Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

Your imaginary list can go on forever but it still has no barring on reality. We don't know at this time if Rudy or anyone entered through the broken window.

We know 'nobody' entered through the window. At least, the informed do.

A detailed forensic analysis would be able to make that determination but all we have to go on is a couple of pictures as everything else has been swept aside because it doesn't fit Mignini's vision.

A detailed analyses which was made and provided to the judges in the 10,000 page report. Are you assuming it wasn't because you didn't read the analyses in the Daily Mail..or on ABC?

But we still have magic fingers Rudy who can digitally penetrate Meredith without leaving a DNA trace on her pants unless he took the pants off her first.

Sorry Dan o, I don't mean to be insulting, but you appear incredibly naive. At the very least, you don't have the faintest clue about DNA. You have appeared to have arbitrarily written your own law, that says anything one touches, one must leave a full DNA profile. To be kind, this is complete and utter nonsense. It's actually rather difficult to leave DNA. Were 'your' law in effect, we would see Meredith covered from head to toe in Rudy's DNA. The opposite is the case, completely in the face of your self invented law. Can you explain that, why is Meredith not covered in Rudy's DNA? Why is there so little there, in the face of your arbitrary law? Anyway, follow the case a little while longer. Along the way, you'll learn something about DNA and won't, perhaps, make such nonsensical statements in future.

You are still leaving out inconvenient facts like who beat the crap out of Rudy.

Who? You seem to assume 'did'. Do you suddenly believe Rudy then?

Do you think it was the bushy haired stranger?

Straw man.

Why would he claim this if it wasn't to explain the obvious tracks that he expects to be found?

Except the tracks don't show he fell over. And incidentally, he doesn't need to invent a fight to explain his tracks leading from Meredith's room to the front door. The earlier part of his statement did that...he got down in the blood and tried to help her, then ran out. He didn't need to invent a fight to explain the prints.

Each of the marks on Meredith's body could have been caused sequentially in the fight for her life against a lone attacker.

Sort of like...'I'll poke you here, then poke you there, while you just stand there and let me'...like that?

Ah, yes. The famous bra clasp... Why did the detectives forget it when they were collecting evidence the first time? Why was it visibly changed when they eventually recovered it?

They weren't there to collect 'everything', only those items that at first examination appeared most relevant. That's why they seal the crime scene, so they come come back later to retrieve other items as they become important. Do you find something difficult about that to comprehend?

Yep, that's where your scenario fails.

Which you assert, without even attempting to explain 'why'.

Yes, you missed it. The "Staged rape" is one of Mignini's babies.

Oh stop...STOP...STOP...trying to blame everything on Mignini. BS overdose. Mignini wasn't one of the forensic officers examining the scene, he wasn't one of the crime scene examiners, he wasn't the coroner, he wasn't one of the specialised experts. It was all the aforementioned that told him what happened, not his invention. He liste3ned to his experts. Then, that evidence had to be put in front of multiple judges. The prosecution had to jump through multiple hoops to even get it to trial. Moreover, Mignini wasn't the only prosecutor applying the case...he did so in tandem with Comodi, so, did Mignini perform a mind meld? Invasion of the body snatchers, something like that? Finally, Mignini's work was constantly overseen by his boss, the Prosecutor General. Did you not know this?

The 'Mignini is God' myth is just plain ignorance...or dishonesty, I'm not certain which one. Perhaps you can let us know.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Do you have a link showing that it's illegal for the police to release the recordings of interviews?

They cannot be produced in coirt, under Italian law. And since, at the start of thr trial Raffaele's and Amanda's defence had them ruled out by Massei, they can never be produced in trial. If you want them, I suggest you get onto the defence and ask they request they be included in the next round.

I'm just a little surprised at that, given the fact they leaked selected quotes from the interrogation

Nothing was 'leaked', they were legally released by the presiding judge, as she is bound to do under Italian law when she wrote her report. And they were released in 'text' form,. under Italian law. I say again, the Italian system is text based, not based on recorded media.There are exceptions. Recorded statements are not one of them, especially those made by Witnesses, which are not recorded in the first place. A recoirding has to actually 'exist' before it can be released.

So your source is basically posts on a forum? Regardless, I just went through and searched for all references to 'Meredith scream' and found nothing about what the police said as to how 'the scream' was introduced.

Obviously, you have no idea how to research. Research 101...go here: KNOX AND SOLLECITO TRIAL HEARINGS TIMELINE and view who gave testimony when, that will give you the dates. Then, seek out those dates in the main discussion thread. You will see posts. But you will see a link to every article written on that particular testimony by the witnesses/experts concerned. Are there any other basics you need help with?

It seems that the basis for your argument is to believe implicitly in everything the police claim (despite their being proven liars)

I believe those who show no reason to disbelieve them. Do you have any reason to support your assertion the police are proven liars? That is, aside from your predjudice and obvious agenda?

and disbelieve absolutely everything Knox says, except when it suits you to selectively believe.

It's not 'selective'. The rule is, the evidence, the evidence, the evidence. Does what she say match the evidence and proof or not? That is and can only ever be the criteria.

The police are the ones with the evidence to prove or disprove what Amanda says, yet they have consistently refused to do either. Amanda clearly cannot provide any evidence beyond her word, unless she recorded the interview herself.

Really? I thought they got her convicted of murder with sexual aggravation, criminal slander, illegal transportation of a knife and the staging of a crime. They must have produced some evidence to do that. Don't you think?

However, there is clear evidence in the statement itself that 'the scream' was suggested to her.

'What' evidence? The only evidence you offer is 'Amanda said so'. That's evidence?

It's still rather different from 'the body was in front of the closet' though, isn't it?

And maybe it was. The killers would know.

I had considered exactly the same thing, Dan (being female, perhaps it came more naturally to me!). The hook on which Sollecito's DNA was found would have been completely covered by the clasp itself, so it would be highly unlikely for someone's DNA to end up on it in the process of cutting it.

Prosecutor Comodi performed a physical demonstration of exactly how it happened in the court room. Clearly, the judges were convinced, some of whom were women and know bras well.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Did they ever test Amanda's lamp for DNA? Presumably not, since it's still sitting in the room when they go and pick up the bra clasp 46 days later. Coincidentally, right next to the bra clasp...

Of course they did. It doesn't require taking into the lab...just as the wardrobe wasn't...they swab it down for DNA then send the samples back. Again, this is basic. It was near the clasp because they moved it there, having earlier recorded it's position and testing it.

No, the clasp wouldn't be covered when it was on the floor, only while it was fastened. It would have been entirely covered while she was wearing it, hence what Dan O is saying is that it would be very difficult to leave your DNA on it while you were cutting it.

But it was covered. It was under a mat, by the desk. You didn't know this?

I'm not talking about 'abuse' here, I'm just talking about the way the confession was obtained. The police implying Meredith might have screamed isn't at all abusive, it's just misleading if they then suggest Knox was the one to introduce it. As far as the cuffs to the back of the head go, I strongly suspect Knox is telling the truth about those, if only because she first mentioned them in her handwritten statement to the police in which it would have been rather stupid to lie; at that point, she had no reason to think anyone other than the police would read it. It's not especially surprising she didn't know the woman's name, but how many female police officers with long chestnut coloured hair can there have been in the interrogation room?

Again, this all requires accepting Amanda's version of events and I see no reason to do so.

However if we are to disbelieve what she says on the grounds that she's a liar, shouldn't we apply an equal degree of scepticism to EVERYTHING she says, including her claims to be at the crime scene on the night of the murder - not just cherry pick those statements that fit with our particular theory of what happened?

Of course we should. I'm glad to see you're catching up.

Well, quite - her memory is fine before and after the illegal interrogation,

Her interrogation was fully legal. Clearly, you still do not have the slightest understanding of Italian law.

Remember that she was told they had hard evidence placing her at the scene,

'Was' she? Who said?

There is, of course, a perfectly rational explanation as to why Guede would have locked the door - to delay the discovery of the body as long as possible, to give himself time to get the money together to leave the country.

Only he didn't. He went down the night club. Guess what he did the next night? He went down the night club again. Bang goes that theory.

Only if you buy into Mignini's theory that the break-in was staged*

It wasn't 'Mignini's' theory...

Edited by Gaspode: 

Removed breach of Rule 12

The conclusion came from the trained experts who examined the crime scene.

Guede would also have needed to take Meredith's keys to get out of the house anyway, since she would have locked the door behind her.

Huh? My front door, I close it, it locks. I don't need a key to open it to get out...only to get in. What sort of door do you have...do you need a key to get out of your house?

* Mignini does have rather a history of believing apparently simple crimes and events to be staged, even to the point of staging a break-in himself (his men broke into Mario Spezi's car, removed the radio to make it look like a theft and attached a bugging device to the electrical leads). Worth looking into.

For this you have who's word? Preston's. Who is Preston? High priest of the FOA. 'nuff said. And I will also point out, it's a very different set of affairs breaking into somewhere in order to arrange surveillance and quite another in order to frame them for a crime they didn't commit.

Not much he could do about the broken window after the fact, except to hope that Filomena wouldn't be home for a few days (which she wasn't, of course. Who knows, if not for the wide open door and the unflushed toilet, it may well have taken a few days for anyone to find Meredith).

Laura, Filomena and Amanda lived there. They looked out for each other. The cottage wasn't on Mars

 

[Fulcanelli]

I believe two lamps were collected from the cottage much later (there were 3 lamps in Meredith's room when the photos were taken). The same source talked about testing for fingerprints but those Italians tend to mix fingerprint/footprint/DNA so it's difficult to say exactly what they were looking for.

They weren't collected at all. They were left in situe.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The odds of DNA contamination in the lab is actually pretty high and may even approach 100%.

Says the World renound forensic and genetic scientist Dan o.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The example of the knife may have been the first time ever that she cranked up the amplitudes to actually look at what was in the noise at the bottom of the chart.

Have you got anything better then 'may'?

 

[Fulcanelli]

And he managed to do this without touching any other part of the strap? He would need to grab the strap and pull on it to put tension on the elastic so the knife will cut through the strap. Doing so would leave DNA on the strap right where they found Rudy's DNA.

Rudy's DNA was NOT on the strap. It was on the main body of the bra.

 

[shuttlt]

The odds of DNA contamination in the lab is actually pretty high and may even approach 100%.

For one thing, this surely depends what you mean by contamination. A background hum of unitelligable noise, or a false profile? There is surely always going to be a background hum of unitelligible genetic noise, the question is how often you have one single profile rising out of this noise so that it looks like a meaningful result. When you say that the contamination may approach 100%, are you meaning unitelligible noise, or apparantly meaningful results like we have in the case of the knife?

The question is not whether contamination occurs but the degree of contamination.

I agree, at least in the sense outlined above.

That Patrizia claims to have never found contamination in the lab is proof that she hasn't looked.

To take this further I'm going to have to look up the transcript. My assumption would be that she is saying that there has never been an incident of a negative control coming up with a profile. I would be surprised if she was saying that there was no background hum of genetic noise in the lab.

The example of the knife may have been the first time ever that she cranked up the amplitudes to actually look at what was in the noise at the bottom of the chart.

Perhaps it was the first time and perhaps it wasn't. Also, there is the negative LCN controls... I will continue to look for evidence that they were not in fact done. Also, there is the question of the coincidence of it being Meredith's DNA out of all the DNA in the lab. If contamination was running close to 100% it seems kind of odd that there would be only one profile doing the contaminating, that it would be a profile involved in the case, and none of the controls showed contamination.

 

[lane99]

...There has not been a single cited example, in any of these 71 pages, of a false confession actually turning out to be a false accusation of murder and sexual assault against an innocent party. If you have one, let's take a look at it and see how it compares...

I'll take your word for it that there is not such another example within the 71 pages. So do I understand you bring no prior knowledge or considersation of criminal cases to this discussion?

Because I assure you it would not be unique to this case for an innocent person to accuse other innocent person. Perhaps someone has already cited an example in the latest posts in this thread (which I've not yet read).

If not, let's make a deal: I will provide you with such cases, if you provide me with other cases where the circumstances- particularly with regards the alleged motives, and the relationships between the supposed co-conspirators- parallel the circumstances alleged in this case.

Because, offhand, I can't think of any.

...the scream is simply one small portion of a much greater story.

It's not too small a point for you and other posters to have made numerous ill-conceived smug comments about. It was you who brought the matter up, not me.

The notion that her mentioning a scream directly marks Knox's statement as a calculated lie, rather than a false confession, is insupportable and easily discredited.

If you have any other examples which you believe show evidence of gulity knowledge in the statments, please share them. Till now I've not seen any.

 

[Fulcanelli]

We know exactly why Amanda's memory is muddled for that particular time frame.

Yeah, in all the important parts. Selective muddling is grand.

 

[lane99]

And you wouldn't be terrified in court, testifying for your innocence?

Well, I will mark you down as holding the opinion that being locked in room, alone, with policeman hitting you and trying to get you to confess to a crime, would be no more frightening than testifying, with your lawyers and family there to support you, in open court.

I tend to believe most objective people would not agree with your position

 

[Fulcanelli]

Because I assure you it would not be unique to this case for an innocent person to accuse other innocent person. Perhaps someone has already cited an example in the latest posts in this thread (which I've not yet read).

Well, we await your examples...along with the statistics of its commonality...or not.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Well, I will mark you down as holding the opinion that being locked in room, alone, with policeman hitting you and trying to get you to confess to a crime, would be no more frightening than testifying, with your lawyers and family there to support you, in open court.

I tend to believe most objective people would not agree with your position

Only, you aren't most 'objective people' Lane99. Were it so, you may have a right to throw that word around.

 

[stilicho]

If not, let's make a deal: I will provide you with such cases, if you provide me with other cases where the circumstances- particularly with regards the alleged motives, and the relationships between the supposed co-conspirators- parallel the circumstances alleged in this case.

Because, offhand, I can't think of any.

You have some reading to catch up on then. We've discussed amply high profile cases where any or all of the features of this crime were apparent:

• Female murderer
• Bullying leading to murder
• Acquaintances leading to complicity in murder
• Rivalry leading to murder
• Etc.

I'll give you a couple days to re-read what's already been provided.

If you have any other examples which you believe show evidence of gulity knowledge in the statments, please share them. Till now I've not seen any.

Of course you haven't. Once you catch up on the reading material already provided we can move forward.

 

[lane99]

...I would never convict someone on the basis of the paltry evidence found against Amanda and Raffaele. The evidence against Rudy Guede however is very damning. Why was he given a half sentence in the short trial when it is known that he hasn't yet told the truth about what he did that night?...

I would say the credibility of anyone who suggests the evidence against the others is as strong as that against Rudy Guilty would be questionable, at best. And I would say the evidence against him is overwhelming. Even his most obsessed supporters don't dare try argue he was not involved in any way in the crime. They simply try to minimize his involvement.

However, I think the idea of a fast-track trial, with the possibility of reduced sentences if convicted, is an intriguing idea that could have some utility regards the overall functioning of a justice system. In that sense (but in that sense, alone) I'm not troubled by the fact his sentence was much less than that given to the others.

 

[shuttlt]

I would say the credibility of anyone who suggests the evidence against the others is as strong as that against Rudy Guilty would be questionable, at best. And I would say the evidence against him is overwhelming. Even his most obsessed supporters don't dare try argue he was not involved in any way in the crime. They simply try to minimize his involvement.

Who are these obsessed supporters?

 

[Fulcanelli]

I would say the credibility of anyone who suggests the evidence against the others is as strong as that against Rudy Guilty would be questionable, at best. And I would say the evidence against him is overwhelming. Even his most obsessed supporters don't dare try argue he was not involved in any way in the crime. They simply try to minimize his involvement.

What...'he' didn't get fitted up by Mignini? The fitting up is selective...special? So, we can go black and white, no pun intended...all the evidence against Rudy is good...all the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele is bad, even though it was all gathered and examined and prosecuted by the same people? How strange.

 

[lane99]

... We've discussed amply high profile cases where...I'll give you a couple days to re-read what's already been provided.


Of course you haven't. Once you catch up on the reading material already provided we can move forward.

Why are you dodging the question? Have you got something to hide?

Just to get us started, be so kind as to provide me the name of the one case you think most closely parallels this case. I'm anxious to look at it.

If you're unwilling to provide a case, we'll leave it at that. Your unwillingness will simply be on the record and people will be able to draw what conclusions from that as they may.

...Of course you haven't...

The record will also show that, when asked to provide examples of why you asserted Amanda's statements contained guilty knowledge, that you were struck dumb.

 

[stilicho]

...most obsessed supporters...

Only one of the three has obsessed supporters. Oh sure, they toss in Raffaele's name just to make the appearance of being fair, but this handsomely ignores the fact that he was the one and only person who demolished AK's alibi. He, alone, is responsible for that.

How did AK react to this?

Why, by strongly suggesting that he was either a liar or that he himself committed the crime and put the double DNA knife into her hand while she was sleeping. What a sweetheart!

 

[lane99]

Who are these obsessed supporters?

Well, for starters, you might want to take a look at post 2937 ;-)