• 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.
Bruce Fisher said:
If you are going to state that a substance is blood then you need to prove it. There is no proof that those undated stains were blood. You know that as well as I do.

I am about to post the videos showing the investigators walking from room to room contaminating the crime scene. Do you want to make any corrections to your earlier comments on this topic before I post them?
Click to expand...

No Bruce, it's proof enough when there is nothing else plausible it can be.

Hurry up and post your video already.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
I have read enough of it to know that I disagree with it. Furthermore, I have seen the evidence and I believe the experts that have explained this evidence to me.
Click to expand...

You have not read a report you do not understand.
 
Mary_H said:
I think 99.99% of news consumers started out believing Amanda was guilty, because we just naturally believe headlines when we see them and don't stop believing them until we have had time for reflection. I imagine the day the story came out in Seattle, people all over tiown were saying things like, "Did you see where that gal killed that other gal in Italy?" People say stuff like that to each other all the time, just repeating what they've seen in the papers.

People's guts do seem to be playing an unusually large role in this ongoing conflict, though. The Perugians' guts got Amanda arrested and convicted, while Seattleites' guts know that someone like Amanda isn't capable of committing a group knife murder. I think your partner's gut should be trusted to the extent that he has knowledge of the types of people who do and don't commit certain types of crimes. He must be aware of at least some of the facts of the case just to be able to talk about it.
Click to expand...

I suppose all the pro Amanda media stories don't count?
 
Mary H said:
No one who knew Amanda well from her UW days was ever prevented from saying anything about Amanda. Journalists from Europe interviewed Amanda's friends and acquaintances before her parents even knew what had hit them. How do you propose anyone was prevented from talking to the press?
Click to expand...

False. The family closed Amanda's friends down in Seattle. One of the Admins on PMF knows one of them personally and they were left afraid for their safety were they to speak to the press. They never have.

Mary H said:
I particularly like this comment: "Hang the slut." I have a feeling that if we took a count from the first year, we would find many more posts like that than posts supporting Amanda. The dominant news in the first year or even two -- in Seattle as well as elsewhere -- was negative, not a "lucrative and fashionable industry."
Click to expand...

False. US media was sympathetic to Amanda almost from the very beginning. The first couple of weeks or so the US media reported on it with reports that were short and week. After that, they went completely silent on the case. Then, the pro-Amanda stance began.

The reaction of TJMK did not begin with the FOA creating a website. Rather it was a reaction to the wave of propaganda articles sanctioned by Marriott and given by the likes of Anne Bremner, made up of many lies, that started to emerge.
 
RoseMontague said:
Double negatory leading to a false pository?
Click to expand...

A Google translation is gibberish. Trust me when I say, all the main arguments and important points are lost in a Google translation, especially with the way Massei writes. One cannot criticise something they are unable to understand.
 
RoseMontague said:
Exactly,
Just email the translated report to me please. (Rose's Email)

Thanks
Click to expand...

I'm afraid I can't do that Rose. It's currently split into sections with each expert currently working on the section of their expertise (medical expert on the medical section, DNA expert on the DNA sections and so on). Moreover, even if I were to do it once, just for you, it would be unfair on everyone else who is waiting, not to mention the fact I would then be bombarded with requests and how could I say no to them when I've said yes to you?

I would advise against publicly publishing your email...there is always the chance someone may abuse it. Moreover, if you really want to do so, I'd counsel you to at least break it up like: Rose Montague @ email addy . com for example, so as to prevent it being harvested by email harvesting bots for spammers.
 
Last edited:
RoseMontague said:
Just from reading the google translation, I have learned a lot. I just am not certain I am reading it correctly because it is such a poor translation. For the group that is undecided it may very well change some minds, in my opinion.

One thing I am getting frustrated with is the use of such phrases as "when you read the report", "the report makes it very clear", "the report which I have and you don't", etc., etc. Can we just agree that arguments using a report that someone else can't read are pretty much worthless.

PMF just needs to give us the darn report, already. And Bruce, I get it that the innocent side of the argument doesn't want to translate this report and get it out there so others can read it. But if you don't translate it, how can you know that the PMF translation will be a fair one? Based on your comments, you don't seem to trust them on anything else.
Click to expand...

The Innocent side of this argument doesn't mind at all if the translation is released to the public. The report helps to prove our point.

I wasn't being sincere when I made the comments about PMF and the report. That was a bit or sarcasm. I do not trust one word that comes from PMF. The site is run by Fulcanelli.

If I had a fully translated version of the report, I would put it up on the Injustice site. Just like PMF, I do not have a finished translation.
 
Fulcanelli said:
I'm afraid I can't do that Rose. It's currently split into sections with each expert currently working on the section of their expertise (medical expert on the medical section, DNA expert on the DNA sections and so on). Moreover, even if I were to do it once, just for you, it would be unfair on everyone else who is waiting, not to mention the fact I would then be bombarded with requests and how could I say no to them when I've said yes to you?

I would advise against publicly publishing your email...there is always the chance someone may abuse it. Moreover, if you really want to do so, I'd counsel you to at least break it up like: Rose Montague @ email addy . com for example, so as to prevent it being harvested by email harvesting bots for spammers.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your concern even though I am pretty bummed that you have decided to be fair to others on this and not make an exception just for me.

