Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[Stacyhs]

Quote:
Romanelli also testified to the state of her room. She started by explaining that the shutters to her bedroom window were closed when she left. This is important because it requires that any argument for the authenticity of the burglary include the hypothetical burglar climbing the wall twice -- first to open the shutters and then a second time to enter the room. The defence realized this would make any argument for an authentic burglary much harder to present so all their experts assumed that the window shutters were open despite the statements that she is certain that she closed them upon leaving. Romanelli confirmed this in her testimony explaining that the wood was old and swollen and as such would rub on the windowsill. Despite efforts by defence attorneys to get Romanelli to admit to doubt about closing the shutters on cross-examination Romanelli insisted that she was certain they were closed when she left.

TMOMK.com

Since Romanelli made her first statement regarding the shutters just a month after the murder on Dec 3, 2007, I think her memory would have been better than it was 2 years later in court. Also, the wall did not have to be climbed twice at all. All that was necessary was to climb onto the grate below the window and reach up to open the shutter.

 

[codyjuneau]

Cops know an inside job when they see one.

You're right Vixen, most cops know the rock should be inside the building not outside. Perugian cops, not so much.

BTW, thanks for the physics lessons Vixen. Revolutionary stuff.

I think the whole physics? discussion was started in an attempt to determine how the glass shard could have obtained enough energy to embed itself in the inner shutter. I had always assumed the shard just got caught between a rock and a semi-hard place when the rock hit the inner shutter. No need for the shard to have any extraordinary velocity.

Cody

 

[Welshman]

If there was slam dunk evidence of a staged break in, why did the police not want to investigate the break in site. The police only tested 5 samples in Filomena's room for DNA, they did not carry out tests to see the direction the glass broke, they did not investigate the area outside the window and no attempts were made to see if the window could be climbed to. If there was slam dunk evidence of a staged break in why did the police not produce a detailed report why the break in was staged? How is this explained considering the staged break in was central to the prosecution's case? If there was slam dunk evidence of a staged break in, why did Vixen have to resort to using ludicrous scientifically illiterate arguments which were torn to shreds to argue the case for a staged break in?

 

[Wilson85]

"Hmmmmmmm wow. Those people have pretty much figured out what really happened. I really did do all this alone. I really did come and case the cottage earlier that evening, go away for a kebab, and come back at around 8.30pm. I really did figure out that Romanelli's window was the most viable point of entry, since I could see the exterior shutters were only loosely ajar, since I knew I could climb up to it pretty easily, and since I knew it was a thin single-framed glass that I could break with total ease and an old wooden frame that I could open with total ease.

"I really did climb up and pull open the exterior shutters, then drop back into the shadows for a short while, then I really did go up to the parapet and throw that rock through the window, again retreating back to the shadows for a short while. I then really did climb up again, remove enough additional glass to enable me to reach through and unlatch the window, lift myself up onto the exterior sill (after removing to the side any glass pieces that might have been in my way) and climb in through the now-open window. I then really did pull the exterior shutters closed behind me, to conceal the evidence of the break-in from the outside.

"And I then really did believe I had plenty of time to work, so I stole some juice from the fridge in the house and went to open my bowels before getting down to looking properly for things to steal. I really was then surprised by the return of Kercher just after 9pm. I really did try to sneak out of the front door quietly after Kercher went into her bedroom, but found it unexpectedly locked shut with a key that had been removed. I really was trying to force the door when Kercher heard me and came out to investigate.

"I really did then confront Kercher with my knife in my hand, trying to talk my way out of the situation. But Kercher said she was going to call the police. I really did then become violent, and as I did so, I became sexually aroused, partially owing to my complex psychological problems around women. I really did then force Kercher into compliant submission by threatening to kill her if she tried to fight back, and I started to sexually assault her. She really did react to that by screaming and fighting back, and it was at that point I really did stab her in the neck to silence her (and out of rage at her resistance and her screams).

"And after it was all over, and I'd regained my composure, I really did go and clean my hands, arms and clothing in the small bathroom - removing my shoes and washing blood from my trouser leg(s) in the shower as part of this clean-up, and stepping in the dilute blood/water mix in the tray of the shower then out onto the bathmat, depositing the partial print in the process. I really did then put my shoes back on and return to Kercher's room, then left her room with the intention of exiting via the front door. I really did get as far as the kitchen/living-room area before remembering that the door was locked with a key, so I turned round and went back to Kercher's room to find and obtain her door keys (hence the shoe print pattern in the hall and kitchen/living-room area).

"I really did go through Kercher's handbag (purse) to find her keys, and I took her phones and credit cards when I came across them in her bag too (and I tried to turn both phones off, to avoid them ringing while I had them in my possession - I succeeded with the Italian phone, but could not manage to turn off the UK phone, and made some unintentional calls in the process). Since I now had her keys, I decided to lock her bedroom door too (to delay discovery and buy myself some more time), and I unlocked the front door and escaped as quickly and quietly as possible (pausing outside to re-lock the front door would just have upped the risk of being seen).

"I really did then travel back to my apartment around the outside of the city walls in relative darkness and away from cars and pedestrians in/around Piazza Grimana and Corso Garibaldi. Kercher's UK phone really did ring an incoming message alert as I was walking/jogging round the outside of the walls, which I managed to silence and abort. But I really did then decide that the phones were more of a risk than a benefit, so I threw them into what I thought was the dark undergrowth of the ravine (I was wrong).

"I really did then get back to my apartment, calm myself down, shower properly, package up the clothes I'd been wearing to get rid of them, and decided to "play normal". I had some friends over, then I went into some of the city centre clubs to dance and drink. This really was an attempt on my part to construct some sort of alibi. When Kercher's body was found the following day and the investigation immediately hit an extremely high profile, I really did decide that my best option at that point was just to get out of Perugia and Italy altogether, which is why I took a train to Germany."

Very logical scenario. Never saw a guilter makes up a logical story of the events including RS and AK in the murder. Maybe Vixen can do it from a PGP point of view...

 

[LondonJohn]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=35955&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1481243721[/qimg]

You're right Vixen, most cops know the rock should be inside the building not outside. Perugian cops, not so much.

BTW, thanks for the physics lessons Vixen. Revolutionary stuff.

I think the whole physics? discussion was started in an attempt to determine how the glass shard could have obtained enough energy to embed itself in the inner shutter. I had always assumed the shard just got caught between a rock and a semi-hard place when the rock hit the inner shutter. No need for the shard to have any extraordinary velocity.

Cody

True - but the interior shutter was free to swing open, so (as you say), it would have been a "semi-hard" place at best - only the rotational inertia of the shutter would have provided resistance.

In any case, the primary aim of the discussion in this area was to explain that if one object causes other objects to move, those secondary objects can be made to move at much higher velocities than that of the object which struck them, if they are of lower mass than that striking object. It's perhaps easy to believe that it's impossible and illogical for a struck object to move away at a higher velocity than that of the object which hit it - but that's not the case of course.

In the case of the glass shard and the interior shutter, I think probably the most likely scenario is a combination of both effects: the rock hit the window and caused shards of glass to be propelled forward at much higher speed than that of the rock; one of those shards then hit the (still pulled closed) interior shutter at high speed at the right angle, and it partially penetrated the wood of the shutter; the rock, following through at lower speed, hit the glass and the shutter, causing the shard to embed more fully into the shutter and then causing the shutter to swing open.

 

[Vixen]

What?

While you're here, exactly what type of educational establishment (in order: Oxbridge university, Top-10 university, 10-20 university, >20-ranked university, polytechnic, arts-and-crafts-workshop) did you attend for your psychology qualification. You were bragging that it was "one of the top" ones in the country, so which on my list was it? After all, you were voluntarily trying to bolster your credibility. So. Please tell. That won't be difficult or embarrassing for you, will it? Oh and can you also clarify whether you are a "chartered accountant" (as you claimed) or a chartered management accountant (which, as you would know, is a significantly inferior qualification to that of chartered accountant)?

Thanks again in advance. It's important that any claimed credentials are honest, precise and correct if they are germane to the debate - I'm sure you'd agree. And you obviously felt that your qualifications were germane to the debate, since you yourself brought them up. I can only assume that you must have missed my earlier request for clarification. But I'm sure you'll be happy to clear things up properly now, won't you? Myself, I'm a four-time Nobel Prize winner, as well as the former Olympic 1500m champion and ninth in line to the British throne

Stop talking rubbish. Two cabinet ministers are Chartered Management Accountants (i.e, one of the five major recognised chartered accountants bodies globally). For example, Liz Truss. Salary surveys consistently show this is the highest paid accountancy body. The best paid CEO's are from this accountancy body. Something like 60% of CEO's from successful FTSE companies are from this body. You really do talk rubbish. We note you are very careful to keep your own qualifications secret whilst vociferously denigrating others.

ETA You remind me of an aunt-in-law, eaten up with envy that her own child left school early, loved to tell her sister, whose child did well at a top uni, that, 'A BSc(Hons) is not as good as a BA' (you can guess which type her nephew had received).

 

[Vixen]

"They" are a group of highly-zealous partisans whose primary evangelical goal is to convince the public of the guilt of Knox and Sollecito. As such, they have created a website in a fake-wiki style - thereby imbuing their site with the false air of neutrality and quality-control. Upon this fake website, they have taken great - and very deliberate - care in writing secondary "reports" in such a way as to distort primary-source evidence and testimony towards a position as least-favourable to Knox and/or Sollecito as absolutely possible, while of course taking equally great care to try to make it look like honest, high-quality, disinterested reportage. It is nothing of the sort.

Nothing from this fake-wiki website should EVER be considered as neutral or honest, unless it is a certified primary-source document. The rest - including the grossly dishonest "report" excerpt quote here recently - is mendaciously biassed, and must immediately be wholly discounted by anyone concerned with honest presentation of evidence and argument in this debate.

There is nothing fake about it. It is the best collection of court documents and records from the case in existence. The other side <fx crucifix and garlic> are quite happy to filch the translations meticulously undertaken by the dedicated volunteers. The site was set up in that format due to Friends of Amanda Knox hijacking the wikipedia page and deliberately changing and distorting any facts that are incriminating of their heroes.

The summaries having been written by individuals who are determined to find justice for the family of Meredith Kercher and present the unadulterated truth of the matter, inevitably are going to reflect the opinion of the writer. However, all of the original documents referred to in the summaries are cross-referenced in the supporting footnotes.

It has had a massive take up rate on the internet with over 100K views per diem at key moments in the case. It is widely used as a first-class reference point for journalists and lawyers researching the case.

What it is NOT, is an 'opinion forum'. That is the function of PMF and TJMK. Sadly, it has had to be safeguarded from the hooligans who egregiously have 'edited' wikipedia to present their heroes in a good light.

For those wanting an objective factual overview of the case, it can be viewed here: http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Main_Page

 

[LondonJohn]

Stop talking rubbish. Two cabinet ministers are Chartered Management Accountants (i.e, one of the five major recognised chartered accountants bodies globally). For example, Liz Truss. Salary surveys consistently show this is the highest paid accountancy body. The best paid CEO's are from this accountancy body. Something like 60% of CEO's from successful FTSE companies are from this body. You really do talk rubbish. We note you are very careful to keep your own qualifications secret whilst vociferously denigrating others.

You were the one who volunteered your "qualifications" as some sort of attempt to bolster your credibility. I have never waved my qualifications and professional affiliations around in such a manner. Are you going to avoid the question of clarifying the educational establishment? I wonder why that might be.....

Anyhow...... from the tone of your response above about accountancy, is it correct to say you are now changing your claim from being a "chartered accountant" to that of being a chartered management accountant then? If so, then it's somewhat disingenuous (to say the very least) of you to claim to be a "chartered accountant" - as you know all too well, they are two very different qualifications, and one is superior to the other. In fact, I'm not sure that management accountants are even allowed to call themselves "chartered accountants" (as opposed to "chartered management accountants") - you might know more than I on this particular issue.

Or, on the other hand, you could simply stop making (apparently largely false and/or inflated) claims about your own educational history and professional qualifications within this thread, along with those fatuous claims about beating grandmasters at chess and so on - and stick to discussing the case itself. Your choice.

 

[LondonJohn]

There is nothing fake about it. It is the best collection of court documents and records from the case in existence. The other side <fx crucifix and garlic> are quite happy to filch the translations meticulously undertaken by the dedicated volunteers. The site was set up in that format due to Friends of Amanda Knox hijacking the wikipedia page and deliberately changing and distorting any facts that are incriminating of their heroes.

The summaries having been written by individuals who are determined to find justice for the family of Meredith Kercher and present the unadulterated truth of the matter, inevitably are going to reflect the opinion of the writer. However, all of the original documents referred to in the summaries are cross-referenced in the supporting footnotes.

It has had a massive take up rate on the internet with over 100K views per diem at key moments in the case. It is widely used as a first-class reference point for journalists and lawyers researching the case.

What it is NOT, is an 'opinion forum'. That is the function of PMF and TJMK. Sadly, it has had to be safeguarded from the hooligans who egregiously have 'edited' wikipedia to present their heroes in a good light.

For those wanting an objective factual overview of the case, it can be viewed here: http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Main_Page

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

And that's lovely stuff at the end, inserting a promo for the blatantly biassed fake-wiki! Talk about evangelical zeal!!! Marvellous!

(I do actually recommend people to go and just have a read of that POS website - it's a case study in misinformation and editorial bias. Seriously, go and look at it... and laugh at its twisting of the truth to fit an agenda!)

 

[Vixen]

The creation of this fake wiki is a direct result of the guilters losing control of The Murder of Meredith Kercher article on Wikipedia.

It's all there in the article's"history" of editing tag. Circa March 2011 no less than Jimbo Wales himself had to intercede, resulting in a completely new, and truly neutral rewrite of the page.

The response of the nutjobs was to complain - one accused Wales of violating his ow Wiki-rules, and accused him of declaring martial law.

That began the retreat of the nutters into the remaining three guilt websites, and more importantly the creation of the fake wiki, by the pseudonymimous "Edward McCall".

There is no fact checking on that site. As Vixen's citation above from it demonstrates, the site substitutes its own biased summaries of what should otherwise be a simply documenting of what was actually said.

Thank you for confirming that the wikipedia page has become nothing more than a PR page aggressively tampered with by rabid Friends of Amanda (and yet, when they threw a party for their heroine, some travelling >1,000 to attend, the ingrate made her excuses and left withing five minutes).

For example, it is written of Rudy Guede:

Rudy Guede was a drug dealer that was well known by the police. He became a suspect in the Meredith Kercher murder after his bloody fingerprint was discovered at the crime scene. When police tried to contact Guede they discovered he had fled to Germany.

Whilst Rudy is indeed a deeply unpleasant character, it doesn't reflect well on the IIP who write this nonsense, or bear any relation to the truth.

What is the point of writing deliberate lies, as above (Rudy had no convictions and there is zero evidence he was a drug dealer, or burglar, the other piece of misniformation)?

Why do the PIP need to bolster their PR with outright lies?

 

[Vixen]

You were the one who volunteered your "qualifications" as some sort of attempt to bolster your credibility. I have never waved my qualifications and professional affiliations around in such a manner. Are you going to avoid the question of clarifying the educational establishment? I wonder why that might be.....

Anyhow...... from the tone of your response above about accountancy, is it correct to say you are now changing your claim from being a "chartered accountant" to that of being a chartered management accountant then? If so, then it's somewhat disingenuous (to say the very least) of you to claim to be a "chartered accountant" - as you know all too well, they are two very different qualifications, and one is superior to the other. In fact, I'm not sure that management accountants are even allowed to call themselves "chartered accountants" (as opposed to "chartered management accountants") - you might know more than I on this particular issue.

Or, on the other hand, you could simply stop making (apparently largely false and/or inflated) claims about your own educational history and professional qualifications within this thread, along with those fatuous claims about beating grandmasters at chess and so on - and stick to discussing the case itself. Your choice.

My private life is none of your business. Get it? My response was to someone called Phreelyfee (_sp?) who tried to make out he or she was used to half-witted morons from the ghettos of LA in an attempt to patronise. (The poor mites!)

ETA Do look up the various types of chartered accountants on google. There is no compunction to reveal to complete strangers what body you are a member of on a public forum. Kimo sabi?

 

[LondonJohn]

Thank you for confirming that the wikipedia page has become nothing more than a PR page aggressively tampered with by rabid Friends of Amanda <SNIP blah blah blah blah heroes blah blah nonsense blah blah blah>

No. Bill did not "confirm" anything of the sort. What he wrote was pretty much the exact opposite. And the truth is also pretty much what Bill wrote, and the exact opposite of what you wrote. What actually happened was that PRO-GUILT PARTISANS were repeatedly attempting, in a coordinated and well-organised manner, to hijack that Wikipedia page in order to alter it in a manner that suggested the guilt of Knox and Sollecito. That's what actually happened, Vixen.

And the people who run Wikipedia could see all too clearly that this was a problem originating wholly on the (weird, zealous, vindictive) pro-guilt side of the debate. This was not about pro-acquittal commentators trying to editorialise that page in a misleading way, Vixen. Rather, this was about pro-guilt commentators trying to editorialise that page in a misleading way, Vixen. And the Wikipedia senior editors and management* were able to see it for what it was. It was pro-guilt commentators - with their creepy organised campaign to corrupt the Wikipedia page on the Kercher murder - who were kicked off Wikipedia, Vixen.


* Oh no, of course, I forgot: the senior editors and managers of Wikipedia are biassed against the pro-guilt community, because they too have joined the long list of people who have been nobbled and corrupted by the infamous "Amanda Knox PR Supertanker"

 

[LondonJohn]

My private life is none of your business. Get it? My response was to someone called Phreelyfee (_sp?) who tried to make out he or she was used to half-witted morons from the ghettos of LA in an attempt to patronise. (The poor mites!)

Then STOP BRINGING IT UP IN YOUR POSTS in some sort of weird attempt at boasting. Do you understand?

 

[LondonJohn]

ETA Do look up the various types of chartered accountants on google. There is no compunction to reveal to complete strangers what body you are a member of on a public forum. Kimo sabi?

I know exactly how many different types of chartered accountants there are, thanks, Vixen. I also know that it's misleading (and very probably against the rules of the regulatory bodies) for a chartered management accountant (a lesser qualification) to claim to be a "chartered accountant" (a higher qualification). You voluntarily claimed on these pages to being a "chartered accountant". Nobody "compelled" you to write that, Vixen. You do know that, don't you, Vixen?

And it's "kemo sabe". Ignoramus.

 

[Bill Williams]

No. Bill did not "confirm" anything of the sort. What he wrote was pretty much the exact opposite. And the truth is also pretty much what Bill wrote, and the exact opposite of what you wrote. What actually happened was that PRO-GUILT PARTISANS were repeatedly attempting, in a coordinated and well-organised manner, to hijack that Wikipedia page in order to alter it in a manner that suggested the guilt of Knox and Sollecito. That's what actually happened, Vixen.

And the people who run Wikipedia could see all too clearly that this was a problem originating wholly on the (weird, zealous, vindictive) pro-guilt side of the debate. This was not about pro-acquittal commentators trying to editorialise that page in a misleading way, Vixen. Rather, this was about pro-guilt commentators trying to editorialise that page in a misleading way, Vixen. And the Wikipedia senior editors and management* were able to see it for what it was. It was pro-guilt commentators - with their creepy organised campaign to corrupt the Wikipedia page on the Kercher murder - who were kicked off Wikipedia, Vixen.


* Oh no, of course, I forgot: the senior editors and managers of Wikipedia are biassed against the pro-guilt community, because they too have joined the long list of people who have been nobbled and corrupted by the infamous "Amanda Knox PR Supertanker"

To be fair there were a few people who were openly and unabashedly pro-innocence also kicked off. This included the very first PIP person who complained that the first-layer-up of volunteer administrators had people continually reversing edits which should have remained, simply on the basis that it had the tendency to suggest something was wrong with the prosecution of the case.

The hallmark of Wikipedia is Neutral Point of View edits, as well as the verifiability of edits from "reliable sources". Blogs are not reliable sources - and interestingly enough, if someone who is the subject of a page on wikipedia edits their own info, that is "original research" which Wikipedia does not allow.

The issue is NOT that an edit reflects a bias. In the case of TMoMK page,the issue is NOT whether or not an editor has one, just that the edit be verifiable - and a Neutral Point of View does NOT mean that the edit itself is "neutral".

With all that said, it took the movement of heaven and earth to move past the first layer of volunteer administrators, because within them was a strong agenda to have the MoMK article imply guilt. In the main.

Although he was not in that first layer, BRMull was one of the most frequent editors from a PGP perspective who used some rather brilliant rhetoric on the "Talk" pages to suggest it was the so called "innocence" posters who were the ones being non-neutral, even when posting something in and of itself which was verifiable from a reliable source which was otherwise "neutral", which (as said) did not mean the information linked to lacked a point of view, or made a decision after evaluating evidence.

It was then discovered that BRMull was one of the most active posters to the hate sights, who reserved his most disturbing stuff for those sites. I won't get into that, because BRMull has departed the field.

Yet when the tide started turning in Jan-Feb 2011, BRMull hung on all the more, and his brilliant rhetorical skills could not stop the erosion which allowed most to see that his non-NPOV agenda went well beyond simply having a bias. He had an agenda.

Jimbo Wales showed up in March 2011 to "drain the swamp". In my view he showed up to "protect the brand".

It was BRMull's conspiratorializing Wales actions which eventually got him banned - but all this generated 35 talk-pages (35 talkpages!!!) which were generated on the subject of BRMull's banning alone. The ridiculous length of that saga (in my mind) proved that there existed a rabid group of guilt-zealots out there who were committed to flood any on-line service with their agenda.

For reasons best not got into here, and which had nothing to do with this case, BRMull eventually permanently departed the field all together - at least under that name.

But if a PIP wants to conspiratorialize things, it was not soon after that the pseudonymous "Edward McCall" showed up as the creator and first editor of the fake-Wiki which Vixen now regards as a source. "Edward McCall" was confirmed as a pseudonym to a The Guardian reporter who'd interviewed him by phone just prior to the 2015 acquittals. "McCall" said, acc. to The Guardian, that he'd adopted the pseudo to avoid harassment from the PIP side.

But you are essentially correct, LondonJohn. Vixen, as usual, has drawn exactly the opposite conclusion to what had happened at Wikipedia. It is as you say, the PGP since March 2011 have regarded wikipedia now under the thrall of Friends of Amanda, and victim to the well-funded PR campaign.

Indeed, before he was banned at Wikipedia, BRMull had accused Wales himself of abandoning Wiki's values, saying that in essence Wales had suspended the rules and declared martial law.

Towards the end of those 35 talk-pages discussing the, then, proposed banning, that did not sit well with administrators up the line.

 

[abaddon]

Kimo sabi?

Spelling and usage fail for a common term.

 

[Vixen]

I know exactly how many different types of chartered accountants there are, thanks, Vixen. I also know that it's misleading (and very probably against the rules of the regulatory bodies) for a chartered management accountant (a lesser qualification) to claim to be a "chartered accountant" (a higher qualification). You voluntarily claimed on these pages to being a "chartered accountant". Nobody "compelled" you to write that, Vixen. You do know that, don't you, Vixen?

And it's "kemo sabe". Ignoramus.

Only someone with a massive chip on their shoulder would dedicate their time spouting blatant lies in an attempt to make themself feel better owing to what is obviously a MASSIVE inferiority complex. Your slurring a whole group of people with a disgusting untrue insult just to incite scorn and hatred amongst your ilk, 'to win the argument', is indicative of this syndrome.

The sad thing is, you probably have NO qualifications yourself, despite your desperate attempts to portray yourself as being so intellectually superior to everybody else, and a horrid sexist **** belief that no female could possibly know better than you.

For you to claim a fully qualified chartered acccountant has behaved improperly when they have not indicates a consumation of hatred towards anyone with a differing opinion to yourself. Envy, hate and bitterness are never attractive qualities and attacking someone on a personal ad hominem basis just because they have a different opinion from you is contemptible.

You recently attacked a whole group of people (a heterogenous cross section of the population) of having pathological tendencies just because they have read the court records and have concluded the kids are likely guilty. This suggests to me a latent tendency in one or two of the more rabid PIP of deeply pathological issues themselves. No doubt, the odd one or two are ex-convicts who've had run-ins with the police or prison officers and therefore harbour a deep fear and hatred of anyone they perceive to be 'authority'. This tendency is manifested in over the top streams of hysterical invective towards anyone who upholds decent values and a civilised society. Such individuals will slavishly claim obvious killers (such as Steven Avery et al and the kids) are just poor picked upon individuals, persecuted by bully boy cops. Some will have deeply disturbing issues which manifests themselves in outpourings of vile anonymous postings, designed to degrade others who disagree with them.

 

[Vixen]

Spelling and usage fail for a common term.

You're fluent in Native American, are you?

 

[abaddon]

You're fluent in Native American, are you?

Irrelevant. Are you? Clearly not since you appear unable to spell it, explain it or even deploy it in a sentence appropriately.

 

[Vixen]

To be fair there were a few people who were openly and unabashedly pro-innocence also kicked off. This included the very first PIP person who complained that the first-layer-up of volunteer administrators had people continually reversing edits which should have remained, simply on the basis that it had the tendency to suggest something was wrong with the prosecution of the case.

The hallmark of Wikipedia is Neutral Point of View edits, as well as the verifiability of edits from "reliable sources". Blogs are not reliable sources - and interestingly enough, if someone who is the subject of a page on wikipedia edits their own info, that is "original research" which Wikipedia does not allow.

The issue is NOT that an edit reflects a bias. In the case of TMoMK page,the issue is NOT whether or not an editor has one, just that the edit be verifiable - and a Neutral Point of View does NOT mean that the edit itself is "neutral".

With all that said, it took the movement of heaven and earth to move past the first layer of volunteer administrators, because within them was a strong agenda to have the MoMK article imply guilt. In the main.

Although he was not in that first layer, BRMull was one of the most frequent editors from a PGP perspective who used some rather brilliant rhetoric on the "Talk" pages to suggest it was the so called "innocence" posters who were the ones being non-neutral, even when posting something in and of itself which was verifiable from a reliable source which was otherwise "neutral", which (as said) did not mean the information linked to lacked a point of view, or made a decision after evaluating evidence.

It was then discovered that BRMull was one of the most active posters to the hate sights, who reserved his most disturbing stuff for those sites. I won't get into that, because BRMull has departed the field.

Yet when the tide started turning in Jan-Feb 2011, BRMull hung on all the more, and his brilliant rhetorical skills could not stop the erosion which allowed most to see that his non-NPOV agenda went well beyond simply having a bias. He had an agenda.

Jimbo Wales showed up in March 2011 to "drain the swamp". In my view he showed up to "protect the brand".

It was BRMull's conspiratorializing Wales actions which eventually got him banned - but all this generated 35 talk-pages (35 talkpages!!!) which were generated on the subject of BRMull's banning alone. The ridiculous length of that saga (in my mind) proved that there existed a rabid group of guilt-zealots out there who were committed to flood any on-line service with their agenda.

For reasons best not got into here, and which had nothing to do with this case, BRMull eventually permanently departed the field all together - at least under that name.

But if a PIP wants to conspiratorialize things, it was not soon after that the pseudonymous "Edward McCall" showed up as the creator and first editor of the fake-Wiki which Vixen now regards as a source. "Edward McCall" was confirmed as a pseudonym to a The Guardian reporter who'd interviewed him by phone just prior to the 2015 acquittals. "McCall" said, acc. to The Guardian, that he'd adopted the pseudo to avoid harassment from the PIP side.

But you are essentially correct, LondonJohn. Vixen, as usual, has drawn exactly the opposite conclusion to what had happened at Wikipedia. It is as you say, the PGP since March 2011 have regarded wikipedia now under the thrall of Friends of Amanda, and victim to the well-funded PR campaign.

Indeed, before he was banned at Wikipedia, BRMull had accused Wales himself of abandoning Wiki's values, saying that in essence Wales had suspended the rules and declared martial law.

Towards the end of those 35 talk-pages discussing the, then, proposed banning, that did not sit well with administrators up the line.

Thank you for your transparency. Whatever happened on wikipedia, you can understand the need of the pro-justice for Meredith Kercher advocates to set up a safe, non-toxic environment which is objective and concentrates on actual court documents and on the real evidence, and not seek to suppress it, as many pro-Amanda and Raff devotees do.