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

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow, this has been illuminating.

My needle is definitely swaying heavily back into innocent territory.

It's apparent to me at this point that the DNA evidence is definitely disputable.

The rest of the case is basically completely circumstantial.

And I still haven't heard a cognizant theory of why Rudy would be working together with the others.

Everyone here does realize that sometimes people commit crimes where we can't prove that the committed them right? This seems like a case where if they did commit the crime that the pieces just aren't there to convict. This is ok, the justice system in my opinion should be erring on the side of caution when convicting people.

Also the original bathroom video contrasted with the "special police version" is insane. The fact that the police released that blows my mind.
 
I wonder if it would be helpful to review what we have and maybe find points where we agree and those where there are questions/disagreements? It would be a long exercise and we would have to cooperate (is that even possible?) because there is so much to consider. But I think it might be useful to have it all in one place. Does anyone else agree?
 
I wonder if it would be helpful to review what we have and maybe find points where we agree and those where there are questions/disagreements? It would be a long exercise and we would have to cooperate (is that even possible?) because there is so much to consider. But I think it might be useful to have it all in one place. Does anyone else agree?


Sounds good.
 
I certainly did not ask you for it "as evidence that the bra strap had been moved".There is no dispute that it was moved.

It read that way to me.

halides1 said:
Fiona,

Photos from a video camera show that the bra was moved at least once in those forty-odd days and that it ended up lying next to a disheveled rug.

Chris

fiona said:
Which video?

brodski said:
OK, they assert that the clasp was moved, where are the details and evidence?

halides1 said:
The scientists discussed a video camera in the link I provided.

Fiona said:
So show it.

I thought you were asking for the video that showed the clasp was moved to prove that it did, but I do have a history of misunderstanding things on this thread.
 
And I still haven't heard a cognizant theory of why Rudy would be working together with the others.
What do you mean by working together, and what sort of "cognizant theory" do you have in mind?

Everyone here does realize that sometimes people commit crimes where we can't prove that the committed them right?
Of course, but "beyond reasonable doubt" in no way means "beyond all doubt" it's left deliberately poorly defined and one of the jobs of the jury is to define it.
 
Fiona,

You wrote:

“And then
Quote:
This amplification increase was not achieved by the PCR technique.
Originally Posted by Stefanoni
*The use of multiplex PCR and fluorescent dye technology in the automated detection and analysis of short tandem repeat loci provides not only qualitative information about the profile - i.e. which alleles are present - but can provide also quantitative information on the relative intensities of the bands, and is therefore a measure of the amount of amplified DNA.”
Stefanoni said this under oath. What is the status of what you cite? Was it also given under oath and subject to cross examination?”

The issue is not whether PCR was used but how many cycles were done. In LCN work, more cycles are used to achieve a sufficient signal and these extra cycles apparently were not done. I am not sure whether or not this answers your question.

Chris
 
Ok I will make a start: I will try to distinguish clearly between facts and not-facts: but if I make errors in this please jump in because there is a lot of confusion.

So far as I can figure we know this:
31st October
The victim spent Halloween with friends, first at the Merlin pub and then at a club called the Domus. They were up most of the night. That seems to be a fact, and is attested by a number of her friends

Guede said that he met the victim at a party that evening and made an date with her for 8:30 the following evening
When it was established this was not true Guede said that he met her at the Domus and made a date with her for 8:30 the following evening

None of the friends she was with remember seeing her with Guede at the Domus. None of them remember her making a date. She did not mention it the following afternoon nor did she leave in time to keep it.

Nov 1st

On Nov 1st Kercher and Knox and Sollecito were in the cottage together in the afternoon. She left between 4 and 5 and spent the evening with some of the same friends she had been with on Halloween, at the home of one of them.

The next bit is very confusing because it relates to what Knox and Sollecito say they were doing on the evening of Nov 1st. I do not think any of it can be taken as fact

Sollecito first said they were at a party with friends

Knox says that she and Sollecito left the cottage at about 5 pm and went straight to his flat where they spent the whole evening together. She says she expected to work that evening but she got a text from Lumumba saying the bar would not be open and she did not need to work. She says she told Socellito this. She says she did not reply to that text. She says that they did not do very much but that they took a shower together and had sex. Maybe she checked her e-mail. She says they ate at about 11 pm. She later says that they ate about 9: 30 pm. She says that pasta was cooked and that the water was spilled and left till the following morning. She says that there was a leak under the sink and left till the following morning. She says that they went to bed and woke about 10 am the following day


Sollecito says that they left the cottage about 6 pm and went for a walk before going back to his flat and spending the whole evening together

Sollecito says that they were out (not sure if they had gone to the flat and then gone out again or whether this was part of the walk they took) and that he returned to his flat alone at about 9 pm. He says Knox told him she was going to the bar Le Chic to meet friends. He says he went home and rolled a spliff and made some dinner. He says he spoke to his father on the phone at about 11pm. He says he was on his computer from 11pm till 1 am. He says Knox returned about 1 am. He says he cooked fish not pasta. He says that there was a leak from the sink which soaked the floor and it was still very wet the following day. He says they went to bed and did not wake until 10 am or so

From telephone records we know that Knox and Sollecito switched their phones off at about 8:45. Records also show that neither of them normally did this, so the idea they did so because they were having a romantic evening does not seem to be supported

We also know that they both switched their phones back on at around 6 am the following morning.

We know that Sollecito's father did not phone at 11 pm. He did phone at about 8:40 and the phone went straight to ansaphone.

The computer shows no activity after 9:10 that evening. Sollecito says he was downloading Amelie, but the computer records show that film was watched at 6:30 pm

The computer was used at 5.32 the following morning.

A witness says that Knox was at shop early on the morning of the 2nd. I cannot remember what time that was said to be: nor is there a till receipt in support of this.

Kercher and her friend, Sophie Purton, left their friend's house and walked part of the way together before parting when their ways diverged. The victim got home a little after 9pm

Around 9.30 she phoned her mother.

Various witnesses report seeing or hearing things around 10:15 that night; two claim to have heard a very loud and disturbing scream; one claims to have heard more than one set of feet running away from the cottage in different directions; one claims to have encountered a black man leaving the cottage at speed. There are other witness testimonies about this and we may need to fill in more details but I am not certain enough of the times to put them in here as yet.

OK can we agree on this so far and would any one like to add, modify or subtract anything so far ?
 
Last edited:
It read that way to me.

I thought you were asking for the video that showed the clasp was moved to prove that it did, but I do have a history of misunderstanding things on this thread.

At post 270 I said

Fiona said:
The room was searched on November 2nd and the clasp found under the pillow: it was not collected as evidence till Dec 18th. That is very very unfortunate and it is certainly a problem. But there was not other DNA on it: if it was contaminated that would be expected.There is not a shred of evidence that it was moved or handled during that period (it seems to have lain on the floor under a mat):

So clearly, if it was found under the pillow and collected from under the mat it has been moved. I am sorry if this was not more clearly stated but to me it is obvious and since it is not in dispute I did not think to emphasise it
 
How can I agree with it - you've given no references for anything.

Well perhaps you would like to do some checking of your own?

I am not here to spoon feed you Matthew Best: I do not have privileged access to anything. Either you are interested in looking at what we have or you are not. But if you think it is solely other people's responsibility to do any work then why not just admit you are not prepared to anything except nitpick and the rest of us can just ignore you?
 
So show it

Well perhaps you would like to do some checking of your own?

I am not here to spoon feed you Matthew Best: I do not have privileged access to anything. Either you are interested in looking at what we have or you are not. But if you think it is solely other people's responsibility to do any work then why not just admit you are not prepared to anything except nitpick and the rest of us can just ignore you?

OK, but someone here pointed out that I have months of reading to catch up on. If you really want me to agree to all that information then either you're going to have to help me out, or you're going to have to be prepared to wait for me to research every single item you've just posted. Fair enough?
 
How can I agree with it - you've given no references for anything.


Matthew.

Copious links have been provided during the course of this thread to site with volumes of information.

If you really have any true interest in studying this case you will have at least reviewed them.

If you can discern no part of Fiona's post that you find disagrees with what you know then simply say so, or say nothing.

If you disagree with something she has stated then tell us why and provide your own sources of support.

Otherwise your purpose here can only be to maliciously disrupt serious inquiry.
 
Fiona suggested upthread that one should "stop taking things on authority of the people you happen to think agree with you".

Perhaps I'm taking those words too readily to heart.

:)
 
OK, but someone here pointed out that I have months of reading to catch up on. If you really want me to agree to all that information then either you're going to have to help me out, or you're going to have to be prepared to wait for me to research every single item you've just posted. Fair enough?


You've been posting on this thread since last Saturday morning, less than twelve hours after the thread opened. It doesn't take months to start reviewing available data. Hours are enough to get started. You don't have to research each of everyone else's posts if you do a little of your own first.

Since you've been making disruptive, content free posts since the thread began (third highest poster in the thread), and you now acknowledge that you haven't done any study of your own during the course of nearly a week, or before, there is not much motive to be "fair" with you at this late date.
 
It was stilicho who said:

at PMF, there is literally months worth of reading to do if you really want to understand these things.

I've only been interested in the case for a week or so, and I have other things to do. Right now I'm off to see "The Fantastic Mr Fox".

Feel free to carry on without me.
 
“In the US media, Knox was largely portrayed as the innocent American abroad being railroaded in a corrupt foreign system,” said Andrea Vogt, who has covered the story for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

“In Europe, she was the sex-crazed diabolical vixen trying to get away with murder. Those covering this story in Perugia for the last two years recognise that neither portrayal is accurate. The case is more complex, with the truth buried beneath all those stereotypes.”
 
Perhaps references could be included only in the section where there is disagreement. Would that be a workable compromise?

Chris
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom