Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stacyhs said:
And you accuse me of bickering? LOL It doesn't really matter whether a 60-something yr. old woman could or not. It's whether Guede could. Or do you think he was incapable of doing that? Obviously it's possible as Pasquali's video clearly showed.
Click to expand...

Don't brag you can do this easily as a ' five foot something X-year old' when you know you almost certainly can't, given the sheer weight of the boulder.
 
Stacyhs said:
Unless a source is named and the information verified, it is simply hearsay. It doesn't mean Stagliano was lying nor have I ever said he was. It could mean his source was simply wrong.

How many "sources close to the investigation" gave misinformation to the media? For example, Richard Owen (a trained qualified journalist) reported in the UK Times (a respected newspaper) that police had found receipts showing purchases of bleach on the morning after the murder. Yet they had not. Did he check to be sure this was true? Apparently not. How about Owen's report that police had found the washing machine running? Once again, was this true? Nope. No police ever testified they found the washing machine running.

If you want to describe my calling you out on your "misinformation" and putting false words in my mouth "bickering", then be my guest. Others here can make up their own minds about whether it's "bickering" or not.
Click to expand...


This, while true, is all moot in this instance. Unless the source knew a) exactly what Gogerty Marriott was engaged to do for Curt Knox, under what terms, and with what level of staff/time commitment, and/or b) what actual sum of money was paid by Curt Knox to GM/Marriott, then the source is worthless in any case.

It's meaningless to say that GM's fees are "around $100,000 per year". For one thing, GM does different things for different clients, with differing levels of staff, time and expertise commitment. One could hire GM to do not very much over the course of a year, and perhaps pay $25,000 in fees. Or one could hire GM to commit a sizeable chunk of its manpower and expertise commitment on a daily basis, and perhaps pay $300,000 in fees. And for another thing, GM very probably charges different types of client different fee ranges. In fact, in a case such as that required by Curt Knox, it's not at all improbable that GM took the project on at either a substantially reduced fee scale, or even pro bono.

We also have zero proper evidence of what exactly GM did for Curt Knox, in terms of the level of commitment of manpower, expertise and time. The best evidence we currently have is in the form of statements made by both David Marriott and Curt Knox, in which both men imply that GM was hired to manage media relations and to manage the story that was being given to the media. And there is zero current reason to believe that GM's role went any deeper or broader than that - which also would mean that GM only performed a very limited range of services for Curt Knox, with a very low investment of manpower, expertise and time.

So, forget all about this "$100,000 per year". It's meaningless in and of itself, and it's doubly meaningless in the context of the Knox case.
 
Vixen said:
Don't brag you can do this easily as a ' five foot something X-year old' when you know you almost certainly can't, given the sheer weight of the boulder.
Click to expand...


It's not a boulder. It's a rock. You have been told.

:)
 
Vixen said:
Don't brag you can do this easily as a ' five foot something X-year old' when you know you almost certainly can't, given the sheer weight of the boulder.
Click to expand...

Once again, you are putting words in my mouth. You took exception when you said this was done to you but you think you are justified in doing so to me? You aren't. Please don't tell me what I think I can and cannot do. I think I know far better than you.

Once again, I just love the accusation that I like to bicker but you don't. :eye-poppi
 
Vixen said:
Filomena testified under oath the washing machine was still warm when she arrived home.
Click to expand...

Nope. You could save yourself 5000 posts by googling "site:internationalskeptics.com keyword" In this case: site:internationalskeptics.com "washing machine" "warm"

In fact, this is what somebody with a functioning brain interested in learning about this case would actually do before making a post. I've done it many times. If you have a reliable source that contradicts what you've googled from 22 threads of discussions on this forum, then you can post it and we can discuss it.

This would be called honest debate. Intellectual integrity. Reasonable discussion. Etc etc.

What you do instead in this thread is spam it with crap you read on twitter with zero interest in challenging your information or learning anything about this case.
 
Vixen said:
Stop deliberately twisting my words. I said Curt Knox invested in Gogerty-Marriott and then David Marriott to the tune of $2m. You are dissembling when you claim I said he paid them off. A debt has been created which is legally binding and it matters not a whit whether Curt Knox has paid Marriott in full or not.
Click to expand...


WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE OF THIS $2 MILLION?
 
LondonJohn said:
This, while true, is all moot in this instance. Unless the source knew a) exactly what Gogerty Marriott was engaged to do for Curt Knox, under what terms, and with what level of staff/time commitment, and/or b) what actual sum of money was paid by Curt Knox to GM/Marriott, then the source is worthless in any case.

It's meaningless to say that GM's fees are "around $100,000 per year". For one thing, GM does different things for different clients, with differing levels of staff, time and expertise commitment. One could hire GM to do not very much over the course of a year, and perhaps pay $25,000 in fees. Or one could hire GM to commit a sizeable chunk of its manpower and expertise commitment on a daily basis, and perhaps pay $300,000 in fees. And for another thing, GM very probably charges different types of client different fee ranges. In fact, in a case such as that required by Curt Knox, it's not at all improbable that GM took the project on at either a substantially reduced fee scale, or even pro bono.

We also have zero proper evidence of what exactly GM did for Curt Knox, in terms of the level of commitment of manpower, expertise and time. The best evidence we currently have is in the form of statements made by both David Marriott and Curt Knox, in which both men imply that GM was hired to manage media relations and to manage the story that was being given to the media. And there is zero current reason to believe that GM's role went any deeper or broader than that - which also would mean that GM only performed a very limited range of services for Curt Knox, with a very low investment of manpower, expertise and time.

So, forget all about this "$100,000 per year". It's meaningless in and of itself, and it's doubly meaningless in the context of the Knox case.
Click to expand...

Now wait just a minute here, LJ. Are you trying to tell me there was no "million dollar PR machine" paying off experts, witnesses, appeal and supreme court judges in Italy? Just how did Hellmann afford those new Maszeratis and afford to retire? And who had been paying me all these years?
 
Vixen said:
Filomena testified under oath the washing machine was still warm when she arrived home.

It is common knowledge Curt Knox hired a PR agency so the person being incorrigible and unreasonable in demanding 'proof', is you.
Click to expand...

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. I've read Filomena's testimony. Nowhere in it does she say anything even remotely like that.

No one, including me, has ever denied Curt hired G-M. It is the amount you claim he "invested in" G-M that is being challenged.

It's amazing you think we can't follow this.
 
Stacyhs said:
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. I've read Filomena's testimony. Nowhere in it does she say anything even remotely like that.

No one, including me, has ever denied Curt hired G-M. It is the amount you claim he "invested in" G-M that is being challenged.

It's amazing you think we can't follow this.
Click to expand...

One can only appeal to Vixen, once again, to use he arrow icon above to track the conversation properly.

Vixen surfs between things we know - the Knox/Mellas clan engaged the services of a PR firm because they were swamped with media requests....

.... and the conspiracy-factoids that break out every so often. The truly novel thing is the way Vixen tries to claim (uniquely even among the nutters) that Curt Knox "invested" money in the PR firm.
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
Now wait just a minute here, LJ. Are you trying to tell me there was no "million dollar PR machine" paying off experts, witnesses, appeal and supreme court judges in Italy? Just how did Hellmann afford those new Maszeratis and afford to retire? And who had been paying me all these years?
Click to expand...

That would be me.

And it was not payment. I've told you a million times, it was a loan. It's not my fault you neglected to inquire of the interest charges.
 
Vixen said:
I challenge you to produce a video showing you lobbing a 10lb rectangular rock/brick through a window obtructed by a shutter leaving just 18" for your 11" diameter rock to penetrate. In addition, prove you can do it without a single shard of glass falling on the ground below, and the rock landing at an angle rather than in a straight 180 degree line.

You said you could do this easily.

Having done this, prove you can shimmy 12'4" up a sheer wall with no upper window bars to grip and without anything to safely hold onto, unlatch the window and inner shutters.
Click to expand...

 
Vixen said:
Having done this, prove you can shimmy 12'4" up a sheer wall with no upper window bars to grip and without anything to safely hold onto, unlatch the window and inner shutters.
Click to expand...
Mr Fied said:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_6905357e55dd681485.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Vixen has a lot of nerve asking for proof. She has yet to provide ONE forensic0-DNA expert who sides with Stefanoni's resultes, depite being asked for more than a month to provide it.

On the issue of Rudy's break-in through Filomena's window, one should at least start with facts. "Shimmy up a 12'4" wall" is not one of them

Mr Fied has shown one of the lawyers already at shoulder height by standing on the bars of the lower window.

Then there is the Channel 5 demo:



The kid climbing said that it was easy to do - even though in THAT demo, bars had been added to the upper window, Filomena's window - to prevent breakins via that route.

The Channel 5 guy climbed up without using the upper bars, and expressed an opinion that the bars actually hindered the climb, because it halved the width of the sill to sit on.
 
Bill Williams said:
Vixen has a lot of nerve asking for proof. She has yet to provide ONE forensic0-DNA expert who sides with Stefanoni's resultes, depite being asked for more than a month to provide it.

On the issue of Rudy's break-in through Filomena's window, one should at least start with facts. "Shimmy up a 12'4" wall" is not one of them

Mr Fied has shown one of the lawyers already at shoulder height by standing on the bars of the lower window.

Then there is the Channel 5 demo:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_53971524324c05488e.jpg[/qimg]

The kid climbing said that it was easy to do - even though in THAT demo, bars had been added to the upper window, Filomena's window - to prevent breakins via that route.

The Channel 5 guy climbed up without using the upper bars, and expressed an opinion that the bars actually hindered the climb, because it halved the width of the sill to sit on.
Click to expand...

But we all know that video was edited! They cleverly removed the part showing he had to use the bars to climb onto the ledge. And they edited the sound track to change his comment from "No one could have climbed in through this window even without bars unless they were a lizard" to "Not only for me, but for another person, it's not a problem to climb," and "Then you can pull yourself up and go in the window without bars. It's not difficult to enter the house." Is there no end to the power of the $2m PR machine?
 
Just finished watching the Clinton vs Trump debate. I haven't laughed that hard in a long time. Watching Clinton dissect Trump was almost painful. I haven't seen anyone sweat that much since JFK vs. Nixon. And someone give that man a tissue and an antihistamine! Snort, snort, snort.
 
Stacyhs said:
Just finished watching the Clinton vs Trump debate. I haven't laughed that hard in a long time. Watching Clinton dissect Trump was almost painful. I haven't seen anyone sweat that much since JFK vs. Nixon. And someone give that man a tissue and an antihistamine! Snort, snort, snort.
Click to expand...

I also laughed...at lying Clinton. She is positively disgraceful and should hang her head in shame over Benghazi. Her as president makes me feel ill.

Off topic but just answering.
 
Mike1711 said:
I also laughed...at lying Clinton. She is positively disgraceful and should hang her head in shame over Benghazi. Her as president makes me feel ill.

Off topic but just answering.
Click to expand...

We're all entitled to our opinion. I feel the same way about Trump.:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom