Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[DrTesla]

Ok. Read that highlighted part again. Was Rudy throwing this against glass and wood or hardened steel?

Sometimes posts like this just make my day, because lurkers will read it and see it for what it is.

well if i'm exposed for a fool i'm exposed for a fool. I have never understood gravity very well , many people think of it as a simple concept but it is much more complicated as I understand it.

I did make a partial mistake in claiming the weight of the rock pulls it down, which IS true, but the larger mass of the rock also makes it more resitant to being accelerated by the gravity, much like a larger truck resists accerleration more than a lighter truck with the same engine. so this is why a rock that weighs more and a rock that weighs less end up landing on the ground at the same time b/c their respective weight and mass negate each other. for the lighter ball there is less gravitational force pulling on it but it's easier to accelerate b/c it's lighter. I can now thank Amanda Knox's decision to butcher her roommate for my understanding of this principle that apparently did not understand before. hey, there's a silver lining in everything, even a heinous murder.

however, I think people missed my point b/c I wasn't suggesting a lighter rock and a heavier rock don't land on the ground at the same time, but rather they have different trajectories while they are in the air with the heavier rock dropping down sooner as it moves across a span of x distance. is this not correct? maybe it's simply b/c the larger rock isn't thrown at the same velocity as the lighter rock b/c it's heavier but does this free body motion principle apply even for rocks thrown at different velocities or must it be the same velocity? I would think the same velocity b/c that is the scenario in the one where the two rocks of different weights are simply released from a high point and no velocity is imparted on them at all.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

loss of bowel control

"Police believe the teenage girl, who is also suspected of a series of break-ins in the Paris area, is responsible for a burglary 700km away in Toulouse after investigators matched her DNA with fecal matter taken from used toilet paper found in the garden at the home of a victim.

After allegedly breaking into the house in Saint-Alban, south-western France, in September 2012, the girl was unable to restrain herself, and appears to have answered the call of nature at the bottom of the garden, leaving behind her toilet paper, a police source told Le Parisien." link.

And from the BBC reporting on New South Wales comes the story of using DNA from a hair: "He said the burglar had used the toilet before leaving."

 

[Bill Williams]

well if i'm exposed for a fool i'm exposed for a fool. I have never understood gravity very well , many people think of it as a simple concept but it is much more complicated as I understand it.

I did make a partial mistake in claiming the weight of the rock pulls it down, which IS true, put the larger mass of the rock also makes it more resitant to being accelerated by the gravity, much like a larger truck resists accerleration more than a lighter truck with the same engine. so this is why a rock that weighs more and a rock that weighs less end up landing on the ground at the same time b/c their respective weight and mass negate each other. for the lighter ball there is less gravitational force pulling on it but it's easier to accelerate b/c it's lighter. I can now thank Amanda Knox's decision to butcher her roommate for my understanding of this principle that apparently did not understand before. hey, there's a silver lining in everything, even a heinous murder.

Sorry, you are wrong about your heinous accusation about Knox as you are about falling rocks. You are confusing Newton's principle of the conservation of momentum with the gravitational constant.

You just can't resist making unjustified accusations, OR showing your ignorance of grade 9 physics. Again, my hope is that people will consider the source.

 

[DrTesla]

Sorry, you are wrong about your heinous accusation about Knox as you are about falling rocks. You are confusing Newton's principle of the conservation of momentum with the gravitational constant.

You just can't resist making unjustified accusations, OR showing your ignorance of grade 9 physics. Again, my hope is that people will consider the source.

you debate at a 9th grade level while I'm little bit of a master debater as the lurkers, the lifeblood of this very forum, agree . I am secure in my person, being wrong about a projectile motion problem isn't something important to me one way or another.

intelligent people are not afraid to be ignorant of something, b/c you cannot learn what you do not know if you never admit that you might not know something. I have a quest for knowledge that I don't already contain, this obsession with finding the truth, at all and any costs, is why I have been able to determine with a 95 percent confidence interval that Knox and Raffe did it in the bedroom with the knife and then they GOT IT ON.

 

[MDDVS]

well if i'm exposed for a fool i'm exposed for a fool. I have never understood gravity very well , many people think of it as a simple concept but it is much more complicated as I understand it.

I did make a partial mistake in claiming the weight of the rock pulls it down, which IS true, but the larger mass of the rock also makes it more resitant to being accelerated by the gravity, much like a larger truck resists accerleration more than a lighter truck with the same engine. so this is why a rock that weighs more and a rock that weighs less end up landing on the ground at the same time b/c their respective weight and mass negate each other. for the lighter ball there is less gravitational force pulling on it but it's easier to accelerate b/c it's lighter. I can now thank Amanda Knox's decision to butcher her roommate for my understanding of this principle that apparently did not understand before. hey, there's a silver lining in everything, even a heinous murder.

however, I think people missed my point b/c I wasn't suggesting a lighter rock and a heavier rock don't land on the ground at the same time, but rather they have different trajectories while they are in the air with the heavier rock dropping down sooner as it moves across a span of x distance. is this not correct? maybe it's simply b/c the larger rock isn't thrown at the same velocity as the lighter rock b/c it's heavier but does this free body motion principle apply even for rocks thrown at different velocities or must it be the same velocity? I would think the same velocity b/c that is the scenario in the one where the two rocks of different weights are simply released from a high point and no velocity is imparted on them at all.

You don't know anything about physics and are just embarassing yourself. I don't think you realise just how ridiculous the things you're saying sound to anyone who knows at least a tiny bit of physics.

It should make you stop and think. If you're getting these small details so terribly wrong maybe the rest of your conclusions are not as solid as you think either.

If you persist in this I think you're only going to extract laughs from people reading your posts (hint: they won't be laughing with you).

 

[DrTesla]

Sorry, you are wrong about your heinous accusation about Knox as you are about falling rocks. You are confusing Newton's principle of the conservation of momentum with the gravitational constant.

You just can't resist making unjustified accusations, OR showing your ignorance of grade 9 physics. Again, my hope is that people will consider the source.

deleted....experiencing technical difficulties.....

 

[GWCarver]

I disagree, GWCarver.

First, though, let me say that I agreed with Hellmann's statement when he said he did not have to, for the purposes of the pair before him, answer the more general question about multiples attackers.

However, that ship (perhaps) has sailed, pending the receipt of the motivations report for the 26 March 2013 SC decision. No one would be more relieved than me to read that the SC agreed with Hellmann on that one point - even as they found other points of law which quashed the acquittals.

I get the feeling that one of the main issues - perhaps even the only issue - pending for the SC is the reconciliation of Rudy's motivation findings with the finding of guilt/innocent for AK and RS.

Perhaps what the SC is criticizing Hellmann on is that narrow point of law, that, yes Judge Hellmann, your court WAS required to delve into and say something about mutliple attackers and not just sluff it off. Hellmann, in my reading of him, just sluffed it off.

For me if this is the one narrow point of law that caused the SC to quash the acquittals, then that is (in my opinion) good news for the two innocents. That will mean that the new Florence Court will convene perhaps solely to make some ruling of fact about multiple attackers that addresses Rudy's motivations findings, but almost by definition leaves RS and AK out of it.

I must say that does not sound logical to me, but then what do I know? I thought the SC would just sign off on Hellmann's finding and that would be that and the Kercher's would have finally got the answer they deserve from Italy about what happened to their daughter.

With the bra-clasp evidence now gone (rusted because Stefanoni mis-stored it) and there being no crevice on the knife to have housed what was alleged to be Meredith's non-blood DNA (only Stefanoni ever said there was one and no one can find such a crevice now) - I actually believe that a full blown DNA re-review can only have one outcome.

As mentioned upthread, it is an implied insult to Stefanoni's work for the prosecution to want yet another DNA-review to begin with. Why did not the prosecution just insist upon the veracity of Stefanoni's work? The Scientific Police's own video which caused laughter in the courtroom is perhaps why.

So GWCarver, I respectfully diagree.... I do not think that the SC has quashed the appeals with the intention of ordering a directed verdict of guilty. The SC was free to do that anyway, at least theoretically. Instead, they've sent it back to the appeals level - and the simple act of sending back has the effect of quashing the acquittals, and not really expressing an opinion about the probability of a re-aquittal.

I think that a reasonable scenario is that the SC fully believes that this case against AK and RS will end up in a total acquittal. They've sent it back to ensure that it is arrived at by the right application of law and procedure.

Then again, soon we'll know what Hellmann's sins were. In my opinion it was not the verdict; but the verdict necessarily needs to be set aside for a new round of fact-finding, perhaps more narrow than anyone here thinks.

I don't think we disagree on anything. We agree that if the SC says there is a need to reconcile the Guede motivation with the Raffaele/Amanda case it would be effectively a directive to find them guilty. I didn't predict that would happen, I just said we have discussed that here and it would be dumb if it did happen, mainly because it would mean their fate had been decided at a trial for which they had no representation and were not defendants.

I also said they same thing you did about the DNA, only I think it would be dumb to overturn their acquittals for evidence that never existed or was destroyed by the prosecution team. (Actually, in light of the comedy of errors that was the prosecution in this case, overturning the acquittals for any reason is questionable.)

Anyway, those were the only two things I could think of that the SC might have looked at before reversing their acquittals, but if it turns out to be something else, I'm just predicting it will be something else that makes no sense to an American. And, of course, I could be wrong. It might be something that makes complete sense, but I doubt it.

 

[MDDVS]

you debate at a 9th grade level while I'm little bit of a master debater as the lurkers, the lifeblood of this very forum, agree . I am secure in my person, being wrong about a projectile motion problem isn't something important to me one way or another.

intelligent people are not afraid to be ignorant of something, b/c you cannot learn what you do not know if you never admit that you might not know something. I have a quest for knowledge that I don't already contain, this obsession with finding the truth, at all and any costs, is why I have been able to determine with a 95 percent confidence interval that Knox and Raffe did it in the bedroom with the knife and then they GOT IT ON.

Hmm, ok.

 

[Bill Williams]

I don't think we disagree on anything. We agree that if the SC says there is a need to reconcile the Guede motivation with the Raffaele/Amanda case it would be effectively a directive to find them guilty. I didn't predict that would happen, I just said we have discussed that here and it would be dumb if it did happen, mainly because it would mean their fate had been decided at a trial for which they had no representation and were not defendants.

I also said they same thing you did about the DNA, only I think it would be dumb to overturn their acquittals for evidence that never existed or was destroyed by the prosecution team. (Actually, in light of the comedy of errors that was the prosecution in this case, overturning the acquittals for any reason is questionable.)

Anyway, those were the only two things I could think of that the SC might have looked at before reversing their acquittals, but if it turns out to be something else, I'm just predicting it will be something else that makes no sense to an American. And, of course, I could be wrong. It might be something that makes complete sense, but I doubt it.

Re: the highlighted part - then we DO disagree. I do not think that an SC reasoning that the appeals level needs to reconcile the multiple attacker issue is ipso fact a directed order to convcit. That was my point in saying that the SC had theoretical ability to do that anyway, without sending it back.

It may be as narrow as they think Hellmann erred in law in saying he didn't even have to address the issue. Hellmann's court could have wasted everyone's time (in my opinion) by directing some sort of investigation to fact find about this - as he did in effect by ordering the C&V report be done - but such an inquiry could demonstrate the multiple attacker issue unsupportable (and then the SC would have to amend Rudy's motivation's report).

I assume that a sitting of the SC has authority to amend previous SC rulings, either that or wrongful convictions could never be overturned.

 

[Supernaut]

Well the first thing the prosecution will do is try to get the independent report thrown out. If there is going to be another review of DNA evidence then it will simply be a re-run of the first trial, defence bring in their experts and prosecution do the same.

I do not believe any of Hellmann’s findings will survive in the next trial after all the Supreme Court have effectively annulled the verdict of his court, therefore, the starting point in a legal context of this trial will be the verdict of the first trial.

I have always found it difficult to reconcile the extent of the level of discussion of evidence here and elsewhere with what actually happened in court and I have a feeling much of what is being debated here will not be raised in court. My guess is the next trial will be about Italian criminal procedure codes and ensuring whatever mistakes Hellmann made do not reoccur.

Another interesting point for me is will Raffaele and Amanda use the same defence team.

You can try and 'dignify' the farcical Italian courts, and the ridiculous, pompous buffoons who strut around on the stage it provides them with all you like, it will never change the fact that there is NOTHING dignified about them.

 

[GWCarver]

Re: the highlighted part - then we DO disagree. I do not think that an SC reasoning that the appeals level needs to reconcile the multiple attacker issue is ipso fact a directed order to convcit. That was my point in saying that the SC had theoretical ability to do that anyway, without sending it back.

It may be as narrow as they think Hellmann erred in law in saying he didn't even have to address the issue. Hellmann's court could have wasted everyone's time (in my opinion) by directing some sort of investigation to fact find about this - as he did in effect by ordering the C&V report be done - but such an inquiry could demonstrate the multiple attacker issue unsupportable (and then the SC would have to amend Rudy's motivation's report).

I assume that a sitting of the SC has authority to amend previous SC rulings, either that or wrongful convictions could never be overturned.

Wow, my head is spinning, but that's OK - learning can often be challenging. I was assuming Guede's trial was over, the SC had affirmed it, and that was that. It never occurred to me the SC could go back and edit the motivation to match what took place in another trial. Actually, it did occur to me but I dismissed it. Could they change the actual outcome of Guede's trial? For example, could they add in the theft charge (supported by Guede's DNA in Meredith's purse and the missing money, CC's, and keys...) which was not brought because the break-in was ruled to have been staged? (It doesn't make any sense to me, but it is my understanding that was the reasoning.)

 

[Bill Williams]

Wow, my head is spinning, but that's OK - learning can often be challenging. I was assuming Guede's trial was over, the SC had affirmed it, and that was that. It never occurred to me the SC could go back and edit the motivation to match what took place in another trial. Actually, it did occur to me but I dismissed it. Could they change the actual outcome of Guede's trial? For example, could they add in the theft charge (supported by Guede's DNA in Meredith's purse and the missing money, CC's, and keys...) which was not brought because the break-in was ruled to have been staged? (It doesn't make any sense to me, but it is my understanding that was the reasoning.)

What do I know? I know that in my country there are occasional exonerations of wrongful convictions.... convictions which had been signed, sealed, and delivered - the person was incarcerated and they threw away the key.

I could list the litany of wrongful convictions, but won't, but suffice it to say that some court exonerated a wrongfully convicted person here; it is relatively rare, and from what I know it is quite the process to undo what's done by the top court of the country.

I presume that Italy has some mechanism for undoing a wrongful conviction - or amending a former SC ruling from a previous date when new information is discovered to render it wrong.

If Italy DOESN'T have that mechanism, then I'll join RandyN in his rhetoric. At some point, apparently (and pending the SC motivations) the SC seems to be saying, "do some fact finding about multiple attackers. Rudy's trial just assumed it, both prosecution and defence in Rudy's trial found it beneficial simply to concede the point, and Hellmann's court said it was not his responsibility to sort it out factually."

Who knows, maybe the SC will direct the Florence court to show why there is or isn't multiple attackers, given that Rudy's trial just assumed it with no fact-finding at all. Like many have said, Mignini wanted multiple attackers and Rudy found it beneficial to say, "It was the other guys there!"

Rudy certainly benefited from this given that he'll soon be out.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

if you wanted to talk to me you should have been friendly to me when I was at your place. I wasn't even telling my little jokes over there. we could have had it all.

I think it is well established Obama is the Messiah so therefore I cannot be. he'll tell you.

I am comfortable with our decision. Your mission is certainly not to discuss the case but you are doing a wonderful job of trolling.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

you understand that this 10 lb rock had to travel a certain distance, and maybe up 10-13 feet if thrown from the yard? the theoretical intruder would have to get some zip on it so that it was still mmoving at a good pace by the time it hit the window so I don't think 100 mph is a crazy estimate at all. it may actually be too low of a throwing velocity.

I wonder what the diameter of this rock was and if if the theoretical intruder would be able to grib it like a fastball. that could be key to unraveling this entire murder mystery, along with Rudy's crap in the toilet.

As you can see, the rock could easily be held in one hand and tossed at the window. Most people would have absolutely no problem throwing that rock through a window.

Far too much has been made about this rock. Look at the rock and tell me you could not throw it 15 feet with ease and decent accuracy.

100 mph? No.

A slow toss from 15ft would send the rock through any standard windowpane.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I wonder what we are all going to do when Knox is found guilty again because it is safe to say there will be a big void in our lives if we don't have Knox to fight for or to love to hate.


will Friends continue to advocate for her innocence during her 50 year prison sentence? that doesn't seem sustainable.

I think Fischer's website about wrongful convictions is a neat idea but it struck me as odd that he decided to make Knox his bedrock wrongful conviction case. it seems to undermine the credibility of the whole project.

I know what I'll do, same thing I did when they found her innocent, go about life as usual, secure in the knowledge the courts have got it right, third time is suppose to be a charm.

 

[DrTesla]

I am comfortable with our decision. Your mission is certainly not to discuss the case but you are doing a wonderful job of trolling.

well reviewing your website I see one falsity after another. I would think you have exposed yourself for an defamation lawsuit from Mignini assuming he could do that from Italy with you in America.

I think your website still claims he was convicted of an abuse of office claim but said conviction was dropped by the Supreme court and I think they ruled it should have never even been brought to trial. You strike me as bit of a Doug Preston brown noser.

You also repeat a lot of Doug Preston's lies about Mignini saying it was about a Satanic rite which does not appear to be true and even if somehow it was it doesn't seem to mean much as his final motive theory didn't include that and as far as I know that is the only one the court hears. I'm not sure why Mignini is such a focus as he's not doing the prosecution for the next appeals trial as I understand it so even if you could damage him he's going to be damaged on some other case not this one.

I like posting here much better because at least there can be a little debate. Your definition of troll is anybody who better at debate than you and a Knox "hater" as you see it. I don't hate this babe, I want her to seek redemption for her crime and get some help for psychological issues and any drug addiction problems she has. Her favorite book is Crime and Punishment and a big theme in that book is the murderer confesses to his crime and seeks redemption.

Understand when I call you a mall clerk I'm just teasing you. I don't care what you do for a living one way or another...it's all about putting food on the table in the end. I don't quite understand why you are so serious and involved in this murder case that didn't even happy in this country and you appear to have no connection to Knox at least until after you got involved in the case.

What I don't understand is why you tolerate Mach over there but not me b/c I basically said the same kind of things he is over there and I didn't engage in the kind of humor that I do here, mostly out of fear b/c True Justice and PMF paint you as an angry nutjob and I was seeking to be respectful to you whilst in your house.

Can you tell me how you came across this information / emails about Peter Quennell? Are you actively seeking such information or are people giving it to you b/c they know you don't like these guilters? I think everybody needs to cool out on this case, this Guitler vs Friends blog war seems adolescent.

 

[PhantomWolf]

you understand that this 10 lb rock had to travel a certain distance, and maybe up 10-13 feet if thrown from the yard? the theoretical intruder would have to get some zip on it so that it was still mmoving at a good pace by the time it hit the window so I don't think 100 mph is a crazy estimate at all. it may actually be too low of a throwing velocity.

You still seem to be of the belief that a horizontal velocity of a thrown object decreases after it leaves the thrower's hand due to some mystery force? The only force acting on a thrown object is air resistance, which is all but meaningless for a heavy rock over a short distance. The rock will arrive at the window with pretty much the exact same horizontal velocity as it left the thrower's hand with. This is Newton's 1st law of motion.

I don't think it is logical to assume I meant a pebble. I said lighter than 10 lbs and you went to the extreme opposite side of the spectrum.

You claimed, repeatedly, that it was velocity that counted. Thus a fast pebble should do more damage than a slow 10lb rock, based on your posts.

I never said mass didn't matter at at all.

You said: It's the impact velocity that matters and you can impart a much higher velocity on a lighter rock than a heavier one.

It's clear from this that you believe that velocity is the important factor.

I said that p = mv and if v is higher b/c the ball is lighter, then it makes sense the p momentum is also increased. the more m mass you use, the smaller your p momentum is going to be b/c the velocity won't be as fast.

As I showed earlier, when the force applied to the mass is exactly the same and applied for the same time, the momentum is the same regardless of the mass. The momentum changes only if force and time applied change (or if you want to be more technical when the Work done changes.)

Since experimentally we know that people apply more force to larger objects, and we know that with a lower acceleration it will take lower to throw the heavy rock than the light one, we know that more work must be done on the heavy rock than would be on the lighter one. Since Work and Momentum are proportional, more Work equals a higher Momentum. Thus our larger rock will have the higher momentum not the small one.

in other words the magnitude of velocity could be increased much more than the mass. consider that the magnitude of 100 mph is more than the magnitude of 10 lbs. we cannot challenge mathematical principles in the name of finding Knox innocent.

Again you are wrong. Humans can only throw a rock with a certain number of Newtons so velocity cannot be increased more than mass because the force is proportional to the final momentum and mass and velocity have a 1:1 relationship in it. You are right in that we can't challenge mathematical principles (and I'd add the laws of physics) but it seems that you keep trying to because you keep getting it wrong.

 

[MattJones]

you spend more time on here talking about the intelligence of pro guilt people than actually making a case for Knox's innocence. you can't wish away the DNA on the knife and the DNA on the bra clasp and how could it have found itself to the two most incriminating spots possible if they were innocent? You guys seem to want to accuse Dr Stef of planting the DNA or simply just lying about its presence, without making that specific claim. there's been no credible scenario put forth by the defense as to how contamination could have occurred, and in this case it would havue to had occur for BOTH the knife DNA and the bra clasp DNA. just seems impossible that you would have innocent contamination for two different pieces of evidence found in two different houses. the defense's best shot at explaining how contamination could have taken place is that it is possible. well it is also possible that Knox and Raffe killed the victim, but you want the prosecution to show a bit more evidence of it than just saying it possible, right? Same should apply to how contamination took place if that is what you are claiming.

Your argument for yourself is similar to the infamous Matt Jones I am a lawyer, therefore I'm right.

In his case, he clearly did not know anything about the evidence against Knox but he was proclaiming her innocent b/c he read her book, and b/c he's a trial lawyer and he knows trial juries. he harped and mocked Knox for her really weird behavior in and outside of the courtroom but no way jose does that point to her guilt in the murder. I think it is much more logical to believe that if the accused is acting weird in and outside the court room it is because they are guilty but there seem to be a lot of contrarians out there that just know this doesn't point to her guilt.

Infamous? You cut me deep, Tesla.

 

[DrTesla]

[qimg]http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/publishImages/window~~element213.jpg[/qimg]

As you can see, the rock could easily be held in one hand and tossed at the window. Most people would have absolutely no problem throwing that rock through a window.

Far too much has been made about this rock. Look at the rock and tell me you could not throw it 15 feet with ease and decent accuracy.

100 mph? No.

A slow toss from 15ft would send the rock through any standard windowpane.

well I don't know about slow toss. I still think you will need some zip on it to have it moving on at a good clip after it travels 15 feet.

I appreciate the picture though.


I read in Massie the glass is thin, which kind of surprised me b/c this house is located in a shady neighborhood with a lot of drug addicts and unsavory characters. It seems like the panes would be fairly thick and ift not thick then hard and resistance to easy breakage. However, we cannot just assume that a thin pane glass is easily shattered. It would be nice if we could establish the impact velocity required to apply the min. shear force required to shatter this glass.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

well reviewing your website I see one falsity after another. I would think you have exposed yourself for an defamation lawsuit from Mignini assuming he could do that from Italy with you in America.

I think your website still claims he was convicted of an abuse of office claim but said conviction was dropped by the Supreme court and I think they ruled it should have never even been brought to trial.
You also repeat a lot of Doug Preston's lies about Mignini saying it was about a Satanic rite which does not appear to be true.

I like posting here much better because at least there can be a little debate. Your definition of troll is anybody who better at debate than you and a Knox "hater" as you see it. I don't hate this babe, I want her to seek redemption for her crime and get some help for psychological issues and any drug addiction problems she has. Her favorite book is Crime and Punishment and a big theme in that book is the murderer confesses to his crime and seeks redemption.

Understand when I call you a mall clerk I'm just teasing you. I don't care what you do for a living one way or another...it's all about putting food on the table in the end. I don't quite understand why you are so serious and involved in this murder case that didn't even happy in this country and you appear to have no connection to Knox at least until after you got involved in the case.

What I don't understand is why you tolerate Mach over there but not me b/c I basically said the same kind of things he is over there and I didn't engage in the kind of humor that I do here, mostly out of fear b/c True Justice and PMF paint you as an angry nutjob and I was seeking to be respectful to you whilst in your house.

Can you tell me how you came across this information / emails about Peter Quennell? Are you actively seeking such information or are people giving it to you b/c they know you don't like these guilters? I think everybody needs to cool out on this case, this Guitler vs Friends blog war seems adolescent.

You sure do like to ramble. Have you called me a mall clerk previously? I must have missed it. Online insults don't bother me at all. The internet is an open playground where everyone gets to play. Accuracy is rarely important.

You sound like Quennell with the defamation lunacy. He dreams of seeing all of Knox's supporters rounded up by his hero Mignini and thrown in Italian prisons. What a joke. You should do more research on Mignini. You have your facts wrong.

I detailed everything about Quennell including where the information came from and why it was publicized. You have the links.

You posted 4000 posts in 15 minutes and you crossed the line when talking about Amanda Knox. It was that simple. I know I am exaggerating your activity but after reading your theories about the rock, I figure 4000 will sound close enough to you. No worries, you have JREF.