• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
The article is a joke. Why don't you go and do some digging about on this case?
 
Bruce Fisher said:
I do not take your word for it. I confirm it with credible sources. You want edits done immediately. Just like a child that wants a sucker.
Click to expand...

Bruce, you were shown evidence that your site was incorrect. That was quite a few posts ago. You continued to insist that your site was correct, in spite of said evidence.

That was not a "I'm upset because I wanted you to change it immediately and you wouldn't" discussion. That was a "You claim you want to post the truth. You are shown the truth and then insist that your website is still inerrant" discussion that shows nothing but your own disingenuous mission here.
 
Fiona said:
The article is a joke. Why don't you go and do some digging about on this case?
Click to expand...
Edited by Professor Yaffle: 
Edited for civility/attacking the arguer

Nothing anyone says to you ever answers your question. It is pointless talking to you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh you answered my question, Bruce Fisher: you stated quite explicitly that you have not done the most basic research before posting your silly claims about Mignini. You are, I think, a dupe
 
Fiona said:
Oh you answered my question, Bruce Fisher: you stated quite explicitly that you have not done the most basic research before posting your silly claims about Mignini. You are, I think, a dupe
Click to expand...

Never fear, Fiona, I also keep having questions that remain unanswered.

Funny that.
 
Fiona said:
Oh you answered my question, Bruce Fisher: you stated quite explicitly that you have not done the most basic research before posting your silly claims about Mignini. You are, I think, a dupe
Click to expand...

I did? Where did I say that? I think what I said was, you are a fool.


Let me add this. Nothing I could ever tell you would ever satisfy you. Every answer leads to another question. There are never any conclusions.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
Never fear, Fiona, I also keep having questions that remain unanswered.

Funny that.
Click to expand...

Really?

Maybe you and Fiona should talk for a while, you can run around in circles until the end of time.
Edited by Professor Yaffle: 
Edited for civility/attacking the arguer

Good night.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bruce Fisher said:
I have Mr. Preston's word. That's all I need. I trust him. The recent court ruling in regard to the case proves that Mignini made a fool of himself.
Click to expand...

Bruce Fisher said:
I did? Where did I say that?
Click to expand...

The part I bolded.

I think what I said was, you are a fool.
Click to expand...

You did indeed say that too. Curious for someone who has been insisting on civility, but not really a suprise. I may well be a fool. It happens that I am a better informed fool than you are, though: and that will do me :)
 
Fiona said:
The part I bolded.



You did indeed say that too. Curious for someone who has been insisting on civility, but not really a surprise. I may well be a fool. It happens that I am a better informed fool than you are, though: and that will do me :)
Click to expand...

That was in regard to the interrogation of Mr. Preston, not the entire case.

Did you honestly think I was talking about the entire MOF case? Do I really need to spell everything out for you to get it? Then you still won't get it. You will just ask another question. Nothing is ever answered with you.
Edited by Professor Yaffle: 
Edited for civility
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bruce Fisher said:
I do not take your word for it. I confirm it with credible sources. You want edits done immediately. Just like a child that wants a sucker.

I have asked Kermit if he made his edits but he disappeared. He has incorrect information online but his is much more important. His actually pertains to evidence.
Click to expand...
.
My pillow images from over a year ago was a discussion document clearly presented as such, where - together with fellow posters - we tried to discern a footprint on the pillow with the only image then available to us.

As a discussion document, which is dated on the PMF download page, it is not current nor is it being presented as current.

Do you expect all posters' comments on JREF which are dated prior to the publishing of a certain relevent report or document to be erased, simply because now there is newer information on the case?

Your website however is not an ongoing discussion thread with photos or discussion documents which arise and are associated with certain comments from a certain moment in time.

Your pages are presented as current, as information-giving pages for the members of the public who wish to inform themselves with what they hope will be up-to-date information.

If you're interested in going back to PMF posted comments from before Massei's opinion was published, or from before Micheli's decision was published, or from before Mignini's investigation report was published, or from before the defence teams leaked this or that information, well, yes you will find posts which weren't able to take into account unknown information at that time.

So, what's your problem? The PMF historical discussion has got nothing to do with your board, which presents itself as something different.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Did you honestly think I was talking about the entire MOF case? Do I really need to spell everything out for you to get it? Then you still won't get it. You will just ask another question. Nothing is ever answered with you. Fool is appropriate.
Click to expand...
.
Many of the more veteran posters (and readers!) here are relatively familiar with the MoF case, and also with the Narducci case.

However, my impression is that your site is not oriented towards people who are already familiar with those cases and also the Meredith Kercher murder case. In fact, we are the ones who are identifying and challenging you on the many inaccuracies and false insinuations you make on your website.

Your target audience isn't us, it's the public at large which hasn't yet come to know the many details of the Meredith Kercher case, or - as you would probably have it - the Amanda Knox InjusticeinPerugia case. (Who cares about that British "prissy" - in Charlie Wilkes' words - who got killed? What was her name? If she hadn't died, Amanda wouldn't be where she is now)

Bruce, I have an honest request for you:
1) print out the text from your webpage on Giuliano Mignini.
2) take it to the supermarket.
3) find a shopper who isn't familiar with the Kercher case, nor the MoF case, nor the Narducci case (should be relatively easy)
4) ask said shopper to read your page
5) ask said shopper what this Prosecutor Mignini's apparent role in this "Monster of Florence" case which is referred to on your printout

I have a feeling that 10 times out of 10, the shopper will say "well, it looks like this Mr. Mignini was the prosecutor of that case".

And while that reply may have FOA and Entourage operatives smiling and feeling that they are achieving their objectives, at the same time that reply demonstrate a poor dedication to communicating the truth.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
That was in regard to the interrogation of Mr. Preston, not the entire case.

Did you honestly think I was talking about the entire MOF case? Do I really need to spell everything out for you to get it? Then you still won't get it. You will just ask another question. Nothing is ever answered with you. Fool is appropriate.
Click to expand...


Your aversion to questions is obvious. It obviously is rooted in your belief. Questions are uncomfortable for believers, because answers depend on evidence and not assertions. Believers are only comfortable with unquestioning concurrence. You're in the wrong place.

You make your assertions here, in a forum comprised of people who ask questions and look for evidence, and then feign confusion when your assertions are proven to be unfounded, even dishonest, one after another after another.

Perhaps your bluster and rudeness have served you well in other environs as a substitute for facts, but here you will only be respected for your ability to support your claims with evidence and reason. This is something that you have failed to do, utterly.

If you feel that your website has suffered here in comparison to some others which you seem so enraged about perhaps it is because your website also fails to support the assertions it presents.

Fiona is not a particularly wise choice as a target in your remarkably rapid descent into sophistry and childish insult. There are not many active members of this board with as consistent and untarnished a reputation for fairness, equanimity, and patience. You are no longer amusing.

Edited by Professor Yaffle: 
Edited for civility/attacking the arguer
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think anyone has defended Rudy Guede or even hinted that they think he might be innocent. To point out that someone who lives in their own home town could not be accurately called 'a drifter', or to note that he has no prior convictions, isn't defending him; it is sticking to the facts.
 
It's interesting that Bruce always sees objection to the defense story as "destroying people's lifes". He may want to take the perspective of the people that are not buying it for a moment: Two out of three people that murdered a young woman try to weasel themselves out by contradictory arguments. The victim and her family deserve that all people involved get punished. Therefore people object to the weaseling out.
I wonder in which place that kind of sentiment is "destroying people's lifes".

And as for why such seemingly minute elements of your site get taken apart: because they represent a certain slant you exhibit, that is to say to paint the Italian law enforcement and justice system as the bad guys with a broad brush. That isn't objective and misrepresents the case.

Has Bob Graham finally managed to publish some facts that back up the conspiracy story Mr. Waterbury wove? Or is that "there is more to come" too?
 
quadraginta said:
Fiona is not a particularly wise choice as a target in your remarkably rapid descent into sophistry and childish insult. There are not many active members of this board with as consistent and untarnished a reputation for fairness, equanimity, and patience.
Click to expand...
Seconded. And like me Fiona only got involved in this whole issue because skeptigirl wrote a post not wholely disimilar to the articles on your site. Few of us had any interest in the case prior to this and have formed our current opinions on this thread.
 
Everyone: please remember your membership agreement, and stop the incivility and personal attacks
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Professor Yaffle
 
re. "Knox slept with Guede"

shuttlt said:
Could you link to a newspaper article claiming this?


If it's so manifest, then it should be easy to find I quote. I've looked and I haven't found one. Perhaps I need to look harder, but again, if it's so obvious that it's undeniable, you should be able to provide a cite without much trouble.
Click to expand...


It would appear the "speculation" that Guede was "one of Knox's lovers" disappeared as quickly as it started. It was at about the time the media was dutifully "informing" us about Knox's SEVEN sexual partners in the 3 months she was in Italy.

I'm not going to spend hours trying to prove it, but this "report" is from 23/11/07, covering Guede's arrest (I'm not allowed to post links yet);

thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23422527-new-meredith-suspect-i-had-sex-with-her-on-the-night-she-died-but-then-fought-the-real-killer.do

"The judge also said Guede "had a strong attraction" to Meredith's American housemate, Amanda Knox, 20, who is also being held over her murder".

Why would Matteini have said that, do you think? Perhaps hoping inferences would be made?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom