Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[HumanityBlues]

In Frank's summary of what I presume to be a summary of the motivations report, this isn't quite what happened:



(Source: http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2010/03/motivated-knox-and-sollecito-conviction.html )

Either Frank is wrong or you are wrong. By missing the important elements--Quintavalle knew what AK looked like because she visited the shop more than once and had strikingly non-Mediterranean features, the police didn't ask him if he'd seen her the morning of 02 NOV 2007, and Quintavalle had asked Chiriboga if she had seen AK--your version suggests that Quintavalle invented the story after seeing the media reports.

If Frank's summary of the summary is correct then Quintavalle's testimony is rock-solid.

Rock






Solid

"But later, about the end of his testimony, under the questions of Carlo Dalla Vedova, he admitted that: I'm not absolutely sure that can be her.
The judge Massei couldn't accept that sudden nullification of his whole testimony and with the very last round of questions managed to have him to affirm again the opposite: but inside me I'm sure."

You all seem to have very squishy rocks these days.

 

[stilicho]

My main point in regard to the bathmat footprint is that we have no need to use the length of the prints (always guesswork to some degree anyway) when we have the actual measurements of the forefeet of both Guede and Sollecito. These measurements supersede the early guesswork based on estimated foot length.

And the measurements show that Sollecito's foot is larger in this region than Guede's, meaning if we rule out Guede because his foot is 'too big' to have made the print, we also have to rule out Sollecito for the same reason. Guede's foot is 96mm x 55.5mm; Sollecito's is 99mm x 57mm. Footprint length, whatever that may be for each of them, is irrelevant here.

That's if you make the assumption that there is no such thing as a best fit. I don't know what the defence teams argued in court but I'd imagine they wanted to say it was someone's footprint rather than saying it was neither RS's nor RG's. Your problem here is to make it fit RG instead of RS.

I'm certainly not buying it and I doubt anyone in the courtroom would have either.

 

[stilicho]

You all seem to have very squishy rocks these days.

There's a lot of iffy stuff in Frank's blog and that's why I used the conditionals in my statements. He tends to edit heavily when he is forming an opinion but didn't do that when discussing the motivations report. You will notice that the March 22, 2009 entry at Perugia Shock has virtually no direct quotes in it.

Why, for example, does your entry omit the part about the police never asking him about AK? Or that he himself had asked his own store clerk if she had seen AK?

The motivations report is in the process of being translated so Frank's summary is the best we have at the moment. It easily supersedes his heavily edited work of March 2009.

 

[HumanityBlues]

There's a lot of iffy stuff in Frank's blog and that's why I used the conditionals in my statements. He tends to edit heavily when he is forming an opinion but didn't do that when discussing the motivations report. You will notice that the March 22, 2009 entry at Perugia Shock has virtually no direct quotes in it.

Why, for example, does your entry omit the part about the police never asking him about AK? Or that he himself had asked his own store clerk if she had seen AK?

The motivations report is in the process of being translated so Frank's summary is the best we have at the moment. It easily supersedes his heavily edited work of March 2009.

I think you're looking for excuses and not explanations. ""But later, about the end of his testimony, under the questions of Carlo Dalla Vedova, he admitted that: I'm not absolutely sure that can be her."

Are you saying Frank just made it up? Somehow I doubt it. And if this is true, his testimony isn't rock solid or reliable. How much more do you need than "I'm not absolutely sure that can be her"?

I didn't purposely leave anything out because that last statement kind of negates anything else he said. Ridiculous.

 

[katy_did]

That's if you make the assumption that there is no such thing as a best fit. I don't know what the defence teams argued in court but I'd imagine they wanted to say it was someone's footprint rather than saying it was neither RS's nor RG's. Your problem here is to make it fit RG instead of RS.

I'm certainly not buying it and I doubt anyone in the courtroom would have either.

The following is a picture of the bathmat footprint with the horizontal and vertical measurements drawn by Kermit to show the foot is compatible with Sollecito's footprint:

The problem is he mistakenly reads the width measurement of Sollecito's print as being 95mm, when in fact it is 99mm. The lines Kermit draws on the above picture are 95mm horizontally, and 55mm vertically. But these measurements are in fact far closer to Guede's footprint than they are to Sollecito's: while Sollecito's footprint is 99mm x 57mm, Guede's is 96mm x 55.5mm, very close to Kermit's measurements of 95mm x 55mm. In terms of size, then, and according to Kermit's estimates, Guede's footprint would appear to be the "best fit".

 

[katy_did]

Either Frank is wrong or you are wrong. By missing the important elements--Quintavalle knew what AK looked like because she visited the shop more than once and had strikingly non-Mediterranean features, the police didn't ask him if he'd seen her the morning of 02 NOV 2007, and Quintavalle had asked Chiriboga if she had seen AK--your version suggests that Quintavalle invented the story after seeing the media reports.

If Frank's summary of the summary is correct then Quintavalle's testimony is rock-solid.

I'm not sure it's true that Quintavalle had seen Amanda before, had he? The other shop assistant had, because she was Sollecito's cleaning lady, but I don't remember anything about Quintavalle having seen her. When did he ask Chiriboga if she saw AK, I wonder - soon afterwards, or when he came forward to the police a year later? I guess we'll have to wait for the translated report to find out the details.

 

[stilicho]

I think you're looking for excuses and not explanations. ""But later, about the end of his testimony, under the questions of Carlo Dalla Vedova, he admitted that: I'm not absolutely sure that can be her."

Are you saying Frank just made it up? Somehow I doubt it. And if this is true, his testimony isn't rock solid or reliable. How much more do you need than "I'm not absolutely sure that can be her"?

I didn't purposely leave anything out because that last statement kind of negates anything else he said. Ridiculous.

I don't have the transcripts of the trial, do you? Frank doesn't use quotations so it's obvious that he isn't using transcripts either. It wasn't you who omitted things that were later included. It was your own source--Frank at Perugia Shock.

That's why I explained (as have others) to be very careful about using Frank as a source. He paraphrases. He omits things. He changes his mind.

He's a blogger.

Sky News also omits a couple of items included in Frank's summary of the summary: http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Wo...-Perugia-Says-Witness/Article/200903315246339.

There is no record there of Quintavalle saying what Frank says he did either. Do you have any direct quote from an independent source (preferably a transcript) that any of what you say is true?

 

[stilicho]

I'm not sure it's true that Quintavalle had seen Amanda before, had he? The other shop assistant had, because she was Sollecito's cleaning lady, but I don't remember anything about Quintavalle having seen her. When did he ask Chiriboga if she saw AK, I wonder - soon afterwards, or when he came forward to the police a year later? I guess we'll have to wait for the translated report to find out the details.

There was also a trial and testimony. Quintavalle's statements were believed and the reasons for that were explained.

I sure wish some of the same rigorous critique would apply to Sollecito and Knox, especially in cases where we have full translations of their written words. For some reason, Frank can casually paraphrase someone on his blog and it's entered as evidence, while Sollecito's perplexing inventions about spearing Meredith with the murder weapon is simply hand-waved away.

Thank goodness the trial was held in a real courtroom and not on the internet.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Fulcanelli writes:

The report does not go into explicit detail as to why there in no DNA in the blood, it doesn't need to as it provides the answer implicitly....the blood had been washed off of the feet before the prints were made, the prints being made instead with residue.

Are you saying the white blood cells containing DNA had been washed away but the red blood cells containing iron had not been washed away?

The police changed gloves before handling each new object, as was testified in court.

It's amazing what people will believe if they hear it from someone wearing a uniform.

I have over three hours of crime scene video where objects are being handled and tossed around, and nobody is ever seen to change into a fresh pair of gloves.

I am not allowed to post links. Go to the friendsofamanda site and type the url with the extension /kitchen_dec_18_07.jpg and /kitchen_dec_18_07_closeup_of_gloves.jpg

And as for any swab able to pick up the DNA of anyone who'd been on the premises...possibly....but they didn't, did they Charlie? These swabs of the blood only turned up the DNA of Amanda mixed with Meredith's blood...not Filomena's, not Laura's, not Meredith's boyfriend,

In fact they came up with plenty of unidentified DNA, but they didn't get reference samples from Filomena, Laura, their boyfriends, or Meredith's boyfriend, so they don't know whose it was.

 

[stilicho]

The following is a picture of the bathmat footprint with the horizontal and vertical measurements drawn by Kermit to show the foot is compatible with Sollecito's footprint:

http://i43.tinypic.com/2itop00.jpg

The problem is he mistakenly reads the width measurement of Sollecito's print as being 95mm, when in fact it is 99mm. The lines Kermit draws on the above picture are 95mm horizontally, and 55mm vertically. But these measurements are in fact far closer to Guede's footprint than they are to Sollecito's: while Sollecito's footprint is 99mm x 57mm, Guede's is 96mm x 55.5mm, very close to Kermit's measurements of 95mm x 55mm. In terms of size, then, and according to Kermit's estimates, Guede's footprint would appear to be the "best fit".

Have you told Kermit that he inadvertently refuted the prosecution's case? Has he (or you) submitted this new theory to the defence teams?

Or is there a possibility you're misinterpreting the evidence?

 

[HumanityBlues]

I don't have the transcripts of the trial, do you? Frank doesn't use quotations so it's obvious that he isn't using transcripts either. It wasn't you who omitted things that were later included. It was your own source--Frank at Perugia Shock.

That's why I explained (as have others) to be very careful about using Frank as a source. He paraphrases. He omits things. He changes his mind.

He's a blogger.

Sky News also omits a couple of items included in Frank's summary of the summary: http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Wo...-Perugia-Says-Witness/Article/200903315246339.

There is no record there of Quintavalle saying what Frank says he did either. Do you have any direct quote from an independent source (preferably a transcript) that any of what you say is true?

The record is from someone who actually sat in at the trial. I realize it looks pretty bad when a witness says he can't be sure. That is troubling so it makes sense someone would look for excuses. Or would you rather just stop any conversation unless we find trial transcript? Then I guess this message board should be dead for a while. Anyways, what good would it do if I produced a transcript of him saying it? You'd make some other "explanation", how that's not the "whole story" even if it completely negates everything else.

You talk about him being unreliable as a blogger and yet a month ago you sent me to maybe the most biased blog I've ever seen (trujustice.org)--saying I had some "catching up to do". You seem perfectly willing to take second and thirdhand sources as long as it suits what you want it to. At least on Perugia-Shock we don't see the idiotic urging of the blogmaster to invite Anne Coulter and Jeanine Pirro onto Oprah (yes, that is actually a title of one of the posts, go look). For those not in the United States, you may not understand how funny and amateur that makes one look. Next you'll be telling me to read Sean Hannity as reliable information.

And this is the blog you take seriously, who has no one in court at all.

Then we have people on here who take seriously the third hand account on a message board, and I didn't hear you screaming unreliability then, even when BobTheDonk used it as evidence to suspect that Amanda "had played rape pranks in the past", or something of that nature.

"There is no record there of Quintavalle saying what Frank says he did either. Do you have any direct quote from an independent source (preferably a transcript) that any of what you say is true."

Except there is a record on the Perugia-Shock blog. Are you going on record to say he made it up? He puts quite a bit of emphasis on it. I don't see how it can be any more clear. Quite paranoid if you ask me, but I suppose I can go through what you consider reliable sources and just say they made it up as well---quite the cumbersome and tiring game to play though.

 

[stilicho]

I have over three hours of crime scene video where objects are being handled and tossed around, and nobody is ever seen to change into a fresh pair of gloves.

Argument from incredulity.

Your evidence may be incomplete. It is almost certain that is the case because the investigation lasted more than three hours.

By the way, where was Amanda on the evening of 01 NOV 2007, at the time of Meredith's murder?

 

[HumanityBlues]

Argument from incredulity.

Your evidence may be incomplete. It is almost certain that is the case because the investigation lasted more than three hours.

By the way, where was Amanda on the evening of 01 NOV 2007, at the time of Meredith's murder?

How is that an argument from incredulity. If they didn't change gloves once when they were supposed to then their testimony considering this aspect is already refuted. You can deduce that with a one minute video.

 

[stilicho]

The record is from someone who actually sat in at the trial. I realize it looks pretty bad when a witness says he can't be sure. That is troubling so it makes sense someone would look for excuses. Or would you rather just stop any conversation unless we find trial transcript? Then I guess this message board should be dead for a while. Anyways, what good would it do if I produced a transcript of him saying it? You'd make some other "explanation", how that's not the "whole story" even if it completely negates everything else.

You talk about him being unreliable as a blogger and yet a month ago you sent me to maybe the most biased blog I've ever seen (trujustice.org)--saying I had some "catching up to do". You seem perfectly willing to take second and thirdhand sources as long as it suits what you want it to. At least on Perugia-Shock we don't see the idiotic urging of the blogmaster to invite Anne Coulter and Jeanine Pirro onto Oprah (yes, that is actually a title of one of the posts, go look). For those not in the United States, you may not understand how funny and amateur that makes one look. Next you'll be telling me to read Sean Hannity as reliable information.

And this is the blog you take seriously, who has no one in court at all.

Then we have people on here who take seriously the third hand account on a message board, and I didn't hear you screaming unreliability then, even when BobTheDonk used it as evidence to suspect that Amanda "had played rape pranks in the past", or something of that nature.

"There is no record there of Quintavalle saying what Frank says he did either. Do you have any direct quote from an independent source (preferably a transcript) that any of what you say is true."

Except there is a record on the Perugia-Shock blog. Are you going on record to say he made it up? He puts quite a bit of emphasis on it. I don't see how it can be any more clear. Quite paranoid if you ask me, but I suppose I can go through what you consider reliable sources and just say they made it up as well---quite the cumbersome and tiring game to play though.

Why don't you just ask him for the transcript he used to get the "quote"? That ought to be pretty simple.

Several of the real reporters were in the courtroom, too, and speak Italian and yet this statement of Quintavalle's is nowhere to be found. Isn't it odd that most of the reports state that he was certain AK was there and only Frank states that she was not?

I've always said that PMF and TJMK are good starting points for those unfamiliar with the case. There are plenty of primary sources there, including the culprits' own written words, and most of the quotes used are fully sourced to independent journalists. The quotes actually appear in quotation marks. You can skip over the advocacy stuff pretty easily--I do, and I am pretty sure you can too.

It's terribly unfortunate that we appear to only have the trial transcripts from AK's own rather self-incriminating testimony. Until then, we'll let people weigh the value of an anonymous blogger who uses a false surname against the stories filed by independent journalists.

 

[stilicho]

How is that an argument from incredulity. If they didn't change gloves once when they were supposed to then their testimony considering this aspect is already refuted. You can deduce that with a one minute video.

Their appeal ought to be a slam-dunk then. Just show a one-minute clip and--bingo--they're set free!

Frankly, you'd figure they'd never have been convicted. Or is it possible there's something wrong with your statement?

 

[HumanityBlues]

Why don't you just ask him for the transcript he used to get the "quote"? That ought to be pretty simple.

Several of the real reporters were in the courtroom, too, and speak Italian and yet this statement of Quintavalle's is nowhere to be found. Isn't it odd that most of the reports state that he was certain AK was there and only Frank states that she was not?

I've always said that PMF and TJMK are good starting points for those unfamiliar with the case. There are plenty of primary sources there, including the culprits' own written words, and most of the quotes used are fully sourced to independent journalists. The quotes actually appear in quotation marks. You can skip over the advocacy stuff pretty easily--I do, and I am pretty sure you can too.

It's terribly unfortunate that we appear to only have the trial transcripts from AK's own rather self-incriminating testimony. Until then, we'll let people weigh the value of an anonymous blogger who uses a false surname against the stories filed by independent journalists.

"Several of the real reporters were in the courtroom, too, and speak Italian and yet this statement of Quintavalle's is nowhere to be found. Isn't it odd that most of the reports state that he was certain AK was there and only Frank states that she was not?"

Ya it is odd, but only in the sense that it enunciates just how bad the reporters in the courtroom must be, or many were too stupid to realize how significant that statement actually is. Good for Mr. Sfarzo to catch it. I think we both know he said it. I personally find nothing exceptional in the other reporters I've seen to make me think they would've have caught it. Again, it's either he said it or he didn't.

And I have to ask, were I to show you with a transcript that he did say it, would you continue on this facade that his testimony was "rock solid"? It's not.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Their appeal ought to be a slam-dunk then. Just show a one-minute clip and--bingo--they're set free!

Frankly, you'd figure they'd never have been convicted. Or is it possible there's something wrong with your statement?

Well there's nothing wrong with my statement if the videos do what they purport to do. I've never seen the videos, so how would I know anyways. But what's the point in arguing? Whatever the judges say in their report, even if backed by flawed reasoning, the pro-guilt will just accept that as fact anyways, even on this so called skeptics forum.

 

[Fiona]

I am not sure what you mean, HumanityBlues. I do not think that I have seen anyone I could describe as "pro-guilt", and it is a curious way of characterising people. Most here have tried to look at what is known and have come to conclusions based on their understanding of what is available. We will get the Motivations document soon (I hope) and this will fill in some gaps. But the fact remains that those who were party to the trial know far more than we do: and that will remain true even after the reasoning is translated.

So what would you have us do? I personally do not expect that there will be a perfect account of the crime with all the details fully backed by undisputable evidence: I doubt any trial is like that. Beyond reasonable doubt does not demand that. How could it?

You have the same information and sources as all the rest of us. You will evaluate them as seems rational to you: and so will we all.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Stilicho writes:


Your evidence may be incomplete.

Did you look at the picture of the gloves on the floor?

 

[stilicho]

Then we have people on here who take seriously the third hand account on a message board, and I didn't hear you screaming unreliability then, even when BobTheDonk used it as evidence to suspect that Amanda "had played rape pranks in the past", or something of that nature.

That was actually originally introduced by Brainster, here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5386599&postcount=342.

It's one of those stories that really has no bearing on the case. Neither do AK's short stories about rape and murder. Neither do Chris Mellas' description of his stepdaughters as "*********" or tales of drinking with them.

However, it's not the PMF or TJMK people who are playing these things up. They are simply responses to the expensive PR campaign designed to portray AK as a fresh-scrubbed kid who studies compulsively and is just so close to beatification. Instead, as I've always maintained, she's just another garden variety murderer with a troubled past.