I was responding to 57 on red


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

^^Lying racist who admires nonces.

In other news, Appeals court is to hear Guede's revision request next month.
https://twitter.com/andreavogt/statu...14960588955648

And, if all you can say to the Supreme Court's conclusions is 'So?', then we know that you know that your pet killer and her squeeze-of-the-week are guilty.

But we knew that already.

I have to assume that the Supreme Court is basing their conclusions on the faulty reasoning and interpretation of the lower courts.

Corpus vile in public forum labeling someone as a "Lying racist" for stating their opinions which have nothing to do with race, nor are they dishonest.

His lying earned him a ban and I'm not interested in your stalking either, as such John Hinkley style behaviour only highlights the type of obsessives who support killers. (but it's all about the campaigning against injustice donthca know and not cuz such types are a bunch of creepy hybrystophiliacs incapable of defending their point if their lives depended upon it, so need to stalk people who got bored with their tiresome crap yonks ago anyway.)

You haven't read Nencini and evidently haven't read the SC report, so nobody sane cares what you assume.

Get some help bro. You're coming across as an aggressive, deranged lunatic with a little too much vested in these cases. No doubt a few complaints leading to mod reviews of your posts will get you perma-banned.

I'm not the one following people onto other threads due to being an obsessive conspiraloon nutjob, you are you sad pathetic epitome of psychological projection git, nor am I interested in your opinion, nor am I your "bro", you hiptser speaking scummy little killer admiring bloviating bottom feeding morally barren worm, what is it with you and your gnat like attention span? Now if you're here to discuss Meredith's case and are here to support yet another killer, then be so kind as to justify Cassation's report or else make a case for innocence so I can effortlessly demolish whatever droning bs passes for your points, otherwise go away and stop following me around like some deranged fanboy, you boring little maggot. Go denigrate victims or mutter darkly about what big meanies the cops are for framing your icon or whatever it is disturbed weirdos like you burble incessantly when you're not boring rational people to tears.

I see you edited so let me just add that I'm sure you'll be one of those crybabies whinging for a ban and will undoubtedly pm your murderer groupie mates to join you in your crusade. Obsessives like you are nothing if not predictable. If the mods wish to ban me then that's their prerogative.
And btw apart from Knox's Kool Aid Klub I was also stalked by this tubby weirdo for several years. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-11-bomb-plot/

So you need to up your troll game in order to impress me as Josh certainly didn't, just a heads up.

I got no shot then.

No. You most certainly don't. Thanks for confirming that you're not actually here to discuss this case but are simply here to whinge at me, due to your obsessive nature and rage against those who would dare burst your innocence fraud bubble, like many supporters of murderers and rapists....



*yawns*

Now again, you have anything to say on the Meredith Kercher case or not there, Travis?

The Supreme Court went ultra vires (beyond its powers) in acquitting on the facts without addressing the first-instance court's findings or remanding to a new second-instance court which could address those findings. In doing so, the Supreme Court offered highly dubious arguments, notably claiming that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not allow for unrepeatable scientific tests (such as that on Sample 36B), when in fact, under Art.360, the Code makes precisely that provision.

But that is what happens when neither the president of the court (Marasca) nor the relatore (Bruno) is an actual professional judge. They are both political appointees. Shortly after the anomalous Knox-Sollecito ruling, and apparently as a result of it, the Supreme Court announced that it will no longer accept political appointees to the bench.

Even so, the Supreme Court acquitted Knox and Sollecito only under Art.530.2, 'insufficient evidence', not the definitive Art.530.1 'not guilty', and found that Knox was 'certainly' present when the murder occurred, that there is 'eloquent proof' that she washed the victim's blood off her hands in their shared bathroom afterwards, that there is 'strong suspicion' that Sollecito was there too, that Rudy Guede could not have committed the crime alone, that it was not the work of any supposed burglar, that both Knox and Sollecito lied to investigators and gave a 'failed alibi', and that Knox deliberately blamed an innocent black man, Patrick Lumumba, to divert suspicion from Rudy Guede, in case anyone had seen him enter or leave the house that night, because she knew that Guede, if questioned, could retaliate by incriminating Knox herself.

And that's not exactly a clean judicial bill of health.

The Supreme Court went ultra vires (beyond its powers) in acquitting on the facts without addressing the first-instance court's findings or remanding to a new second-instance court which could address those findings. In doing so, the Supreme Court offered highly dubious arguments, notably claiming that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not allow for unrepeatable scientific tests (such as that on 36B), when in fact, under Art.360, the Code makes precisely that provision.

But that is what happens when neither the president of the court (Marasca) nor the relatore (Bruno) is an actual professional judge. They are both political appointees. Shortly after the anomalous Knox-Sollecito ruling, and apparently as a result of it, the Supreme Court announced that it will no longer accept political appointees to the bench.

Even so, the Supreme Court acquitted Knox and Sollecito only under Art.530.2, 'insufficient evidence', not the definitive Art.530.1 'not guilty', and found that Knox was 'certainly' present when the murder occurred, that there is 'eloquent proof' that she washed the victim's blood off her hands in their shared bathroom afterwards, that there is 'strong suspicion' that Sollecito was there too, that Rudy Guede could not have committed the crime alone, that it was not the work of any supposed burglar, that both Knox and Sollecito lied to investigators and gave a 'failed alibi', and that Knox deliberately blamed an innocent black man, Patrick Lumumba, to divert suspicion from Rudy Guede, in case anyone had seen him enter or leave the house that night, because she knew that Guede, if questioned, could retaliate by incriminating Knox herself.

And that's not exactly a clean judicial bill of health.

Nobody out-trolls corpus.

It's pretty clear no one has come into this thread 'supporting killers', yet that lie gets repeated endlessly.

Life must be so easy when there's no pesky conscience to worry about.

Well I planned on discussing it but quite frankly, I fear for my safety given the tone of your posts, slanderous labeling and clear mental instability.

So I'll just sit back and watch the Corpus Pile train wreck.

popcorn.gif

lost. I enjoy your posting - but, really much more so in the Making a Murderer Thread. Here, it appears your only purpose is to harass CV. As much as you have identified the issues you have with this poster in general, it is not fair to come into this thread if you have nothing of substance to offer. CV, regardless of your personal thoughts, has put a lot of earnest work into this thread (just like you have in the SA thread) and you should respect it.

Just my 2 cents.

Disagree. Have recently read many posts ITT but don't have time to get in depth. Was finally considering posting something of substance regarding a few small updates to this case until I came across CV calling someone a "lying racist". A further review OF JUST THIS PAGE found:

"pathological and willful dishonesty."
"dishonest scumbag who admires sex killers."
"Lying racist who admires nonces."
"not interested in your stalking either."
"obsessives who support killers."
"bunch of creepy hybrystophiliacs."
"obsessive conspiraloon nutjob."
"you are you sad pathetic epitome of psychological projection git"
"hiptser speaking scummy little killer admiring bloviating bottom feeding morally barren worm"
"stop following me around like some deranged fanboy, you boring little maggot"
"murderer groupie mates"
"I was also stalked by this tubby weirdo for several years." http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-11-bomb-plot/"

- CV

The tone of his posts is growing more aggressive, accusatory and frankly threatening. He has mentioned stalking, obsession and accused posters of supporting and admiring murderers. It should minimally be reviewed by mods with some action taken and probably should be reported to his local authorities by someone who access to that information. Again, just on this page, he is claiming to have been stalked by a criminal having something to do with explosives then linking us all to some weird story in a weak validation attempt, and then accusing me of similar type actions that he finds unimpressive. What?

Now I am supposed to add something of substance for the sake of fairness?

I agree C.V. is not exactly covering himself in glory lately, and it is to his own discredit. However, I hope we don't have two threads of you and CV going at it.

Obviously, I am always interested in what you have to say on these topics and if you were inclined to involve yourself in this thread, that would be cool.

Right, so you have zero to contribute to this thread. Just your stalking as I accurately pointed out to you before. Keep highlighting the type of stalkerish obsessives murderers and rapists attract as fanboys.

You clearly never read this thread so and I'm even less interested in your stalking than your fellow groupie's.

Oh we won't, I'll simply stick him on ignore if he keeps up his bs.

Yeah maybe he'll raise various police procedural, due process and burden of proof bars for Innocent Amanda the way those bars were getting raised on that other truther thread which says it all about the weakness of the case for "innocence"...

That's all the supporters have been doing on that thread. Raising the bar, engaging in double standards, conflating personal criteria for evidence with the standard criteria, linking pseudoscientific sources and saying that an involuntary confession equated to a false one because it was provisionally ruled involuntary. It's why I stopped responding to it, nobody home over there. Clearly I've annoyed some of the people on it and clearly they're spoiling for a fight hence their following me onto a different thread here and even a different forum.
Again says it all how weak for the case for innocence is when people need to engage in such tactics. They're not interested in the truth or justice for victims, they just can't stand anyone disrupting their fraudulent narrative and it's plain to see. Pity you can't see it mate. Or see that despite my attitude, again- it's them who are spoiling for a fight hence their following/ stalking of me which I haven't done once.
Again I appreciate your shout but you're probably better off sticking me on ignore if I annoy you that much, and again pity you seem to be only able to see what you wish to see, due to your embracing of a false and decidedly fraudulent innocence narrative. That said, I still respect you, cheers.

Apples and oranges - And I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt by stating I think you know that.

Ah, but it isn't. You merely think it is due to your embracing of the narrative.
It's why you opined that people who flat put lied there was "no evidence" against Dassey while in the same breath thundering he was framed, despite no apparent evidence existing to frame him to begin with, were knowledgeable and reasonable.
That inconsistent logic is just one of several trope, memes and similar arguments that have been used on Innocent Amanda's behalf on this very thread and not only that but was also used for three poor railroaded kids who were victims of "hysteria" and a "witch hunt" simply cuz they liked Slayer and dressed in black.

Let's have a look at some of these tropes & memes and crappy arguments, shall we?

Coercion
Knox, WM3, Dassey. All three are confessions/statements supported by forensic evidence/witnesses/instances of fact. But hey they were coerced as two of them have low IQ's you see and the other one involved foreigners. Paul Ingram who raped his kids was coerced too even though he actually started confessing straight away and pleaded guilty but was still coerced. (it's almost like the offender realises he/she originally blabbed too much and now claim coercion as an excuse to explain this away innit?)

Double standards
Courts of law rejected multiply with no specific explanation for how they erred. (Courts get it wrong though, there is that, so y'know maybe they did here. At least that's what supporters of Knox, Avery, Dassey, the WM3 and Adnan Syed seem to think anyway.)

Innuendo/speculation sufficient for everyone else
Whether they're Hobbs, Byers, Mr Bojangles, Rudy Guede, serial burgling drifting drug dealing police informant, Tadych, Teresa Halbach's brother, Bobby Dassey, Earl Avery, the cops or drug dealing Jay who probably really killed Hae Min Lee as it just couldn't have been innocent Adnan cuz serial told me so it must be true. Anyone other than the convicted offenders.

Corruption
Cops are always corrupt and evil and incompetent and were so in all of these cases hence the coercion, manufactured evidence, contamination etc.

Pretzel logic is allowed for the offenders when it comes to evidence for guilt.
It's why there's a benign explanation for innocent Raffaele lying in his diary and innocent Brendan lying to the cops as the cops planted a false memory in his head just as Innocent Amanda originally claimed the cops did to her before changing her story to the ever reliable "coercion". As for any DNA evidence, well that was contamination like the knife and bra clasp and bullet from Avery's gun and not the control sample.

Victim denigration
We've seen the attacks on the victim and her family on this very thread, haven't we Oski? And let's not forget Hobbs and Byers of course backwoods weirdos who must be the real killers and didn't Teresa's brother look kinda shifty? A tad suspicious? Which of course is sufficient for him, natch and we only want to get to the truth of the matter, we're honestly not sticking it to the victim because we're just concerned citizens fighting injustice. Honest.

Bars are raised.
Did you know that not a shred of physical evidence exists against Brendan Dassey for rape and that other than the confession "no evidence" exists against him?(we'll ignore the bleach stains as it disrupts the feelgood innocence narrative). I mean sure physical evidence isn't required and an admission against interest is considered sufficient evidence against you but Brendan needs more proof against him, just as innocent Amanda does as she left no physical trace of herself in the murder room which of course is the crime scene but only for Amanda and the other dude but not the black guy, crime scene was the house for him, just as looking shifty is reason to suspect Teresa's brother.

Personal criteria for evidence is conflated with the standard criteria.
You yourself engaged in this fallacy I'm sorry to say as did all of Knox's groupies and Avery's fan club on the this and the mam thread.

Memes
There are witch hunts. Hysteria. Frame ups. Junk Science and confirmation bias due to tunnel vision.

Unrealistic expectations for LE
Cops cannot go where the evidence takes them they must seek new suspects apparently... just because. It's why they engaged in confirmation bias for Knox, Avery and Adnan Syed. (due to tunnel vision)

Cops can only use evidence they can find there and then immediately at a crime scene yet must disregard any evidence they find later on the grounds that...they find it later. Hence the bra clasp and hence the objections to Avery's DNA on the latch hood as it wasn't found until a whopping four months later, never mind 43 days which means that Robert Durst should have no worries considering evidence which led to his latest arrest wasn't discovered until well over a decade later.

The use of creepy cultist style lexicons
such as "guilter", which now Avery's supporters have adopted to brand unbelievers who blaspheme against their cult's narrative. It appears that a certain Mr Syed's supporters also adopt such a term.

The expectation of special treatment for special offenders.
Did you know that both the corrupt Arkansas cops AND the keystone Loltalians never recorded interrogations for some of the WM3 and innocent Amanda? I mean sure neither Arkansas or Italian law required 'em but still...really makes you wonder about factual innocence doesn't it in a huge logical leap kinda way. ESPECIALLY when you consider how they don't even have a motive which yeah, maybe isn't "technically" required but c'mon...

The reasoning that if something seems weird or odd or unexpected then it nullifies the absolute boatload of evidence which convicted the offenders.
I mean Teresa shoulda bled more in that garage, I mean you ever see those headshots in The Walking Dead for example, it's totally clear, super obvious, universally accepted and other lazy words highlighting lazy reasoning that her DNA totally shoulda been there and why would Steve commit murder when he was gonna get a big payoff? That's as nonsensical as a daffy hippie chick getting two guys to like sexually assault and murder her flatmate especially when they hardly knew each other , or three goth kids getting together to murder three children, which trumps DNA and multiple lies and detailed knowledge and luminol footprints and detailed confessions and victim's RAV4's and remains being found on property.

The assumption that being dumb enough to get caught is somehow evidence for innocence.
Hence the sarcastic but weak waffle re "master criminals" being able to do "selective cleanups" or how Avery shoulda just crushed the car.

The repetition of failed defence arguments to make a case for innocence
You yourself pointed this out itt re Knox'supporters and the whole Avery being framed thing is pretty much the same thing as the defence argued it in court and failed, but now if we repeat it on the internet it has more gravitas...somehow.

These tropes- ultimately weak, specious hollow arguments that actually need to raise the bar and misrepresent facts in order to make a case for innocence to support a fraudulent narrative- have existed in numerous high profile murder cases. Child abuse cases too.

And all these cases have the commonality that the offenders proclaim innocence, forever and ever Amen, despite compelling evidence for guilt.

These similarities are big red flags for me because ultimately the truth is easy to defend. It has a simplicity and consistency to it that no amount of claims to the contrary- in these cases guilt- can trump.
yet the claims for guilt do trump the claims for innocence in all of these cases and more I could mention. And the claims for guilt require no tropes, memes, raising of the bar or misrepresentation. Because the truth is easy to defend.
That's the bottom line for me.

And on that MAM thread none of you have defended the truth and that's also the bottom line. Supporters there have simply ultimately engaged in the same tropes memes, double standards, inconsistency and weak arguments that they've engaged in here.
You simply can't see this because you're caught up in the narrative over there. It's why I fight innocence fraud as if people like you- who I have learned more from about the law and how trials are conducted than I would have learned in a lifetime, simply from reading your posts; intelligent people who I respect and on a personal level like- can embrace a narrative and allow your perceptions to be skewed, then that only highlights how insidious and dangerous this phenomenon is.

But you have not defended the truth on that thread nor have any other supporters. And if any of you need to engage in such things highlighted in order to make a case for innocence, which btw you all have engaged in, then you don't have a case to make here mate because again the truth is easy to defend and doesn't require such things for it to shine. You have not defended the truth.
We'll have to agree to disagree if you feel otherwise.
I would appreciate it if we didn't discuss this issue again as I do respect you and am frankly not in the humour of getting into a row with you on the matter as my eyes are open and they always will be.
Cheers.

You are being disingenuous.

I have read the thread, but I may have missed the post where 239 or anyone else has literally said 'Amanda Knox is a killer and Meredith got what she deserved, therefore I support her'.

If you cannot provide a link to those posts, you should stop lying about people in this thread 'supporting murderers'.

Oh I'm not lying, just calling it like I and several other posters in this very thread have seen it regarding 239, Ken Dine, chesspain, 99 and all the other Mandymaniacs who spammed up this thread with their lies and attacks on the victim, such as doug's parroting of his icon that the victim's family "were not above criticism" and Krazy Ken gloating that the murder victim's family could "Rot in hell", getting his murderer groupie ass banned in the process... Looking, walking and quacking like a duck and all that.

Nor am I interested in anything you have to say, as I was wise to you from a long time ago, long before any of these people in this forum became aware of you. You're just another 239, only from the opposite end of the spectrum and when it comes to good ole Stevie and Brendan, you're just as big a groupie as he is with Knox and just as obsessive. Even now, by proactively engaging me like you did on the MAM thread and on PMF, as opposed to reactive responses such as mine, to your fellow zealot lost, you're keeping a thread which was pretty much dormant going, just as your fellow groupie sauce resurrected it and did so purely to pick a fight with me due to his chagrin at my perceived blasphemy against the killers he supports, just as you followed me on to PMF to do the same thing and just as you're doing now- picking a fight. Not discussing this case, just whinging at me, personally as if I care about your feelings anyway.
Just like all fans of killers seem to do, as you don't have a viable argument here and therefore get upset when others accurately point this out to you, hence the stalking and fight picking and using murder victim's names to score points off and while we're on the topic of murderer fanboy flaws, your lack of self awareness in this regard, the way Dine, 239 et al lacked the self awareness to see how their behaviour came across as to others who don't support criminals. That you can't see this is hilarious and completely unsurprising all at once.
Knox's groupies have engaged in the exact same stalkerish behaviour with me over the years causing me to lol no end and you're doing the same thing, hence my accurate assessment of your being simply another groupie.
Now, anything else you wish to get off of your chest? I already said I'd stick your sauced & lost mate on ig if he was gonna start his stalkerish whingey bs, you think you're any different? You wish to discuss Meredith's case with anyone other than me itt, then fire away. Otherwise not interested in what a dick you think I am, or your irrelevant wailing crap about me in general as it's superfluous to this thread's topic.
Stick me on ignore, problem solved, otherwise you're simply proving my point all the more with your stalking.