• 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.
HumanityBlues said:
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.
Click to expand...
Which is why it is so clever that they did.....
 
Actually, having read Franks other alleged utterances about himself, I'm not sure I would regard this particular claim to be well supported even if Frank quite specifically said that he was paid by the PR firm and gave an amount.
 
HumanityBlues said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's Good, since neither Frank or the article ever claimed he was funded by a Californian firm. What was cited was that he was hosted on a Californian server AND 'paid' by an 'American firm'. Tip...the American firm was separate to the Californian server (google).
 
Amanda Defense Fund - Disclosure Requirements

Stillcho, regarding your lack of disclosure concern with the Amanda Legal Defense Trust. I noted it has a Seattle address and I looked up the filing requirements for charitable solicitation in Washington State.

It appears the Amanda Legal Defense Trust is excluded from any public filing requirement and thus public disclosure due to 1c below.


RCW 19.09.076 (RCW is Revised Code of Washington)
Charitable organizations — Application for registration — Exemptions — Soliciting contributions.

(1) The application requirements of RCW 19.09.075 do not apply to:

(a) Any charitable organization raising less than an amount as set by rule adopted by the secretary in any accounting year when all the activities of the organization, including all fund raising activities, are carried on by persons who are unpaid for their services and no part of the charitable organization's assets or income inures to the benefit of or is paid to any officer or member of the organization;

(b) Political organizations; or

(c) Appeals for funds on behalf of a specific individual named in the solicitation, but only if all of the proceeds of the solicitation are given to or expended for the direct benefit of that individual.
(2) All entities soliciting contributions for charitable purposes shall comply with the requirements of RCW 19.09.100.
 
Fulcanelli, is the whole "paid" thing something you know for a fact to be the case beyond your ability to produce quotes and links? It has struck me for a while that your, and Skeptical Bystander's, personal knowledge of Frank is one of the areas you become cagey about in a similar sort of a way to pro-Amanda bloggers about their sources.
 
Last edited:
Bruce Fisher said:
I am constantly accused of being a paid employee. Others online hear the same BS. You promote that BS. There are many individuals that have gotten involved because they saw an injustice. You just cannot believe this could be possible. You think that we must be getting paid. We must have direct connections with the family. So somehow this discredits our information.
Click to expand...
.
Direct or very close indirect connections.

I assume that your images aren't "leaks" from the prosecution (the sort of thing you love to criticise), but that they are instead "information releases" from sources close to The Family.
 
shuttlt said:
Fulcanelli, is the whole "paid" thing something you know for a fact to be the case beyond your ability to produce quotes and links?
Click to expand...
.
Bruce et al like to vehemently deny that any of the "online" advocates for Amanda are on the payroll, which may or may not be true (or may have particular twists and adhoc definitions in order to be plausibly deniable).

However, the all-out PR campaign goes beyond Internet. If the Knox-Mellas families go to Gogerty Marriott Inc, they aren't hiring a part-time, minimum wage secretary in order to field the odd phone call from the West Seattle Herald.

Marriott's website describes their PR specialities: "We then develop and implement a plan; usually integrating a range of tactics such as earned and paid media".
 
Last edited:
Mary_H said:
Just making a verbal accusation and expecting the accused to prove you are wrong is not the way it works. This isn't Perugia.
Click to expand...
.
I quite agree, Mary.

Somewhere I made a mental note that you had said you had studied in university with poster Skeptical Bystander. Can you confirm that, or are my mental notes shuffled?
 
Stilicho, Anne Bremner said she isn't getting any money for this case on the radio where she appeared with Barbie Nadeau. Why do you think she is being paid?

Shuttlt, I think the reason they are "cagey" is they know they have no real proof.

Kermit: "Marriott's website describes their PR specialities: "We then develop and implement a plan; usually integrating a range of tactics such as earned and paid media". Ya, that's called a PR rep who goes on TV. The knoxes aren't their only client either I assume (Edit: http://www.gsminc.com/clients.htm.)
 
Last edited:
HumanityBlues said:
Shuttlt, I think the reason they are "cagey" is they know they have no real proof.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. Like I said before, it's a hard sort of thing to prove. I don't think it is a major issue in the case once you get past the trash talking. That our sources of information aren't necessarily as reliable as they should be can be demonstrated without proving anybody is getting paid to deceive.
 
Hi Fulcanelli, Kermit, Shuttlt, and some of the other regulars who post here and on Perugia Murder File,
I wish to read more trial testimony regarding Rudy Guede and Alessanda Formica on PMF, but can not seem to find it. Can you give a curious L.A.surfer, who is not a member of the "FOA", paid or not, a hand finding it? And yes Fulcanelli, I have tried "google". and PMF s"earch".
Thank you,
RWVBWL

PS- I like how PMF has gotten the translation correct in the phone call that Raffaele Sollecito made to the Carabinieri. I believe there is a big difference in the meaning "there is a bloodstain" and "there is drops" vs "there is alot of blood" that Raffaele is usually quoted as having said.
 
Bob the Donkey writes:

Cite?

I posted this yesterday. It's from the google translation of Massei's masterpiece:

The medico-legal consultants and experts have said that from the standpoint of science coroner could not be ruled out that the author of the injury was a single assailant and that's because the bruises and wounds from gunshot cutting tip and not in itself incompatible with the action of one person. It should be noted however that the contribution of each discipline relates to the specific responsibilities of each and in fact the medical-legal consultants and experts have pinned their attention to specific aspects of forensic medicine: time of death, cause of death, indication of the sexual violence, injuries on the victim's body and causes and nature and description of themselves. In relation to those specific tasks and questions, its just science coroner, was given the answer above mentioned with regard to the action of one or more, and the answer was in the sense that there is no scientific evidence, such as forensic medicine can offer, excluding the action of one. But to answer the question at issue, namely whether the criminal act that caused the death of Meredith is derived from the action of one person or several persons acting together, must be taken into account, together with the contribution provided by Science coroner, although other factors may have arisen and the relevant points, then doing an assessment that takes into account the overall situation.
 
Nobody gets paid to post on the Internet about this case. The Knox family is up to their eyeballs in debt. They don't have money to pay people to post on blogs and comment boards.
 
Juror said:
(c) Appeals for funds on behalf of a specific individual named in the solicitation, but only if all of the proceeds of the solicitation are given to or expended for the direct benefit of that individual.
Click to expand...

They still have to keep books and clear cheques through actual banks. How about this? Who are the signing officers for Amanda Defence Fund? That might be an easier question to answer.

@HumanityBlues: I was unaware that Anne Bremner said she worked for free. I think we're back to the whole Johnson/Hampikian issue again. If she is working for free can she at least acknowledge she was engaged by "XYZ" to speak publicly on behalf of Amanda?

With all the secrecy shrouding the advocates and their connections you'd think this was the Manhattan Project.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
Bob the Donkey writes:

Cite?

I posted this yesterday. It's from the google translation of Massei's masterpiece:

The medico-legal consultants and experts have said that from the standpoint of science coroner could not be ruled out that the author of the injury was a single assailant and that's because the bruises and wounds from gunshot cutting tip and not in itself incompatible with the action of one person. It should be noted however that the contribution of each discipline relates to the specific responsibilities of each and in fact the medical-legal consultants and experts have pinned their attention to specific aspects of forensic medicine: time of death, cause of death, indication of the sexual violence, injuries on the victim's body and causes and nature and description of themselves. In relation to those specific tasks and questions, its just science coroner, was given the answer above mentioned with regard to the action of one or more, and the answer was in the sense that there is no scientific evidence, such as forensic medicine can offer, excluding the action of one. But to answer the question at issue, namely whether the criminal act that caused the death of Meredith is derived from the action of one person or several persons acting together, must be taken into account, together with the contribution provided by Science coroner, although other factors may have arisen and the relevant points, then doing an assessment that takes into account the overall situation.
Click to expand...

Ok, so, what Massei actually was stating is that a single assailant could not be ruled out automatically. That is not equivalent to claiming that Massei agreed that there was only one assailant.

The conviction of these two, in addition to Rudy, quite elaborately exhibits that Massei very much felt the evidence pointed more strongly to multiple assailants.

As Fiona has pointed out, time and again, just because something can happen doesn't mean that's what most likely or did happen.
You are being disingenuous as well, Charlie Wilkes.


Why, oh why, if Amanda and Raffaele are so innocent must their defenders play such twisting of words to defend the duo?
 
Last edited:
stilicho said:
They still have to keep books and clear cheques through actual banks. How about this? Who are the signing officers for Amanda Defence Fund? That might be an easier question to answer.
Click to expand...

They have no obligation to tell you according to the law and people have no obligation to donate if they don't agree with the cause or have concerns with the lack of disclosure.

If you have information they are not using the money they are raising in accordance with the RCW, contact Rob McKenna, Attorney General for the State of Washington
 
Folks: this thread is once again generating a significant number of reports and complaints. Please stop the gratuitous insults and personalization, and stick to the subject. Remember your Membership Agreement, be civil and polite, and do not engage in name-calling and bickering.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
Bob the Donkey writes:

Cite?

I posted this yesterday. It's from the google translation of Massei's masterpiece:

The medico-legal consultants and experts have said that from the standpoint of science coroner could not be ruled out that the author of the injury was a single assailant and that's because the bruises and wounds from gunshot cutting tip and not in itself incompatible with the action of one person. It should be noted however that the contribution of each discipline relates to the specific responsibilities of each and in fact the medical-legal consultants and experts have pinned their attention to specific aspects of forensic medicine: time of death, cause of death, indication of the sexual violence, injuries on the victim's body and causes and nature and description of themselves. In relation to those specific tasks and questions, its just science coroner, was given the answer above mentioned with regard to the action of one or more, and the answer was in the sense that there is no scientific evidence, such as forensic medicine can offer, excluding the action of one. But to answer the question at issue, namely whether the criminal act that caused the death of Meredith is derived from the action of one person or several persons acting together, must be taken into account, together with the contribution provided by Science coroner, although other factors may have arisen and the relevant points, then doing an assessment that takes into account the overall situation.
Click to expand...

Keeping in mind that this is just a google translation; I don't read it as Massei being forced to admit that the injuries and the crime scene are consistent with an assault by just one person.

He quite clearly says that if you take look at each issue in isolation that an attack by a single person cannot be ruled out.

That is quite different from what you think he says.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom