Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Kermit]

I do fully acknowledge that a PR firm was hired. I am simply stating that people attempt to throw everyone into the same group.

Kermit, I cannot tell you my sources at this time. Please stop asking me.

.
Bruce, you keep repeating that you're not part of some pro Amanda Knox campaign, yet you are unable to indicate where you get your photos and copies of court documents from (as if you were a reporter protecting sensitive sources who can't be exposed).

Let me rephrase my question if it is easier to reply: instead of telling us the sources for your information, then tell us what contacts and relationships you have with the Knox-Mellas families, or their Amercian legal or PR representatives.

==================

This reminds me of Halides1 slipping up (from his point of view) when he affirmatively stated that he knew that "Libby" Johnson was "working pro bono". However, when he was asked for whom Johnson worked, he suddenly went silent.

 

[Fulcanelli]

They don't like Frank as a source, Chris. Unless they agree with what he reported and can't find another one. I asked earlier what evidence exists of his dishonesty and I got the name game and maybe he is getting paid or at least having his expenses covered by some anonymous American source. It seems that Barbie is much more trusted despite the many errors and omissions, after all she is not dishonest, just wrong in many cases, and besides, she is perceived as being on the right team.

Actually, what you got told is to read up on it on PMF. Not having done so leaves one in deficit of the history of this case and the story of those on the periphery. Too many people come into this case at a run, instead of at a very gentle walk, and end up asking questions like'So what's the problem with Frank?'

In regard to Frank, he can be taken as a source (especially during his first 6 months of covering the case), he can provide information that can be gotten from no other source. Frank is an FOA sympathiser and everything indicates he's on the family payrole (or at least, was) and we also have an inside source that tells us they suspect Mario Spezi also has a hand in his site. But in Frank's own words "I tell little bullsh*ts"". It's a case of caveat emptor, let the buyer beware. If one can find another neutral source elsewhere supporting whatever it is he's saying then great. If not, handling with great caution is advised. It's a case separating the truth from opinion, the truth from the misinformation, the content from the spin and the facts from the misfacts. This is the same for all media, all sources of course, but in Regard to Frank's, one needs to wear very high boots indeed when wading through his outhouse.

OT OT: I can now edit without my browser exploding

 

[Fulcanelli]

Go back and look at my comment again; both of the quotes were what was said in court.

And where's the rest of the things Amazer asked for in this matter? Where's the prosecution's response? Where's the judge's response...his ruling on it and where's the prosecution and defence response to that ruling?

You seem to be trying to present us with a novel, one of which you've not read the second half, don't have the second half and are instead writing the second half yourself with assertions and innuendo with your own imagined ending. So, provide the full novel with the second half written by the court, not by yourself.

 

[shuttlt]

Kermit,

I agree with your concern about all this secrecy about sources and wish Bruce and others felt able to talk about the issue, at least in general terms. I don't quite know how to handle claims that "I know X is true but I can't tell you how I know". One can't debate with that. Having said that, I think you need to take more allowance for people getting assured stuff by PM. My view of Halides and Kestrel is that they are in much the same position I am with no direct access to anything, but benefiting from the occasional PM from people who do have access and wishes to either enlighten them, or give them a hand. For myself I have received PMs and emails from both sides of the debate and, without permission, wouldn't reveal who had told me what. Surely people can answer questions about their sources at least in these non-specific terms? There are enough people and unsourced assertions involved that such a general discussion would surely not break any confidences.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Kermit, I cannot tell you my sources at this time. Please stop asking me.

Perhaps then you can tell us 'why' it is you can't name your sources? I mean, we all know that it's the FOA. Primary candidates for your sources are Charlie Wilkes and Mark Waterbury and I would also bet you've been in contact with Paul Ciolino (among certain others).

 

[RoseMontague]

Actually, what you got told is to read up on it on PMF. Not having done so leaves one in deficit of the history of this case and the story of those on the periphery. Too many people come into this case at a run, instead of at a very gentle walk, and end up asking questions like'So what's the problem with Frank?'

In regard to Frank, he can be taken as a source (especially during his first 6 months of covering the case), he can provide information that can be gotten from no other source. Frank is an FOA sympathiser and everything indicates he's on the family payrole (or at least, was) and we also have an inside source that tells us they suspect Mario Spezi also has a hand in his site. But in Frank's own words "I tell little bullsh*ts"". It's a case of caveat emptor, let the buyer beware. If one can find another neutral source elsewhere supporting whatever it is he's saying then great. If not, handling with great caution is advised. It's a case separating the truth from opinion, the truth from the misinformation, the content from the spin and the facts from the misfacts. This is the same for all media, all sources of course, but in Regard to Frank's, one needs to wear very high boots indeed when wading through his outhouse.

OT OT: I can now edit without my browser exploding

I haven't read every thread at PMF, nor have I read every single page of this thread. However, I have been following this case for awhile and that includes reading at PMF and TJFM which is something some people will not do. I even recently registered at PMF. What I have seen are differences of opinion, I have not seen something from Frank that I would consider dishonest nor have I seen a pattern of dishonesty. There are different degrees of spin on certain things, Frank is not the only one that does that, in my opinion.

 

[shuttlt]

halides1,

I wonder whether it would be possible for you to talk any more about the authorship of the open letter, even if it's to say that your source won't tell you/doesn't know, or that you feel unable to say without breaking a confidence?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Unfortunately I do not see any purpose for me to continue the conversation on jref. It was nice talking with everyone. Bye for now.

 

[shuttlt]

RoseMontague,

You are free to look at this case from what ever perspective you please, and of course different ones are welcome. I do however suggest that you treat your assumption that everyone involved in the debate is basically nice and honest and only in it for the truth as highly provisional. Falcanelli, Skeptical Bystander and others have had direct contact with Frank and claim to know things about him that they don't feel comfortable repeating. Right now your assumption seems to me to be causing you to see Falcanelli as dishonestly maligning Frank. This is surely a contradiction with your assumption that everybody is open and honest and only in it for the truth. Once you get to people like Frank, Falcanelli, Dr Waterbury, Charlie Wilkes, Chris Mellas, The Machine etc... I really don't think it is possible to sustain your assumption - you and me might be in it for the truth, but one or other side has got some dirty little secrets.

 

[shuttlt]

Unfortunately I do not see any purpose for me to continue the conversation on jref. It was nice talking with everyone. Bye for now.

Bruce, I'm dissappointed and confused. What did you hope to get out of this that you didn't get? You were surely given more time and treated with more respect here than you expected at PMF when you joined up there? You are by no means the only one arguing from a pro-Amanda perspective. I felt like progress was being made. We were nearing an understanding of the whole suspicious pizza on the 5th of November incident at the very least.

 

[Kestrel]

Show your work. I can get Mackey over to check it for you too.

There is no need to calculate the precise trajectory of the rock to understand certain basic principals.

Here is an example. When the rock breaks the window, some of the kinetic energy of the rock will be be transferred to the broken pieces of glass. The energy from the rock will be in the same direction as the rock was traveling. The glass will fly in that same general direction. In this case, we find glass scattered across the room. Just as we would expect from a rock thrown from outside.

If you don't understand this, perhaps Mackey can explain it to you. Feel free to invite him into this thread.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Unfortunately I do not see any purpose for me to continue the conversation on jref. It was nice talking with everyone. Bye for now.

Come on Bruce, don't go throwing your teddy bear out the cot. The questions being asked of you and the challenges being made to your arguments are all valid.

On your site you make some very big claims. What do you imagine, that you can make big claims publicly and not have them challenged, not have to support them? Welcome to the real World Bruce. But if you expect to be respected in it, you can't be running away every time you're challenged.

 

[Fulcanelli]

There is no need to calculate the precise trajectory of the rock to understand certain basic principals.

Here is an example. When the rock breaks the window, some of the kinetic energy of the rock will be be transferred to the broken pieces of glass. The energy from the rock will be in the same direction as the rock was traveling. The glass will fly in that same general direction. In this case, we find glass scattered across the room. Just as we would expect from a rock thrown from outside.

If you don't understand this, perhaps Mackey can explain it to you. Feel free to invite him into this thread.

Smashing the window from the inside can also have similar effects, depending on how it was done. It's not enough to show it 'could' have been done that way in order to claim it 'was' done that way. One also has to rule out the other ways it could have happened.

You also are not taking into account all the other variables. Filomena disturbed the room. She lifted up her items and shook glass off of them, to see if anything was missing and to find her computer and may also have kicked or trod glass around by moving around. This means detailed theories built on the positioning of the glass in the room 'after' her entry cannot be made, especially as the before was not recorded.

You also are ignoring other important established factors. We know the rock was not thrown from outside since, not only is it highly unlikely (the neighbours could hear screams and running but not a giant rock being flung through the window like a tank shell, the illogical and unlikely entry point the window would have made etc,), but since we know the outside shutters were closed tightly, albeit not latched. To keep insisting the rock was thrown from outside is no more then a point of 'religious faith' combined with a bloody minded determination not to concede the point for winning's sake and is frankly, risible verging on the pathetic.

 

[Agatha]

Unfortunately I do not see any purpose for me to continue the conversation on jref. It was nice talking with everyone. Bye for now.

Why are you taking your ball home? All you've been asked to do is source some of your claims, there are plenty of people interested in what you have posted so far (even if they don't all necessarily agree with your point of view).

Unless you came here just to be rude to Fulcanelli, what reason do you have for flouncing off?

 

[Kestrel]

You also are ignoring other important established factors. We know the rock was not thrown from outside since, not only is it highly unlikely (the neighbours could hear screams and running but not a giant rock being flung through the window like a tank shell, the illogical and unlikely entry point the window would have made etc,), but since we know the outside shutters were closed tightly, albeit not latched. To keep insisting the rock was thrown from outside is no more then a point of 'religious faith' combined with a bloody minded determination not to concede the point for winning's sake and is frankly, risible verging on the pathetic.

Filomena thought she closed the shutters, but wasn't certain. If the shutters were closed, it was rather simple to open them. Reaching up with a stick would do the job if the burglar didn't want to climb.

If the rock was thrown from inside, there are some questions that require answers.

1.Why is there no sign of impact from the rock on the inside surface of the exterior shutter?
2. What kept glass from the broken window from sliding out the slots of the exterior shutter?
3. How was the impact mark with embedded glass on the outside surface of the interior shutter created?
4. How did the broken glass end up scattered across the floor of Filomena's room?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Filomena thought she closed the shutters, but wasn't certain. If the shutters were closed, it was rather simple to open them. Reaching up with a stick would do the job if the burglar didn't want to climb.

If the rock was thrown from inside, there are some questions that require answers.

1.Why is there no sign of impact from the rock on the inside surface of the exterior shutter?
2. What kept glass from the broken window from sliding out the slots of the exterior shutter?
3. How was the impact mark with embedded glass on the outside surface of the interior shutter created?
4. How did the broken glass end up scattered across the floor of Filomena's room?

I'm sorry, read the section of the Massei report I posted again, here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5834900&postcount=7036

Filomena was very certain she closed the shutters. Earlier in the report, Massei quotes her testimony on it and she's very clear on the matter.

Secondly, it is proven by the fact the none of the glass is outside, yet it is all over the outside ledge. That could only have happened like that if the shutters were closed when the window was broken.

Sliding out the slots???

 

[Chris_Halkides]

signers of open letter

halides1,

I wonder whether it would be possible for you to talk any more about the authorship of the open letter, even if it's to say that your source won't tell you/doesn't know, or that you feel unable to say without breaking a confidence?

I am not sure what you mean. Are you asking who wrote it, who signed it, or something else. I will not have time to respond further for about a day.

 

[Kestrel]

I'm sorry, read the section of the Massei report I posted again, here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5834900&postcount=7036

Filomena was very certain she closed the shutters. Earlier in the report, Massei quotes her testimony on it and she's very clear on the matter.

Secondly, it is proven by the fact the none of the glass is outside, yet it is all over the outside ledge. That could only have happened like that if the shutters were closed when the window was broken.

Sliding out the slots???

The exterior shutters are not solid, they have louvered. There are designed to let some fresh air in even when the shutters are closed.

Look at the photos on Bruce's web site. There is some glass on the inner sill of the window and some on the outer sill. The glass is mostly confined to one side. Claiming that there is glass "all over" the ledge is inaccurate.

I note that you didn't answer the four questions I asked. You also ignore the fact that there was nothing to prevent a burglar from opening the exterior shutter.

It's also rather clear that just like the judge, you don't understand basic physics.


ETA: Filomena wasn't certain that she closed the shutters when the Micheli report was written.

As for the window, remember to have certainly closed the windows but leaving the dark probably open: the shutters Although not a hundred percent sure, thought to have them shut, but without anchoring both, since the charge left met resistance on the sill due to a swelling of the wood. Her memory was no longer accurate, since it considered to have certainly opened the shutters in the morning needing light to change (while not having stayed home, but from your boyfriend had passed from there and reached the A. celebrating a birthday), but had then departed in a hurry because it was already late.

Now why would an uncertain memory become certain over time.

 

[Amazer]

Go back and look at my comment again; both of the quotes were what was said in court.

And what was the response of the court and the prosecution? How was the ruling of the Judge at odds with Italian laws and earlier rulings by other courts/judges?

The answers to the above would go a long way in convincing me that injustice was done here in this case.

Avoid answering those questions as you (and others) have done so far, does nothing at best, and at worst strengthens my conviction that should remain Amanda behind bars and that justice is being done here.

 

[Kermit]

Who was that masked man?

Kermit. I have posted the two shoe prints from Meredith's room on my site that were disputed during the trial ... You keep demanding to see the other three ... I have the entire presentation that was presented by Raffeale's expert. I honestly do not have the software to pull every photo out of this presentation. I do not have acrobat pro. these photos were seen using Crimescope.

I keep asking to see the other three because:

1) you said "all five prints match perfectly",
2) you had said on another comments thread (TDB) that you were going to post them

Now you say that you don't have the software to extract the last 3 out of 5 images (how did you extract the first two images?).

If you are unwilling to do it, then please send me the presentation, and I'll be able to get the remaining three images in a jiffy.

I'm sorry, but I find it hard to take your word for it, or accept comments of yours like "You and I both know that all of the prints match Rudy Guede's shoes." (1:48 am, Apr 11, 2010, on The Daily Beast)

Bruce, you keep repeating that you're not part of some pro Amanda Knox campaign, yet you are unable to indicate where you get your photos and copies of court documents from ... tell us what contacts and relationships you have with the Knox-Mellas families, or their Amercian legal or PR representatives.

Unfortunately I do not see any purpose for me to continue the conversation on jref. It was nice talking with everyone. Bye for now.

.
Translation:

1) I (Bruce) don't have images of at least three additional Nike prints that "match perfectly" Rudy's shoes

2) I (Bruce) get nervous about questions concerning my relationship with FOA and The Entourage

==================

Here's the last sighting of a mysterious masked man ducking out of JREF: