Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Bruce Fischer]

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).

If you already know everything then why do you ask? I think it is quite clear that you do not know everything. You think Barbie is a good source. That tells me everything that I need to know about your sources.

 

[Amazer]

There is an appeal trial underway. People who believe that Amanda is guilty can come online and say anything they like. People who believe in the innocence of Amanda have to be very careful not to interfere with the trial in any way.

If the material/info/sources you talk/hint about about online are so sensitive that you can not afford to reveal them, then you really shouldn't talk or even hint about them online.

To me it sounds like a pretty convenient excuse for not backing up what you claim.

The online argument is far less important.

That is something we do agree on.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Well that does not make much sense to me. People who are directly involved in the trial, such as the lawyers, do have to be careful. But if those who are seeking to sway public opinion feel themselves constrained in what they can say, then that is not reflected at all in the reporting I have seen so far. The online and media argument is certainly less important than the evidence presented in court and the trial itself. But insofar as this has been taken out of the court and into the press and tv and online then it is open for examination. You can't have it both ways: either you have material which you can publish without affecting the appeal and you present it all: of you don't and you shut up. "Trust me because I have inside information which I cannot share" is not good enough: especially because we have seen extensive misrepresentation of the things we can check: such as the 14 or 40 or 53 hours of coercive interrorogation

I never said I can't share information. I said I cannot tell you my sources. If that isn't acceptable then I cannot participate.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

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?

I don't think I have been rude to Fulcanelli. He has never shown any respect to anyone that supports Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito. He calls us sympathizers. That word in itself is very insulting.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

If the material/info/sources you talk/hint about about online are so sensitive that you can not afford to reveal them, then you really shouldn't talk or even hint about them online.

To me it sounds like a pretty convenient excuse for not backing up what you claim.


That is something we do agree on.

Once again, it is not the information. I will provide anything that I have. I have no problem getting the truth out to anyone who will listen. I simply cannot talk about my sources. Like I said, if that is not acceptable then I cannot participate.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

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)

I had these images extracted from the software. It is a waste of time because these shoe prints were not disputed in court. Both the prosecution and the defense agreed that these shoe prints belong to Rudy Guede.

I am a credible person. I know that you will never accept that fact no matter how many times I prove you to be incorrect.

Here are the images.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-05.html

 

[Fiona]

I never said I can't share information. I said I cannot tell you my sources. If that isn't acceptable then I cannot participate.

I am sorry you cannot participate. But so be it

 

[Bruce Fischer]

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.

You claim to be the expert. Yet after over two years you only have the information that is readily available on the internet. You believe Barbie is an excellent source and you are still trying to figure out the time line for pizza day.

Maybe you should take a step back and realize that you aren't that important. I know that I certainly am not. I will provide all of the information that I have but I am simply not in the position to talk about my sources.

I am well aware of the real world. In the real world, two innocent people have been wrongly convicted. This is not a game. Public opinion is important and things are changing whether you want to admit that or not. The media will be much more favorable for Amanda Knox during the appeal. Not only in the US but worldwide.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

I am sorry you cannot participate. But so be it

Fiona has spoken.

 

[shuttlt]

Bruce,

I'm glad you're back.

For myself, I am quite content for people to not name their sources so long as they are straight forward about it. To give a fantasy example that categorically hasn't happened, if well known poster X emailed me a picture of Raffaele's kitchen and it was clear that there were a great many sharp knives kept in other draws, lose on the counter, and generally scattered about, I would want to share this. If poster X asked to remain unknown, I would respect that and explain the situation to people. Such material speaks for itself. Either the photo is good, or it isn't. When we start saying "no additional photo's were taken beyond what poster X has shown me", then the evidence does not speak for itself. We can't know that the photo's you have are either complete or representative. We don't even know whether the photos that you and Charlie choose to share are representative of what you have in your posession. Do you have more photos like the knife draw one that you haven't shared because they didn't help any of the arguments you are trying to make? Might there be more photographs like the knife draw one that haven't been shared with you at all?

There is of course a somewhat different situation that also exists, with Dr Waterbury and the open letter, say... where we are told what the evidence says, but both the bulk of the evidence, and it's source remains secret.

Incidentally, I wonder if you could point me in the direction of video, or even a transcript in Italian, of Giobbi making the claim about the pizza being suspicious. I'm aware that it is mentioned on the 48 hours Mysteries site, but I haven't been able to locate the clip.

 

[stilicho]

Maybe you should take a step back and realize that you aren't that important. I know that I certainly am not. I will provide all of the information that I have but I am simply not in the position to talk about my sources.

So cough up the information. We're waiting.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The first few seconds of this Italian news report shows a rock flying through a similar shuttered window.

Great, now we know rocks can fly. Thanks.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Whom in this thread have stated unequivocally who the murderer is?

[Post 2188]
Author : stilicho
Date : 20th January 2010 04:41 PM
Unfortunately, I don't have copies of every single word she said and wrote from the night she murdered Meredith until her conviction.

[Post 3505]
Author : tsig
Date : 11th February 2010 09:06 PM
Amanda is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Post 4552]
Author : Fulcanelli
Date : 6th March 2010 05:37 PM
The only fact that has certainty is that Amanda, along with Raffaele and Rudy murdered Meredith.

[Post 5625]
Author : BobTheDonkey
Date : 23rd March 2010 04:56 PM
I'm going to go ahead and take it all the way back to these two should not have murdered Meredith. That would be one sure-fire way for the two to not spend the next 15-20 behind bars...

[Post 6175]
Author : Alt+F4
Date : 5th April 2010 09:09 AM
Except for the fact that Amanda murdered her.
​

Everyone else is closer to earning the title "skeptic".

Don't be putting it back on me, answer the question. Doesn't your unwavering belief that Rudy Guede committed the crime make you a guilter? Yes or no?

 

[Fulcanelli]

You don't know what drives us? The question is much more relevant when asked about you. We are fighting for two people that we feel have been wrongly convicted. It's very simple. No need to complicate everything.

Are their lawyers not good enough then? And how does your 'fighting' help them? Do you really believe you can influence the Italian Justice system? I would guess not since you have stated that you don't want to interfere with the trial, so then, what do you hope to achieve and how?

 

[Fulcanelli]

If you already know everything then why do you ask? I think it is quite clear that you do not know everything. You think Barbie is a good source. That tells me everything that I need to know about your sources.

Barbie 'is' a good source. And that's EXACTLY why you hate and fear her so much.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I don't think I have been rude to Fulcanelli. He has never shown any respect to anyone that supports Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito. He calls us sympathizers. That word in itself is very insulting.

You don't sympathise with her then and your cause isn't sympathetic to her then?

 

[Fulcanelli]

In addition to her cell phones, Meredith's cash, credit cards, keys and a sweatshirt were taken.

My take is that Rudy's intent was robbery. Looking for cash so he could pay his rent. He climbed into Filomena's room, decided he needed a find a bathroom first. Then while he was sitting on the can, Meredith came home.

The state pays the rent of the unemployed in Italy.

 

[Fulcanelli]

You claim to be the expert. Yet after over two years you only have the information that is readily available on the internet. You believe Barbie is an excellent source and you are still trying to figure out the time line for pizza day.

Maybe you should take a step back and realize that you aren't that important. I know that I certainly am not. I will provide all of the information that I have but I am simply not in the position to talk about my sources.

I am well aware of the real world. In the real world, two innocent people have been wrongly convicted. This is not a game. Public opinion is important and things are changing whether you want to admit that or not. The media will be much more favorable for Amanda Knox during the appeal. Not only in the US but worldwide.

Actually, I posted the PMF Timeline for the pizza day. Perhaps you missed it.

You keep asserting that two innocent people have been convicted. Yet, all the evidence you have offered to argue your claim so far (which admittedly, has not been very much), we've completely blown out of the water with facts, evidence and logic. Yet despite that, you continue to assert you 'belief', and that's all it is...a point of faith which is not based on the actual evidence. Your faith would stay the same no matter how many more of your arguments we showed to be false and no matter what evidence was against the pair. I don't think though you really believe them innocent...I think that actually doesn't matter to you. All that matters to you is that Amanda is 'found' innocent and gets to come home.

 

[RoseMontague]

If you do this, you have to put something under the window to catch the broken glass and then place all the broken glass by hand to make it look like the rock was thrown from outside the window.

How long do you think it would take to do this?

When a rock is thrown through a window a good portion of the glass shatters and moves in the direction opposite of the impact. Here is an article on the forensics of glass breaking that states:

In cases such as breaking and entering, as much as thirty-percent of the glass fragments will not travel in the direction of the blow, but instead towards the perpetrator.

http://socyberty.com/crime/forensic-examination-of-glass/

If the other side of the window was still closed it would explain why there are no glass shards on that side, even in this scenario. Was broken glass found on the ground under the window?

From the translated report:

The next fact to considered is that the pieces of glass from the broken pane were distributed in a homogeneous manner on the inside and outside parts of the windowsill, without any displacement being noted or any piece of glass being found on the ground underneath the window. This circumstance, as confirmed also by the consultant Pasquali, tends to exclude the possibility that the rock was thrown from outside the house to create an access to the house through the window after the breaking of the pane

.

 

[Amazer]

In addition to her cell phones, Meredith's cash, credit cards, keys and a sweatshirt were taken.

My take is that Rudy's intent was robbery. Looking for cash so he could pay his rent. He climbed into Filomena's room, decided he needed a find a bathroom first. Then while he was sitting on the can, Meredith came home.

And then he decides to not only murder her... but to sexually assault her while she's bleeding to death? That would be rather uncommon.

From what I understand criminals like that usually have a history of events, ranging from being a "peeping Tom" to increasingly violent/sexual activities. Care to show us this history for Rudy?

And it still doesn't explain why Philomena's room was ransacked but no valuables taken.