Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Bruce Fischer]

Just this once, because someone has posted a very poor Google translate version and because it is necessary to dismiss the BS offered by Bruce Fisher, here is the relevant section for the translated report. It has not been proofread yet, so there may be the odd typo:

Michael writes off everything as BS. That's why about 35 people still read PMF.

I will read through this tonight. I have already read this but I will see how Michael translated it.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

That was on page 54:

I will answer all of these statements tonight also. We need to clear this stuff up for a change.

 

[Fulcanelli]

With all of this window talk, where is the proof that Amanda and Raffaele had anything to do

with this broken window?


You cannot do either of these things. You can't prove Rudy didn't do it and you certainly

can't claim that Amanda or Raffaele were there.

The proof is that the window was not broken by Rudy (Massei lays out this proof very well). Amanda and Raffaele have been proven to be at the scene during the murder and after the murder. They also had good reason to fabricate a burglary. And I can say they were there, for the evidence says they were there.

However, I note you do not require any proof that Rudy broke the window, yet are quite happy to assert again and again that he was the one who did. I just thought I'd just point out your double standard.

There was no investigation done. If there was, we would have photographs of glass on the

clothes. The investigators took Filomena's word for everything in regard to her room. Show

me any investigation that was done on that room other than taking general photographs? At

least they did that. Those photographs alone show a totally different story than the

prosecution would want you to believe.

There was a full and robust investigation of Filomena's room. It was photographed. It was forensically examined for fingerprints, blood and DNA (luminol was pit down that revealed blood and the DNA of Amanda Knox and Meredith were found in the cleaned blood) and the ground below the window, outside wall and window itself were was closely examined.

It didn't have Meredith's DNA on it when it left Raffaele's apartment.

You simply cannot make these assertions of fact about the knife without providing evidence to support them.

It makes no difference whether or not Rudy intended to take anything from Filomena's room.

It makes every difference. If not, why then did he in your scenario, break into the house if not to rob? Why was Filomena's room ransacked if not to rob?

The logical entry point can be asked in regard to the alleged staged break in as well. Why

would someone that lived in the house chose that window to stage a break in? It's not the

best entrance point. You question works both ways. It's a wash.

Amanda needed to be in the cottage for a significant period of time before they called Filomena to report something was amiss. If the kitchen window were broken Amanda would have been compelled to call the police the moment she entered the cottage. Therefore, it had to the window of one of the rooms in the cottage so that Amanda could claim she hadn't seen it until a long time after she had entered the building.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Rudy's connection with a lawyers office burglary in Perugia was discussed at trial. When

Rudy was arrested in Milan, he had a laptop and a cell phone stolen during that burglary.

Entry was gained by breaking an upper floor window with a rock. After being released, Rudy

went back to the office to apologize for having the laptop, but claimed he bought it in the

Milan trains station. If Rudy didn't steal the laptop, how did he know were it was stolen

from?

Since when is possession of stolen goods alone considered proof or even evidence that the one in possession committed the burglary of their origin? Rudy knew where the computer was stolen from because the police told him when they confiscated it.

 

[Fulcanelli]

BobTheDonkey,

You wrote, “Logically, we know that there is no reason to not believe Stefanoni.” There are

several reasons not to believe her scattered among 170+ pages, even if you choose to ignore

them. Here is one more. The forensic lab in Rome put up picture of Amanda next to Mafia Dons

put up before she was even charged. So much for the notion that the forensics was done

independently and with an open mind.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_1...in;contentBody

Since when is anything claimed by Paul Ciolino, who is actually a high ranking member of the FOA and on they pay role and has told lie after lie, remotely credible? You call that a source? And incidentally, do you not believe it majorly deceitful that in the CBS articles he is never once mentioned as being a member of the FOA? Talk about corrupt ethics and deceiving the readership!!!

 

[Fulcanelli]

First, I'd like to know why you don't think it is important. Second, check out the

documentary, "Sex, Lies, and Meredith Kercher" on YouTube for corroboration. You will find

it about four minutes into the third segment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQV6M...eature=related

Sorry, I have to sign off for a while.

The documentary was filmed months after her arrest and remanding into custody.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Michael writes off everything as BS. That's why about 35 people still read PMF.

I will read through this tonight. I have already read this but I will see how Michael translated it.

'Michael' did 'not' translate it. Clearly you are not one of those people who read PMF or that you would know.

 

[stilicho]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36593384/ns/world_news-europe/


Whoa, he wants a life prison sentence for a cartwheel? I hope he never watches the Olympics gymnastics, he'll want them all in the electric chair!


Must not be any other pressing criminal cases in Italy these days ...

Thanks for posting that, DR. It's been discussed for a while at the PMF forums but we've been swamped here with Lone Wolf theories that some of the actual case points have been overlooked.

This was originally pondered in JAN 2010 but this is the first mention that the prosecutors will actually seek to extend the sentences on appeal. There is a strong possibility that neither Comodi nor Mignini will be leading the state's cause on appeal so there cannot be any motive for "corrupt Italian boogeyman necrophiliac prosecutor" claims by FOA.

Given the mountain of evidence used to convict the pair in their first trial, it is unlikely in the extreme their sentences will be reduced on appeal, but a new court could decide on a fresh new longer term of incarceration--not exactlya heartening development for the two young adults.

 

[stilicho]

Obviously I don’t agree with you, but I also said I had more than one reason. I am still not whether the commenters here agree that the defense team (including expert witnesses) has a right to have electronic copies of the DNA forensic files. At least BobTheDonkey was forthright enough to say that the defense had a right to see them. Fulcanelli said it would depend on Italian law. How about a show of hands from some others?

Put me under the "Provide Relevance" category.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

'Michael' did 'not' translate it. Clearly you are not one of those people who read PMF or that you would know.

Michael, I know you didn't translate it. That was a bit of sarcasm. I am just amazed at your arrogance. Is it possible for you to have a conversation with anyone that doesn't agree with everything that you say?

I will go over all of this tonight. I wish I had the time right now but I don't.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Do you know what a mountain is? I am just curious.

 

[stilicho]

Except that Massei never argued that it would be impossible to get up to the window, did he? He agreed with Micheli that it would have been possible to climb up (at least, he doesn't suggest anywhere that it would have been impossible, from which we have to assume that he accepted the defence evidence on this point at least).

Micheli did not accept the defence claims. He accepted the investigators' evidence. Yours is a dishonest approach and it closely resembles Bruce Fisher's and that of FOA.

The issue with the scaling of the wall was never whether it was possible to raise one's self upon the grating to touch the sill of Filomena's window. The issue was whether one could scale the wall, unlatch or otherwise enter through the window, and leave no evidence of having done so. This has been repeated now several times.

 

[stilicho]

Do you know what a mountain is? I am just curious.

A mountain of evidence is what constitutes thousands of pages of documentation. Reviewed, argued by both prosecution and defence, and condensed into a report, it creates a thick volume of 427 double-sided sheets.

That's a mountain.

 

[stilicho]

BobTheDonkey,

You wrote, “Logically, we know that there is no reason to not believe Stefanoni.” There are several reasons not to believe her scattered among 170+ pages, even if you choose to ignore them. Here is one more. The forensic lab in Rome put up picture of Amanda next to Mafia Dons put up before she was even charged. So much for the notion that the forensics was done independently and with an open mind.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20002467-504083.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody

I would have thought AK might feel honoured to be associated with these other criminal celebrities.

Once again, put me into the "Provide Relevance" category.

 

[Dan O.]

stilicho, You must be the only one here that hasn't reviewed that document. Each page has a number^* (added after it was scanned the first time) and the number on the last page is 427. If it was originally printed double sided then the even numbered pages would be on one side of the sheet and the odd numbered pages would be on the other side.

(*) There are actually 4 pages prepended without numbers.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

stilicho, You must be the only one here that hasn't reviewed that document. Each page has a number^* (added after it was scanned the first time) and the number on the last page is 427. If it was originally printed double sided then the even numbered pages would be on one side of the sheet and the odd numbered pages would be on the other side.

(*) There are actually 4 pages prepended without numbers.

Whatever. It still easily qualifies as a "mountain of evidence".

 

[stilicho]

stilicho, You must be the only one here that hasn't reviewed that document. Each page has a number^* (added after it was scanned the first time) and the number on the last page is 427. If it was originally printed double sided then the even numbered pages would be on one side of the sheet and the odd numbered pages would be on the other side.

(*) There are actually 4 pages prepended without numbers.

I accept that correction. I think we've now agreed on exactly two things in over 170 pages of rollickingly fun times.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

inequivalence

2 things:

1) The pictures of the Mafia bosses (or whatever) were pictures of suspects, the same as Amanda. I see nothing inherently wrong with that.

2) Was the picture of Amanda the only of the 3 (or 4 including Patrick) suspects to be posted or were they all posted?

BobTheDonkey,

If the police had her picture on the wall, that would be one thing, but the forensics division is another matter. I don’t see how forensic evidence could tell anything about who the ringleader is (message #7033). Moreover, your answer assumes without evidence that the other people on the wall were not convicted. Bernardo Provenzano was arrested in 2006 (the photograph on the wall shows his arrest), but he had already been tried in abstentia. There was also a picture of a serial murderer. Therefore, the equivalence you are claiming is false, but quite telling.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

What is your answer

Fiona,

You wrote (message #6828), “So what exactly do you hope to achieve? I am genuinely curious”

You asked (message #7008), “You don't agree that bringing in other cases is completely irrelevant to whether the information was withheld in this case and so cannot convince anyone one way or the other about this issue?”

There are two issues, whether the files were released, and whether they might be useful if they were. When I reconsidered the Leskie case, I argued the latter issue. IIRC in response to my earlier discussion of Leskie, Stilicho’s response was that Sollecito and Knox were not several hundred miles away; therefore, the case is not relevant. My response is that Ms. P need not have been several hundred miles away from Jaidyn Leskie, and contamination would still be the most likely explanation for her DNA being present on his clothing. My position is that the electronic files are extremely useful, and the Leskie case may convince some people who previously felt otherwise to change their minds.

I am pondering whether to look further into the former issue, and that is why I asked whether you and Stilicho agree that electronic data files should be released to the defense lawyers and their consultants (the defense team) as a general principle. Do you? I might not spend the time or capital to research this if your answer were no.

 

[Fiona]

What possible relevance could that picture have if this is true? Do cameras not steal souls but rather steal dna?