• 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.
quadraginta said:
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 ...

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.
Click to expand...


Thank you, quadraginta. No, I don't remember ever seeing it used in any other forum.
 
halides1 said:
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
Click to expand...

Actually, if you review my post, I stated in effect, many crime labs operate a policy under the belief that it does. Whether it does or doesn't, I'm sure the subject could be spun into endless debate. But what is fact, is many crime labs believe it does and create policy accordingly.
 
Last edited:
Fulcanelli said:
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.
Click to expand...

I read many comments made by Amanda's friends from the U and from high school in the early reports.

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.
Click to expand...

I agree they went silent, which was unfortunate. It certainly didn't help Amanda's case. The "pro-Amanda" stance began approximately a year ago in Seattle, and started only with increased but objective coverage. I believe it was objective because I winced every time the news reports described the prosecutor's case; they still do, and I still do.

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.
Click to expand...

When was Marriott hired? I also would like to know when the first pro-Amanda website other than the FOA was developed. It sounds like tjmk and pmf were already well established and busily doing their dirty work for quite awhile before the press broke their silence. Hence the need for a PR campaign to counter the damage.
 
Fulcanelli said:
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!
Click to expand...

There is no way an independent journalist could be prevented from finding one of the people on Marriott's so-called list and interviewing them. The fact that they haven't done so supports the view that there is nobody willing to say anything bad about Amanda, even anonymously. Not every media outlet wants interviews with the family; many just want to sell news, so the list would have no influence on them.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
After watching the fourth and fifth videos you will see that the hall was heavily contaminated long before any luminol testing was ever done.
Click to expand...

How do you know if the fourth and fifth videos were shot before luminol testing was done? Neither of the clips has a time or date stamp or volume.
 
Mary H said:
I read many comments made by Amanda's friends from the U and from high school in the early reports.
Click to expand...

And right there you have it, in the 'early reports'. Where did all these people go? Did they fall off the planet? How is it we're now reduced to two (Seliber doesn't talk anymore)? So, what's happened...have these people vanished? Have they changed their minds about Amanda? Has someone shut them up? How many who knew her didn't get the chance to speak in the first place? What's going on here?
 
Fulcanelli said:
And right there you have it, in the 'early reports'. Where did all these people go? Did they fall off the planet? How is it we're now reduced to two (Seliber doesn't talk anymore)? So, what's happened...have these people vanished? Have they changed their minds about Amanda? Has someone shut them up? How many who knew her didn't get the chance to speak in the first place? What's going on here?
Click to expand...

I think there is a less sinister explanation here ---time. Amanda graduated from high school in 2005 and her University of Washington friends haven't seen her in three years. Unless you are a member of her family or a very close friend, people move on with their own lives and probably don't see being a friend, acquaintance or school mate of Amanda Knox as being very important anymore.
 
Mart H said:
When was Marriott hired? I also would like to know when the first pro-Amanda website other than the FOA was developed. It sounds like tjmk and pmf were already well established and busily doing their dirty work for quite awhile before the press broke their silence. Hence the need for a PR campaign to counter the damage.
Click to expand...

January 2008.
 
Mary H said:
When was Marriott hired? I also would like to know when the first pro-Amanda website other than the FOA was developed. It sounds like tjmk and pmf were already well established and busily doing their dirty work for quite awhile before the press broke their silence. Hence the need for a PR campaign to counter the damage.
Click to expand...

Let me expand. Marriott is not interested in websites, they are beneath him. His expertise is in handling the media.

PMF and TJMK were created in response to the Marriott campaign (and the public campaign by Bremner, although separate,), not the online sites. We never cared about the internet sites much and still don't, although we always used the Internet as our medium to deliver the actual facts. FOA internet stuff will get a mention on PMF, especially during lulls, but the focus always remains on the mainstream media manipulation. If you review this insight I gave you in retrospect, you'll see that it's correct.
 
Fulcanelli said:
And right there you have it, in the 'early reports'. Where did all these people go? Did they fall off the planet? How is it we're now reduced to two (Seliber doesn't talk anymore)? So, what's happened...have these people vanished? Have they changed their minds about Amanda? Has someone shut them up? How many who knew her didn't get the chance to speak in the first place? What's going on here?
Click to expand...

I didn't say I read negative comments. Only one person was manipulated into speculating on the possibility that Amanda was involved. All the rest said no way.

I can see why people would want to avoid the media, since they are notoriously careless about details and adept at getting personal or private information.
 
Alt+F4 said:
I think there is a less sinister explanation here ---time. Amanda graduated from high school in 2005 and her University of Washington friends haven't seen her in three years. Unless you are a member of her family or a very close friend, people move on with their own lives and probably don't see being a friend, acquaintance or school mate of Amanda Knox as being very important anymore.
Click to expand...


Time? Two years or so? She can't have made that much of an impression on them then.

I still hold a candle for girls I knew from 20 years ago...and for old friends. Time doesn't snuff out true feelings, true love or true knowledge. I remember all the people that meant anything to me and care about them still.
 
Mary_H said:
I didn't say I read negative comments. Only one person was manipulated into speculating on the possibility that Amanda was involved. All the rest said no way.

I can see why people would want to avoid the media, since they are notoriously careless about details and adept at getting personal or private information.
Click to expand...

They were manipulated? How so? By whom?

And it doesn't take away from the fact, that many of those who knew the other side were barred from speaking....in one way or another.

All the rest? Where are 'all the rest'?
 
halides1 said:
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
Click to expand...

Thank you.

As far as the proper time to use luminol, is six weeks after a crime an extreme wait? In most investigations doesn't evidence collection take place in the immediate days following? Are the results better if luminol is done sooner or does it not matter?
 
christianahannah said:
Thank you.

As far as the proper time to use luminol, is six weeks after a crime an extreme wait? In most investigations doesn't evidence collection take place in the immediate days following? Are the results better if luminol is done sooner or does it not matter?
Click to expand...

Once all forensic evidence is gathered, or at least when they think they have enough.

The minimum time for luminol application is a couple of days or more...since bleach disappears in that time, being non-pervasive.

As for the evidence collection...there's a queue for testing...which dictates what and how much evidence is collected and when.
 
christianahannah said:
CT = Connecticut?

Good to know that not everybody thinks asking questions is a bad thing.
Click to expand...

In your neck of the woods, is being a resident of Connecticut an insult? ;)

PS Only playfully joking! (I hope you'd realised that, but you can't be too careful in the current climate!) It just made me smile to think of using residency of a sleepy, preppy New England state as an insult :D
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
In your neck of the woods, is being a resident of Connecticut an insult? ;)

PS Only playfully joking! (I hope you'd realised that, but you can't be too careful in the current climate!) It just made me smile to think of using residency of a sleepy, preppy New England state as an insult :D
Click to expand...

I was pretty confident CT didn't stand for Connecticut but had no idea CT was conspiracy theorist.

I can't insult Connecticut - I am aware of its charm as I visit there on occasion.

Don't worry - I am rarely offended (if ever) by responses to what I post.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom