tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-373425720288771023.post2902941092298064058..comments2023-10-12T05:32:43.976-05:00Comments on Church Discipline: Amanda Knox: Murder On Trial In ItalyCD-Hosthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-373425720288771023.post-1604513080063208822011-02-22T00:43:25.469-05:002011-02-22T00:43:25.469-05:00Here are my thoughts:
The documentary after was v...Here are my thoughts:<br /><br />The documentary after was very friendly and makes a strong case for innocence. The movie itself was definitely more mixed. <br /><br />On the plus side the movie exposes the core of the defense:<br />a) The physical evidence is weak<br />b) Amanda and Raffaele's statements were the result of them being very scared in interrogation.<br />c) The prosecution is engaging in wild speculation.<br />d) Further their behavior after the murder seems natural, not forced. <br /><br />Mignini comes off as enraged that Amanda made him look bad. <br /><br />A few points about the movie pro and con<br />i) Amanda seems genuinely concerned on November 2nd about Meredith (+)<br />ii) The movie has forensic evidence showing the bra cut off hours later (-) <br />iii) HIV faked issue is explored, they definitely hint that this was intentional. (+)<br />iv) They misunderstand the whole rock thing in the movie (0)<br />v) Mignini engages in wild speculation throughout the whole thing. <br /><br />2 things of note about the documentary.<br />a) They do a great job on the multiple piercings issue. Amanda's claim about thinking the blood in the bathroom is from her ears makes sense.<br />b) They have Barbie agreeing that amanda called raf after she notices blood; which I don't think is really her opinion.CD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-373425720288771023.post-15600145069812558682011-02-14T18:49:49.803-05:002011-02-14T18:49:49.803-05:00anonymous --
I told you I don't censor for co...anonymous --<br /><br />I told you I don't censor for content. I meant it. You are genuinely free to disagree with me here.CD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-373425720288771023.post-58931729378864267902011-02-14T18:27:13.365-05:002011-02-14T18:27:13.365-05:00CD-Host,
As you have reached out to Solange and o...CD-Host,<br /><br />As you have reached out to Solange and offered this site, I would like to address her indirectly here. <br /><br />I am sooooooo hoping Solange will stay at PMF because she is lively and I have followed her conversations with the others for months now. I saw so much enlargement of her outlook, so much wonderful give and take. It seems she has a lot of real life experience and yet youth and courage and drive. She seems to have been learning the fine points of debate and how to hone her arguments. The sometimes heated reactions from fellow PMF bloggers is very difficult to field sometimes, but just watching this tennis match between Solange and her board I have learned a lot. I don't think I'm as brave as she is to dare the "fat's in the fire" moments. That's why I lurk. <br /><br />Solange, today's discussions need to be shelved until everybody calms down. Two or three days at least. It's amazing the difference a day makes. It will all come right in the end. Please stay on, if at all possible.<br /><br />A fellow learner.<br /><br /><br />Cd-Host thanks if you post this, I know it's at variance with your goals of trying to get Solange to move to IIP, but she needs consolation and encouragement more than either board.anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05821008023486210459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-373425720288771023.post-13010974743233964112011-02-13T20:26:14.970-05:002011-02-13T20:26:14.970-05:00I posted this over on IIP public. Since there is ...I posted this over on IIP public. Since there is traffic from PMF coming here I'll repost as well:<br /><br />Solange305 --<br /><br />I see what's happening. I don't know if you read IIP or church discipline. I think Sarah and Bruce would welcome you on IIP. And I guarantee you, you are also welcome to raise the issues at Church Discipline where in over 4 years of running the blog I haven't banned anyone. <br /><br />Donnie -- I notice you basically got yourself excommunicated and I assume same goes for you on IIP and obviously Church Discipline is wide open.CD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-373425720288771023.post-20228719007975192682011-02-12T22:11:24.135-05:002011-02-12T22:11:24.135-05:00I got called part of the PR conspiracy the other d...<i> I got called part of the PR conspiracy the other day, I was so chuffed! That took forever! I'm rather jealous of how quickly you catapulted to that exalted status, all it took was one word, I didn't think of that! :P </i><br /><br />Well congratulations on making the list! I'm not sure which word I've said, so many to piss them off. You mean "wormfood" or something else? But yes they did instantly hate me. BTW is "Mr. Library Card" you or Kevin? <br /><br /><i> Yes, the conspiracy runs deep indeed. I thought the whole flap over Bruce Fisher and the 'recruitment' of Steve Moore was instructive.... </i><br /><br />Interesting story. I don't know why PMFers have so much confidence in the deductive skills of PMF given how many of their theories are provably false or silly. <br /><br />What's interesting though is there are firms that can organize something like what they speculate <a href="http://www.gogertymarriott.com/showcase/amanda_knox/" rel="nofollow">David Marriott</a> pulled off. For example <a href="http://www.bermanco.com/" rel="nofollow">Berman and Company</a> but they charge around ten million+. So they are paying Gogerty Marriott a heck of a complement saying they can do it for say ten thousand. And I'm sure David hears this and is like, "If I could create fake political movements you think I'd be taking the Knox/Mellas account instead of say the Eli Lilly account?" <br /><br />I have to finish that post on SCO v. IBM which is sort of a comparable situation. SCO also thought that the political movement they were dealing with was all astroturf, a conspiracy organized by IBM. But at least IBM has the resources....<br /><br /><i> Did you know at one time they were keeping track of 'Enemies of Italy?' I think they wanted Mignini to slap a few more bloggers with suits like he did Steve Shay and Joe Cottonwood. You may be next on the list! :) </i><br /><br />Oh Peter's threatened me with that several times. He's even told me he gave my name to Mignini, I kinda believe him. I guess for the next time I'm in Perugia? Because I guess there is no way I could possibly live without the Cathedral of San Pietro or something? <br /><br />Anyway have a good night.CD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-373425720288771023.post-55116771901885851722011-02-12T18:01:50.552-05:002011-02-12T18:01:50.552-05:00(part 2)
