Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

So what you call debunking an FOA document is to present a skewed PMF document.

It has been well and truly debunked. In order to make the features of Rudy's foot fit within the print on the mat it needs to be shrunk to less then 23 cm's in size...smaller then Amanda's foot! That's what the FOA site did with their photoshopped print.

Let people see for themselves. If anyone's not seen it already, download and view the following PowerPoint: DEAR MR MARRIOTT, I SHRUNK THE BLACK KID

And if Dan O thinks something is 'skewed' or incorrect on that PowerPoint then let him come forward and demonstrate to us how it is so.

 

[stilicho]

Interesting, so a 10,000 page trial transcript would cost about $13,000 (U.S.) to purchase. How much to get it translated into English? Is $1 a page about right? Another $10,000. Quite an expensive purchase.

EDIT: Bad math. At 2 Euros a page, it would cost $27,000 (U.S.) to purchase the entire trial if it did go as long as 10,000 pages (likely). Even if it was only 5,000 pages, we're back to the original $13,000 to obtain "all the information".

Not only that, Alt+F4, but none of the posters arguing LCN-this and contamination-that on this thread have accepted the challenge to take their evidence over to the Science and Technology forum to ask people who have access to the information capable of refuting them. Rumour has it that there are some real-life medical professionals who post on the JREF but only in the appropriate forums.

You might know a few of the medical people here better than I do. I'd hate to drag anyone into something that's as obviously absurd as Waterbury's claims but maybe you could see if someone knowledgeable might want to take a peek.

Regardless, without any evidence that Waterbury's site is anything more than a limited opinion piece, we can safely ignore it. The burden of proof is clearly on those who continue to cite it.

 

[Fulcanelli]

How would you react when the police told you they had a clear video image showing you were at the cottage when you know you were not? The police made this claim and threatened Raffaele with jail if he kept telling them that Amanda was with him. They did the same to Amanda. These two were rather young and rather naive and didn't recognize that falsely claiming to have evidence is a standard police tactic.

BTW - If you think that an innocent person has nothing to fear from talking to the police, watch this lecture.

They didn't show Raffaele any video or images when they questioned him, or threaten Raffaele with jail unless he dropped his alibi for Amanda,. If you feel you are able to provide actual evidence they did so, then please provide it and give us the link to where Raffaele has ever said this instead of giving us your unsupported assertions.

 

[stilicho]

That's what the FOA site did with their photoshopped print.

Now he's going to ask you how you know it's photoshopped.

Remember, the JREF forum is a place to discuss...critical thinking...in a friendly and lively way.

Or to slavishly regurgitate FOA talking points and just imagine through "injected false memories".

 

[Open Inquiry]

Not only that, Alt+F4, but none of the posters arguing LCN-this and contamination-that on this thread have accepted the challenge to take their evidence over to the Science and Technology forum to ask people who have access to the information capable of refuting them. Rumour has it that there are some real-life medical professionals who post on the JREF but only in the appropriate forums.

You might know a few of the medical people here better than I do. I'd hate to drag anyone into something that's as obviously absurd as Waterbury's claims but maybe you could see if someone knowledgeable might want to take a peek.

Regardless, without any evidence that Waterbury's site is anything more than a limited opinion piece, we can safely ignore it. The burden of proof is clearly on those who continue to cite it.

Hey I said that would be a great idea. And I really do think that. I think it would be an excellent opportunity to get information into the light. Let's do it!

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Hey I said that would be a great idea. And I really do think that. I think it would be an excellent opportunity to get information into the light. Let's do it!

Well, what are you waiting for?

You're the one arguing Stefanoni's analysis is faulty, you need to provide something to back that accusation up.


And, btw, when you have a chance, if you could explain exactly what part of the footprint powerpoint at PMF was incorrect? (ETA: With supporting evidence, of course)

 

[Open Inquiry]

Beware of the attitude "We can't do it, only experts can." We can certainly think through an argument.

We can also submit technical portions for review by those whom the challenging party deems valid.

EDIT: In this instance, you would be the challenging party. You are challenging the presentation I find to be valid.

 

[Open Inquiry]

Well, what are you waiting for?

You're the one arguing Stefanoni's analysis is faulty, you need to provide something to back that accusation up.


And, btw, when you have a chance, if you could explain exactly what part of the footprint powerpoint at PMF was incorrect? (ETA: With supporting evidence, of course)

I'm very new to this forum. Am I able to start a thread in the science and technology section?

I am considering and weighing the Kermit presentation. Talking with people about it. Looking up every press article, blog article, and image search. The thing I am baffled by is the shoe size. I will get back to you when all the "results" of my search are in. Thanks.....

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Beware of the attitude "We can't do it, only experts can." We can certainly think through an argument.

We can also submit technical portions for review by those who the challenging party deems valid.

You somehow think you're more capable of reading the results from DNA testing than Stefanoni and her trained lab technicians?

There is a point where we must realize our own limitations and thereafter rely on the expertise of someone with significant experience in the field and direct access to the data - in this case, Stefanoni.

Why is it that the FoA crowd are so anti-Stefanoni? This is not some backwards, 3rd world nation's DNA lab.

 

[Open Inquiry]

An underlying theme I sense is trusting what the court has done. I find that very questionable things were done. I want to trust the court, but there are certain problems. You most likely know the problems I have and you most likely do not regard them as problems. That is fine. But I thought I would just point it out. I also feel very strange writing about these things in a way but it's all in the spirit of debate.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I'm very new to this forum. Am I able to start a thread in the science and technology section?

I am considering and weighing the Kermit presentation. Talking with people about it. Looking up every press article, blog article, and image search. The thing I am baffled by is the shoe size. I will get back to you when all the "results" of my search are in. Thanks.....

That's not, exactly, the best way to go about things here.


You made the accusation that the PMF powerpoint was incorrect. On what do you base this opinion if you haven't done the research yet?


Now it's apparent that you're merely looking for holes in the argument to fit what you want to believe. Another mental gymnast?

 

[Open Inquiry]

You somehow think you're more capable of reading the results from DNA testing than Stefanoni and her trained lab technicians?

I didn't say that, did I? I said we can think through an argument and have someone YOU trust review the work regarding DNA.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

An underlying theme I sense is trusting what the court has done. I find that very questionable things were done. I want to trust the court, but there are certain problems. You most likely know the problems I have and you most likely do not regard them as problems. That is fine. But I thought I would just point it out. I also feel very strange writing about these things in a way but it's all in the spirit of debate.

What questionable things?


"I don't know, I'll have to do some more research and get back to you on that" is an unacceptable answer. You have made the accusation, it must be based on something. What is that something?

 

[Open Inquiry]

That's not, exactly, the best way to go about things here.


You made the accusation that the PMF powerpoint was incorrect. On what do you base this opinion if you haven't done the research yet?


Now it's apparent that you're merely looking for holes in the argument to fit what you want to believe. Another mental gymnast?

I have what I based it on but I won't stop there at all. I am seeking support on both sides. That is in the name of being thorough.

What did you mean by not the way you go about things here? Isn't further research valued? In other words, what I was saying is that I am still looking into it. I haven't forgotten or shoved it under the rug.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I didn't say that, did I? I said we can think through an argument and have someone YOU trust review the work regarding DNA.

...and I trust Stefanoni.

Why should I not? Do you have proof of evidence tampering or contamination occurring previously in her lab?

Do you have evidence that she lied while being questioned? Or maybe evidence that she manipulated the data incorrectly?

No? I didn't think so.

Thus, we have no reason to not trust her results - other than the opinion/desires of a small (relatively) group of scientists and the family of the accused.

 

[Open Inquiry]

What questionable things?


"I don't know, I'll have to do some more research and get back to you on that" is an unacceptable answer. You have made the accusation, it must be based on something. What is that something?

I have to say it NOW? I don't operate like that. If you offer more evidence - the power point, which, I did not say it was flawed. I said that FOA didn't "doctor" anything. You brought up the power point. I have to research before I can respond. Isn't that only responsible?

 

[Open Inquiry]

...and I trust Stefanoni.

Why should I not? Do you have proof of evidence tampering or contamination occurring previously in her lab?

Do you have evidence that she lied while being questioned? Or maybe evidence that she manipulated the data incorrectly?

No? I didn't think so.

Thus, we have no reason to not trust her results - other than the opinion/desires of a small (relatively) group of scientists and the family of the accused.

I think it would be wise to get things checked out by a scientist outside the court, and I even added by a scientist whom you trust. But maybe you are not interested in such things, and that is fine with me. I thought you wanted further analysis by other scientists.

 

[Fulcanelli]

So you are claiming that Raffaele hopped over Meredith's body, hopped into the hall, hopped into the bathroom and just when he had a sink handy to hold on to he puts his foot down on the mat.

In effect, yes. Although you can drop the 'hopped over Meredith's body' hyperbole. I don't understand why anybody would need to 'hop over her body'. In any case, for a fact, somebody put their foot down on the mat hence the bloody footprint on it and did so without leaving a trail of prints leading up to it. Therefore, if you have a better explanation of how the print got on the mat with no trail, regardless of whose print you think it is, then do explain it to us. They levitated to the mat? Did a handstand and walked to the bathroom on their hands perhaps?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

In effect, yes. Although you can drop the 'hopped over Meredith's body' hyperbole. I don't understand why anybody would need to 'hop over her body'. In any case, for a fact, somebody put their foot down on the mat hence the bloody footprint on it and did so without leaving a trail of prints leading up to it. Therefore, if you have a better explanation of how the print got on the mat with no trail, regardless of whose print you think it is, then do explain it to us. They levitated to the mat? Did a handstand and walked to the bathroom on their hands perhaps?

If it was on their hands, it wasn't Rudy. His hands were bloody, remember?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I have to say it NOW? I don't operate like that. If you offer more evidence - the power point, which, I did not say it was flawed. I said that FOA didn't "doctor" anything. You brought up the power point. I have to research before I can respond. Isn't that only responsible?

You made the claim that the PMF information on the footprint was flawed. You, therefore, must have some reason for this claim. If you haven't seen the powerpoint or have no other means of verifying the FoA claims regarding the footprint, then this is not a claim you should be making.

ETA: So, yes. NOW. Because you made the claim that the FoA site is correct concerning the footprint. What evidence do you have that the PMF site is incorrect?