Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

You wrote: "your site is riddled with inaccuracies"

Do you care to make one of your "lists" showing these inaccuracies?

Hasn't the ones Kermit's given you enough to be on with? Were we to list them all we'd be drowning in crap.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Once again, we are debating about what time of the day Douglas Preston was at Mignini's office. This has no bearing on this case. You use garbage like this to distract people from the actual truth.

No Bruce, you are using that claim on your site as part of the spin to try and paint the Italians as some sort of corrupt and mean bunch, you are doing all you can to do a hatchet job on the ILE and you aren't really fussed if what you use to do it is really true or not...it is part of the landscape you are trying to paint for your readership. Only, your painting is fictional. Fiona very well summed up the importance of 'details' in one of her recent posts. Essentially, what we're saying and proving quite effectively, is that the emperor has no clothes.

Some time ago you declared that if any inaccuracies or misfacts on your site were pointed out to you, you would correct them. Was that just froth?

And I'm still waiting for your response to the Massei examination of the break-in that you promised...it's here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5834900&postcount=7036

 

[Bruce Fischer]

How has anyone been convinced that there was any relationship whatsoever between Amanda Knox and Rudy Guede?

I ask because it seems to me that this is crucial to the case against her (and Sollicito).

In over a year of following it (and this thread from the beginning), I've haven't heard of any credible evidence or testimony to persuade me that she knew him as anything but 'some black guy' who hung around Perugia (she wasn't able to name him in any of her statements).

So?

There was no significant relationship. She knew of him but they were certainly not friends. When the police asked her to make a list of people that visited the cottage below, she couldn't even remember his name.

 

[Kermit]

How as anyone been convinced that there was any relationship whatsover bewteen Amanda Knox and Rudy Guede?

I ask because it seems to me that this is crucial to the case against Knox (and Sollicto).

In over a year of following it (and this thread from the beginning), I've haven't heard of any credible evidence or testimony to persuade me that she knew him as anything but 'some black guy' who hung around Perugia (she wasn't able to name him in any of her statements).

Well, you may be right that Amanda's courtroom testimony isn't credible, but that's the best we have to go on as regards her knowing Rudy:


CP: Good morning, Miss Amanda, I am Carlo Pacelli, I am the defense lawyer for Patrick Diya Lumumba. A little remark: I will try to keep my questions in simpler Italian. May I start?

AK: Thank you, yes.

CP: You know Rudy Hermann Guede?

AK: Not much.

CP: In what circumstances did you meet him?

AK: I was in the center, near the church. It was during an evening when I met the guys that lived underneath in the apartment underneath us, and while I was mingling with them, they introduced me to Rudy.

CP: So it was on the occasion of a party at the house of the neighbors downstairs?

AK: Yes. What we did is, they introduced me to him downtown just to say "This is Rudy, this is Amanda", and then I spent most of my time with Meredith, but we all went back to the house together.

CP: Did you also know him, or at least see him, in the pub "Le Chic", Rudy?

AK: I think I saw him there once.

CP: Listen, this party at the neighbors, it took place in the second half of October? What period, end of October? 2007?

AK: I think it was more in the middle of October.
…….
CP: On the occasion of this party, Miss, was hashish smoked?

AK: There was a spinello that was smoked, yes.

CP: At that time, in October 2007, did you use drugs?

AK: Every once in a while with friends.

CP: Which substances were they?

AK: Marijuana.

( for Amanda's full testimony, see: http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=165&start=0 )

Paul the Private Eye obviously didn't believe Amanda either, as a week after her courtroom testimony, he stated on nationally broadcast CBS: "Amanda and Raffaele never laid eyes on Rudy, never met with him and never hung out with him... didn't know him."
( CBS Evening NEWS - 19 June 2009 )

 

[Bruce Fischer]

No Bruce, you are using that claim on your site as part of the spin to try and paint the Italians as some sort of corrupt and mean bunch, you are doing all you can to do a hatchet job on the ILE and you aren't really fussed if what you use to do it is really true or not...it is part of the landscape you are trying to paint for your readership. Only, your painting is fictional. Fiona very well summed up the importance of 'details' in one of her recent posts. Essentially, what we're saying and proving quite effectively, is that the emperor has no clothes.

