Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[HumanityBlues]

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.

Fair enough, I apologize for the characterization at pro-guilt. It's just just shorter that way to be honest.

If this is the basic crux of the motivations,
"Jurors theorized that Knox, Sollecito and Guede arrived at the apartment together and got high. They suggested Guede used the bathroom, and when he came out saw Knox and Sollecito being intimate, became excited and sought out Kercher, who was reading in her room.

When she resisted, Knox and Sollecito came into the room and aided Guede in restraining her so he could continue. The violence spiraled out of control, and Kercher was eventually killed, with Knox threatening and eventually stabbing her with the large kitchen knife the jury was convinced is the murder weapon, jurors decided."

then pardon me while I don't put much stock in the wisdom or impartiality of the judges, or their ability to reason from a presumption of innocence.

Or this gem: "Instead, the judge wrote, they killed spontaneously under the influence of drugs. “One can hypothesize that the bad decision came after the consumption of stupefacente—stupefying substances—that Amanda verified in her testimony.”

I'm assuming I'm not the only one on this thread that has smoked pot in his or her life? There are so many blatantly backwards suppositions in even the initial leaks, I have trouble understanding what makes people so confident this report will fill in any gaps rather than raising more questions. It could be 10 pages, it could be 1000--maybe I'm alone but I'm not expecting much.

 

[Kermit]

"Yes, I agree with Kermit that the FOA print is shorter than Guede's actual print. But what I am suggesting is that his own print is even more inaccurate in the opposite direction ... I decreased the width of Guede's foot to its actual measurement - 96mm - and checked the length. As you can see, the result was at the upper end of my estimate, around 25.7cm

.... Therefore we have:
FOA: 23.5cm (I'll accept Kermit's estimate here)
Actual size: 25.7cm (approx)"

Katy_Did, I am both humbled and honoured by your interest in taking apart my powerpoints. However, most of this discussion is old. My friends on the PMF board already pointed out some of my measurement imprecisions months ago (mostly based on the fact that there's some "overhang" on the front and back of a foot).

So please save your breath and time if you're objective is to prove that my measurements aren't exact. As I explained in my prior post and as I explained in my powerpoints, my objective with the first footprint Powerpoints was to demonstrate that there was no lone-wolf in the cottage, as the luminol and visible footprints were of varying sizes. Independently of whether my measurement estimates were exactly correct, we saw that the barefoot footprints varied in size in relation to each other.

My objective in the "Mr. Marriott, I Shrunk the Black Kid" powerpoint was to show that the Friends of Amanda organisation had shrunk Rudy's footprint to 23 cm in length (BTW, I never said 23.5 cm as you suggest, their shrinkage is quite a clear read all the way down to 23 cm.). They thus generated their pink overlay to try to convince us that Rudy's print has the same characteristics as the bloody footprint on the bath mat.

In spite of me bringing this several times to the attention of persons close to the Knox support team, FOA has never made any attempt to recognise this significant error in their insinuations, if in fact it is an accidental error. They continue to use the same 23 cm pink Hobbit foot on their web page.

Now, at the time I did the "Mr. Marriott, I Shrunk the Black Kid" powerpoint, I didn't have available the police measurements of Rudy's feet.

FOA and people who claim to be close to the Knox PR operation often have referred to the inside information they have. Charlie sent me a (supposed) image of police measurements of Rudy's foot. Interestingly enough, it didn't have the "notch" measurement of 57 mm, but rather a 72 mm measurement from the foremost point on the front of the ball of the foot (behind the middle toe), to a corresponding point directly behind, on the arch. What this measurement demonstrates is that Rudy's arch angles back quickly (while Raffaele's arch cuts across, not increasing much the "notch" measurement).

I assume that it is Rudy's lower arch (contacting with more floor and causing a larger print) which forced FOA to shrink his print to 23 cm.

((I haven't made 15 posts here yet, so I can't links files ... here's the address of my image file. Please do check it out:
After h-t-t-p-:-/-/, paste:
img251.imageshack.us/img251/5392/picture583.png ))

In these images, we see on the left, an untouched image of the bathmat print. In the middle is FOA's pink overlay which they insinuate shows that Rudy's foot matches ... however for some reason they don't take the edge of the pink print all the way to the right, to the edge of the inside of the ball of the foot behind the big toe.

In the right hand image, I applied your 25.7 cm estimate (I would take it up to 26 or so, but let's use your measurement) and a 96 mm width, and placed the image behind the pink Hobbit foot and the original bathmat print. Interestingly enough (or perhaps it's not surprising), Rudy's print seems to coincide better with the width of the bathmat print (better than in the pink Hobbit attempt) as there is a point where they line up, just at the 96 mm point. However, by extending the print to 25.7 cm, not only is it's length far beyond the FOA image, the arch of the foot is seen to leave a large print area which the bathmat print doesn't cover.

In fact, the bathmat print's arch behind the ball of the foot cuts across, much more in line with Raffaele's print.
========================

As I mentioned, I'm humbled by your critical review of my powerpoints. Keep in mind, however, that they are amateur constructions by myself, a single person. On the other hand, FOA and the overall Knox PR campaign is a million dollar (at this point, probably more) business, with a professional, multimember team who - according to their website - works with some of the largest American business corporations.

I can only hope that your critical eye - which I do appreciate - also trains itself on the FOA audio, visual, and text material. Because it's THERE where spin has to be taken apart.

 

[HumanityBlues]

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.

Fair enough, and personally I think you have more sense than the people at those blogs (yes that is a compliment). But come on Stilicho, to say that they're throwing that around in order to contradict an expensive PR campaign is rubbish. They're throwing it around because they know people will be more likely to believe Amanda Knox is guilty; and then people actually buy it as reliable evidence. The evidence for that is in the very message boards we're posting in.

 

[stilicho]

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.

How about pro-fact?

I wasn't the only one attracted to this topic because all the news I'd seen out of the Seattle media claimed there was no evidence, no facts, nothing to support a conviction. There were talking heads literally explaining that there was absolutely no way that she would be judged guilty.

Look at the title of this very thread. It isn't "Amanda Knox -- Is She Really Guilty?" It's "Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel."

What part of sceptical is that supposed to be?

And now, you're not sceptical of an unsourced "quote" used to discredit a witness even though it isn't mentioned in any of the other news stories about his testimony.

I am sceptical of advocates making claims about crimescene contamination from looking at three hours of video. How did this play out in court? What were both sides of the claim? Without that, how can we evaluate it as evidence of anything?

 

[Kermit]

"What sequence of events created these footprints? Did Amanda step in Meredith's blood and then hop backwards into the hallway?"

I'm not sure of the exact sequence of events which led to the different sized luminol footprints nor the bathmat print

The FOA page states "evidence suggests*the killer cleaned up in the bathroom, and several blood-soaked towels were found at the crime scene."

So if it was Amanda who made some of the luminol prints, she may have stepped on blood or bloodied material inside Meredith's room or at another location.

"The print on the mat was made by Guede when he cleaned up in the bathroom. He rinsed his right shoe under the bidet, leaving a trace of blood in the drain of the bidet, and while his shoe was off, he put his foot down on the mat and left the print"

Charlie, come on now. Please, readers, look at this next image:

((I haven't made 15 posts here yet, so I can't link files ... here's the address of my image file. Please do check it out:
After h-t-t-p-:-/-/, paste:
img372.imageshack.us/img372/3471/foaamazinganalysis.png ))

Charlie is suggesting that Rudy washed his shoes in the bidet, behind his (Rudy's) back.

Or, if you turn the blue bathmat around 90 degrees by 90 degrees (or by any other increment you wish), you'll see that the FOA "Rudy-washed-his-shoes-in-the-bidet-while-standing-on-the-bathmat" explanation (given in very self assured tones) is ludicrous, requiring cat-like stretches.

 

[Fiona]

Fair enough, I apologize for the characterization at pro-guilt. It's just just shorter that way to be honest.

If this is the basic crux of the motivations,
"Jurors theorized that Knox, Sollecito and Guede arrived at the apartment together and got high. They suggested Guede used the bathroom, and when he came out saw Knox and Sollecito being intimate, became excited and sought out Kercher, who was reading in her room.

When she resisted, Knox and Sollecito came into the room and aided Guede in restraining her so he could continue. The violence spiraled out of control, and Kercher was eventually killed, with Knox threatening and eventually stabbing her with the large kitchen knife the jury was convinced is the murder weapon, jurors decided."

then pardon me while I don't put much stock in the wisdom or impartiality of the judges, or their ability to reason from a presumption of innocence.

Or this gem: "Instead, the judge wrote, they killed spontaneously under the influence of drugs. “One can hypothesize that the bad decision came after the consumption of stupefacente—stupefying substances—that Amanda verified in her testimony.”

I'm assuming I'm not the only one on this thread that has smoked pot in his or her life? There are so many blatantly backwards suppositions in even the initial leaks, I have trouble understanding what makes people so confident this report will fill in any gaps rather than raising more questions. It could be 10 pages, it could be 1000--maybe I'm alone but I'm not expecting much.

The story is the story: it is only important because we make stories. We do it because it is how we are made and we do it because the pressure to do it is very strong. But it is irrelevant.

 

[HumanityBlues]

How about pro-fact?

I wasn't the only one attracted to this topic because all the news I'd seen out of the Seattle media claimed there was no evidence, no facts, nothing to support a conviction. There were talking heads literally explaining that there was absolutely no way that she would be judged guilty.

Look at the title of this very thread. It isn't "Amanda Knox -- Is She Really Guilty?" It's "Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel."

What part of sceptical is that supposed to be?

And now, you're not sceptical of an unsourced "quote" used to discredit a witness even though it isn't mentioned in any of the other news stories about his testimony.

I am sceptical of advocates making claims about crimescene contamination from looking at three hours of video. How did this play out in court? What were both sides of the claim? Without that, how can we evaluate it as evidence of anything?

How is that quote unsourced? I told you exactly where it came from, and it was documented by someone who was actually in court. Your only counter argument is that others didn't document so it must not be true, yet you can't even say whether you believe he didn't say it. At least have the gusto to put your money where your mouth is and say you think it's made up.

"I am sceptical of advocates making claims about crimescene contamination from looking at three hours of video."

I was only attacking the logic in your claim that you can't show likely contamination based on 3 hours of video evidence, which is patently absurd. You could judge it's likeliness on a minute of video alone.

 

[HumanityBlues]

The story is the story: it is only important because we make stories. We do it because it is how we are made and we do it because the pressure to do it is very strong. But it is irrelevant.

No, the story actually is relevant. Not only is the story not believable, but it's absurd. And you can see the absurd deductions made in only a few short sentences that can't be backed up even behind a sentencing report the length of the Bible. Your argument inherently implies that "the story" is irrelevant, because you think it is.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

HumanityBlues writes:

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.

The overall quality of the reporting on this case has not been good. Barbie Nadeau apparently speaks fluent Italian, and yet she reported that Dr. Sollecito's wife shouted "F*** you!" when the verdict was announced. Nina Burleigh picked this up in Time magazine. In fact, the woman yelled "Forte Raffaele!"

Nadeau also quoted the following passage from Amanda's diary:

"That night I smoked a lot of marijuana and I fell asleep at my boyfriend’s house. I don’t remember anything. But I think it’s possible that Raffaele went to Meredith’s house, raped her and then killed. And when he got home, while I was sleeping, he put my fingerprints on the knife. But I don’t understand why Raffaele would do that."

It sounds incriminating, but Amanda never wrote anything of the sort. When someone challenged Nadeau by pointing out that this passage was not found in Amanda's diary, she refused to acknowledge that it was a mistake. Instead she said she was quoting from another diary that Amanda also wrote. But no such document has ever been produced.

 

[Dan O.]

I tried my own hand at measuring the tiles in the cottage. Apparently the camera they were using has a slight distortion which I don't have a tool to remove. I'll need to make a few more measurements for better accuracy.

 

[Fiona]

No, the story actually is relevant. Not only is the story not believable, but it's absurd. And you can see the absurd deductions made in only a few short sentences that can't be backed up even behind a sentencing report the length of the Bible. Your argument inherently implies that "the story" is irrelevant, because you think it is.

Perhaps you are right but I cannot see it.

If the evidence is that all three committed this murder then I think it is extremely unlikely that we will ever understand the "why" of it. I do not think that is all that unusual. What you have quoted is speculation, and you can make up any story you like better. But the reason a story is required is the evidence which implicates the convicts. It is the quality of that evidence which is important, to my mind.

So if there is evidence that Kercher was murdered; that she was murdered by more than one person; that these three were at the scene and no-one else can be shown to have been there; that they have no credible account of what they did that night; that Kercher's body was moved after she died; that a burglary was staged; that the knife found at Sollecito's house was the murder weapon; etc etc; then it seems to me that it is necessary to conclude that they killed her. It really does not matter how they came to do that.

If, on the other hand, there is no good evidence of those things then one must conclude that the defendants should have been acquitted, and that is what will presumably happen at the appeal.

I do not think they will be acquitted because I have no reason to believe that those who have heard all the evidence are either malicious or stupid: and there have been a lot of them. But it may be that there will be flawed reasoning in the report and that this will lead to a successful appeal. If there is such evidence it will not rest on the narrative.

 

[HumanityBlues]

I do not think they will be acquitted because I have no reason to believe that those who have heard all the evidence are either malicious or stupid: and there have been a lot of them. But it may be that there will be flawed reasoning in the report and that this will lead to a successful appeal. If there is such evidence it will not rest on the narrative.

I certainly haven't seen any reason to think that the judges are malicious, but I have to question some of their strange deductions. I wouldn't go as far to call them stupid, but it does make me doubt their critical reasoning.

I don't assume any judge is at all that equipped to be some sort of stunning trier of fact next to any other person of reasonable intelligence. I think one of the more foolish things I've seen in this case (and this does not apply to you personally) where people assume the wisdom of judges and prosecutors. I don't.

You deemphasize narrative, and for the most part I agree with you. One need not show narrative to prove someone's guilt, nor need they show motive (though both are usually pretty crucial and I find the dismissal of these as usually unimportant pretty unfounded). The problem is, the judges did put forward a narrative, and it is a backwards and absurd one from the small snippets I've seen, and I find it quite revealing. Maybe I'm missing valuable context, but highly doubt it. We'll see.

I'm not expecting much from the rest of the sentencing report, other than others repeating it as mantra of fact to support their arguments here.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I certainly haven't seen any reason to think that the judges are malicious, but I have to question some of their strange deductions. I wouldn't go as far to call them stupid, but it does make me doubt their critical reasoning.

I don't assume any judge is at all that equipped to be some sort of stunning trier of fact next to any other person of reasonable intelligence. I think one of the more foolish things I've seen in this case (and this does not apply to you personally) where people assume the wisdom of judges and prosecutors. I don't.

You deemphasize narrative, and for the most part I agree with you. One need not show narrative to prove someone's guilt, nor need they show motive (though both are usually pretty crucial and I find the dismissal of these as usually unimportant pretty unfounded). The problem is, the judges did put forward a narrative, and it is a backwards and absurd one from the small snippets I've seen, and I find it quite revealing. Maybe I'm missing valuable context, but highly doubt it. We'll see.

I'm not expecting much from the rest of the sentencing report, other than others repeating it as mantra of fact to support their arguments here.

So...in other words:

You choose not to accept the guilty verdict simply because you don't agree with the speculative story, regardless of the evidence?

And as for whether my quoting the bit about Amanda's past prank being valid or not: newsflash: It's as valid as any bit of evidence for her innocence that you have presented.


ETA: That you simply brush it away with a wave of your hand as being speculative and thus unimportant is ironic given your desire for a speculative motive that you personally choose to agree with.

 

[stilicho]

Fair enough, and personally I think you have more sense than the people at those blogs (yes that is a compliment). But come on Stilicho, to say that they're throwing that around in order to contradict an expensive PR campaign is rubbish. They're throwing it around because they know people will be more likely to believe Amanda Knox is guilty; and then people actually buy it as reliable evidence. The evidence for that is in the very message boards we're posting in.

Kermit's post above shows how you might be mistaken. He explains clearly that his Powerpoints were only developed as a response to a claim made at FOA. His counterclaim was a demonstration that not all the footprints were of the same size and therefore it was not a lone-wolf scenario.

I've found that more than a few of the folks at PMF understand and employ the principles of reason, including falsifiability. I'm also rather humbled by how many of them are multi-lingual. Once I'd suggested there that Sollecito's "prison diaries" might have been inaccurately translated by Google. They weren't. They were translated by a member there proficient in Italian. Sollecito actually writes in Italian in a strange sort of "Googlish" way. (That was the adjective employed).

I can do without the occasional mockery of Anne Bremner photographed without her make-up on but otherwise they're really only responding to things claimed by the PR campaign. They certainly haven't the resources to hire Anne Bremner, appear on Oprah, or enlist Donald Trump in Meredith's favour.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Kermit writes:

I'm not sure of the exact sequence of events which led to the different sized luminol footprints nor the bathmat print

If you can't fit the luminol prints into a plausible scenario, how can you be sure they have anything to do with the crime?

Charlie is suggesting that Rudy washed his shoes in the bidet, behind his (Rudy's) back.

I don't think he made the print at the exact moment he was washing the shoe, but I think there's a connection between the blood in the bidet and the print on the mat.

What do you think happened? Do you think Raffaele stepped in blood in Meredith's room and then hopped on one foot to the mat? Why weren't bare footprints found in her room? How did they mop the trail without disturbing the dust and plaster on the floor, and without destroying Rudy's shoe traces, and without destroying the luminol print that was found directly in the pathway between Meredith's room and the bathroom, albeit with the toes pointed toward Meredith's door?

 

[HumanityBlues]

Kermit's post above shows how you might be mistaken. He explains clearly that his Powerpoints were only developed as a response to a claim made at FOA. His counterclaim was a demonstration that not all the footprints were of the same size and therefore it was not a lone-wolf scenario.

I've found that more than a few of the folks at PMF understand and employ the principles of reason, including falsifiability. I'm also rather humbled by how many of them are multi-lingual. Once I'd suggested there that Sollecito's "prison diaries" might have been inaccurately translated by Google. They weren't. They were translated by a member there proficient in Italian. Sollecito actually writes in Italian in a strange sort of "Googlish" way. (That was the adjective employed).

I can do without the occasional mockery of Anne Bremner photographed without her make-up on but otherwise they're really only responding to things claimed by the PR campaign. They certainly haven't the resources to hire Anne Bremner, appear on Oprah, or enlist Donald Trump in Meredith's favour.

Keep in mind, I don't watch a lot of TV so I see very little of the PR campaign. I saw about 4 or 5 minutes of the Oprah show and have never actually seen a lot of the spots on television.

I've only seen one of Kermit's powerpoints which was actually on the PR campain, and no offense to him (her?) (being that he is a member of this forum), but I thought it was pretty strange as about half of the power point seemed to be just listing the plots of Doug Preston's books as a rhetorical device to show that Preston, not Mignini, is obsessed with satantic rituals--where the PP maker seemed to lose site of the fact that one is proposing it as obvious fictional work.

The footprint talk doesn't interest me all that much because it can't be conclusively attributed to anyone anyways as far I've read (this was in the end of Darkness Descending--but I'm not scientist).

"His counterclaim was a demonstration that not all the footprints were of the same size and therefore it was not a lone-wolf scenario."

Again, I'm not a scientist, but it seems to me that people can leave different size footprints based on the way they step on something or other factors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On another note, trust me, you do no want Anne Coulter supporting anything you believe in. She's one step below a nazi and that is not an exaggeration, not to mention she is a total homophobe who called John Edwards a "faggot" (and I hate John Edwards). She also is famous for saying that 911 widows were happy that their husbands died. She's a sick human being.

Jeanine Pirro is almost as abhorrent.

 

[stilicho]

I certainly haven't seen any reason to think that the judges are malicious, but I have to question some of their strange deductions. I wouldn't go as far to call them stupid, but it does make me doubt their critical reasoning.

I don't assume any judge is at all that equipped to be some sort of stunning trier of fact next to any other person of reasonable intelligence. I think one of the more foolish things I've seen in this case (and this does not apply to you personally) where people assume the wisdom of judges and prosecutors. I don't.

You deemphasize narrative, and for the most part I agree with you. One need not show narrative to prove someone's guilt, nor need they show motive (though both are usually pretty crucial and I find the dismissal of these as usually unimportant pretty unfounded). The problem is, the judges did put forward a narrative, and it is a backwards and absurd one from the small snippets I've seen, and I find it quite revealing. Maybe I'm missing valuable context, but highly doubt it. We'll see.

I'm not expecting much from the rest of the sentencing report, other than others repeating it as mantra of fact to support their arguments here.

The narratives were based on the evidence supplied. I doubt anyone could come up with a really good narrative to explain such a brutal and callous murder.

Even without the narratives, do you accept the results and testimony of the medical examiner? Or do you subscribe to the lone-wolf scenario?

 

[HumanityBlues]

The narratives were based on the evidence supplied. I doubt anyone could come up with a really good narrative to explain such a brutal and callous murder.

Even without the narratives, do you accept the results and testimony of the medical examiner? Or do you subscribe to the lone-wolf scenario?

Well first of all, I think the narratives supplied by the prosecution and the judges are ludicrous.

I also don't buy the claim that because of the amount of bruising, it must have been 2 people. That is a claim as absurd as Torre's "first two knife" murder scenario.

I don't necessarily believe it was a lone-wolf.

I do believe there is something quite stinky going on in this case, and it goes beyond just some PR campaign on part of the defense.

 

[stilicho]

I've only seen one of Kermit's powerpoints which was actually on the PR campain, and no offense to him (her?) (being that he is a member of this forum), but I thought it was pretty strange as about half of the power point seemed to be just listing the plots of Doug Preston's books as a rhetorical device to show that Preston, not Mignini, is obsessed with satantic rituals--where the PP maker seemed to lose site of the fact that one is proposing it as obvious fictional work.

The footprint talk doesn't interest me all that much because it can't be conclusively attributed to anyone anyways as far I've read (this was in the end of Darkness Descending--but I'm not scientist).

Douglas Preston is also a keyword in this thread. There's no real explanation since he has absolutely no connection whatsoever to this case. But, at the time of AK's conviction, his name was all over the news and presented as an authority on the Italian justice system because of his one scrape with the law in Italy.

"His counterclaim was a demonstration that not all the footprints were of the same size and therefore it was not a lone-wolf scenario."

Again, I'm not a scientist, but it seems to me that people can leave different size footprints based on the way they step on something or other factors.

True. But I'd rather trust the professionals on this one. Both the medical examiner and the print evidence suggested multiple attackers (or at the very least multiple people stepping in the victim's blood inside a locked room). Let's trust the experts here and not a photoshopped print on an advocacy site.

We weren't talking about the science of the print forensics, specifically. I wasn't, anyhow. I was indicating Kermit's presentation as a fine example of counterclaims to those originating with FOA.

On another note, trust me, you do no want Anne Coulter supporting anything you believe in. She's one step below a nazi and that is not an exaggeration, not to mention she is a total homophobe who called John Edwards a "faggot" (and I hate John Edwards). She also is famous for saying that 911 widows were happy that their husbands died. She's a sick human being.

Jeanine Pirro is almost as abhorrent.

Why are we discussing Anne Coulter?

 

[HumanityBlues]

Douglas Preston is also a keyword in this thread. There's no real explanation since he has absolutely no connection whatsoever to this case. But, at the time of AK's conviction, his name was all over the news and presented as an authority on the Italian justice system because of his one scrape with the law in Italy.



True. But I'd rather trust the professionals on this one. Both the medical examiner and the print evidence suggested multiple attackers (or at the very least multiple people stepping in the victim's blood inside a locked room). Let's trust the experts here and not a photoshopped print on an advocacy site.

We weren't talking about the science of the print forensics, specifically. I wasn't, anyhow. I was indicating Kermit's presentation as a fine example of counterclaims to those originating with FOA.



Why are we discussing Anne Coulter?

I thought you were defending the use of anne coulter on truejustice as an understandable plea by the defenseless prosecution sites.

You say trust the experts, but when the experts make absurd claims we don't get to just ignore them. What from the coroner proves there must have multiple attackers? Do you actually buy the reasoning employed?

What is the print evidence? Is this the amount of bruising claim---that because there were so many bruises it must have two attackers? You don't really buy that line of logic do you?

As far as Kermit's counterclaim, I'm not qualified to answer since I haven't even seen the power point and don't plan to.

Ok, late dinner. Good discussion. Outie.