Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Supernaut]

You keep repeating this same recycled statement about me.

This was a very simple crime. It was a horrible crime but a simple one. Your description of me is actually a very good description of you and others that agree with your opinion.

The investigators took a very simply crime and complicated it.

I believe Mark Waterbury raises the issue of "projection" and "transference" in his explanation for the way Amanda Knox has been treated by the Italian police and prosecution services.

I think guilters generally (of which there are a depressingly large number) are, er, guilty of this.

 

[LondonJohn]

Do you honestly not have anything better to do with your time than come up with the purest, most refined pedantry?

In fairness to Agatha (and others), I was the idiot who originally expanded on the whole "Hokey Cokey" vs "Hokey Pokey" area - in response to the use of "Hokey Pokey" in a previous post. I had thought that a small diversion into the wacky world of ice creams and dance moves might have provided a timely and/or welcome deflation of tension and acrimony that was once again boiling over on this forum.

So, apologies. Mea culpa.

 

[Mary_H]

I forgot to add that if RG WAS a police informant, then this alone might well make him less inclined to "spill the beans" after all his appeals. Especially if was under the impression that his informant status would be helping him to get out of prison at the earliest available opportunity.

LJ, I'm not sure whether you're aware that Mark Waterbury has developed a theory based on the informant angle, on his website, Science Spheres: http://www.sciencespheres.com/

I think it makes a lot of sense that Rudy might have been an informant, which would explain why he was not picked up for his previous crimes. I also think it makes a lot fo sense that the Perugian police would want to cover this up to avoid criticism resulting from their reponsibility for Meredith's death. And, of course, I believe Amanda and Raffaele were framed, for one reason or another.

To put them in as suspects in place of Rudy, though, requires that the police knew from the time they first arested Amanda and Raffaele that Rudy was the culprit. I don't think they had gotten that information back from forensics until around the 13th, though.

 

[LondonJohn]

LJ, I'm not sure whether you're aware that Mark Waterbury has developed a theory based on the informant angle, on his website, Science Spheres: http://www.sciencespheres.com/

I think it makes a lot of sense that Rudy might have been an informant, which would explain why he was not picked up for his previous crimes. I also think it makes a lot fo sense that the Perugian police would want to cover this up to avoid criticism resulting from their reponsibility for Meredith's death. And, of course, I believe Amanda and Raffaele were framed, for one reason or another.

To put them in as suspects in place of Rudy, though, requires that the police knew from the time they first arested Amanda and Raffaele that Rudy was the culprit. I don't think they had gotten that information back from forensics until around the 13th, though.

I agree.

How was your Mariners game the other evening by the way? It must suck to come from a city with such a poor ball team though

 

[Mary_H]

I agree.

How was your Mariners game the other evening by the way? It must suck to come from a city with such a poor ball team though

Ha ha, very funny, LJ. Did you see what they did today?

Seattle Mariners 15 - San Diego Padres 8

But the night I went, they lost -- believe it or not! Thanks for asking. It doesn't bother me a bit, but it sure bothers my husband.

Don't worry, one day the Mariners will be back, just like Amanda.

 

[Amazer]

Ha ha, very funny, LJ. Did you see what they did today?

Seattle Mariners 15 - San Diego Padres 8

But the night I went, they lost -- believe it or not! Thanks for asking. It doesn't bother me a bit, but it sure bothers my husband.

Don't worry, one day the Mariners will be back, just like Amanda.

Off topic.... create another thread where you can discuss Mariners and their revival.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Amateur compared with whom? Yourself perhaps? Are you a seasoned criminal investigator with more than two decades of professional experience under your belt? Steve Moore is. He has studied the evidence in this case, and he understands the big picture. This was a sloppy, disorganized sexual homicide committed by one guy.

Rubbish. He doesn't even understand the very basics of this case. Just for example...he claims the prosecution argument is that Rudy cut off Meredith's bra causing the clasp to fall to the floor and that Raffaele went over and picked up the clasp and put it back on the floor again, so getting his DNA on the clasp. What??? Since when have the prosecution EVER argued that? They have always maintained Raffaele cut off the clasp, that's how his DNA got on it! He argues the prosecution maintain Amanda bleached the apartment...no they don't! He claims Rudy's hair, fluids, saliva and even blood is in Meredith's room...no it isn't!!! He maintains that Rudy was known to carry a 'folding knife' knife and this was testified to in court...no he wasn't and it wasn't!

The man's a clown!

 

[Fulcanelli]

Thank you. Many people have contributed to the Injustice site and I am happy to be able to help the cause in any way that I can. If you send me an email from the site or go to the site blog, I would be more than happy to discuss any aspects of the case with you. This thread has unfortunately become a shouting match. I will admit that I do get caught up in that on this board. It is simply impossible for me to remain silent when misinformation is posted here. Thanks again,

Bruce

If you hate misinformation then were I you I'd sort your pall Steve Moore out, pronto. Talk about a loose cannon on deck!

 

[Fulcanelli]

Steve Moore wrote a personal motivation document that highlights his distinguished career and discusses the reasons why he knew he had an obligation to get involved.

MY OWN PERSONAL “MOTIVATION DOCUMENT”

Mine, however, will be based on truth.

Screw his credentials. It doesn't change the fact that he knows jack!

 

[Matthew Best]

All we can find on the case is this:

http://www.billpetersondistrictattorney.com/

You're using information gleaned from a novelist rather than from contemporary or even truthful accounts of the case. Not that this surprises us.

Do you have a hamster in your pocket? Are you a member of the Royal Family? Is your real name Gollum? Or what? Please explain.

And is that one website really all any of you (however many there are) could find? If so, you weren't looking very hard. Two seconds on google threw up these:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ok&vol=/appeals/1987/&invol=1987okcr170

http://wardandfontenot.com/about.html

There are many more.

 

[Fulcanelli]

stilicho, just so you know, fine has it wrong. I don't know who fine is but if he actually saw the autopsy photos then he would know that one of the wounds was a slash.

ALL of the wounds are stab wounds. It's one of the only things all the medical experts from all sides agree on (those who testified in court). This is all very clear in the Massei Report, which you obviously haven't read.

 

[Matthew Best]

If any of them tell the truth then they have to face the wrath of those who are vested in their innocence.

Who is vested in Rudy Guede's innocence?

 

[Fulcanelli]

LJ, I'm not sure whether you're aware that Mark Waterbury has developed a theory based on the informant angle, on his website, Science Spheres: http://www.sciencespheres.com/

I think it makes a lot of sense that Rudy might have been an informant, which would explain why he was not picked up for his previous crimes. I also think it makes a lot fo sense that the Perugian police would want to cover this up to avoid criticism resulting from their reponsibility for Meredith's death. And, of course, I believe Amanda and Raffaele were framed, for one reason or another.

To put them in as suspects in place of Rudy, though, requires that the police knew from the time they first arested Amanda and Raffaele that Rudy was the culprit. I don't think they had gotten that information back from forensics until around the 13th, though.

It's invented conjecture not supported by a single shred of evidence. It comes over simply as desperation by Knox supporters now happy to invent all sorts of theories, no matter how outlandish, to try and convince themselves just as much as any reading public that Amanda is innocent.

What you do is you get your evidence first, then you construct logical theories from it. The FOA do it the other way around, they invent their theories and then hope like hell that eventually something will turn up to support it. In the meantime, they are only too happy to replace the evidence they don't have with assertions and innuendo and hope that somebody somewhere buys it.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Who is vested in Rudy Guede's innocence?

Nobody. That's why the FOA are only too happy to accuse him night and day.

 

[christianahannah]

It is a common practice, but it is being phased out in some jurisdictions as laws are passed requiring that statements be electronically recorded.

Charlie thank you for the link to Amanda's 1:45 and 5:45 statements.

Do you have access to any of her earlier witness statements or any of Raffaele's statements?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Charlie thank you for the link to Amanda's 1:45 and 5:45 statements.

Do you have access to any of her earlier witness statements or any of Raffaele's statements?

No, I don't. All I have is media coverage.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Rubbish. He doesn't even understand the very basics of this case. Just for example...he claims the prosecution argument is that Rudy cut off Meredith's bra causing the clasp to fall to the floor and that Raffaele went over and picked up the clasp and put it back on the floor again, so getting his DNA on the clasp. What??? Since when have the prosecution EVER argued that? They have always maintained Raffaele cut off the clasp, that's how his DNA got on it! He argues the prosecution maintain Amanda bleached the apartment...no they don't! He claims Rudy's hair, fluids, saliva and even blood is in Meredith's room...no it isn't!!! He maintains that Rudy was known to carry a 'folding knife' knife and this was testified to in court...no he wasn't and it wasn't!

The man's a clown!

No, he's a real expert. He might not know everything the prosecutor has ever said, but he understands crime scenes because he has investigated hundreds of them.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

______________________

Bruce,

Let's be more precise. In the radio interview (KIRO FM, Seattle) conducted by Frank Shiers on Thursday evening, May 20, Steve Moore---your "expert" crime analyst--- described the FINAL phase of the attack on Meredith in these words:

Rudy "stabbed twice and then slashed her throat." (elapsed time of audiotape=14:10. A LINK to the audio tape on injusticeinperugia.org)

Is this your understanding, too, of how Meredith was killed?

(EDIT: I hope not.)

///

What do you think he got wrong in this description?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The Innocent Man Dreams of Ada

All we can find on the case is this:

http://www.billpetersondistrictattorney.com/

You're using information gleaned from a novelist rather than from contemporary or even truthful accounts of the case. Not that this surprises us. It was better when you simply posted links to irrelevant cases.

Stilicho,

So all you can find is D.A. Bill Peterson’s web site? That’s the same Bill Peterson whose office not only convicted Tommy Ward and Karl Fontenot, but also Ron Williamson and Dennis Fritz, two demonstrably innocent men. Mr. Peterson is not a disinterested observer. He sued John Grisham, Dennis Fritz, and Robert Mayer (the author of “The Dreams of Ada”), among others. Maybe he went to the same law school as Mr. Mignini.

I repeat, it only took two hours to produce a false confession from Mr. Fontenot.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/990.php
http://www.nowpublic.com/people/da-...obert-mayer-and-their-publishers-retiring-jan
http://gerbeans.blogspot.com/2007/04/district-attorney-bill-peterson-website.html

halides1

 

[Fulcanelli]

No, he's a real expert. He might not know everything the prosecutor has ever said, but he understands crime scenes because he has investigated hundreds of them.

He doesn't even know the basic facts of the case. That is far removed from 'might not know everything'.