Some time ago you declared that if any inaccuracies or misfacts on your site were pointed out to you, you would correct them. Was that just froth?

And I'm still waiting for your response to the Massei examination of the break-in that you promised...it's here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5834900&postcount=7036

I have answered all of the questions about the break in. I didn't respond to you directly but all of the questions were answered.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Well, you may be right that Amanda's courtroom testimony isn't credible, but that's the best we have to go on as regards her knowing Rudy:


CP: Good morning, Miss Amanda, I am Carlo Pacelli, I am the defense lawyer for Patrick Diya Lumumba. A little remark: I will try to keep my questions in simpler Italian. May I start?

AK: Thank you, yes.

CP: You know Rudy Hermann Guede?

AK: Not much.

CP: In what circumstances did you meet him?

AK: I was in the center, near the church. It was during an evening when I met the guys that lived underneath in the apartment underneath us, and while I was mingling with them, they introduced me to Rudy.

CP: So it was on the occasion of a party at the house of the neighbors downstairs?

AK: Yes. What we did is, they introduced me to him downtown just to say "This is Rudy, this is Amanda", and then I spent most of my time with Meredith, but we all went back to the house together.

CP: Did you also know him, or at least see him, in the pub "Le Chic", Rudy?

AK: I think I saw him there once.

CP: Listen, this party at the neighbors, it took place in the second half of October? What period, end of October? 2007?

AK: I think it was more in the middle of October.
…….
CP: On the occasion of this party, Miss, was hashish smoked?

AK: There was a spinello that was smoked, yes.

CP: At that time, in October 2007, did you use drugs?

AK: Every once in a while with friends.

CP: Which substances were they?

AK: Marijuana.

( for Amanda's full testimony, see: http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=165&start=0 )

Paul the Private Eye obviously didn't believe Amanda either, as a week after her courtroom testimony, he stated on nationally broadcast CBS: "Amanda and Raffaele never laid eyes on Rudy, never met with him and never hung out with him... didn't know him."
( CBS Evening NEWS - 19 June 2009 )

Exactly right. Amanda knew of Rudy but they were not friends.

 

[Fulcanelli]

In case the whole issue of the DNA wasn't confusing enough, there are big differences between how readily different people shed DNA. Perhaps this needs to be taken into acount?

Well, as the FOA love to keep telling us, Rudy very much loved to shed DNA...'it's all over Meredith and the murder' room they scream at every opportunity. It appears though, for some strange reason, it is not on the clasp or the towels...yet, Raffaele, who clearly doesn't very easily shed DNA (a fag but in the kitchen being the only example) is now supposedly easily shedding DNA onto a towel which then gets shed on to Rudy's foot which then gets shed onto the bra clasp...and all without any supporting evidence for it and all the evidence there is contradicting it, that's what we are now being asked to swallow.

 

[Fulcanelli]

They didn't have any interest in the knives at the cottage. Nor were they interested in identifying the unknown individuals who left their DNA on cigarette butts in the kitchen and on bloody bloody tissues found just outside the cottage. Probably these traces would have matched the Italian housemates, their boyfriends, or the downstairs tenants, but the authorities didn't obtain reference samples from any of those people. They weren't really conducting an investigation. They jumped to a conclusion before they knew the facts, the media ran with it, and they realized that if it didn't pan out, they'd look like fools. That was what drove every decision they made.

No doubt because none of those profiles were found in or on Meredith, in her room, mixed with her blood around the cottage, on the murder knife, or anywhere else it shouldn't be. And also because all the people you mention had rock solid alibis and didn't act suspiciously afterwards.

 

[Kermit]

Exactly right. Amanda knew of Rudy but they were not friends.

.
"Knew of" sounds a little distant. I think we can settle on "was an acquaintance of". That doesn't imply friendship, but goes beyond recognising a person on the other side of the main plaza.

After all, they did smoke marijuana together in a small group of friends in the small boys' apartment downstairs.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Fulcanelli writes:

Did you claim Rudy levitated to the bathroom in order to make his footprint on the mat then?

I think he removed his shoe in the bathroom when he cleaned up after the murder. That is why the print was made with diluted blood or bloody water. Nobody hopped or levitated.

Oh, well then how did his shoe not leave prints going to the bathroom...being drenched in blood and all, enough to completely soak the sock and all in your scenario?

 

[odeed]

BobTheDonkey,

The open letter gives approximately 200 RFU as the intensity, and I would suppose that PMF has a copy of the electropherogram, though I have not looked for it there. I have seen the electropherogram a while ago, and a few peaks are a little higher than 200 RFU, but not much more. On the other hand, Meredith's peaks are 1200-1500 RFU, IIRC. Thanks for the tip about the red arrow; I had never noticed it until just now.

halides1

Is 200 RFU a high threshold?

Most of the articles I have read put most manufacturers threshold as 150 RFU, and a few of the articles discussing lower than that.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I have answered all of the questions about the break in. I didn't respond to you directly but all of the questions were answered.

Did I blink, where 'are' these answers you profess to have given?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

BRUCE FISHER, on his website: "Douglas Preston was interrogated by Mignini. He was brought in during the middle of the night."

HOWEVER, DOUGLAS PRESTON in an interview: "The questions went on like this for an hour, and I was starting to feel reassured. I even had a glimmer of hope that I might get out in time to join my wife and children for lunch at a nearby restaurant, which came highly recommended in the guidebooks."

BRUCE got irate: "Kermit, why do you put so much importance on small details that have no bearing whatsoever on the case? ....

Watch the first 30 seconds of this video and you will see that my statements about Douglas Preston are 100% accurate ....

I just proved Kermit to be completely incorrect in my previous post. I am sure you will remain silent and not acknowledge that fact on this board ...."

BUT WHEN FACED WITH SOMETHING OBVIOUS (that he is obviously wrong), BRUCE DOWNPLAYS THE NEED FOR ACCURACY: "Once again, we are debating about what time of the day Douglas Preston was at Mignini's office. This has no bearing on this case. You use garbage like this to distract people from the actual truth."

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

1) If it has no bearing on the case, then why talk about it? If it's "garbage", who put the garbage on your website? What was the importance to you of stating that Preston "was brought in during the middle of the night"?

2) Who was correct and who was incorrect? Kermit or Bruce?

3) If you are incorrect, are you going to correct your website? After all, you did say in a haughty tone: "You see Kermit, I want the site to be factual."

It is well known that most of the people on this board that believe that Amanda Knox is guilty, use PMF as their primary source of information. When I point out inaccurate information on PMF it is completely ignored. When you make a fancy presentation about how I forgot to cross a T or dot an i, the loyal PMF crowd rises up to make a big deal out of it.

I will send an email to Mr. Preston and clear up the details. What ever the answer is, it makes no difference to the overall conclusion. You point out things that do not change the final outcome of the subject matter. This makes them irrelevant.

Why not answer the important questions that I ask? The questions that would change the overall outcome?

Do you think the investigators handled the bra clasp properly?

Do you believe that there is a shoe print belonging to Amanda Knox on the pillow?

These are important questions that make a difference to the final outcome. Your lame attempt to discredit my website with your shoe print analysis was completely ignored on this board.

PMF stating that Amanda's shoe print is on the pillow was ignored on this board.

PMF lied for 2 years about Amanda being arrested in Seattle. It was finally corrected by a new reader on PMF recently. The moderators of that board knew the truth but never corrected it. I mentioned it here and it was completely ignored.

These are important issues that actually make a difference. Your source is "riddled with inaccuracies" but these issues are ignored. Instead we talk about soap. A correction that makes no difference to the final outcome of the subject matter.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

.
"Knew of" sounds a little distant. I think we can settle on "was an acquaintance of". That doesn't imply friendship, but goes beyond recognising a person on the other side of the main plaza.

After all, they did smoke marijuana together in a small group of friends in the small boys' apartment downstairs.

no, we can not settle on "was an acquaintance of"

She couldn't even remember his name.

 

[Supernaut]

There was no significant relationship. She knew of him but they were certainly not friends. When the police asked her to make a list of people that visited the cottage below, she couldn't even remember his name.

Quite - my question was largely rhetorical, of course.

But I would like to hear from those who *have*, apparently, convinced themselves that she knew him and had even (gag) slept with him.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Hasn't the ones Kermit's given you enough to be on with? Were we to list them all we'd be drowning in crap.

Actually Kermit has not mentioned one inaccuracy that changed the overall conclusion of any subject matter. Go ahead and make a list. I think you might surprise yourself. I know you refuse to read through my site so I do not expect a list from you anytime soon.

 

[Supernaut]

Well, you may be right that Amanda's courtroom testimony isn't credible, but that's the best we have to go on as regards her knowing Rudy:


CP: Good morning, Miss Amanda, I am Carlo Pacelli, I am the defense lawyer for Patrick Diya Lumumba. A little remark: I will try to keep my questions in simpler Italian. May I start?

AK: Thank you, yes.

CP: You know Rudy Hermann Guede?

AK: Not much.

CP: In what circumstances did you meet him?

AK: I was in the center, near the church. It was during an evening when I met the guys that lived underneath in the apartment underneath us, and while I was mingling with them, they introduced me to Rudy.

CP: So it was on the occasion of a party at the house of the neighbors downstairs?

AK: Yes. What we did is, they introduced me to him downtown just to say "This is Rudy, this is Amanda", and then I spent most of my time with Meredith, but we all went back to the house together.

CP: Did you also know him, or at least see him, in the pub "Le Chic", Rudy?

AK: I think I saw him there once.

CP: Listen, this party at the neighbors, it took place in the second half of October? What period, end of October? 2007?

AK: I think it was more in the middle of October.
…….
CP: On the occasion of this party, Miss, was hashish smoked?

AK: There was a spinello that was smoked, yes.

CP: At that time, in October 2007, did you use drugs?

AK: Every once in a while with friends.

CP: Which substances were they?

AK: Marijuana.

Paul the Private Eye obviously didn't believe Amanda either, as a week after her courtroom testimony, he stated on nationally broadcast CBS: "Amanda and Raffaele never laid eyes on Rudy, never met with him and never hung out with him... didn't know him."
( CBS Evening NEWS - 19 June 2009 )

So, you have no reason to believe she knew him then?

Obviously, by the time she was in court she would have been referring to him by name.

Prior to that, she only knew him by sight.

BTW, what do you mean by "Paul the Private Eye obviously didn't believe Amanda either"?

 

[shuttlt]

But I would like to hear from those who *have*, apparently, convinced themselves that she knew him

We really only have her word on how well she knew him, don't we? It would be nice to have some coroberation, otherwise, assuming we are entertaining the possibility of her guilt, one might wonder whether she would be inclined to play down her relationship with him.

and had even (gag) slept with him.

Is this being argued? I haven't seen it. Why "gag"?

 

[Supernaut]

.
"I think we can settle on "was an acquaintance of" [Guede]. ....

No "we" can't, thank you very much.

Try again?

I asked for evidence or testimony, not your opinion.

 

[shuttlt]

Actually Kermit has not mentioned one inaccuracy that changed the overall conclusion of any subject matter. Go ahead and make a list. I think you might surprise yourself. I know you refuse to read through my site so I do not expect a list from you anytime soon.

Could you possibly deal with my list? Also, I think you are setting up a straw man if you insist that for an innaccuracy to be important it must, on it's own, change the overall conclusion on something.