Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[stilicho]

Your interpretation of that quote is different to my own.

How does that not surprise me?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Amanda in court on 30 November

How?

Here is a link to where it was discussed in the previous thread.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5947104&postcount=12849

 

[Matthew Best]

How does that not surprise me?

I don't know. Why don't you explain?

 

[stilicho]

What's wrong with creating interest in one's site?

....

And again, it is not lying to speculate.

Nothing wrong at all. Simply admit that it is a speculation--completely without a scrap of evidence to support it--and that it may safely be ignored. Drop your links to it is you are claiming to be a site with only factual information (eg injusticeinperugia, viewfromwilmington) and your credibility remains quite untarnished. And, finally, stop arguing that it is relevant in any way, (eg certain JREF posters).

Now you understand and you will predictably condemn Waterbury's baseless speculations or lies or whatever you want to call them.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

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?

What does my site have to do with Mark's theory. My site is based on factual information. Your side already tried to discredit me. Harry "The Machine" Rag embarrassed all of you in his attempt.

I have read the appeal that was filed from Amanda's lawyers. They make a very strong argument. There are many flaws to this case.

We will have to wait and see what happens on appeal. It may take the Italian supreme court to exonerate Amanda and Raffaele but I believe it will eventually happen. Things take time.

Will I post everything that I have read? Of course not. It doesn't matter who wins the debate on JREF. All that matters is what happens in the courtroom.

You are in an interesting position. You come online day after day to fight to keep someone that is already convicted in prison. You already won. The two people you hate are already convicted.

Groups like ours are seen all around the world. Wrongful convictions happen. That is a fact. People who have been wrongly convicted usually have a support group that fights to correct the error. This fight is usually with the authorities that made the mistake.

Rarely do you see a group of fanatics fighting them on the other side.

You have done more than enough to show your hatred toward Amanda and Raffaele. I think we all know your position here.

 

[LashL]

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.

You picked only one sentence of my entire post to respond to? And then erected a strawman to which to respond and ignored the rest of my post. Interesting. Okay, let me try this again:

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.

Now, what?

 

[Amazer]

Here is a link to where it was discussed in the previous thread.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5947104&postcount=12849

That is not an apology to Patrick.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Nothing wrong at all. Simply admit that it is a speculation--completely without a scrap of evidence to support it--and that it may safely be ignored. Drop your links to it is you are claiming to be a site with only factual information (eg injusticeinperugia, viewfromwilmington) and your credibility remains quite untarnished. And, finally, stop arguing that it is relevant in any way, (eg certain JREF posters).

Now you understand and you will predictably condemn Waterbury's baseless speculations or lies or whatever you want to call them.

You see, the news is a big business. When reporters research and make discoveries, they expect to be paid. I wish everything wasn't about money, I really do. But the world doesn't work that way. This will come out when it is most profitable. I don't like it but that's the simple truth.

So stop getting so angry. Relax. Enjoy your summer.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

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.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Nothing needs to be proven to you. Who are you? You are demanding information? What give you that right?

PMF has absolutely no information that cannot be obtained by the general public. Your source is no better than Google. There is nothing at all wrong with that but don't come here acting like you possess some high power. You know nothing about this case that can't be found by my 10 year old using his computer.

 

[Mary_H]

You see, the news is a big business. When reporters research and make discoveries, they expect to be paid. I wish everything wasn't about money, I really do. But the world doesn't work that way. This will come out when it is most profitable. I don't like it but that's the simple truth.

So stop getting so angry. Relax. Enjoy your summer.

Oh, is it summer? It's very hard to tell here in Seattle, where it is a whopping 56 degrees F.

 

[stilicho]

You picked only one sentence of my entire post to respond to? And then erected a strawman. Interesting. Okay, let me try this again:

So you will answer mine?

I think the Perugian authorities should have pursued the case the same way Canadian authorities did Schaefler and Thatcher. The fact that they didn't really doesn't seem to be relevant. They closed off the crime scene far more quickly. They could have easily detained everyone at the cottage until the statements were sorted out. I can see why they wouldn't have, though, given the PR fiasco of placing eight people under surveillance or under temporary custody.

I would be indeed surprised if local authorities didn't have their procedures reviewed vigorously after the many appalling failures at getting the charges correct the first time.

Their PR announcements were also too lurid and too premature. I can think of several high profile cases where the police did not make as many early announcements that later had to be changed.

The interrogations were possibly done incorrectly. A lot of that had to do with apparently having to summon everyone (translator, PM, technicians) in the middle of the night after Amanda started blurting out a fountain of inadmissible evidence. I don't know of specific cases like that in Canada but sometimes interviewees start confessing or accusing without much prompting and its hard to stop them once they start. Maybe that's when they should have slapped her because she really spilled a lot more beans than was warranted. I have yet to see any evidence that, once Amanda was pulled into the room, the authorities believed she was going to turn on the faucet and that she was going to incriminate herself. Most suspects would turn on the guy that threw her under the bus. Amanda didn't. She went off on an entirely different tangent. How do you plan for that?

 

[stilicho]

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Nothing needs to be proven to you. Who are you? You are demanding information? What give you that right?

PMF has absolutely no information that cannot be obtained by the general public. Your source is no better than Google. There is nothing at all wrong with that but don't come here acting like you possess some high power. You know nothing about this case that can't be found by my 10 year old using his computer.

In other words, you don't have the information about RG-cum-informant and you are not "the defence". All you had to do was to say that and we're square.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

So you will answer mine?

I think the Perugian authorities should have pursued the case the same way Canadian authorities did Schaefler and Thatcher. The fact that they didn't really doesn't seem to be relevant. They closed off the crime scene far more quickly. They could have easily detained everyone at the cottage until the statements were sorted out. I can see why they wouldn't have, though, given the PR fiasco of placing eight people under surveillance or under temporary custody.

I would be indeed surprised if local authorities didn't have their procedures reviewed vigorously after the many appalling failures at getting the charges correct the first time.

Their PR announcements were also too lurid and too premature. I can think of several high profile cases where the police did not make as many early announcements that later had to be changed.

The interrogations were possibly done incorrectly. A lot of that had to do with apparently having to summon everyone (translator, PM, technicians) in the middle of the night after Amanda started blurting out a fountain of inadmissible evidence. I don't know of specific cases like that in Canada but sometimes interviewees start confessing or accusing without much prompting and its hard to stop them once they start. Maybe that's when they should have slapped her because she really spilled a lot more beans than was warranted. I have yet to see any evidence that, once Amanda was pulled into the room, the authorities believed she was going to turn on the faucet and that she was going to incriminate herself. Most suspects would turn on the guy that threw her under the bus. Amanda didn't. She went off on an entirely different tangent. How do you plan for that?

You really seam to know a lot about the interrogation. Are you the one that had the video of the interrogation and misplaced it?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

In other words, you don't have the information about RG-cum-informant and you are not "the defence". All you had to do was to say that and we're square.

Of course I am not the defense. Why would anyone from the defense team come here to talk to you? The other information will become available eventually. Why do you defend Rudy? Do you really think he was a stand up guy before he murdered Meredith? I always wonder why you go to great lengths to protect Rudy's reputation. Even if you believe his lame story, he says he left a young woman to die. Do yourself a favor and take Rudy down from the PMF pedestal.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Stilicho, your group would have more credibility in your arguments if you refrained from calling highly educated people like Mark Waterbury and Steve Moore, names like stupid or idiot.

 

[Amazer]

Of course I am not the defense. Why would anyone from the defense team come here to talk to you?

Of course you are not part of the defense? You most certainly give the impression at times that you are part of the defense.

The other information will become available eventually.

Promises, promises and yet more promises..... seeing is believing though.

Why do you defend Rudy? Do you really think he was a stand up guy before he murdered Meredith? I always wonder why you go to great lengths to protect Rudy's reputation. Even if you believe his lame story, he says he left a young woman to die. Do yourself a favor and take Rudy down from the PMF pedestal.

Lame tactic... and unbecoming of you.

 

[LashL]

So you will answer mine?

I think the Perugian authorities should have pursued the case the same way Canadian authorities did Schaefler and Thatcher. The fact that they didn't really doesn't seem to be relevant. They closed off the crime scene far more quickly. They could have easily detained everyone at the cottage until the statements were sorted out. I can see why they wouldn't have, though, given the PR fiasco of placing eight people under surveillance or under temporary custody.

I would be indeed surprised if local authorities didn't have their procedures reviewed vigorously after the many appalling failures at getting the charges correct the first time.

Their PR announcements were also too lurid and too premature. I can think of several high profile cases where the police did not make as many early announcements that later had to be changed.

The interrogations were possibly done incorrectly. A lot of that had to do with apparently having to summon everyone (translator, PM, technicians) in the middle of the night after Amanda started blurting out a fountain of inadmissible evidence. I don't know of specific cases like that in Canada but sometimes interviewees start confessing or accusing without much prompting and its hard to stop them once they start. Maybe that's when they should have slapped her because she really spilled a lot more beans than was warranted. I have yet to see any evidence that, once Amanda was pulled into the room, the authorities believed she was going to turn on the faucet and that she was going to incriminate herself. Most suspects would turn on the guy that threw her under the bus. Amanda didn't. She went off on an entirely different tangent. How do you plan for that?

You seem to be rambling quite incoherently, but you also seem to be conceding that the investigation and interrogation by the Perugia police was indeed faulty. That's a start (if I'm reading your post correctly).

I have no idea what "question" it is that you wish me to respond to, as I cannot glean it from your recent posts. Can you clarify that?

And I note that you have still ignored the bulk of my post, despite me having to post it twice. It would be a whole lot easier to communicate with you if you actually responded in a coherent fashion to what is posted, rather than going off on tangents and posting stream of consciousness posts that are incomprehensible insofar as the actual discussion is concerned. I'm confident that you are capable of conversation, but when you post stuff that is non-responsive, it's tough to follow whatever stream of consciousness you're on about at any given time.

Any time you wish to address my post directly, that would be good.

 

[Amazer]

Stilicho, your group would have more credibility in your arguments if you refrained from calling highly educated people like Mark Waterbury and Steve Moore, names like stupid or idiot.

We could go with misguided or deluded if you like?

One thing is for certain, both Mark and Steve fail to make a convincing arguments in this case. The reason why? Part bias on my part... the other part i'll leave to your imagination.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Of course you are not part of the defense? You most certainly give the impression at times that you are part of the defense.

I have never given any impression that I am part of the defense. That statement is laughable. I am just a guy that did some research. This is just JREF. This discussion board isn't really that important. I think some people have lost their sense of reality here. This is a discussion board on the web. Nothing more. I type comments on the board while watching television.

For the record, I did excellent research and several highly credible people with far more intelligence than myself provided me with the information used to form my opinion. My position is very solid. I know that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent.

Okay, enough for now, The Nanny is coming back on!

 

[Bruce Fischer]

We could go with misguided or deluded if you like?

One thing is for certain, both Mark and Steve fail to make a convincing arguments in this case. The reason why? Part bias on my part... the other part i'll leave to your imagination.

Coming from you that means nothing. You have never shown me anything that would lead me to respect your position.