• 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.
shuttlt said:
Thanks. By the way, watching you respond to a bunch of people questioning you all at once suddenly reminded me of one of those chess games where some champion takes on a bunch of opponents all at once. Having said that, other than holding your ground I don't see that much is achieved.

Couldn't we pick some topic, any topic, and work it through?
Click to expand...

Shuttlt, come on now. Everyone here always says if you have a claim, show some support for it. If Fulcanelli wants to claim that FOA or Dave Marriott helps pay bloggers, or people to post comments in articles, then he has to show us some proof.

If he had real proof, why would he not be sprinkling it all over the internet to show the truth? That's not a chess master. That's a diversion. Show us the evidence Fulcanelli. Right now all you are doing is name calling.
 
+
Bruce Fisher said:
Massei simply created his own theory. He didn't judge whether or not the prosecution's case was plausible or not, he simply created his own theory. He did this with the knife too.
Click to expand...

Soooo.,..what's your deconstruction of it? Or do you have a link to it? I've seen your 'opinion' and explanation of what happened, but not a deconstruction of Massei (that's where you take his scenario and deconstruct it with an argument point by point). So, where is that?
 
Last edited:
Bruce Fisher said:
You honestly think he is holding his ground? He is having a breakdown.

When all else fails just accuse someone who supports Amanda of being sexually attracted to her.

That's exactly what fulcanelli does. He is a child.
Click to expand...
Or accuse the cops of being motivated by sexual attraction.
 
shuttlt said:
Thanks. By the way, watching you respond to a bunch of people questioning you all at once suddenly reminded me of one of those chess games where some champion takes on a bunch of opponents all at once. Having said that, other than holding your ground I don't see that much is achieved.

Couldn't we pick some topic, any topic, and work it through?
Click to expand...

Shuttit..I'll take them all on. In fact, they can go and get all of their mates as well.
 
Last edited:
HumanityBlues said:
Shuttlt, come on now. Everyone here always says if you have a claim, show some support for it. If Fulcanelli wants to claim that FOA or Dave Marriott helps pay bloggers, or people to post comments in articles, then he has to show us some proof.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. I believe he should support it, but I don't believe the current feeding frenzy is conducive to doing that. If this is actually a topic we want to discuss, let's discuss it. Perhaps we could start with Frank and the quote about him being paid?

HumanityBlues said:
If he had real proof, why would he not be sprinkling it all over the internet to show the truth?
Click to expand...
This argument could be, and is with justification, thrown around a lot about many aspects of the case. Personally I think the importance of the PR campaign in this discussion is mainly confided to the reliability of sources of information, Frank, Dr Waterbury, the open letter,.... these can be questioned in other ways without proving some diabolical plot.

HumanityBlues said:
That's not a chess master. That's a diversion.
Click to expand...
I didn't mean to imply that he was handling you expertly. What impressed me was the rate at which he responded.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
stilicho said:
This is a great question. I wish we could all likewise refrain from personalisation on this thread.

There are a couple of elements here:

1] The expenses of the PR firm relating to the case.
2] The expenses of FOA relating to the case.

I wouldn't expect #1 to be available. I would expect #2 to be available since they're raising money and obviously spending it on something. There is also the known connections between one blogger in particular and the Knox/Mellas clan. That's the connection that might be verifiable even without cancelled cheques.

But having those cheques would be fantastic and there are posters on this thread who could supply them.
Click to expand...


Who is the blogger?

Who posts on this forum that could supply the checks?
Click to expand...

The blogger is Frank, of course. I suspect you, Waterbury and Halkides are all doing this for free. That's never been the issue.

As I just noticed on their site, FOA is very clear to separate itself from "Amanda Defense Fund". I apologise to anyone for the confusion. However, because FOA is the umbrella term for the fund and the interest group, let's understand that we're referring to the defense fund when we're talking about contributions, expenses, financials, etc.

And I suppose I ought to rephrase the last part in the form of a question: "Who here has access to the Amanda Defense Fund (aka FOA) financials and could supply some of the information we require?"
 
HB said:
If he had real proof, why would he not be sprinkling it all over the internet to show the truth?
Click to expand...

To prolong the case of course...just so all the lawyers can earn more money :rolleyes:
 
HumanityBlues said:
Did you miss the part where I told Mary I thought that idea was unfounded? So are you going to keep on with the one liners or substantiate this claim?
Click to expand...

You did and all credit to you for that. But she still believes it and I'm sure others in the future will pick up that mud and sling it again.
 
OK. It took a bit of Googling, but here's the link I eventually found the last time we discussed Frank Sfarzo about 80 pages ago on the 19th of April:

http://www2.seattlepi.com/articles/406548.html
Perugia Shock is hosted on a California server and financed by an American firm, according to the Perugia-based blogger who covers the case and operates the site under the alias "Frank Sfarzo."
Click to expand...

It's not much, but it's Andrea Vogt claiming that Frank told her he is financed in some way by an "American Firm". As was said back in April, it can't very well be his blogspot expenses, so what then, and what American firm would finance Perugia-Shock?
 
Last edited:
shuttlt said:
OK. It took a bit of Googling, but here's the link I eventually found the last time we discussed Frank Sfarzo about 80 pages ago on the 19th of April:

http://www2.seattlepi.com/articles/406548.html


It's not much, but it's Andrea Vogt claiming that Frank told her he is financed in some way by an "American Firm". As was said back in April, it can't very well be his blogspot expenses, so what then, and what American firm would finance Perugia-Shock?
Click to expand...

In California. And I believe that American firm is Google, which hosts blogspot.
 
The word "paid" isn't mentioned in the article I linked to. Do you have another source? Perhaps Skeptical Bystander is the person to ask? She knows him after all and I've seen her post several times about additional statements by Frank alluding to being paid.
 
Last edited:
shuttlt said:
You have a quick mind HumanityBlues. It seems like an odd cryptic way to put it if indeed he is 'financed' by Google.
Click to expand...

It sounds like more of a pride thing to me. I'm surprised Andrea Vogt was careless enough to put that in article. I'd hedge my bets if you asked her personally whether there was a California firm financing Frank Sfarzo's blogspot blog, even she would have trouble keeping a straight face on that one.
 
HumanityBlues said:
It sounds like more of a pride thing to me. I'm surprised Andrea Vogt was careless enough to put that in article. I'd hedge my bets if you asked her personally whether there was a California firm financing Frank Sfarzo's blogspot blog, even she would have trouble keeping a straight face on that one.
Click to expand...
Do you have additional information here, or are you just guessing? I have seen it claimed that he has given contradictory ******** background on himself (his profession for example). If that's what he means, then my posts are funded by Virgin Media. Anyway, let's wait and see, there are certainly claims of other sources. It is kind of infuriating though if Frank himself is deliberately stoking false conspiracy rumours.
 
Last edited:
shuttlt said:
Do you have additional information here, or are you just guessing? I have seen it claimed that he has given contradictory ******** background on himself (his profession for example). If that's what he means, then my posts are funded by Virgin Media. Anyway, let's wait and see, there are certainly claims of other sources. It is kind of infuriating though if Frank himself is deliberately stoking false conspiracy rumours.
Click to expand...

I'm funded by an evil corporation in New York called Time Warner. It's obvious Frank Sfarzo is kind of a cryptic guy. But seriously now, a California firm is not going to fund a blog to cover the Amanda Knox trial and host it on blogspot.
 
shuttlt said:
The word "paid" isn't mentioned in the article I linked to. Do you have another source? Perhaps Skeptical Bystander is the person to ask? She knows him after all and I've seen her post several times about additional statements by Frank alluding to being paid.
Click to expand...

It would be nice to have the evidence in place. I wasn't surprised to see a couple of Frank's own comments removed from his own blog "by the administrator". They aren't even that incriminating.

I simply have to ask: Why all the secrecy? Do they really think Frank's multitude of adoring fans will suddenly abandon him if they know he's being compensated?

We haven't even mentioned Anne Bremner yet and we know she's being paid for her opinion. But that's (probably) the firm's expenses and not the advocacy group's.

I wonder who has first claim at money collected through contributions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom