• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
katy_did said:
Still no cite? Alrighty then, I did find the transcripts as it happens, and in fact they say nothing at all similar to what you claim. In fact they back up the phone records, stating that Amanda's interrogation began at 10:29 after she came off the phone to Filomena. Then the interpreter was called after they took Amanda into the interrogation room, between 11 and 11.30 as the interpreter herself said, and as all the other police officers confirmed. The cartwheels, according to the police, took place at 11 in the morning.

How about that?
Click to expand...

I always have understood it at 11AM as well, not as 11PM as Fulcanelli has stated.

Ms Napoleone also described Knox’s unusual behaviour at the police station where she had been taken for questioning. She said: “She had complained that she was feeling tired and at that stage I told her that she could go if she wanted.” “She said she wanted to stay, Sollecito was also at the station at the time and she said she wanted to wait for him. “A few minutes later I walked past a room at the police station where she was waiting and I saw Amanda doing the splits and a cartwheel. It was around 11am on November 5th.
Click to expand...

http://www.zimbio.com/Amanda+Knox/articles/68/Cartwheels+No+Cartwheels+Judge
 
Bruce Fisher said:
<snip>

Your constant need to defend Rudy is disturbing. He didn't cut his hand off. We don't all drip blood from small cuts. Rudy left plenty of evidence in the cottage and he admitted he was there.

<snip>
Click to expand...


I have searched these threads in vain for an instance of Fulcanelli defending Rudy. Obviously I am not equal to the task. Please help by providing some links as examples.
 
Last edited:
Kevin_Lowe said:
All of the armchair psychology in the world can't make them guilty if they were at home watching Naruto when Rudy murdered Meredith.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I would not find someone guilty for their actions, so I find your "lynch them" comment to be a little hurtful, I hope you didn't mean that was what I was trying to do. Although I know you are answering my questions like I asked, some of the answers Im getting either dont match up with what Ive read, or are in essence saying "Well, actions shouldn't matter, because there is no evidence..." From my point of view and the court's point of view thus far, there is evidence... Also, Raffaele's diary was translated word for word if I'm not mistaken, so I'm pretty sure he meant Meredith and wasn't at all ambiguous. Unless there is a problem with the translation, or the diary is a forgery, I'm going to have to stick to my original opinion at this time.
 
katy_did said:
Still no cite? Alrighty then, I did find the transcripts as it happens, and in fact they say nothing at all similar to what you claim. In fact they back up the phone records, stating that Amanda's interrogation began at 10:29 after she came off the phone to Filomena. Then the interpreter was called after they took Amanda into the interrogation room, between 11 and 11.30 as the interpreter herself said, and as all the other police officers confirmed. The cartwheels, according to the police, took place at 11 in the morning.

How about that?
Click to expand...

And the links to these things you found are...where?
 
Chris C said:
Still if they have no evidence what are they arresting her for. Hows asking for a lawyer make things worse, when they have no evidence.
Click to expand...

She - said - she - was -there - when - Meredith - was - murdered. Do want it a bit slower?

Insisting on a lawyer as a witness means arrest...that's Italian law. You are no longer co-operating. Witnesses co-operate, suspects don't...that's the essence of it.
 
Fulcanelli said:
The Micheli Report...strangely enough.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I should have been more specific. When someone on the thread asks you for a 'cite', they'll usually be looking for an actual quote with the information you claim is there. Otherwise, you probably won't be believed. As I said, I know this might be a little different from what you're used to, but it's standard practice here.
 
Supernaut said:
That much is obvious, but it doesn't seem to give you much pause, does it?


Why don't you ask the same of any number of people, not least many others who knew her, who also didn't attend it?

Not very subtle, are you?

There were no press cameras in court during the proceedings. ALL the images you are referring to were captured during Amanda's and Raff's arrival and departure form the court, and during recesses. The ONLY footage of the trila itself was grainy "cam" footage glommed off the monitors outside the court room.

And frankly, I have a tough time believing you didn't know that.

Amanda was "smiling all the time, laughing while testifying, revelling in the attention, blah blah"? ******** - this and all the other hateful spin used to prop up your malign guilter agenda is just getting SO OLD.

Amanda smiled whenever she arrived in court because each and every time she was happy to find herself in the presence of friends and family, and her supportive legal team after x hours or days locked up in a cell.

Edited by Locknar: 
Edited, breach of rule 10. Please do not use swear words in your post, or attempt to mask/disguise them in an attempt to avoid the autocensor.
Click to expand...

So now I'm a liar? I have no reason to sit here and be verbally abused by people like you. I have no vested interest in this case, whether they stay in prison or not, I could care less.

I appreciate everyone who has gone out of there way to welcome me and debate with me with respect, honestly there are more of you than there are of people who don't, but unfortunately all it takes is one person to act like this for me to say enough, I don't have to take it. Nice meeting everyone, goodbye
 
Fulcanelli said:
She - said - she - was -there - when - Meredith - was - murdered. Do want it a bit slower?

Insisting on a lawyer as a witness means arrest...that's Italian law. You are no longer co-operating. Witnesses co-operate, suspects don't...that's the essence of it.
Click to expand...

Hows it going to make it worse? What are they going to charge her with? They made the accusation that she was there first. So if she asked for a lawyer what are they going to arrest her for. She went from being a witness to a suspect the moment the accusation that she was hiding something, lieing, or was at the apartment and is lieing about it. So now that they have established she is a suspect, by law she is required a lawyer. So how does it make it worse for her. She is a suspect. The supreme court even ruled she was a suspect. Her phone was tapped. She is a suspect. So at what point does her asking if she needs a lawyer make it worse. Are you saying that because she is a suspect they have to arrest her? Why are suspects required to be arrested if they want a lawyer?
 
Last edited:
katy_did said:
Perhaps I should have been more specific. When someone on the thread asks you for a 'cite', they'll usually be looking for an actual quote with the information you claim is there. Otherwise, you probably won't be believed. As I said, I know this might be a little different from what you're used to, but it's standard practice here.
Click to expand...

Ahh, I see...you mean it means "Go away and waste time to look up stuff that everyone who knows the basics of this case knows already just to give us a break from you bullying us with facts". Get ya ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom