Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Charlie Wilkes said:
Fulcanelli wrote:

WAIT..wait...wait, you almost slipped that one by me. WHAT??? His "I told you a load of rubbish before" was to the judge??? No it wasn't Wilkes, that was to the police on the night of the 5th in regard to his earlier statement that he'd spent the whole evening with Amanda. Nice try. I can't believe you even tried to pull that.

I'm pretty sure I've got that right. Raffaele was interviewed by Matteini, with his lawyer by his side, and he reverted to his original story that he and Amanda spent the night at his apartment. I'm basing this on court documents in Italian, however, so if I'm wrong, point me to a source that explains it differently.
Click to expand...

No...Raffaele came out with his line "I told you a load of rubbish before" (or an even ruder word depending what you read) in his statement to police on the night of the 5th. You may have gotten confused about that due to the fact Matteini released what he had said in that interrogation in her hearing report. But, that statement was made down the police station under questioning on the 5th, not in the court room on the 9th.
 
Moss said:
Stupid question that possibly has been asked and answered time and time again but I couldn't find it with the search function: Where does the knife in the lone wolf burglary scenario come from?
Click to expand...

Rudy Guede's pocket.

The original report from the medical examiner indicated Meredith's wounds came from a small flick knife or pocket knife.
 
Stardust

BobTheDonkey said:
Ahh, so, we're going with the alibis Raffaele referred to as "rubbish".

Gotcha.


So, again, any adequate/credible alibis for Amanda on the night of the murder?
Click to expand...

BobTheDonkey,

You asked what I thought, and I answered. If you don't find it credible, that is your business, not mine. However, you seem to put 100% confidence in the rubbish quote, and 0% confidence in anything else that Raffaele said. Again, that is your choice, but it is not mine (see message #5119 for quotes from Raffaele’s diary). Can you explain this apparent myopia on your part?

However, if you are seriously trying to assess what happened that night, not merely playing gotcha by your own admission, why are you not chastising the prosecution for inadvertently erasing information on file downloading that would have either confirmed or contradicted their alibis? See Frank Sfarzo’s report:

“Amanda and Raffaele told us that on November 1 they watched Amelie and then, more or less, Stardust. Indeed the VLC reader does show the viewing of Amelie and then of Stardust, but it doesn't give a date.
The last access to Stardust is November 6. Raffaele and Amanda were in jail, so the police, while working at the computer, opened Stardust (everyone needs a break).

The problem is that access canceled the record of the previous one. So, if really Raffaele and Amanda watched that movie, instead of, for instance, going to kill Meredith, the proof was in the computer. But the police, by mistake, canceled it.
It's not that the running of a movie can really be an alibi, it can run by itself. But, for a number of reasons, it would have been a heavy clue. It would have been.”

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009_09_01_archive.html

Now how about answering my question. Do you support the principle of full release of the fsa files in forensic DNA cases, why or why not?

Chris
 
fsa files, part 4

Fulcanelli said:
In regard to the fsa files. You demand a solid position on them from myself. This I cannot give. This is for several reasons. First of all, I do not know if under Italian law they are entitled to them (can you demonstrate this is so?). I do not know if they've been denied them (can you offer any evidence this is the case, specifically from the actual defence rather then from the FOA?). Finally, I do not know what these records 'IF' they are not in the hands of the defence, could prove what other computer records do not. Perhaps you could explain. What would the fsa. files show that the other records, such as the cache and more specifically, the I/O record do not?

In short, what is it that they are needed to prove that the other records can not? What are the 'facts' that you assume to be there that as yet are not established due to a lacking of these files? If you have not seen these files, surely then you don't know what they'll prove, rather you are hoping? What 'is' this hope and on what tangible basis is it founded on?
Click to expand...

Fulcanelli,

I am not implying that there is a smoking gun in the fsa files, but I am saying that their release is standard operating procedure nowadays.

Here is a portion of a checklist for what is typically released in the United States:
“Copies of all data files used and created in the course of performing tests and analyzing data in this case, including .fsa files, if applicable. These files should include all data necessary to independently reanalyze the raw data.”
Chromosomal Laboratories, Inc.
http://www.chromosomal-labs.com/.../...wChecklist.pdf

I contacted one DNA forensic expert who regularly contributes to the primary literature, who said that a major concern was the “refusal of the prosecution to provide the defense with a copy of the electronic data that underlies the DNA test results -- that is virtually unheard of world-wide today and it would be especially important to review that data in a case such as this which seems to involve such low level samples.” (emphasis added)

The fsa files have the electropherograms, dates, times, and the RFU threshold that the forensic scientists used, among other information. If you have the electronic data, you can use the DNA analysis software (GeneScan & Genotyper or GeneMapper ID) to independently analyze the electronic data. That allows you to examine the results as closely as possible (zoom in on the electropherogram to evaluate low-level results) and establish the RFU threshold of your choosing.

For example, I have pdf files with the images of electropherograms of the knife and of the bra clasp. But the clasp electropherogram is scaled to Meredith’s profile, 1200-1400 RFU. It is not as easy to see Raffaele’s profile (ca. 200 RFU), and it is very difficult for me to see the smaller peaks that belong to the other individuals who contributed DNA to this profile. Someone with the fsa files (and the appropriate software to read them described above) could expand the small peaks and examine them more closely. He or she could also calculate the signal-to-noise ratios of the peaks. The dates and times of the runs would be helpful in addressing the possibility of contamination.

Chris
 
halides1 said:
BobTheDonkey,

You asked what I thought, and I answered. If you don't find it credible, that is your business, not mine. However, you seem to put 100% confidence in the rubbish quote, and 0% confidence in anything else that Raffaele said. Again, that is your choice, but it is not mine (see message #5119 for quotes from Raffaele’s diary). Can you explain this apparent myopia on your part?

However, if you are seriously trying to assess what happened that night, not merely playing gotcha by your own admission, why are you not chastising the prosecution for inadvertently erasing information on file downloading that would have either confirmed or contradicted their alibis? See Frank Sfarzo’s report:

“Amanda and Raffaele told us that on November 1 they watched Amelie and then, more or less, Stardust. Indeed the VLC reader does show the viewing of Amelie and then of Stardust, but it doesn't give a date.
The last access to Stardust is November 6. Raffaele and Amanda were in jail, so the police, while working at the computer, opened Stardust (everyone needs a break).

The problem is that access canceled the record of the previous one. So, if really Raffaele and Amanda watched that movie, instead of, for instance, going to kill Meredith, the proof was in the computer. But the police, by mistake, canceled it.
It's not that the running of a movie can really be an alibi, it can run by itself. But, for a number of reasons, it would have been a heavy clue. It would have been.”

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009_09_01_archive.html

Now how about answering my question. Do you support the principle of full release of the fsa files in forensic DNA cases, why or why not?

Chris
Click to expand...

I give credence to Raffaele's admission that it was a lot of rubbish because, well, it came after and negates what they both said before. I know this is a trick question, but I don't see the real trick to it. It's not myopia.

If I come to you and say "Hey, My name is Bob" and then shortly after say "Well, that was a load of rubbish" are you still going to believe my name is Bob? Why would/should I expect you to still believe my name is Bob after I told you it was a load of rubbish? Why should we expect to believe the alibis presented after one of the people involved called them rubbish?

Talk about your mental gymnastics.

"Well, Raffaele was lying when he said the alibis were rubbish. But not when he gave the original alibi. Forget that the alibis don't match, that there's an eyewitness that places the two in the Piazza at 21:45*. He was most definitely telling the truth when he gave his original alibi and everything after that is lies."

And I'm being myopic?




