Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bruce Fisher said:
I addressed this question in my earlier post. If the window was open and it was broken from the inside, all of the glass would have landed on the floor.

For you theory to work, Amanda and Raffaele would have had to pick up that glass off of the floor and put it on the window sill.

This window was broken from a rock that was thrown from outside. The photographs prove this.
Click to expand...

Bruce,

This is a real good and obvious point. This alleged staged break-in would have had to have been quite elaborately done and as I understand it there is no evidence of A & K in that room. Correct?

On the question of the glass outside below the window, the section of the Massei report that Fulcanelli posted refers to no glass but does not cite the evidence - violation of a JREF rule no doubt. Do you know if there are photos showing one way or the other the presense or absense of glass on the ground outside the window or is all we have is testimony on this?
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Your theory about the rock placement on the floor is incorrect. The rock hit the inside shutter and went downward toward the floor knocking over the purse and landing on the edge of the bag after also knocking the bag over.

It is not reasonable to believe that Amanda and Raffaele moved the purse and the bag and placed the rock in that location. That would be some pretty well thought out "staging." Highly unlikely seeing that the room isn't even trashed. There was no staging. There is no evidence of staging in the room.
Click to expand...

And why couldn't the rock have fallen that way from being thrust into the window from inside the room? You've made a number of assertions of how the positioning of the rock proves it had to have come from outside and in through the window...yet, you've never explained exactly why or why it isn't possible that it could have landed there is the window was broken from the inside. perhaps you could lay this out for us?
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Scrabble pieces are not a good example at all. They are plastic and they are much thicker. Rudy would have pushed the glass toward the room as he dragged his body through the window. He would not "push off" of the ledge to enter. He pulled himself through.[//quote]

Moving up through a window doesn't just require pushing, it also requires much pulling.
Click to expand...
 
Bruce Fisher said:
I addressed this question in my earlier post. If the window was open and it was broken from the inside, all of the glass would have landed on the floor.

For you theory to work, Amanda and Raffaele would have had to pick up that glass off of the floor and put it on the window sill.

This window was broken from a rock that was thrown from outside. The photographs prove this.
Click to expand...

The photographs prove the opposite Bruce. The glass is all over the outer sill. What prevented any of it falling to the ground...a hidden forcefield?

Don't worry, there's no need for forcefields...it's quite clear, the shutters were shut and that is also fully in accord with the statements and testimony by Filomena Romanelli.
 
capealadin: "I think , Michael, that not only do they not care on jot for Meredith or her family, but that they are antagonistic towards them for not stepping up to the plate to save the little angel.This dislike is apparant in many of them, not limited to, and including, Candace."

Michael: "Oh, they resent them greatly...and they have a very hard time restraining themselves from showing it. Some, such as Screaming Bob, can't help themselves though. And the others, well, they let their true colours slip every now and then. Make no mistake, they see the Kerchers as the enemy and they hate them for it. After all, if they'd never have given birth to Meredith Amanda would never have murdered her and so not ruined her life. It's all Meredith's fault and her family's...they should just move on and let Amanda move on, she's far more important."


This conversation between Michael and capealadin is disturbing. It is this type of behavior that discredits everything PMF claims to stand for.

To make the claim that anyone that believes an injustice has occurred resents the Kerchers greatly is a horrible and completely reckless statement to make.

People that support Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are sometimes accused of being disrespectful to Meredith Kercher. I cannot speak for everyone. Of course there are disrespectful people on both sides of any topic. I do not think it shows any disrespect to Meredith Kercher to search for the truth. In fact, I feel that finding the truth in regard to her murder is a sign of respect to Meredith. Meredith and her family deserve justice. Imprisoning two innocent people will bring no justice for Meredith Kercher.

Michael is a moderator on that site. He is spreading these angry lies simply to enrage his readers into hating anyone that disagrees with his agenda. These immoral tactics need to stop.
 
Gotta run to work; wish I could engage more, but just wanted to comment on all the attempts to quash freedom of speech around here. Supernaut, yours was an intriguing post; I hope you don't allow the bullies to chase you off.

You wrote: "The Kercher family is difficult to fathom – they, of all people, must be thoroughly familiar with the facts, and one would assume they would be hell-bent on seeing the real murderer punished."

In my opinion, the Kerchers are not aware of the facts. Their primary source of information has been the prosecution, and we know what their story is. In the days following the murder, we can only imagine how emotionally vulnerable the Kercher family felt. It would make sense for them to cling tightly to the authority figures who are "solving" the murder of their daughter and sister -- it's a version of the Stockholm Syndrome. I suspect it would be hard to break those ties as time went on. Plus, who wants to believe your murdered family member's strongest advocate is a power-hungry sex fiend?

Some will say the Kerchers have access to the media and all the information we have access to. If you were in their position, would you read about the murder? And I can't imagine anyone insensitive enough to have approached them with the suggestion they rethink what they have been told by the prosecution.

Kermit, your letter to Marriott reminds me of all the people who keep saying Amanda's supporters are doing her more harm than good by criticizing the Perugian court. I thought the guilters' position was that the media (including this blog) are irrelevant -- it's what the court decides based on the evidence that matters. If they abandon that position, they are going to have to admit that the media played a key role in influencing the jury panel at the first trial.

Somehow I don't think Amanda is going to lose any of her support because of what Supernaut wrote.

Why don't I ever see any of the guilters complaining about what Rudy Guede's lawyer said at his appeal trial -- that Meredith was a girl who loved to party and there was no reason to believe she wouldn't have dated Guede?

Ultimately, if anyone has been horrifically disrespectful of the Kercher family, it is the prosecution, who asked a grieving family to publicly buy into a sex fantasy instead of telling them the truth. I can understand the Kercher family's reluctance to recognize they were twice betrayed.
 
Fulcanelli said:
The photographs prove the opposite Bruce. The glass is all over the outer sill. What prevented any of it falling to the ground...a hidden forcefield?

Don't worry, there's no need for forcefields...it's quite clear, the shutters were shut and that is also fully in accord with the statements and testimony by Filomena Romanelli.
Click to expand...

The rock was thrown from outside. The glass is exactly where it should be for this scenario.

With your scenario. Did Amanda and Raffaele pick up all the glass off the floor and put it on the sill?

You said that you believe that the window was broken when the window was open.

How do the outside shutters play into your theory at all? If the window was open when it was broken, the glass would have fallen on the floor. The glass would have been nowhere near the sill.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Have you read Barbie's book? It's an easy question. Answer it.
Click to expand...

Bruce...you have this terrible habit, which is typical FOA, of whenever you are asked a difficult question (like 'cite that claim') you respond with a question and demand the other person answer your question first.

That's bad faith debate. To make assertions, then when called up on them to respond with a question of your own packaged with a demand of 'JOLLY WELL ANSWER MY QUESTION FIRST!' is just being a weasel. I asked you to support a claim YOU have already made, so have the courtesy to do so...or frankly, shut the hell up. I'm about done with your self righteous tone which you have no right to, since you support nothing. So, answer my question which I asked first, then I'll answer yours.
 
Juror said:
This is a real good and obvious point. This alleged staged break-in would have had to have been quite elaborately done and as I understand it there is no evidence of A & K in that room. Correct?
Click to expand...

There's no evidence of Rudy in there either and he's the one supposed to have mountaineered in through the window (and this is the guy that's supposed to leave evidence 'everywhere' remember).
 
Fulcanelli said:
Bruce Fisher said:
Scrabble pieces are not a good example at all. They are plastic and they are much thicker. Rudy would have pushed the glass toward the room as he dragged his body through the window. He would not "push off" of the ledge to enter. He pulled himself through.[//quote]

Moving up through a window doesn't just require pushing, it also requires much pulling.
Click to expand...

If you read what I wrote, I said that Guede dragged himself through the window. That only required pulling. No pushing was involved. He pulled himself through the window dragging his body across the sill moving glass toward the room.

The word pushing was used above in reference to the glass. Not the physical actions of Guede.
Click to expand...
 
Can people please try and keep the Kercher family out of the debate and discussion? It really is not fair to them at all.
 
Juror said:
On the question of the glass outside below the window, the section of the Massei report that Fulcanelli posted refers to no glass but does not cite the evidence - violation of a JREF rule no doubt.
Click to expand...

What???
 
Fulcanelli said:
Bruce...you have this terrible habit, which is typical FOA, of whenever you are asked a difficult question (like 'cite that claim') you respond with a question and demand the other person answer your question first.

That's bad faith debate. To make assertions, then when called up on them to respond with a question of your own packaged with a demand of 'JOLLY WELL ANSWER MY QUESTION FIRST!' is just being a weasel. I asked you to support a claim YOU have already made, so have the courtesy to do so...or frankly, shut the hell up. I'm about done with your self righteous tone which you have no right to, since you support nothing. So, answer my question which I asked first, then I'll answer yours.
Click to expand...

I am exposing you here and you don't like it. You are asking me to post disgusting information about Meredith on this board. I will not do that.

You claim that Barbie is an excellent source but you won't even admit that you read her book.

If you read her book, you know that Barbie said disgusting disrespectful things about Meredith.

Your asking me to disrespect Meredith. That is not something I am willing to do.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Fulcanelli said:
If you read what I wrote, I said that Guede dragged himself through the window. That only required pulling. No pushing was involved. He pulled himself through the window dragging his body across the sill moving glass toward the room.

The word pushing was used above in reference to the glass. Not the physical actions of Guede.
Click to expand...

Pulling...exactly. Pulling is towards the puller and in your silly scenario, the puller is outside the window, so is by definition pulling glass outside the window, off the outer ledge and onto the ground below. Except there is no glass on the ground below so there was no pulling going on because nobody pulled themselves in through the window.
Click to expand...
 
Bruce Fisher said:
I am exposing you here and you don't like it. You are asking me to post disgusting information about Meredith on this board. I will not do that.

You claim that Barbie is an excellent source but you won't even admit that you read her book.

If you read her book, you know that Barbie said disgusting disrespectful things about Meredith.

Your asking me to disrespect Meredith. That is not something I am willing to do.
Click to expand...

The lady doth protest too much.
 
Mary H said:
Gotta run to work; wish I could engage more, but just wanted to comment on all the attempts to quash freedom of speech around here. Supernaut, yours was an intriguing post; I hope you don't allow the bullies to chase you off.
Click to expand...

Thanks for letting us know where you stand Mary H...for you attacking the Kerchers is all good.

So much for humanity.
 
Fulcanelli said:
Bruce Fisher said:
Pulling...exactly. Pulling is towards the puller and in your silly scenario, the puller is outside the window, so is by definition pulling glass outside the window, off the outer ledge and onto the ground below. Except there is no glass on the ground below so there was no pulling going on because nobody pulled themselves in through the window.
Click to expand...

Let me explain this for you. Guede puts his hands inside the window, he pulls his body through the window. He is not pulling on the outer ledge. His hands are inside the window, when he pulls, he drags himself through the window, bringing glass toward the room with his body.

This is very simple. No need to complicate this.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom