• 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:
Fulcanelli, you are completely wrong about the appeal. The truth is we don't know how long the appeal will take because we don't know what will be accepted and what will be rejected.

The judge could dismiss the case entirely or the case could last just as long as the first trial. We will all have to wait and see.
Click to expand...

Bruce, when you say "what will be accepted and what will be rejected" do you mean new evidence and or witnesses the defense has or the evidence and witnesses from the from the trial?
 
Alt+F4 said:
Bruce, when you say "what will be accepted and what will be rejected" do you mean new evidence and or witnesses the defense has or the evidence and witnesses from the from the trial?
Click to expand...

From what I am being told, the judge can accept or reject different aspects of the appeal that was filed by the defense. The judge can dismiss the case outright and release Amanda and Raffaele. He could also reject the entire appeal. Both of those scenarios would make for a pretty short trial.

Chances are, many aspects of the first trial will be revisited on appeal. No one knows how long the trial will last.

Fulcanneli's "5 days" was an odd statement to make. He seemed pretty confident that the trial would last exactly 5 days. I have no idea how he has reached that conclusion.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
I'm curious to hear more detail about this statement:

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.

From everything I know, Amanda's family consists of law-abiding people who do not cause problems or bother anyone. I have gotten to know them well over the past two years, I have a strongly positive opinion of them, and if someone is spreading these kinds of rumors, I would like to know the details.
Click to expand...

Charlie, is your memory so short? You were present and engaged in a discussion on the matter on the True Crime Weblog Message Board with Skeptical Bystander when she related the details. I refer you to those discussions. No doubt, since you monitor it, You've also seen them when they've cropped up again on PMF. I don't understand why you are pretending this is news to you.
 
Fulcanelli said:
Charlie, is your memory so short? You were present and engaged in a discussion on the matter on the True Crime Weblog Message Board with Skeptical Bystander when she related the details. I refer you to those discussions. No doubt, since you monitor it, You've also seen them when they've cropped up again on PMF. I don't understand why you are pretending this is news to you.
Click to expand...

As I recall, she did not relate the details. She said she could not do so for ethical reasons. But she insinuated that Amanda's family was intimidating people into silence. To repeat that insinuation without further clarification is a form of hate mongering, in my opinion.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
As I recall, she did not relate the details. She said she could not do so for ethical reasons. But she insinuated that Amanda's family was intimidating people into silence. To repeat that insinuation without further clarification is a form of hate mongering, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

She gave rather more detail then that. If by detail, you mean names, addresses and phone numbers then no, she didn't give those, for obvious reasons.
 
Charlie...since you're here, the question I posed to Bruce I ask you, since it's now clear you were his source:

Who was it who obtained the Mignini report for the FOA...was it CBS, ABC or Mario Spezi?
 
Fulcanelli said:
Charlie...since you're here, the question I posed to Bruce I ask you, since it's now clear you were his source:

Who was it who obtained the Mignini report for the FOA...was it CBS, ABC or Mario Spezi?
Click to expand...

I think it came through Amanda's lawyers, but I don't know for sure. Isn't it a public document?
 
Fulcanelli said:
She gave rather more detail then that. If by detail, you mean names, addresses and phone numbers then no, she didn't give those, for obvious reasons.
Click to expand...

I don't recall that she provided any details. She said that she knew someone who had been told not to speak to the media and took that warning very seriously. When I asked her to elaborate, she said she could not do so.

Shortly after Amanda's arrest, the family put out a press release asking the media to refrain from bothering people who know Amanda. But they did not ever try to silence anyone who chose to speak to the media.

When Riccardo Stagliano published his blog article in La Repubbulica, which was translated on TJMK, he made much of Marriott's influence and his supposed "black list." But everyone he talked to who knew Amanda said good things about her. He did say or imply that he met anyone who was afraid to talk to him. And the only people who said bad things about Amanda had never met her.

You are employing a vicious smear tactic. Nobody has anything to fear from anyone in Amanda's family. They're not gangsters or thugs. They are ordinary, middle-class Americans with a huge problem on their hands.
 
halides1 said:
Amazer,

Michael put up a list of 43 supposed errors without much in the way of explanation and without documentation.
Click to expand...
I agree

You said you were busy and did not have time to check them. Why should we assume this list has anything correct?
Click to expand...
Because a number of those errors we know for a fact are really errors.

Why should I or anyone else waste his or her time on refuting them?
Click to expand...
You don't have to... but there are consequences if you don't. Such as your 'expert' not being seen as someone whose opinion should be taken seriously.

Are my deadlines less important than yours?
Click to expand...
No

And if we did, how much time would elapse before Michael or Harry Rag put up another such list?
Click to expand...
Depends when Mr. Moore is going to give his next interview... and if he makes any mistakes there (would be my guess)
 
luminol and other tests

christianahannah said:
Can you explain how this would benefit or not benefit what was done at the crime scene with regards to luminol and the time frame it was used?
Click to expand...

Christiana,

I was responding to a comment from Fulcanelli:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5960370&postcount=13704

I can't shed much light on the issue of the time frame, but Fulcanelli made the claim that luminol damages DNA, which is an overstatement. To the best of my knowledge, repeated application of luminol can be a problem, but a single application much less so. Luminol is a presumptive test for blood, not a conclusive test. Some commenters here seem to believe otherwise.

halides1
 
Okay, I am rushed today so I am only posting a few videos. I will organize a section for this topic on the Injustice site soon. These are short clips. You can download them and watch them in a bigger format. I was careful not to show anything disrespectful in the clips. These are short clips but it doesn't take long to show someone walking from one room to the next. Most clips involve the hall. We all know how important this area was.

The investigators did not change shoe covers as they walked around the cottage.

The first three videos show a cameraman walking around the cottage.

The fourth video show investigators walking from the hall into Meredith's room. Notice how many people were in Meredith's room. Also notice that the doors from Meredith's wardrobe are leaning up in front of the bathroom in the hall.

The last video shows how many people are walking around in the hall. The view is from Meredith's room. They actually take a mop out of the closet and wrap it in what appears to be wrapping paper from that same closet. I am not exactly sure why.

After watching the fourth and fifth videos you will see that the hall was heavily contaminated long before any luminol testing was ever done.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/test.html
 
Last edited:
Mary_H said:
I really wish you would stop using these obscure initials and acronyms and abbreviations for everything. What the **** does "OP" mean? The Owl and the Pussycat?

<snip>
Click to expand...


FYIWP

"OP" stands for "Original Post" or "Original Poster". It is used on discussion boards to refer back to the proposition or topic which initiated a thread, or to the individual who made that post. From Wikipedia ...

A thread is defined by a title, an additional description that may summarize the intended discussion, and an opening or original post (common abbreviation 'OP', which can also mean original poster) which opens whatever dialogue or makes whatever announcement the poster wished.
Click to expand...
The abbreviation is frequently used on discussion boards as a way to relate ongoing tangents back to the initial intent of the thread.

I must confess to a certain puzzlement. Far from being "obscure", it is so commonly used in the discussion board environment that when the query term "OP" is entered as a search in either Google or Wiki this usage will be the first (or second) result in spite of a multitude of other possible applications.

I understand that your involvement here has been restricted completely to this one thread, but I am surprised you have not encountered it in any other discussion forums.
 
Last edited:
It might just be my crappy computer but I can't get the videos to play (I do have Microsoft media player).
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
I think it came through Amanda's lawyers, but I don't know for sure. Isn't it a public document?
Click to expand...

Amanda's lawyers? You think, or you know? Can we deal in facts please?

Why would Amanda's lawyers be obtaining and releasing documents for a completely unrelated case to that of their client?

Which lawyer...Ghirga or Vedova?
 
Homestead may not be able to supply the necessary bandwidth. Download links may be a better idea than embedding them. And WMV is not a very efficient container format.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
I don't recall that she provided any details. She said that she knew someone who had been told not to speak to the media and took that warning very seriously. When I asked her to elaborate, she said she could not do so.

Shortly after Amanda's arrest, the family put out a press release asking the media to refrain from bothering people who know Amanda. But they did not ever try to silence anyone who chose to speak to the media.

When Riccardo Stagliano published his blog article in La Repubbulica, which was translated on TJMK, he made much of Marriott's influence and his supposed "black list." But everyone he talked to who knew Amanda said good things about her. He did say or imply that he met anyone who was afraid to talk to him. And the only people who said bad things about Amanda had never met her.

You are employing a vicious smear tactic. Nobody has anything to fear from anyone in Amanda's family. They're not gangsters or thugs. They are ordinary, middle-class Americans with a huge problem on their hands.
Click to expand...

What are you defining as 'details' here? I think she more then knew him, I think she was related ;)

The family never told people to be quiet? Marriott did not impose a blacklist on the media...'If you want interviews with my people, you'll never have them if you ever speak to these people [inset list here]'?

Amanda's family didn't call up all her friends and tell them not to speak to the press? Why is it in the last year and a half, the only friends of Amanda to speak to the press are those approved individuals...David Johnsrud, Madison Paxton and Andrew Seliber? in 20 years of life did Amanda only make three friends on the planet? where did all the others go? Are they just being quiet, or are they being kept quiet?

Everyone Stagliano talked to only said good things about Amanda because he was only able to talk to people on the white list...no surprises there then!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom