here.

Why is information that has been proven to be inaccurate continually posted? Can we not rely on known facts and corrected information in which to present our opinions?

I simply do not understand the reasoning or purpose this misinformation can bring to the discussion when it is not accurate....

We ought to all be breaking by this point then.

Each side quotes the Daily Mail and other blogs/articles/sites that support their own side or argument. Of course the other side then calls the site or article a rag and misinformative... nothing is ever proven one way or another.
The same thing happens with the courts decisions and just about every piece of evidence/information IMO.

 

[dgfred]

As for Frank being beaten it was investigated and documented. The comment regarding him is blatently false

Documented by whom?

Investigated by whom?

Could you provide a link to this that is not a groupie or Frank himself?

 

[dgfred]

That is true, but it should be pointed out that its place is as a very nasty insult to the intellect of the persons it is being directed at. In the case of Otto's original post, a large number of WS members. Nice, huh?

How ironic. :innocent:

Considering one of your last post to me had included:

*you calling 'BS' on my opinion without reason or proof.
*you stating my opinion 'was proving nothing' in the post.
*claiming I am making 'extraordinary assertions' with my opinion.
*wanting me to 'show you studies' when YOU claim my post was wrong and BS. But not providing anything yourself.
*you now want me to 'prove YOU wrong' when in my post I was talking about Wasn't Me and the mop pics. Couldn't I ask you for your promised synopsis?
Why would I need to prove you wrong about MY opinions asked for by SMK?

Posting so hostile does nothing to advance the debate or discussions IMO.

 

[dgfred]

Thanks, it's good to lighten the mood every so often.

That said, I am interested in everyone's thoughts on the contents of the pair of posts, as what I discovered has pushed me over toward the possible evidence tampering side of the fence (not that it's much of a stretch to get from perjury and submission of forged documents to tampering, but still, I hadn't realized how easy it would have been).

Do you have a link to court documents showing someone accused/charged of perjury or a submission of forged documents in this case? :waitasec:

If not you probably should edit that to 'possible' or 'in your opinion'. :twocents:

 

[Sonata]

We ought to all be breaking by this point then.

Each side quotes the Daily Mail and other blogs/articles/sites that support their own side or argument. Of course the other side then calls the site or article a rag and misinformative...

For the record, the last time the Daily Mail was mentioned it was in favour of my personal stance on the case and yet I was the one to shoot it down as a reliable source of evidence. So it isn't always a one-sided take on the sources.

I shoot sources down because I think they are untrue or underhanded - not because I do not feel they back up my particular opinion.

 

[dgfred]

So-marked on the record. I hope you got my point tho.

 

[SMK]

For the record, the last time the Daily Mail was mentioned it was in favour of my personal stance on the case and yet I was the one to shoot it down as a reliable source of evidence. So it isn't always a one-sided take on the sources.

I shoot sources down because I think they are untrue or underhanded - not because I do not feel they back up my particular opinion.

I am from New York, and to tell you the truth, had NO idea if the Daily Mail were a rag or equivalent to the New York Times. I simply Google for articles with key words such as "Lumumba beaten by Perugia Police". I assumed Patrick Lumumba was telling the truth in an interview, whether to the Daily Mail or any other source. Even rags can be sued for libel.

 

[Sonata]

I am from New York, and to tell you the truth, had NO idea if the Daily Mail were a rag or equivalent to the New York Times. I simply Google for articles with key words such as "Lumumba beaten by Perugia Police". I assumed Patrick Lumumba was telling the truth in an interview, whether to the Daily Mail or any other source. Even rags can be sued for libel.

Absolutely. But in Britain (not sure about other countries) our tabloid papers are renowned for just fabricating interviews on occasion, so you really never know what you're getting. Russell Brand does a really good stand up piece on this where he picks apart an article (might even be in the Mail) claiming that he got slapped by C-list celebrity Tamara Beckwith, who he had never even met!

The article even had quotes from Tamara (supposedly) about the incident.

 

[SMK]

Absolutely. But in Britain (not sure about other countries) our tabloid papers are renowned for just fabricating interviews on occasion, so you really never know what you're getting. Russell Brand does a really good stand up piece on this where he picks apart an article (might even be in the Mail) claiming that he got slapped by C-list celebrity Tamara Beckwith, who he had never even met!

The article even had quotes from Tamara (supposedly) about the incident.

Ah, I see the problem, then. I had no idea things were so bad. Of course you have had the huge NOTW scandal now.....:waitasec:

 

[Sonata]

Ah, I see the problem, then. I had no idea things were so bad. Of course you have had the huge NOTW scandal now.....:waitasec:

Yeah the British press is very divided. There is no middle ground. You have your tabloid press which as we have seen publicly recently is utterly corrupt and sensationalistic and then we have the real journalism of papers like the Guardian, The Independent and the Observer, which are extremely reliable and fact-based publications which do not publish articles based on rumour.

 

[SkewedView]

How ironic. :innocent:

Considering one of your last post to me had included:

*you calling 'BS' on my opinion without reason or proof.
*you stating my opinion 'was proving nothing' in the post.
*claiming I am making 'extraordinary assertions' with my opinion.
*wanting me to 'show you studies' when YOU claim my post was wrong and BS. But not providing anything yourself.
*you now want me to 'prove YOU wrong' when in my post I was talking about Wasn't Me and the mop pics. Couldn't I ask you for your promised synopsis?
Why would I need to prove you wrong about MY opinions asked for by SMK?

Posting so hostile does nothing to advance the debate or discussions IMO.

All of those quotes of me were attacking your assertions (including how you had proved me wrong, supposedly), not attacking you. Otto blatantly attacked the character of members of this forum. Learn the difference.

As for asking for proof - your assertions were an insult to the Justice System of an entire nation, and you didn't think that you'd get called on it? :floorlaugh:

And yes, you can ask for my promised synopsis, and I will tell you the same thing I have had to tell those awaiting installments of my serials on other forums - I'm working on it as I have time. Sorry that my job and family comes before a bunch of strangers on the internet, but that's just how it is.


ETA: And please note that since the time that I promised my synopsis, I have avoided repeating my assertions of blatant bias by Massai, unless I had a link for a specific example.

 

[SkewedView]

Do you have a link to court documents showing someone accused/charged of perjury or a submission of forged documents in this case? :waitasec:

If not you probably should edit that to 'possible' or 'in your opinion'. :twocents:

The independent experts provided proof in Steffanoni's own words, documents and images that she lied in court. That is perjury, whether the courts elect to act on it or not (and there are reams of articles by human rights activists about the alarming global trend of courts to not punish perjury by employees of the state). As for the forged document, we just had multiple accounts of Comodi attempting to submit documentation of the control tests, only to be called on them not being what she said they were (to be fair, Comodi may not have been aware of that - Steffanoni has no such excuse). Comodi was then given a verbal smackdown for this by the Judge.

I'd supply links right now, but I have to go pick up my daughter from horse-riding camp. Maybe some others can take up my slack on this, if not I'll dig through the last thread or so for them as I get time.

 

[Allusonz]

Thanks, it's good to lighten the mood every so often.

That said, I am interested in everyone's thoughts on the contents of the pair of posts, as what I discovered has pushed me over toward the possible evidence tampering side of the fence (not that it's much of a stretch to get from perjury and submission of forged documents to tampering, but still, I hadn't realized how easy it would have been).

I will review those posts and provide my humble opinion.

As for whether you are collecting at a crime scene or working in a laboratory the procedures/protocols are still standard but stringent.

The very first thing to recognize is that these tests were performed in a regular DNA lab with items in LCN DNA range thus the more stringent controls required in an LCN DNA lab were not present. More to come work calls ggrrrrrrrrrr

 

[Nova]

I am from New York, and to tell you the truth, had NO idea if the Daily Mail were a rag or equivalent to the New York Times. I simply Google for articles with key words such as "Lumumba beaten by Perugia Police". I assumed Patrick Lumumba was telling the truth in an interview, whether to the Daily Mail or any other source. Even rags can be sued for libel.

I refuse to be responsible for evaluating the accuracy of newspapers in Europe. If someone else wants to question the value of a source I quote, they should feel free.

 

[SMK]

I refuse to be responsible for evaluating the accuracy of newspapers in Europe. If someone else wants to question the value of a source I quote, they should feel free.

Well said.

 

[Nova]

Well said.

I should have added that I also don't expect our European posters to know the difference between the Globe and the San Francisco Examiner. If necessary, we North Americans will be happy to explain.