The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 24

[Bill Williams]

Hello, Bill,
Please substantiate your claim "Ergon hijacked one of the pro-guilt websites". It seems to be a meme carried over from a pro-Knox website, so I ask, do you have any proof? For the record, Michael's still the owner of the website, and he, Nell, and I are all listed on the member's list as administrators.

As to the project for Meredith, you really don't know what we contributed or how, or do you have any information otherwise?

Ergon I withdraw the word "hijacked" with apologies to you. There's little time to get into this now, but when the split in PMF happened in 2011, and then went public in 2012, it was words like that which came from your own side of the fence. There's a thread on IIP with cut/paste quotes.

As to the supposed projects for the Kerchers, there were complaints in PMs about that. If you can correct this I would be obliged. There has been very little, if any, support which was made public.

 

[Ergon]

Rebuttal

Ergon I withdraw the word "hijacked" with apologies to you. There's little time to get into this now, but when the split in PMF happened in 2011, and then went public in 2012, it was words like that which came from your own side of the fence. There's a thread on IIP with cut/paste quotes.

As to the supposed projects for the Kerchers, there were complaints in PMs about that. If you can correct this I would be obliged. There has been very little, if any, support which was made public.

Thanks for withdrawing that, Bill. I can't respond to hearsay or gossip, but the only evidence I could find was Bruce Fischer of Injustice In Perugia falsely alleging I "hijacked" PMF. Sorry to see you repeat that, and hope this sets the record straight. As to the extent of our support for the Kerchers, are you asking how much was contributed to Meredith's fund? I don't know, PMF never managed or set it up, just provided a link.

And I repeat again, as Friends of Amanda Knox would infer any contact with them as proof the Kerchers were masterminding a PR campaign against Amanda Knox, no, we kept an arms length relationship to avoid any such conflicts of interest.

 

[Bill Williams]

Thanks for withdrawing that, Bill. I can't respond to hearsay or gossip, but the only evidence I could find was Bruce Fischer of Injustice In Perugia falsely alleging I "hijacked" PMF. Sorry to see you repeat that, and hope this sets the record straight. As to the extent of our support for the Kerchers, are you asking how much was contributed to Meredith's fund? I don't know, PMF never managed or set it up, just provided a link.

And I repeat again, as Friends of Amanda Knox would infer any contact with them as proof the Kerchers were masterminding a PR campaign against Amanda Knox, no, we kept an arms length relationship to avoid any such conflicts of interest.

For the record - there is no FOA which would "infer" such a thing. There are individual commentators on the internet, principally on this forum and on IIP (and who are not allowed to post/participate on the guilt-sites!) who might conjure up such a conspiracy involving the Kerchers, but I am not one of them. Given that on-line comment in general about this case has subsided about 87% in the last two years there are very few people left anyway.

Your post, though, confirms the chatter - but you put a differing spin to it. You don't want to respond to hearsay or gossip, fair enough. The trouble is, there is a consistency to it when people do it privately, that surprised me. The guilt-side is not a monolith, but people do not "take on" those who set the agenda, or who feel entitled to post without criticism, even if it is a threat of real harm Then again, we're both wandering from the issue that has perplexed me, perhaps summarized best as:

Given that most agree that the Kerchers have maintained a respectful distance from all this, it's amazing that the truly harsh and unwarranted stuff from people who claim to be representing Meredith's memory, believe that their input is in line with that respectful distance.

For instance, the recent threat of physical harm aimed square at Knox - not one person from your side of the fence challenged it, and it was not moderated. No one said, "Look, that is beneath the dignified silence we know the Kerchers take." Not one distanced that remark from the Kerchers...

.... and it puts the Kerchers into a double bind, a Catch-22.

 

[Ergon]

Rebuttal

For the record - there is no FOA which would "infer" such a thing. There are individual commentators on the internet, principally on this forum and on IIP (and who are not allowed to post/participate on the guilt-sites!) who might conjure up such a conspiracy involving the Kerchers, but I am not one of them. Given that on-line comment in general about this case has subsided about 87% in the last two years there are very few people left anyway.

Your post, though, confirms the chatter - but you put a differing spin to it. You don't want to respond to hearsay or gossip, fair enough. The trouble is, there is a consistency to it when people do it privately, that surprised me. The guilt-side is not a monolith, but people do not "take on" those who set the agenda, or who feel entitled to post without criticism, even if it is a threat of real harm Then again, we're both wandering from the issue that has perplexed me, perhaps summarized best as:

Given that most agree that the Kerchers have maintained a respectful distance from all this, it's amazing that the truly harsh and unwarranted stuff from people who claim to be representing Meredith's memory, believe that their input is in line with that respectful distance.

For instance, the recent threat of physical harm aimed square at Knox - not one person from your side of the fence challenged it, and it was not moderated. No one said, "Look, that is beneath the dignified silence we know the Kerchers take." Not one distanced that remark from the Kerchers...

.... and it puts the Kerchers into a double bind, a Catch-22.

I didn't say you inferred such a thing, Bill. But Steve Moore, who is quite a prominent Friend of Amanda, along with his wife Michelle, and Doug Bremner, her attorney Anne's brother, and David Anderson, the innocence campaigner did indeed make such public accusations against the Kerchers.

Amanda Knox, having met them privately and publicly, ought to have known abt their comments. I suggested it would look bad on her, but that's her problem, not mine.

Since the Kerchers never met Grahame Rhodes, they don't have to answer for him, and my only comment on this subject is he never posted his remarks on the forum I am responsible for. I will also not comment on what others should or should not have done.

You will note the PMF split happened before I joined the forum, and I won't be commenting on that either since that isn't the subject. Since you now bring up some sort of consistent chatter about me personally, without one direct quote to back it up, the matter is now closed.

 

[Bill Williams]

I didn't say you inferred such a thing, Bill. But Steve Moore, who is quite a prominent Friend of Amanda, along with his wife Michelle, and Doug Bremner, her attorney Anne's brother, and David Anderson, the innocence campaigner did indeed make such public accusations against the Kerchers.

Amanda Knox, having met them privately and publicly, ought to have known abt their comments. I suggested it would look bad on her, but that's her problem, not mine.

Since the Kerchers never met Grahame Rhodes, they don't have to answer for him, and my only comment on this subject is he never posted his remarks on the forum I am responsible for. I will also not comment on what others should or should not have done.

You will note the PMF split happened before I joined the forum, and I won't be commenting on that either since that isn't the subject. Since you now bring up some sort of consistent chatter about me personally, without one direct quote to back it up, the matter is now closed.

Well, that's an interesting way to close something, but whatever floats your boat, I guess. What is apparent is that you have attributed far too much to the "FOA", but that will get into it and it is, as you say, not the subject.

Enjoy your day.

 

[Welshman]

Could Ergon answer a question which Vixen has refused to answer. I have found that PGP often display gross hypocrisy. Amanda has been constantly and viciously attacked for lying by PGP. A PGP poster on this forum claims that Amanda told umpteen lies, a reviewer on Amazon called Amanda a pathological liar and PGP have portrayed Amanda as someone who lied on an industrial scale.

As can be seen from my post below, John Kercher wrote a book riddled with falsehoods and I provided three links to back my claim. The book received glowing five start reviews on Amazon and PGP have described the behaviour of John Kercher as dignified. This showed gross hypocrisy on the part of the PGP for the following reasons :-

• PGP attacked Amanda for lying but slavishly defended someone who wrote a book full of lies.

• Amanda was branded a liar when John Kercher wrote lies about Amanda.

• PGP attacked Amanda for lying but felt it was perfectly acceptable for John Kercher to spread lies about Amanda.

• PGP attack Amanda for being disrespectful to the Kerchers but felt it was perfectly acceptable to write a book filled with lies accusing Amanda of murder.

Can Ergon explain this hypocrisy.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11788659#post11788659

 

[Vixen]

You're not entirely mistaken. Knox's youngest (half-) sister, Delaney, was 12 years old at the time of the Massei trial in 2009.

Note the following:

Bill Williams wrote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I never mentioned "pre-teens".

'Twas me, and I am mistaken, so I apologize to Vixen.

__________________

 

[Vixen]

And one of her (half-) sisters WAS a pre-teen at the time of the Massei trial. So it's irrelevant whether Vixen actually used the term "pre-teen" - what's relevant is that she was discussing (and sexualising) the actions of Knox's (half-) sisters, one of whom factually WAS a pre-teen at that point.

Given nobody mentioned preteens except Bill Williams (see here):

Note the following:

Bill Williams wrote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I never mentioned "pre-teens".

'Twas me, and I am mistaken, so I apologize to Vixen.

__________________

You are the only one who is sexualising) the actions of Knox's (half-) sisters, one of whom factually WAS a pre-teen at that point.

Am I making myself clear? For the avoidance of doubt, I did NOT sexualise anything. YOU DID.

 

[Bill Williams]

Given nobody mentioned preteens except Bill Williams (see here):




You are the only one who is sexualising) the actions of Knox's (half-) sisters, one of whom factually WAS a pre-teen at that point.

Am I making myself clear? For the avoidance of doubt, I did NOT sexualise anything. YOU DID.

The post was a sexualized one, what I apologized for was the introduction of "pre-teens". Vixen is not correct, though, she is the one who first mentioned skimpy clothes.

 

[Vixen]

Indeed. And even putting such amusing scientific illiteracy to one side for a moment, one has to wonder why any individual, in an attempt to write words denoting a period of time of 30 minutes, would not write

30 minutes

or

30 mins

or even

30m

but instead elect to use the arcane (and antiquated, when it comes to units of time) construction of

30' (or 30" if one were scientifically illiterate......).

I wonder why that might happen? I think I can guess

So you are not a mathematician, then

 

[Vixen]

Sigh....yet more "facts" being pulled directly out of a lower body orifice. Studies actually show the opposite is true:

"Researchers at the University of Iowa have found that when it comes to memory, we don't remember things we hear nearly as well as things we see or touch." (Science Daily February 26, 2014)

"Auditory recognition memory is inferior to visual recognition memory"
(Michael A. Cohena, Todd S. Horowitza,b and Jeremy M. Wolfe, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A.)



Really? Nara Capezalli also "remembered" being told about the murder on the morning of Nov 2 by some boys and seeing posters with the names of Knox, Sollecito, Guede, and Lumumba on Nov 3...neither of which were possible considering the murder hadn't been discovered on the morning of Nov 2 and no posters with either Guede or Lumumba's names existed on Nov 3.

People "remember" things that never happened. Things that they'd swear to in a court of law. That is a proven fact. They are called "false memories" for a reason. Why can't people "imagine" things that never happened?



LOL! An expert? REALLY? Police think they are experts at discerning lies due to experience when studies show they are no better at it than non-police. And yes, I can provide evidence of that if you insist because I've researched it before. Has it occurred to you that Amanda covered her ears because the police were yelling at her and she wanted it to stop? Nah...of course not. If it doesn't support guilt, it can't be true, right?




She may have heard A scream. After all, she did say hearing screams in that area was not unusual.

Is this your normal language?

 

[Vixen]

The post was a sexualized one, what I apologized for was the introduction of "pre-teens". Vixen is not correct, though, she is the one who first mentioned skimpy clothes.

I was completely silent about their cause. Any rational person knows people wear skimpy clothes because it is summer.

For the avoidance of doubt, you and LondonJohn introduced the topic of preteens and sex, contrary to LondonJohn's disgraceful and shameful misrepresentation that it was me who did.

To put it another way, to make a claim that I 'sexualised' 'Amanda's half-sisters' by referring to the family's improper dress code in court is a disgusting and vitriolic defamation by LondonJohn and yourself.

As if!

 

[Bill Williams]

I was completely silent about their cause. Any rational person knows people wear skimpy clothes because it is summer.

For the avoidance of doubt, you and LondonJohn introduced the topic of preteens and sex, contrary to LondonJohn's disgraceful and shameful misrepresentation that it was me who did.

To put it another way, to make a claim that I 'sexualised' 'Amanda's half-sisters' by referring to the family's improper dress code in court is a disgusting and vitriolic defamation by LondonJohn and yourself.

As if!

Oh right, in Catholic Italy, the shameful display in court was to taunt the judge with the fact it may be summer outside!

Sure, Vixen, sure. I believe you. Millions wouldn't, but you've used iron-clad logic.

 

[TruthCalls]

So you are not a mathematician, then

Still unwilling to admit you used the wrong symbol. A leopard cannot change its spots.

Are you ever going to explain the point behind how long blood takes to dry and how that's relevant to the case?

 

[Bill Williams]

And I repeat again, as Friends of Amanda Knox would infer any contact with them as proof the Kerchers were masterminding a PR campaign against Amanda Knox, no, we kept an arms length relationship to avoid any such conflicts of interest.

The fear of what the dreaded "FOA" might "infer", prevents you from doing what one might assume you believe is the right thing. You really do believe the FOA to be this all knowing, all seeing, all powerful organization that can bend national judiciaries to its will.

Worse, you put that fear of inference above your regard for the Kerchers. Nice.

Could Ergon answer a question which Vixen has refused to answer. I have found that PGP often display gross hypocrisy. Amanda has been constantly and viciously attacked for lying by PGP. A PGP poster on this forum claims that Amanda told umpteen lies, a reviewer on Amazon called Amanda a pathological liar and PGP have portrayed Amanda as someone who lied on an industrial scale.

As can be seen from my post below, John Kercher wrote a book riddled with falsehoods and I provided three links to back my claim. The book received glowing five start reviews on Amazon and PGP have described the behaviour of John Kercher as dignified. This showed gross hypocrisy on the part of the PGP for the following reasons :-

You're picking a fight with the wrong target. You are conflating the Kerchers, particularly Mr Kercher, with the "PGP", the latter of whom are represented very narrowly because of their campaign on the internet.

Mr Kercher wrote a book, a loving tribute to his daughter. The last part of his was, true, a misleading account of the case - but it is as he received it through his lawyer, Maresca. Maresca himself has just penned memoirs (which no one seems to have read!) Washed through Google translate, Maresca in 2016 still believes the twaddle the first prosecution way-back-when tried to selll.... but more to the point....

Why wouldn't Mr. Kercher believe his own lawyer? Esp. when the first court seemed to agree with the prosecution by convicting, and the third court also seemed to agree by overturning the subsequent acquittal?

It is unfair and completely unnecessary to hang this on Mr Kercher. But it is that last part which is the most true for these purposes, it is totally unnecessary to go after Mr Kercher to demonstrate that there still remains no credible evidence at all that tie either RS or AK to the crime involving his daughter.

Is it just me? Perhaps the only person I truly understand in all this is Mr. Kercher, and God forbid he and I changed places, I'm not sure what I'd be like.

But it is completely off base to accuse the man of losing some perspective. Just as it is a mystery why PGP think the things they say is a true credit to the Kerchers' silence, it is also a mystery why PIP need to accuse someone like Mr Kercher of lying.

Leave the poor man (family) alone.

 

[TruthCalls]

Once again, you are factually incorrect.

I can confirm that reps 176-184 (luminol revealed blood stains in the hall and Romanelli's bedroom) were NOT tested with TMB or human specific antigen. So it's not true they were "TMB negative".

Stacy schooled you on this one as well and I didn't see you admit yet another 'definitive... oops, error' on your part. And this one is particularly interesting since there has been literally thousands of posts on the Luminol traces being TMB negative and most of them also lacking Meredith's DNA. No one from the PGP ever tried to 'explain' why it was correct for a court of law (read Massei and Nencini) to conclude TMB negative, DNA negative traces are made from Meredith's blood. I'm guessing you'll continue that trend. Silence is always such an effective means of defending the indefensible. Maybe Ergon will give it a go since he's currently looking in...

 

[Vixen]

Still unwilling to admit you used the wrong symbol. A leopard cannot change its spots.

Are you ever going to explain the point behind how long blood takes to dry and how that's relevant to the case?

Victim's blood on hands, washed off.

Fact found 'indisputable and certain' (the law courts) Amanda was present at the murder scene during the murder.

Amanda was at the murder scene washed off victim's blood having coming into contact with her blood whilst wet.

Fact found: Amanda did cover up for Rudy (Marasca).

Despite being at the murder scene, Amanda did not once report the crime either to the ambulance services, the police or to her roommates (Filomena had to ring her, for news of the smashed window, and was only told because police were just arriving).

Conclusion: Amanda was directly involved in the murder and rape of Mez, and was righfully convicted. As Marasca says in its MR if it hadn't been for some investigative flaws (they claim) conviction would have been firm.

 

[TruthCalls]

The fear of what the dreaded "FOA" might "infer", prevents you from doing what one might assume you believe is the right thing. You really do believe the FOA to be this all knowing, all seeing, all powerful organization that can bend national judiciaries to its will.

Worse, you put that fear of inference above your regard for the Kerchers. Nice.



You're picking a fight with the wrong target. You are conflating the Kerchers, particularly Mr Kercher, with the "PGP", the latter of whom are represented very narrowly because of their campaign on the internet.

Mr Kercher wrote a book, a loving tribute to his daughter. The last part of his was, true, a misleading account of the case - but it is as he received it through his lawyer, Maresca. Maresca himself has just penned memoirs (which no one seems to have read!) Washed through Google translate, Maresca in 2016 still believes the twaddle the first prosecution way-back-when tried to selll.... but more to the point....

Why wouldn't Mr. Kercher believe his own lawyer? Esp. when the first court seemed to agree with the prosecution by convicting, and the third court also seemed to agree by overturning the subsequent acquittal?

It is unfair and completely unnecessary to hang this on Mr Kercher. But it is that last part which is the most true for these purposes, it is totally unnecessary to go after Mr Kercher to demonstrate that there still remains no credible evidence at all that tie either RS or AK to the crime involving his daughter.

Is it just me? Perhaps the only person I truly understand in all this is Mr. Kercher, and God forbid he and I changed places, I'm not sure what I'd be like.

But it is completely off base to accuse the man of losing some perspective. Just as it is a mystery why PGP think the things they say is a true credit to the Kerchers' silence, it is also a mystery why PIP need to accuse someone like Mr Kercher of lying.

Leave the poor man (family) alone.

I never have and never will say anything derogatory about the Kercher family. They have suffered a horrific loss and had to endure a judicial screw-up of epic proportions that forced them to relive that loss over and over. They have my sincere sympathy.

But with that said... the book was supposed to be a tribute to Meredith yet a significant portion of it was to publicize the prosecution's case against Amanda and Raffaele and I consider that to be in poor taste, or at least a very bad decision on his part. Yes, he certainly was entitled to believe what his lawyer was telling him but what was the point of including that in a book intended to be a tribute to his daughter? It was an obvious, deliberate attempt to wage his legal war with Amanda and Raffaele disguised as a loving tribute and it was wrong of him to do that.

 

[Bill Williams]

Victim's blood on hands, washed off.

Fact found 'indisputable and certain' (the law courts) Amanda was present at the murder scene during the murder.
Amanda was at the murder scene washed off victim's blood having coming into contact with her blood whilst wet.

Wrong. That's not what Marasca said. Simply repeating this does not make it true.

In Marasca/Bruno's "even if" paragraph, they say that even if that is true it still doesn't overcome the lack of evidence of either RS or AK in the murder room.

Please quit misrepresenting M/B and please quit with the familiar term for the victim.

 

[TruthCalls]

Victim's blood on hands, washed off.

Fact found 'indisputable and certain' (the law courts) Amanda was present at the murder scene during the murder.

Amanda was at the murder scene washed off victim's blood having coming into contact with her blood whilst wet.

Fact found: Amanda did cover up for Rudy (Marasca).

Despite being at the murder scene, Amanda did not once report the crime either to the ambulance services, the police or to her roommates (Filomena had to ring her, for news of the smashed window, and was only told because police were just arriving).

Conclusion: Amanda was directly involved in the murder and rape of Mez, and was righfully convicted. As Marasca says in its MR if it hadn't been for some investigative flaws (they claim) conviction would have been firm.

So now, we've gone full circle. In order for any of this to be worth anything there must be indisputable evidence to support the conclusions. So, as has been asked numerous times before, what was the evidence to support;

1. Amanda was at the cottage at the time of the murder
2. Amanda washed Meredith's blood from her hands

The court's only 'evidence' of Amanda being at the cottage was the statements arising from the interrogation of 5/6 Nov, statements deemed inadmissible for the criminal trial. Amanda retracted those statements in two letters written the following day. Amanda claimed the statement was coerced and she has appealed to the ECHR. Other than this, can you cite any evidence the court had to support this claim?

The court's only 'evidence' of Amanda washing Meredith's blood from her hands was that her DNA was found on the sink where drops of Meredith's diluted blood was found. Since DNA can not be dated, there is absolutely no way to conclude Amanda's DNA was deposited there at the same time as Meredith's blood. The evidence indicates Amanda used her sink and left DNA on it, and that on the evening of the murder Guede rinsed blood from his hands and some drops of diluted blood landed on the sink where Amanda's DNA already existed. The evidence is ambiguous and therefore no conclusions can be drawn from it. Other than this, can you cite any evidence the court had to support this claim?

If there was indisputable evidence that Amanda was at the cottage at the time of the murder and that she had washed blood from her hands then I would agree this would be very damaging to her. But the truth of the matter is there is NO evidence she washed blood from her hands and a coerced statement that was immediately retracted is hardly indisputable evidence of her presence at the cottage.

I get that you'll just repeat your belief that Marasca ruled these things and that this somehow makes them indisputable facts, but it would be extremely refreshing to have you actually try to address these two questions with facts and logic.