Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[shuttlt]

Surely the first person to suggest induced false memories is Amanda, if only by implication. Perhaps the issue is more whether people here are attempting to associate her claims with some actual syndrome.

 

[Dan O.]

So where is the recording of that interrogation? Why do the Italian police need to cover up what was going on? And why does it take so many Italian police to interrogate one little american girl?

 

[Fulcanelli]

So where is the recording of that interrogation? Why do the Italian police need to cover up what was going on? And why does it take so many Italian police to interrogate one little american girl?


---------------------------
How many Italians does it take to screw up a light bulb?

It takes five. One to slap the bulb and four to shout "stupid liar".

Oh please, little American girl, she was a bloody adult. And what's with the emphasis on 'American', does that matter?

As for the recording, I don't know Dan O, you're the expert on everything that doesn't exist, you tell us where it is. You can also tell us why, if it exists, it matters. If it existed, it doesn't matter, because your precious defence team worked overtime to have her initial statements ruled inadmissible (whether that be in writing or in oral recording).

But, if you're really so desperate to hear those tapes, I'm sure everyone here will support you in writing your letter to Amanda's lawyers to have them withdraw their request to have her statements ruled out.

So Dan O, when are you going to write your letter?

 

[Dan O.]

Fulcanelli answer to everything is to write a letter to Amanda's defense team.

Does Fulcanelli understand that the persecutor Mignini brought the slander charge against Amanda for stating what happened during the interrogation on the 5th-6th of November 2007?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Fulcanelli answer to everything is to write a letter to Amanda's defense team.

Does Fulcanelli understand that the persecutor Mignini brought the slander charge against Amanda for stating what happened during the interrogation on the 5th-6th of November 2007?

Made an allegation you mean, but then we know she likes to make those...one of them put an innocent man in jail for two weeks.

But anyway, great...so, when are you writing to her defence lawyers to make the request that the statements be admitted?

 

[Dan O.]

But anyway, great...so, when are you writing to her defence lawyers to make the request that the statements be admitted?

Why should I write to anybody? The Italian supreme court already ruled that the interrogation violated Italian law. I take it that you have no qualms about Italian authorities violating the law when interrogating suspects.

Did the Perugian police really think that Amanda was just a witness? Is that why it took a room full of their intimidation to question her?

In Perugia, the police are a joke. The local courts have made themselves a part of that joke. It remains to be seen if this is just a local aberration or an inherent part of the whole country.

 

[Amazer]

A skeptic should be able to evaluate logic and evidence directly, instead of deferring to a judge, priest or shaman.

Sure, but a skeptic should also try to get all the information possible before jumping to conclusion.

If the DNA profile of a suspect on a piece of evidence is proof the suspect was involved in a crime, why don't the DNA profiles of unknown persons also prove they were involved in the crime?

If the DNA from unknown persons is present due to factors unrelated to the crime, shouldn't this also be possible for the the DNA of the suspect?

Fiona did a fine job explaining this already.

 

[stilicho]

Speaking of class, Have you ever managed to dig up any credentials on Patrizia Stefanoni? It seems she got her BA back in 95 but I've found no record beyond that. Most "world-class" scientists are proud to display their credentials.

This is your claim, not mine.

If you are claiming that the polizia scientifica are hiring unqualified people then it's up to you to prove it. Her exact title appears to be abbreviated in the Italian sources I've seen: "Dir. Tecn. Princ."

How do you know the Patrizia Stefanoni who got an Arts degree in 1995 is the same one who testified at the trial? Do we also have to dig up Manuela Comodi's law degree? Maybe she wasn't a real prosecutor either. Why stop there? Was Filippo Bartolozzi a real police officer? When did he graduate from the police academy?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Why should I write to anybody? The Italian supreme court already ruled that the interrogation violated Italian law. I take it that you have no qualms about Italian authorities violating the law when interrogating suspects.

Did the Perugian police really think that Amanda was just a witness? Is that why it took a room full of their intimidation to question her?

In Perugia, the police are a joke. The local courts have made themselves a part of that joke. It remains to be seen if this is just a local aberration or an inherent part of the whole country.

The Italian High Court did NOT rule that they violated law. They ruled that the statements could not be used against her in any trial. Two completely different things, but then we know you like to twist.

Amanda WAS a witness. One does not become a Suspect on the basis merely of what the police 'think', it is a FORMAL transition. Much the same way as being 'charged' is a formal transition...one is not not charged until one has been formally done so, just like one is not under arrest until one has been formally arrested. One is not a Suspect until one has formally been made one. I know these are rather difficult concepts for you to grasp, but please do try.

I'm afraid the joke is on you because you are unable to grasp even the basics in this matter.

 

[Kermit]

Stefanoni has refused to release the .fsa files.

.
It's broken record time .....

Has Stefanoni ever been requested to give over the .fsa files, especially if that is not common practise in Italy?

I take it that you have no qualms about Italian authorities violating the law when interrogating suspects.

.
What law did they violate?

Maybe you should do some research before spreading falsehoods.

Maybe you could pass the word and tell the rest of Foaland, that her statements weren't illegally extracted from her.

In Perugia, the police are a joke. The local courts have made themselves a part of that joke. It remains to be seen if this is just a local aberration or an inherent part of the whole country.

.
Here we go again. When against the ropes, go for the anti-Italy angle.

 

[Dan O.]

The Italian High Court did NOT rule that they violated law. They ruled that the statements could not be used against her in any trial. Two completely different things, but then we know you like to twist.

So you are saying that in Italy, the high court are a bunch of jesters that make arbitrary decisions not based on any law.

Amanda WAS a witness. One does not become a Suspect on the basis merely of what the police 'think', it is a FORMAL transition. Much the same way as being 'charged' is a formal transition...one is not not charged until one has been formally done so, just like one is not under arrest until one has been formally arrested. One is not a Suspect until one has formally been made one. I know these are rather difficult concepts for you to grasp, but please do try.

I understand perfectly that there are formal transitions where the rights of the individual change under the law. I also understand how the police defer those formal transitions to get around those rights. And furthermore, I understand that the courts in the civilized world recognize cases where there is an effective transition of the individuals status based on the behavior of the police towards that individual.

I'm afraid the joke is on you because you are unable to grasp even the basics in this matter.

It's not my country and I have no intention of even visiting there unless they clean up their act.

 

[Dan O.]

Here we go again. When against the ropes, go for the anti-Italy angle.

What ropes? It's up to the Italians to decide if they want to own this circus or shut it down.


It's a three ring circus in Perugia.

In ring one we have the Perugia flying squirrels that have recordings of everything but when it comes to the critical interrogations in their own building in their interrogation room, they forgot to record it.

In ring three we have the flimsy physical evidence. Of all the evidence collected they had to go back days and even weeks later to find something to tied two of the suspects to the crime.

And in the center ring we have the ring leader Giuliano Mignini with his special talent for telling stories and spreading lies to the press.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

links to Thompson's and Krane's reports

Then why is your example so completely and obviously unrelated to the release of *.xyz files?

I actually spend the time, occasionally, to follow your links and read behind the mysteries of false accusations, corruption, incompetence, and so on. The issue I have with your posting them here is that they are ultimately irrelevant to the case we're talking about.

The problems with the DNA in that case weren't discovered through some exciting new technology. They were discovered by rather pedestrian means. The suspect was hundreds of kilometres away.

None of that particular link bears any resemblance to your allegations against the Italian crime lab.

Here's what I want you to do. Find something similar and post it. It must include multiple individuals. The laboratory must correctly identify forty per cent of the individuals in the same tests and be wrong the rest of the time. You can adjust that to fifty-fifty if you'd like.

Posting random "sciency" things isn't acceptable. Read your links and understand how they correlate to the evidence supplied in the investigation of Meredith's murder. If they don't correlate or have only marginal relevance then explain that while you post them. Don't make people slog through them, wasting their time, only to find they have nothing in common with the point you're trying to make.

Stilicho,

You misunderstood my reason for posting those links. I intended them as documentation of the fact that expert witnesses expect to have access to the electronic records, not as documentation of how the data are used. Therefore, they are quite relevant to show that the Italian authorities in this case are out of step with the rest of the world.

However, the links I provided did give additional information. Dr. Krane indicated that the heights of the peaks of the electropherogram changed with different types of software used to analyze the raw data. Peak height is important in forensic DNA analysis in a couple of ways. Moreover, using the electronic data in the Leskie case, Dr. Krane found “low levels of signal that are consistent with Ms. P.’s DNA profile and lend substantially more credence to the already compelling proposition that she is the source of the DNA associated with the Leskie bib and track pants.” Although I did not argue that the access to the fsa files was decisive in the Leskie case, it certainly was helpful. In addition, Dr. Krane’s remarks reported by me indicate that electronic data might be even more helpful in this case, which involves low-intensity peaks.

Finally, Dr. Krane’s report shows the electropherogram of a DNA profile that arose from contamination, and it looks similar to any other profile one might see. This documents that Fulcanelli’s unsupported statements about contaminating DNA being at less than 1% the level of a regular profile are nonsense.

Chris

 

[Amazer]

What ropes? It's up to the Italians to decide if they want to own this circus or shut it down.


It's a three ring circus in Perugia.

In ring one we have the Perugia flying squirrels that have recordings of everything but when it comes to the critical interrogations in their own building in their interrogation room, they forgot to record it.

In ring three we have the flimsy physical evidence. Of all the evidence collected they had to go back days and even weeks later to find something to tied two of the suspects to the crime.

And in the center ring we have the ring leader Giuliano Mignini with his special talent for telling stories and spreading lies to the press.

[/sarcasm on]
Aren't you forgetting the Jugde(s)?

If the police didn't do their jobs properly they could have given a 'not guilty' verdict.
If the evidence was really so flimsy, they could have given a 'not guilty' verdict.
If the 'story' and the 'lies' told by Mignini weren't accepted by them, they could have given a 'not guilty' verdict.

In the end it was their (the judges) decision that put Amanda behind bars.

But i complete understand that it's easier to believe that the police, the crime lab, the prosecutor and the judges are somehow incompetent fools with no regard for the law and how they are supposed to do their duty then that a poor American student could commit murder.
[/sarcasm off]

 

[Kermit]

Here we go again. When against the ropes, go for the anti-Italy angle.

What ropes? It's up to the Italians to decide if they want to own this circus or shut it down.

It's a three ring circus in Perugia.

In ring one we have the Perugia flying squirrels that have recordings of everything but when it comes to the critical interrogations in their own building in their interrogation room, they forgot to record it.

In ring three we have the flimsy physical evidence. Of all the evidence collected they had to go back days and even weeks later to find something to tied two of the suspects to the crime.

And in the center ring we have the ring leader Giuliano Mignini with his special talent for telling stories and spreading lies to the press.
__________________
How many Italians does it take to screw up a light bulb?

.
And if you're really up against the ropes, go for the Evil Prosecutor angle.

I have to say, if the strength of Amanda's appeal depends on the sorts of pro-Amanda arguments we see in these pages, instead of getting a reduction, I think her sentence for her conviction in the murder of Meredith Kercher will be increased.

 

[funk de fino]

.I have to say, if the strength of Amanda's appeal depends on the sorts of pro-Amanda arguments we see in these pages, instead of getting a reduction, I think her sentence for her conviction in the murder of Meredith Kercher will be increased.

It's been Orly Taitz stuff on here from start to finish.

 

[Fulcanelli]

So you are saying that in Italy, the high court are a bunch of jesters that make arbitrary decisions not based on any law.

No, I am saying that just because something is ruled inadmissible in a trial does not mean that it is illegal or that it has broken the law. Under Italian law, statements made by a witness cannot be used in any trial against the witness that made it. But it does not therefore follow that questioning witness is 'illegal' or 'unlawful'.

Rudy Guede's statements were ruled inadmissible in RS's and AK's trial also. Does it therefore follow his questioning was illegal or somehow broke the law? No, of course not.

It is simply a case of Italian law having provision that that certain statements can be used only in certain ways and certain circumstances and not used in others. For example, witness statements can be used in a court of law against others, but not against the witness who made them. Statements by Suspects however, 'can' be used against the person who made them in a court of law. However, a suspect statement where a lawyer is not present cannot be used against the suspect or anyone else in court. But, it CAN be used to further the police investigation before the trial phase. So, some of these statements can be used in court against the accused, others cannot, but none of them are 'illegal', the law merely puts certain limitations on how and when they can be used.

 

[Fulcanelli]

You misunderstood my reason for posting those links. I intended them as documentation of the fact that expert witnesses expect to have access to the electronic records, not as documentation of how the data are used. Therefore, they are quite relevant to show that the Italian authorities in this case are out of step with the rest of the world.

Great, well since Krane is 'not' an expert witness in this case he is neither in need of them, or entitled to them is he? Ditto with Johnson and her pals, right halides1?

And still, you have yet to offer proof that the defence were refused the .fsa files when legally entitled, or even that they don't actually have them (10th time of asking now).

 

[Kermit]

The Italian supreme court already ruled that the interrogation violated Italian law. I take it that you have no qualms about Italian authorities violating the law when interrogating suspects.

.
If the questioning was against the law, then why were parts of it admissable and discussed openly in court in relation to the false accusation charge against Amanda?

Maybe what you're calling "illegal" has more to do with Amanda's constitutional protection in Italy of not having her own words used against her in the court of law (unless if those words themselves form the basis of the crime, as was of the case of the falsely accusing Patrick of being the killer).

Do your homework on this case.

It's been Orly Taitz stuff on here from start to finish.

I hadn't heard of her, but, yes, she has some brethen logical spirits amongst the FOA types.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I understand perfectly that there are formal transitions where the rights of the individual change under the law. I also understand how the police defer those formal transitions to get around those rights. And furthermore, I understand that the courts in the civilized world recognize cases where there is an effective transition of the individuals status based on the behavior of the police towards that individual.

The police in this case deferred nothing 'to get around those rights'. One is made a formal suspect only when either/or a) evidence is discovered or received against the individual or b) the individual incriminates themselves.

In this case, before the night of the 5th they had mo evidence against Amanda and Raffaele and they had not incriminated themselves or each other. Therefore, the police had no legal; justification to make them formal Suspects. However as soon as they did incriminate themselves and each other (Raffaele admitting he had lied and dropping Amanda's alibi - Amanda being discovered with evidence they felt showed she had gone to meet someone that night and Amanda's sudden accusation of Patrick Lumumba combined with her admission she had helped set it up and was present at the cottage during the crime) the police immediately made them official suspects.

One cannot make someone a suspect simply because one suspects. One must have evidence or/and testimony indicating their guilt. Once someone is made a suspect they must be produced in front of a judge in court within 48 hours and the prosecutor must justify to the judge the grounds for making them a suspect. The judge must then examine that evidence and come to a judgement, complete with a full written report if the justification and confirm that status.

As soon as Amanda and Raffaele incriminated themselves this procedure was followed implicitly. Therefore, your 'innuendo' (which is all it is) is therefore groundless.