I may be wrong about PMF's neutral...(part 2)<br /><br /><br /><i> I may be wrong about PMF's neutrality, but I think they side with Meredith Kercher and the prosecution, and are examining evidence as honestly as they can, evidence that proves this. </i><br /><br />You do see the contradiction there? People who are examining evidence honestly don't need an agenda. They simply examine the evidence and look for best fit theories. If they are engaging in apologetics they aren't examining the evidence to determine the truth, they are examining the evidence to determine its utility in arguing for a particular desired outcome. <br /><br />So what I think you are saying is they are apologists for the prosecution, and allow debate in so far as it advances their apologetic. Which is fine. There are lots of boards that do that. Just say that. And stop being so emotional about the whole thing. To quote Socrates, "Then rhetoric, as would appear, is the artificer of a persuasion which creates belief about the just and unjust, but gives no instruction about them". <br /><br /><i> You hop around like a butterfly from topic to topic, you need to slow down, regroup, get your theory of the crime more polished, </i><br /><br />Why do I need a theory of the crime? I don't argue about the crime, I argue about the case. What actually happened is mostly irrelevant to an argument about the case. I've made this point before in our discussion when you have tried to state the the most important thing is a theory about the crime. I don't have one. I don't particularly care. If there is still reasonable argument about the crime, then <b>by definition</b> the prosecution failed to prove their case. And in 2011 that, not what happened on Nov 1, 2007 is what is really important.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i> read but don't criticize until you have a much better grasp of things. Then change your name and your attitude especially and return to PMF for the neutral dialogue you crave. </i><br /><br />Honestly. I got it on JREF. And I may get it here. <br /><br /><i> If that fails, go elsewhere. With your skills, you could even set up your own site.</i><br /><br />What do you think you are posting on?CD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-373425720288771023.post-3575227246222637482011-02-12T18:01:42.605-05:002011-02-12T18:01:42.605-05:00Jools may have had harrassment as motive, it was p...<i> Jools may have had harrassment as motive, it was probably that. But only after you goaded PMF. You came on too strong, too fast, and tried to drive a wedge in. </i><br /><br />Thank you for admitting that the intent was harassment. That was honest. <br /><br />I presented a defense of an article they were critiquing that was a pure internet dispute about some events in a foreign country. Jools attempted to organize harassment activities towards my real life. That's essentially like throwing a punch in what was a civil disagreement. That's not a minor thing. <br /><br />But importantly then a one off activity. Jools and others on the site, have done this to lots of people. And when its done, leadership approves it. That makes it policy. I.E. one of the functions of PMF is to engage in organized harassment. <br /><br />Now I never goaded PMF, till that point. I really didn't know much about OMF. I wrote an article which was typical innocentisti stuff. They responded and I went to debate. <br /><br />The unhinged emotionalism of PMF converted what should have been a civil exchange. Or perhaps no exchange into a war. But there were not two sides at first, the record is clear on that. <br /><br /><i> Your attitude was observed as being hostile to PMF philosophy that Amanda killed Meredith. </i><br /><br />Of course it was! I was was disagreeing with them. That's what I was there to do. If the policy is no disagreement allowed then they should say that in the membership agreement. Many church sites have a statement of faith you need to agree to before you post (for example <a href="http://www.theopedia.com/Theopedia:Statement_of_faith" rel="nofollow">Theopedia</a>). They should have had a statement of faith.<br /><br />And if they felt I was in violation. Then there should have been a quiet banning. A sorrowful goodbye and some reasonable followup to make sure that as much as possible the parting was on the best terms possible given the circumstances. <br /><br /><i> You want to reshape PMF to your ideal of a dispassionate college debate or a place for all comers. </i><br /><br />No I wanted to engage with a group of people who were engage with my article. I want to reshape all of human society into a place for dispassionate debate. Which has advanced during my lifetime. <br /><br />When I was young "fighting" was much more acceptable then it is today. "That upsets me" is no longer considered an excuse for violent attacks.CD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-373425720288771023.post-11959847635325704622011-02-12T17:00:46.781-05:002011-02-12T17:00:46.781-05:00CD,
I lost a long spiel to you, so this may sound...CD,<br /><br />I lost a long spiel to you, so this may sound choppy. First: peace<br /><br />I don't know Jools' intent in outing you. I repeat I disagree with your outing since you wanted to remain anonymous. It wasn't my call as I'm not PMF. I lurk there and learn. They are a treasured source of info on Meredith's case. They argue facts. They have doctors, lawyers, mathematicians, and other great thinkers that I like to read. It improves my mind. Michael and Machine and Catnip and Skep and SA and many others have nipped some of my fuzzy thinking in the bud. I'm grateful.<br /><br />Jools may have had harrassment as motive, it was probably that. But only after you goaded PMF. You came on too strong, too fast, and tried to drive a wedge in. Your attitude was observed as being hostile to PMF philosophy that Amanda killed Meredith. You want to reshape PMF to your ideal of a dispassionate college debate or a place for all comers. I may be wrong about PMF's neutrality, but I think they side with Meredith Kercher and the prosecution, and are examining evidence as honestly as they can, evidence that proves this. You hop around like a butterfly from topic to topic, you need to slow down, regroup, get your theory of the crime more polished, read but don't criticize until you have a much better grasp of things. Then change your name and your attitude especially and return to PMF for the neutral dialogue you crave. If that fails, go elsewhere. With your skills, you could even set up your own site.<br /><br />Your images suggest you feel deep down you are<br />+a Portuguese Jew<br />+a rape victim<br />+a macho Mack the Knife <br />+a Jean ValJean<br /><br />Frankly this worries me. And to suggest PMF is like evil thugs applauding your intellectual rape is straitjacket territory. You should also not bring a minor child into discussions. As computer smart as you are, you know this. You sow good seed with Biblical scholarship, you'll get a harvest off this. <br /><br />I go to PMF and TJMK for intellectual stimulation, for facts in the case. I don't know what posters are born again, atheists, agnostics, Buddhists. I see Christians supporting Amanda. I differ with them. You're a case in point. I see you threatening PMF and I don't like it. You cry foul because "they harrassed me first". Well, maybe they did. Did you really go there to debate or to push your angle? It's not like you don't have any public outlet for your ideas, you could start a blog of your own. Stop trying to re-make PMF. <br /><br />Song I heard at lunchtime: Jesus on the Mainline, tell him what you want. Also, He's a heavy load bearer, roll your burdens on Him. Lord I stretch my hands to thee, if thou withdraw thyself from me, where shall I go, where shall I go?<br /><br />A Christian always has a hiding place from the wind, a covert from the tempest. Peace. Peace and strength. peaceanonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05821008023486210459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-373425720288771023.post-23482919991595629322011-02-12T13:20:43.482-05:002011-02-12T13:20:43.482-05:00(part 2)
I offered purposes of PMF's actual a...(part 2)<br /><br />I offered purposes of PMF's actual argumentation techniques which include: vilification, profanity, threats, harassment, intimidation.... You don't think Jool's intent was harassment or intimidation. Then what was it. What legitimate argument was Jools trying to advance. Explain that to me. <br /><br />Because if it was an analysis of professional credentials then what Jools discovered were that professional credentials were far in excess of what I claim here. Here I just claim to be a tech guy with no particular background information given. What she found was actual professional experiencing building event logging systems, in both a professional and managerial position. So if the intent was to conduct an analysis of speakers, you would have expected her to say "well actually he checked out". That still be grossly immoral, invasive and show a complete lack of ethics but at least it confirm the argument that they were conducting an investigation and not just acting in a cult like manner to threaten those people in the group with the sort of harassment they can expect if they leave the group.<br /><br />So now that we've proven that her intent was not to actual check my professional credentials, what was her legitimate intent? You tell me? You badgered me with your question. Your turn. Give me some ethical thing that she was doing.<br /><br />(rest of questions in next part)CD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-373425720288771023.post-2907759913182423952011-02-12T13:20:23.332-05:002011-02-12T13:20:23.332-05:00anonymous --
Lets remember context here. You wer...anonymous --<br /><br />Lets remember context here. You were arguing that PMF was a place of ration decorum where the facts and logic of the case were rationally considered. I offered a counter theory that they were a fundamentally a hate group with cultish tendencies. Lets call your theory A and my theory B.<br /><br />If A were true, you would expect to see rational arguments and facts about the case as new information developed. If B were true you might expect to see some level of facts and argument, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics" rel="nofollow">apologetics</a> essentially but a hesitancy to engage with the facts and logic fully. <br /><br />I pointed to the example of the autopsy discussion where there were substantial doubts and a key point in both the appeal and the online discussion. Yesterday Michael bravely declared "Therefore, what imperative is there for us to carry out further investigations and why? We have nothing to prove. The way I see it, it's up to [FOA person] and his bunch to carry out investigations since it is they that are challenging the status quo." Point proven the leadership has spoken. PMF is not about investigating the case.<br /><br />If A were true you would expect to dispassion. If B were true you would expect to see vilification. I think you could pick any day at random and see vilification.<br /><br />If A were true you would expect to see an anxious desire to engage with credible opponents. Rose's frustration at not having a good place to debate the case being a perfect example of what you expect to see. If B were true you would expect to see a desire for isolation and separation.<br /><br />If A were true you would expect to see detailed analysis of the experts. I'll pick my own example what I did with windowserver.log issue, which is really complicated. I tried to write a document that an interested but non expert person could follow arguing why <br />a) Why Apple's NSWindow documentation should be the authoritative source for understanding this piece of the appeal.<br />b) What to look for in this documentation if you wanted to wanted to do the investigation yourself.<br />c) A series of links and diagrams so that you could objectively determine if my piece was correct based on uninterested 3rd parties.<br />IIP, FOA, Chris's site, Rose's site are filled with that sort of stuff. Thousand upon thousands of pages. <br />The opinions of the experts analyzed in detail. <br /><br />If B were true, you would expect to see detailed lists of who "the good guys are" and who "the bad guys are" when it comes to experts. All evidence would be evaluated through the prism of who the speaker was. Are they on the team of the good guys and thus what they say is true, or on the team of the bad guys and thus what they say is false.<br /><br />Etc...<br /><br />(part 2 to follow)CD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-373425720288771023.post-54319729592938117302011-02-12T13:19:13.148-05:002011-02-12T13:19:13.148-05:00Anonymous @10:43, I realize it's commonplace o...Anonymous @10:43, I realize it's commonplace on some boards, such as Perugia Shock, but I've always wondered: why post under 'anonymous?' You're already anonymous with a pseudonym, who needs double-anonymity? Just curious, nothing untoward intended.<br /><br />I think one thing to keep in mind about a board's unwillingness to allow debate or dissent is it simply prove its ideas are unable to withstand scrutiny. It is hardly 'time-wasting' or 'confusing' if the arguments of the majority have merit, if they don't then it is those views that are 'specious.' I note there's not a single board dedicated to the idea that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent that disallows different views about the case, the only boards dedicated to the case that are, happen to be the only two that have come to the conclusion of guilt.<br /><br />That suggests to me that the only true reasons that dissent is squelched quickly at those sites is they know inherently the argument for guilt can no longer hold its own. A premature decision was made with incomplete and inaccurate information and now they circle the wagons looking suspiciously at any deviance from the party line.<br /><br />However, now the appeal is coming, and no one at PMF has a clue or is permitted to post on what kind of case the prosecution will try to make. Massei is 'so last year' now, and without the DNA evidence they may have to make an entirely different case. Thus at this point it has become irrelevant in the debate, living in the erroneous past under conditions that no longer exist.<br /><br />However, I agree, they can run their site any damn way they desire, I just find it curious they'd want to run a pointless one. Sitting on a megaton of info and a desire to affect the coverage of the case you'd think they'd want to present the most palatable picture they could were someone to come looking for information about the murder--perhaps even reporters.<br /><br />Yet they punt that all away in the name of conformity to a set of theories no longer even relevant. I don't get it, who would think of them as anything but outdated as this point? Not being able to discuss the case leaves them with little to talk about save cyclic outbreaks of hate orgies and irrelevancies the rest of the time. How do you suppose that combination comes off to the uninitiated?Kaosiumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03072817874327010156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-373425720288771023.post-20930273453420547722011-02-12T12:40:48.974-05:002011-02-12T12:40:48.974-05:00Kaosium --
I was respond to so much that I let t...Kaosium --<br /><br />I was respond to so much that I let that helicopter comment pass me by. A helicopter is by all accounts the most difficult vehicle to pilot. For example if he got it in the military then 9 weeks of dedicated training, then 6 more weeks of combat training and then 70/150 hrs of logged time before he got his license. And depending on his year then he goes on to get night combat training, which kicked the whole program up to a full year. I can think of anything shameful about that. <br /><br /><i> She was arrested because they thought she'd collaborated with [i]Patrick[/i] in the murder, that's what all their mistaken information pointed to they thought. What are the odds they just happened to put the screws to this otherwise unlikely candidate for one mistaken theory, only to have her fit into another crazy theory? </i><br /><br />Very low but non zero. I'm not disagreeing that botched robbery or other variants of lone wolf are much more likely. And Patrick I don't find incriminating, I think her explanation for that is entirely plausible. But they did look into her SMS messages because they were starting to doubt her and they were starting to doubt her because story about the robbery wasn't adding up and.... And what we are left with is a pile of smoke that never got cleaned up but there may be something there. <br /><br />Again my standard of reasonable doubt is 98%. <br /><br />I think, may be wrong here you typically are willing to do probability arguments. So let me start with my comments about the case in terms of probability and see if we agree that far <a href="http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2011/01/evidence-and-very-unlikely.html" rel="nofollow">evidence and the very unlikely</a>. Because if we agree on that nomenclature in terms of probability it might make the rest of this easier. Fair?CD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-373425720288771023.post-70209791633640376632011-02-12T11:13:05.191-05:002011-02-12T11:13:05.191-05:00Anonymous 10:43 -- that was hilarious! A beautiful...Anonymous 10:43 -- that was hilarious! A beautifully written bit of parody/satire that will have me chuckling for the rest of today. Brilliant!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-373425720288771023.post-15010776749144217922011-02-12T10:43:18.371-05:002011-02-12T10:43:18.371-05:00CD-Host,
You got hysterical and claimed Jools had...CD-Host,<br /><br />You got hysterical and claimed Jools had set up your 11-year-old child for attack. I knew that was balogney and I was shocked you would say it. I can only ascribe it to some wild emotional rant you were on, making exaggeration your mantra. You were mad because Jools outed you, when I later learned she had merely connected the dots and your online connections to real name were available for computer savvy. I think you're computer savvy to the max and are working under assumed names, assumed identities, everything is a false trail. I bet your three weeks in jail was about refusal to ante up fines or comply with The Man, in a way typical of your vendetta against authority. So Jools got some internet research wrong, big deal. As you say, she did find your real "identity" (which I question, I think you're a female). If JB is your real name and identity, then she did get the major issue correct. You seem to fail at the major issue quite often.<br /><br />Like now you wanna run to IIP. Well, go. You are wrong to confuse true crime discussion groups with church politics. I was impressed by the Ohio church that held to the gentlest policies towards the sheep they had disciplined, would that we all could feel such love. As for your batting against the Canadian church with their mentally ill member, who for all you know could have been demon possessed, maybe you would have been better off to leave that church to their own decision. In either case, you only struggled with both these online wrestling matches for at the longest two years. PMF has been battling for three years and more. Time alone changes the fabric of a situation, but you're too rash to know that.<br /><br />You also are in error to dream of some beautifully neutral intellectual paradise where ideas are bandied about and debated in cool, bloodless style like Mr. Spock from Star Trek. PMF comes very close to it, allowing for the warmth of human emotion and even frailties, but returning to the focus of factual discussion of their murder case. Without that central focus, the entire project would collapse into detours of irrelevance, or worse, petty faultfinding. Unity is vital. You dream of some Utopia debate school. That might work with some subjects, but true crime debate has a goal of drawing a conclusion over guilt or innocence, not jumping to a conclusion but after long consideration coming to some conclusion. There's no point in arguing for arguing's sake which means until the cows come home. If an opinion of guilt has been decided by the majority of posters, they don't have to apologize for it. They have the right to run their site as they see fit, from the very beginning for that matter. Openness to opposing viewpoints has a purpose early on, but to continue to allow specious arguments from newcomers which are often dissent for the purpose of confusing and time wasting, is to not learn from the past.<br /><br />I am supportive of every Christian as far as their Christian faith goes. In matters of mind and soul, I go with the facts that fit my mind best, and the soul life is separate from the spirit. Only the Holy Spirit can divide the soul from the spirit. In this murder case, I find more intellectual truth in the PMF camp. There's no such thing as all Christians voting alike or all Christians agreeing if they were on a jury. Their verdict does not dismantle their Christian faith. So I part company with you over the Knox issue, and wish you well with your Christian walk. Michael on PMF sums you up as being an attention seeker and just wanting to smear PMF and despite your intelligence which I admire, I think that's the bottom line. Adieu.anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05821008023486210459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-373425720288771023.post-42252601493276827442011-02-12T10:16:02.528-05:002011-02-12T10:16:02.528-05:00Here's something I found helpful in determinin...Here's something I found helpful in determining whether Amanda had any peripheral involvement in the murder: there's no evidence of that either. If she had some involvement it would have come out at the interrogation, instead of nonsense about Patrick, whom she knew worked all night as she was told not to come in. They broke her to get that gibberish they fed her.<br /><br />She was arrested because they thought she'd collaborated with [i]Patrick[/i] in the murder, that's what all their mistaken information pointed to they thought. What are the odds they just happened to put the screws to this otherwise unlikely candidate for one mistaken theory, only to have her fit into another crazy theory?Kaosiumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03072817874327010156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-373425720288771023.post-76928564813061255812011-02-12T09:31:23.141-05:002011-02-12T09:31:23.141-05:00I got called part of the PR conspiracy the other d...I got called part of the PR conspiracy the other day, I was so chuffed! That took forever! I'm rather jealous of how quickly you catapulted to that exalted status, all it took was one word, I didn't think of that! :P<br /><br />Yes, the conspiracy runs deep indeed. I thought the whole flap over Bruce Fisher and the 'recruitment' of Steve Moore was instructive. Bruce had said something about getting an FBI agent involved, and later on Michelle Moore posted something about 'having heard from Bruce.' Then Steve Moore starts going on television saying his wife watched a show on Amanda Knox and asked him to look into it, he got the crime scene info and how the evidence was collected and freaked, he knew what those pictures meant.<br /><br />However the crack investigators were deeply suspicious. They thought it meant that Bruce Fisher and Steve Moore were lying! Bruce must have recruited Steve Moore with nefarious means! It could only have happened that way! After all, when they started saying it, Michelle Moore took down her posts where she said Bruce had gotten contact with her. That could only mean one thing! A cover-up! Everyone's lying! Everyone's guilty!<br /><br />Of course the obvious answer was that it would be silly to 'lie' over a story, and if Steve Moore was asking around for crime scene info, it might just come to Bruce Fisher's attention and he might pursue it. Michelle Moore might just freak out when she found her facebook page trashed and people taking old posts out of context and take it down.<br /><br />But then they wouldn't be lying! Then they wouldn't be guilty! Not a single one of them was able to ferret out the truth. It surprised me not a whit when Bruce Fisher recently confirmed it had happened more or less like that on JREF.<br /><br />Did you know at one time they were keeping track of 'Enemies of Italy?' I think they wanted Mignini to slap a few more bloggers with suits like he did Steve Shay and Joe Cottonwood. You may be next on the list! :)Kaosiumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03072817874327010156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-373425720288771023.post-71705595028974720162011-02-12T07:49:41.829-05:002011-02-12T07:49:41.829-05:00Rose --
Fantastic post. I had forgotten how deta...Rose --<br /><br />Fantastic post. I had forgotten how detailed the appeal was on this. Because one of the arguments they make is "well why wasn't this raised in court". And Massei makes reference to it too but finds Mignini;'s theory that the food was pushed back into the stomach justified based on no evidence, the typical for Massei. <br /><br />As for Solange reading here, I don't think so. Its hard to know. PMF on the one hand has been misquoting me (something they didn't used to do) and then linking here where the actual quote appears. But the responses are all based on the misquotes. Which I think implies that either:<br /><br />a) They are well trained.<br />b) They aren't reading the original and noticing.<br /><br />I'm kinda going with (a) because they even once quoted the context to prove their misquote was correct and people still agreed. <br /><br /> Besides we are mocking PMF right now, which I know Solange wouldn't like. Solange if you are reading feel free to ask.<br /><br />As for where to go. I'm trying IIP. JREF obviously does not want the Knox thread. Would you want to bring your site back to life to host? I don't have any good ideas. <br /><br />I think its kinda up to the guilters more than the innocentisti. They only have the one place and that's clearly not going to allow any discussion as the latest with Solange proves: doubt is thoughtcrime. They are the ones that ran away. That may be permanent. It may be that the guilty case is simply so weak that they don't want to expose it anywhere to a thorough testing. Possibly what happened in October is the PMF leadership realized that, and had to change cult structures.CD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-373425720288771023.post-60215860629459625032011-02-12T07:26:38.359-05:002011-02-12T07:26:38.359-05:00anonymous --
I want you to take a look at Kaosium...anonymous --<br /><br />I want you to take a look at Kaosium's comment. Board that are "dignified" "focus on evidence" "avoid personal attacks" don't generate that kind of response. <br /><br />Kaosisum -- <br /><br />The conspiracy goes deeper. The work profile they tag too (which interestingly was just auto copied from another site) has a after reference in it to someone whose vouching for the authenticity of it. And that person has a link with lots of references. This means a complex multi party conspiracy to make Mignini's disciples look bad. David Marriott strikes again with his PR machine. <br /><br />Doesn't he understand that prison is in Amanda's best interests and all this obscuring of the evidence, defaming the Italian court and its Spanish assistants ultimately is not even in her interests? Its difficult working in the trenches having to overcome the FOAKer BS all the time. Its a good thing crack investigators are on it. People who selflessly find the truth.<br /><br />So in honor of Meredith Kercher I will confess. I'm really 10 years younger, black and in an entirely different industry. I had a body double working in California. Oh but the body double was white.... hmmm my coworkers were all blind. Damn that David Marriott is tricky.CD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-373425720288771023.post-64496049809627232672011-02-12T07:21:14.115-05:002011-02-12T07:21:14.115-05:00TOD quote from RS appello:
"...all the consu...TOD quote from RS appello:<br /><br /><b>"...all the consultants of the prosecution and the experts, whilst acknowledging the interpretive difficulty of using the gastric contents for thanato-chronological* purposes, identified the time of death with respect to the typology and quantity of gastric contents and to the composition of the last known meal as follows:<br /><br /> * Dr. Lalli: at a distance of not more than 2-3 hours from the consumption of the last meal (see errate corrige [Latin: correction of error] on 15.2.2008, acquired during the trial hearing, and p. 47 of the stenotyped record from the hearing of 3.4.09);<br /> * Prof. Bacci and Dr. Liviero: at a distance of 2-3/3-4 hours from the last meal which was consumed in a discontinuous way from 18.00 and ended at about 20.00 on 1.11.07, as demonstrated by the fact that the stomach was full and the duodenum empty, indicating that gastric emptying had not yet begun (p. 64 hearing 4.4.09; p. 32 hearing 18.4.09);<br /> * Prof. Umani Ronchi: at a distance of 3-4 hours from the last meal (p. 30 hearing 19.9.09).<br /><br />On the basis of these specifications it can be stated that, even taking into account the widest range indicated by the majority of the consultants, the time of death would be no later than 22.50 on 1.11.2007.<br /><br />However, it is possible from a scientific point of view to further restrict such a range using the gastric contents, in terms of size (500 cc.) and composition (pastry, mozzarella, vegetables, apple slices), and comparing this with the last meal eaten by the victim as reported by witnesses: the time of death would in this way be placed, based on forensic criteria of maximum reliability (on account of the individual and converging viewpoints of the various consultant and experts), at a distance of 2-3/3-4 hours from the start of the consumption of the last known meal (18.30-19.00 on 1.11.2007) and thus at about 21.30-22.00.<br /><br />The identification of the time of death as 21.30-22.00 on 1.11.2007 finds confirmation:<br /><br /> * in the correspondence, in terms of quantity (500 cc. or about a kilo of food) and quality (pizza with mozzarella and vegetables, and apple slices), between food consumed during the last meal on 1.11.2007, and the stomach contents of the body;<br /> * in the absence in Meredith’s stomach of fragments of food different to those described by her friends as having been consumed during the meal on 1.11.2007;<br /> * in the empty duodenum, which (having been properly closed by ligation as can be seen in the autopsy) is indicative of the fact gastric emptying had not yet started;<br /> * in the uncertainty about the nature of the vegetable fragment found in the distal third of the oesophagus, never subject to product analysis and which can reasonably be assumed to be a slice of apple."<br /></b>Rose Montaguehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13500975853140673897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-373425720288771023.post-89842135241328411192011-02-12T07:18:42.805-05:002011-02-12T07:18:42.805-05:00Sollange asked some reasonable questions and was i...Sollange asked some reasonable questions and was immediately bullied by the Machine with a list that had nothing to do with the questions she was asking. What about Time Of Death? Amanda lied. What about the bathmat print? Amanda lied. What about the sloppy evidence collection? Amanda lied. What about reasonable doubt? Raffaele lied. See there, no reason for concern. <br> It is getting harder to find a good place for a discussion of this case that takes place in real time with both sides of the case able to present arguments and post pictures, documents, and videos to support the arguments they want to make.<br> JREF's Holy MA has been exposed as a big lie, in my opinion. It is like writing exceptions to the Ten Commandments. Thos shalt have the right to appeal a suspension (Unless I decide I don't want to be bothered). What a joke. In any case I don't know if Sollange reads here but to follow is a human translation of the section of Raffele's appeal dealing with the TOD issue (on next post due to size restrictions).Rose Montaguehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13500975853140673897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-373425720288771023.post-45866972167435264242011-02-12T05:59:59.933-05:002011-02-12T05:59:59.933-05:00You made my night too!
They won't believe yo...You made my night too! <br /><br />They won't believe you of course, your 'denial' is even more proof of your 'guilt!' Guilt, guilt, guilt, all they think about is guilt! :)<br /><br />You join a noble fraternity of Bruce Fisher who they think is a camera man in Seattle for ridiculous reasons. They were saying Steve Moore investigated financial crimes somewhere like Guam and found out they had the wrong Steve Moore, Violent Crimes Unit and anti-terrorism instead; elite evaluation. They called him a helicopter pilot instead as if that was a pejorative, though it's just one of his many skills.<br /><br />Then there's LondonJohn who they won't believe lives in London for really weak reasons, even after he took a picture and posted it at their request, after all he might have had someone else take it and e-mailed it to him, a shadowy network for purposes unknown! They are suspicious. He's guilty of something, they know it! <br /><br /> They found someone near Brisbane named Kevin Lowe who was associated with a school with a funny name, so it had to be him! The more embarrassing, the better evidence it's someone they hate. If he denies it they know it's true, he's lying to hide his guilt! It all comes back to guilt!<br /><br />You now, you must be guilty too! You must have forged that work history so they could find it later to try and cover up your guilt! It was all part of your sinister plot, but they found your out! These are crack investigators, they know Raffaele and Amanda are guilty even without evidence, how could you hope to escape their wizened scrutiny? They know you are guilty of something!<br /><br />Guilt, guilt, guilt, it always comes down to guilt! <br /><br />:)Kaosiumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03072817874327010156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-373425720288771023.post-25353610363418928552011-02-11T21:27:18.750-05:002011-02-11T21:27:18.750-05:00BTW for readers that sort of thing is not allowed ...BTW for readers that sort of thing is not allowed I'm going to card myself in a few days and delete it. But I wanted the bozo patrol to see it. <br /><br />Wow, made my night.CD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-373425720288771023.post-68142467697161187242011-02-11T21:23:14.645-05:002011-02-11T21:23:14.645-05:00(a bit off topic if you are reading this out of co...(a bit off topic if you are reading this out of context)<br /><br />But I've been having a little stress lately from a hate site. And since you are all checking this out for signs of libel. <br /><br />Jools you made my night. You are a moron. You have linked to my work profile a dozen times. Didn't notice that I'm 3000 miles away at that time of that hearing and have never been an elementary school teacher? "Yeah quality research from PMF, we can't even read the documentation we steal." <br /><br />Hate to tell ya but there are a lot of people with my name. One of them even did a murder, maybe that's who I am. I have to admit you had me a little freaked out when you got lucky the first time. This was great. haha love-it love-it. Some cyber stalker. <br /><br />Oh please post more about my troubles as a teacher in Trenton school district. My lifelong desire to teach young children smashed against the rocks in 2002. The agony of defeat. That guy: wrong age wrong color, wrong place, wrong job, wrong time frame. Julia you are a pathetic joke. <br /><br />You couldn't have done anything nicer for me then that little attack. Yep Michael you do do research. <br /><br />____<br /><br />And Some Alibi in answer to your question take a look at Michael's response when Jools first got lucky.CD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-373425720288771023.post-70014305131710892632011-02-11T11:27:45.410-05:002011-02-11T11:27:45.410-05:00(part 3)
Neither fish nor fowl, not palatable. A...(part 3)<br /><br /><i> Neither fish nor fowl, not palatable. A blog can't be all things to all men and retain any integrity or shape of its own. PMF accepts irrefutable arguments for innocence, but they must be irrefutable. </i><br /><br />What is an irrefutable argument for innocence? I can't construct an irrefutable argument that I didn't I didn't kill Meredith Kercher. <br /><br /><i> They can easily spot what is simply an attack on them without merit. If strong evidence arises for Knox's innocence, they will accept it out of intellectual honesty. </i><br /><br />The issue is not guilt or innocence. Its the prosecutions case. You are shifting the burdon of proof. But we have a good case in point, the autopsy is strong evidence for her innocence. And I don't see PMF addressing it. <br /><br />They should have a whole section of the website dedicated to that autopsy proving Mignini's conjecture that the Medical Examiner botched the autopsy. We should see pictures and diagrams of Meredith's stomach, all kinds of stuff about the analysis of materials removed from her stomach which proves that this food was pushed from the small intestine back into the stomach the way need it to be. Was there cholecystokinin, the chemical your body releases on chyme (what comes out of the stomach) as it enters the small intestine? If there is no cholecystokinin Mignini is wrong about the time of death and Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have a 3rd party alibi. I don't think you get more clear cut in terms of evidence then the autopsy. Where do I read about Meredith's stomach contents on PMF? <br /><br />Look at the way Charlie on FOA has pictures, diagrams, articles about the footprints. Original video from the evidence collection....<br /><br /><i> It's good you challenge sites to higher standards and cleaner tone. I'm sure the moderators agree with you on that </i><br /><br />I'm not. I see no evidence for it. Can you show me evidence of places where Michael or Skep or H9 or Bard are working to raise the tone in general as opposed to working to lower it? Where I can see evidence of this work.<br /><br /><br /><i> but when they're working with dozens or hundreds of varied individuals it's hard to control every paragraph of input. </i><br /><br />No its not. Its easy. "We debate ideas not people here. Posts on individuals will be deleted". But lets exclude the work. I've given you examples of them encouraging it, and spending time and effort making sure there is more of it. <br /><br /><i> I think there's a tendency to become lenient with those in support of our ideals. </i><br /><br />I agree. Its one of the reasons to have processes and to watch that tendency. I was less lenient when Dude (innocentisti) made a personal attack against Harry Rag then I have been with you, for exactly that reason.CD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-373425720288771023.post-18032625142766448372011-02-11T11:27:23.228-05:002011-02-11T11:27:23.228-05:00(part 2)
Veer from that too long and see what hap...(part 2)<br /><i> Veer from that too long and see what happens, nor is it possible for a site to take a strong stand for one position while allowing constant battering from people who hold the opposite position. </i><br /><br />Sure it is. I can use this blog as an example. My two successful threads ever. <br /><br />one was on a BS case on the excommunication of a Canadian women who was mentally ill. The regulars on that thread believed she was rightfully kicked out. After an unbelievable large number of posts I managed to get from the Canadian women some evidence supporting her positions and constructed a chain of events. The posters on that thread mostly were of the opinion that church's should not follow due process with respect to church discipline. <br /><br />The pastor was a good guy, the woman a nut and therefore he was right. They probably did 600 posts all but the ones that were nothing but insults remained on this blog for a discussion that lasted something like 4.5 months. <br /><br />I think you know me well enough to know what I would think of the she's bad / he's good therefore he's right to break process argument. <br />___<br /><br />The other is a series of threads over 2 years. Long investigation into an Ohio mega-church with a string of complaints. Prosecutorial abuse, faked evidence.... but as I looked into this in detail what I found was:<br /><br />a) They had worked out a good system of checks and balances.<br /><br />b) They had tremendous concern for making sure the rights of the accused were protected.<br /><br />c) There had been some problems in the early 1990s and rather than cover then up the church underwent structural reform to make sure they wouldn't happen again. <br /><br />d) They were genuinely concerned with anyone who years later felt they had mistreated. They understood that when they were disciplining there would be complaints. But if years later people still had a grudge, they saw that as a failing and wanted to see if there was anything could do. <br /><br />e) They welcomed outside oversight and suggestions.<br /><br />So here I was having investigated this church and found no sign of abuse. An example I've given to other similar churches in how they should do things. Most of the posters had completely unrealistic expectations and continued to believe they were awful.CD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.com