Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[BobTheDonkey]

I would like to know the same thing about the mysterious second statement Fulcanelli received from an inside source.

When Fulcanelli uses that document to support his claims, then it would be valid for you to ask for those things.

Since Fulcanelli isn't using this document as evidence, there is no need for him to provide his sources. That's how, you know, this whole evidence thing works.

 

[Mary_H]

Biggest. Cartwheel. Ever.

The cartwheel heard 'round the world.

 

[Mary_H]

When Fulcanelli uses that document to support his claims, then it would be valid for you to ask for those things.

Since Fulcanelli isn't using this document as evidence, there is no need for him to provide his sources. That's how, you know, this whole evidence thing works.

I was looking at it not as evidence but as a point of interest. Don't you find it intriguing that Fulcanelli has a copy of a document Amanda created but that even the Friends of Amanda haven't seen? Have her parents or her defense lawyers seen it?

If it is not a part of the case documents, why does anyone other than Amanda have it? Does Amanda know this document was given to someone outside the police department in which it was created? Who is the holder and owner of this document? When Amanda's books and movies turn her into a household name, will Fulcanelli sell the document on eBay?

The mind reels at the possibilities!

 

[stilicho]

I would like to know the same thing about the mysterious second statement Fulcanelli received from an inside source.

So you agree that Dr Waterbury is bound to supply both his evidence and the sources of his evidence. Finally we're agreed on something.

If Fulcanelli fails to supply his you are correct to question it. Now I expect you will equally demand transparency from Bruce, Chris H, Charlie and Mark.

 

[Mary_H]

The fact that the police called them in again because of discrepancies in their story.

This isn't circular in any way.........

 

[Bruce Fischer]

It's one thing to assess the foundation - it's another to make assertions regarding the details that counter the main argument one is trying to support.

In this case, the main argument for Bruce is that Rudy entered via the window/that this was a burglary. He then presents the argument that Filomena was messy, and this is why there were clothes on the floor and thus why glass from the window was found on the clothes. However, this leaves a bit of a problem for the main argument - i.e. where is the evidence that Rudy went through Filomena's room looking for valuables?


Yes, if you're discussing only the actual entering of the window, it would be possible to do so without disturbing the glass on the sill. However, we must also take into account that Rudy necessarily grabbed onto the windowsill to pull himself up on the downstairs shutter. We also must realize that the glass shards would not have only been in front of the hole in the glass, instead they would have, to some extent, dispersed along the windowsill. Then we look at how Raffaele would have had to maneuver his arm, while holding himself against the wall using the windowsill to steady himself, so that he could reach the latch - or he would certainly have cut himself on the glass (or at least heavily risked it...much more likely that he was bracing himself, no?).

Then we have to account for the lack of glass in the garden from the window breaking - so something was in place to block the glass from dispersing to the garden at the time the rock broke the glass. Unlike so many would, apparently, like to believe...glass shards don't fly only forward or fall directly down when a glass pane is shattered. The lack of glass in the garden is telling.

Now, we have to account for the lack of marks on the wall from Rudy bracing himself on it. Nor are there marks from when he pulled himself up/over the windowsill. Again, this is all done without so much as disturbing the glass shards on the windowsill.

Add the lack of shoeprints in the garden, lack of garden dirt in Filomena's room, apparent lack of searching through Filomena's room, etc and the Rudy as a burglar scenario just doesn't match what evidence we have.

I would like to see the photos showing the lack of glass in the garden. Past the small concrete walkway, there is more of a rough terrain. Small glass particles or glass dust would not be noticeable with out proper investigation. We are not talking about a lot of glass. Only a portion of the window was broken. We can clearly see that a large percentage if not all of the glass can be accounted for inside the room and on one side of the sill.

Why would there be dirt in Filomena's room? There is a concrete walkway below the window. Have you seen the wall? It is multi colored and aged. Most likely shoe prints would not be seen on that wall.

What are you talking about when you say "downstairs shutter"?

Rudy wouldn't have had to maneuver his arm very much at all. With his palm facing his body, he put his hand under the broken glass and up to the latch.

You keep forgetting that a slight majority of the sill did not have glass on it.

Why do you think that balance would have been so difficult? He put his left hand on the sill and opened the latch with his right hand. The left side of the sill had very little to no glass on it.

The burglary was interrupted because Rudy attacked and murdered Meredith. Due to the circumstances, it was not unusual to see that Rudy did not take valuables from Filomena's room. He got sidetracked. He did take what he wanted out of Meredith's purse.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

This is the only place where the FOA is provided ample opportunity to provide their evidence under clear light. Each of the contrary advocates' sites typically ban those from the other side.

Of those not banned from posting on View From Wilmington or Bruce's site are Rose and ShuttIt. Most of those from the FOA advocacy group have been banned from the PMF although I don't know all of them from memory.

There is no other discussion group on the whole WWW that allows each side to rationally present their evidence or their opinions.

You have the option of ignoring reminders if they're clogging up your inbox. I imagine you object to the existence of the Bigfoot, ontological proofs of "god", and 9/11 conspiracy threads with the same vigour.

Is anyone banned from posting on my blog? Is there another moderator that I am unaware of?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Saying two completely contrary things in the same paragraph is not particularly helpful to your case.

Either:

'I can't speak for Filomena.'

or

'Her room was not [kept] tidy.'

Which is it?

Those two statements do not contradict each other. Please go back and read the paragraph again.

 

[Mary_H]

Which "instant attacks' and who exactly are "many" of us?

Please be explicit.

odeed: So you have nothing new to add apart from some theory without proof, and that you are writing a book?

tsig: Do you have any proof she falsified her report or is this one of those "buy my book" deals.

odeed: I need to ask, but is there any actual science on "Science Spheres", all I can find from looking through some of the articles are supposition and hints at conspiracies?

Fulcanelli: No, but there are lots of unsupported theories, all pointing towards one outcome...no surprises there

Fiona: The site is a disgrace, odeed. It is not worth one moment of anyone's attention

tsig: So you just stopped by to tell us how awesome you are and to buy your book?

How many degrees do I have to have to know that Amanda lied Patrick into jail?

Internecine blog feuds seem to have been carried onto this board by people who became members expressly to participate in this thread. Some quite recently.

This seems to be more of the same.

Am I to infer there is something unusual about people joining expressly to participate in subjects they know something about?

 

[Mary_H]

This is the only place where the FOA is provided ample opportunity to provide their evidence under clear light. Each of the contrary advocates' sites typically ban those from the other side.

Of those not banned from posting on View From Wilmington or Bruce's site are Rose and ShuttIt. Most of those from the FOA advocacy group have been banned from the PMF although I don't know all of them from memory.

There is no other discussion group on the whole WWW that allows each side to rationally present their evidence or their opinions.

I have never noticed anyone being banned from the West Seattle Herald.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

This piques my interest. I had thought you claimed to have information directly from primary sources. If Dr Waterbury is supplying you with information then how do you reconcile it with that you receive from individuals within the FOA group, the defence team, or Chris Mellas?

Can you provide us with all of your "excellent sources of information"?

If you read my site you know that I get information from Mark Waterbury. I credit him several times. The information that I get from Mark is is professional scientific opinion.

The big commotion came up with regard to the photographs that I have acquired. Everyone wants to know where I got them. No one has challenged their authenticity. That would be the real question. But you are more interested in finding out who I know rather than the authenticity of the photos.

For the record, all of the high resolution photographs that I have came from Charlie Wilkes. They are all legitimate photographs. I don't think anyone has ever claimed otherwise. Screaming FOA doesn't change the facts. It just makes some of you look foolish.

How did I get these photographs from Charlie? I asked him.

Why didn't I tell you in the first place? It was more fun not telling you.

Why you weren't able to figure that out on your own is honestly surprising to me.

 

[Amazer]

odeed: So you have nothing new to add apart from some theory without proof, and that you are writing a book?

tsig: Do you have any proof she falsified her report or is this one of those "buy my book" deals.

odeed: I need to ask, but is there any actual science on "Science Spheres", all I can find from looking through some of the articles are supposition and hints at conspiracies?

Fulcanelli: No, but there are lots of unsupported theories, all pointing towards one outcome...no surprises there

Fiona: The site is a disgrace, odeed. It is not worth one moment of anyone's attention

tsig: So you just stopped by to tell us how awesome you are and to buy your book?

How many degrees do I have to have to know that Amanda lied Patrick into jail?

Irrelevant either way. Mark came here with the express purpose of making a couple of posts concerning his credentials and his new book. He clearly said he wasn't here to discuss. He mentioned as much in his very first post.

So for Bruce to go on his little rant was unnecessary and uncalled for.

Besides, most of those aren't attacks by any stretch of the imagination, unless you have a very thin skin.

Am I to infer there is something unusual about people joining expressly to participate in subjects they know something about?

Yes, indeed. Most regular posters here post in a variety of topics. They might initially join because of one particular subject but they don't limit themselves to that.

 

[stilicho]

I have never noticed anyone being banned from the West Seattle Herald.

Is the West Seattle Herald an advocacy site? If it's so important then why isn't the debate being held there instead of here? Have Mark and Chris H presented any evidence over there that they have forgotten to post here?

Linky?

 

[stilicho]

I get information from Mark Waterbury.

For the record, all of the high resolution photographs that I have came from Charlie Wilkes.

Where do Mark and Charlie get their information from? Have you asked them?

 

[quadraginta]

odeed: So you have nothing new to add apart from some theory without proof, and that you are writing a book?

tsig: Do you have any proof she falsified her report or is this one of those "buy my book" deals.

odeed: I need to ask, but is there any actual science on "Science Spheres", all I can find from looking through some of the articles are supposition and hints at conspiracies?

Fulcanelli: No, but there are lots of unsupported theories, all pointing towards one outcome...no surprises there

Fiona: The site is a disgrace, odeed. It is not worth one moment of anyone's attention

tsig: So you just stopped by to tell us how awesome you are and to buy your book?

How many degrees do I have to have to know that Amanda lied Patrick into jail?

That's all you got?

Meh.

The man pops up, crows about his creds in a way that reads suspiciously like a book jacket bio, repeats unsupported claims we've already heard, boosts his book and website, and then says that's all he has to say. He does this on a skeptics' board, four people ask for evidence, or point out that it isn't to be found on the website either, and you consider that an attack by many?

Meh.

Am I to infer there is something unusual about people joining expressly to participate in subjects they know something about?

I'd have to ask around some of the board's old hands to be sure, but this thread may be somewhat apart from the norm for the number of people who have joined in a relatively limited time span specifically to post to one particular thread, and contribute nothing else anywhere else on the board.

I'm not saying that any of these posters are unwelcome, or should be, but the effect has certainly been interesting to watch. Keeping up with the subplots also carried into the thread from apparently well established and ongoing personality conflicts from somewhere else has lent the discussion a certain element of suddenly finding one's self in the middle of a years old, badly written soap opera, or perhaps seeing an old family dispute unexpectedly erupt during an office picnic.

Distracting ... and more than a bit weird. (Some people might even call it creepy)

 

[tsig]

odeed: So you have nothing new to add apart from some theory without proof, and that you are writing a book?

tsig: Do you have any proof she falsified her report or is this one of those "buy my book" deals.

odeed: I need to ask, but is there any actual science on "Science Spheres", all I can find from looking through some of the articles are supposition and hints at conspiracies?

Fulcanelli: No, but there are lots of unsupported theories, all pointing towards one outcome...no surprises there

Fiona: The site is a disgrace, odeed. It is not worth one moment of anyone's attention

tsig: So you just stopped by to tell us how awesome you are and to buy your book?

How many degrees do I have to have to know that Amanda lied Patrick into jail?



Am I to infer there is something unusual about people joining expressly to participate in subjects they know something about?

He was able to stand up to men in suits but a few questions from posters here offended him so that he couldn't continue.

 

[Mary_H]

Is the West Seattle Herald an advocacy site? If it's so important then why isn't the debate being held there instead of here? Have Mark and Chris H presented any evidence over there that they have forgotten to post here?

Linky?

The West Seattle Herald is an online newspaper; it might be a "paper" paper, too; I don't know. I'm not sure that either place is any more important than the other.

The same debates are held there as are held there; there's plenty of room, but probably not that many people know about it. The debates follow articles about the case. Here are two recent ones:

http://www.westseattleherald.com/forum/amanda-knox-documentary-not-what-we-signed

http://www.westseattleherald.com/forum/amanda-knox’s-persona-explored-new-upgraded-websites-1

Any participation is welcome there, as long as it isn't something that has been blanket-posted repeatedly in the same format in a lot of other places. When a new article is published, a new thread will start.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Hi folks. Just one final note. As I said in an earlier post, I don't intend to get into the debates here, but only wanted to respond to criticisms of my credentials. In case anyone is concerned that I've found the nasty (and predictable) comments that provoked to be daunting, or intimidating, let me remind you that as a scientist I've regularly stood up in front of a dozen, or fifty, or a hundred people in dressed in suits to present and defend my work. These are people with decades of studies to prepare them to be qualified to critique technical work. That's the most fun part of the job, the exhilarating part after the grunt work of research. That rigorous process of continual challenge is the core of scientific research, and is a far, far cry from the unfortunate sophistry and scurrilous slams of the discussions here.

Which makes me wonder, out of those here who claim I don't have enough science in my site, or am not qualified because, gosh, DNA is complicated, how many of you have advanced technical degrees? Hmm? Quick show of hands! I didn't think so.

Hope you like my book. Bye.

In other words, you weren't here with any intention of evidencing your claims and were just here to plug your book.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Does it contain any evidence about why suspicion fell on Amanda and Raffaele to the extent they were formally interrogated?

They were 'formally questioned' every day since the discovery of Meredith's body, as were many people. In fact, on the night of the 5th, Amanda's questioning started off as an informal affair in the police waiting room. The police thought they may as well ask her some questions since she was there and waiting for Raffaele. It only became formal when Raffaele dropped her alibi.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I have never noticed anyone being banned from the West Seattle Herald.

You can't ban someone who doesn't have to register to post and people don't have to register to post on the WSA.