On a side note I have heard rumblings that the judges report on the case against Mignini is being hastily translated. I may even get that one before yours. Oh well.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
The Innocent side of this argument doesn't mind at all if the translation is released to the public. The report helps to prove our point.
Click to expand...

The problem for those that think Amanda is innocent is that they don't have a unified, coherent point. If Amanda is innocent of this murder than why was she found guilty in a court of law? So far Amanda's supporters have throw out:
1. anti-Americanism
2. media influence on the jury
3. protecting Rudy, the police informer
4. sloppy forensics
5. planted evidence
6. horny cops
7. embarassed law enforcement
8. corrupt law enforcement

Am I forgetting something? If it's so obvious that Amanda is innocent why is it so hard for her supporters to figure out why she was convicted in the first place?
 
Alt+F4 said:
The problem for those that think Amanda is innocent is that they don't have a unified, coherent point. If Amanda is innocent of this murder than why was she found guilty in a court of law? So far Amanda's supporters have throw out:
1. anti-Americanism
2. media influence on the jury
3. protecting Rudy, the police informer
4. sloppy forensics
5. planted evidence
6. horny cops
7. embarassed law enforcement
8. corrupt law enforcement

Am I forgetting something? If it's so obvious that Amanda is innocent why is it so hard for her supporters to figure out why she was convicted in the first place?
Click to expand...

The main tactic is to list each piece of evidence separately and then show it is possible to be explained away. The problem you get with this is that there is so much 'splainin' to do it begins to border on highly improbable that each piece of the puzzle can be explained in similar fashion, without looking at the total picture. This is the reductionism that I had debated with Fulcanelli about. quadraginta had a terrific post on this here recently and I have posted on it several times at View From Wilmington.
 
Last edited:
unsupported

Amazer said:
I don't see your side doing much in the way of refuting that list of 44 errors.

That leads me to believe that the list of errors is mostly correct. If it weren't you would have explained to us by now why those errors aren't really errors.
Click to expand...

Amazer,

Michael put up a list of 43 supposed errors without much in the way of explanation and without documentation. You said you were busy and did not have time to check them. Why should we assume this list has anything correct? Why should I or anyone else waste his or her time on refuting them?Are my deadlines less important than yours? And if we did, how much time would elapse before Michael or Harry Rag put up another such list?

halides1
 
RoseMontague said:
I appreciate your concern even though I am pretty bummed that you have decided to be fair to others on this and not make an exception just for me.

On a side note I have heard rumblings that the judges report on the case against Mignini is being hastily translated. I may even get that one before yours. Oh well.
Click to expand...

I faintly recall a whisper from Bruce Fisher that they were intending to translate Mignini's sentencing report. Bruce will correct me if I'm wrong on that point. In fact, it would be handy if he could confirm whether they even have Mignini's sentencing report or not.
 
RoseMontague said:
On a side note I have heard rumblings that the judges report on the case against Mignini is being hastily translated. I may even get that one before yours. Oh well.
Click to expand...

Well you would, that would be a considerably shorter report to translate. Plus, it would be far less complex, lacking all the medical and DNA elements. There were also less witnesses whose testimony needed to be taken into account. It was also a report from an 'appeal' (by the prosecution)...those are much shorter still then first degree reports. To give you a perspective, Amanda and Raffaele's trial lasted over 11 months...their appeal will last only 5 days. It will be a very short report indeed.
 
Fulcanelli said:
I faintly recall a whisper from Bruce Fisher that they were intending to translate Mignini's sentencing report. Bruce will correct me if I'm wrong on that point. In fact, it would be handy if he could confirm whether they even have Mignini's sentencing report or not.
Click to expand...

I believe the discussion is in regard to the the motivations against Mignini.

We do have those documents. I am looking forward to reading the translation.
 
halides1 said:
Amazer,

Michael put up a list of 43 supposed errors without much in the way of explanation and without documentation. You said you were busy and did not have time to check them. Why should we assume this list has anything correct? Why should I or anyone else waste his or her time on refuting them?Are my deadlines less important than yours? And if we did, how much time would elapse before Michael or Harry Rag put up another such list?

halides1
Click to expand...

Michael needs to provide documentation to show, just for example, that Rudy did not leave his hair, saliva, sweat, blood and fluids in Meredith's room? Or that it is the prosecution's contention that Raffaele cut off Meredith's bra clasp, not that he picked it up off of her bedroom floor?

This is the point...that list of over 40 elements is not a list of anything esoteric, but rather things that are common knowledge to everyone who has followed this case above and beyond the superficial or a mere casual glance.
 
Fulcanelli wrote: "Amanda and Raffaele's trial lasted over 11 months...their appeal will last only 5 days"

Please explain your comment.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
I believe the discussion is in regard to the the motivations against Mignini.

We do have those documents. I am looking forward to reading the translation.
Click to expand...

The documents in full, complete with court seals? Or a redacted version?

Why don't you post it up Bruce...PMF can render a translation in parallel, can probably do it much faster too. What do you say?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom