Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[stilicho]

I did not see the CBS story. Not sure why that's so hard to believe. I read up to that passage and last night and posted it here this morning. The Kindle app doesn't let you copy text so I had to type it out manually. Someone else obviously thought the same thing.

Thanks for the welcome, guys

Sheer coincidence then.

OK, so Ms Nadeau concentrates on the DNA results instead of the initial findings of the medical examiner? Or AK's inclusion of Mr Lumumba into the murder scene?

I would like to know how she arrived at such a conclusion. There are even photographs of the Perugia police (including the woman who reminds me of Vampirella) guiding AK around the cottage grounds. I am pretty certain they hadn't even collected the necessary DNA at that time.

Stranger things have happened!

 

[Malkmus]

Sheer coincidence then.

OK, so Ms Nadeau concentrates on the DNA results instead of the initial findings of the medical examiner? Or AK's inclusion of Mr Lumumba into the murder scene?

I would like to know how she arrived at such a conclusion. There are even photographs of the Perugia police (including the woman who reminds me of Vampirella) guiding AK around the cottage grounds. I am pretty certain they hadn't even collected the necessary DNA at that time.

Stranger things have happened!

I think it's safe to say the book concentrates on all aspects of the trial. Although I'm not done yet, the only thing I can remember off the top of my head regarding the medical examiner was an indecision over how much alcohol Meredith had in her system and how it was unreliable due to how long it took before the toxicology was done. Discussion of wounds so far has been limited to what the prosecution and defense alleged happen.

As I said, anyone looking to get reinforcement on the forensics/DNA evidence probably will get just the opposite from this book. Not only does she assert how unreliable most of it is, she also states the numerous blunders made by the police, and the prosecution's own admission of this. But if you want to argue that Amanda's behavior was strange/inappropriate and that the family launched a vicious PR campaign, then the book will definitely aid that.

There was one interesting thing I hadn't heard before, regarding a taped conversation of AK and RS at the police station waiting room, where they vaguely talk about "someone" and if that someone had many friends (possibly Rudy or possibly no one of importance).

 

[Malkmus]

Sheer coincidences or blatant copying and pasting don't qualify as paranormal events.

I believe he said that because my post was written before the CBS article you linked was even published. Which, I guess, settles that debate.

 

[Malkmus]

"If he copied that from the CBS site he should file his application for the $1 Million Paranormal Challenge.


And welcome to JREF Malkmus.

It's obvious what brought you here but now that you've taken the time to sign up, I hope you will also take some time to browse the other discussions that JREF offers."

Thanks. I've looked through some of the discussion regarding the contest. Interesting. I will take a look at some of the other forums as well.

 

[Kermit]

Patrizia Stefanoni must be blind .... From the evidence of these two charts, Patrizia Stefanoni's lab conditions produce contamination of 50 RFU at least 50% of the time.Given that the profile from the knife is in the same range as the known contamination, it is highly likely that the knife profile is also the result of contamination.

Point it out to us, I don't see it. Thanks.

.
Everytime a pro-Amanda type starts cropping photos, I ask myself what's in the rest of the bigger picture that we're missing out.

In the case of the Pink Hobbit Foot photo on the Friends of Amanda webpage, they cropped out of the photo a police ruler on the bathmat which would have made it clear that the Pink Foot (used to insinuate that Rudy could have made the print) is an unnaturally small 23 cm long.

With your reference to the Stefanoni charts, you point out a supposed point of noise/contamination on the chart.

That made me think of the following situation: I say I have a Volkswagen Beetle. You tell me that one can't be certain that it's a Beetle, because there's contamination on the tire air stem:



Well, there may be dirt or contamination on the tire air stem, but that doesn't keep us from looking at the overall view and seeing that it's a Volkswagen Beetle:



And from there we could compare the overall image to other images of Beetles (which may also have some "noise" or contamination) and determine if they are the same model.
=============

Let's do just that, an overall comparative of Meredith's control DNA sample, and the sample of DNA taken from near the point of the Double DNA Knife:

 

[Malkmus]

Ms Nadeau was not in the pre-trial, no reporter was...it was behind closed doors. The only direct information came out of the court room from the lawyers that appeared on the steps after. The only people to mention anything 'Satanic' were the Sollecito lawyers and the media duly quoted them...and then after a time didn't even bother reporting that it was the Sollecito lawyers who actually said it and instead directly ascribed the language to Mignini. The only other source from the court room and the truly valid one, is the judge...Judge Micheli. His report makes no mention of any allegations of Satanism, which it surely would have had there been any.

Therefore, the 'Mignini Satanism' argument is little more then a straw man.

However, if you are going to assert that 'they came directly from Mignini', perhaps then you could provide us with a direct quote from Mignini saying it. If he said it, such a quote shouldn't be so hard to find...should it?

I'm sorry, but the burden of proof is on you for this one. There is plenty of proof that Mignini did make claims of a Satanic ritual. It's been reported numerous times regarding this case and the Monster of Florence. In fact, it's been said so much that if it weren't true, don't you think Mignini would have spoken up and denied it? Are you saying Nadeau lied when she writes that he tried to use the same argument in his closing arguments? She was there for that. Your argument that everyone is a liar simply doesn't cut it.

 

[Kermit]

Reading the Barbie Nadeau book. She has this to say about the knife: ".... Because she had no material left to double-test, the result should have been thrown out-no forensic protocol allows for single-tested evidence. But the prosecutors took it anyway and built their case around it."

.
It's curious indeed that you quote Nadeau in those terms. Italian evidence is treated in a different way than in the States. No evidence is "thrown out" (unless if it is ruled as conflicting with defendents' constitutional rights, as in the case of Amanda's statement, which was considered admissable only for her false accusation charge).

The judge and jury have to weight the evidence as to its importance and reliability.

There is no case in Italy (nor probably in continental Europe, I don't know about the UK) where such evidence would be "thrown out".

 

[HumanityBlues]

.
It's curious indeed that you quote Nadeau in those terms. Italian evidence is treated in a different way than in the States. No evidence is "thrown out" (unless if it is ruled as conflicting with defendents' constitutional rights, as in the case of Amanda's statement, which was considered admissable only for her false accusation charge).

The judge and jury have to weight the evidence as to its importance and reliability.

There is no case in Italy (nor probably in continental Europe, I don't know about the UK) where such evidence would be "thrown out".

Respectfully, there are other exclusionary rules regarding evidence in Italian criminal proceedings. Your statement infers that the only way evidence is inadmissible is only when a constitutional right is violated. This is factually incorrect and there are many mundane reasons certain evidence is admissible or not that have nothing to do with constitutional rights.

This is not to say that this makes the knife inadmissible evidence of course; but your characterization of Italian evidentiary rules on this are wrong.

 

[Kermit]

In Nadeau's book she confirms that Mignini was behind the "satanic ritual" scenario and tried to introduce it multiple times (at the pre-trial and end of the trial) in court, but the judge rejected it each time. She also confirms his relationship with the psychic. She states he brought her in during the Monster of Florence case to "advise him personally on Satanic signs and symbols" .... The whole "satanic ritual" aspect of this case is not due to any exaggerations made by Preston or Sollecito's lawyers. They came directly from Mignini.

I'm sorry, but the burden of proof is on you for this one. There is plenty of proof that Mignini did make claims of a Satanic ritual. It's been reported numerous times regarding this case and the Monster of Florence. In fact, it's been said so much that if it weren't true, don't you think Mignini would have spoken up and denied it? Are you saying Nadeau lied when she writes that he tried to use the same argument in his closing arguments? She was there for that. Your argument that everyone is a liar simply doesn't cut it.

.
Careful, careful. Let's do this step by step:

You say: "she confirms that Mignini was behind the "satanic ritual" scenario"

Which one are you referring to? Are you able to articulate what the scenario is?

I guess if you google around, you'll find that Mignini did have an occult scenario as one explanation for how the attack against Meredith evolved.

That's not new news.

Before Amanda's and Raffaele's trial started, Judge Massei instructed Mignini to not include that line of argument amongst his scenarios during the trial.

And as far as I know he didn't.

You quoted Nadeau in your other post concerning the Double DNA Knife. Please quote her again with how you say she describes Mignini referring to a satanic scenerio within the trial.
===========================

You say: "She also confirms his relationship with the psychic."

Which psychic? How is this psychic related to this case?

Maybe in this instance, you should quote Mignini himself concerning his non-relationship with a psychic whose name figures in a separate case.
===========================

You say: "She states he brought her in during the Monster of Florence case to "advise him personally on Satanic signs and symbols"."

Mignini was never involved in the Monster of Florence case. He works in a different jurisdiction, Perugia in Umbria. Florence is in Tuscany.

Maybe you're referring to the Narducci case in its reopened phase, which has a link to MoF. Read up on it, then come back.
===========================

You say: "The whole "satanic ritual" aspect of this case is not due to any exaggerations made by Preston or Sollecito's lawyers"

The "satanic ritual" scenario perhaps once entertained by Mignini was not central to how evidence was collected, nor how different review judges decided to maintain Amanda and Raffaele behind bars during the investigation.

It was not a part of the trial.

However, it has been central to efforts by FOA hangers-on to try to disqualify Mignini.
=========================

You said: "There is plenty of proof that Mignini did make claims of a Satanic ritual. It's been reported numerous times regarding this case and the Monster of Florence."

See above, regarding Mignini not being involved in the Monster of Florence. He was separated from it by a number of years and kilometers.

The first "satanic" theory in the MoF case came from police investigators in the 1980's who tried to find an explanation for this serial killer who shot couples on Lovers' Lanes, then cut out the woman's sexual organs, taking them with him.

Again, if you were able to quote Nadeau concerning the Double DNA Knife, please quote her (or any other source) concerning the alleged introduction of Satan by Mignini into the trial.

 

[Kermit]

there are many mundane reasons certain evidence is admissible or not that have nothing to do with constitutional rights.

Fine, my point is that the presentation of evidence in continental cases is a much wider field than in the USA, and that there is much more responsibility on the part of the judge and jury to interpret the importance and reliability of that evidence.

In general, evidence is not excluded ("thrown out") before it gets to the court room, at least in comparative terms with how that happens in the USA.

 

[Dan O.]

.
Everytime a pro-Amanda type starts cropping photos, I ask myself what's in the rest of the bigger picture that we're missing out.

If you want to show the "Big picture", how about coming up with the charts for the controls. Why were they cropped from the evidence we've been presented?

With your reference to the Stefanoni charts, you point out a supposed point of noise/contamination on the chart.

That point of noise on the chart isn't just a spec of dust but represents millions of copies of a specific fragment of DNA. We know it's DNA because it was amplified by the PCR process and bound to the florescent tag designed to bind to a specific DNA sequence. This also isn't a random piece of a broken fragment because in order to get a blip that high you need to start with 10 or more of the same fragments. It's also not a shadow because it doesn't have corresponding peaks in the other channels.

Let's do just that, an overall comparative of Meredith's control DNA sample, and the sample of DNA taken from near the point of the Double DNA Knife:

Let's start by using the correct terminology. I provided a link to an online course on forensics that would really help. You should look into it.

The known sample of Meredith's DNA is called a "reference". A "control" is a sample used for calibrating and testing the system. There are several types of controls that are run routinely: A positive control is a known sample with a known profile that the test manufacturer provides. The positive control is used to verify that the test sequence will produce the correct result for the DNA sample that is processed. There are also negative controls. The negative controls should have no DNA and are run before and after the the samples are run using the same procedure and parameters as the sample. Any peaks that show up on the negative controls will be due to contamination in the lab or materials and may invalidate the run if they show a significant problem.

 

[tsig]

Fulcanelli writes:

Looking at the Massei Report, I can also tell you that everyone was assigned into teams before entering the cottage. Each team was assigned and restricted to one particular room, no member of which was permitted to enter any of the other rooms. This was done to further restrict any possible cross contamination.

I'll bet you believe it, too. And you sleep soundly, knowing that the public business of Italy is in capable hands.

That is why I pestered you with information about the Seattle Pitted Windshield Epidemic. I hoped that I might shed some light. But, I no longer have that hope, so it is you who have educated me, rather than vice versa. Isn't that ironic?

Why yes I do since I don't live in Italy.

 

[tsig]

Stilicho writes:

As with Charles Wilkes, your arguments are from incredulity. You cannot bring yourself to accept that bored young adults or youths from middle class backgrounds can do something so brutal.

I suppose I am arguing from incredulity. There are kids who commit senseless acts of violence, and occasionally they are girls... Ellard, Justina Morley, Victoria Lindsay, Cheyenne Blanton, etc. But that doesn't mean any given adolescent may unexpectedly turn out to be a homicidal nut. If that were the case, no one could ever trust their kids with a babysitter.

The irony of this is that Amanda Knox is not merely someone who would never bully a weak or vulnerable peer, she is someone who went out of her way to help and support kids who were being picked on.

And She's being punished for someone else's sin.

 

[Malkmus]

.
Careful, careful. Let's do this step by step:

You say: "she confirms that Mignini was behind the "satanic ritual" scenario"

Which one are you referring to? Are you able to articulate what the scenario is?

I guess if you google around, you'll find that Mignini did have an occult scenario as one explanation for how the attack against Meredith evolved.

That's not new news.

Before Amanda's and Raffaele's trial started, Judge Massei instructed Mignini to not include that line of argument amongst his scenarios during the trial.

And as far as I know he didn't.

You quoted Nadeau in your other post concerning the Double DNA Knife. Please quote her again with how you say she describes Mignini referring to a satanic scenerio within the trial.


You say: "She also confirms his relationship with the psychic."

Kermit, the reason I am addressing this is because there has been much debate anytime someone mentions Mignini and "Satanic ritual" in the same breath. People like Fulcanelli/Michael are very quick to attack anyone who states Mignini ever used those words. The argument every time is that Mignini never said such things and that it's simply misinformation on the part of Sollecito's lawyers and the fault of the media for running with it. This is the spin I've seen over and over, and I'm sure you've seen it too.

Now, I haven't bothered much in trying to defend or deflect such allegations. But I've now tired of seeing people claim it isn't true without much reason to think so. The truth of the matter is, we have several reports of Mignini introducing the notion of Meredith being murdered during a "Satanic ritual" during the pre-trial, the closing arguments of the trial, the Monster of Florence/Narducci case, and consulting a psychic about "Satanic signs and symbols". Add to that the fact that Mignini has been very outspoken against other allegations such as Amanda and her abuse claim, her parents, Preston, Spezi, the press, etc. The point is, he doesn't just sit back and take the punches. He retaliates every time. But the two words he is most synonymous with (after "Amanda Knox") he hasn't tried to distance himself from.

Here are the quotes from Nadeau's book:

"He is quick to suspect Satanism in some of the more grisly crimes he investigates. In the early days of his involvement in the Monster of Florence case, Mignini called in a Roman sorceress named Gabriella Carlizzi to advise him personally on Satanic signs and symbols"

"When Mignini first heard of the ghoulish paraphernalia in the house on via della Pergola, he was not thinking about Halloween, but instead thought he had stumbled on another Satanic rite. But that theory never made it past the preliminary hearings, though Mignini tried to reintroduce it in the closing arguments."

Which psychic? How is this psychic related to this case?

Maybe in this instance, you should quote Mignini himself concerning his non-relationship with a psychic whose name figures in a separate case.
===========================

You say: "She states he brought her in during the Monster of Florence case to "advise him personally on Satanic signs and symbols"."

Mignini was never involved in the Monster of Florence case. He works in a different jurisdiction, Perugia in Umbria. Florence is in Tuscany.

Maybe you're referring to the Narducci case in its reopened phase, which has a link to MoF. Read up on it, then come back.
===========================

The psychic is not related to this case, but she is related to Mignini's belief in the occult and specifically his desire to decipher "Satanic symbols" as stated above.
Thanks, but I've actually read plenty on the MOF case and I stand by my previous statement. Narducci was a suspect in the Monster case. Mignini's suspicion was that Narducci was killed by members of a cult responsible for the deaths in the Monster of Florence case, and that he was not simply a victim of drowning. Not sure how you can say he is investigating Narducci's death and not call it the Monster of Florence case. What, did he suddenly have an interest in a drowning case from 1985 fifteen years later just by coincidence?

You say: "The whole "satanic ritual" aspect of this case is not due to any exaggerations made by Preston or Sollecito's lawyers"

The "satanic ritual" scenario perhaps once entertained by Mignini was not central to how evidence was collected, nor how different review judges decided to maintain Amanda and Raffaele behind bars during the investigation.

It was not a part of the trial.

However, it has been central to efforts by FOA hangers-on to try to disqualify Mignini.
=========================

I agree that Mignini's alleged Satanic ritual was not central to the case. But that's not the point I'm trying to prove. Nor am I some rabid FOA member. I only mentioned Sollecito's lawyers because whenever someone tries to bring up the fact that Mignini is associated with the occult, someone else argues that Sollecito's lawyers or the press simply exaggerated his use of the words "ritualistic killing".

You said: "There is plenty of proof that Mignini did make claims of a Satanic ritual. It's been reported numerous times regarding this case and the Monster of Florence."

See above, regarding Mignini not being involved in the Monster of Florence. He was separated from it by a number of years and kilometers.

The first "satanic" theory in the MoF case came from police investigators in the 1980's who tried to find an explanation for this serial killer who shot couples on Lovers' Lanes, then cut out the woman's sexual organs, taking them with him.

Again, if you were able to quote Nadeau concerning the Double DNA Knife, please quote her (or any other source) concerning the alleged introduction of Satan by Mignini into the trial.

I believe I have done so above.

 

[stilicho]

I believe he said that because my post was written before the CBS article you linked was even published. Which, I guess, settles that debate.

And what page number is it from?

 

[stilicho]

Kermit, the reason I am addressing this is because there has been much debate anytime someone mentions Mignini and "Satanic ritual" in the same breath.....

I believe I have done so above.

You've done nothing of the sort. When did Mignini promote the Satanic ritual motive during the course of the trial?

@Dan O: You really didn't address Kermit's question. Why did you crop that photo?

 

[Dan O.]

Sheer coincidences or blatant copying and pasting don't qualify as paranormal events.

I figured seeing 26 minutes into the future was MDC worthy. Even I have never been able to reliably see more than a few seconds ahead.

 

[Dan O.]

@Dan O: You really didn't address Kermit's question. Why did you crop that photo?

This was a photo that Kermit was already familiar with. He didn't need to see the whole thing again. I included the relevant portion that I was discussing and enough of the context to place it in the original. You already have access to the original so nothing was being hidden (unlike the negative controls which we have yet to see evidence of).

 

[stilicho]

Respectfully, there are other exclusionary rules regarding evidence in Italian criminal proceedings. Your statement infers that the only way evidence is inadmissible is only when a constitutional right is violated. This is factually incorrect and there are many mundane reasons certain evidence is admissible or not that have nothing to do with constitutional rights.

This is not to say that this makes the knife inadmissible evidence of course; but your characterization of Italian evidentiary rules on this are wrong.

Can you supply examples of these? A comparison and contrast among various legal systems would be helpful. Just as an example, in which jurisdictions would AK's memorandum have been declared inadmissible?

 

[stilicho]

I figured seeing 26 minutes into the future was MDC worthy. Even I have never been able to reliably see more than a few seconds ahead.

The two identical and coincidental posts were only separated by 26 minutes? I call shenanigans. It's the same poster and he or she is simply spamming comments sections and forums. There was no page cite.

Next.

This was a photo that Kermit was already familiar with. He didn't need to see the whole thing again. I included the relevant portion that I was discussing and enough of the context to place it in the original. You already have access to the original so nothing was being hidden (unlike the negative controls which we have yet to see evidence of).

So you're only posting things for Kermit? Why not do it through a PM then? I call shenanigans for an unprecedented second time in the same post. You clearly were answering Fulcanelli and the board as a whole. I saw it and I am neither Fulcanelli nor Kermit.

Apology accepted.

As far as the controls are concerned, you are welcome to introduce any audit result that you wish. This is the gold standard established in the many links provided by halides1 that exposed contamination and lack of procedural integrity at labs in Houston, Washington State, and elsewhere. Maybe you and Chris ought to have a little group huddle.