• 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.

The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 24

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
If you want to create a topic about this person, shouldn't it be a new thread?
Click to expand...

Why should it be a new thread? Rhodes has made many a veiled and not so veiled threats to kill Amanda Knox? It belongs here as long as morons suggest that Amanda Knox was somehow involved in the killing of Meredith Kercher.
 
Vixen said:
If you want to create a topic about this person, shouldn't it be a new thread?
Click to expand...

Perhaps he is just using a figure of speech when he talks about stabbing Amanda in the throat cutting the carotid artery? Or maybe he just means "obstructing"?

Edited by jsfisher: 
<snip> Edited for compliance with Rules 0 and 12 of the Membership Agreement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
toto said:
I assumed it had been taken down too. Rather shocking that it is still there. If you had suspicions that he had written something similar in the past perhaps you should have rephrased your comments about the likelihood of this particular quotation being true"

ETA He says he wants to do AK harm. This is not acceptable.
Click to expand...

Vixen is showing signs of a conscience. She speculates that Stacyhs had referenced something that Pete Quennell subsequently took down. This betrays knowledge on Vixen's part that such a claimed posting by Rhodes was entirely likely, bad enough for the administrator to moderate.

Upon being told, though, that it is still there, Vixen simply pivots. So not a fully developed conscience.

In fairness, there have been other things moderated by guilter site administrators. Peggy Ganong would not allow the "S"-word to be applied to you-know-who. There have been other examples but......

.... for some reason Rhodes gets a dree pass, evening when gloating he may be on a no-fly list as a consequence.

Yet not a peep in the threads he posts to. Even Vixen pivots from his references.
 
Vixen said:
There are plenty of creeps on the PIP side. For example, the woman who sends the Kerchers pictures of vaseline jars and offers to supply highly sensitive and private autopsy pictures to people on twitter.

There is another chap who thinks it amusing to gloat over an incredibly nice lady who died of cancer, simply because she supported justice for Meredith Kercher, as well as publishing pictures of someone's young children in his mistaken belief over that particular person's identity.

I guess that is the type of person Amanda attracts as her supporters. The aforesaid woman can only have got these autopsy pictures from the Amanda and Raff's defence attorneys. How despicable to make them public.

How would you like it if it was someone in your family?
Click to expand...


BUMP. Shouldn't BiWi, Stacyhs and acbytesla comment about this?

Or are they only 'outraged' selectively, when it suits their agenda.
 
Vixen said:
BUMP. Shouldn't BiWi, Stacyhs and acbytesla comment about this?

Or are they only 'outraged' selectively, when it suits their agenda.
Click to expand...

Yet another pivot from the topic..... Rhodes. Whatever agenda we might have, yours is clear.

It's the Pee Wee Herman method of pivting, "I know you are but what am I?" "I know I am but what are you?"

I take it that the pivot is meant as disapproval at what Rhodes has done but you just can't bring yourself to say it! You certainly won't say it at TJMK.

Here's a bet, Vixen. You voice your disapproval at TJMK, and see if it is YOU who is moderated, not Rhodes.
 
Bill Williams said:
Yet another pivot from the topic..... Rhodes. Whatever agenda we might have, yours is clear.

It's the Pee Wee Herman method of pivting, "I know you are but what am I?" "I know I am but what are you?"

I take it that the pivot is meant as disapproval at what Rhodes has done but you just can't bring yourself to say it! You certainly won't say it at TJMK.

Here's a bet, Vixen. You voice your disapproval at TJMK, and see if it is YOU who is moderated, not Rhodes.
Click to expand...

Will you be asking Bruce Fischer to put his house in order?
 
Vixen said:
There are plenty of creeps on the PIP side. For example, the woman who sends the Kerchers pictures of vaseline jars and offers to supply highly sensitive and private autopsy pictures to people on twitter.

There is another chap who thinks it amusing to gloat over an incredibly nice lady who died of cancer, simply because she supported justice for Meredith Kercher, as well as publishing pictures of someone's young children in his mistaken belief over that particular person's identity.

I guess that is the type of person Amanda attracts as her supporters. The aforesaid woman can only have got these autopsy pictures from the Amanda and Raff's defence attorneys. How despicable to make them public.

How would you like it if it was someone in your family?
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
BUMP. Shouldn't BiWi, Stacyhs and acbytesla comment about this?

Or are they only 'outraged' selectively, when it suits their agenda.
Click to expand...

Sources, please, especially for the second one since I know what the first one is about, care to have the courtesy to answer my post?
 
Last edited:
Lince said:
Who cares about one particular Italian word? Unless you can show some high-level legal documents that obligate this exact word to appear in verdicts. I strongly doubt you will be able to do that. Besides, even if this particular word happened to be in the verdict, you would probably dismiss it as "a figure of speech".

What is important that the Marasca verdict unambiguously states that Amanda and Raffaele are acquitted because they "did not commit the act". Which makes them legally innocent/not-guilty for this crime. Moreover, considering the time and effort lots and lots of smart people have spent deconstructing and analysing all the circumstances and evidence related to this crime, I would say that the likelihood that you (or me, for that matter) are actual culprits is significantly higher than that of Amanda and Raffaele.
Click to expand...

Thank you for joining in, Lince.

However, you are incorrect. Amanda and Raff were acquitted under Section 530 Para 2, and the Italian Penal Code does not say what you have added, or rather what seems to be automatically added to court templates, probably in error, here. Alternatively, it's a Marasca sleight of hand.

Article 530.1 is "Factual innocence" and is not same as 530.2: acquitted due to reasonable doubt or lack of evidence, as in this case.

It's the American based Innocence Industry Complex which is conflating 'Exonerated' with a finding of "Not Guilty". One of the definitions of a factual finding would be someone else found guilty of the crime, a confession, or a cast iron alibi.

As long as Rudy is found guilty in conjunction with others, and Amanda's presence at the cottage is a judicial fact - which it is, and is set in stone - she cannot claim to be exonerated. No matter how many name tags the Conferences hand out.

And you saw, by Numbers own account, Amanda does not fit the US legal definition of 'exonerated' so should not be described by accreditated law schools as being so, when they invite her to talk.

That is ipso facto fraudulent.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
There are plenty of creeps on the PIP side. For example, the woman who sends the Kerchers pictures of vaseline jars and offers to supply highly sensitive and private autopsy pictures to people on twitter.

There is another chap who thinks it amusing to gloat over an incredibly nice lady who died of cancer, simply because she supported justice for Meredith Kercher, as well as publishing pictures of someone's young children in his mistaken belief over that particular person's identity.

I guess that is the type of person Amanda attracts as her supporters. The aforesaid woman can only have got these autopsy pictures from the Amanda and Raff's defence attorneys. How despicable to make them public.

How would you like it if it was someone in your family?
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
BUMP. Shouldn't BiWi, Stacyhs and acbytesla comment about this?

Or are they only 'outraged' selectively, when it suits their agenda.
Click to expand...
Methos said:
Sources, please, especially for the second one since I know what the first one is about, care to have the courtesy to answer my post?
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
I will not be providing a link to a libellous cyberhate site.

I will not repeat libel.
Click to expand...

So, no source? No back-up for your claim?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Check out this article located here:
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index...his_proven_miscarriage_of_justice_false_clai/

and:

Check out this article located here:
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index...ill_an_opportunistic_expert_never_at_trial_1/

Your claim that I said US lawyers were not allowed to represent their clients is a blatant lie, so please desist from repeating it.

= a blatant lie by Numbers.
Click to expand...

The gall of you of all people accusing anyone of telling lies. I'm not sure you've told the truth ever on this forum.
 
Vixen said:
There are plenty of creeps on the PIP side. For example, the woman who sends the Kerchers pictures of vaseline jars and offers to supply highly sensitive and private autopsy pictures to people on twitter.There is another chap who thinks it amusing to gloat over an incredibly nice lady who died of cancer, simply because she supported justice for Meredith Kercher, as well as publishing pictures of someone's young children in his mistaken belief over that particular person's identity.

I guess that is the type of person Amanda attracts as her supporters. The aforesaid woman can only have got these autopsy pictures from the Amanda and Raff's defence attorneys. How despicable to make them public.

How would you like it if it was someone in your family?
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
BUMP. Shouldn't BiWi, Stacyhs and acbytesla comment about this?

Or are they only 'outraged' selectively, when it suits their agenda.
Click to expand...

We have already discussed months ago the "autopsy pic" story that you brought up . I even posted the picture that you originally falsely claimed was a "naked" photo of Meredith but which was, in fact, highly edited to show nothing graphic. The picture that you claim came from "private autopsy photos" came from Frank Sfarzo's Perugia Shock blog and was available to the public. But you just keep on repeating otherwise. I'm sure you'll convince someone it's the truth eventually. Just not us.

As for the rest of your post, nothing that you mention even comes close to the threatening posts to "harm" Amanda that Rhodes has made.
I guess Rhodes is the type of person that TJMK, PMF, and TMofMK attracts.

I'd think anyone would be "outraged" by threats to harm someone, regardless of which side of this case they are on. Are you?
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
We have already discussed months ago the "autopsy pic" story that you brought up . I even posted the picture that you originally falsely claimed was a "naked" photo of Meredith but which was, in fact, highly edited to show nothing graphic.

As for the rest of your post, nothing that you mention even comes close to the threatening posts to "harm" Amanda that Rhodes has made.
I guess Rhodes is the type of person that TJMK, PMF, and TMofMK attracts.
I'd think anyone would be "outraged" by threats to harm someone, regardless of which side of this case they are on. Are you?
Click to expand...

I don't think the highlighted part is true. However, there has been little moderation of those sorts of comments.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom