• 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.
Agatha said:
You may note that I am in the UK, England to be precise, I know what it is called here.
Click to expand...

I promise to try and refrain from calling you Constable Agatha or making other similar cultural slurs against the good people of that sceptred isle.
 
stilicho said:
The best person to ask about that is Charlie. He has information regarding the case that few others have unless it has been redacted by the family. If you PM'd him then he would likely tell you more than he would on the forum board.
Click to expand...

You know that Charlie has access to all of the vital information regarding this case. After reviewing this information, Charlie beleives that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent. Do you feel that Charlie is being dishonest when he says that he believes that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent?

Charlie has been kind enough to show me much of this information. When you look at the actual facts of this case it becomes very clear that Amanda and Raffaele have been wrongly convicted.

Do you think that I am being dishonest?

The general accusation is that people that support Amanda and Raffaele know they are guilty but defend them anyway. Is this how you feel?
 
DNA found and not found.

BobTheDonkey said:
Where did the primary transfer occur? And why was it not found by the forensics team if it was in a large enough concentration to be transferred a minimum of 2 more times and still not require LCN techniques to achieve a full profile?
Click to expand...

The forensics team did not test the bloody towels because of microbial contamination, IIRC. The forensics team may have only tested the door handle and not the door to Meredith's room, and we know that Raffaele touched the door. These are merely examples; the principle is that individuals deposit DNA in various ways at various times, but that does not mean that every scrap of DNA is found and tested.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
hokey cokey is actually one of the translators at PMF.
Click to expand...

I heard Hokey Cokey was David Marriott's secret nickname when he stalked the jungles during the Vietnam War, killing 200 Viet Cong troops with his bare hands. They say he killed like he was doing the "Hokey Cokey".
 
"el buscador said:
I do agree with you Fulcanelli, it is quite common for accomplices to give one another up in questioning. But what I highly question is the immediate arrest of Patrick on the word of someone who is considered an accomplice.
Click to expand...

Why not, it's fairly common standard practice.

el buscador said:
Also, to say the police/prosecutor had no choice seems an overly simplistic explanation of what occurred that morning.
Click to expand...

Well, they didn't. For once, it's that simple.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Your proved yourself wrong with this post. You're a liar, lying about his lies. Pretty humorous.

When you talk about the PMF stalkers that were following Candace around, why don't you also mention that they followed Amanda's little sisters into the bathroom. The PMF crowd will stop at nothing. They search for little kids facebook accounts and stalk those same kids.

You run a great site Fulcanelli. You should be proud.
Click to expand...

Speaking of lies, allow me to retort and set yours strait.

First of all, nobody stalked Candace, nobody but the FOA even knew she'd be there. They were there to witness the fundraiser and report on it for PMF readers. And they were there before Candace even arrived, they watched as she walked in.

Second of all. One of the PMF lady members was using the toilets upstairs in Salty's and Amanda's sisters walked in while she was using it nobody followed them into the toilets. Moreover, nobody even knew they'd use the upstairs toilets since they had their own toilets downstairs where they were holding their fundraiser.

And of course, these are deliberate bare faced lies from you for all I've said above was reported on PMF, which you've read. Get some integrity.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Fulcanelli,

Just to make it clear, Candace attended that event as a reporter. She brought her husband with her. Reporters were allowed one guest. Candace never denied attending the event. She simply stated that your version was incorrect.

Furthermore, Candace has never been a housewife.

If you don't want to be called a liar then stop telling lies.
Click to expand...

That's a flat out lie also Bruce. What reporter attends an event as a reporter and then doesn't report on it? What reporter attends an event and then afterwards denies they even went? What reporter goes to report on an event and takes their husband and sister with them?

But it's okay...you can prove me wrong if you can, just provide us with a link to her report from the fundraiser which she would exist if she'd gone there to report ;)
 
stilicho said:
The best person to ask about that is Charlie. He has information regarding the case that few others have unless it has been redacted by the family. If you PM'd him then he would likely tell you more than he would on the forum board.
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of any sketches. I have the statements she signed, along with English translations, and I have the text of her note, which was published in the media. Based on those materials, I cannot see how she could have drawn sketches, because she did not claim to have actually seen the murder.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
I'm not aware of any sketches. I have the statements she signed, along with English translations, and I have the text of her note, which was published in the media. Based on those materials, I cannot see how she could have drawn sketches, because she did not claim to have actually seen the murder.
Click to expand...

Are people really shocked she was able to describe Meredith's room? I don't see the big deal.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
It is common for the police to keep a suspect under surveillance if they think he may be dangerous. Earlier in this thread I mentioned John Gacy. Police monitored him for about a week after their initial search of his house, which turned up evidence of foul play, but not enough to make charges stick. Eventually he got nervous and he invited the cops back into his house. This time the heat was on, so they smelled the decomposing bodies, got another search warrant, and found the victims in his crawl space.

A more recent case was the Craigslist Killer. They traced him through IP address, but he had a wireless router, so there was a small chance that somebody else might have used his account to contact the victims. Therefore they watched him until they obtained enough additional evidence to make an arrest. The police perceived this guy as highly dangerous, but they managed the risk with surveillance.
Click to expand...

They had no choice. They had no evidence with which to make an arrest.
 
Fulcanelli said:
Why not, it's fairly common standard practice.



Well, they didn't. For once, it's that simple.
Click to expand...
Bringing in the fingered person for questioning is a common practice, also. Why arrest on the unreliable accusation of an accomplice? Especially if that accomplice fingers someone not on the police radar as a suspect? Someone the police have never even spoken with?

Besides, if it's that easy to get someone arrested in Italy, what keeps the unscrupulous from taking a rival off the streets in this way, even if only for a week or two? If the police fell for such subterfuge in all like instances, what would it say about law enforcement in Italy? Don't you think that some discretion is needed when making the choice to arrest rather that question?
 
LondonJohn said:
You're suggesting here that the police had no right or reason to suspect that AK was an unreliable witness. Note first the difference between "lied" and "was unreliable". The latter (which is what I actually wrote) implies clearly that the police could have reasonably suspected that AK MIGHT BE LYING - not that they should have KNOWN that that she DID lie - in her accusation of Lumumba. It therefore REDUCES the probative value of AK's accusation - I've never argued that it should have REMOVED the probative value of the accusation.
Click to expand...

Whether they suspected Amanda of being a reliable witness or not is neither here nor there. They couldn't take the chance.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
I'm not aware of any sketches. I have the statements she signed, along with English translations, and I have the text of her note, which was published in the media. Based on those materials, I cannot see how she could have drawn sketches, because she did not claim to have actually seen the murder.
Click to expand...

Is that two or three written statements? Was she only supplied pen and paper to write the late note or were writing materials supplied between 01:45 and 05:45 inclusive?
 
Fulcanelli said:
That's a flat out lie also Bruce. What reporter attends an event as a reporter and then doesn't report on it? What reporter attends an event and then afterwards denies they even went? What reporter goes to report on an event and takes their husband and sister with them?

But it's okay...you can prove me wrong if you can, just provide us with a link to her report from the fundraiser which she would exist if she'd gone there to report ;)
Click to expand...

Let's face it, you don't like Candace because she blocked you from commenting on her blog. She was disgusted at your comments describing different scenarios in which Meredith was murdered.

Candace felt that your comments were very disturbing and extremely disrespectful to Meredith.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
The truth is, they arrested a man and held him for two weeks with unreliable information. They knew this information was unreliable because they knew how it was obtained.

Why not bring him in for questioning first?
Click to expand...

Your whole argument is circular logic built on nothing more then faith. Therefore, it is without credibility.
 
Fulcanelli said:
That's a flat out lie also Bruce. What reporter attends an event as a reporter and then doesn't report on it? What reporter attends an event and then afterwards denies they even went? What reporter goes to report on an event and takes their husband and sister with them?

But it's okay...you can prove me wrong if you can, just provide us with a link to her report from the fundraiser which she would exist if she'd gone there to report ;)
Click to expand...

Candace's sister was not at the event. Proving once again that you have no idea what you are talking about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom