Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
halides1 said:
The Times article I cited identified the police as the source of information about the bleach receipt.

"Well, it wasn't true. Giobbi, chief of Direzione Centrale Anticrimine of Rome, said today in court that on the evening of the 5th he gave the order to bring Amanda and Raffaele together at the police station. Remember how many times Amanda was rebuked for having gone when she wasn't supposed to? Remember how many shocks she had one after the other? Rebuked for having gone there, rebuked for not remembering things, convinced thatRaffaele was accusing her, and who knows what else."

Using the word "rebuked" is not spinning, it is quoting Frank Sfarzo.

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/05/giobbi-i-gave-order.html
Click to expand...

No I don't remember her being rebuked for going to the police station: doing cartwheels in the waiting area she was rebuked for, I remember that....
 
halides1 said:
The Times article I cited identified the police as the source of information about the bleach receipt.

"Well, it wasn't true. Giobbi, chief of Direzione Centrale Anticrimine of Rome, said today in court that on the evening of the 5th he gave the order to bring Amanda and Raffaele together at the police station. Remember how many times Amanda was rebuked for having gone when she wasn't supposed to? Remember how many shocks she had one after the other? Rebuked for having gone there, rebuked for not remembering things, convinced thatRaffaele was accusing her, and who knows what else."

Using the word "rebuked" is not spinning, it is quoting Frank Sfarzo.

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/05/giobbi-i-gave-order.html
Click to expand...


How old is the article?

Frank's first language is not English. Perhaps he chose the wrong word. And he certainly doesn't provide an exact quite, does he? Many other papers carried the testimony of the police officers on the stand and none of them said Amanda was rebuked. When Amanda gave testimony on the stand, she didn't say she was rebuked.
 
Fulcanelli said:
As I said, we have our sources. And actually, Bene is quite angry at Preston and Spezi. Accept it, or not.
Click to expand...

I wasn't asking about Bene. I was asking about the woman who wrote the Daily Mail article.

I actually would understand why Bene would be angry. From reading the excerpt it seemed that she did not want to be quoted and was speaking off the record. I don't think the entire thing was made up though.
 
HumanityBlues said:
I wasn't asking about Bene. I was asking about the woman who wrote the Daily Mail article.

I actually would understand why Bene would be angry. From reading the excerpt it seemed that she did not want to be quoted and was speaking off the record. I don't think the entire thing was made up though.
Click to expand...

No, because we never saw it as an issue. You're the only people that seem to see it as an issue.

And again, you tell us what you 'think'. Again, good for you.
 
Fulcanelli said:
No, because we never saw it as an issue. You're the only people that seem to see it as an issue.

And again, you tell us what you 'think'. Again, good for you.
Click to expand...

You never saw an issue about a reporter making up that Patrick was hit and kicked and called racial epithets by the police?
 
HumanityBlues said:
You never saw an issue about a reporter making up that Patrick was hit and kicked and called racial epithets by the police?
Click to expand...

What, we should write to ever paper that prints something that is incorrect or is untrue?

Why should we write to her? To achieve/establish what? For what purpose? Patrick went on record numerous times to say he didn't say it. That was enough for us, we are satisfied. Why should we have an issue with it? If anyone should be writing, it's those who have an issue.
 
information released?

Stilicho,

I have been reading some of your comments over at PMF. Is it still your contention that the defense has had all of the DNA information for over a year and a half? Do you think that the defense is entitled to see the .fsa files?
 
Halides1: I cannot speak for Stilicho of course, but many of us do not accept that any relevant files have been withheld. That is because the defence requested them; the prosecution agreed to release them; the court ordered that they be released;and the defence did not claim the order had not been complied with. You know that.

As with so many other things, it is perfectly clear that we are not going to be able to agree on the facts on this issue. I know that you are never going to change your mind on the basis of the evidence we both have at the moment: and you should know that I am not going to either.

So may I ask what possible benefit you see in continuing to raise this kind of thing? It is not like you have a new point: that would be worth discussing. It is not like you have found a new way of getting your point across: I could see that as a reason for bringing it up again.

In a normal discussion we put our respective cases: we explore them and we find the facts we can agree on; we research to find out more about the situation when the facts are in dispute; we present argument and counter argument taking seriously the other's point of view; we change our minds if the facts or arguments presented are valid; and ultimately, when we cannot find a common resolution, we can at least agree that the topic has been exhausted; and we agree to differ.

What I do not understand ( and I admit I have had this feeling for a while, but never so much as this evening) is why the exact same statements are re-introduced as if they were new. Repetition does not make them more persuasive either way.

I have no problem with the fact that you believe evidence has been witheld. I am perfectly aware that that is your view and I know why you believe it. I do not believe it and you are perfectly aware why I don't. You have no fresh evidence to adduce. Neither do I.

So what exactly do you hope to achieve? I am genuinely curious
 
halides1 said:
Stilicho,

I have been reading some of your comments over at PMF. Is it still your contention that the defense has had all of the DNA information for over a year and a half? Do you think that the defense is entitled to see the .fsa files?
Click to expand...
.
Another broken, reused, familiar clay pigeon gets launched up into the air again.

Halides, what about all the pending issues which you've gone silent on? Do we have to start the FSA debate yet once again?

If so, wait while I pull out my Elizabeth "Libby" Johnson quotes in order to reuse them for you.
===================

In any case, before we repeat the FSA business again, you said above: "Remember how many times Amanda was rebuked for having gone when she wasn't supposed to?"

I understand that you are quoting Frank. Can you tell me (us), in fact, ¿how many times was Amanda rebuked for having gone to the police station when she shouldn't have?

I had read that the police were mildly bemused / suspicious that they couldn't talk to either Raffaelel or Amanda without the other trying to be there, but no where has there been mention of a rebuke, nor especially of a number of rebukes for Frank to remind us of.
 
halides1 said:
Stilicho,

Collecting another utensil is a kind of substrate control.

2. Always collect a substrate control for possible subsequent laboratory examination;

http://expertpages.com/news/dna2.htm
Click to expand...

Do you even read your own links? How would the bread knife, say, qualify as a substrate control?

Isn't a substrate control a reference to the biological tissue of the victim or the suspect?

EDIT: I guess it isn't what I thought it was. But the spoon or the bread knife wouldn't qualify either. It would have to be something similar to what you're testing, though. I guess they could have taken a table spoon. I doubt you'll get far with this argument in a courtroom. "Your Honour, my client must go free because the spoons were left behind."
 
Last edited:
halides1 said:
Stilicho,

I have been reading some of your comments over at PMF. Is it still your contention that the defense has had all of the DNA information for over a year and a half? Do you think that the defense is entitled to see the .fsa files?
Click to expand...

It sure looks like the defence and even persons associated with the Knox/Mellas family have a great deal more information relating to the charges against her than we'd previously thought. Very little of this information has been released. If the Kitchen Drawer Of Horrors photograph is any indication, it's being withheld from the rest of us because it puts to rest one talking point after another.
 
halides1 said:
Stilicho,

We are not in agreement about several aspects of the knife, as my other comments attest. To mention to just one of them, why did the policeman invoke “police intuition” (Time magazine) if there were only one knife?
Click to expand...

You'd have to ask the policeman or TIME magazine. The photograph is pretty clear about the Kitchen Drawer Of Horrors. I know you'll continue to cling barnacle-like to the double-DNA knife regardless of the evidence.

Why don't you put that photograph in your blog? Tell them it's been in the possession of FOA for at least a year and place a photograph of the bagged murder weapon next to it. Ask your readers to comment on it.

Please don't take my word for it. Your readers are pretty smart.
 
Photographic analysis of the break in

This is my first post. I would like to introduce myself. My name is Bruce Fisher. I created the site Injustice in Perugia.

The link below shows a detailed photographic analysis of the break in. You will have to add the w's



injusticeinperugia.org/window.html
 
Important Article by Retired FBI Agent Steve Moore

Steve Moore is a retired FBI Agent who has 25 years of investigative experience. His experience includes the investigation and prosecution of violent crime, from murder to mass-murder and terrorism. Steve has researched the Meredith Kercher murder case extensively. I was very pleased when Steve accepted my request to write about his knowledge of this case for Injustice in Perugia. Steve has agreed to join our effort and will continue to work with us to set the record straight about this case. Steve's expert opinion is one that comes from years of experience and one that must be respected when it comes to crimes of this nature.

Please visit Injustice in Perugia to read this article.

injusticeinperugia.org
 
stilicho, for the record, I use the actual picture of Raffaele's knife drawer on the injustice site. There is absolutely nothing to hide when it comes to that photograph. The truth is, the knife is a very weak piece of evidence.
 
Michael and Kermit, maybe you can provide me with a little bit of insight on how PMF works. I signed in and said hello. I was instantly asked to leave and then I was banned. That sounds like a pretty reasonable policy don't you think?
 
Bruce Fisher...you've only just joined here and your very first two posts were to link to your site. Many would consider that spamming.

Second point. I'm not sure what JREF policy is on bringing personal problems from another site over here is, but most sites consider that a no-no and incidentally, for this thread it's off-topic. This thread is about the Meredith Kercher case, not the Bruce Fisher on PMF case. But anyway, here the addy for PMF:

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/index.php

Why don't you go over there and send an email to the Administrators about your issue.

Finally, thanks for introducing in Steven Moore yet another FOA sock puppet...I'm sure having just one more on top of many will change everything for them.
 
The fact that evidence was withheld will become very clear in the next couple of weeks. This fact will be confirmed. At that time we can all discuss how important this fact is when it comes to the appeal.
 
Fulcanelli, are you going to ban me from here also? I am unable to ask PMF why I was banned for the simple fact that I was banned.

Why don't you just answer the question?

Why do you think that Steve Moore is a sock puppet?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom