Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Matthew Best]

I doubt this topic will come up at the appeal.

 

[Fulcanelli]

What is it you don't understand?

Evidently, there is far less that I don't understand then is the case with you.

Is this an example of the pinnacle of your level of debate?

 

[Fulcanelli]

I doubt this topic will come up at the appeal.

No, but a good many other things shall that have been argued just as pitifully by Knox defenders (including her lawyers on occasion) as you example above.

 

[Fulcanelli]

And I will also add that irrespective of whether it comes up in the appeal, it's further evidence that Raffaele is a bloody liar and that he and Amanda are very much where they belong.

 

[Matthew Best]

So you don't see any difference between "going to a party" and "going to party"?

Interesting.

 

[shuttlt]

Sorry, just run it by me...what exactly is it in the line "Amanda and I went to party with one of my friends." you don't understand?

I suppose what with the languages involved one could take a generous view and interpret that to mean almost anything involving Raffaele, Amanda and one of Raffaele's friends and in a gleeful social context. Is there any evidence that this happened?

 

[quadraginta]

So you don't see any difference between "going to a party" and "going to party"?

Interesting.

I see a difference. I don't see a distinction which is useful to the topic under discussion, which is where Knox and Sollecito were. Do you?

Interesting.

 

[shuttlt]

So you don't see any difference between "going to a party" and "going to party"?

Interesting.

Surely this difference is of interesting to grammarians rather than being important in this debate?

 

[Matthew Best]

I didn't say it was important to the debate. I said I found it interesting. If you don't find it interesting you are quite welcome to ignore it and post about something you find interesting.

 

[shuttlt]

I didn't say it was important to the debate. I said I found it interesting. If you don't find it interesting you are quite welcome to ignore it and post about something you find interesting.

OK. So we're all agreed.

 

[quadraginta]

I didn't say it was important to the debate. I said I found it interesting. If you don't find it interesting you are quite welcome to ignore it and post about something you find interesting.

I found the remarkable pettiness and desperation of your comment interesting.

I posted about that. You should be happy now.

 

[Matthew Best]

Also, I found it interesting that pointing this distinction out led to me being called an "FOA partisan".

 

[shuttlt]

Now can we get back to debating what passes for important stuff in this unimportant thread?

 

[Fulcanelli]

I suppose what with the languages involved one could take a generous view and interpret that to mean almost anything involving Raffaele, Amanda and one of Raffaele's friends and in a gleeful social context. Is there any evidence that this happened?

Amanda & Raffaele + a friend = 3

Amanda, Raffaele + Rudy = 3

And they certainly 'partied' in Meredith's bedroom that night didn't they?

 

[Matthew Best]

Now can we get back to debating what passes for important stuff in this unimportant thread?

Fulcanelli doesn't want to.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Stefanoni

What are the odds that the alleles would all match those of Meredith's DNA?

I asked this before, I notice you dodged that question.

BobTheDonkey,

Was Stefanoni being inconsistent with respect to locus D3S1358? I noticed you avoided answering this question.

I asked the question about the two peaks to point out that Stefanoni’s criteria appear to be inconsistent with respect to which peaks to accept. If an expert had the fsa files, it would be possible to determine whether or not she were being inconsistent about other things. Kestrel also pointed out that something she said on the stand implied that skin cells do not have DNA. Then there is her argument about where Amanda’s DNA was found on the handle, an argument I have never seen supported.

More generally, the problem with Stefanoni is that her superior Biondo was consulting with the prosecution, according to Frank Sfarzo (http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/05/lab-of-wonders.html), and that Biondo was then called as an independent witness. This is not my idea of independence, nor I hope is it yours.

The three problems I pointed out in the knife profile make doing the calculation you suggested a very problematic undertaking. In addition, you are putting words into my mouth. I have never said that the profile from the knife was not Meredith’s; I have said and continue to say that it is too weak (among other things) to qualify as evidence. I am not trying to move any goalposts; it is Stefanoni who is trying to lower the bar.

