Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

Fulcanelli,

I showed the electropherogram to the woman who teaches forensic chemistry at our university (We are both PhD's). She is Austrian and has almost no knowledge of this case, so she has no cultural or case-related biases of which I am aware. She immediately identified the squiggles as noise.

Take a close look at the Figure again, and notice how the squiggles are larger in the third row than the the others. The peaks are lower in S/N in this row, and more gain (amplification) is necessary to see them. Note that the Y-axis is smaller in row 3. When you amplify the signal, you also amplify the noise.

All DNA electropherograms have some noise. And so do all forms of spectroscopy, to the best of my knowledge. The spectroscopic experiment my student and I will do tonight, we will perform 10,000 times to achieve an acceptable signal-to-noise ratio. Fortunately, we will go to our respective homes while the machine in question gathers the data for us.

Chris

I refer you to my previous post on this matter. There is no noise in between peaks and the only peaks present are identical matches for Meredith. The validity of the knife DNA has been proven in a COURT OF LAW, not once, but twice, and I shall also point out all experts I have spoken to on it (including a professor of micro biology and another PhD scientist who specialises in producing kits for DNA testing) agree. It is also agreed upon by the independent experts representing the victims.

Stop beating the hoarse, it's dead already.

 

[Fiona]

I think there is always noise, Fulcanelli. The question is can one distinguish the peaks from the noise. In this case the answer is yes, so far as the court and the expert witnesses who have seen the evidence are concerned.

I do not think there is much to be gained by arguing this point any further.

 

[quadraginta]

I refer you to my previous post on this matter. There is no noise in between peaks and the only peaks present are identical matches for Meredith. The validity of the knife DNA has been proven in a COURT OF LAW, not once, but twice, and I shall also point out all experts I have spoken to on it (including a professor of micro biology and another PhD scientist who specialises in producing kits for DNA testing) agree. It is also agreed upon by the independent experts representing the victims.

Stop beating the hoarse, it's dead already.

Were halides1 to abandon his abuse of this particular deceased equine he might be less able to evade recognition of the fact that his voluminous contributions are utterly meaningless, since the entire question of the accuracy of the knife DNA has been rendered moot by the defendant's own words.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I think there is always noise, Fulcanelli. The question is can one distinguish the peaks from the noise. In this case the answer is yes, so far as the court and the expert witnesses who have seen the evidence are concerned.

I do not think there is much to be gained by arguing this point any further.

Hi Fiona. Yes, there is noise, but the noise peaks are tiny, to the point of being negligible, while in comparison the peaks are high. The differentiation is very clear.

 

[piktor]

Death and foxes

Yes, it does matter.

It matters because you were exaggerating and sensationalizing. What has that got to do with methodically sifting through evidence to determine guilt or innocence?

Associating female sexuality (and sex in general) with evil has a long and murderous history.


(Where, BTW, does the witness say anything about them "getting frisky"?)

This is an instance of eros/thanatos. Thanatos being the death instinct, as expressed in violent aggression. Eros being the instinct of self-preservation.

How would Knox/Sollecito feel after someone they know has passed away, in this case murdered, if their relationship is mostly physical.

All I can say is when my exwife (we were divorced many years before) passed away in a highway car crash I did not feel giddy and libidinous. At the time, I was in a relationship with a woman I loved but I did not feel aroused in any way by this awful event. I felt deflated, I cried and was in a state of grief for weeks. That was my response to a violent death of someone I knew and shared part of my life with.

There is no textbook on how people should react to sudden catastrophic events. These two young persons seemed to be making all the wrong moves at the wrong time.

 

[Fiona]

This is an instance of eros/thanatos. Thanatos being the death instinct, as expressed in violent aggression. Eros being the instinct of self-preservation.

I am not sure what you mean here. What is an instance of eros/thanatos? It is possible to argue that such concepts have explanatory value but in order to invoke them here surely you need to establish that the behaviour was actually exhibited: and I think Jihad Jane is denying that.

How would Knox/Sollecito feel after someone they know has passed away, in this case murdered, if their relationship is mostly physical.

No idea

All I can say is when my exwife (we were divorced many years before) passed away in a highway car crash I did not feel giddy and libidinous. At the time, I was in a relationship with a woman I loved but I did not feel aroused in any way by this awful event. I felt deflated, I cried and was in a state of grief for weeks. That was my response to a violent death of someone I knew and shared part of my life with.

I am sorry for your loss: but this is not obviously comparable. Knox and Sollecito had only known each other for days (or weeks at most): they are young and for Sollecito at least it seems to have been his first sexual experience. I do not think their behaviour makes much sense but I honestly do not see how it can be compared with the loss of a relationship which had shaped a big part of your life

To be perfectly honest I think a lot of our perceptions are skewed by hypocrisy. The sad truth is that we are not so caring as we like to make out in many cases.

What makes their response odd is twofold:In the first place they knew this person and the death was close to home. One expects that to make an impact on most people. I do not know how realistic that is, especially for the very young. I do not know how much denial or shock or any other of a number of reactions would be in play, either. Fortunately for me I have not been that close to violent death, and I have no way to judge. So I cannot say that a narcissistic focus on a new and intense sexual relationship is out of the ordinary in those circumstances: I think it is. but I really do not know.

The second odd thing is that they do not modify their behaviour to suit the occasion (and this is also true of the cartwheels, which is where we came in). I think that is much more significant, personally.

It may be that I am a particularly callous individual but if you ask me to come clean there are many times when my empathy fails. Tell me about the death of your loved one and I will feel for and with you if I have a relationship with you: but tell me about the death of someone I do not know and have no connection with and I will react very differently. If I read it in the paper at work, or with someone around, I will say the right words. Do I really care? I don't think I could function if I did, to be honest. There are horrors on an unimaginable scale every day and every where. I know that if I learn of it when I am alone I do not cry or even feel depressed about it most times: I get on with my life. Maybe I am very peculiar but that is the truth.

I think people are upset by the fact that these two young people were seen to be in the first situation: but from their own point of view they may have been in the second. They didn't know her well (certainly Sollecito didn't) and we are told that Knox and Kercher were not really alike nor really close. Many young people are very selfish and sex makes monsters of a lot of us at some times in our lives: there is a whole literature about it.

I cannot read much into this as it stands. Taken with all the rest of the evidence it takes on a different hue: but for those who do not accept that evidence I can see that making much of this would seem unfair in some ways.

There is no textbook on how people should react to sudden catastrophic events. These two young persons seemed to be making all the wrong moves at the wrong time.

This part is self contradictory and I think it may be so for the kinds of reasons I have just outlined: or maybe I am not understanding your point

 

[stilicho]

Nobody had to explain it because it didn't happen and nobody testified at the trial that it did happen. It's just another one of those stories that got started somehow and turned out not to be true.

Are you sure of that? I am asking because of this article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/08/kercher-trial-knox

Perhaps you meant to say that the Perugia Flying Squad didn't use it in their testimony. I would have to find out whether they did mention it.

 

[stilicho]

Some of the "facts" posted in this thread may be nothing more than rumors. Especially those posted without any indication of source.

Given this, contradictions are to be expected.

It is difficult to sort it all out because I have to keep going back to check the sources. The only thing I can find out is that the washing machine was part of Filomena's testimony (per Guardian as above) and that it was a part of many many things that she said she immediately noticed as terribly wrong once she got to the cottage.

I guess the thing that's easiest to agree on is that Filomena (and her other friends) immediately reacted to the scene as we might expect anyone to seeing everything all wrong (locked door, ransacked room, washing machine, blood, etc) while the Postal Police found AK and RS more or less hanging around outside as if nothing was up.

Again, people do react differently, but the important thing was that Filomena was helping the police while AK and RS weren't.

I will try to be better about finding the original article instead of the PMF link; that will probably work to avoid confusing myself and everyone else at the same time.

 

[Fiona]

That is fair enough Stilicho: but you are not the only one who can do that. I do not think you have been slow to provide sources or to say where your information comes from. There is a lot of it and it is not easy to find: but I do not think it is entirely your responsibility when others are making mistakes based on stuff which was discussed only in this thread earlier. I think you have done a conscientious job of trying to find out what we can know and sharing it here.

 

[stilicho]

The second odd thing is that they do not modify their behaviour to suit the occasion (and this is also true of the cartwheels, which is where we came in). I think that is much more significant, personally.

It extends to their prison diaries and their court behaviour. They both seem to have something a little wrong with them (possibly more than a little). It's almost as if they're playing out roles and don't really think they're going to be in prison for 10+ years.

Heck, they've both already spent more than two years in prison and they just seem from their statements to be lost in some kind of strange fog.

 

[lector]

It is difficult to sort it all out because I have to keep going back to check the sources. The only thing I can find out is that the washing machine was part of Filomena's testimony (per Guardian as above) and that it was a part of many many things that she said she immediately noticed as terribly wrong once she got to the cottage.

I guess the thing that's easiest to agree on is that Filomena (and her other friends) immediately reacted to the scene as we might expect anyone to seeing everything all wrong (locked door, ransacked room, washing machine, blood, etc) while the Postal Police found AK and RS more or less hanging around outside as if nothing was up.

Again, people do react differently, but the important thing was that Filomena was helping the police while AK and RS weren't.

I will try to be better about finding the original article instead of the PMF link; that will probably work to avoid confusing myself and everyone else at the same time.

I've been trying to run this to ground as well. All I've found so far is a statement from someone on PMF that the communications police did not testify anything in court in February about the washing machine being running. But I've only got partway through the discussion on PMF & the links / articles quoted from that time period.

I also wonder whether they testified on this point during the Guede trial, & whether there is anything extant from that time period, &/or in the Micheli Report.

As Fiona has pointed out eloquently, this typifies what's so frustrating about trying to pick up on this case two years in. It takes hours to research just one simple point.

 

[JihadJane]

I think you are projecting some sort of chip on your shoulder onto the issue and making it about 'gender' which it is not, so you don't need to be getting defensive.

Interestingly, you are making some false assumptions based on minimal data here.

For a start, it is not only Amanda being criticised for her behaviour in the shop but also Raffaele, so this is not a 'female sexuality' issue (although I believe it's more serious in the case of Amanda as she knew Meredith longer and better then Raffaele did). In fact, the issue has nothing to do with 'sexuality at all per se. Nobody is saying there is anything wrong with sexuality, least of all female sexuality. The issue is that there is a time and place for everything. Being both sexually turned on ...

Has Raffaele ever been referred to, in court, as a possible "he-devil"?

Provide evidence, please, of the highlighted sexual arousal that you are magically able to perceive.

...the day of after Meredith's discovery evokes the suspicion that this sexual arousal was not independent of what had happened the day and night before, but as a 'consequence' of it, which is why it is relevant. At the same time, their laughing and joking shows they were not overly very upset about Meredith's death, just the opposite.

Now, when a witness says he saw the pair laughing, joking, fondling each other (as visible in the video from the store) and then while fiddling with the skimpy underwear they are buying talking about going home to have 'hot sex' I would call that getting 'frisky'. You may not like it, but there it is.

- Prove it wasn't just a joke. It certainly isn't proof of "sexual arousal" Get real!

- What do you mean by "fondling"? I don't see any in any of the video stills that have been reproduced . Perhaps imagination is carrying you away.

- Where is your evidence for your claim that they were "very turned on"?


One of the reasons this case has gained such attention is because it is about sex, murder and young women. The gutter press has had a field day and you, too, appear to have mindlessly jumped on the bandwagon with distorting, puerile exaggeration.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is an instance of eros/thanatos. Thanatos being the death instinct, as expressed in violent aggression. Eros being the instinct of self-preservation.

How would Knox/Sollecito feel after someone they know has passed away, in this case murdered, if their relationship is mostly physical.

Have there been suggestions that it was "mostly physical"? If the pair did, indeed, kill Kercher, couldn't it suggest that a deep psychological enmeshment had occurred?

All I can say is when my exwife (we were divorced many years before) passed away in a highway car crash I did not feel giddy and libidinous. At the time, I was in a relationship with a woman I loved but I did not feel aroused in any way by this awful event. I felt deflated, I cried and was in a state of grief for weeks. That was my response to a violent death of someone I knew and shared part of my life with.

There is no textbook on how people should react to sudden catastrophic events. These two young persons seemed to be making all the wrong moves at the wrong time.

True, though one would expect a stronger reaction to one's ex-wife's tragic death than to that of a casual acquaintance. People can react very differently to the same stimulus, laughing at funerals, for instance. There doesn't seem to be much interest here in giving space to other possible reasons, besides guilt, that these two young persons might "be making all the wrong moves at the wrong time".

It could also be that the two have something like Asperger's Syndrome or other developmental/psychological/neurological differences.

[ETA: I had missed Fiona's thoughtful response when I wrote the above]

 

[Fulcanelli]

Provide evidence, please, of the highlighted sexual arousal that you are magically able to perceive.

The evidence is their fondling each other and talking about going home to have hot sex. I'm not sure what more you need, their performing the karma sutra on the shop floor perhaps?

Has Raffaele ever been referred to, in court, as a possible "he-devil"?

'IF' Amanda was called that and Raffaele was not, it is because it was the prosecution's argument that she was the ring leader while they considered Raffaele to be the follower.

It could also be that the two have something like Asperger's Syndrome or other developmental/psychological/neurological differences.

Both of them? My, what an amazing coincidence!

 

[piktor]

This is a partial comment to Fiona's #1206. My internet service is acting balky and I have had trouble writing and posting due to this.

I am not sure what you mean here. What is an instance of eros/thanatos? It is possible to argue that such concepts have explanatory value but in order to invoke them here surely you need to establish that the behaviour was actually exhibited: and I think Jihad Jane is denying that.

The whole dynamic here is a life(eros)-death(thanatos) struggle.

It is a violent death with attempted rape. The accused are a young healthy romantic couple and a sociopathic loner, R.Guede- the three affirming their sense of being by supressing a life and furthering this tableaux by staging a break-in and rape scene.

The scene at the clothes shop is made relevant because the shopkeeper described a scene that sounds unseemly because just one day after the discovery of the crime two persons directly associated with it were making audible remarks about great sex. It has become a part of the narrative. One small arrow of many small arrows directing the investigation to its present state.

I will use here JihadJane's #1212 comment here:

True, though one would expect a stronger reaction to one's ex-wife's tragic death than to that of a casual acquaintance. People can react very differently to the same stimulus, laughing at funerals, for instance. There doesn't seem to be much interest here in giving space to other possible reasons, besides guilt, that these two young persons might "be making all the wrong moves at the wrong time".

This is absolutely true. Under a great stress, people in a sexual relationship will channel their anguish with a stronger sex drive towards each other. Or they will do something else like grieve and lose all appetite. As I said, there is no textbook on how to react.

This where ''character evidence'' plays a role. Police and prosecutors will bring to the table all kinds of information on the accused. The drunken party in Seattle where Knox was fined $269, her Facebook page, her other sexual liasons in Italy and the U.S., etc. Judges will then elaborate a narrative for or against conviction based partly on this.

Why would Knox point repeatedly to Mr. Lumumba? Why has she never apologized to him? Did she really ''forget'' her first call to her mother in Seattle?

Her answers in court are unconvincing. Her contribution has been to add to the fog. It is a real beauty when you plead innocent and you are on the third version of what happened the night in question. Sollecito has at least two versions.

What I find ''wrong with this picture'' is people keep to themselves and act out in private, especially if they are directly linked to the deceased. In a crisis of this magnitude, discretion is mandatory. You ''look guilty'' and it adds up!

Knox/Sollecito were practically boasting at the store. One small act of callousness that in itself would be neglegible, if not for a steady list of ''unseemly'' vignettes that flesh out the theory of this crime.

 

[JihadJane]

The evidence is their fondling each other and talking about going home to have hot sex. I'm not sure what more you need, their performing the karma sutra on the shop floor perhaps?"

You seem to be fond of exaggerating.

Perhaps we understand "fondle" differently. I see a big space betweeen fondling and reenacting the Karma Sutra in a shop!


Talking or joking about sex isn't evidence that you are "very turned on", or even turned on at all.

'IF' Amanda was called that and Raffaele was not, it is because it was the prosecution's argument that she was the ring leader while they considered Raffaele to be the follower.

Patrick Lumumba's lawyer http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...devil-who-destroyed-life-of-innocent-man.html, Carlo Pacelli, said, in court:
.
“'Who is the real Amanda Knox? Is it the one we see before us here, all angelic? Or is she really a she-devil focused on sex, drugs and alcohol, living life on the edge?”

Both of them? My, what an amazing coincidence!

It's not unusual for people to feel an affinity with people who are similar to them.


It's possible to fit many stories around two young people in a shop buying underwear and finding it funny.

I prefer to base my judgement on forensic and corroborated evidence, not soft and hardcore porn films in people's heads.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Talking or joking about sex isn't evidence that you are "very turned on", or even turned on at all.

Or maybe, even seeing people having sex isn't 'evidence' of their having sex because they could still be just 'joking' huh?

Yes it is evidence. The words I think you're really reaching for (and you'd really have to reach) is 'absolute proof'. Were you to argue their fondling each other and talking about going home to have hot sex isn't 'proof', you may be able to argue some sort of small point. But to argue it isn't 'evidence' of it is plain ridiculous. Of course it bloody is!

It's possible to fit many stories around two young people in a shop buying underwear and finding it funny.

Sure just like it's possible to think of all sorts of funny stories of how Raffaele's DNA got on the bra clasp, or Meredith's DNA got on the knife blade or Rudy's DNA got inside the victim or any single other piece of evidence on any single murder case, but the court has accepted none of them. Just because one can think up stories, it doesn't mean those stories are credible or have any value.

I prefer to base my judgement on forensic and corroborated evidence, not soft and hardcore porn films in people's heads.

Well fortunately we don't need a porn film from someones 'head', it's on CCTV...it's all laid on! Not to mention an ear and eye witness to back it up. That'll do me. And really, forensic evidence doesn't seem to impress you either, as you claim, since you are just as active in thinking up stories to dismiss that as you are for their behaviour.

 

[Kestrel]

The scene at the clothes shop is made relevant because the shopkeeper described a scene that sounds unseemly because just one day after the discovery of the crime two persons directly associated with it were making audible remarks about great sex. It has become a part of the narrative. One small arrow of many small arrows directing the investigation to its present state.

The tabloids tell us that everyone reacts exactly the same to tragedy. They spend days in uninterrupted grieving and lamenting. The only people that don't react this way are evil.

Most psychologists would see this as pure woo.

On the day of their mother's funeral, you could have seen my cousins on a golf course laughing. My father and I dragged them out to put their minds off the tragedy. Let them get some fresh air and relax a bit before dealing with the tear jerking ceremony later that day. We swapped a lot of funny stories about their mother. Reminding ourselves what a wonderful person she was.

Even more telling were the two girls I met at a party. Their closest friend had been murdered by her boyfriend only a few days before. They came to the party as an escape. To get away from reminders of their lost friend. They did laugh and enjoy themselves, but at times would break into tears.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The tabloids tell us that everyone reacts exactly the same to tragedy. They spend days in uninterrupted grieving and lamenting. The only people that don't react this way are evil.

Most psychologists would see this as pure woo.

On the day of their mother's funeral, you could have seen my cousins on a golf course laughing. My father and I dragged them out to put their minds off the tragedy. Let them get some fresh air and relax a bit before dealing with the tear jerking ceremony later that day. We swapped a lot of funny stories about their mother. Reminding ourselves what a wonderful person she was.

Even more telling were the two girls I met at a party. Their closest friend had been murdered by her boyfriend only a few days before. They came to the party as an escape. To get away from reminders of their lost friend. They did laugh and enjoy themselves, but at times would break into tears.

Let's simplify it. Forget the woo, forget the sensationalism. This is how people normally behave after a tragedy or shock - a way that is not normal for 'them'.

In the case of everybody 'else', after the murder their behaviour was that which was not normal to their 'own' behaviour. In the case of Amanda and Raffaele, their behaviour was not normal by other people's behaviour, but it was perfectly normal by their own (or even just 'enhanced' slightly...a little more horny or happy then usual, but still essentially the same). Everybody elses behaviour and demeanor changed from their norm. Raffaele's and Amanda's did not. It was like for them the murder had never happened or it was simply an exciting 'detail' in their lives.

 

[newton3376]

How people can read through this thread and believe that Knox is completely innocent is just amazing.....

Fortunately most people are not in that minority, including the jury.

 

[piktor]

Sometimes underwear is just underwear

The tabloids tell us that everyone reacts exactly the same to tragedy. They spend days in uninterrupted grieving and lamenting. The only people that don't react this way are evil.

Most psychologists would see this as pure woo.

Even more telling were the two girls I met at a party. Their closest friend had been murdered by her boyfriend only a few days before. They came to the party as an escape. To get away from reminders of their lost friend. They did laugh and enjoy themselves, but at times would break into tears.

There was a scene at my father's deathbed where a brother of mine started crying uncontrollably. I gently led him out of the room and conforted him as best I could. It was the first time I had seen him cry since he was a child. At the time he was in his late forties.

It was as intense a moment you can imagine because that is the precise moment my father realised what was really happening. He died that same week from a "small but serious" brain stroke as the attending neurologist described it.

I did not see my brother cry again after that one instance.

I described this scene to my brother a few months later and he did not believe it had actually happened.

What was happening before his eyes shocked him with pain, his self-control had slipped and his emotions took over.

In an instance of a death, some people react as you would expect but some react in a way they themselves would not believe possible.

The particular underwear shop scene does not really say much, other than an unfortunate episode that right or wrong corroborates for some their worst suspicions.