Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mark's article has been online for 6 weeks and stilicho just now decides to lose his mind.

Calm it down. No information will be available for a while in regard to this.

On another note -

How about the fact that the luminol prints were tested for blood and the tests were negative. The prosecution stated they were never tested. Then it is found in their notes that they were indeed tested. Now that's something to talk about.
 
stilicho said:
Waterbury is a liar and has developed his assertions from his own imagination. Produce the evidence now.

Amanda, Raffaele, and Rudy, were charged and convicted on the basis of a mountain of evidence, publicly tried, and sentenced to long prison terms. There was no evidence that any of them were informants, in spite of past encounters on the fringes of lawful behaviour by each of the three, but there was plenty of evidence to convict each of them for murder.
Click to expand...


The evidence that he has a theory, and what it is based on, is in all the links you cited. What do you think he is lying about?

Amazer wrote: "...Rudy Guede doesn't have prior criminal record, as evidenced by the remarks of the judge who reduced his sentence."

If Rudy actually were an informer, the remarks of the judges, prosecution or police aren't going to suggest otherwise, because any of those might be who was informing for.
 
stilicho said:
Waterbury is a liar and has developed his assertions from his own imagination. Produce the evidence now.

Amanda, Raffaele, and Rudy, were charged and convicted on the basis of a mountain of evidence, publicly tried, and sentenced to long prison terms. There was no evidence that any of them were informants, in spite of past encounters on the fringes of lawful behaviour by each of the three, but there was plenty of evidence to convict each of them for murder.
Click to expand...

You cannot call someone a liar for putting forth a theory. Do you honestly not know what a theory is?

Amanda received a ticket. You are out of your mind. It is comments like that one that completely discredit you. Your no better than Harry Rag (The Machine) Go somewhere and cool off.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Mark's article has been online for 6 weeks and stilicho just now decides to lose his mind.

Calm it down. No information will be available for a while in regard to this.

On another note -

How about the fact that the luminol prints were tested for blood and the tests were negative. The prosecution stated they were never tested. Then it is found in their notes that they were indeed tested. Now that's something to talk about.
Click to expand...

We called Waterbury a liar and a charlatan weeks ago--even before his latest attention-grabbing headline. He never had any evidence to back up any of his assertions. He said that Rudy Guede was a police informant, without any evidence, and it was picked up slavishly by you, Charlie and Chris.

There is no evidence that RG was a police informant. If there is, then produce it now. Waterbury lied but there is no reason for you, Chris and Charlie to be condemned by the lies of one stupid man.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
You cannot call someone a liar for putting forth a theory. Do you honestly not know what a theory is?

Amanda received a ticket. You are out of your mind. It is comments like that one that completely discredit you. Your no better than Harry Rag (The Machine) Go somewhere and cool off.
Click to expand...

Amanda pulled rape pranks and hosted eviction parties that threatened her neighbours. Raffaele collected animal porn and serial killer paraphernalia.

We have a lot more evidence for both of those things than Waterbury has for his insistent lies. Why are you protecting him?
 
Mary_H said:
If Rudy actually were an informer, the remarks of the judges, prosecution or police aren't going to suggest otherwise, because any of those might be who was informing for.
Click to expand...

Any evidence?

I didn't think you had any.
 
stilicho said:
Produce the evidence now.
Click to expand...

Frankly, it is my view that nobody should post anything here or elsewhere that might compromise the pending appeals by Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito. Two individuals who may very well have been wrongly convicted of very serious crimes have a LOT to lose if certain information pertaining to their pending appeals is posted online prematurely, so I would urge everyone to use restraint and neither call for information that could potentially compromise their appeals nor allow themselves to be goaded into posting information that could potentially compromise their appeals.

To those who believe that Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito are guilty, you have no need to try to goad others to post information to which you are not entitled because you believe that the court of first instance got it right. Thus, to you, there is no further evidence required.

To those who believe that Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito are not guilty, you must not permit yourselves to be goaded into posting things pertaining to the appeals prematurely as that will only serve to assist those who seek to see Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito rot in jail, even if they are not guilty. Do not help them in their quest to see these two individuals locked up for the rest of their natural lives by rising to the bait and disclosing information related to the appeals of which they are not already aware.
 
Last edited:
LashL said:
Frankly, it is my view that nobody should post anything here or elsewhere that might compromise the pending appeals by Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito. Two individuals who may very well have been wrongly convicted of very serious crimes have a LOT to lose if certain information pertaining to their pending appeals is posted online prematurely, so I would urge everyone to use restraint and neither call for information that could potentially compromise their appeals nor allow themselves to be goaded into posting information that could potentially compromise their appeals.
Click to expand...

Bruce, Chris and Charlie all link their blogs to this:

Rudy worked for the Perugian justice authorities. He murdered Meredith Kercher while under their employ and protection.

This is not a question of blowing someone's appeal. That comment was made in APR 2010 and there's no doubt that (given the fact that Amanda's high-powered PR campaign links to it) the authorities in Italy will be fully aware of its contents.

This was not anything other than Waterbury inventing something to create interest in his site. The others (Bruce, Chris, and Charlie) simply employ the lie and defend it to continue services directed towards their own sites. There is nothing lost in Waterbury accepting that he lied and the other three silently and peacefully disconnecting their own advocacy sites from his.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Based on the information available to us, we can certainly make that claim.
Click to expand...

You do not know the information so you have no reason to claim he lied. What did he lie about?[/QUOTE]

He says he has information on which he bases his claims. He however declines to reveal this information. Only tells that it will be revealed at a later (unspecified) date.

That tells me one thing, and one thing only... he's lying about having information available. If he had it, he would share it, or at the very least make clear on what date, and under which conditions he can disclose this information. Since he does neither, the only logical conclusion I can reach is that he's lying.
 
LashL said:
To those who believe that Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito are not guilty, you must not permit yourselves to be goaded into posting things pertaining to the appeals prematurely as that will only serve to assist those who seek to see Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito rot in jail, even if they are not guilty. Do not help them in their quest to see these two individuals locked up for the rest of their natural lives by rising to the bait and disclosing information related to the appeals of which they are not already aware.
Click to expand...

I don't want to see either of them imprisoned for any longer than justice deserves. I do want them to tell the truth. I want their advocates to tell the truth. I want those interested in them being kept in prison to tell the truth.

That includes their harsh condemnation of fables like this:

Rudy worked for the Perugian justice authorities. He murdered Meredith Kercher while under their employ and protection.

Would you allow your client's paid supporters to say such a thing if you suspected it might endanger their appeal?
 
stilicho said:
We called Waterbury a liar and a charlatan weeks ago--even before his latest attention-grabbing headline. He never had any evidence to back up any of his assertions. He said that Rudy Guede was a police informant, without any evidence, and it was picked up slavishly by you, Charlie and Chris.

There is no evidence that RG was a police informant. If there is, then produce it now. Waterbury lied but there is no reason for you, Chris and Charlie to be condemned by the lies of one stupid man.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep calling a theory a lie? Do you know the definition of the words you use?
 
Matthew Best said:
Can you please quote him directly or point me to the place where he states the above? Thank you.
Click to expand...


He says it many times here:

http://www.sciencespheres.com/2010/04/inevitable-unexpected-and-theory-of.html

For all of these reasons, the Perugian Powers that Be (PPB) or the Perugian justice authorities, will refer to an inexactly known group when we are uncertain about who was involved. We will have to fill in the details at some later time.

You have had that source and those quotes for over six weeks now. We have never relented in demanding proof from the liar and charlatan and now you are invited to become a part of it. I showed, on the previous page, how each of the powerfully activist FOA road warriors have doggedly supported Waterbury in print (qv Bruce above) and by links.
 
stilicho said:
I don't want to see either of them imprisoned for any longer than justice deserves. I do want them to tell the truth. I want their advocates to tell the truth. I want those interested in them being kept in prison to tell the truth.

That includes their harsh condemnation of fables like this:

Rudy worked for the Perugian justice authorities. He murdered Meredith Kercher while under their employ and protection.

Would you allow your client's paid supporters to say such a thing if you suspected it might endanger their appeal?
Click to expand...

From reading your posts, it appears that (a) you have already decided what the "truth" is, in your own mind; (b) you refuse to acknowledge that there are serious problems with the manner in which the investigation was conducted; (c) you refuse to acknowledge that there are serious problems with the manner in which the interrogations were conducted; (d) you refuse to acknowledge that the convictions of Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito are dangerous (using the terminology of Canadian law for your convenience); and (e) you are not at all interested in anything that challenges or questions those problems with these convictions.

Yet you seek to obtain information from the defence that could potentially compromise the pending appeals if it is posted prematurely.

I say that this is improper and that nobody should be doing this.

And I couldn't make any sense of your question, by the way. Perhaps you can rephrase it in a manner that makes sense.
 
LashL said:
Frankly, it is my view that nobody should post anything here or elsewhere that might compromise the pending appeals by Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito. Two individuals who may very well have been wrongly convicted of very serious crimes have a LOT to lose if certain information pertaining to their pending appeals is posted online prematurely, so I would urge everyone to use restraint and neither call for information that could potentially compromise their appeals nor allow themselves to be goaded into posting information that could potentially compromise their appeals.

To those who believe that Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito are guilty, you have no need to try to goad others to post information to which you are not entitled because you believe that the court of first instance got it right. Thus, to you, there is no further evidence required.

To those who believe that Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito are not guilty, you must not permit yourselves to be goaded into posting things pertaining to the appeals prematurely as that will only serve to assist those who seek to see Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito rot in jail, even if they are not guilty. Do not help them in their quest to see these two individuals locked up for the rest of their natural lives by rising to the bait and disclosing information related to the appeals of which they are not already aware.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your concern. There is nothing that anyone on the board could possibly say to get any of us to post information that could influence the appeal in a negative way.

People need to have patience and wait. Shouting "liar" because you don't have access to information is not very productive.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Why do you keep calling a theory a lie? Do you know the definition of the words you use?
Click to expand...

Is your site simply theoretical? Is it simply musings without any particular care for whether people believe it or not? Is it--to paraphrase Amanda Knox--simply a vision?
 
LashL said:
Yet you seek to obtain information from the defence that could potentially compromise the pending appeals if it is posted prematurely.
Click to expand...

Pardon me?

Since when is FOA "the defence"?

These are merely interested advocates with a vested interest in Amanda's innocence. None of them--including Halides1's supposed "experts"--have ever been called upon for testimony by either the prosecution or the defence.

They are just like you and me and if they lie and perpetuate lies then they are liars. They may retract them and apologise to us for wasting our time at any point.

Prove to me that any poster here has any connection to the defence teams or the prosecution. Any connection whatsoever.
 
stilicho said:
Bruce, Chris and Charlie all link their blogs to this:

Rudy worked for the Perugian justice authorities. He murdered Meredith Kercher while under their employ and protection.
Click to expand...

I am sure it was just an oversight that you missed this part:

"The above theory of the crime suggests the following:

"Rudy worked for the Perugian justice authorities. He murdered Meredith Kercher while under their employ and protection."

This is not a question of blowing someone's appeal. That comment was made in APR 2010 and there's no doubt that (given the fact that Amanda's high-powered PR campaign links to it) the authorities in Italy will be fully aware of its contents.

This was not anything other than Waterbury inventing something to create interest in his site. The others (Bruce, Chris, and Charlie) simply employ the lie and defend it to continue services directed towards their own sites. There is nothing lost in Waterbury accepting that he lied and the other three silently and peacefully disconnecting their own advocacy sites from his.
Click to expand...

There may be nothing lost, but why should they do it if they don't want to? What's wrong with creating interest in one's site? Isn't that what all the sites do, pro or con? I don't get why all of a sudden theories are not okay. They're pretty much the mainstay of the discussions on this thread, to name only one example.

And again, it is not lying to speculate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom