Judge Massei Sentencing Report: English Translation     The Meredith Kercher Fund     The Murder Of Meredith Kercher Wiki     True Justice For Meredith Kercher     Countdown To Final Appeal 

Last visit was: Wed Oct 01, 2014 6:15 pm It is currently Wed Oct 01, 2014 6:15 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



 [ 2830 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 12  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 - OCT 31, 12
PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 8:01 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15964
Location: England
Highscores: 113
XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 - Oct 31, 2012






This is the main discussion thread regarding the achievement of truth and justice for Meredith Kercher and her family. Meredith, barely 21 years old, was brutally murdered in her own home on the 1st November 2007 whilst studying in Perugia, Italy.

To read the previous main discussion thread, please view XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 - MAY 28, 12

Michael (Administrator/Moderator of Perugia Murder File)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 12:37 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm
Posts: 4533
Images: 0
That's a beautiful picture. I love the stairs and the building in the foreground. Did you take the photo yourself?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 1:45 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
ttrroonniicc wrote:
please delete

It's a bit awkward now that Nell's commented on it, ttrroonniicc. Why did you remove it, was a lovely picture. Did you want to resize it?
I just saw a book in the store "The Villages of Italy". Gorgeous photography!
Still, I can do that for you in the morning, just to warn the other mods. There's all sorts of havoc when three mods delete at the same time! :)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 1:57 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15964
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Troon -

I really wish you'd stop posting stuff, only to then remove the content ten minutes later and ask us to delete your posts. We now have a thread consisting of three posts, all about posts that no longer exist.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 2:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am
Posts: 1309
What did I miss? Few banns I see :roll: Never understood the purpose of trolling. Such a waste of time. I wish I had that much free time. Why not do something useful with it?

If I were Pacelli, I would have continued on the timing of that text message some more. Since Knox seems to have no problem remembering the timing of it then she should remember the things that were directly related to that message. Things like preparing to go to work, changing clothes, having dinner. She must then remember if she had dinner before or after. There is no maybe, 9, 10 or 11 o'clock if you remember that text message. It should be more precise.

On the other hand, we already know she is lying anyway, RS was doing dishes by about 8:30pm and dinner was already over. Of course, Knox had dinner before going to work. They prepared for that and they remember exactly.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 2:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am
Posts: 1309
By the way, Hellmann is 'hilarious' on the topic of dish washing.

Quote:
That the two of them dined before the time they indicated does not seem decisive, but in any case it is not proven that at 8:42 PM, when Raffaele Sollecito informed his father on the telephone that he had noticed that the sink was leaking while he was washing the dishes, the two had already dined. It could very well be that he had been washing the dishes that had remained dirty from lunch before starting to have dinner, or it could have happened that some cutlery or dishes were being washed before dinner was actually finished, to remove the dirt from a pot or dish straight away so as not to let it harden and stick: the fact is that Raffaele Sollecito is not known to have said to his father that they had already finished dinner, but only that he was together with Amanda.

They had lunch at the cottage, so letting dirt getting hard and sticky is not an issue here. Besides he apparently never read Knox email.

Quote:
i also needed to grab a mop because after dinner raffael had spilled a lot of water on the floor of his kitchen by accident and didnt have a mop to clean it up.

Does Hellmann have kids? Cuz it seems like a little kid wrote this nonsense.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 2:43 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15964
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Max wrote:
They had lunch at the cottage, so letting dirt getting hard and sticky is not an issue here. Besides he apparently never read Knox email.


Both of them said anyway, in statements, email and diaries, that the leak took place when Raffaele washed the dishes after they had had dinner (as your later quote shows). So, by their own words, there is no ambiguity over the fact that the leak took place after they had eaten evening dinner. And trial testimony and case evidence, proved that the leak took place before Raffaele's father called at 8:42 pm. The defence never even challenged these facts and the narrative they draw. Why does Hellmann invent excuses for them, that even the accused and their defence don't make? Ones that fly in the face of the established facts at that.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: "Frank Sfarzo"
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 2:55 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
The murder of Meredith Kercher attracted a wide range of individuals to the case, some hoping to work as translators for the networks, some, like John Grisham or Douglas Preston, who wanted to make big bucks on books and movie deals, and then there were the little guys, none of whom, imo, were as interesting as Francesco Sforza, aka "Frank Sfarzo".

A Perugian who ran a student flophouse in the town, he claimed his interest in the case was struck by the fact that Meredith first called him looking for a place when she arrived there. Yet, his website Perugia Shock, was set up on November 2, the day Meredith's body was found, so it appears his interest was more mercenary than altruistic, to be a springboard for his media ambitions.

His website, while slightly pro-Meredith at first, quickly turned into an unabashedly pro-Amanda Knox site, and was one of the main sources of local intelligence for Knox's family. He managed to ingratiate himself with many clerks and cops, and would come up with pictures no one else had, or scoops the press never got to. If he was slapped around a bit by the cops during his arrest, I'm sure it was a little retribution for his turning on them.

He very likely was the person who tried to sell nude photos of Amanda Knox. Barbie Nadeau wrote a story about this, without naming him, but it is clear he was the one she was referring to. He claimed to have seen Meredith's body, though whether that was on the autopsy table, from the coroner's photos or made up we will never know. His nude pics may not have been real, just photoshopped fakes the papers took a pass on. If they had been real, the London papers would have made him a very rich man. Still, he is interesting, in an Artful Dodger sort of way ;)

Mignini seems to think that Sfarzo is modeling himself on Mario Spezi, the Monster of Florence journalist. I think Frank's desires ran very much to America instead, and you could see fame dancing before his eyes, as you can see when he tries to hawk his story and rattle his tin cup looking for donations from his dwindling band of supporters.

Regardless, I think he deserves a listing of his own on dot net, before we get on to Bruce Fis(c)her, another blogger who won't spell his name right :)

Bruce just plods along, while Frank has pizazz. I know they're both unsympathetic characters, amoral to boot, but really all the interesting people in film have that certain quality that Frank has, even if he is a drama queen. Really, Frank, you got slapped around a little by some Italian cops? Jeez, you should see what NYPD does to haitian immigrants or Winnipeg cops do to native people (you wouldn't want to know) So man up, ok?

So, for the new Francesco Sfarzo thread, look no further than here: Francesco Sfarzo, also known as Frank Sfarzo


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 3:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am
Posts: 1309
Michael wrote:
Max wrote:
They had lunch at the cottage, so letting dirt getting hard and sticky is not an issue here. Besides he apparently never read Knox email.


Both of them said anyway, in statements, email and diaries, that the leak took place when Raffaele washed the dishes after they had had dinner (as your later quote shows). So, by their own words, there is no ambiguity over the fact that the leak took place after they had eaten evening dinner. And trial testimony and case evidence, proved that the leak took place before Raffaele's father called at 8:42 pm. The defence never even challenged these facts and the narrative they draw. Why does Hellmann invent excuses for them, that even the accused and their defence don't make? Ones that fly in the face of the established facts at that.

There must be a why, but I am not getting it. Why even elaborate like he is doing? Why get into 'dirt that gets hard and sticky from lunch'. Even if they had lunch at this apartment then it would have been hours before. Is he just having 'fun'? I think he never read much else besides the Massei report and concentrates on making up alternative theories based on that. He then completely contradicts further evidence such as the emails and other statements. It is not just the sticky dirty either. He goes on and on in his report. AK removing the bloody footprints leading to the bathmat while doing her shuffle, DNA leaping over from a bloody shoeprint into a luminol footprint, bleaches with no smell, Rudy staging his own burglary, etc etc... It is rather embarrassing actually.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 5:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm
Posts: 1855
I must admit, I get pretty discouraged at my fumblings with the computer. I have attempted on numerous occasions to explain, with pictures what I believe happened to the bra and clasp and why Sollecito's DNA is where it is and why it is so damning, but, I lack the skillset required to bring up the pictures. I have deleted myself on more than one occasion, so I'm going to type my explanation, and hope all who are interested check the crime scene photos.



Ok, first, I referred to the crime scene photos here very early on in my reading. The boards were all lit up with discussions about cut vs ripped, contamination, 46 days, and, I attempted to follow along.



I used the boards, the debate, testimony in evidence and the prosecution re-construction that was available. Try as I might, I DID not see what was being discussed.



So, I set about getting some bras to see if I could re-create what was being discussed. (Remember, I'm pretty visually oriented).



Here's what those crime scene pictures show.



First, when I deconstructed 5 bras from 5 different manufacturers it turns out that 4 of them are manufactured the same way. The bra clasp is a separate little piece of material, hooks on one end, sewn up on three sides uncluding the hook side, and shaped like an open pocket.

The bra itself in the back has that vertical cut, straight up and down, and this cut is made at the factory.



That cut edge slips into the clasp pocket and it is sewn once vertically. For re-inforcement, the pocket is then double stitched horizontally across the top and bottom.



The bra was initially pulled. Could have been done through the shirt, but the vertical stitching gave way and the hooks distorted, but the bra held. In order to see this, magnify the crime scene picture and look at that cut edge. The first 1/2 inch of that material is PRISTINE.



Anyone who has ever had a seam give way during washing will recognize the difference in color in this bra. First 1/2 inch is pure white. That is because it was INSIDE the pocket, not exposed to skin or wear.



When poor Meredith died, she lay on her shoulder. Her back was exposed, as was the back of her bra. You would be clearly able to see the hole and distortion.



Now, look at the clasp pocket itself. See the divot it the material on the end opposite the hooks? Why is the material indented there? Why is there slight discoloration?



The material is not under any stress there, it should not have distorted, unless..



Sollecito crooked his finger in there. He, in my opinion wanted to move poor Meredith's body and used the bra as a strap. He put his finger in there, distorted the material (his finger had Meredith's blood on it and discolored a portion,and then he pulled).



That tiny little piece came right off in the crook of his finger. And the pad of finger, in doing this lands directly on the hooks.



It happened 4 times when I did it. He simply dropped the piece and continued the clean-up.



I wasn't in court. I didn't see the actual bra. But I know what I see in these pictures.

The prosecution should not have tried to 'reconstruct' the attack. They should have deconstructed a bra. It's so obvious it's frightening.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 4:15 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
Breaking news: 5.8 earthquake just northwest of Bologna. Damage and 15 people dead.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 6:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 5:20 pm
Posts: 21
Hi Guys,

My name is Tom Wells. I will be upfront with you folks from the start. I am a big wrongful convictions guy. All of my research has led me to conclude that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were wrongfully convicted. I read through all of the boards when I have time and I thought I would chime in.

I'm not sure how the forums work but I think you recently closed a forum thread and started a new one. At any rate, there were a couple of crucial points that you were talking about in the previous thread that I wanted to touch base on.

First is the postmortem lividity. Judge Micheli suggested that Meredith was on her side for a long period of time. His suggestion was based on the large amount of blood that collected on her shirt on her right shoulder. He also suggested that Meredith's bra strap left a marking on Meredith's body. He made these suggestions in an attempt to suggest staging of the crime scene.

I do not have access to crime scene photographs (as I am sure they would be protected out of respect for Meredith), but I have read the analysis of those who have seen the photos. I do not believe that any staging occurred and I do not think that Meredith was moved after death.

Bruce Fischer from Injustice in Perugia reports:

"With regard to lividity
The blood evidence on the floor shows that Meredith was moved long before any blood had a chance to begin to dry. Guede moved Meredith out of the large puddle of blood so he could sexually assault her. The prosecution's argument (that the guilters repeat) is that Meredith had a concentration of blood on her right shoulder. Meredith's shirt was actually soaked with blood from her left collarbone all the way to her right shoulder. This would relate to the position she was in, in the moments shortly after the fatal wound was inflicted, not her final position. She lost a lot of blood in a short amount of time. The accumulation of blood on her right shoulder was not the result of being in one position for a long period of time. The lividity was consistent with the position where she was found (spread evenly across her back). This evidence is indisputable when looking at the photographs. We cannot show these photos to the public so the guilters will always be able to make up whatever "facts" they like."

"The truth is plain to see in many of the photographs, even to an untrained person like myself. But as everyone knows, I do not pretend to be an expert. The expert analysis that we (IIP) based our conclusions on came not only from the defense experts at trial but also from Ron Hendry and Steve Moore, both experts in this field. Ron and Steve have roughly 70 years of combined experience when it comes to investigating crime scenes."

Injustice In Perugia continues on to say: "This photo shows what Micheli was talking about. The photo cropped from one of the photos showing Meredith's body. You can see the two parallel lines running on either side of the tile seam. There was a corresponding pattern on Meredith's back when her body was rolled over. It's obviously an artifact caused by the tile seam, not a mark left by her bra strap. Micheli concocted an unsupportable forensic claim that was never even hypothesized during the trial."

They provide this photograph to prove what they suggest. The photo should not open here ( I hope I did this correctly). I posted it as a link for those who do not want to see graphic photos.

http://i.imgur.com/1aVTN.jpg

Sorry for the long post but this information also goes along with topic.

Injustice In Perugia Reports:

"Below is a photo of the side panel of Meredith's wardrobe, adjacent to where her head was positioned when her body was found. Aspirated blood droplets are present on that side panel. That proves she was still breathing when she was moved into that position. Meredith was not moved after death. No staging occurred. The fact that she was still breathing when she was in the location that she died proves this. If anyone posts at .net on Tuesday, you might want to give this information to Michael. We have all of the crime scene photographs. We have all of the video. We know the truth about this case. If .net wants the truth, they need to open their eyes. If they would dedicate a few moments out of their lives to focus on the real facts, then maybe, just maybe, they would stop spewing hatred at innocent people. I know, its just wishful thinking."

http://i.imgur.com/O1mMf.jpg

Now, I know that you and the Foakers don't get along. That is a given. Nasty comments come from both sides I'm sure. I did not want to edit the quotes from Injustice In Perugia because I wanted to be accurate and clear. Please look past the comments directed at you and look at the actual evidence.

The blood on the wardrobe shows that Meredith was still breathing when she was in her final position. The blood evidence on the floor shows that Judge Micheli was wrong. There is also other evidence to show that Meredith's bra was removed before death. There are aspirated blood droplets on her bare skin where her bra would have been. Once again, I am told that these photos are protected out of respect for Meredith.

Keep in mind that Micheli is a judge, not a crime scene expert. His conclusions were not used in the Knox/Sollecito trial. I believe his conclusions were wrong. There was no staging.

I want to ask you one question and I ask that you put all your anger for Fischer, Lovering, Sforzo, and all the rest to the side for a moment and answer this one question.

My question is, do any of you have photographic evidence or any evidence of any kind to refute the information put forth by Injustice in Perugia?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 8:05 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
Welcome to PMF, TomWells, and thank you for being honest up front. Your question, unfortunately, is rather convoluted, and, just my opinion, rather dishonest. You post a long argument which covers a whole lot of territory, but then ask us to answer a very narrowly framed question which serves only to reinforce your own argument. That is what we call dishonest debate, and I'll let it pass once, but, be warned. If it happens again, I'll ban you. Got that clear?

First of all, lividity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lividity "Coroners can use the presence or absence of livor mortis as a means of determining an approximate time of death.... It can also be used by forensic investigators to determine whether or not a body has been moved (for instance, if the body is found lying face down but the pooling is present on the deceased's back, investigators can determine that the body was originally positioned face up).
Livor mortis starts twenty minutes to three hours after death and is congealed in the capillaries in four to five hours. Maximum lividity occurs within 6–12 hours. The blood pools into the interstitial tissues of the body"

So, while the Perugian medical examiner determined the body had been moved after death, and Judge Micheli and Massei concurred, you are presenting an argument made by Bruce Fischer, Ron Hendry, and Steve Moore, that the judge 'got it wrong'? Based not on autopsy photographs of the victim but selective blood splatter and smear photographs provided without context? Do you realize how idiotic that sounds to us? You present Ron Hendry and Steve Moore as having '70 years of experience' of what, exactly? Are they medical examiners? Ron Hendry is, as far as I can determine, an accident reconstruction specialist, and Steve Moore, an FBI agent who has never provided any meaningful details of his stay in the FBI, just G-man romances. But never mind. You come bearing the argument, so, please present the evidence. Do you have the autopsy photos to prove your argument? If not, move on.

Which brings me to what I dislike about the FOA. They have access to the FULL case file. That is how the Sollecitos released the video of poor Meredith's body to the Bari TV station and Jim Lovering gets to selectively dole out photos that seek to reinforce the defense argument only.

When Rose Montague, a long time FOA, has to ask for hint, hint, the full defense file, then it shows that something's very wrong in Amandaland. What are you hiding?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 8:35 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
FOA
Quote:
"We cannot show these photos to the public so the guilters will always be able to make up whatever "facts" they like.


They are the ones not showing photos but making assertions anyway.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 8:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:02 pm
Posts: 115
Ergon wrote:
Welcome to PMF, TomWells, and thank you for being honest up front. Your question, unfortunately, is rather convoluted, and, just my opinion, rather dishonest. You post a long argument which covers a whole lot of territory, but then ask us to answer a very narrowly framed question which serves only to reinforce your own argument. That is what we call dishonest debate, and I'll let it pass once, but, be warned. If it happens again, I'll ban you. Got that clear?

First of all, lividity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lividity "Coroners can use the presence or absence of livor mortis as a means of determining an approximate time of death.... It can also be used by forensic investigators to determine whether or not a body has been moved (for instance, if the body is found lying face down but the pooling is present on the deceased's back, investigators can determine that the body was originally positioned face up).
Livor mortis starts twenty minutes to three hours after death and is congealed in the capillaries in four to five hours. Maximum lividity occurs within 6–12 hours. The blood pools into the interstitial tissues of the body"

So, while the Perugian medical examiner determined the body had been moved after death, and Judge Micheli and Massei concurred, you are presenting an argument made by Bruce Fischer, Ron Hendry, and Steve Moore, that the judge 'got it wrong'? Based not on autopsy photographs of the victim but selective blood splatter and smear photographs provided without context? Do you realize how idiotic that sounds to us? You present Ron Hendry and Steve Moore as having '70 years of experience' of what, exactly? Are they medical examiners? Ron Hendry is, as far as I can determine, an accident reconstruction specialist, and Steve Moore, an FBI agent who has never provided any meaningful details of his stay in the FBI, just G-man romances. But never mind. You come bearing the argument, so, please present the evidence. Do you have the autopsy photos to prove your argument? If not, move on.

Which brings me to what I dislike about the FOA. They have access to the FULL case file. That is how the Sollecitos released the video of poor Meredith's body to the Bari TV station and Jim Lovering gets to selectively dole out photos that seek to reinforce the defense argument only.

When Rose Montague, a long time FOA, has to ask for hint, hint, the full defense file, then it shows that something's very wrong in Amandaland. What are you hiding?


To be fair, I believe the moving of the body theory was only accepted by Micheli, and neither Massei nor Hellman (and possibly Mignini, though I'll be glad to concede if I'm wrong about him).

As far as the case file, is it possible that for legal or privacy reasons this can't be handed out to everyone and anyone? For instance, what is stopping PMF from requesting the prosecution's case file from Mignini or Maresca?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 9:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 5:20 pm
Posts: 21
Ergon wrote:
Welcome to PMF, TomWells, and thank you for being honest up front. Your question, unfortunately, is rather convoluted, and, just my opinion, rather dishonest. You post a long argument which covers a whole lot of territory, but then ask us to answer a very narrowly framed question which serves only to reinforce your own argument. That is what we call dishonest debate, and I'll let it pass once, but, be warned. If it happens again, I'll ban you. Got that clear?

First of all, lividity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lividity "Coroners can use the presence or absence of livor mortis as a means of determining an approximate time of death.... It can also be used by forensic investigators to determine whether or not a body has been moved (for instance, if the body is found lying face down but the pooling is present on the deceased's back, investigators can determine that the body was originally positioned face up).
Livor mortis starts twenty minutes to three hours after death and is congealed in the capillaries in four to five hours. Maximum lividity occurs within 6–12 hours. The blood pools into the interstitial tissues of the body"

So, while the Perugian medical examiner determined the body had been moved after death, and Judge Micheli and Massei concurred, you are presenting an argument made by Bruce Fischer, Ron Hendry, and Steve Moore, that the judge 'got it wrong'? Based not on autopsy photographs of the victim but selective blood splatter and smear photographs provided without context? Do you realize how idiotic that sounds to us? You present Ron Hendry and Steve Moore as having '70 years of experience' of what, exactly? Are they medical examiners? Ron Hendry is, as far as I can determine, an accident reconstruction specialist, and Steve Moore, an FBI agent who has never provided any meaningful details of his stay in the FBI, just G-man romances. But never mind. You come bearing the argument, so, please present the evidence. Do you have the autopsy photos to prove your argument? If not, move on.

Which brings me to what I dislike about the FOA. They have access to the FULL case file. That is how the Sollecitos released the video of poor Meredith's body to the Bari TV station and Jim Lovering gets to selectively dole out photos that seek to reinforce the defense argument only.

When Rose Montague, a long time FOA, has to ask for hint, hint, the full defense file, then it shows that something's very wrong in Amandaland. What are you hiding?


My entire post dealt with the theory that the crime scene was staged. There was absolutely nothing dishonest about it. I will try to be even more clear with my questions and I will do my best to answer yours. Not sure why any talk about banning anyone is necessary, but hey, that's your call.

Do you have the Perugian medical examiner's report stating that Meredith was moved after death?

The photograph of the wardrobe is a clear photo of the crime scene and not taken out of context at all. It shows aspirated blood droplets. It is very clear. Why do you suggest it is out of context?

Steve Moore spent 25 years investigating hundreds of murders worldwide. His expertise is indisputable. I understand if you don't like the guy but he's an expert.

Your borad has recently suggested that Meredith's body was moved after death. I am asking for proof to back that up. If Micheli is that proof then I accept that you believe Micheli. Is it too much to ask for you to support your claims?

Your views of Friends of Amanda are interesting. Are you asking them to release photos of Meredith's body? Don't you think that would be disrespectful?

My point is clear. How can you reach conclusions if you do not have the evidence. Would it not be better to say that we trust Micheli but we honestly don't know?

Ergon. do you believe that Meredith was moved after death?

This is not a topic for the courts because this topic was never discussed at trial. This is a topic for the online chat. This is a topic that has been used online to show staging. The problem is, no one has shown any proof.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 9:57 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
Cakeeater wrote:


To be fair, I believe the moving of the body theory was only accepted by Micheli, and neither Massei nor Hellman (and possibly Mignini, though I'll be glad to concede if I'm wrong about him).

As far as the case file, is it possible that for legal or privacy reasons this can't be handed out to everyone and anyone? For instance, what is stopping PMF from requesting the prosecution's case file from Mignini or Maresca?


You're making a fundamental mistake, much presented by the FOA. That if something is mentioned in a forensic report, the fact it wasn't mentioned in the judge's sentencing report means they 'didn't accept' a theory. Wrong. Motivations report are condensations of ALL the evidence presented (except when written by Judge Hellmann, it seems) so unless the judge specifically disallows an expert opinion, it does not infer he disagreed. Even Micheli focused mostly on other aspects of the staging, and Massei, completely so.

And the rules still stand. You come making assertions, you provide the hard evidence. The two photos pulled out of a hat, absent context, do NOT constitute evidence of anything. Nor is it our job to request the full case file. If we had it, we would at least make it available to independent investigators to verify the information is correct. This, you have singularly failed to do.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 9:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 5:20 pm
Posts: 21
Ergon wrote:
FOA
Quote:
"We cannot show these photos to the public so the guilters will always be able to make up whatever "facts" they like.


They are the ones not showing photos but making assertions anyway.


I posted the photo of the wardrobe and also of the tile floor that made the marking on Meredith's body. Are you asking the defense or Frienda of Amanda or Injustice in Perugia to release photos of Meredith's body? I am not sure what you are asking for.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 10:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 5:20 pm
Posts: 21
Ergon wrote:
Cakeeater wrote:


To be fair, I believe the moving of the body theory was only accepted by Micheli, and neither Massei nor Hellman (and possibly Mignini, though I'll be glad to concede if I'm wrong about him).

As far as the case file, is it possible that for legal or privacy reasons this can't be handed out to everyone and anyone? For instance, what is stopping PMF from requesting the prosecution's case file from Mignini or Maresca?


You're making a fundamental mistake, much presented by the FOA. That if something is mentioned in a forensic report, the fact it wasn't mentioned in the judge's sentencing report means they 'didn't accept' a theory. Wrong. Motivations report are condensations of ALL the evidence presented (except when written by Judge Hellmann, it seems) so unless the judge specifically disallows an expert opinion, it does not infer he disagreed. Even Micheli focused mostly on other aspects of the staging, and Massei, completely so.

And the rules still stand. You come making assertions, you provide the hard evidence. The two photos pulled out of a hat, absent context, do NOT constitute evidence of anything. Nor is it our job to request the full case file. If we had it, we would at least make it available to independent investigators to verify the information is correct. This, you have singularly failed to do.


Do the rules apply to everyone? It has been suggested on this forum that Meredith's body was moved after death. Do you have "hard evidence" to show this?

The photos I posted were not "pulled out of a hat" as you say. You can clearly see that the photos are from the crime scene and they coincide with the text I wrote.

Come on Ergon, lets be fair here. Its Tuesday. Your rules allow for friendly debate on Tuesdays. Can we play on a level playing field?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 10:07 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
Humbug, TomWells. Your post dealt only with one aspect of proof of staging, and not "the theory that the crime scene was staged"

So, do YOU have photos of the lividity?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 10:09 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15964
Location: England
Highscores: 113
TomWells wrote:
Hi Guys,

My name is Tom Wells. I will be upfront with you folks from the start. I am a big wrongful convictions guy. All of my research has led me to conclude that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were wrongfully convicted. I read through all of the boards when I have time and I thought I would chime in.


TomWells, welcome. Thank you for being upfront. I don't recall seeing your handle before on any of the case discussion comment areas or forums. What is the handle you commonly post under when discussing the case?


TomWells wrote:
First is the postmortem lividity. Judge Micheli suggested that Meredith was on her side for a long period of time. His suggestion was based on the large amount of blood that collected on her shirt on her right shoulder. He also suggested that Meredith's bra strap left a marking on Meredith's body. He made these suggestions in an attempt to suggest staging of the crime scene.


He didn't suggest it, he ruled it. What he also stated, was that the blood on the floor along with the print of Meredith's bra strap in it, showed that Meredith had been in that position whilst wearing the bra. The blood on the floor beneath her shoulder had then dried leaving the image of her shoulder and bra strap on the floor. Since she was not found in that position, Judge Micheli ruled that Meredith had died in that position, still wearing the bra. Then, at a later point some time after her death when the blood had died, someone removed the bra and then moved the body. The only reason to do that, was to stage the scene. The evidence supporting Micheli's findings is pretty conclusive.

TomWells wrote:
I do not have access to crime scene photographs (as I am sure they would be protected out of respect for Meredith), but I have read the analysis of those who have seen the photos. I do not believe that any staging occurred and I do not think that Meredith was moved after death.


So, you are going purely by the opinions of invested individuals who have only examined the case via the Internet and have limited access to the evidence? That doesn't sound like a strong position to me.

TomWells quoting Bruce Fisher wrote:
It's obviously an artifact caused by the tile seam, not a mark left by her bra strap. Micheli concocted an unsupportable forensic claim that was never even hypothesized during the trial."


How exactly, does a tile seam create the imprint of a bra strap? Would you mind explaining the physics of that to us please?

TomWells quoting Brice Fisher wrote:
Below is a photo of the side panel of Meredith's wardrobe, adjacent to where her head was positioned when her body was found. Aspirated blood droplets are present on that side panel. That proves she was still breathing when she was moved into that position.


This is completely irrelevant to the subject at hand. Meredith was assaulted and stabbed in front of the wardrobe, multiple times and went into her death throws in close proximity to it. As a result, there are numerous blood patterning marks on the front, inside and outside panel of the wardrobe and the blood Fisher refers to could have arrived there anytime during or immediately after the assault. It still does not change the fact that Meredith expired in a certain position on the floor while still wearing her bra and that the bra was fully removed and her body moved a long period after TOD.

TomWells wrote:
Keep in mind that Micheli is a judge, not a crime scene expert. His conclusions were not used in the Knox/Sollecito trial. I believe his conclusions were wrong. There was no staging.


Oh contrare. Before Judge Micheli became a criminal judge, he spent a career in the Carabinieri. Did you not know this? Moreover, Italian judges are not merely 'judges', as they are in America. Italian judges are trained investigators. Their role is not merely to judge a case, but to actually investigate it, either in the field or from the court room and in that role can order any investigations they see fit. This is why they are termed the "Experts of experts". Mignini, the prosecutor, is also a judge. Comparing them to American judges is like comparing apples and oranges. With Italian judges, think 'Judge Dredd', rather then 'Judge Judy'.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 10:10 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
We're referring to Micheli's findings. You haven't disproved it yet, but, go for it.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 10:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 5:20 pm
Posts: 21
Ergon wrote:
Humbug, TomWells. Your post dealt only with one aspect of proof of staging, and not "the theory that the crime scene was staged"

So, do YOU have photos of the lividity?


No, I do not have photos of the lividity and I would never expect FOA or IIP to release them to an internet lurker like myself. I have sided with the group that has the information. They have done absolutely nothing to suggest they are not trustworthy.

You have decided to ignore every question I have posted. That is your prerogative. I have answered yours.

The staging in Meredith's room is based solely on the movement of her body after death. If her body was not moved, there was no staging.

Are you aware that Micheli's theory was never suggested in either Knox trial?

Do you believe that Meredith was moved after death?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 10:15 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm
Posts: 4533
Images: 0
TomWells wrote:
--- snip ---

Injustice In Perugia continues on to say: "This photo shows what Micheli was talking about. The photo cropped from one of the photos showing Meredith's body. You can see the two parallel lines running on either side of the tile seam. There was a corresponding pattern on Meredith's back when her body was rolled over. It's obviously an artifact caused by the tile seam, not a mark left by her bra strap. Micheli concocted an unsupportable forensic claim that was never even hypothesized during the trial."

--- snap ---

I am surprised Bruce Fisher has decided to publish this photo. If anyone still had a doubt about the imprint of the bra strap he certainly managed to clarify that. The photo shows the imprint of the bra strap and not an artifact caused by the tile seam. Would you please ask Bruce Fisher to explain how the joint between the tiles could have caused an area on the floor that is void of blood? Shouldn't the blood concentrate in the joint instead of flowing away from it? The two parallel lines of accumulated blood mark both sides of the bra strap. Note that the lines caused by the bra strap aren't even parallel to the joint between the tiles and therefore unrelated.


EDIT: That was quick! Please see the attachment below for the original photo.


TomWells wrote:
--- snip ---

"Below is a photo of the side panel of Meredith's wardrobe, adjacent to where her head was positioned when her body was found. Aspirated blood droplets are present on that side panel. That proves she was still breathing when she was moved into that position. Meredith was not moved after death. No staging occurred. The fact that she was still breathing when she was in the location that she died proves this. If anyone posts at .net on Tuesday, you might want to give this information to Michael. We have all of the crime scene photographs. We have all of the video. We know the truth about this case. If .net wants the truth, they need to open their eyes. If they would dedicate a few moments out of their lives to focus on the real facts, then maybe, just maybe, they would stop spewing hatred at innocent people. I know, its just wishful thinking."

--- snap ---

Even if she was still alive in her final position, I fail to see how this explains that her bra was taken off after the blood had dried. Please explain.


TomWells wrote:
--- snip ---

Keep in mind that Micheli is a judge, not a crime scene expert. His conclusions were not used in the Knox/Sollecito trial. I believe his conclusions were wrong. There was no staging.

--- snap ---

Judge Paolo Micheli is more qualified to make assertions about the presented evidence in court than Steve Moore or Bruce Fisher who both don't speak Italian, haven't seen the evidence presented in court and don't have a clue about crime scenes to begin with. According to Bruce Fisher's own admission he is fed with cropped crime scene photos from Jim Lovering, a friend of Chris Mellas.

Does anyone still remember the photos from the bathroom that Bruce Fisher published on his website, saying there was no blood, to excuse Amanda Knox's decision to take a shower in that bathroom? The photo was cropped to hide the bathmat with the huge blood stains on it.



But the truth is:



Judge Paolo Micheli ruled that Rudy Guede was a liar, that he had sexually assaulted Meredith Kercher and that he helped killing her. He also ruled that Rudy Guede wasn't the one who stabbed her. Rudy Guede lost his appeal and the appeal to the Supreme Court, both courts sided with Micheli's decision that Rudy Guede didn't act alone.


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 10:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 5:20 pm
Posts: 21
Michael wrote:
TomWells wrote:
Hi Guys,

My name is Tom Wells. I will be upfront with you folks from the start. I am a big wrongful convictions guy. All of my research has led me to conclude that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were wrongfully convicted. I read through all of the boards when I have time and I thought I would chime in.


TomWells, welcome. Thank you for being upfront. I don't recall seeing your handle before on any of the case discussion comment areas or forums. What is the handle you commonly post under when discussing the case?


TomWells wrote:
First is the postmortem lividity. Judge Micheli suggested that Meredith was on her side for a long period of time. His suggestion was based on the large amount of blood that collected on her shirt on her right shoulder. He also suggested that Meredith's bra strap left a marking on Meredith's body. He made these suggestions in an attempt to suggest staging of the crime scene.


He didn't suggest it, he ruled it. What he also stated, was that the blood on the floor along with the print of Meredith's bra strap in it, showed that Meredith had been in that position whilst wearing the bra. The blood on the floor beneath her shoulder had then dried leaving the image of her shoulder and bra strap on the floor. Since she was not found in that position, Judge Micheli ruled that Meredith had died in that position, still wearing the bra. Then, at a later point some time after her death when the blood had died, someone removed the bra and then moved the body. The only reason to do that, was to stage the scene. The evidence supporting Micheli's findings is pretty conclusive.

TomWells wrote:
I do not have access to crime scene photographs (as I am sure they would be protected out of respect for Meredith), but I have read the analysis of those who have seen the photos. I do not believe that any staging occurred and I do not think that Meredith was moved after death.


So, you are going purely by the opinions of invested individuals who have only examined the case via the Internet and have limited access to the evidence? That doesn't sound like a strong position to me.

TomWells quoting Bruce Fisher wrote:
It's obviously an artifact caused by the tile seam, not a mark left by her bra strap. Micheli concocted an unsupportable forensic claim that was never even hypothesized during the trial."


How exactly, does a tile seam create the imprint of a bra strap? Would you mind explaining the physics of that to us please?

TomWells quoting Brice Fisher wrote:
Below is a photo of the side panel of Meredith's wardrobe, adjacent to where her head was positioned when her body was found. Aspirated blood droplets are present on that side panel. That proves she was still breathing when she was moved into that position.


This is completely irrelevant to the subject at hand. Meredith was assaulted and stabbed in front of the wardrobe, multiple times and went into her death throws in close proximity to it. As a result, there are numerous blood patterning marks on the front, inside and outside panel of the wardrobe and the blood Fisher refers to could have arrived there anytime during or immediately after the assault. It still does not change the fact that Meredith expired in a certain position on the floor while still wearing her bra and that the bra was fully removed and her body moved a long period after TOD.

TomWells wrote:
Keep in mind that Micheli is a judge, not a crime scene expert. His conclusions were not used in the Knox/Sollecito trial. I believe his conclusions were wrong. There was no staging.


Oh contrare. Before Judge Micheli became a criminal judge, he spent a career in the Carabinieri. Did you not know this? Moreover, Italian judges are not merely 'judges', as they are in America. Italian judges are trained investigators. Their role is not merely to judge a case, but to actually investigate it, either in the field or from the court room and in that role can order any investigations they see fit. This is why they are termed the "Experts of experts". Mignini, the prosecutor, is also a judge. Comparing them to American judges is like comparing apples and oranges. With Italian judges, think 'Judge Dredd', rather then 'Judge Judy'.



Hi Michael, I have not posted anywhere else. As I mentioned previously, I have followed all of the forums.

You wrote: "So, you are going purely by the opinions of invested individuals who have only examined the case via the Internet and have limited access to the evidence? That doesn't sound like a strong position to me."

Is this not your position as well?

Your wrote: "There are numerous blood patterning marks on the front, inside and outside panel of the wardrobe and the blood Fisher refers to could have arrived there anytime during or immediately after the assault."

The blood that Fischer showed is on the side of the wardrobe. This side panel would have not been in line with aspirated blood from the position Meredith was in when fatally wounded.

Your wrote: " It still does not change the fact that Meredith expired in a certain position on the floor while still wearing her bra and that the bra was fully removed and her body moved a long period after TOD."

This is not true Michael. There are aspirated blood droplets on Meredith's bare skin where her bra would have been. This proves that her bra was removed before death.


Are all members of the Carabinieri considered crime scene experts?

Do we agree that Micheli's conclusions were not used in the Knox/Sollecito trial?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 10:23 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15964
Location: England
Highscores: 113
TomWells wrote:
Do the rules apply to everyone? It has been suggested on this forum that Meredith's body was moved after death. Do you have "hard evidence" to show this?

The photos I posted were not "pulled out of a hat" as you say. You can clearly see that the photos are from the crime scene and they coincide with the text I wrote.


I take it you also saw the photo of the bra strap in dried blood on the floor? That is the "hard evidence", or part of it at least.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 10:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:02 pm
Posts: 115
Ergon wrote:
Cakeeater wrote:


To be fair, I believe the moving of the body theory was only accepted by Micheli, and neither Massei nor Hellman (and possibly Mignini, though I'll be glad to concede if I'm wrong about him).

As far as the case file, is it possible that for legal or privacy reasons this can't be handed out to everyone and anyone? For instance, what is stopping PMF from requesting the prosecution's case file from Mignini or Maresca?


You're making a fundamental mistake, much presented by the FOA. That if something is mentioned in a forensic report, the fact it wasn't mentioned in the judge's sentencing report means they 'didn't accept' a theory. Wrong. Motivations report are condensations of ALL the evidence presented (except when written by Judge Hellmann, it seems) so unless the judge specifically disallows an expert opinion, it does not infer he disagreed. Even Micheli focused mostly on other aspects of the staging, and Massei, completely so.

And the rules still stand. You come making assertions, you provide the hard evidence. The two photos pulled out of a hat, absent context, do NOT constitute evidence of anything. Nor is it our job to request the full case file. If we had it, we would at least make it available to independent investigators to verify the information is correct. This, you have singularly failed to do.



How can one argue that Massei and Mignini believed the body was staged if, one, Mignini never argued that point in court, and two, Massei left it out of his theory of what Raffaele and Amanda did after the murder? That would have been a major part of the construction of the crime, and to leave it out makes little sense.
Your comments about the case file I find perplexing. Sorry, but I don’t understand what I have “failed to do” or what I “have to prove”. I made an educated guess that perhaps the case file can not for legal or privacy reasons be shared with random people on the internet, a point that you seem to agree with when you write that if you had the file you would “at least make it available to private investigators”. Is that not what was done by sharing it with Ron Hendry and Steve Moore?
You have stated a desire in owning the case file, so I repeat: Has PMF contacted any members of the prosecution asking for it? It’s just a question.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 10:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 5:20 pm
Posts: 21
Nell wrote:
TomWells wrote:
--- snip ---

Injustice In Perugia continues on to say: "This photo shows what Micheli was talking about. The photo cropped from one of the photos showing Meredith's body. You can see the two parallel lines running on either side of the tile seam. There was a corresponding pattern on Meredith's back when her body was rolled over. It's obviously an artifact caused by the tile seam, not a mark left by her bra strap. Micheli concocted an unsupportable forensic claim that was never even hypothesized during the trial."

--- snap ---

I am surprised Bruce Fisher has decided to publish this photo. If anyone still had a doubt about the imprint of the bra strap he certainly managed to clarify that. The photo shows the imprint of the bra strap and not an artifact caused by the tile seam. Would you please ask Bruce Fisher to explain how the joint between the tiles could have caused an area on the floor that is void of blood? Shouldn't the blood concentrate in the joint instead of flowing away from it? The two parallel lines of accumulated blood mark both sides of the bra strap. Note that the lines caused by the bra strap aren't even parallel to the joint between the tiles and therefore unrelated.




TomWells wrote:
--- snip ---

"Below is a photo of the side panel of Meredith's wardrobe, adjacent to where her head was positioned when her body was found. Aspirated blood droplets are present on that side panel. That proves she was still breathing when she was moved into that position. Meredith was not moved after death. No staging occurred. The fact that she was still breathing when she was in the location that she died proves this. If anyone posts at .net on Tuesday, you might want to give this information to Michael. We have all of the crime scene photographs. We have all of the video. We know the truth about this case. If .net wants the truth, they need to open their eyes. If they would dedicate a few moments out of their lives to focus on the real facts, then maybe, just maybe, they would stop spewing hatred at innocent people. I know, its just wishful thinking."

--- snap ---

Even if she was still alive in her final position, I fail to see how this explains that her bra was taken off after the blood had dried. Please explain.


TomWells wrote:
--- snip ---

Keep in mind that Micheli is a judge, not a crime scene expert. His conclusions were not used in the Knox/Sollecito trial. I believe his conclusions were wrong. There was no staging.

--- snap ---

Judge Paolo Micheli is more qualified to make assertions about the presented evidence in court than Steve Moore or Bruce Fisher who both don't speak Italian, haven't seen the evidence presented in court and don't have a clue about crime scenes to begin with. According to Bruce Fisher's own admission he is fed with cropped crime scene photos from Jim Lovering, a friend of Chris Mellas.

Does anyone still remember the photos from the bathroom that Bruce Fisher published on his website, saying there was no blood, to excuse Amanda Knox's decision to take a shower in that bathroom? The photo was cropped to hide the bathmat with the huge blood stains on it.



But the truth is:



Judge Paolo Micheli ruled that Rudy Guede was a liar, that he had sexually assaulted Meredith Kercher and that he helped killing her. He also ruled that Rudy Guede wasn't the one who stabbed her. Rudy Guede lost his appeal and the appeal to the Supreme Court, both courts sided with Micheli's decision that Rudy Guede didn't act alone.


Nell, you and I are not experts but your claim does not make sense to me when I look at the photo. Are you honestly claiming that the bra strap was laying right on the tile seam? Look at the blood again. According to your observation that would mean that her bra strap must have ran up the other seam in the tile as well. The blood formed the same marking on that seam as well.

Bruce Fischer may not be a likable guy but he has posted every photo possible, with the exception of photos showing Meredith. He has many photos showing the bathroom with the bathmat. I'm not sure what you are suggesting Nell.

Are you aware of the fact that Micheli's theory was not mentioned in the Knox trial?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 10:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 5:20 pm
Posts: 21
Michael wrote:
TomWells wrote:
Do the rules apply to everyone? It has been suggested on this forum that Meredith's body was moved after death. Do you have "hard evidence" to show this?

The photos I posted were not "pulled out of a hat" as you say. You can clearly see that the photos are from the crime scene and they coincide with the text I wrote.


I take it you also saw the photo of the bra strap in dried blood on the floor? That is the "hard evidence", or part of it at least.



I have seen that photograph. The strap was soaked in blood. That is because Meredith lost a lot of blood when the fatal wound was inflicted. Her shirt was soaked as well. Meredith had lost an enormous amount of blood when Guede assaulted her. Her bra accumulated that blood before he ripped it off her as she laid there dying. He is an evil creature for what he did to Meredith. The thought of his actions make me want to vomit.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 10:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 5:20 pm
Posts: 21
Nell wrote: "Even if she was still alive in her final position, I fail to see how this explains that her bra was taken off after the blood had dried. Please explain."

The bra wasn't removed after any blood dried. The bra was removed when Meredith was still breathing.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 10:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 5:20 pm
Posts: 21
See you all next Tuesday. My time is up.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 10:38 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15964
Location: England
Highscores: 113
TomWells wrote:
Hi Michael, I have not posted anywhere else. As I mentioned previously, I have followed all of the forums.


So, this is your first time posting on the case 'anywhere' is it?

TomWells wrote:
Is this not your position as well?


No, we aren't invested. That's a crucial difference. Moreover, clearly, we have a greater understanding of Italian law and the Italian system. Finally, we also read the evidence presented in the judges reports and give it proper consideration, instead of dismissing them out of hand.

TomWells wrote:
The blood that Fischer showed is on the side of the wardrobe. This side panel would have not been in line with aspirated blood from the position Meredith was in when fatally wounded.


The blood could have gotten there at any point before she died. The point you are missing completely, is that the imprint of the bra strap demonstrates unequivocally, that was Meredith's final position when she died and later long after death she was stripped of her bra and moved OR she was placed into that position very shortly after her death by someone else and then after a long period of time moved once again into the position she was found and her bra removed. Either way, she was stripped of her bra and moved long after her death and the blood on the wardrobe is completely irrelevant to that fact.

TomWells wrote:
This is not true Michael. There are aspirated blood droplets on Meredith's bare skin where her bra would have been. This proves that her bra was removed before death.


No. The bra was rucked up over her breasts during the attack to enable the sexual assault, but not fully removed. The bra straps themselves remained on the body. The bra was not fully removed until long after the victim had died.

TomWells wrote:
Are all members of the Carabinieri considered crime scene experts?


What, FBI members are crime scene experts but Carabinieri aren't? What about vehicle accident investigators?

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 10:45 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15964
Location: England
Highscores: 113
TomWells wrote:
Nell wrote: "Even if she was still alive in her final position, I fail to see how this explains that her bra was taken off after the blood had dried. Please explain."

The bra wasn't removed after any blood dried. The bra was removed when Meredith was still breathing.



How was that done without disturbing the perfect imprint of the bra strap, which would have been in wet and easily smeared blood? The imprint is clear and undisturbed. It is undeniable, that that blood was dry before either the bra was removed or the body moved to its final resting place.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 10:50 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15964
Location: England
Highscores: 113
TomWells wrote:
I have seen that photograph. The strap was soaked in blood. That is because Meredith lost a lot of blood when the fatal wound was inflicted. Her shirt was soaked as well. Meredith had lost an enormous amount of blood when Guede assaulted her. Her bra accumulated that blood before he ripped it off her as she laid there dying. He is an evil creature for what he did to Meredith. The thought of his actions make me want to vomit.


And if Knox and Sollecito were involved, what would that make you want to do at the thought of them? I tend to get the impression from their apologists, that no matter what the two do, their actions are immediately forgiven and excused. It's nice to be privileged.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 10:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 5:20 pm
Posts: 21
Michael wrote:
TomWells wrote:
Nell wrote: "Even if she was still alive in her final position, I fail to see how this explains that her bra was taken off after the blood had dried. Please explain."

The bra wasn't removed after any blood dried. The bra was removed when Meredith was still breathing.



How was that done without disturbing the perfect imprint of the bra strap, which would have been in wet and easily smeared blood? The imprint is clear and undisturbed. it is undeniable, that that blood was dry before either the bra was removed or the body moved to its final resting place.


What imprint are you talking about? There is no imprint of the bra strap. The tile floor shows an imprint of bare skin on the tile. No bra imprint is present. The imprint on Meredith's body came from the tile, not the bra.

Not all FBI agents are crime scene experts. Steve Moore is. He has investigated hundreds of murders worldwide. Do you have proof that Micheli is a crime scene expert?

And yes, this is the first place I have posted.

You say that you read all of the judges reports, so have I. We just happen to like the conclusions of different judges, that's all. No investment on my part.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 10:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 5:20 pm
Posts: 21
Michael wrote:
TomWells wrote:
I have seen that photograph. The strap was soaked in blood. That is because Meredith lost a lot of blood when the fatal wound was inflicted. Her shirt was soaked as well. Meredith had lost an enormous amount of blood when Guede assaulted her. Her bra accumulated that blood before he ripped it off her as she laid there dying. He is an evil creature for what he did to Meredith. The thought of his actions make me want to vomit.


And if Knox and Sollecito were involved, what would that make you want to do at the thought of them? I tend to get the impression from their apologists, that no matter what the two do, their actions are immediately forgiven and excused. It's nice to be privileged.



If Knox and Sollecito were involved, my thoughts for them would be the same. But they were not involved. I'm not an apologist. I look at facts. The facts show that Guede sexually assaulted and murdered Meredith, therefore I do not hold him in high regard. He is scum.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 10:57 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15964
Location: England
Highscores: 113
TomWells wrote:
Nell, you and I are not experts but your claim does not make sense to me when I look at the photo. Are you honestly claiming that the bra strap was laying right on the tile seam? Look at the blood again. According to your observation that would mean that her bra strap must have ran up the other seam in the tile as well. The blood formed the same marking on that seam as well.


I'm still awaiting an explanation of the physics that enables a tiny tile seam to manufacture the imprint of a wide bra strap. How does that work exactly?

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 10:59 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15964
Location: England
Highscores: 113
TomWells wrote:
If Knox and Sollecito were involved, my thoughts for them would be the same. But they were not involved. I'm not an apologist. I look at facts. The facts show that Guede sexually assaulted and murdered Meredith, therefore I do not hold him in high regard. He is scum.


You sound absolute in your certainty.

Currently, you seem to be handwaving away the facts.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 11:02 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15964
Location: England
Highscores: 113
TomWells wrote:
What imprint are you talking about? There is no imprint of the bra strap. The tile floor shows an imprint of bare skin on the tile. No bra imprint is present. The imprint on Meredith's body came from the tile, not the bra.


The imprint of the bra strap is clearly visible in the dried blood. I can only suggest, that you turn up the resolution on your PC.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 11:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 5:20 pm
Posts: 21
Michael wrote:
TomWells wrote:
Nell, you and I are not experts but your claim does not make sense to me when I look at the photo. Are you honestly claiming that the bra strap was laying right on the tile seam? Look at the blood again. According to your observation that would mean that her bra strap must have ran up the other seam in the tile as well. The blood formed the same marking on that seam as well.


I'm still awaiting an explanation of the physics that enables a tiny tile seam to manufacture the imprint of a wide bra strap. How does that work exactly?


How wide do you think a bra strap is? And Micheli's theory was not picked up by anyone else (other that this forum) so my guess would be that the imprint on Meredith's body was not convincing at all. The imprint on her body matches the photo I posted.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 11:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 5:20 pm
Posts: 21
Michael wrote:
TomWells wrote:
What imprint are you talking about? There is no imprint of the bra strap. The tile floor shows an imprint of bare skin on the tile. No bra imprint is present. The imprint on Meredith's body came from the tile, not the bra.


The imprint of the bra strap is clearly visible in the dried blood. I can only suggest, that you turn up the resolution on your PC.


Are you suggesting that the imprint runs right across the tile seam?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 11:06 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15964
Location: England
Highscores: 113
RomWells wrote:
Not all FBI agents are crime scene experts. Steve Moore is. He has investigated hundreds of murders worldwide. Do you have proof that Micheli is a crime scene expert?


And you source for this is? By the way, being a murder investigator doesn't necessarily make you a crime scene investigator. Crime scene investigators are the sciency guys. Just so you know, Steve Moore hasn't even read all the evidence in this case and most of what he has read he hasn't understood because he doesn't speak Italian. He even freely admits, he hasn't read the judges reports.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 11:07 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15964
Location: England
Highscores: 113
TomWells wrote:
Michael wrote:
TomWells wrote:
What imprint are you talking about? There is no imprint of the bra strap. The tile floor shows an imprint of bare skin on the tile. No bra imprint is present. The imprint on Meredith's body came from the tile, not the bra.


The imprint of the bra strap is clearly visible in the dried blood. I can only suggest, that you turn up the resolution on your PC.


Are you suggesting that the imprint runs right across the tile seam?


Yes, why not?

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 11:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 5:20 pm
Posts: 21
Michael wrote:
RomWells wrote:
Not all FBI agents are crime scene experts. Steve Moore is. He has investigated hundreds of murders worldwide. Do you have proof that Micheli is a crime scene expert?


And you source for this is? By the way, being a murder investigator doesn't necessarily make you a crime scene investigator. Crime scene investigators are the sciency guys. Just so you know, Steve Moore hasn't even read all the evidence in this case and most of what he has read he hasn't understood because he doesn't speak Italian. He even freely admits, he hasn't read the judges reports.



Do you speak Italian?

Is Micheli one of those "sciency guys"?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 11:12 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15964
Location: England
Highscores: 113
TomWells wrote:
Michael wrote:
TomWells wrote:
Nell, you and I are not experts but your claim does not make sense to me when I look at the photo. Are you honestly claiming that the bra strap was laying right on the tile seam? Look at the blood again. According to your observation that would mean that her bra strap must have ran up the other seam in the tile as well. The blood formed the same marking on that seam as well.


I'm still awaiting an explanation of the physics that enables a tiny tile seam to manufacture the imprint of a wide bra strap. How does that work exactly?


How wide do you think a bra strap is? And Micheli's theory was not picked up by anyone else (other that this forum) so my guess would be that the imprint on Meredith's body was not convincing at all. The imprint on her body matches the photo I posted.



It's about as wide as that imprint on the floor. That's because the strap made it. What do you mean Micheli's theory was not picked up by anyone? We were talking about it here as soon as he first published his report and have commented on the fact many times since, both here and at other places! And we are not talkng about the imprint on Meredith's body, we are talking about the imprint of the bra strap in dried blood on the floor.

I'm still waiting to hear how the crack between the tiles generated the impression of the bra strap in blood on the floor.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 11:15 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15964
Location: England
Highscores: 113
TomWells wrote:
Michael wrote:
RomWells wrote:
Not all FBI agents are crime scene experts. Steve Moore is. He has investigated hundreds of murders worldwide. Do you have proof that Micheli is a crime scene expert?


And you source for this is? By the way, being a murder investigator doesn't necessarily make you a crime scene investigator. Crime scene investigators are the sciency guys. Just so you know, Steve Moore hasn't even read all the evidence in this case and most of what he has read he hasn't understood because he doesn't speak Italian. He even freely admits, he hasn't read the judges reports.



Do you speak Italian?

Is Micheli one of those "sciency guys"?


No. Instead, I've had many people who do speak fluent Italian translate the evidence for us. You may have noticed for example, the translated Massei Report?

Is Micheli a sciency guy? Yes, since he investigates the scientific evidence of many crimes as his day job.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 11:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:02 pm
Posts: 115
Michael wrote:
RomWells wrote:
Not all FBI agents are crime scene experts. Steve Moore is. He has investigated hundreds of murders worldwide. Do you have proof that Micheli is a crime scene expert?


And you source for this is? By the way, being a murder investigator doesn't necessarily make you a crime scene investigator. Crime scene investigators are the sciency guys. Just so you know, Steve Moore hasn't even read all the evidence in this case and most of what he has read he hasn't understood because he doesn't speak Italian. He even freely admits, he hasn't read the judges reports.


Steve Moore was a Supervisory Special Agent. From the FBI website:

FBI Special Agents don't get vibes or experience psychic flashes while walking around fresh crime scenes. Rather, it is an exciting world of investigation and research — a world of inductive and deductive reasoning; crime-solving experience; and knowledge of criminal behavior, facts, and statistical probabilities.

https://www.fbijobs.gov/611.asp


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 11:19 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15964
Location: England
Highscores: 113
TomWells wrote:
You say that you read all of the judges reports, so have I. We just happen to like the conclusions of different judges, that's all.


Yes, you like the report by the corporate judge, the judge that has no experienced or training whatsoever in criminal investigations.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 11:21 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15964
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Cakeeater wrote:
Michael wrote:
RomWells wrote:
Not all FBI agents are crime scene experts. Steve Moore is. He has investigated hundreds of murders worldwide. Do you have proof that Micheli is a crime scene expert?


And you source for this is? By the way, being a murder investigator doesn't necessarily make you a crime scene investigator. Crime scene investigators are the sciency guys. Just so you know, Steve Moore hasn't even read all the evidence in this case and most of what he has read he hasn't understood because he doesn't speak Italian. He even freely admits, he hasn't read the judges reports.


Steve Moore was a Supervisory Special Agent. From the FBI website:

FBI Special Agents don't get vibes or experience psychic flashes while walking around fresh crime scenes. Rather, it is an exciting world of investigation and research — a world of inductive and deductive reasoning; crime-solving experience; and knowledge of criminal behavior, facts, and statistical probabilities.

https://www.fbijobs.gov/611.asp


In other words, worked behind a desk.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 11:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 5:20 pm
Posts: 21
Michael wrote:
Cakeeater wrote:
Michael wrote:
RomWells wrote:
Not all FBI agents are crime scene experts. Steve Moore is. He has investigated hundreds of murders worldwide. Do you have proof that Micheli is a crime scene expert?


And you source for this is? By the way, being a murder investigator doesn't necessarily make you a crime scene investigator. Crime scene investigators are the sciency guys. Just so you know, Steve Moore hasn't even read all the evidence in this case and most of what he has read he hasn't understood because he doesn't speak Italian. He even freely admits, he hasn't read the judges reports.


Steve Moore was a Supervisory Special Agent. From the FBI website:

FBI Special Agents don't get vibes or experience psychic flashes while walking around fresh crime scenes. Rather, it is an exciting world of investigation and research — a world of inductive and deductive reasoning; crime-solving experience; and knowledge of criminal behavior, facts, and statistical probabilities.

https://www.fbijobs.gov/611.asp


In other words, worked behind a desk.


Steve Moore spent much of his career out in the field. He was sidelined for a time because he had cancer.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 11:32 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15964
Location: England
Highscores: 113
TomWells wrote:
Are you aware of the fact that Micheli's theory was not mentioned in the Knox trial?


That's because it couldn't be. It wasn't allowed to be referred to under Italian law as it was the sentencing report for Rudy. Reports from one trial cannot be referred to in the trial of another until that individual has completed their appeals. Once Guede's appeals were over, then his sentencing report could be used. But, Knox and Sollecito had had their trial by that point.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 11:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 5:20 pm
Posts: 21
Michael wrote:
TomWells wrote:
Michael wrote:
TomWells wrote:
Nell, you and I are not experts but your claim does not make sense to me when I look at the photo. Are you honestly claiming that the bra strap was laying right on the tile seam? Look at the blood again. According to your observation that would mean that her bra strap must have ran up the other seam in the tile as well. The blood formed the same marking on that seam as well.


I'm still awaiting an explanation of the physics that enables a tiny tile seam to manufacture the imprint of a wide bra strap. How does that work exactly?


How wide do you think a bra strap is? And Micheli's theory was not picked up by anyone else (other that this forum) so my guess would be that the imprint on Meredith's body was not convincing at all. The imprint on her body matches the photo I posted.



It's about as wide as that imprint on the floor. That's because the strap made it. What do you mean Micheli's theory was not picked up by anyone? We were talking about it here as soon as he first published his report and have commented on the fact many times since, both here and at other places! And we are not talkng about the imprint on Meredith's body, we are talking about the imprint of the bra strap in dried blood on the floor.

I'm still waiting to hear how the crack between the tiles generated the impression of the bra strap in blood on the floor.


There is no impression on the floor. The blood from Meredith's skin made the marking on the floor. The blood reacted the same way on both tile seams because Meredith's skin did not make direct contact with the lower surface.

There is no bra strap imprint on the floor. There is a marking on Meredith's body from the tile floor that Micheli suggested came from a bra strap. he was wrong. Meredith's body lines up with the photograph I posted.

In order to believe your theory, the strap had to line up perfectly with the tile seam and another strap of some sort had to line up perfectly with the vertical seam. You have a failed theory.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 11:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 5:20 pm
Posts: 21
Michael wrote:
TomWells wrote:
Are you aware of the fact that Micheli's theory was not mentioned in the Knox trial?


That's because it couldn't be. It wasn't allowed to be referred to under Italian law as it was the sentencing report for Rudy. Reports from one trial cannot be referred to in the trial of another until that individual has completed their appeals. Once Guede's appeals were over, then his sentencing report could be used. But, Knox and Sollecito had had their trial by that point.


Michael, I was not suggesting that Micheli's exact work wasn't used at trial. No other experts suggested what Micheli suggested. His theory was not introduced in any fashion whatsoever.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 11:36 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15964
Location: England
Highscores: 113
TomWells wrote:
Steve Moore spent much of his career out in the field. He was sidelined for a time because he had cancer.


The one single case he claims to have cracked, is the one where the murderer walked into the station and handed himself in and confessed.

And it doesn't address what I posted upthread and you've ignored:

Michael wrote:
And you source for this is? By the way, being a murder investigator doesn't necessarily make you a crime scene investigator. Crime scene investigators are the sciency guys. Just so you know, Steve Moore hasn't even read all the evidence in this case and most of what he has read he hasn't understood because he doesn't speak Italian. He even freely admits, he hasn't read the judges reports.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 11:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 5:20 pm
Posts: 21
Michael wrote:
TomWells wrote:
You say that you read all of the judges reports, so have I. We just happen to like the conclusions of different judges, that's all.


Yes, you like the report by the corporate judge, the judge that has no experienced or training whatsoever in criminal investigations.


I wonder what you will say about the Supreme Court when they confirm Hellmann's ruling. What will their incompetence be?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 11:39 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15964
Location: England
Highscores: 113
TomWells wrote:
Michael wrote:
TomWells wrote:
Are you aware of the fact that Micheli's theory was not mentioned in the Knox trial?


That's because it couldn't be. It wasn't allowed to be referred to under Italian law as it was the sentencing report for Rudy. Reports from one trial cannot be referred to in the trial of another until that individual has completed their appeals. Once Guede's appeals were over, then his sentencing report could be used. But, Knox and Sollecito had had their trial by that point.


Michael, I was not suggesting that Micheli's exact work wasn't used at trial. No other experts suggested what Micheli suggested. His theory was not introduced in any fashion whatsoever.


Yes they did. Guede's experts suggested it in his trial. But, they weren't involved in Knox's and Sollecito's trial. And there's lots of evidence in the 10,000 page evidence report that wasn't discussed in the trial. It didn't have to be, judges can consider evidence in the report even if it's not discussed in trial.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 11:42 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15964
Location: England
Highscores: 113
TomWells wrote:
Michael wrote:
TomWells wrote:
You say that you read all of the judges reports, so have I. We just happen to like the conclusions of different judges, that's all.


Yes, you like the report by the corporate judge, the judge that has no experienced or training whatsoever in criminal investigations.


I wonder what you will say about the Supreme Court when they confirm Hellmann's ruling. What will their incompetence be?


Jam tomorrow? I don't claim to have a crystal ball to know the future. I'm glad you're so certain though. And it needs to be remembered, the High Court will rule only on the technical correctness of Hellmann's appeal, not the evidence or Hellmann's/Zaneti's reasoning or conclusions. Knox also has another calunnia trial looming.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 11:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:18 pm
Posts: 280
My ears are burning.

Tom,
I haven't see that photo before. What area of the floor is it from? Can you zoom out a bit?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 11:45 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm
Posts: 4533
Images: 0
A Knox groupie complained to the website where I hosted the crime scene photo and this was subsequently removed as requested. Knox groupies don't have any trouble when Bruce Fisher displays crime scene photos, so what was the issue here?

Now I hosted it elsewhere. Problem solved.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 11:48 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15964
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Nell wrote:
A Knox groupie complained to the website where I hosted the crime scene photo and this was subsequently removed as requested. Knox groupies don't have any trouble when Bruce Fisher displays crime scene photos, so what was the issue here?

Now I hosted it elsewhere. Problem solved.


Why does it not surprise me that the FOAKers are trying to get evidence removed and hidden? They claim to be about the facts, when really they are about censoring them!

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 11:48 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm
Posts: 4533
Images: 0
TomWells wrote:
Michael wrote:
TomWells wrote:
You say that you read all of the judges reports, so have I. We just happen to like the conclusions of different judges, that's all.


Yes, you like the report by the corporate judge, the judge that has no experienced or training whatsoever in criminal investigations.


I wonder what you will say about the Supreme Court when they confirm Hellmann's ruling. What will their incompetence be?


They would be in disagreement with all the other courts that have ruled on that case. Hellmann is the first one to even consider Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox weren't involved.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 11:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:02 pm
Posts: 115
Michael wrote:
Cakeeater wrote:
Michael wrote:
RomWells wrote:
Not all FBI agents are crime scene experts. Steve Moore is. He has investigated hundreds of murders worldwide. Do you have proof that Micheli is a crime scene expert?


And you source for this is? By the way, being a murder investigator doesn't necessarily make you a crime scene investigator. Crime scene investigators are the sciency guys. Just so you know, Steve Moore hasn't even read all the evidence in this case and most of what he has read he hasn't understood because he doesn't speak Italian. He even freely admits, he hasn't read the judges reports.


Steve Moore was a Supervisory Special Agent. From the FBI website:

FBI Special Agents don't get vibes or experience psychic flashes while walking around fresh crime scenes. Rather, it is an exciting world of investigation and research — a world of inductive and deductive reasoning; crime-solving experience; and knowledge of criminal behavior, facts, and statistical probabilities.

https://www.fbijobs.gov/611.asp


In other words, worked behind a desk.


You're trying very hard to discredit Steve Moore, Michael, and it's not working.

Quote:
My name is Steve Moore; I retired from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 2008 after 25 years as a Special Agent and Supervisory Special Agent. My entire investigative experience was in the investigation and prosecution of violent crime, from murder to mass-murder and terrorism. In my last such assignment, I was the Supervisor of the Al Qaeda Investigations squad, following which I ran the FBI’s Los Angeles-based “Extra-Territorial Squad”, which was tasked with responding to any acts of terrorism against the United States in Asia and Pakistan. I have investigated murders throughout the United States and the world.


http://www.injusticeinperugia.com/FBI.html


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 11:51 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15964
Location: England
Highscores: 113
TomWells wrote:
There is no bra strap imprint on the floor. There is a marking on Meredith's body from the tile floor that Micheli suggested came from a bra strap. he was wrong. Meredith's body lines up with the photograph I posted.


You can keep denying it's there until the end of time, but it doesn't make it go away.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 11:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:02 pm
Posts: 115
Nell wrote:
TomWells wrote:
Michael wrote:
TomWells wrote:
You say that you read all of the judges reports, so have I. We just happen to like the conclusions of different judges, that's all.


Yes, you like the report by the corporate judge, the judge that has no experienced or training whatsoever in criminal investigations.


I wonder what you will say about the Supreme Court when they confirm Hellmann's ruling. What will their incompetence be?


They would be in disagreement with all the other courts that have ruled on that case. Hellmann is the first one to even consider Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox weren't involved.


If the supreme court upholds Hellman's verdict, that will be two higher courts deciding against two lower courts. Nonetheless, appeals to authority aren't as convincing as when independent third parties research this case and come to the same conclusion. Why is there no independent expert here at PMF who can vouch for Massei?
Greggy was the only DNA expert and he bailed when he realized an injustice had been done.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 11:53 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15964
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Cakeeater wrote:
You're trying very hard to discredit Steve Moore, Michael, and it's not working.


One doesn't have to work hard to discredit Steve Moore...it's all laid on. He's the gift that just keeps giving.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 11:54 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm
Posts: 4533
Images: 0
Michael wrote:
Nell wrote:
A Knox groupie complained to the website where I hosted the crime scene photo and this was subsequently removed as requested. Knox groupies don't have any trouble when Bruce Fisher displays crime scene photos, so what was the issue here?

Now I hosted it elsewhere. Problem solved.


Why does it not surprise me that the FOAKers are trying to get evidence removed and hidden? They claim to be about the facts, when really they are about censoring them!


The photo with Meredith Kercher's bra imprint has never been published before to my knowledge. Bruce Fisher is the first to do that and claims it proves an "artifact caused by the seam of the tile", which it is clearly not. It is the imprint from the bra strap. Even a blind man can see that.

That's one way to shoot yourself in the foot.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 11:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:02 pm
Posts: 115
Michael wrote:
TomWells wrote:
There is no bra strap imprint on the floor. There is a marking on Meredith's body from the tile floor that Micheli suggested came from a bra strap. he was wrong. Meredith's body lines up with the photograph I posted.


You can keep denying it's there until the end of time, but it doesn't make it go away.


It went away when Micheli stopped working on the case. Resurrecting it here doesn't make it true.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 11:57 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15964
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Cakeeater wrote:
Nell wrote:
TomWells wrote:
Michael wrote:
TomWells wrote:
You say that you read all of the judges reports, so have I. We just happen to like the conclusions of different judges, that's all.


Yes, you like the report by the corporate judge, the judge that has no experienced or training whatsoever in criminal investigations.


I wonder what you will say about the Supreme Court when they confirm Hellmann's ruling. What will their incompetence be?


They would be in disagreement with all the other courts that have ruled on that case. Hellmann is the first one to even consider Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox weren't involved.


If the supreme court upholds Hellman's verdict, that will be two higher courts deciding against two lower courts. Nonetheless, appeals to authority aren't as convincing as when independent third parties research this case and come to the same conclusion. Why is there no independent expert here at PMF who can vouch for Massei?
Greggy was the only DNA expert and he bailed when he realized an injustice had been done.



All of our resident members and experts, both present and former, are independent. Our goal is truth, whatever that may be. The FOAKer goal is agenda...argue Knox's innocence to the death, whether she did it or not.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 11:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:02 pm
Posts: 115
Michael wrote:
Cakeeater wrote:
You're trying very hard to discredit Steve Moore, Michael, and it's not working.


One doesn't have to work hard to discredit Steve Moore...it's all laid on. He's the gift that just keeps giving.


Ad hominem's aren't convincing either, Michael.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 11:59 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15964
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Cakeeater wrote:
Michael wrote:
TomWells wrote:
There is no bra strap imprint on the floor. There is a marking on Meredith's body from the tile floor that Micheli suggested came from a bra strap. he was wrong. Meredith's body lines up with the photograph I posted.


You can keep denying it's there until the end of time, but it doesn't make it go away.


It went away when Micheli stopped working on the case. Resurrecting it here doesn't make it true.


Just because something isn't endlessly repeated, it doesn't mean it isn't correct. Just as, if something IS endlessly repeated, it doesn't mean it is true. I know you FOAKers have completely the opposite view on that though ;)

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 12:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:02 pm
Posts: 115
Michael wrote:
All of our resident members and experts, both present and former, are independent. Our goal is truth, whatever that may be. The FOAKer goal is agenda...argue Knox's innocence to the death, whether she did it or not.


There are no experts here. Greggy was the only one and he was man enough to admit his mistakes.
There are several experts who have come out in support for Amanda and Rafaelle, whose professional credentials can be verified. The same can't be said for PMF. If I'm wrong, please list the names of these experts and their credentials.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 12:02 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15964
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Cakeeater wrote:
Michael wrote:
Cakeeater wrote:
You're trying very hard to discredit Steve Moore, Michael, and it's not working.


One doesn't have to work hard to discredit Steve Moore...it's all laid on. He's the gift that just keeps giving.


Ad hominem's aren't convincing either, Michael.


It's not ad hominem. He isn't here. And as for Steve Moore's useless record in this case when it comes to the facts and the evidence, it has already been discussed in depth on PMF and elsewhere and I therefore do not need to repeat what is on record.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 12:04 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15964
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Cakeeater wrote:
Michael wrote:
All of our resident members and experts, both present and former, are independent. Our goal is truth, whatever that may be. The FOAKer goal is agenda...argue Knox's innocence to the death, whether she did it or not.


There are no experts here. Greggy was the only one and he was man enough to admit his mistakes.
There are several experts who have come out in support for Amanda and Rafaelle, whose professional credentials can be verified. The same can't be said for PMF. If I'm wrong, please list the names of these experts and their credentials.


We've had plenty of experts here. If you want to make stupid statements like this, please reserve them for IIP where drivel is applauded.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 12:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:02 pm
Posts: 115
Michael wrote:
Cakeeater wrote:
Michael wrote:
TomWells wrote:
There is no bra strap imprint on the floor. There is a marking on Meredith's body from the tile floor that Micheli suggested came from a bra strap. he was wrong. Meredith's body lines up with the photograph I posted.


You can keep denying it's there until the end of time, but it doesn't make it go away.


It went away when Micheli stopped working on the case. Resurrecting it here doesn't make it true.


Just because something isn't endlessly repeated, it doesn't mean it isn't correct. Just as, if something IS endlessly repeated, it doesn't mean it is true. I know you FOAKers have completely the opposite view on that though ;)


Is suppose because Matteini believed Rudy's Nike print was Raf's we should believe that too.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 12:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:02 pm
Posts: 115
Michael wrote:
Cakeeater wrote:
Michael wrote:
All of our resident members and experts, both present and former, are independent. Our goal is truth, whatever that may be. The FOAKer goal is agenda...argue Knox's innocence to the death, whether she did it or not.


There are no experts here. Greggy was the only one and he was man enough to admit his mistakes.
There are several experts who have come out in support for Amanda and Rafaelle, whose professional credentials can be verified. The same can't be said for PMF. If I'm wrong, please list the names of these experts and their credentials.


We've had plenty of experts here. If you want to make stupid statements like this, please reserve them for IIP where drivel is applauded.


It should be easy to name one them. I'm not even asking for a list. Just one name.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 12:06 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15964
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Nell wrote:
Michael wrote:
Nell wrote:
A Knox groupie complained to the website where I hosted the crime scene photo and this was subsequently removed as requested. Knox groupies don't have any trouble when Bruce Fisher displays crime scene photos, so what was the issue here?

Now I hosted it elsewhere. Problem solved.


Why does it not surprise me that the FOAKers are trying to get evidence removed and hidden? They claim to be about the facts, when really they are about censoring them!


The photo with Meredith Kercher's bra imprint has never been published before to my knowledge. Bruce Fisher is the first to do that and claims it proves an "artifact caused by the seam of the tile", which it is clearly not. It is the imprint from the bra strap. Even a blind man can see that.

That's one way to shoot yourself in the foot.


And then some!

A bit like when Lovering published a still of Raffaele's cutlery draw.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 12:08 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15964
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Cakeeater wrote:
Michael wrote:
Cakeeater wrote:
Michael wrote:
All of our resident members and experts, both present and former, are independent. Our goal is truth, whatever that may be. The FOAKer goal is agenda...argue Knox's innocence to the death, whether she did it or not.


There are no experts here. Greggy was the only one and he was man enough to admit his mistakes.
There are several experts who have come out in support for Amanda and Rafaelle, whose professional credentials can be verified. The same can't be said for PMF. If I'm wrong, please list the names of these experts and their credentials.


We've had plenty of experts here. If you want to make stupid statements like this, please reserve them for IIP where drivel is applauded.


It should be easy to name one them. I'm not even asking for a list. Just one name.


Their names are already listed here, on the member list, along with their posts. I'm not playing this game with you or going down to that level. If that's what you want to do here, you can leave.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 12:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:02 pm
Posts: 115
Michael wrote:
Cakeeater wrote:
Michael wrote:
Cakeeater wrote:
You're trying very hard to discredit Steve Moore, Michael, and it's not working.


One doesn't have to work hard to discredit Steve Moore...it's all laid on. He's the gift that just keeps giving.


Ad hominem's aren't convincing either, Michael.


It's not ad hominem. He isn't here. And as for Steve Moore's useless record in this case when it comes to the facts and the evidence, it has already been discussed in depth on PMF and elsewhere and I therefore do not need to repeat what is on record.


I'm surprised I have to cite the definition of ad hominem for you, Michael. "It's not ad hominem. He isn't here."
That's one for the history books.

Quote:
Definition of AD HOMINEM

1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 12:11 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15964
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Cakeeater wrote:
Is suppose because Matteini believed Rudy's Nike print was Raf's we should believe that too.


She didn't 'believe' it, she accepted it as prima facie evidence against him on the basis of the preliminary investigation on the footprints at the time. And with good reason.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 12:12 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm
Posts: 4533
Images: 0
Cakeeater wrote:
Nell wrote:
TomWells wrote:
Michael wrote:
TomWells wrote:
You say that you read all of the judges reports, so have I. We just happen to like the conclusions of different judges, that's all.


Yes, you like the report by the corporate judge, the judge that has no experienced or training whatsoever in criminal investigations.


I wonder what you will say about the Supreme Court when they confirm Hellmann's ruling. What will their incompetence be?


They would be in disagreement with all the other courts that have ruled on that case. Hellmann is the first one to even consider Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox weren't involved.


If the supreme court upholds Hellman's verdict, that will be two higher courts deciding against two lower courts. Nonetheless, appeals to authority aren't as convincing as when independent third parties research this case and come to the same conclusion. Why is there no independent expert here at PMF who can vouch for Massei?
Greggy was the only DNA expert and he bailed when he realized an injustice had been done.


There is no innocent explanation for Amanda Knox's and Raffaele Sollecito's lies. There is no way Rudy Guede would enter the house messing up Filomena's room, but leaving with only her make up instead of her laptop. Rudy Guede wasn't the one who came back to the crime scene to take off Meredith's bra. Why did the rock that was supposedly thrown from the outside landed on top of the scattered clothes? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

They messed the room up and then they staged the break in, otherwise the clothes would have ended up on top of the glass shards and on top of the rock, not the other way around.


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 12:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:02 pm
Posts: 115
Michael wrote:
Cakeeater wrote:
Michael wrote:
Cakeeater wrote:
Michael wrote:
All of our resident members and experts, both present and former, are independent. Our goal is truth, whatever that may be. The FOAKer goal is agenda...argue Knox's innocence to the death, whether she did it or not.


There are no experts here. Greggy was the only one and he was man enough to admit his mistakes.
There are several experts who have come out in support for Amanda and Rafaelle, whose professional credentials can be verified. The same can't be said for PMF. If I'm wrong, please list the names of these experts and their credentials.


We've had plenty of experts here. If you want to make stupid statements like this, please reserve them for IIP where drivel is applauded.


It should be easy to name one them. I'm not even asking for a list. Just one name.


Their names are already listed here, on the member list, along with their posts. I'm not playing this game with you or going down to that level. If that's what you want to do here, you can leave.


Asking you to name one expert on PMF is playing a game? Okay, Michael, you win.
I'll stop asking. I'm clearly in the wrong. My apologies to all the experts here! Wherever you may be!

picture of a pumpkin
You have been Warned by a Moderator
Reason: This is your second and final formal warning. Bad faith debate, games and being snide are not acceptable here. Neither is constantly taking the debate off-topic.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 12:14 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15964
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Cakeeater wrote:
Michael wrote:
Cakeeater wrote:
Michael wrote:
Cakeeater wrote:
You're trying very hard to discredit Steve Moore, Michael, and it's not working.


One doesn't have to work hard to discredit Steve Moore...it's all laid on. He's the gift that just keeps giving.


Ad hominem's aren't convincing either, Michael.


It's not ad hominem. He isn't here. And as for Steve Moore's useless record in this case when it comes to the facts and the evidence, it has already been discussed in depth on PMF and elsewhere and I therefore do not need to repeat what is on record.


I'm surprised I have to cite the definition of ad hominem for you, Michael. "It's not ad hominem. He isn't here."
That's one for the history books.

Quote:
Definition of AD HOMINEM

1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem


Since Steve Moore is NOT HERE, he is not an "opponent" in this debate.

Informal warning: Stop taking the discussion off-topic.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 12:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:02 pm
Posts: 115
Nell wrote:
They messed the room up and then they staged the break in, otherwise the clothes would have ended up on top of the glass shards and on top of the rock, not the other way around.


About the glass on the clothes:

Quote:
By the end of the trial, Mignini was insisting that the last best piece of proof of the students’ guilt was the fake break-in and robbery. He and the police said that the defendants had made one little mistake in their carefully staged scene: they had tossed around Filomena’s clothing first, and then thrown a rock at the window from inside, spraying glass on top of the clothes when it should have been under them. Police had described this in trial testimony but never shown it. It was determined that the Kerchers’ civil lawyer, Francesco Maresca, was the only lawyer in the room who knew how to find the picture in his copy of the massive, unorganized digital case archive. His laptop was beamed onto the wall screen, and his motocross screensaver came up, a bike at right angles to a spray of dirt. The dapper Florentine with the gold-embedded shark’s tooth dangling beneath his bespoke shirt collar smirked and then clicked the mouse again to bring up a picture of Filomena’s bed as it had looked on the morning of November 2, 2007. The defense lawyers insisted that what was supposed to be glass on top of a blue dress on the bed was a white dot pattern in the fabric. No one denied that or even bothered to explain what could have happened to the damning glass on top of the clothes in Filomena’s room. In the last minutes of the trial, it was clear that no photographic proof of “glass on top of clothes” even existed and that it didn’t matter anyway.

Burleigh, Nina (2011-08-02). The Fatal Gift of Beauty: The Trials of Amanda Knox (p. 277). Random House, Inc.. Kindle Edition.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 12:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:02 pm
Posts: 115
Alright, thanks, guys for another wonderful tuesday. Goodnight!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 12:18 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm
Posts: 4533
Images: 0
Did TomWells explain how the joint between the tiles caused the imprint of the bra strap? Did I miss it? Or was he just content with getting the crime scene photo removed from the original hoster?

Why? Maybe because the photo wasn't really supporting the point he was trying to make.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 12:24 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15964
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Cakeeater wrote:
Nell wrote:
They messed the room up and then they staged the break in, otherwise the clothes would have ended up on top of the glass shards and on top of the rock, not the other way around.


About the glass on the clothes:

Quote:
By the end of the trial, Mignini was insisting that the last best piece of proof of the students’ guilt was the fake break-in and robbery. He and the police said that the defendants had made one little mistake in their carefully staged scene: they had tossed around Filomena’s clothing first, and then thrown a rock at the window from inside, spraying glass on top of the clothes when it should have been under them. Police had described this in trial testimony but never shown it. It was determined that the Kerchers’ civil lawyer, Francesco Maresca, was the only lawyer in the room who knew how to find the picture in his copy of the massive, unorganized digital case archive. His laptop was beamed onto the wall screen, and his motocross screensaver came up, a bike at right angles to a spray of dirt. The dapper Florentine with the gold-embedded shark’s tooth dangling beneath his bespoke shirt collar smirked and then clicked the mouse again to bring up a picture of Filomena’s bed as it had looked on the morning of November 2, 2007. The defense lawyers insisted that what was supposed to be glass on top of a blue dress on the bed was a white dot pattern in the fabric. No one denied that or even bothered to explain what could have happened to the damning glass on top of the clothes in Filomena’s room. In the last minutes of the trial, it was clear that no photographic proof of “glass on top of clothes” even existed and that it didn’t matter anyway.

Burleigh, Nina (2011-08-02). The Fatal Gift of Beauty: The Trials of Amanda Knox (p. 277). Random House, Inc.. Kindle Edition.



What has that got to do with anything? Thanks for quoting another FOAKer at us in your grand circle jerk, anyway. Glass was on top of the clothes. Fact. That has been well established. The crime scene photos on that element are all irrelevant, as the glass was all disturbed by Filomena Romanelli before they were taken. Multiple witnessess have confirmed the original placement of the glass.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 12:25 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15964
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Nell wrote:
Did TomWells explain how the joint between the tiles caused the imprint of the bra strap? Did I miss it? Or was he just content with getting the crime scene photo removed from the original hoster?

Why? Maybe because the photo wasn't really supporting the point he was trying to make.


No, just insisted it wasn't made by the bra strap...although neglected to explain how it WAS made.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 12:28 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm
Posts: 4533
Images: 0
Cakeeater wrote:
Nell wrote:
They messed the room up and then they staged the break in, otherwise the clothes would have ended up on top of the glass shards and on top of the rock, not the other way around.


About the glass on the clothes:

Quote:
By the end of the trial, Mignini was insisting that the last best piece of proof of the students’ guilt was the fake break-in and robbery. He and the police said that the defendants had made one little mistake in their carefully staged scene: they had tossed around Filomena’s clothing first, and then thrown a rock at the window from inside, spraying glass on top of the clothes when it should have been under them. Police had described this in trial testimony but never shown it. It was determined that the Kerchers’ civil lawyer, Francesco Maresca, was the only lawyer in the room who knew how to find the picture in his copy of the massive, unorganized digital case archive. His laptop was beamed onto the wall screen, and his motocross screensaver came up, a bike at right angles to a spray of dirt. The dapper Florentine with the gold-embedded shark’s tooth dangling beneath his bespoke shirt collar smirked and then clicked the mouse again to bring up a picture of Filomena’s bed as it had looked on the morning of November 2, 2007. The defense lawyers insisted that what was supposed to be glass on top of a blue dress on the bed was a white dot pattern in the fabric. No one denied that or even bothered to explain what could have happened to the damning glass on top of the clothes in Filomena’s room. In the last minutes of the trial, it was clear that no photographic proof of “glass on top of clothes” even existed and that it didn’t matter anyway.

Burleigh, Nina (2011-08-02). The Fatal Gift of Beauty: The Trials of Amanda Knox (p. 277). Random House, Inc.. Kindle Edition.



Nina Burleigh wasn't present at any trial hearing. I don't know if she even speaks Italian. Other bilingual journalists who covered the trial have reported that the police took photos of Filomena's room only after she had been allowed to look through her things to say if anything was taken.

When the postal police arrived, they didn't know this would become a murder investigation. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito both showed them Filomena's room with the broken window first and kept quiet about Meredith's locked door. When Filomena arrived she was asked to check if anything was missing. If the officers would have been aware that the main problem was Meredith, who was "missing", and the locked door, they might not have allowed anybody to look through their things as not to disturb the crime scene. Filomena and the police officers have testified in court that the glass was on top of the clothes.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 12:32 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm
Posts: 4533
Images: 0
Michael wrote:
Nell wrote:
Michael wrote:
Nell wrote:
A Knox groupie complained to the website where I hosted the crime scene photo and this was subsequently removed as requested. Knox groupies don't have any trouble when Bruce Fisher displays crime scene photos, so what was the issue here?

Now I hosted it elsewhere. Problem solved.


Why does it not surprise me that the FOAKers are trying to get evidence removed and hidden? They claim to be about the facts, when really they are about censoring them!


The photo with Meredith Kercher's bra imprint has never been published before to my knowledge. Bruce Fisher is the first to do that and claims it proves an "artifact caused by the seam of the tile", which it is clearly not. It is the imprint from the bra strap. Even a blind man can see that.

That's one way to shoot yourself in the foot.


And then some!

A bit like when Lovering published a still of Raffaele's cutlery draw.


Or when he published the details about Amanda's bank transactions he had received from Chris Mellas.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 12:34 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
So, Steve Moore is a crime scene investigator? Yes, or no?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 12:35 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15964
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Actually, Nell, I was wrong...he did offer an explanation for the impression of the bra strap on the floor:

TomWells wrote:
There is no impression on the floor. The blood from Meredith's skin made the marking on the floor. The blood reacted the same way on both tile seams because Meredith's skin did not make direct contact with the lower surface.


"Meredith's skin" made it apparently. Go figure. Earlier, it was made by the crack between the tiles. Go figure again.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 12:38 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15964
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Nell wrote:
When the postal police arrived, they didn't know this would become a murder investigation. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito both showed them Filomena's room with the broken window first and kept quiet about Meredith's locked door. When Filomena arrived she was asked to check if anything was missing. If the officers would have been aware that the main problem was Meredith, who was "missing", and the locked door, they might not have allowed anybody to look through their things as not to disturb the crime scene. Filomena and the police officers have testified in court that the glass was on top of the clothes.


And both Knox and Sollecito were shown the glass on top of the clothing that day by the Postal Policeman. Neither of them have ever denied this.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 12:43 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15964
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Okay, that's officially it for FOAKer Tuesday this week. I let it run on far longer then usual this time around. Thank you to all those who took part within the rules and the spirit in which it was intended. Regular members can of course continue the discussion.




Normal service will resume shortly.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 12:48 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm
Posts: 4533
Images: 0
TomWells wrote:
Nell wrote:
TomWells wrote:
--- snip ---

Injustice In Perugia continues on to say: "This photo shows what Micheli was talking about. The photo cropped from one of the photos showing Meredith's body. You can see the two parallel lines running on either side of the tile seam. There was a corresponding pattern on Meredith's back when her body was rolled over. It's obviously an artifact caused by the tile seam, not a mark left by her bra strap. Micheli concocted an unsupportable forensic claim that was never even hypothesized during the trial."

--- snap ---

I am surprised Bruce Fisher has decided to publish this photo. If anyone still had a doubt about the imprint of the bra strap he certainly managed to clarify that. The photo shows the imprint of the bra strap and not an artifact caused by the tile seam. Would you please ask Bruce Fisher to explain how the joint between the tiles could have caused an area on the floor that is void of blood? Shouldn't the blood concentrate in the joint instead of flowing away from it? The two parallel lines of accumulated blood mark both sides of the bra strap. Note that the lines caused by the bra strap aren't even parallel to the joint between the tiles and therefore unrelated.




TomWells wrote:
--- snip ---

"Below is a photo of the side panel of Meredith's wardrobe, adjacent to where her head was positioned when her body was found. Aspirated blood droplets are present on that side panel. That proves she was still breathing when she was moved into that position. Meredith was not moved after death. No staging occurred. The fact that she was still breathing when she was in the location that she died proves this. If anyone posts at .net on Tuesday, you might want to give this information to Michael. We have all of the crime scene photographs. We have all of the video. We know the truth about this case. If .net wants the truth, they need to open their eyes. If they would dedicate a few moments out of their lives to focus on the real facts, then maybe, just maybe, they would stop spewing hatred at innocent people. I know, its just wishful thinking."

--- snap ---

Even if she was still alive in her final position, I fail to see how this explains that her bra was taken off after the blood had dried. Please explain.


TomWells wrote:
--- snip ---

Keep in mind that Micheli is a judge, not a crime scene expert. His conclusions were not used in the Knox/Sollecito trial. I believe his conclusions were wrong. There was no staging.

--- snap ---

Judge Paolo Micheli is more qualified to make assertions about the presented evidence in court than Steve Moore or Bruce Fisher who both don't speak Italian, haven't seen the evidence presented in court and don't have a clue about crime scenes to begin with. According to Bruce Fisher's own admission he is fed with cropped crime scene photos from Jim Lovering, a friend of Chris Mellas.

Does anyone still remember the photos from the bathroom that Bruce Fisher published on his website, saying there was no blood, to excuse Amanda Knox's decision to take a shower in that bathroom? The photo was cropped to hide the bathmat with the huge blood stains on it.



But the truth is:



Judge Paolo Micheli ruled that Rudy Guede was a liar, that he had sexually assaulted Meredith Kercher and that he helped killing her. He also ruled that Rudy Guede wasn't the one who stabbed her. Rudy Guede lost his appeal and the appeal to the Supreme Court, both courts sided with Micheli's decision that Rudy Guede didn't act alone.


Nell, you and I are not experts but your claim does not make sense to me when I look at the photo. Are you honestly claiming that the bra strap was laying right on the tile seam? Look at the blood again. According to your observation that would mean that her bra strap must have ran up the other seam in the tile as well. The blood formed the same marking on that seam as well.

Bruce Fischer may not be a likable guy but he has posted every photo possible, with the exception of photos showing Meredith. He has many photos showing the bathroom with the bathmat. I'm not sure what you are suggesting Nell.

Are you aware of the fact that Micheli's theory was not mentioned in the Knox trial?


What I suggest is that Bruce Fisher is by no means an impartial source, because by his own admission he is fed with privileged information from the case file from Jim Lovering, who is a close friend of Chris Mellas. Of course they won't share any photos that won't help their case. With the photo of the imprint, he made a glaring mistake. They usually publish photos after carefully cropping them to suit their argument. The bathroom photo shot published at IIP is an example of his attempt to manipulate the public.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 12:54 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
Funny how the FOA want specific details about our contributors, yet aren't forthcoming about the 'experts' on THEIR team.

As far as I'm concerned, if they want to retain their anonymity, that should be sacrosanct, and not available to every Doug, Bruce and Michelle.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 12:59 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15964
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Ergon wrote:
Breaking news: 5.8 earthquake just northwest of Bologna. Damage and 15 people dead.


Yes, something important. My thoughts and prayers go out to the Italians today. They have suffered terribly with earthquakes and I hope there's no rise in the death toll. I'm also sorry for all the terrible damage to the beautiful architecture and heritage.


ETA: The BBC is reporting the death toll has now risen to 16. 14,000 evacuated.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 1:12 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15964
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Ergon wrote:
Funny how the FOA want specific details about our contributors, yet aren't forthcoming about the 'experts' on THEIR team.

As far as I'm concerned, if they want to retain their anonymity, that should be sacrosanct, and not available to every Doug, Bruce and Michelle.


Yep. And asking for the name of someone other then Greggy, when there's one right there on our staff.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 1:27 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
Maybe they can release some more photos by next week. Do they have a foot they HAVEN'T shot?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 2:21 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm
Posts: 4533
Images: 0
TomWells wrote:
--- snip ---

Injustice In Perugia continues on to say: "This photo shows what Micheli was talking about. The photo cropped from one of the photos showing Meredith's body. You can see the two parallel lines running on either side of the tile seam. There was a corresponding pattern on Meredith's back when her body was rolled over. It's obviously an artifact caused by the tile seam, not a mark left by her bra strap. Micheli concocted an unsupportable forensic claim that was never even hypothesized during the trial."

--- snap ---

Apparently the new storyline is that Bruce Fisher has yet another photo to prove these marks are caused by the tile seam, but he won't release it.


TomWells wrote:
--- snip ---

Nell, you and I are not experts but your claim does not make sense to me when I look at the photo.

--- snap ---

Is Bruce Fisher an expert? Why does he have more credibility to you than forensic experts and a criminal judge?


TomWells wrote:
--- snip ---

Are you honestly claiming that the bra strap was laying right on the tile seam? Look at the blood again. According to your observation that would mean that her bra strap must have ran up the other seam in the tile as well. The blood formed the same marking on that seam as well.

--- snap ---

My observation is that the imprint is as long as the bra strap. You and Bruce Fisher say the imprint is caused by the tile seam or Meredith's body. It could have been everything except the bra strap according to you. But why would the imprint be so short, the length of the bra strap? Why doesn't it follow the whole tile seam where Meredith's body lay? Is there an explanation for this other than it was made by the bra strap of the same length?


TomWells wrote:
--- snip ---

Bruce Fischer may not be a likable guy but he has posted every photo possible, with the exception of photos showing Meredith.

--- snap ---

How can you ascertain that he has posted every photo possible? Do you have access to the case file? Have you seen all the photos included to make a comparison? Bruce Fisher himself says the photo has been provided by Jim Lovering, so Jim is the one who has somehow privileged access to the case file, probably through his buddy Chris Mellas.

For someone who has never written on any forum as you claim, you have grown fond of Bruce Fisher very quickly, don't you think?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 3:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 5:20 pm
Posts: 21
Okay, I stepped out for a bit and now I see that much of what I said has not been understood. Maybe I didn't explain it clear enough. Please forgive me this once for breaking the Tuesday rule. If you do decide to ban me then please keep this post online so people can see the truth about the photograph I posted.

There seems to be a lot of confusion here. Nell and Michael have not understood what I said. Meredith was found on her back with the majority of blood on her left side. Her right shoulder was not in a puddle of blood when she was in her final position. In the photo below you will see the blood start to become more evident as you pan from left to right, which would be going from Meredith's right shoulder to her left.

I added color and arrows to the photo to explain it more clearly.

If you look at the photo in the link below, Meredith’s skin made contact with the tile in the areas marked in yellow. The seams in the tile are lower than the surface that her body made contact with. The blood made a dark outline around Meredith’s body (purple arrows) and also made an outline on both tile seams (green arrows).

You are looking at the horizontal seam when you claim that a bra strap made that marking. That is incorrect. If you look at the vertical seam in the tile, you will see the same pattern. Look at the vertical seam. There is no blood in that seam and the blood stops at the edge of the tile right at the point where the tile surface starts to get lower.

The tile gets thinner at the edges. The blood stops where Meredith’s skin stops making contact with the tile. This is because the tile surface gets lower at the seam.

There is no bra strap marking on the tile because the bra was already gone at that point.

There is confusion about what I wrote about the marking on Meredith’s body as well. I have repeated that the tile made a marking on Meredith’s body that Micheli mistakenly took to be a marking from Meredith’s bra. The marking on her body came from the tile seam.

http://i.imgur.com/0C7Ih.jpg

picture of a pumpkin
You have been Warned by a Moderator
Reason: Formal warning for not respecting the Tuesday rule. Nell


Last edited by Michael on Wed May 30, 2012 10:01 am, edited 2 times in total.
Issued warning. Nell


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 4:58 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm
Posts: 4533
Images: 0
TomWells wrote:
--- snip ---

Okay, I stepped out for a bit and now I see that much of what I said has not been understood. Maybe I didn't explain it clear enough. Please forgive me this once for breaking the Tuesday rule. If you do decide to ban me then please keep this post online so people can see the truth about the photograph I posted.

--- snap ---

I understand that after revealing this photo which undermines everything that has been claimed from camp Knox about the staging of the crime scene that it is an urgent matter that you feel must be disputed immediately and cannot wait until next Tuesday. Still, I have to advise you that next time you feel the need to post a response, save it in a text file and publish your comment on a Tuesday. Respecting the Tuesday rule in this forum is a matter of courtesy.


TomWells wrote:
--- snip ---

Nell and Michael have not understood what I said.

--- snap ---

We understood fine. You said the joint caused the imprint and there is still no reason to believe that.


TomWells wrote:
--- snip ---

The seams in the tile are lower than the surface that her body made contact with. The blood made a dark outline around Meredith’s body (purple arrows) and also made an outline on both tile seams (green arrows).

--- snap ---

In the photo you so kindly provided it shows that there are only two dark outlines - apparently made by the bra strap. Look at the position, it's where Meredith's bra strap would have been. How long is it? As long as the bra strap. How wide is it? As wide as the bra strap. There are only two dark outlines, so your argument they are related to the horizontal and vertical seams is idiotic.


TomWells wrote:
--- snip ---

You are looking at the horizontal seam when you claim that a bra strap made that marking. That is incorrect. If you look at the vertical seam in the tile, you will see the same pattern.

--- snap ---

That is not correct. Just look at the photo you provided. Inside the blood puddle, there are only two dark outlines. The two dark outlines have nothing to do with the seams and that is well illustrated by the photo Bruce Fisher provided. If it had anything to do with the seam, the dark outline would be as long as the seam. It is not.


TomWells wrote:
--- snip ---

Look at the vertical seam. There is no blood in that seam and the blood stops at the edge of the tile right at the point where the tile surface starts to get lower.

--- snap ---

The two straight outlines are the ones that mark the bra strap. It has nothing to do with the tiles or the seams.


TomWells wrote:
--- snip ---

There is no bra strap marking on the tile because the bra was already gone at that point.

---snap ---

That is definitely untrue and we know that because of the blood drops that have been found on the bra cups.


TomWells wrote:
--- snip ---

There is confusion about what I wrote about the marking on Meredith’s body as well. I have repeated that the tile made a marking on Meredith’s body that Micheli mistakenly took to be a marking from Meredith’s bra. The marking on her body came from the tile seam.

--- snap ---

How can the seams, that are lower than the tiles, make a mark on Meredith's body?

You said yourself you are not an expert and we know Jim and Bruce aren't experts either (one is a family friend and the other one used it to make a quick buck out of it), so doesn't that make your comment (and those of Jim and Bruce) just empty assumptions based on nothing but thin air?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 10:00 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
I have to admit I did enjoy playing sascha ben cohen for a day, complete with funny hat. Didn't someone call us Kim and little Kim once?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 10:42 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm
Posts: 4533
Images: 0
Michael wrote:
TomWells wrote:
Nell, you and I are not experts but your claim does not make sense to me when I look at the photo. Are you honestly claiming that the bra strap was laying right on the tile seam? Look at the blood again. According to your observation that would mean that her bra strap must have ran up the other seam in the tile as well. The blood formed the same marking on that seam as well.


I'm still awaiting an explanation of the physics that enables a tiny tile seam to manufacture the imprint of a wide bra strap. How does that work exactly?


It's pretty clear that this kind of physics doesn't work for any other seam in that photo. hb-))

Defending Amanda Knox is more about making believe than actual fact.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 11:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:01 am
Posts: 41
Location: Germany
TomWells wrote:
Okay, I stepped out for a bit and now I see that much of what I said has not been understood. Maybe I didn't explain it clear enough. Please forgive me this once for breaking the Tuesday rule. If you do decide to ban me then please keep this post online so people can see the truth about the photograph I posted.

There seems to be a lot of confusion here. Nell and Michael have not understood what I said. Meredith was found on her back with the majority of blood on her left side. Her right shoulder was not in a puddle of blood when she was in her final position. In the photo below you will see the blood start to become more evident as you pan from left to right, which would be going from Meredith's right shoulder to her left.

I added color and arrows to the photo to explain it more clearly.

If you look at the photo in the link below, Meredith’s skin made contact with the tile in the areas marked in yellow. The seams in the tile are lower than the surface that her body made contact with. The blood made a dark outline around Meredith’s body (purple arrows) and also made an outline on both tile seams (green arrows).

You are looking at the horizontal seam when you claim that a bra strap made that marking. That is incorrect. If you look at the vertical seam in the tile, you will see the same pattern. Look at the vertical seam. There is no blood in that seam and the blood stops at the edge of the tile right at the point where the tile surface starts to get lower.

The tile gets thinner at the edges. The blood stops where Meredith’s skin stops making contact with the tile. This is because the tile surface gets lower at the seam.

There is no bra strap marking on the tile because the bra was already gone at that point.

There is confusion about what I wrote about the marking on Meredith’s body as well. I have repeated that the tile made a marking on Meredith’s body that Micheli mistakenly took to be a marking from Meredith’s bra. The marking on her body came from the tile seam.

http://i.imgur.com/0C7Ih.jpg

picture of a pumpkin
You have been Warned by a Moderator
Reason: Formal warning for not respecting the Tuesday rule. Nell


The pattern of the blood near the tile seams are unimportant, because it is proven at an other place of the photograph, that the bra strap made an imprint on the tile:
There are two parallel blood lines on the right upper tile of the picture, which both begin to curve on the left upper tile (Evidently the outer part of the strap becomes detached in this process with only the inner part of the strap leaving a curved imprint). The only blood soaked object with this characteistic at the crime scene, which evidently lay pressured on the tiles is the bra strap.
And by the way, pretty lame attempt to make your purple arrows start at the outer blood line on the right upper tile and then switching the arrow to the inner blood line on the left upper tile to try to prove that MK`s body had the form of a snake rather than that of a human being.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 11:57 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm
Posts: 4533
Images: 0
00Sneider wrote:
--- snip ---

And by the way, pretty lame attempt to make your purple arrows start at the outer blood line on the right upper tile and then switching the arrow to the inner blood line on the left upper tile to try to prove that MK`s body had the form of a snake rather than that of a human being.

--- snap ---

I couldn't agree more. The yellow colour for blood was a bit irritating too. So many arrows for two parallel lines ... the only two parallel lines in the photo.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: ADMINISTRATOR NOTE!
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 4:17 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15964
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Administrator Note:

A note on formal warnings, bans and PMF policy regarding suspensions.

Formal Warnings: As members are aware, PMF operates a three strike formal warning policy. On the third formal warning, the individual is banned.

An FYI. For some members sitting on two formal warnings, this fact may encourage them to 'troll out' and incur a ban, so as 'to end the pain quickly and bring on the ban sooner rather then later'. Others, may decide simply to no longer participate, saving the account for an emergency post in posterity or/and to retain their PM's and access to board features.

This is not really what PMF is trying to achieve with the formal warning process. Therefore, I will just point out to members that for those on one or two formal warnings, banning is not inevitable. Formal Warnings EXPIRE. A Formal Warning, under current board settings, expires after 90 days and the slate is effectively wiped clean. All a member has to do is behave themselves and adhere to the forum rules.

Suspensions: A change in PMF policy

Back when we were the TCWMB, several members were suspended. The suspension was announced as "until further notice". In reality, that meant indefinitely which in turn meant permanently and carried over to when we became PMF. In effect, it was a suspension that was in reality ban. I was against this, but my views were disregarded. I have always intended PMF to be an open, transparent and fair community and the issuing of suspensions that are really bans issued from the back room go against this. I am therefore, rescinding such 'policies' as of this moment. Bans will be bans, and will be formally announced and reasons given for them, the same for Formal Warnings and Suspensions and in the case of the latter, an exact duration time for that suspension publicly given. Everyone will know where they stand and why. This in fact, is how PMF has operated in practice since the split, so this is simply a formalisation of a policy we have already been operating under.

The number of individuals under permanent suspension, is two. These members are: Charlie Wilkes (Jim Lovering) and Ociana8. As of this moment, those suspensions are lifted and should they wish, those members are free to log onto the board and post. As things stand, they also have no Formal Warnings. Should they return however, they are of course still subject to PMF rules.

Thank You

Michael

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 7:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm
Posts: 943
Katie Couric Wants To Interview Amanda Knox, Kate Middleton On Daytime Show

Posted: 05/30/2012 8:16 am Updated: 05/30/2012 8:16 am

Katie Couric revealed some of the guests at the top of her wish list when her new daytime show airs in September.

Couric was speaking to reporters in Toronto about "Katie" on Tuesday, according to the Hollywood Reporter. She said that she would love to interview Amanda Knox, the American college student who was acquitted of murder charges after four years in prison.

"That would be a huge get, but that’s very competitive," Couric said about Knox. She also said that Kate Middleton "would be pretty nice to have on our show." She has already extended an open invitation to Sarah Palin.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/3 ... ?ref=media


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 10:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm
Posts: 1855
I see RoseMontague is havin' a blather on Gather about Guede, and the poor, misinformed Kerchers.
Not worth the space or time, but it's out there.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:33 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
Hi Napia5 and zorba, sorry I haven't even replied to your previous posts. They were intriguing and I will give it a shot once I get a few things out of the way. A lot of activity under the radar right now.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm
Posts: 1855
Morning, Ergon. I'm not going anywhere. Using this time to follow back on some of the Tuesday comments. Interesting to say the least.
And, Ava, thanks for the link to Katie Couric's desire for an interview. I'm personally intrigued.
It has been so quiet from the 'camp' for so long now. I mean chorus after chorus of crickets.
I hope, whoever has the first interview, the FIRST comment from Knox, asks her,
"Why now?" Nothing at all, all these months. Not a word, a peep an interview, an off-the-cuff, nada. You wanted privacy. Why talk now?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 2:47 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
Napia5 wrote:
I see RoseMontague is havin' a blather on Gather about Guede, and the poor, misinformed Kerchers.
Not worth the space or time, but it's out there.


That's funny, Napia5, since nobody, but nobody, are more 'misinformed' about the case than the FOA. Did they present the Micheli report? No. Did they translate Massei? No. Did they release the whole case file to their acolytes, who we are told, are chock a block with 'experts', 'lawyers' and 'genetic specialists' and translators, not to forget 'stomach content experts'? How, then, can they claim to know the case when they don't have all the evidence? Then they want us to bother the Kerchers for the case files? Whatever we have, we put out there. Their evidence, and we've read everything they've published, simply does not support the defense, so now they're out spamming the web with novel theories and leaking photos with the whole ball of wax, har har.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 4:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm
Posts: 1855
I have to admit, my head sometimes aches trying to follow their line of boobery.
For instance, The police suggested Lumumba to Knox.
They phone-tapped half of Italy, according to what I read. Even the male flatmates downstairs. None exist on Lumumba.
Kinda indicates to me he wasn't on the radar until they found the message on Knox's phone.
Since I believe this to be true, this supports the spontaniety of the conversation, which goes, I think to not being set up to record what was said.
Logic.
And then we have the 'corrupt police, the scientific collection of evidence', all corrupt, scewed to point to Knox. Hello?
There are FILMS of the collection of evidence. We all view them. Are you trying to tell me that Stafanoni botched the case, hid or contaminated evidence, didn't follow her own procedures and then FILMED it all? She didn't quietly try to lose those films?
I need an aspirin.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 5:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 6:13 am
Posts: 348
Napia5 wrote:
I see RoseMontague is havin' a blather on Gather about Guede, and the poor, misinformed Kerchers.
Not worth the space or time, but it's out there.


What tf does RoseMontague expect the Kerchers to do about Rudy's sentence?

Here is what John Kercher says of it in his book: "Our lawyer, Francesco Maresca, made a statement in which he said that he felt that twenty-four years would have been just, and in keeping with the sentences already given to Knox and Sollecito. For my own part, I did not fully understand the reasoning behind the way in which his sentence had been cut short, and I was not sure what I thought of Guede being imprisoned for sixteen years, while Meredith had had so many years taken from her."
Kercher, John (2012-04-26). Meredith: Our daughter's murder and the heartbreaking quest for the truth (Kindle Locations 3355-3358). Hachette Littlehampton. Kindle Edition.

That is heartbreaking, but less so imo than the disparity in justice caused by the transitory appeal verdicts for the perps who backed off their admissions when their daddies started throwing money out to obfuscate their role.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 5:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 6:13 am
Posts: 348
Presumed Guilty: The go to book title for the so called wrongly accused.

Casey Anthony:


Raffaele Sollecito ie Cellophane Man:


447 "Presumed Guilty" titles on Amazon.com.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 7:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:36 pm
Posts: 149
Q: Why the road to the heavens is dark and narrow while the road to the hell is broad and bright?

A: If you are going to hell, you may as well enjoy the journey.


I am sure Raffaele enjoyed the trip. But I am not quite sure whether he is back to civilization yet.

***

TomWells: if you cannot see the imprint left on the floor in blood, there is something seriously wrong with your vision. With some strain and imagination, I can even see the mark left by the other strap.

Well, you cannot see air, but it exists!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 1:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 5:20 pm
Posts: 21
Hi Guys! Looks like I'm done here. I am amazed at the fact that you have nothing to say unless it's Tuesday. Every single post you have made this week has been an attack on someone else. Nothing positive at all to say. 9 posts all week! That's it! Wow! This group does not display the behavior of a group I want to associate with. I see no reason to wait until Tuesday to say goodbye!

A couple of points as I depart:

Here's the rock that you people think is too large to throw. Look at the rock! Anyone that has adult sized hands could throw this rock 25 feet!

http://i.imgur.com/D2XSv.jpg

The photo below shows another tile seam where the blood reacted the same way as the tile seam that you people are trying to say was made by the bra strap. I guess that bra made a lot of imprints in that room!

http://i.imgur.com/AlIhC.jpg


And one last thing. Someone made a video for PMF. It's hilarious!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS6TwiP0Vqk

Bye!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 4:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm
Posts: 1855
Well, TomW, Goodbye and good luck to ya. It's a big world out there. I hope you find the kind of people with whom you'd like to associate.
My suggestion: Start looking under rocks.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 12:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:36 pm
Posts: 149
TomWells,

I do not think you know much about throwing rocks. The rock in the picture is not throwable.

I am not going to discuss physics with you, but every child, whoever has thrown a rock sometime in his younger days, knows this. The rock in the photo is around 5-10 kg in mass and is oddly shaped for throwing. It cannot be aimed accurately as it is likely to spin in some unpredictable way.

IF I AM GOING TO DO THAT (I am too old right now but anyway), I would pick a nice rounded rock about 1/2 Kg or less. I BET you cannot throw a 10 Kg rock 25 ft (8-9 meters) high. The basic idea is to get a good momentum and a decent aim. Just like a bullet!

I just thought that there may be something wrong with your vision, but I was wrong. Something is wrong in the brain.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 4:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:27 pm
Posts: 343
Police can recognize an obvious staging , the mistakes are easy to spot as novices place things that they imagine would be present. The large rock was chosen to represent the large hole needed in the window. Picking a realistic rock to actually achieve the feat was an oversight on their part, typical of mistakes made in staging.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 7:08 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
TomWells wrote:
Hi Guys! Looks like I'm done here. I am amazed at the fact that you have nothing to say unless it's Tuesday. Every single post you have made this week has been an attack on someone else. Nothing positive at all to say. 9 posts all week! That's it! Wow! This group does not display the behavior of a group I want to associate with. I see no reason to wait until Tuesday to say goodbye!

A couple of points as I depart:

Here's the rock that you people think is too large to throw. Look at the rock! Anyone that has adult sized hands could throw this rock 25 feet!

http://i.imgur.com/D2XSv.jpg

The photo below shows another tile seam where the blood reacted the same way as the tile seam that you people are trying to say was made by the bra strap. I guess that bra made a lot of imprints in that room!

http://i.imgur.com/AlIhC.jpg


And one last thing. Someone made a video for PMF. It's hilarious!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS6TwiP0Vqk

Bye!


Let me help you on the way out, and, so you don't sneak back in, you have been banned till Dec. 31, 2013 for the following reason: linking to a youtube video that insults a member of PMF, and PMF itself.

Calling PMF 'nazis' might well be the style of rhetoric you feel will convince other, more credulous people, but not what I will allow here.

I called it right from your very first post, that you were a dishonest debater, and your last post proved my point: every word you have uttered was a lie, including, as Dorothy Parker so wittily said, 'and', and 'the'.

You showed a picture of the rock, claiming a grown man could easily have thrown it from a distance of 25 feet away. Except you omitted to say it was inside a large paper shopping bag, which would have altered the aerodynamics so significantly no sane person could believe it had been thrown through the window from that distance.

Whoever is left from your PR debacle is as always, welcome to return here on Tuesday, but only Tuesday, and instead of waiting for whatever new, or pet theory, rabbit you want to pull out of your hat, be prepared to argue about the staging of this crime scene. Nothing convinces me more, not even the mixed blood, the Double DNA knife, the bra clasp,and obvious lies, (though you can bet it would have been enough to convince Judge Michael Heavey in King County Superior Court if the accused had been anyone else than a family acquaintance's daughter)

The case hinges on many facts, all equally damning, but the one that sticks out the most, that flies in the face of all that is logical and reasonable, is the obvious staging of the break in into Filomena Romanelli's room.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:03 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm
Posts: 4533
Images: 0
TomWells wrote:
--- snip ---

The photo below shows another tile seam where the blood reacted the same way as the tile seam that you people are trying to say was made by the bra strap. I guess that bra made a lot of imprints in that room!

http://i.imgur.com/AlIhC.jpg

--- snap ---


This photo doesn't display two parallel and straight outlines like the other photo.

It is easy to tell the difference.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 8:32 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm
Posts: 4533
Images: 0
malvern wrote:
Police can recognize an obvious staging , the mistakes are easy to spot as novices place things that they imagine would be present. The large rock was chosen to represent the large hole needed in the window. Picking a realistic rock to actually achieve the feat was an oversight on their part, typical of mistakes made in staging.


So true.

Why would a burglar need a rock to break a window? It would make a lot of noise and attract attention. If we assume that to be true, Rudy Guede would have thrown the rock and then scaled the wall, exposing himself to curious neighbours who might have heard the breaking of the glass. Seems a bit far fetched.

The rock used to stage the break in lands inside a paper bag which is tipped over and falls on top of clothes that are already on the floor - before Rudy even had a chance to enter the room. The broken glass was observed to be on top of the clothes and no glass was found on the outside of the cottage under the window. These findings suggest that the window was broken from the inside, with the shutters closed.

It is unclear why Rudy Guede wouldn't steal valuables at plain sight and instead chose to steal Filomena's make up.

It remains a mystery when Rudy Guede would have had time to use the toilet. He couldn't have used it after the murder, so that leaves us with a scenario of Rudy Guede breaking into a house, searching one room, grabbing make up and using the toilet.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 1:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm
Posts: 1855
I'm stumped, I admit it, Nell. I hope someone from the FOA side stops by and goes through this break-in with me. I hope, also, that it is acceptable for me to ask this.
I look at the window. There are outside shutters, correct? Then there is a set of windows that open in the middle, correct?
Then there is a set of inside shutters, correct?
Ok, so now I am a burglar. I stand outside and see the shutters, which, according to Filomena are closed.
Do I climb up there and open them? How do I know at this point that I even need a rock? The second set which are the windows with the glass in them, do I try them and push to see if they open? Ok, they don't open so now I need a rock. I am not going to break the window to climb through the hole I make in the glass. I need to break the glass so I can UNLOCK the window so I can push it in.
At this point, how do I know that the INSIDE shutters are not locked?
Seriously, if I try to picture this from a burglar's point of view, knowing what I would know each step of the way, why would I try this window? Am I missing something?


Last edited by Napia5 on Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 3:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm
Posts: 954
Location: N.C., USA
Highscores: 13
malvern wrote:
Police can recognize an obvious staging , the mistakes are easy to spot as novices place things that they imagine would be present. The large rock was chosen to represent the large hole needed in the window. Picking a realistic rock to actually achieve the feat was an oversight on their part, typical of mistakes made in staging.


In fact the first policeman there testified that he told AK and RS at the scene that 'it looked like a staging' to him.
sc-)) nw) ih)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 3:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm
Posts: 954
Location: N.C., USA
Highscores: 13
Napia5 wrote:
I'm stumped, I admit it, Nell. I hope someone from the FOA side stops by and goes through this break-in with me. I hope, also, that it is acceptable for me to ask this.
I look at the window. There are outside shutters, correct? Then there is a set of windows that open in the middle, correct?
Then there is a set of inside shutters, correct?
Ok, so now I am a burglar. I stand outside and see the shutters, which, according to Filomena are closed.
Do I climb up there and open them? How do I know at this point that I even need a rock? The second set which are the windows with the glass in them, do I try them and push to see if they open? Ok, they don't open so now I need a rock. I am not going to break the window to climb through the hole I make in the glass. I need to break the glass so I can UNLOCK the window so I can push it it.
At this point, how do I know that the INSIDE shutters are not locked?
Seriously, if I try to picture this from a burglar's point of view, knowing what I would know each step of the way, why would I try this window? Am I missing something?


No... not a thing. It is ridiculous. br-))


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 3:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:01 am
Posts: 41
Location: Germany
Nell wrote:
malvern wrote:
Police can recognize an obvious staging , the mistakes are easy to spot as novices place things that they imagine would be present. The large rock was chosen to represent the large hole needed in the window. Picking a realistic rock to actually achieve the feat was an oversight on their part, typical of mistakes made in staging.


So true.

Why would a burglar need a rock to break a window? It would make a lot of noise and attract attention. If we assume that to be true, Rudy Guede would have thrown the rock and then scaled the wall, exposing himself to curious neighbours who might have heard the breaking of the glass. Seems a bit far fetched.

The rock used to stage the break in lands inside a paper bag which is tipped over and falls on top of clothes that are already on the floor - before Rudy even had a chance to enter the room. The broken glass was observed to be on top of the clothes and no glass was found on the outside of the cottage under the window. These findings suggest that the window was broken from the inside, with the shutters closed.

It is unclear why Rudy Guede wouldn't steal valuables at plain sight and instead chose to steal Filomena's make up.

It remains a mystery when Rudy Guede would have had time to use the toilet. He couldn't have used it after the murder, so that leaves us with a scenario of Rudy Guede breaking into a house, searching one room, grabbing make up and using the toilet.


Yep, and don`t forget, that:
-RG`s noisy alleged break-in would have occured between 8-9pm (in the FoA-world) , a time at which practically no adult is sleeping
- RG would have had to reckon with attentive people (through the breaking of the glass), which would be excited to witness his spider man climb.
-this all would have taken place at a house in which acquaintances of RG lived.

Just ridiculous..


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 8:49 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
Napia5, they already argue, in spite of Romanelli's testimony, that she did not pull the shutters into place. They parse their little translations of 'window' and 'shutter' and create inconstencies between her statement and testimony and say 'Massei got it wrong' by stating the shutters were closed and therefore it must have been a staging by Amanda Knox.

I invite the FOA to post a link to their video of the Pasquali re-enactment of the defense theory of how Rudy Guede supposedly threw that rock. If they want to really 'debate', that is.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm
Posts: 1855
Ergon, my head is still spinning.
Even if I allow for the outside shutters to be ajar, I have to be staring at a closed set of windows AND a closed set of inside shutters, don't I?
Since the FOA make a point of the mark on the outside of the inside shutters (which would indicate that the inside shutters were closed using their theory), how would I know when I threw the rock, breaking the window, that the inside shutters were not locked?
Am I supposed to believe that:
1. Filomena lied about the shutters
2. Guede broke a window which had a closed set of shutters behind it, figuring that he would climb up there, reach his hand in between the broken glass and the closed shutters and unlock the window, and the figure he would somehow get through the last set of shutters?
Remember, he CANNOT know at this point if those shutters are locked. But I must assume they are closed, because the FOA say the rock hit them.
By the way, do we know where the latch is located on this set of windows?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 4:57 am
Posts: 36
I see the newest member is - BruceFischer 05 Jun

Taking a break from playing trolls? Maybe he could have his friend 'Retired Pilot' come and play his wingman. Go back and forth between two computers. sun-)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 2:49 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
Well, I'm going to welcome Bruce Fischer in advance of his first post on PMF, and will ask everyone to please treat him with every courtesy. I look forward to reading his views here, and keep in mind we're discussing opinions, and not, personalities.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 3:14 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
Hello everyone. Please let me know when Tuesday officially begins.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 1030
FOA (Friends Of Amanda) ...
(Hatfields from Hatfield-McCoy feud).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield%E2%80%93McCoy_feud

Image


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 1030
TomWells wrote:

thats only part of the rock - it broke up

even so - it goes flying through the window
bang crash - small mark on the inner shutter (no)
why didn't meredith kercher flee?
its totally improbable - and there are no traces of guede
on the outside wall - it's virtually impossible to climb

been over this again and again
nobody entered through that window


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:30 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:26 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
BruceFischer wrote:
Hello everyone. Please let me know when Tuesday officially begins.


Welcome, Bruce. Right now is fine. (12:21 am EST) Just so we don't get it wrong, you are the Bruce Fischer of IIP?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:28 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
ttrroonniicc wrote:
TomWells wrote:

thats only part of the rock - it broke up
the rest of it was on the other side of the room


Hard to tell, the shopping bag obscures it. I doubt the rock landed inside the bag though.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:29 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
ttrroonniicc wrote:
TomWells wrote:

thats only part of the rock - it broke up
the rest of it was on the other side of the room


Hi ttrroonniicc,

That is incorrect. The photo shows the entire rock minus the dust particles that can be seen on the floor that came off of the rock on impact.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:32 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
Ergon wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
Hello everyone. Please let me know when Tuesday officially begins.


Welcome, Bruce. Right now is fine. (12:21 am EST) Just so we don't get it wrong, you are the Bruce Fischer of IIP?


Hello Ergon,

Yes, I am Bruce Fischer from IIP. First off I would like to apologize for previously stating on my blog that you were posting anonymously using the name Ergon. I have corrected the blog. I tried to contact you on your blog to discuss the matter but you declined the conversation.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 1030
BruceFischer wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
TomWells wrote:

thats only part of the rock - it broke up
the rest of it was on the other side of the room


Hi ttrroonniicc,

That is incorrect. The photo shows the entire rock minus the dust particles that can be seen on the floor that came off of the rock on impact.

no way i'm arguing with you "bruce" - you're all nuts
only came in to deliver the appropriate photo
good day
yer crappy news site isn't even marginal "bruce"
theres a separate photo of the other portion of rock closer to the door "bruce"


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:33 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
Ergon wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
TomWells wrote:

thats only part of the rock - it broke up
the rest of it was on the other side of the room


Hard to tell, the shopping bag obscures it. I doubt the rock landed inside the bag though.


How do you think the rock made its way into the bag?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:34 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
ttrroonniicc wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
TomWells wrote:

thats only part of the rock - it broke up
the rest of it was on the other side of the room


Hi ttrroonniicc,

That is incorrect. The photo shows the entire rock minus the dust particles that can be seen on the floor that came off of the rock on impact.

no way i'm arguing with you "bruce" - you're all nuts
only came in to deliver the appropriate photo
good day
yer crappy news site isn't even marginal "bruce"


I am not here to argue either. I wish you the best ttrroonniicc.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:34 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
Hi, ttrroonniicc, let's all see if we can be civil, please.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 1030
BruceFischer wrote:
Ergon wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
TomWells wrote:

thats only part of the rock - it broke up
the rest of it was on the other side of the room


Hard to tell, the shopping bag obscures it. I doubt the rock landed inside the bag though.


How do you think the rock made its way into the bag?

because it fell to the floor after being swung right handedly against the left window pane by sollecito
-- rebounded just that short distance - if it'd flown 15 feet off the grassy knoll it'd have gone right into the room
-- not have landed in that position (which is beneath the window). why didn't the chair fall over "bruce"
the chair hadn't even moved - if it'd have flown in - bounced off something within the room the chair would
have been displaced - the rock fell between the legs of the chair where it stands as it rebounded off the left
shutter
because it was thrown with low velocity from the inside "bruce"


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:38 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
The investigators placed the rock on the floor along with the pieces that broke off so they could be photographed. The rock looks large in the first photo. The investigator's hand in the second photo puts it in perspective.

http://i.imgur.com/zDwdf.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/D2XSv.jpg


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:40 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
BruceFischer wrote:

How do you think the rock made its way into the bag?


I believe the most likely scenario was it was carried in from outside in the shopping bag, then swung against the window from the inside. Though as max points out, whether it came from inside or outside, no one climbed that wall.

Do you have video of a defense team reenactment showing someone actually climbing in through the window?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:43 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
ttrroonniicc wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
Ergon wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
TomWells wrote:

thats only part of the rock - it broke up
the rest of it was on the other side of the room


Hard to tell, the shopping bag obscures it. I doubt the rock landed inside the bag though.


How do you think the rock made its way into the bag?

because it fell to the floor after being swung right handedly against the left window pane by sollecito
-- rebounded just that short distance - if it'd flown 15 feet off the grassy knoll it'd have gone right into the room
-- not have landed in that position (which is beneath the window). why didn't the chair fall over "bruce"
because it was thrown with low velocity from the inside "bruce"


The rock broke through the window and then made contact with the interior shutter. The shutter is old and heavy with hinges that have been painted over. The evidence suggests that the interior shutter was not latched. High resolution photos of the shutter show its condition. The rock hit that shutter, and deflected downward taking the paper bag with it to the floor.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:46 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
BruceFischer wrote:

Hello Ergon,

Yes, I am Bruce Fischer from IIP. First off I would like to apologize for previously stating on my blog that you were posting anonymously using the name Ergon. I have corrected the blog. I tried to contact you on your blog to discuss the matter but you declined the conversation.


Thanks, Bruce, but I wasn't offended by that, just correcting the record.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:47 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
Ergon wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:

How do you think the rock made its way into the bag?


I believe the most likely scenario was it was carried in from outside in the shopping bag, then swung against the window from the inside. Though as max points out, whether it came from inside or outside, no one climbed that wall.

Do you have video of a defense team reenactment showing someone actually climbing in through the window?


Are you aware of the fact that the bag you mention had clothes in it?

I do not have video of anyone climbing through the window. I believe you are approaching the investigation backwards. The evidence showed that a break-in occurred. Your goal at PMF should be to prove that it was staged (if you want to support your current position).

You are starting from the position that the break-in was staged and asking for proof that it wasn't.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:48 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
Was Max able to prove that no one climbed the wall?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:50 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
BruceFischer wrote:

The rock broke through the window and then made contact with the interior shutter. The shutter is old and heavy with hinges that have been painted over. The evidence suggests that the interior shutter was not latched. High resolution photos of the shutter show its condition. The rock hit that shutter, and deflected downward taking the paper bag with it to the floor.


So, you contend the outside shutter (the green one) was open, and the rock was thrown in the paper bag?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:53 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
With all due respect, Bruce, Massei asserts it was staged. So we don't have to prove it beyond that. max expressed an opinion, and we're asking you if anyone was able to replicate Rudy Guede's purported climb THROUGH the window.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:55 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
Ergon wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:

The rock broke through the window and then made contact with the interior shutter. The shutter is old and heavy with hinges that have been painted over. The evidence suggests that the interior shutter was not latched. High resolution photos of the shutter show its condition. The rock hit that shutter, and deflected downward taking the paper bag with it to the floor.


So, you contend the outside shutter (the green one) was open, and the rock was thrown in the paper bag?


I contend that the green shutter was not latched. Guede had several options available to him to open the unlatched exterior shutter even if it was pulled closed. Many contend that it was left open. This is a detail that we do not know for sure. What we do know is that the shutter did not latch.

The rock came through the window, hit the interior shutter which was also not latched, then deflected downward striking Filomena's bag of clothes on the floor knocking it over ripping the bag and coming to rest on the floor on the edge of the bag. The evidence clearly show that this was the case.

Please answer my previous question. You suggested that Amanda and Raffaele used that paper bag to retrieve the rock. Are you aware of the fact that the bag had clothes in it?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:56 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
Do you have pictures of the bag with clothes inside? I only recall the bag with rock sticking out, but willing to be corrected, thanks.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 1030
It's unlikely any "burglar" would choose to throw a rock from the parapet 15 feet away -
clamber down the embankment and up the wall (with incredible limpet like grip - skill and
agility)

there would have been some delay between the huge noise of that happening and
somebody getting through

again - no scuff marks on the wall - photographically we can see that
It was october - no mud or scuff marks on the wall
the glass in a line on the ledge - where it ended up against the CLOSED shutter
when the rock was used to break the window from the inside

massei has, and here we've confirmed this -
"bruce" here is introducing nothing new

.... the clean-up is confirmed bruce by the fact that there is 1 footprint bloodied on the
bath-mat - naked ... you say it's guede - so you must accede that guede cleaned

there are no other bloody footprints surrounding that in the bath-room - the bath-mat
was displaced during the clean-up knox didn't see that there was a footprint on it
until it was too late (while sollecito staged the body) .....

how did that footprint (of whoever) get onto the bathmat "bruce"
without there having been a cleanup of corresponding footprints on the bathroom floor


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:01 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
Ergon wrote:
With all due respect, Bruce, Massei asserts it was staged. So we don't have to prove it beyond that. max expressed an opinion, and we're asking you if anyone was able to replicate Rudy Guede's purported climb THROUGH the window.



Are you suggesting that your analysis begins at Massei's conclusions?

My analysis begins at the time of the murder.

The defense did not need to prove that Guede could climb through the window. Once again, you are approaching the investigation backwards. You are starting from the assumption that the scene was staged. You need to prove it was staged.

The lawyer that climbed up on the lower window did not climb to the top rung on that window. If he had, his armpits would have been over the windowsill. A man in Guede's condition would have no problem climbing through the window.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:01 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
You're still presenting a defense hypothesis and not evidence, Bruce. I said I was prepared to accept the rock thrown from the outside, and many here have already said it's possible. Some say it's impossible, I say it's unlikely, even if the bag wasn't used in the manner I guessed at.

Because I believe Romanelli's testimony she closed the outside shutters. Do you have evidence that suggests otherwise?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:04 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
Reports suggest the lawyer got stuck and he was called down by the defense team before he embarassed himself (and them) further. If someone actually has video of someone climbing through that window then even I would be impressed.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:04 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
Ergon wrote:
Do you have pictures of the bag with clothes inside? I only recall the bag with rock sticking out, but willing to be corrected, thanks.


Here is the bag with the clothes in it.

http://i.imgur.com/No05M.jpg

Keep in mind that I am posting high resolution photos. If you save these on your computer you can enlarge then and zoom in on any detail you like.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:06 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
BruceFischer wrote:
Ergon wrote:
With all due respect, Bruce, Massei asserts it was staged. So we don't have to prove it beyond that. max expressed an opinion, and we're asking you if anyone was able to replicate Rudy Guede's purported climb THROUGH the window.



Are you suggesting that your analysis begins at Massei's conclusions?

My analysis begins at the time of the murder.

The defense did not need to prove that Guede could climb through the window. Once again, you are approaching the investigation backwards. You are starting from the assumption that the scene was staged. You need to prove it was staged.

The lawyer that climbed up on the lower window did not climb to the top rung on that window. If he had, his armpits would have been over the windowsill. A man in Guede's condition would have no problem climbing through the window.


Massei is an experienced judge relying on professional police investigators. You are a private individual (as am I), expressing an opinion.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:08 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
Ergon wrote:
Reports suggest the lawyer got stuck and he was called down by the defense team before he embarassed himself (and them) further. If someone actually has video of someone climbing through that window then even I would be impressed.


Do you have those reports? The photos I have do not show someone that is embarrassed.

Even tho I don't mind discussing it, his line of discussion misses the point. It is not my job to prove that some one could climb through the window. A window is broken, glass is spread throughout the room, a rock is present, glass is embedded in the shutter. The evidence shows that a break-in occurred. If you want to suggest that it was staged, then you need to prove it.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:09 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
But if you want to start at the time of murder, why would Guede need to climb in through that window, when he could have done so through the patio? And where was Meredith in all of this as he smashes the window? And did he murder Meredith, then poop in the toilet, or poop in the toilet, then murder Meredith?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:11 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
Ergon wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
Ergon wrote:
With all due respect, Bruce, Massei asserts it was staged. So we don't have to prove it beyond that. max expressed an opinion, and we're asking you if anyone was able to replicate Rudy Guede's purported climb THROUGH the window.



Are you suggesting that your analysis begins at Massei's conclusions?

My analysis begins at the time of the murder.

The defense did not need to prove that Guede could climb through the window. Once again, you are approaching the investigation backwards. You are starting from the assumption that the scene was staged. You need to prove it was staged.

The lawyer that climbed up on the lower window did not climb to the top rung on that window. If he had, his armpits would have been over the windowsill. A man in Guede's condition would have no problem climbing through the window.


Massei is an experienced judge relying on professional police investigators. You are a private individual (as am I), expressing an opinion.


I believe you would have a better understanding of the case if you looked at the actual facts from the beginning. You are choosing to start at Massei and challenge people to prove him wrong. that is your choice of course but others can simply begin with Hellmann.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:15 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
BruceFischer wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Reports suggest the lawyer got stuck and he was called down by the defense team before he embarassed himself (and them) further. If someone actually has video of someone climbing through that window then even I would be impressed.


Do you have those reports? The photos I have do not show someone that is embarrassed.

Even tho I don't mind discussing it, his line of discussion misses the point. It is not my job to prove that some one could climb through the window. A window is broken, glass is spread throughout the room, a rock is present, glass is embedded in the shutter. The evidence shows that a break-in occurred. If you want to suggest that it was staged, then you need to prove it.


Not being able to reenact a crime the way the defense claims to have occurred is an embarrassment. So what are we supposed to do, take their word for it that guede could have done what they could not?

And I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Trained police investigators say it was staged. The onus was on the defense to provide an alternative scenario. In this, they failed.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm
Posts: 1855
BruceFischer, what specific evidence "suggests" that the interior shutters were not latched?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:17 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
Ergon wrote:
But if you want to start at the time of murder, why would Guede need to climb in through that window, when he could have done so through the patio? And where was Meredith in all of this as he smashes the window? And did he murder Meredith, then poop in the toilet, or poop in the toilet, then murder Meredith?


We can discuss all of these details if you like. We can each come up with our own theories but nothing along these lines will prove that Amanda and Raffaele are guilty.

I believe Guede pooped first. He was surprised by Meredith's arrival home.

Guede is the only one that can answer the question regarding his entry point. I will ask you a question on the same topic. You believe Amanda and Raffaele staged the scene. Why would Amanda choose Filomena's window? Why didn't Amanda simply stage the break-in at the patio?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:18 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
Napia5 wrote:
BruceFischer, what specific evidence "suggests" that the interior shutters were not latched?


When the rock hit the shutter it opened.

What proof shows that the shutter was latched?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:18 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
BruceFischer wrote:

I believe you would have a better understanding of the case if you looked at the actual facts from the beginning. You are choosing to start at Massei and challenge people to prove him wrong. that is your choice of course but others can simply begin with Hellmann.


What makes you say I haven't looked at the facts from the beginning? Just because I don't agree with you? I am looking at all the judges opinions, starting from the beginning. Matteini, Micheli, Massei. Yet you want me to ignore tehm and agree with Hellmann?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:20 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
Please, let's call the outside, a shutter, and the inside, a window.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:23 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
Why didn't Amanda stage a perfect break in? Mind addled with drugs. If she'd thought through clearly, she'd have taken the notebook. And why did Sollecito say "nothing had been stolen"? How did he know?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:25 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
Ergon wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Reports suggest the lawyer got stuck and he was called down by the defense team before he embarassed himself (and them) further. If someone actually has video of someone climbing through that window then even I would be impressed.


Do you have those reports? The photos I have do not show someone that is embarrassed.

Even tho I don't mind discussing it, his line of discussion misses the point. It is not my job to prove that some one could climb through the window. A window is broken, glass is spread throughout the room, a rock is present, glass is embedded in the shutter. The evidence shows that a break-in occurred. If you want to suggest that it was staged, then you need to prove it.


Not being able to reenact a crime the way the defense claims to have occurred is an embarrassment. So what are we supposed to do, take their word for it that guede could have done what they could not?

And I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Trained police investigators say it was staged. The onus was on the defense to provide an alternative scenario. In this, they failed.


The defense did not have to reainact the crime. Their defense was that their clients were not there. No embarrassment at all.

Who said anyone could not do anything?

The police failed to prove it was staged. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense. So far we have one court stating it was and one court stating it wasn't. We are having an online discussion. I am asking you to provide proof that the scene was staged. Our conversation will not influence anything. No pressure. Please provide proof that the scene was staged. I provided photographs giving an accurate scenario for the broken window and the location of the rock.

Have you changed your mind regarding the bag full of clothes?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:25 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
Guede, Knox and Sollecito aren't speaking. The consensus here is that they all entered through the front door.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:26 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
Ergon wrote:
Please, let's call the outside, a shutter, and the inside, a window.


We cannot do that because there is an outside shutter, a window, and an inside shutter.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:28 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
You did not provide photographs of the window from the outside, or the shutter. TomWells provided a picture of a rock on the floor. Without context, meaning less. And you haven't released the pasquali experiment video either have you, about the thrown rock?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 1030
BruceFischer wrote:
snip previously unseen photo
Keep in mind that I am posting high resolution photos. If you save these on your computer you can enlarge then and zoom in on any detail you like.

bruce here releasing photos from his own private stash
brucie got the full trial material - he picks and chooses what he'll release
most of it he won't show because it's so incriminating


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:32 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
Ergon wrote:
Why didn't Amanda stage a perfect break in? Mind addled with drugs. If she'd thought through clearly, she'd have taken the notebook. And why did Sollecito say "nothing had been stolen"? How did he know?


Your opinion of Amanda has no bearing on the evidence at the scene. What notebook are you talking about?

We can speculate on Raffaele's comment if you like. Nothing we conclude will prove guilt or innocence but we can give it a go.

I believe that Raffaele probably took a quick scan of the cottage and it looked like everything was there. The laptops were visible to him. That would be an item of value that he probably thought would have been taken by a burglar. Too much weight has been put on his comment. He made a quick evaluation, nothing more.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:33 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
Then please provide pictures of the outside shutter, the window, and the inside shutter. Also, a reenactment video of the thrown rock, and lanky lawyer as well.

Here's the thing, Bruce. You're a guest here, trying to make a case, so the onus of proof is on YOU. I think my request for specific information is reasonable.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 1030
BruceFischer wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Why didn't Amanda stage a perfect break in? Mind addled with drugs. If she'd thought through clearly, she'd have taken the notebook. And why did Sollecito say "nothing had been stolen"? How did he know?


Your opinion of Amanda has no bearing on the evidence at the scene. What notebook are you talking about?

We can speculate on Raffaele's comment if you like. Nothing we conclude will prove guilt or innocence but we can give it a go.

I believe that Raffaele probably took a quick scan of the cottage and it looked like everything was there.

why didn't he support amandas knox's alibi bruce?
he was sober then - he wasn't under intimidation - he stated through his lawyer that
knox wasn't with him that night .. at all ... he stuck with that story for 2 years was it?

why did he say to kate mansey that he wasn't home that night (his first alibi) -
that he was at a party?

why did he say that he "accidentally pricked" meredith kercher with the knife (thus confirming it as the murder weapon)? when that wasn't true - even knox confirmed that wasn't true -- bruce?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:37 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
ttrroonniicc wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
snip previously unseen photo
Keep in mind that I am posting high resolution photos. If you save these on your computer you can enlarge then and zoom in on any detail you like.

bruce here releasing photos from his own private stash
brucie got the full trial material - he picks and chooses what he'll release
most of it he won't show because it's so incriminating


Your comments are backed by nothing. It's okay. I am used to it. Ergon asked for proof that clothes were in the bag. I proved it.

Many things are assumed here about me. I follow all of the boards. I am accused of many things. Words backed by nothing. I tend to just ignore it. Many here think that I an every troll that shows up here. Truth is this is the first time I have registered at .net. I saw Michael's post stating that no one was banned so I figured what could it hurt to have a conversation?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:38 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
Was Filomena's door open or shut when they arrived? Seems A&R gave conflicting testimony on that.
Filomena's notebook.
You asked for an opinion why Amanda didn't stage it differently, then say my opinion has no bearing? She admitted using drugs.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 1030
BruceFischer wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
snip previously unseen photo
Keep in mind that I am posting high resolution photos. If you save these on your computer you can enlarge then and zoom in on any detail you like.

bruce here releasing photos from his own private stash
brucie got the full trial material - he picks and chooses what he'll release
most of it he won't show because it's so incriminating


Your comments are backed by nothing. It's okay. I am used to it. Ergon asked for proof that clothes were in the bag. I proved it.
Many things are assumed here about me. I follow all of the boards. I am accused of many things. Words backed by nothing. I tend to just ignore it. Many here think that I an every troll that shows up here. Truth is this is the first time I have registered at .net. I saw Michael's post stating that no one was banned so I figured what could it hurt to have a conversation

how did a singular footprint get onto the bathmat? - so there was a cleanup (if as you say that is guede) ... how did that footprint get where it was - with no others around it if there wasn't a clean-up?

now he's saying that meredith kercher arrived later and disturbed guede
gotta be huge creativity around this one


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:44 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
ttrroonniicc wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Why didn't Amanda stage a perfect break in? Mind addled with drugs. If she'd thought through clearly, she'd have taken the notebook. And why did Sollecito say "nothing had been stolen"? How did he know?


Your opinion of Amanda has no bearing on the evidence at the scene. What notebook are you talking about?

We can speculate on Raffaele's comment if you like. Nothing we conclude will prove guilt or innocence but we can give it a go.

I believe that Raffaele probably took a quick scan of the cottage and it looked like everything was there.

why didn't he support amandas knox's alibi bruce?
he was sober then - he wasn't under intimidation - he stated through his lawyer that
knox wasn't with him that night .. at all ... he stuck with that story for 2 years was it?

why did he say to kate mansey that he wasn't home that night (his first alibi) -
that he was at a party?

why did he say that he "accidentally pricked" meredith kercher with the knife (thus confirming it as the murder weapon)? when that wasn't true - even knox confirmed that wasn't true -- bruce?



Okay, lets do a rapid fire on the talking points.

1. Raffaele support's Amanda to this day. They stood side by side in their defense.

2. Raffaele did not say anything of the sort to Kate Mansey. He was talking about the previous night.

3. He wrote a lie in his diary. This is the only so called lie that can be confirmed. I say so called because he did not state this in court, he wrote it in a diary. You neglect to mention that he wrote down several scenarios. One was that Amanda was the killer. He was scared. He was sitting in a jail cell hearing the knife being discussed on the news. He was trying to figure out how a knife from his place could possibly have Meredith's DNA on it as reported, so he started writing. If you want to convict the guy for jotting down theories, good luck finding a jury that will convict on that evidence.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:49 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
Ergon wrote:
Was Filomena's door open or shut when they arrived? Seems A&R gave conflicting testimony on that.
Filomena's notebook.
You asked for an opinion why Amanda didn't stage it differently, then say my opinion has no bearing? She admitted using drugs.


I do not know if Filomena's door was open or shut. This has no bearing on the case.

Your opinion about Amanda was that she was too screwed up on drugs to know the best place to stage a break-in. There is nothing to suggest that Amanda was in that state of mind on the night of the murder but it is not relevant because there is no proof that she was at the scene.

My question proves that the question about the location of the break-in goes both ways and is a dead end. The evidence shows a break-in. Please prove it was staged.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 1030
Quote:
1. Raffaele support's Amanda to this day. They stood side by side in their defense.

completely false - raffaeles line right through the trial was that knox wasn't with him that night
Quote:
2. Raffaele did not say anything of the sort to Kate Mansey. He was talking about the previous night.


ok - on looking at this again will accede that - was about the day before

Quote:
3. He wrote a lie in his diary. This is the only so called lie that can be confirmed. I say so called because he did not state this in court, he wrote it in a diary. You neglect to mention that he wrote down several scenarios. One was that Amanda was the killer. He was scared. He was sitting in a jail cell hearing the knife being discussed on the news. He was trying to figure out how a knife from his place could possibly have Meredith's DNA on it as reported, so he started writing. If you want to convict the guy for jotting down theories, good luck finding a jury that will convict on that evidence.

why did he also say in that diary that he was afraid of what guede may say about him when guede was picked up - later his lawyer stated for him that he'd never set eyes on guede - didn't know him at all ...

that is a ridiculous story - he formulated that to explain his way out of being blamed for a murder? you must be joking. that is just too crazy

carry on


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:53 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
Thx for the photo. Why would the presence of clothes inside the bag have precluded Amanda from using it anyway? FR had a bag with some clothes inside. AK used it to swing the rock against the window from the inside. Looking at the position of the bag relative to the window, I do not accept a rock thrown from the outside landed neatly in the bag, which then ends up under the chair. For one thing, the trajectory means the rock would have fallen OUTSIDE the bag once it landed.

You pull one high definition photo of a rock in a bag out of a hat. Does it show its position relative to the window? Do you have a diagram showing the spot it was thrown from, relative to the inside room? Without that, no sale. Without the Pasquale video, do you have it or not? Come back when you do. The onus of proof is on you.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:55 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
FR's room being open or shut were one of the (many) inconsistencies in Amanda and Raff's testimonies.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:55 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
Ergon wrote:
Then please provide pictures of the outside shutter, the window, and the inside shutter. Also, a reenactment video of the thrown rock, and lanky lawyer as well.

Here's the thing, Bruce. You're a guest here, trying to make a case, so the onus of proof is on YOU. I think my request for specific information is reasonable.


Really Ergon? Should we go have a discussion on a neutral forum then?

Amanda and Raffaele are free. The onus of proof is on you to suggest they should still be in prison.

I will be happy to provide pictures of the window. I will locate the video as well. I don't think the video was much help at all but you are welcome to view it. If you throw a odd shaped rock at the shutter it would most likely take a different path everytime, depending on what surface of the rock made contact.

You still have not commented on the bag of clothes.

I mean no disrespect at all but it appears that you are learning about the break-in as we speak. Is it okay to assume that you took Massei's word for it?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:03 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
Ergon wrote:
Thx for the photo. Why would the presence of clothes inside the bag have precluded Amanda from using it anyway? FR had a bag with some clothes inside. AK used it to swing the rock against the window from the inside. Looking at the position of the bag relative to the window, I do not accept a rock thrown from the outside landed neatly in the bag, which then ends up under the chair. For one thing, the trajectory means the rock would have fallen OUTSIDE the bag once it landed.

You pull one high definition photo of a rock in a bag out of a hat. Does it show its position relative to the window? Do you have a diagram showing the spot it was thrown from, relative to the inside room? Without that, no sale. Without the Pasquale video, do you have it or not? Come back when you do. The onus of proof is on you.


Why is the onus of proof on me? Amanda and Raffaele are free. Your forum suggests that they should still be in prison.

This is the problem with these types of debate. You ask for a photo of the bag with clothes in it. I provide it. Then you tweak your story and make more demands. The photos of filomena's room have been available online for 2 years. I have not pulled anything out of a hat. There are several photos available online showing where the bag is in the room.

You suggest that Amanda took the rock and put it into the bag full of clothes, then swung the bag full of clothes with the rock inside at the window?

There is glass embedded in the interior shutter. Do you think there would be damage on the side of the bag showing where the bag made contact with the window as the rock smashed the paper into the glass? Do you think that evidence would have been ignored?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 4:57 am
Posts: 36
What I don't get, Fishy , is Amanda saying she used the bathmat to get to her room. I DO NOT get it. She says she notices blood on the bathmat as she gets out of the shower. Why would she even want to step on it? No way. And if she noticed there was blood after she stepped on the bathmat why wouldn't she jump off of the mat in disgust? Instead she decides to use a bloody bathmat to get to her room? I would rather walk on the floor than on a bloody mess any day, wouldn't you? So why did she make this up? What other reason could there be to make this up then that she is giving cover for her footprints having traces of blood in the hallway? Definitely something Fishy about her story.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:06 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
I have debated your friends in a neutral forum, Bruce. Close to 1500 comments on Huffington Post, but that goes no where.

Amanda and Raffaele have been released, but are not free until the supreme court rules. So the burden of proof, on this site, is still for you to show why Hellmann got it right, and Massei, wrong.

I have commented on the clothes. AK could have placed the rock inside the bag anyway.

Please don't presume to tell me I am 'learning about the break in'. No, I am displaying a healthy degree of scepticism about the defense scenario, which is NOT backed by any tangible proof.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:08 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Quote:
1. Raffaele support's Amanda to this day. They stood side by side in their defense.

completely false - raffaeles line right through the trial was that knox wasn't with him that night
Quote:
2. Raffaele did not say anything of the sort to Kate Mansey. He was talking about the previous night.


ok - on looking at this again will accede that - was about the day before

Quote:
3. He wrote a lie in his diary. This is the only so called lie that can be confirmed. I say so called because he did not state this in court, he wrote it in a diary. You neglect to mention that he wrote down several scenarios. One was that Amanda was the killer. He was scared. He was sitting in a jail cell hearing the knife being discussed on the news. He was trying to figure out how a knife from his place could possibly have Meredith's DNA on it as reported, so he started writing. If you want to convict the guy for jotting down theories, good luck finding a jury that will convict on that evidence.

why did he also say in that diary that he was afraid of what guede may say about him when guede was picked up - later his lawyer stated for him that he'd never set eyes on guede - didn't know him at all ...

that is a ridiculous story - he formulated that to explain his way out of being blamed for a murder? you must be joking. that is just too crazy

carry on


-Please post up Raffaele's testimony proving your point to number 1.

-Now that we have number 2 cleared up, I hope that PMF stops using that talking point against Raffaele.

-Your opinion that my suggestion is "just too crazy" is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I hope you never find yourself alone in a prison cell wrongfully accused of a horrendous crime. Until I find myself in a similar situation, I will not judge someone's diary entries in a time of extreme stress. Like I said, try to find a jury to convict on that evidence.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:10 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
Don't make false arguments, Bruce. You make 24 posts then complain that I'm 'tweaking' my demands for proof? Well if you make a hundred posts by tomorrow, expect a lot MORE questions.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:13 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
Ergon wrote:
I have debated your friends in a neutral forum, Bruce. Close to 1500 comments on Huffington Post, but that goes no where.

Amanda and Raffaele have been released, but are not free until the supreme court rules. So the burden of proof, on this site, is still for you to show why Hellmann got it right, and Massei, wrong.

I have commented on the clothes. AK could have placed the rock inside the bag anyway.

Please don't presume to tell me I am 'learning about the break in'. No, I am displaying a healthy degree of scepticism about the defense scenario, which is NOT backed by any tangible proof.


You asked that we call the inside shutter a window and you were unaware that the bag that was knocked over by the rock was full of clothes. The first point leads me to conclude that you were possibly unaware that there was a window and also an inside shutter. I think we can both agree that you just learned that the bag indeed had clothes in it.

We will have to disagree on the definition of "tangible" proof. You ask for debate but in reality, you take the position of having to provide no proof of anything and demand that the person you are debating provide proof to every detail. I have never discussed this case with you in a neutral forum. I think it would be a good conversation to have.


Last edited by BruceFischer on Tue Jun 05, 2012 9:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:14 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
Ergon wrote:
Don't make false arguments, Bruce. You make 24 posts then complain that I'm 'tweaking' my demands for proof? Well if you make a hundred posts by tomorrow, expect a lot MORE questions.


I have already told you that I will do my best to answer all of your questions. I would likethe same courtesy in return. Is that too much to ask?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:17 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
The mixed DNA evidence in Filomena's room indicates it was Amanda who stepped in that night., btw.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 1030
I just haven't the time right now to go and source raffaele sollecitos statement to the higher court through his lawyer that knox wasn't there with him that night - during the hours co-inciding with the murder

as far as I am aware he never changed that story throughout the trial

good day - was only in here to post the funny photo
then to find out its not only tuesday but bruce fisher is here (wow)
the material you're getting btw - the people on jref said you were getting
it was said you had access to the case files - where from bruce?
the photos the video - all new stuff - why you? ... who from?

you still haven't explained why sollecito said to his father that has afraid of what Guede would say - when guede was picked up

if that's an invention - well that one is off the wall
bongiorno stated that sollecito had never once set eyes on guede

gotta go - things to do - will re-lurk


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:21 am, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:19 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
I reply to your assertion I'm tweaking my requests then you say I'm being discourteous? So sorry.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:21 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
Aranel wrote:
What I don't get, Fishy , is Amanda saying she used the bathmat to get to her room. I DO NOT get it. She says she notices blood on the bathmat as she gets out of the shower. Why would she even want to step on it? No way. And if she noticed there was blood after she stepped on the bathmat why wouldn't she jump off of the mat in disgust? Instead she decides to use a bloody bathmat to get to her room? I would rather walk on the floor than on a bloody mess any day, wouldn't you? So why did she make this up? What other reason could there be to make this up then that she is giving cover for her footprints having traces of blood in the hallway? Definitely something Fishy about her story.


The fish are cute. The bathmat is one detail in this case that I do not understand. I have posted this on my forum as well. There is no proof to state that she made it up I just don't understand it.

So we have Raffaele's diary entry and Amanda's bathmat shuffle. I have a tally also you know. I know you all think I am just a pawn in a big PR conspiracy but you are all mistaken. I have weighed every detail of this case. These 2 details do not lead to guilt.

There is no proof that Amanda left footprints in the hallway but that is a different topic.


Last edited by BruceFischer on Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:23 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
Ergon wrote:
I reply to your assertion I'm tweaking my requests then you say I'm being discourteous? So sorry.


You tweaked your theory by simply overlooking the bag full of clothes. You decided that the bag full of clothes would still fit into your theory.

You did not acknowledge my question regarding damage to the bag from making impact with the window.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:30 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
ttrroonniicc wrote:
I just haven't the time right now to go and source raffaele sollecitos statement to the higher court through his lawyer that knox wasn't there with him that night - during the hours co-inciding with the murder

as far as I am aware he never changed that story throughout the trial

good day - was only in here to post the funny photo
then to find out its not only tuesday but bruce fisher is here (wow)
the material you're getting btw - the people on jref said you were getting
it was said you had access to the case files - where from bruce?
the photos the video - all new stuff - why you? ... who from?

you still haven't explained why sollecito said to his father that has afraid of what Guede would say - when guede was picked up

if that's an invention - well that one is off the wall
bongiorno stated that sollecito had never once set eyes on guede

gotta go - things to do - will re-lurk



You are all over the place with your questions but I will try to bring it all together the best as possible.

It is no secret that I am received evidence from FOA. It is no secret that I have been in contact with Amanda's family. there are only 2 real options for obtaining actual evidence pertaining to the trial, the prosecution and the defense. The fact that I received information on the case from the side of the defense does nothing to discredit the information.

I did not see a funny photo

Why would it be shocking that Sollecito would be scared? He was sitting in prison for a crime he knew nothing about. I would have been paranoid about every detail. You can harp on these things but none of it proves guilt. PMF built their case on stuff like this. It's fine if you want to try and get people to believe you on the internet but it doesn't hold up too well in court.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:36 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
BruceFischer wrote:
Ergon wrote:
I have debated your friends in a neutral forum, Bruce. Close to 1500 comments on Huffington Post, but that goes no where.

Amanda and Raffaele have been released, but are not free until the supreme court rules. So the burden of proof, on this site, is still for you to show why Hellmann got it right, and Massei, wrong.

I have commented on the clothes. AK could have placed the rock inside the bag anyway.

Please don't presume to tell me I am 'learning about the break in'. No, I am displaying a healthy degree of scepticism about the defense scenario, which is NOT backed by any tangible proof.


You asked that we call the inside shutter a window and you were unaware that the bag that was knocked over by the rock was full of clothes. The first point leads me to conclude that you were possibly unaware that there was a window and also an inside shutter. I think we can both agree that you just learned that the bag indeed had clothes in it.

We will have to disagree on the definition of "tangible" proof. You ask for debate but in reality, you take the position of having to provide no proof of anything and demand that the person you are debating provide proof to every detail. I have neber discussed this case with you in a neutral forum. I think it would be a good conversation to have.


I never claimed to have an encyclopedic knowledge of every aspect of the case, Bruce, but then again, I never made it an article of faith about the bag either, as I did admit the theoretical possibility of the rock being thrown by itself. I just asked for a diagram showing the trajectory of the alleged rock throwing and a copy of the video made starring defense consultant Pasquale as what I would require before I could accept that, since you have so far not shown one successful re enactment of a defense scenario.

The only place I chose to have this debate is here, and while you d not have to comply with my request, I do think you have access to that information.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm
Posts: 1855
But, BruceFischer, doesn't your entire scenario of the break-in depend entirely on the premise that Filomena LIED?
She stated that she closed the shutters.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:39 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
Here's a video still of the window showing the interior shutter.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/rh87.JPG


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 1030
BruceFischer wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
I just haven't the time right now to go and source raffaele sollecitos statement to the higher court through his lawyer that knox wasn't there with him that night - during the hours co-inciding with the murder

as far as I am aware he never changed that story throughout the trial

good day - was only in here to post the funny photo
then to find out its not only tuesday but bruce fisher is here (wow)
the material you're getting btw - the people on jref said you were getting
it was said you had access to the case files - where from bruce?
the photos the video - all new stuff - why you? ... who from?

you still haven't explained why sollecito said to his father that has afraid of what Guede would say - when guede was picked up

if that's an invention - well that one is off the wall
bongiorno stated that sollecito had never once set eyes on guede

gotta go - things to do - will re-lurk



You are all over the place with your questions but I will try to bring it all together the best as possible.

It is no secret that I am received evidence from FOA. It is no secret that I have been in contact with Amanda's family. there are only 2 real options for obtaining actual evidence pertaining to the trial, the prosecution and the defense. The fact that I received information on the case from the side of the defense does nothing to discredit the information.

I did not see a funny photo

Why would it be shocking that Sollecito would be scared? He was sitting in prison for a crime he knew nothing about. I would have been paranoid about every detail. You can harp on these things but none of it proves guilt. PMF built their case on stuff like this. It's fine if you want to try and get people to believe you on the internet but it doesn't hold up too well in court.


thats a hell of an admission
"some guy who turns up"
gets full access to the case files ... I think that's wrong
because you are cherry picking
waited a long time for tha t- you were initially denying it
you have the lot the entire case files - you are just cherry picking them now
nobody on the "guilter" side has that - that's why I'm highlighting it - small caucus within JREF
has - that's you

my questions are "all over the place" because I'm just trying to get a few shots in while I'm here
like I said - didn't even realise it was tuesday - had decided to stay away assimilate now ehre I am arguing .....

your story about why soll. decided on "knife prick" story doesn't fit - it's just as weak as saying
the raw red mark on knox's throat - unseen the day before by everyone who knew her, there was a "hickey" ....

you have to admit our case on the very barest facts that can be warped any way - is extremely
strong ...

sure my questions statements are coming from all over the place - but there is such a shitload of it - just hitting bruce fisher with a few broadsides and you are not standing up very well

even with your shitload of case evidence which you choose not to get into because it will be so incriminating - because knox and sollecito are murderers 1 & 2 - bruce


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:41 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
Please browse through the photo gallery.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/PhotoGallery3.html

Here is another photo of the window

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/rh81.JPG


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:43 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
I did not immediately reply to your 'damage to the bag' point because a) I was replying to your other statements and b) It had a built in fallacy. A 4.5 kilo rock thrown through the window and shattering glass all over the place lands on a bag, causing it to fall on the floor, and it didn't rip the bag or even crumple it?

Stranger things happen, I choose to believe the obvious explanation of staging.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:46 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
Ergon wrote:
I did not immediately reply to your 'damage to the bag' point because a) I was replying to your other statements and b) It had a built in fallacy. A 4.5 kilo rock thrown through the window and shattering glass all over the place lands on a bag, causing it to fall on the floor, and it didn't rip the bag or even crumple it?

Stranger things happen, I choose to believe the obvious explanation of staging.



The rock did rip the bag.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:47 am 
Offline
Links & Gallery Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am
Posts: 3643
BruceFischer wrote:
The rock came through the window, hit the interior shutter which was also not latched, then deflected downward striking Filomena's bag of clothes on the floor knocking it over ripping the bag and coming to rest on the floor on the edge of the bag. The evidence clearly show that this was the case.


This "new" theory is priceless; now BF is saying that the rock came to rest "on the edge of the bag". When one takes a look at the "high-resolution photo" he has provided, it's clear to see that the rock is INSIDE the bag.

BF, try as you may but those with a shred of common sense know rubbish when they see it. Wish you goodluck as you concoct your theories.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 1030
that mark which hellman says is evidence of the rock going from outside to in

--- it is impossible for that mark to have got there 1. if the shutter was closed (becasue that area
would have been against the left frame the hinge is on) 2. if couldn't have rebounded off anything
to that position

the mark is from sollecito having swung the rock from right to left - also the trajectory of the rock to have landed on the right, under the chair (without pushing the chair aside at all) -
if the rock had been thrown all that way from the grassy knoll (to the left btw - so - again - even if not obscured by the frame that mark could not have got there) it would have ended up within room

so - the rock did not bounce off the left shutter - what did it bounce off within the room to end up under the chair?

thanks for the photo bruce

also - that mark shows that there may be more corresponding mark on the frame
how the hell did the rock thrown off the grassy knoll parapet do that?

multiple impossibilities here bruce
how did "guede" get up the whitewashed wall without leaving a single mark scrape
of shoes/trainers on that wall? -- it was october - the ground was soft - soft black earth

photos show the matte whitewashed wall pristine, untouched by "boosting", scrabbling trainers or shoes



Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:59 am, edited 4 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:49 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
ttrroonniicc wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
I just haven't the time right now to go and source raffaele sollecitos statement to the higher court through his lawyer that knox wasn't there with him that night - during the hours co-inciding with the murder

as far as I am aware he never changed that story throughout the trial

good day - was only in here to post the funny photo
then to find out its not only tuesday but bruce fisher is here (wow)
the material you're getting btw - the people on jref said you were getting
it was said you had access to the case files - where from bruce?
the photos the video - all new stuff - why you? ... who from?

you still haven't explained why sollecito said to his father that has afraid of what Guede would say - when guede was picked up

if that's an invention - well that one is off the wall
bongiorno stated that sollecito had never once set eyes on guede

gotta go - things to do - will re-lurk



You are all over the place with your questions but I will try to bring it all together the best as possible.

It is no secret that I am received evidence from FOA. It is no secret that I have been in contact with Amanda's family. there are only 2 real options for obtaining actual evidence pertaining to the trial, the prosecution and the defense. The fact that I received information on the case from the side of the defense does nothing to discredit the information.

I did not see a funny photo

Why would it be shocking that Sollecito would be scared? He was sitting in prison for a crime he knew nothing about. I would have been paranoid about every detail. You can harp on these things but none of it proves guilt. PMF built their case on stuff like this. It's fine if you want to try and get people to believe you on the internet but it doesn't hold up too well in court.


thats a hell of an admission
"some guy who turns up"
gets full access to the case files ... I think that's wrong
because you are cherry picking
waited a long time for tha t- you were initially denying it
you have the lot the entire case files - you are just cherry picking them now
nobody on the "guilter" side has that - that's why I'm highlighting it - small caucus within JREF
has - that's you

my questions are "all over the place" because I'm just trying to get a few shots in while I'm here
like I said - didn't even realise it was tuesday - had decided to stay away assimilate now ehre I am arguing .....

your story about why soll. decided on "knife prick" story doesn't fit - it's just as weak as saying
the raw red mark on knox's throat - unseen the day before by everyone who knew her, there was a "hickey" ....

you have to admit our case on the very barest facts that can be warped any way - is extremely
strong ...

sure my questions statements are coming from all over the place - but there is such a shitload of it - just hitting bruce fisher with a few broadsides and you are not standing up very well

even with your shitload of case evidence which you choose not to get into because it will be so incriminating - because knox and sollecito are murderers 1 & 2 - bruce


You are making unfounded claims. When did I deny anything? When did I admit anything? I am giving factual answers to your questions.

I wrote 2 books that discuss everything I am telling you. I have kept no secrets.

The rest of what you wrote doesn't warrant any response at all.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 4:57 am
Posts: 36
BruceFischer wrote:
Aranel wrote:
What I don't get, Fishy , is Amanda saying she used the bathmat to get to her room. I DO NOT get it. She says she notices blood on the bathmat as she gets out of the shower. Why would she even want to step on it? No way. And if she noticed there was blood after she stepped on the bathmat why wouldn't she jump off of the mat in disgust? Instead she decides to use a bloody bathmat to get to her room? I would rather walk on the floor than on a bloody mess any day, wouldn't you? So why did she make this up? What other reason could there be to make this up then that she is giving cover for her footprints having traces of blood in the hallway? Definitely something Fishy about her story.


The fish are cute. The bathmat is one detail in this case that I do not understand. I have posted this on my forum as well. There is no proof to state that she made it up I just don't understand it.

So we have Raffaele's diary entry and Amanda's bathmat shuffle. I have a tally also you know. I know you all think I am just a pawn in a big PR conspiracy but you are all mistaken. I have weighed every detail of this case. These 2 details do not lead to guilt.

There is no proof that Amanda left footprints in the hallway but that is a different topic.


Thanks for being honest. You don't know and think it's weird also. That's not going to work very well to win anyone over to your views. I think the PR firm may need to demote you unfortunately.

The fish are not cute! They are very insulting. ;)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:51 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
guermantes wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
The rock came through the window, hit the interior shutter which was also not latched, then deflected downward striking Filomena's bag of clothes on the floor knocking it over ripping the bag and coming to rest on the floor on the edge of the bag. The evidence clearly show that this was the case.


This "new" theory is priceless; now BF is saying that the rock came to rest "on the edge of the bag". When one takes a look at the "high-resolution photo" he has provided, it's clear to see that the rock is INSIDE the bag.

BF, try as you may but those with a shred of common sense know rubbish when they see it. Wish you goodluck as you concoct your theories.


The rock is at the top edge of the bag. This is not a new theory. It is an observation that can be made by anyone looking at the photo. Try to put aside your extreme bias and actually look at the evidence.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:52 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
Thanks for your second photo. It is not expandable. A) The damage I do see appears to have been painted over, so no, I don't agree it occurred during the break-in/staging, and B) it still could have been broken from the inside, with the green shutter closed. The fact there was no glass on the grass outside proves (to me at least) that I am probably right.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:53 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
Aranel wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
Aranel wrote:
What I don't get, Fishy , is Amanda saying she used the bathmat to get to her room. I DO NOT get it. She says she notices blood on the bathmat as she gets out of the shower. Why would she even want to step on it? No way. And if she noticed there was blood after she stepped on the bathmat why wouldn't she jump off of the mat in disgust? Instead she decides to use a bloody bathmat to get to her room? I would rather walk on the floor than on a bloody mess any day, wouldn't you? So why did she make this up? What other reason could there be to make this up then that she is giving cover for her footprints having traces of blood in the hallway? Definitely something Fishy about her story.


The fish are cute. The bathmat is one detail in this case that I do not understand. I have posted this on my forum as well. There is no proof to state that she made it up I just don't understand it.

So we have Raffaele's diary entry and Amanda's bathmat shuffle. I have a tally also you know. I know you all think I am just a pawn in a big PR conspiracy but you are all mistaken. I have weighed every detail of this case. These 2 details do not lead to guilt.

There is no proof that Amanda left footprints in the hallway but that is a different topic.


Thanks for being honest. You don't know and think it's weird also. That's not going to work very well to win anyone over to your views. I think the PR firm may need to demote you unfortunately.

The fish are not cute! They are very insulting. ;)



I think the fish are cute. We will have to agree to disagree.

If you think the bathmat is enough to convict, then that is your opinion. We are all entitled to our opinions.

Do you really believe the whole PR storyline?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:56 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
Ergon wrote:
Thanks for your second photo. It is not expandable. A) The damage I do see appears to have been painted over, so no, I don't agree it occurred during the break-in/staging, and B) it still could have been broken from the inside, with the green shutter closed. The fact there was no glass on the grass outside proves (to me at least) that I am probably right.


The damage is not painted over, it is a fresh mark on the wood.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/hendry3.jpg

Is this the first time you have seen this photo Ergon? I mean no disrespect by asking the question. You have every right to stand by Massei with out doing any independent research. I would just like to know if that is indeed your position.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:59 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
Here is a photo showing that the rock ripped the bag as it knocked the bag over and impacted the floor. The bag is clearly ripped at the impact site.

http://i.imgur.com/TjPsX.jpg

Please also note that it's the EDGE of the bag that's ripped.


Last edited by BruceFischer on Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:00 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
That was a minor tear, Bruce, one that could happen when you swing it flat against the glass. I would have expected a heavy paving stone thrown with enough velocity to smash through the window and swing the shutter wide open, with glass flying all over. would cause a lot more damage to the bag and shutter, and not the tiny paint chips I see as well.

Colour me unimpressed so far. Now, it's 3 am, so i'll wish you all a very good night.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 1030
BruceFischer wrote:
I wrote 2 books that discuss everything I am telling you. I have kept no secrets.

The rest of what you wrote doesn't warrant any response at all.


because you don't choose to answer my questions - you can't answer all the questions.
to your mindset they are unreasonable and prolific
you feel exactly the same as I do on JREF - and refuse for the same reason bricks-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:06 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
Ergon wrote:
That was a minor tear, Bruce, one that could happen when you swing it flat against the glass. I would have expected a heavy paving stone thrown with enough velocity to smash through the window and swing the shutter wide open, with glass flying all over. would cause a lot more damage to the bag and shutter, and not the tiny paint chips I see as well.

Colour me unimpressed so far. Now, it's 3 am, so i'll wish you all a very good night.



The rip in the bag is actually about the size of the rock.

Keep in mind that the rock is odd shaped. Only a portion of the surface of the rock would make contact with the shutter.

The mark is fresh so even if the window was broken from inside, as Massei suggested, then the mark was still made by the rock. Massei did not suggest that the rock was thrown toward the green shutters. He suggested that the window and the shutter was opened and the rock was thrown into the window from that position. He theorized that the window was open and that the rock was thrown toward the wardrobe.

The glass spread out in the room and the landing place of the rock refute his theory.


Last edited by BruceFischer on Tue Jun 05, 2012 8:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:07 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
That teeny (arrowed) chip is what I referred to, Bruce. I'd have expected a gouge at least, or a dent. Yes, I'll agree with the rip under the bag, I see it now, but, that could also happen when you swing the bag against the window from the inside. This is confirmed by the ripped carrying handle as well. So, no, I don't accept your argument so far, sorry.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:07 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
ttrroonniicc wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
I wrote 2 books that discuss everything I am telling you. I have kept no secrets.

The rest of what you wrote doesn't warrant any response at all.


because you don't choose to answer my questions - you can't answer all the questions.
to your mindset they are unreasonable and prolific
you feel exactly the same as I do on JREF - and refuse for the same reason bricks-)


I have done everything possible to answer your questions, even tho you are not very organized. What have I not answered?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:10 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
The lack of glass outside refutes your theory.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 1030
why should I be organised - it's early morning
unlike you I don't get paid for this

I'm not going to talk to you anymore you're just offensive
won't talk to such a maladjusted untrustworthy lying character (heart of FOA)
you're not even called "bruce"
go to hell


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:13 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
Ergon wrote:
That teeny (arrowed) chip is what I referred to, Bruce. I'd have expected a gouge at least, or a dent. Yes, I'll agree with the rip under the bag, I see it now, but, that could also happen when you swing the bag against the window from the inside. This is confirmed by the ripped carrying handle as well. So, no, I don't accept your argument so far, sorry.



Okay, your theory suggests that Amanda or Raffaele swung the bag at the window and the bag ripped but somehow the rock stayed in the bag, leaving the bag with no damage to the outside surface to suggest it impacted the window, then when they put the bag on the ground after using it to break the window, the rock positioned itself right on the ripped area. Really??

Okay, Like I mentioned above, we are all entitled to our opinions. You are the only person that I have heard this theory from. I think your theory is seriously flawed.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:14 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
ttrroonniicc wrote:
why should I be organised - it's early morning
unlike you I don't get paid for this

I'm not going to talk to you anymore you're just offensive
won't talk to such a maladjusted untrustworthy lying character (heart of FOA)
you're not even called "bruce"
go to hell


I wish you the best ttrroonnicc


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:14 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
I was referring to the rotted frame on the left and right that I could not determine whether it was damage or from the supposed rock. But that is what is painted over. Yes, I've seen the photo many times before and the chip as well. My opinion there is based on my own visual sense and not, Massei.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:17 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
I find your rock flying through the window theory seriously implausible too, Bruce, but that might just be me. Good Night.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:19 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
Ergon wrote:
The lack of glass outside refutes your theory.



The glass spray outside would have consisted of very small particles at best. the back spray of the glass if any at all was most likely lost in the rough terrain below.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/rh106.JPG

You can see the leaf covered ground below the window. There are no photos or video of the outside ground to prove that no glass was out there. No samples of earth were taken to look for glass. We do have video of an investigator taking a break to smoke a cigarette. I guess it's possible he took a quick look at the ground.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 4:57 am
Posts: 36
BruceFischer wrote:

Do you really believe the whole PR storyline?


I've seen the member list on a Facebook group. All the FOAs in the same place. Did you add your entire friend list? It is clear from that list that there has been a PR effort with many connections and that the FOAKers have all been in on this together. I obviously don't know who is actually paid or not.




Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:21 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
It is after 2 here in Chicago. Time for bed.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:50 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
Aranel wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:

Do you really believe the whole PR storyline?


I've seen the member list on a Facebook group. All the FOAs in the same place. Did you add your entire friend list? It is clear from that list that there has been a PR effort with many connections and that the FOAKers have all been in on this together. I obviously don't know who is actually paid or not.




Yes, our grassroots effort was a pr campaign of sorts. We had many people come together to right a wrong.

We were not a PR supertanker led by David Marriott. I have never met David Marriott. Marriott's firm helped Amanda's family deal with the media. I know some posters here and at .org have posted up Marriott's website. If you read the text without bias, you will see that their mission statement describes what I am suggesting.

IIP is a group of people that came together as one voice to help correct two wrongful convictions. We are currently working on other cases. I encourage everyone to join in on the effort http://www.injustice-anywhere.org

With your philosophy, PMF is a pr campaign as well. The term "public relations" is not vulgar. The truth is that many false claims have been made about the support Amanda has received.


Last edited by BruceFischer on Tue Jun 05, 2012 8:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 1030
BruceFischer wrote:
Yes, our grassroots effort was a pr campaign of sorts. We had many people come together to right a wrong.

We were not a PR supertanker led by David Marriott. I have never met David Marriott. Marriott's firm helped Amanda's family deal with the media. I know some posters here and at .org have posted up Marriott's website. If you read the text without bias, you will see that their mission statement describes what I am suggesting.

IIP is a group of people that came together as one voice to help correct two wrongful convictions. We are currently working on other cases. I encourage everyone to join in on the effort http://www.injustice-anywhere.org

With your philosophy, PMF is a pr campaign as well. The term "public relations" is not vulgar. The truth is that any false claims have been made about the support Amanda has received.


wh-) :roll: p-(((


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 9:03 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
Ergon wrote:
The mixed DNA evidence in Filomena's room indicates it was Amanda who stepped in that night., btw.


What proof do you have that suggests that Amanda stepped in anything? The stain in Filomena's room was not a foot print. It was a shapeless blob.


Last edited by BruceFischer on Tue Jun 05, 2012 9:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 9:09 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
Napia5 wrote:
But, BruceFischer, doesn't your entire scenario of the break-in depend entirely on the premise that Filomena LIED?
She stated that she closed the shutters.


Not at all Napia5. The evidence shows there was a break-in. Even if Filomena closed her shutters, (which is not certain by any means) they did not latch. Guede could have easily pulled the shutter open from the planter or from standing on the window below. Either action would have taken seconds.

Please show proof that the break-in was staged.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 9:12 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
Ergon wrote:
You're still presenting a defense hypothesis and not evidence, Bruce. I said I was prepared to accept the rock thrown from the outside, and many here have already said it's possible. Some say it's impossible, I say it's unlikely, even if the bag wasn't used in the manner I guessed at.

Because I believe Romanelli's testimony she closed the outside shutters. Do you have evidence that suggests otherwise?


There is no need to present evidence that Filomena didn't close the shutters.

Even if Filomena closed her shutters, (which is not certain by any means) they did not latch. Guede could have easily pulled the shutter open from the planter or from standing on the window below. Either action would have taken seconds.

Please show proof that the break-in was staged.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 9:16 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am
Posts: 155
Ergon wrote:
Guede, Knox and Sollecito aren't speaking. The consensus here is that they all entered through the front door.


What proof do you have to suggest that all three came through the front door on the night of the murder?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 9:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:18 pm
Posts: 280
Aranel wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:

Do you really believe the whole PR storyline?


I've seen the member list on a Facebook group. All the FOAs in the same place. Did you add your entire friend list? It is clear from that list that there has been a PR effort with many connections and that the FOAKers have all been in on this together. I obviously don't know who is actually paid or not.




Nobody is being paid to post.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 9:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm
Posts: 1855
BruceFischer wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
But, BruceFischer, doesn't your entire scenario of the break-in depend entirely on the premise that Filomena LIED?
She stated that she closed the shutters.


Not at all Napia5. The evidence shows there was a break-in. Even if Filomena closed her shutters, (which is not certain by any means) they did not latch. Guede could have easily pulled the shutter open from the planter or from standing on the window below. Either action would have taken seconds.

Please show proof that the break-in was staged.


Sorry, BruceFischer, but your sentence above is a bit wiggly to me. First, you say you do not call Filomena a liar, but then you put in brackets (which is not certain by any means). This means that you DOUBT the truth of her statement.
So, OK, you believe she lied.
Let's go to the second part: Guede "could have". What's this? "Could have?"
Since you want to suppose this, let's continue. If Guede, as a master burglar, could have climbed the window to open the shutter, wouldn't he have just reached in and PUSHED the window in at this time, testing to see if the window was locked, thus eliminating the need for the rock? I mean, seriously, if the guy goes to the trouble of climbing up there to open the shutter to begin with, he is in the exct position he needs to be to check if the window opens.

Can't see your 'theory' at all. The evidence (Filomena) proves the shutters were closed.
All of the evidence I see points to a staging. All of the glass sitting on the thin ledge for one.
I can tell you with certainty. Looking at the pictures, reading the evidence, and making my own judgement, if I were on the jury, there is no way that I would see this as anything other than a staged break-in.
No major marks on the wall, no scuffs, nothing. This break-in was staged.
And this conviction has absolutely nothing to do with Knox. Or Sollecito Or Guede.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 9:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:18 pm
Posts: 280
Napia5 wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
But, BruceFischer, doesn't your entire scenario of the break-in depend entirely on the premise that Filomena LIED?
She stated that she closed the shutters.


Not at all Napia5. The evidence shows there was a break-in. Even if Filomena closed her shutters, (which is not certain by any means) they did not latch. Guede could have easily pulled the shutter open from the planter or from standing on the window below. Either action would have taken seconds.

Please show proof that the break-in was staged.


Sorry, BruceFischer, but your sentence above is a bit wiggly to me. First, you say you do not call Filomena a liar, but then you put in brackets (which is not certain by any means). This means that you DOUBT the truth of her statement.
So, OK, you believe she lied.
Let's go to the second part: Guede "could have". What's this? "Could have?"
Since you want to suppose this, let's continue. If Guede, as a master burglar, could have climbed the window to open the shutter, wouldn't he have just reached in and PUSHED the window in at this time, testing to see if the window was locked, thus eliminating the need for the rock? I mean, seriously, if the guy goes to the trouble of climbing up there to open the shutter to begin with, he is in the exct position he needs to be to check if the window opens.

Can't see your 'theory' at all. The evidence (Filomena) proves the shutters were closed.
All of the evidence I see points to a staging. All of the glass sitting on the thin ledge for one.
I can tell you with certainty. Looking at the pictures, reading the evidence, and making my own judgement, if I were on the jury, there is no way that I would see this as anything other than a staged break-in.
No major marks on the wall, no scuffs, nothing. This break-in was staged.
And this conviction has absolutely nothing to do with Knox. Or Sollecito Or Guede.


The only thing Filomena's testimony "proves" is that her memory on the shutters is not clear. What is there indicates to me the outer shutters could have been open or closed.

From Massei (PMF translation):

Quote:
Filomena Romanelli stated (cf. declarations at the hearing of February 7, 2009) that when she left the house in via della Pergola 7 on the afternoon of November 1, 2007 she had closed the shutters of her window (p. 68); she had pulled them in (p. 95); "the wood was slightly swelled, so they rubbed against the windowsill" (p. 26), adding that "it was an old window...the wood rubbed". And on the day she went away, she recalled "having closed them because I knew that I would be away for a couple of days" (p. 96). She later added, when noting what she had declared on December 3, 2007, that "I had pulled the shutters together, but I don't think I closed them tight" (p. 115).


From Micheli (katy_did translation):

Quote:
She remembered having certainly closed the window, but probably leaving the inner shutters open: although she couldn't be 100% sure, she believed she had closed the outer shutters without anchoring both, since the left shutter met resistance on the sill due to a swelling of the wood. Her memory was no longer accurate, since she believed she had definitely opened the shutters in the morning having needed light to change...but had then left in a hurry because she was already late.


When somebody testifies that they think they didn't close them tight and their memory was not accurate or they were in a hurry and they think that might have done something, these are the kind of statements that should not be used to "prove" anything other than the witness doesn't have a clear memory of exactly what the state of the shutters was.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:27 pm
Posts: 343
BruceFischer wrote:
Ergon wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:

The rock broke through the window and then made contact with the interior shutter. The shutter is old and heavy with hinges that have been painted over. The evidence suggests that the interior shutter was not latched. High resolution photos of the shutter show its condition. The rock hit that shutter, and deflected downward taking the paper bag with it to the floor.


So, you contend the outside shutter (the green one) was open, and the rock was thrown in the paper bag?


I contend that the green shutter was not latched. Guede had several options available to him to open the unlatched exterior shutter even if it was pulled closed. Many contend that it was left open. This is a detail that we do not know for sure. What we do know is that the shutter did not latch.

The rock came through the window, hit the interior shutter which was also not latched, then deflected downward striking Filomena's bag of clothes on the floor knocking it over ripping the bag and coming to rest on the floor on the edge of the bag. The evidence clearly show that this was the case.

Please answer my previous question. You suggested that Amanda and Raffaele used that paper bag to retrieve the rock. Are you aware of the fact that the bag had clothes in it?



Having clothes inside would have been ideal. The size of the rock was way beyond what was needed. I contend they chose a big rock to tell the staged 'story' of the large hole needed . The clothing in the bag would prevent it from ripping and most importantly buffer the sound.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:27 pm
Posts: 343
BruceFischer wrote:
Ergon wrote:
The mixed DNA evidence in Filomena's room indicates it was Amanda who stepped in that night., btw.


What proof do you have that suggests that Amanda stepped in anything? The stain in Filomena's room was not a foot print. It was a shapeless blob.

It was not a mixed blob with Filomena's DNA the occupant of the room . It came from someone who entered the room post murder. Not Guede because he didn't have reason to re enter and stage, or steal makeup. It was a blob likely falling from a washed hand.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:43 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
BruceFischer wrote:
Ergon wrote:
You're still presenting a defense hypothesis and not evidence, Bruce. I said I was prepared to accept the rock thrown from the outside, and many here have already said it's possible. Some say it's impossible, I say it's unlikely, even if the bag wasn't used in the manner I guessed at.

Because I believe Romanelli's testimony she closed the outside shutters. Do you have evidence that suggests otherwise?


There is no need to present evidence that Filomena didn't close the shutters.

Even if Filomena closed her shutters, (which is not certain by any means) they did not latch. Guede could have easily pulled the shutter open from the planter or from standing on the window below. Either action would have taken seconds.

Please show proof that the break-in was staged.


Please show me proof that Rudy Guede ever entered the room. The mixed DNA 'blob' suggests that Amanda Knox entered the room, dripping her and Meredith's DNA. Therefore, the break in was staged, QED.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:58 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm
Posts: 4533
Images: 0
BruceFischer wrote:
--- snip ---

The evidence showed that a break-in occurred. Your goal at PMF should be to prove that it was staged (if you want to support your current position).

You are starting from the position that the break-in was staged and asking for proof that it wasn't.

--- snap ---


The evidence shows the break-in was staged by Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. Only judge Hellmann considered the break-in to be real and Rudy Guede the lone perpetrator. The acquittal was a very surprising outcome, considering that Rudy Guede was convicted as co-perpetrator and not as the person solely responsible for Meredith Kercher's murder. In fact Micheli ruled he didn't wield the knife and the Supreme Court agreed. Not a far fetched scenario, considering that Amanda Knox's DNA is on the murder weapon and Raffaele Sollecito collected combat knives.

The details of the murder are in public domain and people can make up their own minds. They can chose to believe the prosecutors planted the evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito - like Judge Michael Heavey suggests openly in his presentation to white wash Amanda Knox's image, or if it was fishy that Hellmann, a corporate judge who presides welfare cases volunteered.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:12 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm
Posts: 4533
Images: 0
BruceFischer wrote:
Ergon wrote:
With all due respect, Bruce, Massei asserts it was staged. So we don't have to prove it beyond that. max expressed an opinion, and we're asking you if anyone was able to replicate Rudy Guede's purported climb THROUGH the window.



Are you suggesting that your analysis begins at Massei's conclusions?

My analysis begins at the time of the murder.

The defense did not need to prove that Guede could climb through the window. Once again, you are approaching the investigation backwards. You are starting from the assumption that the scene was staged. You need to prove it was staged.

The lawyer that climbed up on the lower window did not climb to the top rung on that window. If he had, his armpits would have been over the windowsill. A man in Guede's condition would have no problem climbing through the window.


I doubt it would be as easy as you ascertain it is to climb through that window.

Still, the question is not if it is possible at all to climb through that window, the question is if Rudy Guede did it in the night of 1st of November 2007 to gain access to the house. Considering that the glass was undisturbed and no trace of Rudy Guede on the window or inside Filomena's room was found, it is unlikely he came through that window. Amanda Knox's DNA was found mixed with Meredith's blood in that very room and the glass was on top of the clothes, not under it. That alone proves beyond any doubt that the break-in was staged. Taking into account the facts the staged break-in points directly to Amanda Knox's guilt.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:23 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm
Posts: 4533
Images: 0
BruceFischer wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Reports suggest the lawyer got stuck and he was called down by the defense team before he embarassed himself (and them) further. If someone actually has video of someone climbing through that window then even I would be impressed.


Do you have those reports? The photos I have do not show someone that is embarrassed.

Even tho I don't mind discussing it, his line of discussion misses the point. It is not my job to prove that some one could climb through the window. A window is broken, glass is spread throughout the room, a rock is present, glass is embedded in the shutter. The evidence shows that a break-in occurred. If you want to suggest that it was staged, then you need to prove it.


Why did the defence try to prove it was possible to scale the wall? I don't think that would be necessary if it wasn't considered highly unlikely that someone scaled that wall and climb through the window. The lawyer who scaled the wall - he was reportedly taller than Rudy Guede - didn't manage to position himself in a way that would allow him enter the cottage through the window.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:34 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm
Posts: 4533
Images: 0
BruceFischer wrote:
I believe you would have a better understanding of the case if you looked at the actual facts from the beginning. You are choosing to start at Massei and challenge people to prove him wrong. that is your choice of course but others can simply begin with Hellmann.


Fact is that the Knox's family have done everything possible to hide the facts about the case from the public. Thanks to Massei we finally were provided with the facts!

Isn't beginning with Hellmann like starting on the wrong end? The more so as you recommend to look at the "actual facts from the beginning".

One of those facts is that Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox didn't call police after finding the blood in the bathroom and that Amanda Knox accused an innocent man of Meredith Kercher's murder.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:41 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm
Posts: 4533
Images: 0
ttrroonniicc wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
snip previously unseen photo
Keep in mind that I am posting high resolution photos. If you save these on your computer you can enlarge then and zoom in on any detail you like.

bruce here releasing photos from his own private stash
brucie got the full trial material - he picks and chooses what he'll release
most of it he won't show because it's so incriminating


Yep. That's right. And he is here to do some damage control, because he released the photo of the bra strap in dried blood that couldn't be there if the bra had been taken off during the attack or shortly after. That's why he wants to talk about the rock.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:02 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm
Posts: 4533
Images: 0
RoseMontag wrote:
Aranel wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:

Do you really believe the whole PR storyline?


I've seen the member list on a Facebook group. All the FOAs in the same place. Did you add your entire friend list? It is clear from that list that there has been a PR effort with many connections and that the FOAKers have all been in on this together. I obviously don't know who is actually paid or not.




Nobody is being paid to post.


Maybe not for posting, but Bruce Fisher has already published two books on the case and he is looking into other cases according to his own statement. So yes, his involvement can be considered as self-serving to further his new career.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:26 am
Posts: 140
As there has been discussion of the break-in today, I am mentioning that I have made my own analysis of the rock here : http://kermit-analysis.wikispaces.com/The+Rock

I only made this yesterday and today, it's still evolving a bit.

Ergon's idea about someone swinging the rock in a bag while inside is novel to me. I'm not sure it can be entirely excluded, that's the thing about staging theories, you can always hypothesise that a clever person has arranged all the evidence with nearly infinite foresight, but I don't find it likely at all. Who would ever think of such a thing? It's possible the burglary was staged, but if it was, the simplest explanation is that someone went outside, opened the external shutters ( if they were not already open ) and chucked the rock through the window. It could also have been done in a much more elaborate manner, but any intelligent person would try to make it as realistic as possible, and the way to do that is to do it "for real".

The argument that using a bag to swing a rock through the window would make it less noisy doesn't seem right to me - the sound comes from the glass breaking, and it's going to make a breaking glass noise however you do it.

Another reason I doubt the break-in was staged is that the stager(s) would have had to carefully check that it was actually possible to climb up into Filomena's bedroom, before breaking the glass. It's not exactly immediately obvious, and if you have just committed a bloody murder, I really don't think you would be making such careful observations and calculations. Perhaps Rudy, having some experience of breaking and entering, could have staged it with his accumulated knowledge, but how would Amanda and Raffaele know about breaking into places? Why would they even have thought of such a thing in such a stressful situation?

Staging theories by their nature are impossible to disprove - but to make them plausible you need some concrete evidence. It's unfortunate that the Italian police didn't retain the glass ( which would conclusively prove from which direction the rock came, see link below ), but the impact mark on the inner shutter indicates to me it certainly came from the outside.

One other point : at high velocities, a bullet or small stone can make a small hole in glass, but a large rock travelling at modest speed will not. The mode of fracturing is different, see http://www.santoshraut.com/forensic/glass.fractures.htm

I'm posting today because it is a bank holiday in the UK today, and the weather isn't great. I don't expect to make this a regular event.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:19 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
RoseMontag wrote:


The only thing Filomena's testimony "proves" is that her memory on the shutters is not clear. What is there indicates to me the outer shutters could have been open or closed.

From Massei (PMF translation):

Quote:
Filomena Romanelli stated (cf. declarations at the hearing of February 7, 2009) that when she left the house in via della Pergola 7 on the afternoon of November 1, 2007 she had closed the shutters of her window (p. 68); she had pulled them in (p. 95); "the wood was slightly swelled, so they rubbed against the windowsill" (p. 26), adding that "it was an old window...the wood rubbed". And on the day she went away, she recalled "having closed them because I knew that I would be away for a couple of days" (p. 96). She later added, when noting what she had declared on December 3, 2007, that "I had pulled the shutters together, but I don't think I closed them tight" (p. 115).


From Micheli (katy_did translation):

Quote:
She remembered having certainly closed the window, but probably leaving the inner shutters open: although she couldn't be 100% sure, she believed she had closed the outer shutters without anchoring both, since the left shutter met resistance on the sill due to a swelling of the wood. Her memory was no longer accurate, since she believed she had definitely opened the shutters in the morning having needed light to change...but had then left in a hurry because she was already late.


When somebody testifies that they think they didn't close them tight and their memory was not accurate or they were in a hurry and they think that might have done something, these are the kind of statements that should not be used to "prove" anything other than the witness doesn't have a clear memory of exactly what the state of the shutters was.


Likewise, one could say the same (and much more) about Knox's selective memory lapses, omissions, and lies. One could also say that while Filomena might not be sure she shut the inside shutters, she did close (but maybe did not latch) the outside shutters. There is no damage to the outside shutters, and your group is only scrambling to meet the challenge I posed to you last night about the staging.

Lastly, Knox had every reason to lie, and Romanelli, none.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:20 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm
Posts: 5193
Location: Toronto, Canada
i look forward to reading Bruce Fischer's review of John Kercher's book that he promised.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:26 am
Posts: 140
Ergon wrote:
i look forward to reading Bruce Fischer's review of John Kercher's book that he promised.


It's here : http://www.groundreport.com/US/The-Aman ... gh/2945940


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 [ 2830 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 12  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Judge Massei Sentencing Report: English Translation     The Meredith Kercher Fund     The Murder Of Meredith Kercher Wiki     True Justice For Meredith Kercher     Countdown To Final Appeal 


24,471,739 Views Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group