Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
[quote="Kestrel"It also doesn't make a bit of sense that Amanda would be waiting for a store to open when there was plenty of bleach at Raffaele's apartment.[/quoye]

Who said she was waiting to buy 'bleach'?
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
Saying so doesn't make it true.[/qyote]

Hey Charlie, repeat that line to yourself 10 times every morning when you get up ;)

[qyote="Charlie"]Raffaele's cleaning lady testified that he bought the bleach at her request and that the contents of the bleach bottles (one entirely unused, one partially used) was unchanged from the time she stopped working for him in September.
Click to expand...

Really, did she measure the contents of each bottle with a ruler everyday, a bit like what one mat do with expensive brandy and has teenage kids? She wouldn't notice if even a little was used...say for some shoes and a knife?

Wilkes said:
No. They also found the mixed DNA of Amanda and Raffaele on a pair of rubber kitchen gloves (Sample 89) and in a stain revealed with luminol on the floor of his bedroom (Sample 93). They also got luminol reactions on the outer handle of the bedroom door (Sample 92) and another location in his bedroom (Sample 94), but neither revealed any genetic profile. Another luminol trace on the bathroom floor (Sample 96) revealed Amanda's DNA only. Other luminol reactions from various places in Sollecito's apartment (Samples 97, 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 104, and 105) revealed no profile. Sample 101, a luminol reaction in the kitchen, revealed the DNA of an unknown male.
Click to expand...

Could well be Meredith's blood then ;)

[qyite="Wilkes"]I have given you a reliable citation regarding the status of the bleach in Sollecito's apartment. Nadeau is mistaken about the bleach receipt and traces of bleach being found on the knife, just as she is mistaken about Dr. Sollecito's wife shouting "F*** you" in the courtroom and many other points.[/quote]

And yoi'd know because 'you' were in the court room? Well, were you? Ms Nadeau was. Do you also speak Italian? Ms Nadeau does.
 
Fulcanelli writes:

Could well be Meredith's blood then

Not even the prosecution has tried to make that claim.

And yoi'd know because 'you' were in the court room? Well, were you? Ms Nadeau was. Do you also speak Italian? Ms Nadeau does.

Nobody else reported that a bleach receipt was presented during the trial. Nor did other reporters hear Dr. Sollecito's wife yell "f*** you" in the courtroom. Nor has anyone produced a document in which Amanda wrote, "I think it’s possible that Raffaele went to Meredith’s house, raped her and then killed."

Nadeau did indeed attend the trial, and she does indeed speak Italian. Therefore she knows how utterly vapid the prosecution's case is. She doesn't like the fact pattern, so she makes up imaginary facts in her reporting.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
Could well be Meredith's blood then

Not even the prosecution has tried to make that claim.
Click to expand...
Charlie, scratch out "prosecution" and replace it with "defence" and you are making the same argument that Falcanelli has made a thousand times.
 
[quite="Wilkes"]Not even the prosecution has tried to make that claim.[/quote]

They don't claim it because they can't directly link it to Meredith. Doesn't rule it out either, does it?

Wilkes said:
Nobody else reported that a bleach receipt was presented during the trial. Nor did other reporters hear Dr. Sollecito's wife yell "f*** you" in the courtroom. Nor has anyone produced a document in which Amanda wrote, "I think it’s possible that Raffaele went to Meredith’s house, raped her and then killed."
Click to expand...

Ahh...is that you in your own way admitting you weren't there then? As for the 'document' where you have a problem with the claim that Amanda wrote what you said, I've never argued otherwise anyway. And as I recall, her diary never played a part in her unanimous conviction in any case, so it's irrelevant, isn't it?

Wilkes said:
Nadeau did indeed attend the trial, and she does indeed speak Italian. Therefore she knows how utterly vapid the prosecution's case is. She doesn't like the fact pattern, so she makes up imaginary facts in her reporting.
Click to expand...

I see...for what reason or motuve? Explain it to us.
 
Nadeau and bleach

Fulcanelli said:
Two bottles of bleach and a bleach receipt from a couple of days before were found in his apartment (the bleach was in the cupboard under the sink)...police believe that the bleach was used on order to bleach the knife and his trainers. Barbie Nadaeu also reports in her book traces of bleach were found on the knife.
Click to expand...



We know from the Promega technical bulletin I cited far upthread that a 50-fold dilution of commercial bleach is effective at removing unwanted DNA from pipets. We also know from the same source that if the residue from this diluted bleach is not rinsed away thoroughly from one's pipets afterward, it will destroy desired DNA. Therefore, if Nadeau were correct and the knife blade had residual bleach, there could not possibly be DNA on the knife blade at the time it was taken into evidence, and any profile obtained from the knife blade would inevitably be the result of contamination.
 
Last edited:
halides1 said:
We know from the Promega technical bulletin I cited far upthread that a 50-fold dilution of commercial bleach is effective at removing unwanted DNA from pipets. We also know from the same source that if the residue from this diluted bleach is not rinsed away thoroughly from one's pipets afterward, it will destroy desired DNA. Therefore, if Nadeau were correct and the knife blade had residual bleach, there could not possibly be DNA on the knife blade at the time it was taken into evidence, and any profile obtained from the knife blade would inevitably be the result of contamination.
Click to expand...


Are you saying that in your professional opinion it would be impossible for bleach residue to be on one part of the knife, and DNA on another?
 
Fulcanelli writes:

Ahh...is that you in your own way admitting you weren't there then? As for the 'document' where you have a problem with the claim that Amanda wrote what you said, I've never argued otherwise anyway. And as I recall, her diary never played a part in her unanimous conviction in any case, so it's irrelevant, isn't it?

It is relevant to the accuracy and truthfulness of Nadeau's reporting.

I see...for what reason or motuve? Explain it to us.

I don't know why any reporter would misrepresent facts, but I know that Nadeau has done so, and I have given several examples.
 
Wilkes said:
It is relevant to the accuracy and truthfulness of Nadeau's reporting.
Click to expand...

And yet, you've still to explain how it is you would be a better judge on that then I...or anyone else who comments here.

And here's the rub...you have an agenda..accuracy for you is a concept that is subjective and only has a place when it can be made to fit your mind set. A good example is your footprint...it's accurate, because you made it so, you shrank it so it fits what you want it to fit. But it isn't the 'truth'...the truth is that it is not Rudy's print and it isn't possible for it to be. That's only an example, the rest of your campaign is like that...accuracy to a pre-defined set of measurements you have set. Truth is an absolute, accuracy is not. I have no agenda, other then truth. Neither does Ms Nadeau. Accuracy us subjective, truth is not. You care only for the result that is to your liking.
 
Fulcanelli writes:

I have no agenda, other then truth. Neither does Ms Nadeau.

Are you saying then that there is, in truth, a receipt from Sollecito's apartment showing a purchase of bleach at 8:15 a.m. on Nov. 4, 2007, that Amanda did, in truth, write "I think it’s possible that Raffaele went to Meredith’s house, raped her and then killed" and that Dr. Sollecito's wife did, in truth, yell "f*** you" in the courtroom?
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
Fulcanelli writes:

I have no agenda, other then truth. Neither does Ms Nadeau.

Are you saying then that there is, in truth, a receipt from Sollecito's apartment showing a purchase of bleach at 8:15 a.m. on Nov. 4, 2007, that Amanda did, in truth, write "I think it’s possible that Raffaele went to Meredith’s house, raped her and then killed" and that Dr. Sollecito's wife did, in truth, yell "f*** you" in the courtroom?
Click to expand...

Charlie..first of all, I already answered the question in regard to my view on the diary entry (scroll up). Indeed, that entry (and the various interpretations of it) have never formed any aspect of my conclusions on the case and neither did they didn't figure in the trial, so I don't see how they matter much.

In regard to the receipt, I'm saying Barbie Nadeau says there was one and I value her as a source...especially since she was there in person throughout the trial and has far more inside sources and cintacts for data then you...who has only one and we all know who that is.
 
To set the record straight, What I believe is that the Italian police used abusive interrogations techniques to try and break Amanda's story. When Amanda accepted the lies they were feeding her and tried to help by imagining herself in the cottage they wrote what she said as a confession. And then they buried the evidence of their abuse and covered it up with a sham investigation.

Maybe their actions that night don't fall foul of the law but their lies about it afterwards certainly should.

The police were recording everything starting from when the roommates and friends gathered at the police station on the 2nd. We've heard the recording of the wiretap on Amanda's phone played in court. But then all of a sudden when they interrogate Amanda and Raffaele on the 5th/6th there is no recording. This I don't believe. Either they recorded the sessions and buried them or they made a premeditated decision to not record those sessions because they knew what they were about to do. Either way, their integrity about what happened during those sessions is crap. If they can't produce the recordings, I will take Amanda and Raffaele's statements as definitive against the lies of every officer in Italy.
 
For what it's worth; TLC aired an one hour documentary in the US last night "The Trials of Amanda Knox." Apparently it may have differed from the show of the same title that aired in the UK in January. TLC usually re-airs one-off specials like this a few weeks later, but it's apparently available from some streaming sites right now.

It's not going to change anybody's mind and there's nothing in it that's going to be new to any of the significant contributors of this thread (there is a short bit on a (false-positive??) HIV test that I don't recall being discussed here).

It's somewhat "balanced" (the quotes are on purpose) on the evidence and her guilt or innocence, though there are a few interviewees who come off in slightly unflattering light. I daresay this version isn't intended to address that anyway, but instead to note that despite all that's been written and said about Knox (and we even hear Knox's own words read aloud by her best friend), who Amanda Knox is remains basically a mystery.

Is it worth watching for most? I say not. From this thread, Knox's guilt or innocence seems to be an extremely polarizing subject; If you've picked a "side", you're likely to find many a fault with the documentary. If you're unfamiliar with the case, it's unlikely to engage you much as it's pretty lightweight on mystery, human drama or suspense.

I'm a little bit curious about these other versions some of which are apparently very hard on Knox (sayeth Mellas who has some bias of course) and why so many? Anyone?
 
dan O said:
To set the record straight, What I believe is that the Italian police used abusive interrogations techniques to try and break Amanda's story. When Amanda accepted the lies they were feeding her and tried to help by imagining herself in the cottage they wrote what she said as a confession. And then they buried the evidence of their abuse and covered it up with a sham investigation.
Click to expand...

Abusive? Do you mean illegal? Or not? Did the police behave legally or not?

What lies did they feed her? Please tell us.

What abuse and what evidence of it was buried?

You need to answer these questions before it's possible to continue.
 
Fulcanelli writes:

Charlie..first of all, I already answered the question in regard to my view on the diary entry (scroll up). Indeed, that entry (and the various interpretations of it) have never formed any aspect of my conclusions on the case and neither did they didn't figure in the trial, so I don't see how they matter much.

Are you saying that the accuracy of Nadeau's reporting doesn't matter?

In regard to the receipt, I'm saying Barbie Nadeau says there was one and I value her as a source...especially since she was there in person throughout the trial and has far more inside sources and cintacts for data then you...who has only one and we all know who that is.

Are you saying you believe the receipt she describes does exist?
 
Fulcanelli said:
Abusive? Do you mean illegal? Or not? Did the police behave legally or not?

What lies did they feed her? Please tell us.

What abuse and what evidence of it was buried?

You need to answer these questions before it's possible to continue.
Click to expand...

Fulcanelli can't read. We'll have to continue without him.

For those that need help understanding the short answer, my post was made to clarify my position on what the police did that should be illegal. The lies Amanda was fed are in statements made by Amanda such as her prison diary and trial testimony which you can find on PMF. The evidence that was buried was also explicitly listed in the post. Fulcanelli just wants to continue Kermit's rant and for that I shall ignore him.
 
Last edited:
quadraginta said:
Now, now. I never specified what profession. :) He has certainly suggested that his background makes him more qualified than we mere mortals. :confused:

I'm just offering him enough rope ... er, credit. Yeah, that's it. Credit. :p
Click to expand...

As I recall, he has a Ph.d in something...and in his view, a Ph.D in a subject qualifies one as an expert in any subject...like for example, someone with a Ph.D who specialises in vertical gardening say, is automatically an expert in forensics, quantum physics, astrophysics, medicine - everything... sort of...well, 'God'.

No wonder they are fighting so hard to try and take away Dr Stefanoni's Ph.D ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom