Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Justinian2]

Its 8 pounds. what on earth would he need a backpack for? Go fill up a gallon jug with water. That weighs 8.35 pounds. Have fun. It would not be hard to throw that rock from the ground through the window.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image.php?album_id=21&image_id=1454

From the present position of the lawyer in the photo, he could take out the rock and shove it through the window. There is no need to throw the rock. Then he could reach in and open the window. The rock would land where it was found and the glass would be distributed as found.

Note the picture of the lawyer. His knees are at the top of the window where his feet should be. He could easily climb up another 20 inches (the distance from the soles of his feet to his knees). He would be holding onto the shutter with one hand and the sill with the other as he stepped to the top frame of the bottom window. Then he could lift his other foot up to a little over the height of his waist and into the window. He could then slide the leg into the window as far as the crotch. Then he could climb in easily.

 

[Chris C]

You're going round the same roundabout time and again. No-one believes that Knox, Sollecito and Guede were appart from 8.30 to 10.30pm on the prosecution side.

So then what your saying is the PROSECUTION placed a witness on the stand that testified that Knox/Sollecito where on the court from 9:27 pm until 11:30pm without Guede, yet they believe all 3 where together getting wasted. So in otherwords you are saying the Prosecution deliberately mislead the judge and jury by placing a witness on the stand that was lying.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Surely Italians do use the words 'witnesses' and 'suspects', or are all the references to 'witnesses' and 'suspects' I have read in reference to this case in the last 3 years some kind of bizarre joke?

If they don't use those words, what words do they use?

Ddidn't you yourself defend Amanda's being denied a lawyer on the grounds that she was a witness rather than a suspect?

Yeah, it's a bizarre joke, all constructed for your benefit.

English/US media when reporting refer to them as witnesses and suspects...so people like you can understand what they mean. But that's not what Italians call them. What you would call a suspect they call indigata.

How old are you by the way? Just curious.

 

[Justinian2]

A real break-in has a far, far, simpler explaination than a staged breakin

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Looks distinctly like a "doth protest too much" post Bruce. How can you possibly square your version with Michelle's statement on her blog which was then taken down post haste once spotted?

"However, by some bizarre accident (Note: how could anyone possibly say it was a bizarre accident if they were posting in public? Please show where they were posting in public that you spotted them) it (the Amanda Knox case) has become all too real to us in a freakish bizarre way (Note: what is freakish and bizarre about the version you propose?) and a guy named Bruce Fisher. His contacting us is how it started (Note: Steve Moore said the case, for him, started when his wife challenged him having watched the documentary. This post which -again- was taken down immediately it was spotted absolutely contradicts that.

Sorry Bruce, I don't think anyone is buying this, not least because of the way the blog disappeared online once spotted. Absolutely not.

Okay, I am going to explain this to you very clearly. When Michelle wrote "His contacting us is how it started" she was referring to Steve's interviews.

You and your friends have developed a theory that I went out looking for a random FBI agent to mold into a mouthpiece for Injustice in Perugia. This is a ridiculous theory. Steve Moore is far too intelligent to let anyone tell him what he is supposed to think.

You claim that Michelle lied when she stated that Steve originally felt that Amanda and Raffaele were guilty. She said it was her that encouraged him to look more closely at the case. Michelle was telling the truth. This happened long before I ever met Steve and Michelle.

I was notified that a woman was posting comments on facebook that her husband was a retired FBI agent and he believed Amanda and Raffaele were innocent. It was her comments on facebook that led me to contact her. I asked her if her husband would like to get more actively involved.

Steve wrote a series of articles for Injustice in Perugia that eventually led to interviews.

Michelle said that it all happened in a "freakish bizarre way" because I found her from a couple of posts that she made on facebook. After I talked to her, Steve contacted me letting me know that he would like to help.

Your article is a perfect example of how misinformation is spread. You didn't research this at all. You took one blog post out of context and ran with it. You stated publicly that your goal was to "bring down Steve Moore." It's apparent that you aren't going to let the truth get in your way. Your goals in life sound vindictive to me but that's just my opinion. Looking at how you have chosen to twist the actual facts regarding Steve and Michelle, it's no surprise that you feel Amanda and Raffaele are guilty. If the truth isn't important, it's pretty easy to convince yourself of just about anything.

 

[Rhea]

OK thanks - I was actually hoping for a response from Bruce Fisher - but in that case it is as offensive as it sounds (and with wider overtones).

There are many anonymous posters here who put forward arguments others may find offensive but that's the internet. But unless I'm mistaken [I'm going by the links from this thread] IIP/Bruce Fisher is a part of the 'FOA' advocacy campaign.
Is this the current public position - sneer at the dead girl or her memory.

What do I think ? - I believe you can work out what most people would think. I hope that answer is sufficent - we are on a moderated board.

I completely disagree, Bruce Fisher wasn't making fun of the victim. He was making fun of the actions of a person completely unrelated to the victim. It would be offensive if it was a relative or friend of the victim who put the flowers there. This way, no.

Of course you can feel that way, it's your opinion. But I don't think the average person would agree with you that it wasn't allowed to make fun of somebody's actions (tying plastic flowers to the gate) towards a completely unrelated victim.

It's not making fun of the victim.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Surely Italians do use the words 'witnesses' and 'suspects', or are all the references to 'witnesses' and 'suspects' I have read in reference to this case in the last 3 years some kind of bizarre joke?

If they don't use those words, what words do they use?

Ddidn't you yourself defend Amanda's being denied a lawyer on the grounds that she was a witness rather than a suspect?

Nailed what? I've seen the video...long before either you or Katody. Multiple times in fact. Now, perhaps you can point out at what time in that video Giobbi says he judged them guilty "because of their 'minor quirks' " This was my original question/request to Kestrel which as yet remains unanswered. Therefore, Katody has 'nailed' nothing, unless you count answering a question I never asked.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

No, it's a personal dig at the fact that when I tied three white roses to the gate at the cottage on 2nd November, they were silk flowers because the florist I had visited the day before decided to close earlier than the time they had told me they would stay open to. It's a deeply tacky, personal dig which is unbecoming. A man of substance would withdraw it. One can judge a person very accurately by this sort of comment. You try to honour the memory of a murdered young woman and someone tries to score a point on it. What do you think?

The comment regarding the flowers has nothing at all to do with Meredith Kercher. You can twist it anyway you like. The comment was in reference to your disturbing profanity laced rant when one reporter allegedly made a mistake in describing flowers. Before you attempt to judge my character, maybe you should reflect back on your own behavior.

 

[Fulcanelli]

But why would he make up such a thing?

Perhaps you should ask the same question when you accuse Curatolo, Nara Capezalli and the shopkeeper of the same thing.

The why doesn't matter, all that matters is he did and Judge Micheli threw out his testimony as a result.

 

[Fulcanelli]

It wasn't 'established' in Rudy's trial that Tramontano 'made the whole thing up'. Micheli found him unreliable in terms of that person being Rudy, which is fair enough; but that doesn't mean no one broke into his flat. And unless you're arguing that burglars don't ever break into people's houses only to find a resident is home, your point is irrelevant anyway.

Your other points were addressed in the post you quoted.

Errr...yes it was. That's why it was rejected by Micheli. Micheli judged he's made it up from what he'd read in the media for some fame and attention. When questioned by Micheli, he also conceded that he didn't even know if it was Rudy or not (he didn't know Rudy and had never met him). He also had claimed have been almost robbed, at knife point yet never reported it to the police...until months later after Rudy's arrest. He also claimed his girlfriend was present with him. Where was she? Where was her testimony/statement in support of this fairy tale? She never gave any because it never happened. Christian made up the story and it was rightly thrown out by Micheli. I remember it well, as for unlike you, I followed that trial in real time. This was long before you got involved.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Early break-in window conversations


Domenico Giacinto Profazio - Well, I walked around the cottage and let me tell you there is NO WAY someone could have made it up to that window! I know I couldn't have.

Fabio Marzi - I just spoke to the roommate Filomena and said there was glass on, in the middle and under her items. She thought it was strange there was glass under her clothes. I tend to agree ....

Giuliano Mignini - I think it was a killing of a ritualistic nature. There was likely an orgy involved.

Fabio Marzi - Filomena said she's not sure if she pulled the shutters tightly closed before she left. How could someone get in since she probably closed them shut.

Edgardo Giobbi - Why is the American roommate pretending to look so shocked. Did you see her move her hips also? hummmm

Giuliano Mignini - Thanks Domenico and Fabio, your fine work has confirmed my belief that this was an inside job, a cover up to detract from the fact that this was a ritualistic orgy killing. Edgardo Giobbi, where would we be without your keen observation skills......

And every single one of the unsourced.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Also silly. If we accept your argument, you are saying the unjustified assertion of one party justifies you making an unjustified assertion by reply? Come on...

I'm trying to establish what constitutes a reasonable standard of proof. We have videos that show urban kids performing much harder climbing feats than Filomena's window. Am I supposed to accept that these videos don't count for anything because they don't feature Rudy himself?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Since my upper window was open and I don't have shutters he just climbed in. Unfortunately I don't live in Perugia, or that would have been impossible.

But he didn't throw a bloody great rock through your window (one of the others that was shut) to see if you were home?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Mole already whacked. Rudy didn't need to climb up a sheer wall. He most likely swung across from the planter. But if you watch the videos Katody posted, you would see it's easy to run up a sheer 12 foot wall. Have you watched that video?

Which he did hands free?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Was the Naruto video or was it not opened at 21:26?

It was judged not have required human interaction.

 

[Fulcanelli]

And who stole them? Did Rudy himself even claim that someone else stole them?

He claimed he bought them and didn't realise they were stolen.

 

[Chris C]

I'm trying to establish what constitutes a reasonable standard of proof. We have videos that show urban kids performing much harder climbing feats than Filomena's window. Am I supposed to accept that these videos don't count for anything because they don't feature Rudy himself?

Of course you are suppose to accept that. Just like guilters want you to accept that Rudy had nothing to do with the Robbery of the office from a 2nd story window. It was only coincidence that he was caught with stolen goods from that robbery and even a bigger coincidence that a few weeks later a murder happened with another 2nd story window being broken.

 

[Matthew Best]

Which he did hands free?

Watch from 16seconds in.

 

[platonov]

I'm trying to establish what constitutes a reasonable standard of proof. We have videos that show urban kids performing much harder climbing feats than Filomena's window. Am I supposed to accept that these videos don't count for anything because they don't feature Rudy himself?

No, they count for something alright - in the same way the 'truther' videos of 'coke can' or lego models of the twin towers counted for something as regards their argument.

At least they made their own videos. Actually no, that's unfair of me - I believe there is a video of somebody closing a door behind his back. I haven't seen it myself - I'm waiting for the directors cut.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Hi, Fulcanelli, it has something to do with how trigonometry affects us in everyday life, the last of the 3 pictures could give you some idea.

BTW What do you make of the video of Giobbi bragging on TV about their investigative methods? Any comment?

Strange. The window is perfectly visible in the photos taken by the Google car.

The term 'bragging' is hyperbole. He was explaining in response to questions. I have no problem at all with it. He stated he knew them to be guilty from their behaviour (behaviour = what people say and do and act) on the night of the interrogation. It was their behaviour on the night of the interrogations that caused them to be made formal suspects and arrested.