Most importantly, the profile must be the result of contamination, as I have said before. There was no blood on the knife, and one would remove DNA before removing blood, as Dr. Elizabeth Johnson said. The argument that somehow a little bit of flesh got onto a groove in the blade and is responsible for the DNA profile is wholly unconvincing (there are no grooves on the knife and no reason for a liquid such as bleach to fail to penetrate into this imaginary groove).

My acceptance of the DNA evidence against Guede is provisional. If the results are as ephemeral in his case as in this one, then his lawyers were sleeping on the job.

So let’s review. You said you would continue to claim that I do not accept DNA evidence at all until I gave you some specifics with respect to Stefanoni, and Charlie and I complied (check). You said you wanted evidence that the fsa files were released, and I showed that Sara Gino asked for the dates of the DNA tests in September of 2009, information that would have been in the files had they been released (check).

To believe that Sollecito’s kitchen knife was a murder weapon, one has to invoke a second knife to explain two of the three wounds and to explain the bloody knife outline on a sheet; one has to believe that RS and AK would not dispose of this knife; one has to believe that they would clean the blade and not the handle; one has to believe that blood can be removed from the blade without removing DNA, and one has to believe that they would carry it to and from Amanda’s flat in preference to using knives at her flat. This is a tap dance that would have made Fred Astaire dizzy.

Chris

 

[shuttlt]

Most importantly, the profile must be the result of contamination, as I have said before. There was no blood on the knife, and one would remove DNA before removing blood, as Dr. Elizabeth Johnson said.

This is something I have never been happy about. If Stefanoni's claims are unconfirmed, the same is surely true of the "there can be no blood" claim. Doesn't the motivations report claim that there was not enough material for the negative blood test result to rule out blood (I am remembering that right aren't I Fulcanelli)? If they plucked that out of thin air then that would surely be a gap or inconsistency for Amanda's lawyers.

The argument that somehow a little bit of flesh got onto a groove in the blade and is responsible for the DNA profile is wholly unconvincing (there are no grooves on the knife and no reason for a liquid such as bleach to fail to penetrate into this imaginary groove).

I haven't seen the knife, nor have I seen any photograph good enough to pick up a scratch holding 5-20 skin cells (I vaguely remember reading that 25-50 cells are around the minimum visible to the naked eye). In any case, Frank claims that there was, according to Stefanoni, material visible in the scratch. It seems to me illustrative of how poor our information is that a single sentence from Frank Sfazo is the only mention of this anywhere on the internet. I've asked Frank for clarification without response.

To believe that Sollecito’s kitchen knife was a murder weapon, one has to invoke a second knife to explain two of the three wounds and to explain the bloody knife outline on a sheet; one has to believe that RS and AK would not dispose of this knife; one has to believe that they would clean the blade and not the handle; one has to believe that blood can be removed from the blade without removing DNA, and one has to believe that they would carry it to and from Amanda’s flat in preference to using knives at her flat. This is a tap dance that would have made Fred Astaire dizzy.

At the risk of being pedantic, I don't think we have to believe that they didn't wash the handle. There was afterall no Raffaele DNA on it. All one has to believe is that after washing it, whether immediately, or later... Amanda held the knife.

 

[colonelhall]

Let's all Party!

I know that it should be forgotten, but I've just seen Matthew Best's posts. Anyone new to this site would most probably be staggered by the nerve of the guy and quickly be forming a pretty negative opinion of the FOA crowd already.

I get the difference between "going to a party" and "going to party" The point that was being discussed is the conflicting alibis of the two. If they went "to party" with a friend, where did they go? The statement would certainly imply that they went somewhere other than Sollecito's flat.

If, in fact, they decided to party at home, who was this friend and why has he never been mentioned in the context of activities that nigh? Also, why is he not available to back up their alibis?

The statement to the reporter is just another of a series of stories that the two have made up. That is the point.

 

[Matthew Best]

I know that it should be forgotten, but I've just seen Matthew Best's posts. Anyone new to this site would most probably be staggered by the nerve of the guy and quickly be forming a pretty negative opinion of the FOA crowd already.

I have nothing to do with "the FOA crowd", so please don't get any more confused than you already are.

 

[Dan O.]

Your cite is from Sollecito's computer expert whose claims directly contradict those of RS and AK themselves.

I pointed out a confirmable fact. Do you not accept it?