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

Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
quadraginta said:
Because apparently this high ground you have been holding as a member of the pro-innocence "side" momentarily slipped your mind in this post, when you claimed that Filomena "wasn't very forthcoming" (Your bold.) because she "should know exactly how her room should have looked. " (My highlighting.)




You might want to think carefully before you pursue this line of discussion much further.

:p
Click to expand...

Definition of forthcoming enjoy:

frank and cooperative; candid: In his testimony, the senator could have been more forthcoming.

Who hired a lawyer, Knox or Filomena? Who gave more detail about the crime scene whether correct or not, Knox or Filomena? I'm sorry but it seems Knox shared what she knew with everyone and Filomena hired a lawyer. So by definition, Knox is in fact more Forthcoming. So how do you figure i'm on the highground. Knox spoke with everyone that asked her and even sent an email home. She spoke with the police everytime it was requested of her and without a lawyer present. So here is the full quote you sampled. When you come up with a different explanation as to why I'm on the high ground concerning filomena's statements compared to knox's willingness to make statements please elaborate.
Chris C said:
Thats just a few, and to top it off are we even sure the bag was in that location when the rock broke the window. For all we know that whole pile of clothes and the bag could have been pushed further to the side. It seems from Filomena's statements that she wasn't very forthcoming when it concerns her room and most of her statements could be taken both ways. Which is surprising for someone that should know exactly how her room should have looked.
Click to expand...
PS. Just so you know, just because someone isn't very forthcoming, doesn't mean they are being dishonest.
 
Last edited:
Bruce Fisher said:
Ron Hendry did an excellent analysis of the bra and clasp. I discussed Ron's work in the IIP book but somehow neglected to add it to the IIP website. Ron's analysis shows that the bra was ripped off with brute force, not cut with a blade. You can see Ron's analysis here: http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendrybraseverance.html
Click to expand...

I agree, for a long time I believed the bra was cut. Though recently I have moved to it being ripped at the seams. Which after looking at the close up pictures, I'm still curious as to how the prosecutions crack team of experts didn't pick up on that one.
 
Chris C said:
Who hired a lawyer, Knox or Filomena? Who gave more detail about the crime scene whether correct or not, Knox or Filomena? I'm sorry but it seems Knox shared what she knew with everyone and Filomena hired a lawyer. So by definition, Knox is in fact more Forthcoming. So how do you figure i'm on the highground. Knox spoke with everyone that asked her and even sent an email home. She spoke with the police everytime it was requested of her and without a lawyer present. So here is the full quote you sampled. When you come up with a different explanation as to why I'm on the high ground concerning filomena's statements compared to knox's willingness to make statements please elaborate.

PS. Just so you know, just because someone isn't very forthcoming, doesn't mean they are being dishonest.
Click to expand...

So then what is your point?
 
capealadin said:
The topic of the Oggi article, Frank's denial of same, the fact that Paul, Candace et al continued to spread false rumours, re Nara being almost deaf, and a nut, are now debunked.

Frank at Perugia Shock has written plenty about what he thinks of a lot of you. Read there for further clarification, if needed.

I have answered and cited the above claims. Frank says much about Dr. Stefanoni's excellent work. Again, read there.

I will not be caught up in the interminable spin, moving of goalposts. That rigmarole is nothing short of mind numbing boring.

As I have mentioned BEFORE...We can discuss the outcomes when the appeals have been decided. That will decide the quality of Dr. Stefononi's work. By the EXPERTS.
Click to expand...

This is the best you can do? No one that I know of on the pro-innocence side, that I can think of, dislikes Frank because of his stance. Personally I believe him concerning Nara's hearing and health. Yet if people are citing her own relatives remarks concerning Nara's hearing and health, who am I do disagree with them either. There is basicly a paradox concerning Nara's health or hearing which has no basis on this case. The fact that this is the only thing you seem to want to discuss leaves the impression that you no longer have anything in which to stand on concerning the guilt of Knox/Sollecito.
 
you can't hide your lyin' eyes, and your smile is a thin disguise

Capealadin,

Earlier today you wrote, "We can discuss the outcomes when the appeals have been decided. That will decide the quality of Dr. Stefononi's work. By the EXPERTS." Experts such as John Butler, author of the most authoritative textbook there is on DNA profiling says that one should change gloves when going from one evidence sample to the next. We can all pop some popcorn and watch films or view photos of a forensic worker using the same gloves over multiple samples in this case if you like.

capealadin said:
It's a bit like: Who are ya gonna believe......me, or your lying eyes :)
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Alt+F4,

I will ask Paul the relative's names. I know you don't really care but I see if I can get them for you anyway.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't you want the names before believing what anyone reported? Isn't Journalism 101 supossed to be about accurate sources?
 
Chris C said:
Personally I believe him concerning Nara's hearing and health.
Click to expand...

Why? What do you base this belief on?

Yet if people are citing her own relatives remarks concerning Nara's hearing and health, who am I do disagree with them either.
Click to expand...

Who are these relatives? Your relatives also told Frank you're insane, who am I to disagree with them?
 
Last edited:
Alt+F4 said:
So then what is your point?
Click to expand...

Its called reading comprehension. I tried to spell everything correctly and I even try to use proper punctuation when i'm posting. Doesn't always happen though. However, if you can't understand what I'm typing then I suggest that you copy and paste my post on http://www.answers.com/ and see if someone can help you. With that being said it seems time and time again that you provoke people on purpose to illicit a response from them. So if you dont have anything you wish to actually discuss concerning Knox/Sollecito/Guede/Meredith or all you can do is make condescending remarks towards those that are posting to try and get them to violate JREF rules then please stop. However, for the time being I'm placing you once again on ignore, I'd send you a pm but you probably forward it to someone.
 
Last edited:
Chris C said:
Its called reading comprehension.
Click to expand...

Ok, evasion noted.

So if you dont have anything you wish to actually discuss concerning Knox/Sollecito/Guede/Meredith or all you can do is make condescending remarks towards those that are posting to try and get them to violate JREF rules then please stop.
Click to expand...

Anyone who violates JREF rules does it because they choose to. And btw, Meredith has a last name, curious how she's the only one that you don't give one to.
 
Last edited:
halides1 said:
Alt+F4,

Earlier I posted on some of the paradoxes in Nara's testimony. Would you care to cite and comment?
Click to expand...

Hi halides1,

I'd love to have a conversation regarding Nara's testimony. Can you link to a transcript of what she actually testified to?
 
Last edited:
What Maria said

Alt+F4 said:
Hi halides1,

I'd love to have a conversation regarding Nara's testimony. Can you link to a transcript of what she actually testified to?
Click to expand...

Alt+F4,

"She told me, more or less in the same words as in her testimony, what she heard between 11 p.m. and 12:30 p.m. on November 1, 2007."
 
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