As for full disclosure - full disclosure to whom? The public or the defense? To the public? No. Because there are many things that are none of our business. To the Defense, sure. Can you cite a credible source showing where the Defense did not receive all the evidence? And by credible, I mean a court filing/objection/statement from the Defense Attorneys, not the father of one of the guilty parties (vested interest, much?).
ETA: Besides, what gives you reason to believe the Forensics Lab were incompetent in this case? You accept the evidence against Rudy gleefully, and yet continue to expect us to believe the lab was completely incompetent when it came to handling evidence implicating Amanda and Raffaele - disregarding in the meantime that none of the DNA you consider suspect matches that of the Forensics Teams. What are the odds that someone else would have a DNA trace similar enough to Meredith's to be confused for hers and yet be one of the parties involved in this case - or Amanda's, or Raffaele's? Is it standard for all the DNA evidence to be released to 3rd party individuals with no ties to the case?

*From the PMF timeline:
PMF said:
21:45 - Amanda and Raffaele leave his apartment and head to Piazza Grimana, just a few dozen meters from Via della Pergola, where the two are witnessed by Curatolo discussing something while observing the cottage of Amanda and Meredith at a distance from the fence, apparently trying to decide what to do
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Kestrel said:
Rudy Guede's pocket.

The original report from the medical examiner indicated Meredith's wounds came from a small flick knife or pocket knife.
Click to expand...

And it couldn't 'possibly' have come from Raffael's pocket, the guy who admittedly collected knives and carried one in his pocket every day, could it.
 
halides1 said:
BobTheDonkey,

You asked what I thought, and I answered. If you don't find it credible, that is your business, not mine. However, you seem to put 100% confidence in the rubbish quote, and 0% confidence in anything else that Raffaele said. Again, that is your choice, but it is not mine (see message #5119 for quotes from Raffaele’s diary). Can you explain this apparent myopia on your part?

However, if you are seriously trying to assess what happened that night, not merely playing gotcha by your own admission, why are you not chastising the prosecution for inadvertently erasing information on file downloading that would have either confirmed or contradicted their alibis? See Frank Sfarzo’s report:

“Amanda and Raffaele told us that on November 1 they watched Amelie and then, more or less, Stardust. Indeed the VLC reader does show the viewing of Amelie and then of Stardust, but it doesn't give a date.
The last access to Stardust is November 6. Raffaele and Amanda were in jail, so the police, while working at the computer, opened Stardust (everyone needs a break).

The problem is that access canceled the record of the previous one. So, if really Raffaele and Amanda watched that movie, instead of, for instance, going to kill Meredith, the proof was in the computer. But the police, by mistake, canceled it.
It's not that the running of a movie can really be an alibi, it can run by itself. But, for a number of reasons, it would have been a heavy clue. It would have been.”

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009_09_01_archive.html

Now how about answering my question. Do you support the principle of full release of the fsa files in forensic DNA cases, why or why not?

Chris
Click to expand...

The last human activity on Raffaele's Mac on the night of the 1st was at 9:10 pm.

I'm sorry, what evidence do you have that the police accessed Raffaele's computer on the night of 6th Nov???
 
halides1 said:
I am not implying that there is a smoking gun in the fsa files, but I am saying that their release is standard operating procedure nowadays.
Click to expand...

No smoking gun? Right then...we are all agreed it is a diversion.

halides1 said:
The fsa files have the electropherograms, dates, times, and the RFU threshold that the forensic scientists used, among other information. If you have the electronic data, you can use the DNA analysis software (GeneScan & Genotyper or GeneMapper ID) to independently analyze the electronic data. That allows you to examine the results as closely as possible (zoom in on the electropherogram to evaluate low-level results) and establish the RFU threshold of your choosing.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I didn't realise that it was the forensics department that was actually on trial. I must have missed that news report.

halides1 said:
The problem is that access canceled the record of the previous one. So, if really Raffaele and Amanda watched that movie, instead of, for instance, going to kill Meredith, the proof was in the computer. But the police, by mistake, canceled it.
Click to expand...

Why are you reporting defence 'claims' as though they are established fact? What 'was' so and what the defence 'claim' was so are not necessarily the same thing...get me?

And it's BS...starting a PC doesn't delete the cache, the temps, cookies, error reports or the I/O record. In other words, if Raffaele had spent the night doing what he claimed to have done on the PC a record would have remained, regardless whether police had turned it on days later or not.
 
Last edited:
By the way, where's Raffaele's statement that they watched Stardust that night, got the link? Where's Amanda's saying they watched Stardust?
 
not a diversion

Fulcanelli said:
No smoking gun? Right then...we are all agreed it is a diversion...
I'm sorry, I didn't realise that it was the forensics department that was actually on trial. I must have missed that news report.
Click to expand...

Fulcanelli,

You misunderstood what I wrote. One has to see the files to know what is in them; there may (or may not) be a smoking gun. However, as I amply documented, the fsa files are invaluable to an independent investigator and are typically provided to the defense. I cannot think of a good reason why anyone would not want to see independent analysis. Do you support full release of the fsa files in all cases involving DNA forensics, why or why not?

Chris
 
Fulcanelli said:
And it couldn't 'possibly' have come from Raffael's pocket, the guy who admittedly collected knives and carried one in his pocket every day, could it.
Click to expand...

Flick knives have all sorts of internal nooks and crannies that can collect blood. The police took Raffaele's knives apart and tested them, but didn't find any evidence of blood. They did find proof that Raffaele had cut sausages.
 
halides1 said:
Fulcanelli,

You misunderstood what I wrote. One has to see the files to know what is in them; there may (or may not) be a smoking gun. However, as I amply documented, the fsa files are invaluable to an independent investigator and are typically provided to the defense. I cannot think of a good reason why anyone would not want to see independent analysis. Do you support full release of the fsa files in all cases involving DNA forensics, why or why not?

Chris
Click to expand...

Typically provided to a defence...'where'? Are you off again demanding US standard be imposed on Italy again?

And again I say, I've seen no evidence the defence have been denied them.
 
Kestrel said:
Flick knives have all sorts of internal nooks and crannies that can collect blood. The police took Raffaele's knives apart and tested them, but didn't find any evidence of blood. They did find proof that Raffaele had cut sausages.
Click to expand...

So? Don't you think he'd have cleaned his knife just like the kitchen knife was cleaned? Moreover, he collected knives...he could have thrown it away and carried another from his collection from then onwards.

Where's Rudy's knife?
 
no response

Fulcanelli said:
Typically provided to a defence...'where'? Are you off again demanding US standard be imposed on Italy again?

And again I say, I've seen no evidence the defence have been denied them.
Click to expand...

You are again being unresponsive and trying to change the subject. I have documented that this is not a US-only expectation in a previous message (title: fsa files, part 4), but rather an almost universal occurrence. I am asking you as a general principle, again, do you support release of the fsa files?
 
Perugia-shocked

Fulcanelli said:
Amanda and Raffaele never claimed to watch Stardust that night, only Amelie. Neither could they have done so. There was no human interaction with computer after 9:10 pm.
Click to expand...

If you think Frank Sfarzo's post is in error, I suggest you bring it to his attention, with cites.
 
Fulcanelli said:
Personally, I think it's mainly the fault of fictional TV murder shows. They are always going on about motive. But that's because it's part of the entertainment...
Click to expand...

Haha, that is an argument for consumption by the witchhunters and other simpleminded folk who aren't willing or able to look at this case objectively.

Anyone who believes consideration of motive is simply a theatrical device invented to add dramatic flair to tv shows is not competent to be pontificating about this, or any other, criminal case.

Trying to determine what the motive was, and who may have possessed that motive, is one of the most important aspects of a murder investigation. Furthermore, for all intents and purposes, a discussion of motive also invariably plays an essential role in practically all murder prosections.

The culties who need Amanda Knox to be guilty might disagree with that. But certainly that disagreement would paint them as laughingstocks in any "rl" ("real life"?) criminal justice community.
 
Fulcanelli said:
Guede's DNA was found on the bra (the main body of the bra, not the clasp), Meredith's left sleeve and of course inside the victim. Those were the only places in the room.
Click to expand...

Guede Groupies will be grateful that you conveniently neglected to mention that his DNA was also found on the victim's purse.

Which many people (though, naturally, not Rudy's fans ) will find rather incriminating.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom