Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Dan O.]

He had multiple independent witnesses who did vouch for his whereabouts and they still held him for two weeks. I suspect the swiss professor delivered a message that they couldn't ignore.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Fiona wrote:

I wonder what he had that Knox and Sollecito did not have: oh wait....an alibi; a consistent story; forensics which did not support his presence though Amanda said he was there..... Hmmm

The most important of these is the alibi. He had multiple independent witnesses who could vouch for his whereabouts during the entire evening. Would he have been released if he had been alone at home? I doubt it. They would have come up with junk evidence to convict him too.

Really? What junk evidence was contrived to place Amanda and Raffeale at the scene?

You do realize that Patrick was incarcerated for 2 weeks. Are you arguing that the wicked evil conspiracy of forensics, lawyers, judges, and police officers couldn't come up with any "junk evidence" linking Patrick in those two weeks while they were able to come up with "junk evidence" linking Amanda/Raffaele in that same time period?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Bob the Donkey wrote:

Really? What junk evidence was contrived to place Amanda and Raffeale at the scene?

Amanda's DNA in her own bathroom is junk evidence. The luminol footprints are junk evidence.

Did you know that they did luminol tests in Raffaele's bathroom and found a spot that reacted with luminol? True fact - Sample No. 95. They swabbed it and ran a DNA test and found Amanda's DNA mixed with Raffaele's. They got the same result from a number of other samples. Does that mean Amanda and Raffaele were bleeding at the same time at his apartment?

 

[stilicho]

My words about the Leskie case were not intended to encompass the present case; once again you are misinterpreting what I said. The fsa files might be decisive here, but we cannot say until we see them. My credentials are not the issue; almost all of what I write about DNA forensics cites the literature, textbooks, or quotes the authors of papers. However, I have used the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and limited DNA digestion with restriction endonucleases in my work, and these are two of the techniques also used in DNA forensics. Can you make the same claim?

I am not making any claims. Your blog, on the other hand, is full of them. Your claim about the release of the files is based only on the word of Chris Mellas. Your claims about the decisiveness of the files' contents are based on guesswork. Your claims about DNA forensics are based on allegations levelled by advocates and people unqualified in the field. Your claims about the strength of the DNA evidence against one defendant is based on what the lawyers for the other two have said.

I'd recommend trying to remove your advocacy hat and put on your scientist's hat for a moment. Imagine one of your students submitting a paper like that in one of your classes. How would you grade it?

 

[shuttlt]

Bob the Donkey wrote:

Really? What junk evidence was contrived to place Amanda and Raffeale at the scene?

Amanda's DNA in her own bathroom is junk evidence. The luminol footprints are junk evidence.

Did you know that they did luminol tests in Raffaele's bathroom and found a spot that reacted with luminol? True fact - Sample No. 95. They swabbed it and ran a DNA test and found Amanda's DNA mixed with Raffaele's. They got the same result from a number of other samples. Does that mean Amanda and Raffaele were bleeding at the same time at his apartment?

I hadn't heard this. The information I've seen on the forensics at Raffaele's is almost non-existent. I guess I assumed they did more than bag the knife, but that's all I was aware of. Perhaps you could summarize, link, or point the direction to more information?

 

[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.

Did you leave that folded sweater in the hall in Meredith's cottage?

That might be quite a comeback, Dan O., if only we could understand it.

- You falsely accusely Italian authorities of illegalities when questioning Amanda.
- When it's explained to you, you do the "look up in the sky" routine.

Are you not the same Kermet that produced the powerpoint presentations on PMF?

Um, yeah, I'm Kermit (with an "i")....

In one powerpoint, there was an ILE photo which could have had a folded sweater in it. My text said: "This looks like a folded, knitted sweater". It was an observation (that could have been correct or not) which wasn't an accusation (like your accusation that Italian authorities committed illegalities in Amanda's questioning), nor was it particularly important, not playing a role in any of my further observations.

BTW, I believe that Judge Heavey apologised to Giuliano Mignini for making unsubstantiated accusations similar to yours. However, FOA didn't make as much noise about that, as what was made with his initial accusations.

See Kermit06LuminolEvidence.pps.ppt frame 17 "This looks like a folded, knitted sweater"
Look then at frame 66. Maybe your powers of observation will be enhanced and you'll also be able to then explain the bent fingers on frame 17.

What do these photos have to do with your accusation that the Italian authorities committed illegalities in Amanda's questioning?

Are you sure you kneed to know?

I do hope that Amanda's legal team have better arguments and explanatory skills than you, as I think that not even the FOA types have a clue of what you're talking about or where you're going.

(Charlie, please give Dan O. a hand)

Okay, Dan O. I'll try to help you out, as I'm truly intrigued as to what your next post may look like. Please find below slides 17 and 66 from my footprint powerpoint.

On slide 17 I observe that there's something that could look like a sweater and there's something that could look like fingers, but I'm not sure of what they are. In any case, I don't return to those observations, nor do either of those possibilities impact in the measurements made in the rest of the powerpoint.

Slide 66 is of the bathmat bloody footprint, with the ILE scale which FOA should have realised would show that the Pink Hobbit Foot is far too small (not dealt with in this powerpoint).

Tell me, then, Dan O. what do these images have to do with your accusation that the Italian authorities committed illegalities when questioning Amanda on 5 November 2007, as asserted (you got this wrong) by the Italian supreme court?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Fiona wrote:

I wonder what he had that Knox and Sollecito did not have: oh wait....an alibi; a consistent story; forensics which did not support his presence though Amanda said he was there..... Hmmm

The most important of these is the alibi. He had multiple independent witnesses who could vouch for his whereabouts during the entire evening. Would he have been released if he had been alone at home? I doubt it. They would have come up with junk evidence to convict him too.

No, it's 'also' the fact that there was no evidence against him. Your accusation that they'd have set him up with 'junk science' is an empty accusation based not on any evidence or actual knowledge of the system, but rather your own prejudice and 'faith'. These arguments come under the auspices of 'religion'. And in fact, the facts prove you wrong anyway. Had the police really been interested in prosecuting Patrick his alibi alone wouldn't have been good enough. He has an alibi for during the murder only, not for every hour after when he could have potential have been involved in the clean-up/staging. If course he wasn't. But if the police were as desperate and corrupt as to blame anyone of involvement or were so desperate to save face as you love to make out, Patrick wouldn't have walked so easily. The fact is, once they corroborated that he'd been telling them the TRUTH, they let him go.

The fact is, if there was no case against Amanda and Raffaele, they'd have been let go too. And perhaps I should also remind you, it was not the police, not the prosecution that made the decision to release Patrick while retain the other two, but a judge in court.

Finally, the 'junk science' as you call it was far from junk science, it was very good science, was tested in an Italian court that heard the case over 11 months, while being challenged by some of the best lawyers and scientific experts in the whole of Italy. It ended up with a unanimous guilty verdict against the accused. Therefore, your terminology of 'junk science' is no more then vacuous hyperbole.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Oh and Charlie Wilkes, you have NO right to be accusing anyone of 'junk science', the one who photoshopped and shrunk evidence in order to deceive the public. An error that despite having been pointed out to you clearly and loudly over the course of many months, you have yet to remove from the FOA site. Some neck.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Bob the Donkey wrote:

Really? What junk evidence was contrived to place Amanda and Raffeale at the scene?

Amanda's DNA in her own bathroom is junk evidence. The luminol footprints are junk evidence.

Did you know that they did luminol tests in Raffaele's bathroom and found a spot that reacted with luminol? True fact - Sample No. 95. They swabbed it and ran a DNA test and found Amanda's DNA mixed with Raffaele's. They got the same result from a number of other samples. Does that mean Amanda and Raffaele were bleeding at the same time at his apartment?

Not mixed IN with the victim's blood it is not.

The luminol prints are hardly junk evidence, they are clear hard evidence...they are in the victim's blood and are a match for Amanda and Raffaele (are Rudy's footprints also junk evidence then?)

Your final argument is a dumb red herring. Raffaele or Amanda may have bled in Raffaele's apartment on a previous occasion, or Raffaele may have used his bleach (we know he had bleach and liked to use it). If MEREDITH'S DNA had been found in it, then that would have been a different matter.

But, doesn't your own argument prove that the police haven't been using 'junk evidence'? Surely, were they into the business of doing so they'd have used your example as evidence against the pair. Since they did not, you undermine your own accusations against them and prove our point, not yours.

 

[shuttlt]

Not mixed IN with the victim's blood it is not.

I don't know. If Amanda and Raffaele share a bathroom and innocently left a mixed blood sample, it does at least make it seem plausible that Amanda and Meredith may have done the same. Of course a deeper level of analysis than the fact of the blood samples may show the two cases are completely different.

Am I right in thinking though that it was the clasp, the knife and the fake alibis that form the bulk of the motivations report rather than mixed blood in the bathroom? If so, perhaps it would be best to focus the arguments on the reasons why she was convicted. If not, then I look forward to the translation becoming available (early next week?) so I know what in hell I'm talking about.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I don't know. If Amanda and Raffaele share a bathroom and innocently left a mixed blood sample, it does at least make it seem plausible that Amanda and Meredith may have done the same. Of course a deeper level of analysis than the fact of the blood samples may show the two cases are completely different.

Am I right in thinking though that it was the clasp, the knife and the fake alibis that form the bulk of the motivations report rather than mixed blood in the bathroom? If so, perhaps it would be best to focus the arguments on the reasons why she was convicted. If not, then I look forward to the translation becoming available (early next week?) so I know what in hell I'm talking about.

It meed not be blood. Like I said, Raffaele was fond of using bleach and had bleach on the premises (unlike the cottage where there was no bleach and the girls never used products containing bleach to clean). Whilst there's a possibility it may be Raffaele or Amanda's blood...it's also quite possible it's actually Meredith's. It also should be pointed out this mixture was found in only one place in Raffaele's, where it was found in multiple places in the cottage. Therefore, that in Raffaele's displays and exception rather then a norm.

 

[shuttlt]

It meed not be blood. Like I said, Raffaele was fond of using bleach and had bleach on the premises (unlike the cottage where there was no bleach and the girls never used products containing bleach to clean). Whilst there's a possibility it may be Raffaele or Amanda's blood...it's also quite possible it's actually Meredith's. It also should be pointed out this mixture was found in only one place in Raffaele's, where it was found in multiple places in the cottage. Therefore, that in Raffaele's displays and exception rather then a norm.

Thanks Fulcanelli.

 

[Dan O.]

Tell me, then, Dan O. what do these images have to do with your accusation that the Italian authorities committed illegalities when questioning Amanda on 5 November 2007, as asserted (you got this wrong) by the Italian supreme court?



[URL=http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/8443/slide66z.png/]

Who said it had anything to do with the Italian authorities. It just shows that once you get stuck on one line it's very difficult for you to shift thinking.

This may still be too difficult of a task for you without a bit more help. Try turning the top photo left 90º and the bottom photo right 90º. If that doesn't help, maybe you should get down on one knee and pray for guidance.

 

[shuttlt]

Who said it had anything to do with the Italian authorities. It just shows that once you get stuck on one line it's very difficult for you to shift thinking.

This may still be too difficult of a task for you without a bit more help. Try turning the top photo left 90º and the bottom photo right 90º. If that doesn't help, maybe you should get down on one knee and pray for guidance.

So all this is just a huge 90º turn away from accusations that you were either making it up, or speaking from ignorance when you claimed that "[t]he Italian supreme court already ruled that the interrogation violated Italian law"? Perhaps before you do your big reveal on Kermit's photo you could explain how you get from inadmissable, to illegal?

 

[quadraginta]

Who said it had anything to do with the Italian authorities. It just shows that once you get stuck on one line it's very difficult for you to shift thinking.

<snip.

Why, you did, Dan O. Incessantly. Here's just a few examples from just one page of posts.

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?

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.

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




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.




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

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.

And then, of course there is your ethnic slur sig line, which makes your xenophobic bigotry about this case evident to everyone in every single comment you make in every single thread where you post.

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"

You should be a bit careful about using the term "stupid liar".

 

[Dan O.]

It meed¹ not be blood. Like I said, Raffaele was fond of using bleach² and had bleach on the premises³ (unlike the cottage where there was no bleach and the girls never used products containing bleach to clean). Whilst there's a possibility it may be Raffaele or Amanda's blood⁴...it's also quite possible it's actually Meredith's⁵. It also should be pointed out this mixture was found in only one place in Raffaele's⁶, where it was found in multiple places in the cottage. Therefore, that in Raffaele's displays and exception rather then a norm.

Thanks Fulcanelli.

Are you just going to take Fulcanelli word as the truth?

1. This must be a reference to the english.

2. There is no evidence that Raffaele used bleach. A photo of him with a jug of red liquid was a representation of blood (not bleach) and most likely contained fruit juice.

3. Testimony was given that the previous cleaning lady requested that Raffaele purchase bleach for her and the quantity that was found at the apartment matched what she testified was there when she last saw it several months earlier.

4. DNA tests showed a mix of Raffaele and Amanda

5. No DNA markers matching Meredith were found anywhere in Raffaele's apartment except for that one trace on the one knife.

6. One spot found with luminol in the bathroom, a pair of gloves, the handle to the bedroom and two spots on the floor, the bathrobes and towels all showed mixed profiles of Amanda and Raffaele.

 

[Kermit]

Dan O. will finally tell us where he's leading us to

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.

Did you leave that folded sweater in the hall in Meredith's cottage?

That might be quite a comeback, Dan O., if only we could understand it.

- You falsely accusely Italian authorities of illegalities when questioning Amanda.
- When it's explained to you, you do the "look up in the sky" routine.

Are you not the same Kermet that produced the powerpoint presentations on PMF?

Um, yeah, I'm Kermit (with an "i")....

In one powerpoint, there was an ILE photo which could have had a folded sweater in it. My text said: "This looks like a folded, knitted sweater". It was an observation (that could have been correct or not) which wasn't an accusation (like your accusation that Italian authorities committed illegalities in Amanda's questioning), nor was it particularly important, not playing a role in any of my further observations.

BTW, I believe that Judge Heavey apologised to Giuliano Mignini for making unsubstantiated accusations similar to yours. However, FOA didn't make as much noise about that, as what was made with his initial accusations.

See Kermit06LuminolEvidence.pps.ppt frame 17 "This looks like a folded, knitted sweater"
Look then at frame 66. Maybe your powers of observation will be enhanced and you'll also be able to then explain the bent fingers on frame 17.

What do these photos have to do with your accusation that the Italian authorities committed illegalities in Amanda's questioning?

Are you sure you kneed to know?

I do hope that Amanda's legal team have better arguments and explanatory skills than you, as I think that not even the FOA types have a clue of what you're talking about or where you're going....

Okay, Dan O. I'll try to help you out, as I'm truly intrigued as to what your next post may look like. Please find below slides 17 and 66 from my footprint powerpoint.

On slide 17 I observe that there's something that could look like a sweater and there's something that could look like fingers, but I'm not sure of what they are. In any case, I don't return to those observations, nor do either of those possibilities impact in the measurements made in the rest of the powerpoint.

Slide 66 is of the bathmat bloody footprint, with the ILE scale which FOA should have realised would show that the Pink Hobbit Foot is far too small (not dealt with in this powerpoint).

Tell me, then, Dan O. what do these images have to do with your accusation that the Italian authorities committed illegalities when questioning Amanda on 5 November 2007, as asserted (you got this wrong) by the Italian supreme court?

Who said it had anything to do with the Italian authorities. It just shows that once you get stuck on one line it's very difficult for you to shift thinking.

This may still be too difficult of a task for you without a bit more help. Try turning the top photo left 90º and the bottom photo right 90º. If that doesn't help, maybe you should get down on one knee and pray for guidance.

.
You were the one who said that it has something to do with the Italian authorities (see your first post above in this string).

Don't be so coy, Dan O., spit it out so I don't have to keep guessing at what the heck you're pointing to. I've received some messages from other followers of this page asking me if I know what you're leading us and I've told them I have no clue.

In any case, I've done as you've indicated and rotated the images.

Now, tell us what this has to do with the Italian authorities allegedly committing illegalities (as per your posts) in Amanda's questioning.

You started us on this wild goose chase.



If you want, in addition to confirming that you understand that the supreme court ruling didn't have much to do with illegalities on the part of Italian authorities, and everything to do with Amanda's (Italian) constitutional protection against having her own words used against her in court, you can also reveal to us the mysterious, esoteric message which you have discovered when rotating the above images.

 

[Dan O.]

A fox would have caught the goose long ago.

Does it still look like a folded knitted sweater? Why is it then in the bath? Why does it not look at all like a folded knit sweater in the bath?

Maybe you aren't praying hard enough. Do you have your head down? Take a picture and show us what you see.



As for the supreme court ruling, what difference does it make whether it was ruled inadmissible or illegal. The prosecution still managed to twist things to get it into the trial. Once you get the wrong idea into your head, how easy is it to see the obvious truth? Do you thing the jury can just put the statement out of their mind when assessing Amanda's guilt?

 

[shuttlt]

As for the supreme court ruling, what difference does it make whether it was ruled inadmissible or illegal. The prosecution still managed to twist things to get it into the trial. Once you get the wrong idea into your head, how easy is it to see the obvious truth? Do you thing the jury can just put the statement out of their mind when assessing Amanda's guilt?

So the supreme court didn't rule that the police had done anything illegal in their interrogation?

Presumably it would make a difference to the police themselves had they been busted for doing illegal things in the interrogation. Also, while it makes no odds to us who know that what you said wasn't absolutely accurate, it might, to somehow who hadn't been reading up on the case for so long create the impression that the police had been busted for doing something illegal and so make more plausible the other claims of illegal goings on.

Would it make a difference if I described Amanda as having a criminal past based on her noise ticket?

 

[shuttlt]

I don't know whether it's what Dan O. is referring to, but the bottom of both photographs do look very similar. The plastic thing in the photo on the right looks kind of like the finger and the sink? looks kind of like the folded sweater.

Do I win the prize?