Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

Why would I bother contacting Ms Nadeau? Almost every quote I've seen from her book concerns 'facts' which are either either fabricated or twisted beyond recognition. The only thing she and I agree on is that the appeals court will throw out the knife evidence. But really, she's obviously a tabloid BS artist of the highest order. I have no need to verify it by contacting her. Come on, Fulcanelli - seven samples were taken from the knife, six negative, one positive for DNA but negative for blood. Barbie interprets that as 'seven pieces of flesh were found on the knife'. You surely can't have much respect for her accuracy?

Why NOT contact her? You are the one accusing of her wrongdoing, intentional wrongdoing no less. Are you afraid that if you contacted her she would be able to offer up a defence? I also note all journalists that have covered this case have made mistakes, and no wonder, it's a huge, long and complex case with many different figures involved. Some however have been deliberately lax or/and biased, especially amongst the majority of the the US media. It is therefore interesting although not at all unexpected, that you single only Ms Nadeau out....because of course, we all know exactly 'why' that is.

Actually, in regard to the knife evidence in appeal, I don't agree either with Ms Nadeau or you. But even were that to be the case, it would make little difference to the conviction.

I agree that books can certainly add something to our perspective on the case. I'm particularly interested in reading Mark Waterbury's book, for example. However, when the book is as tabloid-esque as Barbie's is, and full of inaccuracies and fabrications, I think its use in that instance is pretty limited.

Hey, if you think the input from the lunatic fringe has validity, knock yourself out. I'm sure his book will be a 'real work of art'.

As for the hair/blood on the window, it was reported in Frank's blog and I think there is also a reference to it in the judge's report, though they weren't able to get a genetic result from it. I'm going on the Google translation (apologies in advance) so I'd welcome any correction if it's inaccurate:

'Lot's' of things are reported on Frank's. They need filtering through a tea strainer

Google translate? There you go

 

[Fulcanelli]

By the way, I will say this about the window...and Filomena's room. This part of the report has now been fully translated and having read it I can say this...Knox supporters really won't like it

 

[shuttlt]

By the way, I will say this about the window...and Filomena's room. This part of the report has now been fully translated and having read it I can say this...Knox supporters really won't like it

I can't wait for the report much longer! I feel like a kid on a long car journey after the hundredth game of I-spy.

As for whether the Knox supporters like the report. It's a four hundred+ page argument that she is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I think it's a given that they won't like it very much at all.

 

[shuttlt]

By the way, there are claims going around that "the Florence court banned [Mignini] from holding public office", but that this has been put off pending the result of his appeal. It doesn't sound very likely to me that this detail of his sentence would sit on the shelf for months and all of a sudden now be discovered.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20001171-504083.html

 

[Kermit]

"News" reporters are one thing ... CBS 48 Hours propagandists are another

By the way, there are claims going around that "the Florence court banned [Mignini] from holding public office", but that this has been put off pending the result of his appeal. It doesn't sound very likely to me that this detail of his sentence would sit on the shelf for months and all of a sudden now be discovered.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20001171-504083.html

.
Hi Shuttit, the problem with the supposed "news" item, is that it's written by Doug Longhini, an investigator / producer for 48 Hours, the pro-Knox propaganda program which featured Paul Ciolino (who if he's not a card-carrying member of FOA, appears regularly at their love-ins. He's also an active member of The Innocence Project, which may be the link with Elizabeth Johnson)

Ciolino said on CBS: "Amanda and Raffaele never laid eyes on Rudy, never met with him and never hung out with him... didn't know him."

This was a week AFTER Amanda admitted in court that she knew Rudy, had partied with him (or been to a party), and smoked marijuana with him.

So ...... I won't believe much that the "48 Hours" pro-Knox activists say about anyone related to this case, especially The Evil Prosecutor.

Just one observation for the pro-Knox camp: even if Mignini were banned for life, all of the evidence in this case would stand. This trial could be repeated with the same result.

Mignini is irrelevant to this case since the trial started over a year ago.

 

[Dan O.]

I think he's right, actually. The two shapes look like someone's feet or knees - my money would be on feet wearing those white shoe cover things. Not necessarily the photographer though since, as you say, it's an odd angle for a photograph. It could just be a person standing in shot (or operating a fixed camera on a tripod?).

My first thought was the photographer. But the self portraits of the photographer shows he is dressed in black and not one of those white suits.

In luminal testing there needs to be 2 persons involved. The forensics tech applying the luminal and interpreting the resulting florescence and a separate cameraman to record the evidence. The Italian teams appear to have a third person taking notes. The technician would be close to the evidence, probably down on one knee and the cameraman standing to the side and photographing from above.

Their is nothing else in that hall except the drying rack where the girls aired their clean laundry. This is seen in the earliest frames of the police video at 15:10:45 (camera time) and a later in the still photo looking down the hall.

 

[Dan O.]

Perhaps consent is not required in Italy when you are being held in prison?

http://www.iss.it/binary/publ/cont/ANN_10_01_07.pdf

The main aspects of the safeguarding of privacy
with regard to HIV testing, which are stipulated in
Law no. 135 of 1990, can be summarised as fol-
lows:
-
HIV testing is a voluntary act for which it is nec-
essary to obtain the explicit consent of the per-
son being tested, who must be informed of the
signi
icance of both the test and the result;
-
...
-
for incarcerated persons, testing can only be per-
formed with the consent of the individual;

 

[Amazer]

http://www.iss.it/binary/publ/cont/ANN_10_01_07.pdf

The main aspects of the safeguarding of privacy
with regard to HIV testing, which are stipulated in
Law no. 135 of 1990, can be summarised as fol-
lows:
-
HIV testing is a voluntary act for which it is nec-
essary to obtain the explicit consent of the per-
son being tested, who must be informed of the
signi
icance of both the test and the result;
-
...
-
for incarcerated persons, testing can only be per-
formed with the consent of the individual;

Great that we got that cleared up... Amanda consented to being tested.

 

[Dan O.]

Great that we got that cleared up... Amanda consented to being tested.

I showed that consent was required. That is not the same as a showing that consent was given.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I showed that consent was required. That is not the same as a showing that consent was given.

So...then you have a link showing concern that Amanda did not give consent? Or you're just looking for another chance to poke at the Perugia Police without anything to back you up, regardless of the fact that this red herring has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the evidence against Amanda/Raffaele?

 

[Moss]

While that is interesting (and makes me curious how exactly how that is handled here), do we have something that indicates that she did not give consent?

Edit: Why am I asking that? Because unless the question has been raised before and gotten an official answer we have no way to answer that question. Why is that? Because none of us posters here has access to Amanda Knox's medical records including consent forms. And even if we had, there would still be the problem of privacy.
So unless this has been an issue in court or the media before the most likely answer is that she has given consent.

 

[lector]

Originally Posted by Fulcanelli
Well, if the FOA ever publish Amanda's diary in full then we'll know, won't we? So, when's that going to happen?

Are you still talking about Barbie's claims that Amanda slept with seven men in Italy here? If so, you know she's wrong about that...don't you? The full list was published on PMF not long ago, and it included Amanda's American ex-boyfriend DJ. Only two of the names are obviously Italian:

Kyle
James
Ross
DJ
Ellis
Daniele
Raffaele

I'm puzzled as to why you're still suggesting the seven men could have all been in Italy, when posts on PMF make it clear that's not the case. Did you just not see them?

Yeah, really, what about this? Can we at least lay this one detail to rest? I too thought it was the consensus, on PMF & just about anywhere, that no more than 3 of these guys were during Amanda's Italian sojourn. (It looks to me like there's reason to think that the list is chronological.) What reason is there to think otherwise?

And please note that I was questioning Nadeau's tone & vocabulary ("sexual escapades", "at least seven"), which betrays something less than an objective attitude towards Amanda, as much as her accuracy. I'm not ready to throw all of Nadeau's reporting onto the trash heap, but I can't ignore such a flagrant foray into sensationalism.

 

[Kestrel]

While that is interesting (and makes me curious how exactly how that is handled here), do we have something that indicates that she did not give consent?

Edit: Why am I asking that? Because unless the question has been raised before and gotten an official answer we have no way to answer that question. Why is that? Because none of us posters here has access to Amanda Knox's medical records including consent forms. And even if we had, there would still be the problem of privacy.
So unless this has been an issue in court or the media before the most likely answer is that she has given consent.

A more interesting question is did Amanda sign a release allowing publication of the results of the AIDS test, the names of her sexual partners and the contents of her diary?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

A more interesting question is did Amanda sign a release allowing publication of the results of the AIDS test, the names of her sexual partners and the contents of her diary?

Oh, you mean the information that her family released to the press/internet?

 

[Moss]

A more interesting question is did Amanda sign a release allowing publication of the results of the AIDS test, the names of her sexual partners and the contents of her diary?

Good question that I can't answer. Am I wrong in that these three issues are basically the question whether she has consented to the release of the contents of her diary? If I understood correctly the whole HIV test and sex partners topic is based on that.

 

[Amazer]

A more interesting question is did Amanda sign a release allowing publication of the results of the AIDS test, the names of her sexual partners and the contents of her diary?

I suspect that Amanda (or her lawyers) would have brought it up in court if this information was publicized without her consent. So did she?

I still don't see how this is in anyway going to help with proving her innocence though. Care to enlighten me?

 

[Fulcanelli]

A more interesting question is did Amanda sign a release allowing publication of the results of the AIDS test, the names of her sexual partners and the contents of her diary?

I guess Amanda's family and the FOA decided they didn't need a signed release form from her for them to leak the story of the HIV test and the list to the media.

 

[Kestrel]

Oh, you mean the information that her family released to the press/internet?

If your daughter was accused of a crime, would you release the fact that she had a positive AIDS test and the names of her intimate partners to the National Enquirer?

Please explain why you believe this would help your daughter's case.

 

[shuttlt]

I was just reading back through old newspaper articles on the case. The diary came out in June 08 just after Mignini handed over a 10,469 page dossier over to the defence. I just looked up the cost of professional translation - WOW! £100 per thousand words.
http://www.inrealtimetranslation.com/prices.htm#
Other sites seem to be similar +/- 50%.

Say 300 words per page, that's £314,070 just to get it properly translated into English.

To get all the material from the lab, plus trial transcripts etc etc etc... must be well over half a million pounds. I guess you could get a cheapo translation and cut it back to £250,000.

I only mention this in the context of the ongoing question of whether non-Italian speakers can have meaningful access to ALL the evidence. My money is now on only a small subset of the evidence being available in English.

 

[Fulcanelli]

If your daughter was accused of a crime, would you release the fact that she had a positive AIDS test and the names of her intimate partners to the National Enquirer?

Please explain why you believe this would help your daughter's case.

I already explained this to you Kestrel. For them it wasn't how you describe because when they leaked the story, the positive HIV test had already been followed up with a test that showed she was HIV negative and the family were also emphasising this. And that's the point...Amanda was negative but had been told she was positive and that was the purpose of the story they were selling...that the Italians had deliberately lied to her by telling her she had AIDS when she didn't. It was for propaganda purposes to make the Italians look bad.

Is there something about this that's difficult for you to grasp?