Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

I may have read that post before katy_did edited it.

Don't give me that. She edited it for typos only. And I quoted her in a post of mine a whole couple of pages ago, so you missed it not once but twice. You need to pay more attention, especially before throwing accusations of straw men about.

 

[Kestrel]

You're being dishonest again. Fiona posted up a good summary of that case a few pages back and you're distorting the facts to fit your pre-determined mindset/the FOA talking points.

An overview of this conspiracy theory can be found on the Italian WikiPedia site. The cited links in the Narducci section of the article confirm that Giuliano Mignini is a true believer in a rather outlandish CT.

 

[Fiona]

There was one rather weird conspiracy theory discussed in this thread.

It involved a Masonic lodge, body parts collected for Satanic rituals and a cover up by the Italian Secret Service. As an added bonus, there was a body swapped to make a murder look like a suicide. When the grave was opened and DNA proved the right body was inside, a second body swap was added to explain why the right body was in the grave.

Giuliano Mignini, the prosecutor in the Knox case, was convicted of abuse of office for some of his actions while trying to prove this conspiracy theory.

Already fully discussed, as you say. I have linked Preston's account and I have also linked what Mignini has to say. I have linked to an article by Barbara Nadeau, who has been consistently balanced in her reporting. There are other sources in english (though not as many as I would like: there are many in Italian which, sadly, I cannot read.) But I have not found any source which does not ultimately come back to Preston and Spezi, which supports this picture of Migninini. In light of the inaccuracies in the english wiki version of the case I am not really inciined to rely on the Italian wiki: which in any case does not fully support what you say at least in the section you drew our attention to in your subsequent post.

This is one of the areas we can go no further with unless there is new information. Anyone can read what we have already provided in terms of evidene and make up their own mind. You have done this and so have I. Repeating your conclusion is not moving this forward in any way.

 

[quadraginta]

Already fully discussed, as you say. I have linked Preston's account and I have also linked what Mignini has to say. I have linked to an article by Barbara Nadeau, who has been consistently balanced in her reporting. There are other sources in english (though not as many as I would like: there are many in Italian which, sadly, I cannot read.) But I have not found any source which does not ultimately come back to Preston and Spezi, which supports this picture of Migninini. In light of the inaccuracies in the english wiki version of the case I am not really inciined to rely on the Italian wiki: which in any case does not fully support what you say at least in the section you drew our attention to in your subsequent post.

This is one of the areas we can go no further with unless there is new information. Anyone can read what we have already provided in terms of evidene and make up their own mind. You have done this and so have I. Repeating your conclusion is not moving this forward in any way.

Since we're repeating ourselves I'd like to reiterate my respect for Mr. Preston's skills at crafting fiction. His involvement in this case has in no way diminished that respect.

Quite the contrary.

 

[Fiona]

You really haven't seen anything stating that the door needed to be locked with a key? Nothing at all, anywhere, not one mention of it? I'm surprised. Well, it's on PMF: try using the search engine and a few key words.

I have not seen that either. The door was faulty and inclined to open unless closed carefully. That may mean it had to be locked with a key from the inside or it may not. I do not really see how this helps us.

If you are correct and it needed to be opened with a key then what you are arguing is that Guede took the keys and opened the door with a key when he left the cottage. Was his blood on the door? On the door handle? We know that he was covered in blood and his bloody handprint was in Kercher's room.

Seem to me that there is a lot of uncertainty about this door. We do not know if Guede was admitted by a resident (Knox or Kercher). Or whether he arrived to find the door open, as Knox did the following morning (per her statement). We do not know if it was closed properly with the key after he arrived that night (assuming he was admitted by a resident). It could not have been if he arrived independently (unless we accept he came in through the window; and I find nothing in the evidence to support that contention, so I dismiss it: others differ, of course. )

As I understand it what you are proposing is that Guede acted alone: entered the cottage (by Meredith's invitation; by finding the door open; or through the window); assaulted and murdered Meredith for no reason whatsoever in a fight which left 47 injuries on her body; but did not allow her to fight well enough to get dna under her finger nails despite the fact that she was a student of martial arts; took the keys and the phones (but no other valuables:with the possible exception of the money, but there is no evidence that he took it); moved her handbag but did not open it, even though he had a pressing need for money with which to leave the country, on your thesis; opened the door with those keys leaving no trace so far as I am aware; ran away from his own house (as shown by where the phones, which were also free of any trace of blood, were found); went home and changed; and arrived at his friends house by 23:30 (I think that was the time: I am not prepared to spend the time checking it since none of this is new); and then went clubbing.

I see that this is plausible to you. It is not plausible to me.

But we are both in possession of the same facts, as is everyone else in this thread if they choose to be. You have brought nothing new.

This board is not about this case: it is about critical thinking. We present what we can find in terms of the evidence and reasonable interpretations of that evidence: and people form conclusions on the basis of that.

We have already heard what those who believe Knox (and Sollecito) to be innocent have to say on the "lone wolf" theory:and what those who do not believe it have to say.

What do you think is to be gained by going over the same stuff again?

 

[Kestrel]

Already fully discussed, as you say. I have linked Preston's account and I have also linked what Mignini has to say. I have linked to an article by Barbara Nadeau, who has been consistently balanced in her reporting. There are other sources in english (though not as many as I would like: there are many in Italian which, sadly, I cannot read.) But I have not found any source which does not ultimately come back to Preston and Spezi, which supports this picture of Migninini. In light of the inaccuracies in the english wiki version of the case I am not really inciined to rely on the Italian wiki: which in any case does not fully support what you say at least in the section you drew our attention to in your subsequent post.

This is one of the areas we can go no further with unless there is new information. Anyone can read what we have already provided in terms of evidene and make up their own mind. You have done this and so have I. Repeating your conclusion is not moving this forward in any way.

The Italian newspaper articles cited in the Italian Wikipedia article confirm Preston and Spezi's description of the conspiracy theory. These are sources independent of Preston and Spezi.

 

[Fiona]

Stilicho, you were not even aware that Bongiorno had presented a comparison of the cell phone records and CCTV times in court, but rather were going on some blogger's post for your sources as to the arrival time of the postal police. Therefore, I have clearly presented information which is new to you, and thus (I have to assume, since you have read JREF's discussion on this issue?) to the thread.

The problem seems to be that this information challenges your already established beliefs, which I would have thought was entirely in the spirit of critical thinking.

The fact that this was presented in court has indeed been known here: I think Stilicho knew this (correct me if I am wrong, Stilicho) but of course we all forget things at some points because of the sheer wealth of information: and occasionally we are not strictly accurate in what we say. In cooperative conversation we do not need to be: confusion can be cleared up with a question. In combative debate that is not the case and that has often been demonstrated here: even where a person's position has been fully elaborated earlier any subsequent slip causes great excitement (as for instance if someone mentions blood when they mean dna). It not the mark of truth seeking to proceed in that way, IMHO

That footage and the defence interpretation of it was indeed presented in court. We have also seen it here and discussed it at length. As I understand it there are several positions one can take: you can believe that it demonstrates that the police arrived at 12:56 (or 12:58 on some analyses). In that case you prove that RS phoned the police before they arrived (contrary to his own statement, but no matter) but you also undermine what the police, Luca and his friend, and Filomana and her friend, say about when they arrived: and you have to pack an awful lot of events into four (or two) minutes: you can believe, as I do, that the footage is itself worthless. I understand that the police accept that the legs it shows are theirs. I do not know why they accept that: I presume there must be other evidence we have not seen, but on the basis of what I have access to I do not see that it shows any such thing. You can believe that the fact it does not show the period which was originally said to be the time of arrival of the police per the clock camera is a curious omission which might change the interpretation if it was available.

But as you say it was presented in court and presumably the defence made the best case they could as to the implications of this footage for the credibility of the police; the innocence of the defendants; and the case as a whole. I repeat; we have not seen or heard all that the jury saw and heard and this is important. For whatever reason they did not think this conclusive in establisihing reasonable doubt about the conviction. That may change at the appeal.

There is still nothing new here. We have the same (incomplete) facts and we make of them what seems reasonable to us.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Monster of Florence

You're being dishonest again. Fiona posted up a good summary of that case a few pages back and you're distorting the facts to fit your pre-determined mindset/the FOA talking points.

BobTheDonkey,

Maybe you are the one being, you know, the d-word. I read Fiona's summary, and nowhere in it does she indicate that she read Preston and Spezi's book, "The Monster of Florence." I have almost finished reading it, and I have found the parts I read quite helpful in setting the context of the present case.

Chris

 

[Fiona]

The Italian newspaper articles cited in the Italian Wikipedia article confirm Preston and Spezi's description of the conspiracy theory. These are sources independent of Preston and Spezi.

have you read them?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Spezi and Mignini

The Italian newspaper articles cited in the Italian Wikipedia article confirm Preston and Spezi's description of the conspiracy theory. These are sources independent of Preston and Spezi.

To All,

These two links raise concerns about Spezi’s treatment and how Mignini behaved:

“Mignini filed a request with the preliminary investigation judge of Perugia, Marina De Robertis, to invoke a rarely used law under Italy's criminal code to deny Spezi access to a lawyer for five days, Spezi's lawyer Alessandro Traversi told CPJ. The law is typically applied to the most dangerous criminals, yet Judge De Robertis authorized the measure, and for five days Spezi was denied legal counsel and held incommunicado.”
http://cpj.org/2006/04/crime-journalists-imprisonment-raises-alarm.php


An appeals court that day ordered that Spezi be released immediately, but it did not issue an explanation as to why it overruled the judge who authorized the imprisonment. Spezi, 60, spent 22 days in prison after being taken into custody on April 7.
http://www.cpj.org/2006/05/italian-court-frees-journalist-held-after-writing.php

Chris

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Sherlock Holmes

I understand how contamination works, tyvm.

I also understand how it doesn't work.

What I refuse to ignore is that there were only 2 other possible sources of contamination - the direct sample from Sollecito and the cigarette butt.

Given that there were only 2 other sources, what is the likelihood that either of these sources were tested the same day as the clasp? Remember, controls in the lab showed no contamination.

Same goes for the knife. Meredith was never at Sollecito's. While I'll admit there is a much higher possibility for contamination from Meredith's DNA (that's a given), controls all came back negative. It obviously wasn't someone else's DNA (really, what are the odds that someone else in the lab would just happen to have as close a match to Meredith's DNA?)

You also are willing to accept that this lab was completely competent with Guede's DNA...but managed to turn incompetent when it came to testing anything with Sollecito and Knox DNA on it.

We are left with the explanation that the DNA samples/results are most likely accurate.

BobTheDonkey,

You have misstated my position with respect to Mr. Guede. Provisional means conditional; no one has offered specific, evidence-based reasons to doubt the DNA forensics that put him at the scene in the same way that the Johnson/Hampikian letter calls into question the knife and the bra clasp (maybe his lawyer should). According to Dr. Johnson, the lack of blood on the knife rules out the presence of DNA. Therefore, the only explanation for the DNA in the electropherogram is contamination. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote, “When you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” The bra clasp was in a demonstrably insecure location (an unknown person moved it), and its handling was poor, as seen in two videos (even you seemed to agree upthread). And these are just some of the problems with each piece of evidence.

You are ignoring the near certainty that Sollecito’s DNA is in some rooms of the house. In addition you are somewhat sanguine about negative controls, which cannot detect sporadic contamination, only wholesale contamination. Donald Riley wrote, “Negative controls may alert the analyst to general contamination occurring within the lab or the lab reagents. These controls don't offer protection against contamination occurring before the samples arrived at the PCR lab. Negative controls also can't rule out contamination of individual samples.” http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/riley/riley.html

Further, it would be helpful to have the negative controls examined by independent experts, in order to rule out some kinds of falsification of these controls. Falsification of negative controls appears to be the most common of unethical lab behaviors. http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/0/6285f6867724e1e685257124006f9177

Technicians sometimes falsify negative controls to avoid having to re-run a series of experiments, and therefore get behind on throughput. Such actions might not be noticed by the head of a laboratory, Dr. Stefanoni in this case. Therefore, her claim of no contamination events in seven years has to be evaluated with this possibility in mind, among other concerns.

Chris

 

[quadraginta]

BobTheDonkey,

Maybe you are the one being, you know, the d-word. I read Fiona's summary, and nowhere in it does she indicate that she read Preston and Spezi's book, "The Monster of Florence." I have almost finished reading it, and I have found the parts I read quite helpful in setting the context of the present case.

Chris

Brimstone was pretty good too. It certainly is helpful in setting the context of the FOA approach to this discussion.

There's even two more novels in the trilogy.

Maybe it's a tetralogy now.

 

[Fulcanelli]

These two links raise concerns about Spezi’s treatment and how Mignini behaved:

Only Mignini didn't jail Spezi, a court judge did. Only a judge and court can do that. Just as in the same way, when Amanda, Patrick and Raffaele were jailed, they then had to go in front of a judge to have their arrest confirmed and to order their detention. Prosecutors don't jail people, judges do.

 

[odeed]

BobTheDonkey,

You have misstated my position with respect to Mr. Guede. Provisional means conditional; no one has offered specific, evidence-based reasons to doubt the DNA forensics that put him at the scene in the same way that the Johnson/Hampikian letter calls into question the knife and the bra clasp (maybe his lawyer should). According to Dr. Johnson, the lack of blood on the knife rules out the presence of DNA. Therefore, the only explanation for the DNA in the electropherogram is contamination. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote, “When you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” The bra clasp was in a demonstrably insecure location (an unknown person moved it), and its handling was poor, as seen in two videos (even you seemed to agree upthread). And these are just some of the problems with each piece of evidence.

So blood is the only source of DNA? If I remember the DNA source on the knife could not be identified. Arthur Conan Doyle also believed psychics.

You are ignoring the near certainty that Sollecito’s DNA is in some rooms of the house. In addition you are somewhat sanguine about negative controls, which cannot detect sporadic contamination, only wholesale contamination. Donald Riley wrote, “Negative controls may alert the analyst to general contamination occurring within the lab or the lab reagents. These controls don't offer protection against contamination occurring before the samples arrived at the PCR lab. Negative controls also can't rule out contamination of individual samples.” http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/riley/riley.html

....

Chris

And Laura and Filomena are ghosts.

It doesn't matter how you try to discredit the knife and bra, Amanda Knox will still be in prison.

 

[Kestrel]

have you read them?

Yes, in the fractured English provided by Google Translate.

 

[Fiona]

I read them in google translate too

They don't say anything about satanic conspiracies

 

[lane99]

Obsessed supporters of 'whom'? Amanda Knox? Like those who sign up to multiple forums, this being the latest, to scream about how innocent she is? That wouldn't be you would it Lane99? Stones...glass houses...all of that.

This will be one of the few times I will address you,

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Edited to remove personal remarks.

This is the JREF forum, I presume deliberate lying is frowned upon.

Therefore, please post all the links you have to where I have been screaming that Amanda Knox is innocent.

Thanks in advance.

 

[lane99]

Were you being ironic when you mentioned supporters? Do you really mean that you think Falcanelli is being unfairly supportive of Guede?

No, I wasn't being ironic. He seems quite taken with him. I'm referring here to the human being who uses that particular sock puppet on this forum.

He uses others on other forums, it would appear. Where he speaks amiably and affectionately about Rudy Guilty.

I wouldn't be surprised if he would be looking forward to have Rudy come and live with him once he gets out of prision.

 

[Fiona]

Do you have anything constructive to say about the case, lane99?

It is preferred if we stay off attacking the arguer on this board. You are not the first nor perhaps the instigator and we all slip into that from time to time. But I mention this because you are new and may not be aware of the MA

 

[Jungle Jim]

If she'd noticed the broken window and the mess in Filomena's room, I'd agree with you. However, I'd suggest the other things in the cottage were more 'odd' than alarming, as Knox herself states (as you say, this is of course presuming her story to be true). I can't say I would have been alarmed enough to call the police purely on the evidence Knox claims she noticed on her first arrival in the cottage, at least not without further investigation. After all, even as regards the blood - which judging from footage of the bathroom, was not particularly noticeable - there could easily have been an innocent explanation, as of course there was for the cat's blood found in the downstairs flat.

I dare say we all have our own tolerance thresholds for these things, though, and to some extent it's a personal reaction. From what we know of Knox, she does seem rather like the oblivious to her surroundings, living in her own world type, so perhaps it's not over-surprising she didn't immediately act on the odd things she noticed.

Perhaps not, but let's walk through AK's story. According to AK, she arrives home the first time on the morning of Nov. 2 sometime between 10:30 & 11:00. She notices the front door is open. She shouts, “Is anyone there?” No answer. She enters the apartment. As she heads towards her room she passes Filomenia’s room (see image below, first room on her left when entering the apartment.). Does she knock on the door, maybe peak in? Apparently not.

She goes into the bathroom to shower. She notices blood on the faucet. She takes her shower and then notices blood on the bathmat. Does this prompt her to redouble her efforts to determine what is going on (i.e., three “odd” incidents--door open, blood on faucet, blood on bath mat)? Apparently not.

After her shower she goes to the other bathroom to use the hair dryer, once again passing Filomenia’s bedroom. How about a look see now? Apparently not.

In the second bathroom she notices feces in the toilet (the fourth “odd” thing). She heads back to her room. Surely, now would be the time to poke your head in Laura’s room and Filomenia’s room just to check it out since every room you’ve been in has had something “odd” going on. Apparently not.

AK is back in her room and finishes getting dressed. She ponders the odd occurrences in her apartment. Does she say to herself, should I call my three roommates and ask if they know what is going on? Should I pound on Meredith’s door to wake her if she’s sleeping? Should I call RS and ask him what to do? Should I call the police? Apparently not.

As AK leaves the apartment she passes Filomenia’s bedroom for the fourth time. Does AK take a peak inside the room? Apparently not. Personally, I don't buy her story.

np: The Kinks - I'm Not Like Anybody Else.