Judge Massei Sentencing Report     The Meredith Kercher Fund     The Murder Of Meredith Kercher Wiki     True Justice For Meredith Kercher     Judge Nencini Sentencing Report 


Last visit was: Mon Mar 27, 2017 6:32 am
It is currently Mon Mar 27, 2017 6:32 am
All times are UTC

BRUCE FISCHER

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


 Page 1 of 1 [ 6 posts ]
Author Message

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7095

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2012 3:09 am   Post subject: BRUCE FISCHER   

THE BRUCE FISCHER PAPERS:

It seems that Bruce Fischer, the organizer of Amanda Knox's online advocacy campaign, has quite a thin skin, and also, a very active enemies list. He complains about the actions of those on PMF who personalize the argument, and you know what? I agree that both sides resort to personal attacks. But you gotta admit, he takes it just a little bit further..

Now it's all quite well for him to go on about my astrology as if that is the sum total of my contribution to TJMK and both PMF's. If that sells his books, or his argument, then go for it. I only laugh his hypocrisy in accepting the help of an astrologer, Lisa Lazuli, who was one of his main supporters in the UK, and got him a lot of interviews. Is astrology bunk or not, Bruce, or did you only accept her help because she kept her mouth shut? She certainly never provided an astrological argument for Knox and Sollecito's innocence, because you know what, there isn't any.

But this is by way of jest only. He and his ex-FBI agent friend Steve Moore conducted a series of background checks on their opponents, and the first they came up with was True Justice for Meredith Kercher's Peter Quennell. A series of embarassing e-mails from a previous associate of Quennell came up, from a dancer he once knew. I hold no brief for Quennell, but find Bruce's release of private e-mails despicable in itself, and would say the same if that had been done to him. Argue guilt or innocence, try to act as a decent human being, but don't bore with details about someone's personal life.

Then, latest in a list of people 'outed' by his cohorts was a California neurologist who had a depressive episode many years ago, attacked his psychiatrist, and had restrictions placed on his license as a consequence. He's been quite a thorn in the side of the Amandists for some time, in Wikipedia and dot org, so sure enough, Gman Steve Moore mentioned him on his Facebook account, and an 'anonymous' poster showed up here with all the gory details. And sure enough, there's full bore gloating and concern trolling on Bruce's site about 'someone with a history of assaulting women' (a lie) and how 'dot org should dissociate themselves from him', and how 'someone should report him to the Medical Council' for his writing on the case'. Bruce of course chimes in with how 'he doesn't agree with outing anyone'. No of course not, you get others to do it for you, Bruce.

Case in point: now they're threatening to locate a poster, an Italian lawyer called Yummi/Machiavelli and reveal all his private details, report him to Homeland Security and put him on the no-fly list. Bruce bleats, once again, how 'he doesn't believe in outing anyone'.Charming.

Case in point: they claimed that one of our posters falsely claimed credentials to comment on the case. Without naming the individual and out of respect for their privacy, I'll just say that he got his facts, as usual, colossally wrong. Not that he ever lets that get in his way, but he got what he was aiming for. That person withdrew from commenting to maintain privacy. And that's what Bruce strives to do. He can't win an argument on the facts, so he goes for personal attacks, always. And the truth and Bruce Fischer will always remain strangers to each other.

Case in point: we 'hate' Amanda Knox. No, we don't. A few might use unparliamentary language or be downright rude, but we don't hate her, we hate what she did to Meredith Kercher. And can the rhetoric about how we're painting you as haters, ok? Give me an example of where I encouraged that; I doubt you have one.

Case in point: They attack our credibility, yet themselves, have none. I mean, Google Translate and non-professional translators to explain legal documents in the Italian?

Case in point: hyping up what we say in these forums as a threat of physical violence? That simply is not true, but what I see on your pages is incitement to harass people, as I intend to show.

Case in point: attempts to say we sexualize Amanda Knox, or Meredith Kercher. Maybe it's projection on your part?

And what's with the obsession about PMF? Fifty-five pages of comments in less than a year in a private members only topic called "Today on PMF" and almost as many on "Today on TJMK" where they parse and breathlessy report what we say and what they can glean about our personal lives from FaceBook? I think it's silly when our side does it, to be honest. But they take it to an extreme, as I have shown over and over again. Yes, I was at first amused by the lengths they go to, but I think the point at which they intruded on people's personal lives was sad, and so, I will post these pages, for all to see and judge for themselves. The funniest is the one where I'm plotting to take over PMF (sorry, I was a reluctant volunteer, and only for the duration) and the worst is when they act like a bunch of McCarthyites.

So I'm going to post them, THE BRUCE FISCHER PAPERS. I'm tired of having people threaten legal action or abusing my friends. Watch these pages in the next while, and by all means try to embarass me. I will still be here till justice for Meredith Kercher is won.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7095

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2012 5:47 am   Post subject: HOW THE BRUCE FISCHERS OPERATE, PART I   

How the BF’s operate, Part I.

This is referring to dot org member and Italian lawyer Yummi/Machiavelli, who's being holding up very well in 'debate' over on the Amanda Knox discussion thread. This was after he wrote his major article summing up the Galati Appeal for TJMK. So what do they do? What they usually do, threaten to 'out' him, put him on a no fly list etc. Note Bruce Fischer's mealy mouthed "we are not here to out people" Uh huh, that's what just happens after someone gets up your nose, innit? Amanda must be so proud.

B_Real Post subject: Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011
Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2012 7:45 am

Quote:
Is his real name known? It's none of my business and I don't want to know it, but this person has made statements in support of terrorism against the United States. There's something wrong with his mechanism frankly, if he's saying stuff like that.


B_Real Post subject: Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011
Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2012 8:04 am

Quote:
Not to mention no fly lists with the kind of pro terrorist bullshit he's come out with, if it's him. But who knows. Surely BRMull and Machiavelli couldn't be outed in the same week?


Murdoch Post subject: Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011
Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2012 8:07 am

Quote:
I think he should be outed if he keeps up this bullshit of calling innocent people murderers and posting on TJMK.


We are not here to out people. Machiavelli's credibility is being challenged just fine without any need to know who he is. I understand the frustration. I am not his biggest fan.

Bruce


Murdoch wrote:

Quote:
I don't like how he implies special inside knowledge about the case when he's a university professor who traveled to Perugia to attend a couple of court sessions and had an expresso with Mignini but that's all.


B_Real Post subject: Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011
Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2012 8:42 am

Quote:
Well, it seems like a matter of time before this information gets out.

I wouldnt be suprised if some anonymous person posted Machiavelli's details on the internet in the next few days.

Then we can all discuss how qualified he is to talk about the technicalities of the Italian legal system.


B_Real Post subject: Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011
Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2012 8:57 am

Quote:
May I ask, Machiavelli, what is your opinion of your fellow PMF forum member brmull?


There we go, and I guess we can't be more blatant than that :(
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7095

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Aug 20, 2012 3:19 am   Post subject: THE MANIPULATION OF WIKIPEDIA   

Here you go, Napia5, in their own words, THE BRUCE FISCHER PAPERS:

Interesting to see a plan to coordinate the manipulation of the Meredith Kercher article. Interesting to see their site admin advise them to use other names so they can't be identified by their er, biases..
Interesting to see how them get a lot of help from Wikipedia second in command 'Slim Virgin' (I know a bit about her past history at Wikipedia, will post later)
Interesting to see how their proposed Candace Dempsey article got nowhere, but their Giuliano Mignini article end up as an out and out libel on him by Dougs Bremner and Preston, with Slim Virgin placidly standing by. See the talk pages on the Meredith Kercher and Mignini articles to see what I mean.
Interesting to see brmull (at least he uses his real name) literally stand off the ravening hordes, though of course Jimmy Wales and Slim Virgin controlled the outcome, causing many Wikipedia editors to quit in protest.
Interesting to see what was hidden, come to light, causing much reaction amongst the hive.

How the Bruce Fischers operate, Part II.

Sarah Post subject: WIKI - Article Development Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 7:51 pm
Site Admin

Quote:
If anyone wants to help develop Wiki articles on the case sign up to for Wikipedia and become an editor.
There is a lot to be added.

Start by reading the articles and the discussions on the talk pages.

Murder of Meredith Kercher
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murde ... th_Kercher

Amanda Knox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_Knox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amanda_Knox

Giuliano Mignini
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuliano_Mignini
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Giuliano_Mignini

* Note
If you are a NEW Editor it would be best to use a different User Name then the one you comment on this case with.



tabjustice Post subject: Re: WIKI - NEW ARTICLE DEVELOPEMENT Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:34 pm

Quote:
The "Murder of Meredith Kercher" article is a disgrace. I'm very tempted to propose deletion.

I cannot believe the level of lunacy in the discussions surrounding it. Seriously? Amanda Knox should not have a Wiki article because she is only 'notable' for having been associated with this murder??? Folks, it works the other way around: Meredith Kercher's murder is 'notable' solely because of the bizarre handling of the case and the fact that Amanda Knox, an American, became a magnet for press coverage.

Why is this still going on??


Sarah Post subject: Re: WIKI - NEW ARTICLE DEVELOPEMENT Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 10:36 am
Site Admin

Quote:
Here is the outcome of the Amanda Knox redirect discussion. "I do not see here a draft of the article that I consider satisfactory. As an editorial comment, preparing a better draft before removing the redirect would be an incredibly wise move. However, in actual action, I will merely lower the protection on this redirect from full to semi"

We need people to write the draft article - Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito

-------------------------------------
Amanda Knox –
This is, perhaps the messiest DRV I've seen in my nearly 18 months as an administrator active around deletion on this project. We have so many concerns, arguments and counter arguments going on here, that to try to analyse them in a few closing paragraphs would be a futile endeavour. I'll point out a few things I've considered especially relevant, though. The AFD that is technically being "appealed" here is around 16 months old, and given the immense amount of coverage pointed at by the participants in this debate, and proceedings since then in the Italian legal system, this DRV focuses on the original AFD it is "reviewing" not at all. This is not normally the nature of DRV, but little about either this discussion or this case is normal; so this is almost, to me, a question of "unprotect, or leave fully protected as a redirect" more than a review of the original close. As it regards WP:CRIME, it is rightly pointed out that many things about this particular case are not normal, a word that the CRIME guideline uses to describe it's own applicability.
BLP1E is another significant point of contention. BLP1E, per its wording, applies to people who, outside of that event "otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual,". Consensus here is that Knox is not a low-profile individual. A final point, and one that weighs in my mind, is whether it is proper to redirect a person's name to a crime they were found not guilty of in a court of law. Under BLP principles, it does not sit well in my mind. There is also some debate here about restructuring or renaming the MoMK article. While I have read and considered those viewpoints, I have to consider such an action as some suggested as ultra vires of the closing admin in a DRV, and such issues would be more suited to a well advertised RFC.

Accordingly, I see a consensus here to vacate the 2010 AFD. As I said at the beginning, the discussion here was limited about the actual merits of that close at the time it was made, and I do not find anything here that supports a straight close of this DRV as overturn.

Now, for the mechanics. I do not see here a draft of the article that I consider satisfactory. As an editorial comment, preparing a better draft before removing the redirect would be an incredibly wise move. However, in actual action, I will merely lower the protection on this redirect from full to semi. It is my opinion, that, given the BLP issues, and the history of vandalism on Murder of Meredith Kercher, that this ongoing semi is a reasonable precaution. Another AFD, or further merge discussion, is of course at editorial discretion, but it is my opinion that those discussions should give time for a quality article to develop at this title before another deletion discussion is held. – Courcelles 11:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
-----------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... manda_Knox

Sarah Post subject: Re: WIKI - NEW ARTICLE DEVELOPEMENT Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2011 8:52 pm
Site Admin

NEW GIULIANO MIGNINI ARTICLE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuliano_Mignini
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Giuliano_Mignini

Sarah Post subject: Re: WIKI - NEW ARTICLE DEVELOPEMENT Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 6:03 pm
Site Admin

AMANDA KNOX - New Article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_Knox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amanda_Knox

If anyone wants to help build the article hop in. Start at the talk page
.

geebee2 Post subject: Re: WIKI - NEW ARTICLE DEVELOPEMENT Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:07 am

Quote:
This seems like excellent news

http://www.groundreport.com/Opinion/The ... ia/2942227

Quote:
Over the last two weeks the article has been completely rewritten by a “Super Administrator” called Slimvirgin who is thought to be the second most powerful figure at the online encyclopedia behind Mr. Wales. Slimvirgin has done a stellar job. The article now, for the most part, accurately represents the facts of the case.
But it hasn’t always been that way. For the last two years the article represented little more than a soapbox where those with an agenda of hate could use the good name of Wikipedia to promote their warped opinions about the sensational trial
.

Sarah Post subject: Re: WIKI - Article Development Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 7:10 pm
Site Admin
Vote

Quote:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Knox (2nd nomination)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... nomination)

There is a vote going on about whether to delete the Amanda Knox article
.

geebee2 Post subject: Re: WIKI - NEW ARTICLE DEVELOPEMENT Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:07 am

Quote:
There is a point in the Wiki that I'm not too sure about. It says ( about Raffaele )
Quote:
At some point he signed a statement saying that he and Knox had been out on the evening of the murder and had parted company at 9 pm, and that she had not shown up at his apartment until 1 am. This left both of them without an alibi for the evening. That Sollecito had changed his story was conveyed to Knox, who by then was being interviewed in another room.
but then further down it says
Quote:
Knox maintained she was with Sollecito at the time, but during police questioning after 10 pm on 5 November 2007, Sollecito said that he could not be certain she was with him when he was asleep.


which seems inconsistent ( unless I'm missing something ).

I'm not too familiar with Wiki editing, maybe someone could get this sorted out
.

MustBeQuantum Post subject: Re: WIKI - Article Development Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2011 3:23 pm

Quote:
For those who are interested, there is a notorious prosecutorial misconduct, false confessions, real killer DNA and all the bells and whistles. Main article is about Rolando Cruz, one of the people convicted and the secondary article is about the murder of Jeanine Nicarico. This happened in Illinois in the 1980s-1990s (when I lived there), so I remember a lot about using false confessions and how many people were fired in the State's crime labs for speaking out about the nonsense prosecution of three men against all evidence. Hope this is long ago enough to see the structure of witchhunts
.

Sarah Post subject: Re: WIKI - Article Development Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 6:45 pm
Site Admin

Quote:


Sarah Post subject: Re: WIKI - Article DevelopmentPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:28 am
Site Admin

Quote:
Wikimania 2012
by Joseph Bishop
July 18, 2012

http://www.groundreport.com/Business/Wi ... 12/2947112


MustBeQuantum Post subject: Re: WIKI - Article Development Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 11:14 am

Quote:
Joseph Bishop is an excellent writer (with awesome credentials).

A few months ago (don't remember exactly), I did an analysis of how long articles were compared to the MoMK article. The MoMK was longer (and by implication) more important than presidents, monarchs, prime ministers, and anyone else who has even passively appeared on the world stage.

IMHO the overly long article (with outrageous insinuations against the former defendants) is still a trainwreck. The arguments and bannings of any independent professional opinions makes it clear that the article itself is dreck.

I hope that someone who is familiar with the standards and culture [of Wikipedia] can monitor the article about MoMK. I was laughing because the Follain quotes in the section regarding the student house have become uncomfortably skewed. But Follain is considered "authoritative" -- right?


Bill Williams Post subject: Re: WIKI - Article Development Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 1:51 pm

Quote:
I am an amateur editor (ie. not a paid editor or on staff, just a schmuck with a keyboard and an opinion) on Wikipedia. I've been involved in dustups on Wikipedia around appropriate editing, however, nothing nearly on the scale of the MoMK page.

But one thing that everyone has to get their head around is something that surprised me when a senior editor intervened on one of the dustups....

"Truth" itself is not a criteria that intersts Wikipedia.

Read that again. It is veritablility and, "did an authoritative source say that," which is at issue.

More an this later. But that's the sum total of it, and all Wiki-philes need to get their head around it.


Truth itself is not a criteria that interests Wikipedia, indeed.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7095

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:02 am   Post subject: WHY THE BRUCE FISCHER PAPERS?   

Here's why: I've been following them for more than two years now and most of what they wrote were petty, personal attacks on individuals, or egging each other on about how we were all going to be SUED. And these very same individuals would then post even more scurrilous statements about John Kercher under different names at Huffington Post and the James Randi forums.

It seemed like we were all shaking our head at their general awfulness but missing some of the interesting things they were saying. Connect the dots and you could see a pattern of collusion, but really they just were a gabby bunch, who revealed much.

That Saul Kassin had written a brief for the Hellman Court.
Frank Sfarzo coming here for DEFCON 3.
When they turned on their own, journalist Steve Shay.
Their manipulation of Wikipedia.
Their hyping of how 'Amanda was in danger' from PMF followers. (Now they're in full PR mode for her upcoming book)
Their outing of brmull was following their m.o., denials notwithstanding. (They're threatening to write to his medical licensing board now)

So yes, there will be more of THE BRUCE FISCHER PAPERS (it is his website, so he's responsible)

It will not be about the person, but, the actions of the people behind the online campaign of Amanda Knox, on the website dedicated to proving her innocence. And as they are so keen to keep telling every one, her family supports them 100%.

If that is the case, there should be no problem writing about their activities on her behalf, no?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7095

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:36 pm   Post subject: THE OUTING OF BRMULL   

How the Bruce Fischers operate, Part II

I've been observing the way in which the Bruces delight in outing PMF members and look for embarassing information, the better to, in their eyes, 'discredit' their work.

PMF .Org member brmull has been a real thorn in the side of the Friends of Amanda, and sure enough, they dug up some information about him, then posted it here and on Facebook. Much denial and cheering ensued, but it is clear from their posts just who provided that information. Here, verbatim, are some of their quotes. It's up to four pages of comments already, and clear that any one who annoys them, gets the full Bruce/Steve Moore treatment.

Quote:
suomisat wrote:
So what's the actual story behind the outing? The guilters are putting it down to Steve Moore, and on .net some moderator (Nell I believe) is saying it's retaliation for brmull trashing (in his own mind) Steve's book. The others think it's retaliation for his trashing (in his own mind) Saul Kassin's work and credentials.

Do they have any grounds for these statements or are they just guessing (as they so often do).

Me, I think it's just Karma


Dougm Post subject: Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011 Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 10:30 am
Quote:
I can give you a quick summary of what happened, mostly because I happened to read ".net" right around the time the outing happened.

The information about Brmull is in the public record, and fairly easy to find by anyone with an internet connection and google. Although many people were aware of it, no one connected to this case debate has posted anything about it. Steve Moore had recently posted something about it on his Facebook page, but it was not visible to anyone that was not a friend of Steve on Facebook, and he did not say who the person was, or the screen name of the person, just that someone who posts online against Amanda and Raffaele had some issues.

On Tuesday, someone signed up at ".net", posted the information about Brmull, with a link to the public information, and mentioning Steve Moore's post from Facebook. The comment, links, etc. were subsequently removed from ".net", but within a short period, Brmull posted his own comment about it on ".org", which was then copied over to ".net".

So that is the scoop. Not sure who posted the info on ".net". It wasn't Bruce, or Steve, or anyone the guilters are trying to say it was. I agree with Bruce and Bill, though. I don't think, if some information like that came out, that we would gloss over it because that person supports Amanda and Raffaele.


suomisat Post subject: Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011 Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:05 am

Quote:
Teddy, thanks. I had seen the first link, but not the second.

That explains a lot.

I always thought guilters displayed a fundamental hatred of women in their rhetoric. (Even the female guilters: pink on pink airstrikes) Didn't expect it to be expressed in quite such a physical fashion though.


sept79 wrote:
Quote:
What part of brmull’s attack and attempt to strangle a female associate does Skeptical Bystander and her close band of haters not understand?


suomisat Post subject: Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011 Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:52 am
Quote:
Please PM me details


Bruce Fischer wrote:
Quote:
I posted the photo of Frank, Steve, and I as a joke. I knew PMF would take it. In the past they liked to talk about how Frank and I didn't get along and how Frank called me confused. Just stting the record straight, that's all. Why on earth would they think I would be mad at them for posting that picture?

Now I see Peggy flying in to defend Brmull by continuing to post false information about me. I hope it helped her to deal with her anger.

I actually thought Peggy might take Brmull's situation seriously. I had no interest in seeing him outed but once he was I thought Peggy might take notice. Nope. She's not crazy like Michael, she is very sane, just extremely hateful and angry. Not a good combination.


B_Real Post subject: Re: Today over at PMF Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 5:57 pm
Quote:
She didn't want to let 'you' win by banning brmull since she no doubt blames you for masterminding the outing.

So instead she's ended up endorsing a clearly unstable poster with a history of violence against women. Rather her than me. That's the kind of thing that could really come back to bite you. No way I'd have my name associated with someone like that.


Sarah Post subject: brmull outing Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:45 am
Site Admin
Tue Aug 14, 2012
brmull wrote:
Quote:
You know you've hit the big leagues in this case when people try to figure out who you are in real life and cause problems for you. Steve Moore and his buddies found out that I have a probation agreement with the Medical Board of California. You can't fool Special Agent Man. The details are kind of lurid, but thankfully no patients were harmed. I should add that I had absolutely no--zero--say as to the description of events written in the stipulation. It was a sign-it-or-lose-your-license proposition. I'm happy to talk in general terms about what happened but I don't think it would be wise for me to explicitly disagree with what is written in a legal document I signed.

I was re-reading John Kercher's book the last couple of days and nothing that has happened in my life compares to what Knox and Sollecito did to Meredith, or what the PR campaign did to Meredith's family. When I had my difficulties, Meredith was alive and vibrant and had a full life ahead of her. She had less than a month to live. I do administrative work in LA and I have a decent life. Someday I hope to return to practice but it's not entirely up to me. If anyone wants to tell the Medical Board I said mean things about them, I think there's a button you can push on their website to do just that. That goes for you too, Amanda Knox. Just be careful not to publish any factually inaccurate claims about my ability to do my job, because that's libel and I do need the money.


Sarah Post subject: Re: brmull outing Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:49 am
Site Admin
Quote:
Sanctions:
Physical or Mental Impairment (10/8/2008)
Action Taken: Probation
Allegation of Complaint: Dr. Brendan Robert Mull; License # A74733

http://www.healthgrades.com/physician/d ... ound-check
http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Do ... 265984.php


Sarah Post subject: Re: brmull outing Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:50 am
Site Admin
Quote:
This information has been known for a while. I am generally not in favor of outing people. The information is already out there now though after it was posted on Facebook. I think it might be best to have a conversation here instead of leaving it to the Ground Report comment sections. The reason the information was outed by someone is to show the lack of credibility the posters against Amanda and Raffaele have.

I hope everyone can understand that this information does discredit brmull.
At the same time, lets not be cruel jerks who taunt this guy about any of his mental health issues
.

Bill Williams Post subject: Re: brmull outing Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:57 am
Quote:
It's good to see Dr. Mull outing himself. The good doctor should take his own counsel, though, about advancing factually inaccurate claims
.

Clive Wismayer Post subject: Re: brmull outing Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 12:03 pm
Quote:
Has this person engaged in slander against anyone? Has he caused letters to be written to employers and academic institutions with which the accused or the PIPs are associated? Has he approved such activity on the part of others, or deprecated it?

If Dr B R Mull, one who knows the value of a hard-earned professional reputation, has sunk to these depths then he merits utter contempt. I hope it will not occur to anyone here to emulate such despicable behaviour whether by way of retaliation or otherwise. For my part, I would regard that with equal contempt.


Grayhawker Post subject: Re: brmull outing Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 12:07 pm

Quote:
Wow. A history of violence.

Sounds like the basis of someone capable of committing a capital crime and has personal knowledge of being a drug addict, too.

Sounds like a lot of projection of his own personal demons, coloring his glasses guilty, when he looks at Knox and Sollecito.


Quote:
How long before we learn about Harry Rag?


_________________
Kent "Grayhawker" Myers

Clive Wismayer Post subject: Re: brmull outing Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 12:13 pm

Quote:
Steve Moore plays for keeps and these idiots at PMF don't know which way is up. The whole thing makes me sick. They are haters. I am following and occasionally posting in the Scott Peterson thread (sorry to mention his name here) and I think, frankly, he's probably guilty as charged. But I don't see why I have to hate him or despise the PIPs, find out their backgrounds etc etc etc . What a load of utter nonsense. I repeat what I said before, internet anonymity has to end. As things are, it's just a shield for unrelenting hate.


Bruce Fischer Post subject: Re: brmull outing Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 12:55 pm
Site Admin

Quote:
I would urge everyone that is associated with this forum to ignore Brmull wherever he may decide to post. I am not surprised to hear about his history. I find it to be sad. I feel that Brmull has built up an anger toward Amanda Knox that is potentially dangerous.

I am not surprised to see Brmull being defended on .org. I would hope that some of the readers there would take the situation seriously but I don't know if there are any logical thinking people left over there.

I wonder what Peggy will think about a man with a known history of violence that once spoke directly to Amanda on Peggy's website stating "Amanda, if you are reading this and I am sure you are - Fuck You!"

I did not go back to get the exact wording of Brmull's quote but it's close enough to get the point.


suomisat Post subject: Re: brmull outing Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 12:59 pm

Quote:
It's like Dr House but without the brilliant diagnostic work. Can we get a pill-popping emoticon?


Bill Williams Post subject: Re: brmull outing Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 1:07 pm
Quote:
Are they defending him against the action taken by the professional accrediting authority?


Bruce Fischer Post subject: Re: brmull outing Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 1:08 pm
Site Admin
Quote:
Brmull recently posted a long rant against Saul Kassin on TJMK trying is best to discredit Kassin. Brmull fails miserably of course but he ends the rant with this:

"We are continuing to seek answers from American Psychologist as well as from Kassin and the colleges at which he teaches. Kassin is embarking on a speaking tour in the fall based on his misleading article and we will be pressing our concerns wherever he goes."

I know this is not incriminating in any way but why would a guy that is currently on probation for an act of violence want to post online that he plans to harass someone at speaking engagements?


suomisat Post subject: Re: brmull outing Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 1:12 pm
Quote:
The worst offenders have been begging to be nailed to the wall for years (figuratively speaking). I say oblige the lot of em.

Brmull just pushed and pushed and pushed, and never realized he was getting himself into an outing war with the w.r.o.n.g. people.


suomisat Post subject: Re: brmull outingPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 1:13 pm

Quote:
I'm not saying do this, but

It would be funny to provide the probation board with a list of his more rabid statements over the years when he was supposed to be behaving.

Poetic justice. But no, let's not stoop so low.


AnimalFriendly Post subject: Re: brmull outing Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 1:15 pm
Quote:
I too am not the least bit surpised to learn these things about BMull. I have long thought there really was something wrong about this person. Just little things like vilifying someone, insisting they are guilty of murder...and using incredibly flimsy stuff like the "scene out of Baghdad" or "angry drunk" to make their case. Even if these things, and many more like them, were 100% verified as having happened by real, identifiable people - which they are anything but.

For BMull to mention Steve Moore, given the Pepperdine fiasco, with respect to his own "outing" is hypocritical to the nth degree.

And how amazing to read that BMull doesn't even mention Guede above. I really think in his warped mind that Guede is pretty much blameless.


Grayhawker Post subject: Re: brmull outing Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 1:16 pm

Quote:
Bruce Fischer wrote:
"Brmull recently posted a long rant against Saul Kassin on TJMK trying is best to discredit Kassin. Brmull fails miserably of course but he ends the rant with this:

"We are continuing to seek answers from American Psychologist as well as from Kassin and the colleges at which he teaches. Kassin is embarking on a speaking tour in the fall based on his misleading article and we will be pressing our concerns wherever he goes."

I know this is not incriminating in any way but why would a guy that is currently on probation for an act of violence want to post online that he plans to harass someone at speaking engagements?"


Quote:
Or that information getting back to his licensing board? Especially while on probation?

Dr. Kassin is basically his senior peer within his chosen profession!!!


B_Real Post subject: Re: brmull outing Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 2:42 pm
Quote:
She (Peggy Ganong) can't just ignore this surely.

This isn't some internet blowhard but a man with a history of violence against women.

I'd be concerned if he was posting on a forum owned by me.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7095

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 9:09 pm   Post subject: THE BRUCE FISCHER PAPERS   

The funny thing is, that Bruce Fischer has written more often about me than I him, and, providing he behaves there won't be more than 6-7 of the papers. Yet, his group, with 5700+ of "Today Over At PMF" reports of everything we do, think that I'm picking on him?

Sorry, but his behaviour and that of his group has been awful. Btw, Bruce, I did not say your wife was 'evil', or anything else in that vein, so please clarify that in your post.

One of the behaviours I have observed about Bruce Fischer/Steve Moore is their thin skinnedness and um, stretching of the truth. So Moore will accuse our The Machine of sending porn to his wife, yet I get howls when I say he ran a background check on Peter Quennell and brmull and passed it on to his friends?

Well, here's the next installment of the papers, THE OUTING OF BRMULL http://perugiamurderfile.net/viewtopic. ... 095#p99095 in the Bruce Fischer thread. There's a representative sample of the four pages of gloating and 'suggestions' to report him that ensued, and saying how they would have thrown him to the curb if one of their own had done the same thing.

The offending material was posted here by a concern troll, and stayed up for an hour before I put it under lock and key. It was also posted on Facebook, as can be seen by the attached posts there.

For the record, I looked at the 'information' they provided. Their posts are baseless exaggerations, and refer to one single incident when he snapped under stress.

I see no evil in this man and am glad he got the support of his friends at .ORG. And I speak for .NET in extending the same support to him. And whatever the Friends of Amanda say, brmull has not been discredited, and his work, is and has always been stellar. He is one of the mainstays of PMF and TJMK, and we support him.

I do not condone 'outing' anonymous people, no matter which side does that. It might interest people to know that when a lawyer on the other side made threats about our legal liability, I made a point of checking a) the law, and b) his identity. I do not appreciate threats, couched in whatever language. And lo and behold, this lawyer had been sanctioned, and argued mental stress. I did not out him then, nor will I ever do so, because those aren't the principles I live by.

Principles the Bruces might choose to live by, though funny, denials aside, even their own thinks ex-FBI agent Steve Moore outed brmull.

Clive Wismayer Post subject: Re: brmull outing Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 12:13 pm

Steve Moore plays for keeps and these idiots at PMF don't know which way is up.
Top Profile E-mail 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 1 of 1 [ 6 posts ]


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests

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

  

Judge Massei Sentencing Report     The Meredith Kercher Fund     The Murder Of Meredith Kercher Wiki     True Justice For Meredith Kercher     Judge Nencini Sentencing Report 


27,838,721 Views