Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
stilicho said:
Why wasn't she summoned to Perugia?
Click to expand...

If someone with qualifications makes an argument in a public forum does that then mean their argument is invalidated because they're not summoned by defense lawyers in Italy?

Edit: This is the Houston crime lab you're talking about? http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20140101,00.html. I'm failing to understand what she did that was so bad. I'm not jabbing at you, but if you could just succinctly say exactly what you meant by that, that would be helpful. Specifically this: "She had been involved with the Houston crime lab problems". It was probably discussed earlier, but I don't read every post and probably missed it.
 
Last edited:
Fulcanelli writes:

Were you in the court room Charlie? Do you speak Italian?

I wasn't in the courtroom and I don't speak Italian. But, I have a library of primary source information about this case.

How do you know what Raffaele's step mother shouted?

Don't you think some of the other reporters present would have mentioned such an outburst?

What bearing does what she did or did not shout have on Raffaele's or Amanda's guilt or the case at large?

It matters because you say Nadeau cares only about the truth. I don't agree, and I have provided examples of why I don't agree.

Kermit writes:

During those 46 days, the cottage was sealed, no intrusion was detected, the forensic technicians did not coincide with the days that inspections were carried out at Raffaele's place. In the other DNA thread which was set up, we saw that DNA on dust is not measureable for forensic purposes.

Here are a couple of souvenir photos of the sealed crime scene:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/kitchen_dec_18_07.jpg
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/kitchen_dec_18_07_closeup_of_gloves.jpg

The police were in and out of that place many times between the murder and December 18.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
.... Here are a couple of souvenir photos of the sealed crime scene:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/kitchen_dec_18_07.jpg
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/kitchen_dec_18_07_closeup_of_gloves.jpg

The police were in and out of that place many times between the murder and December 18.
Click to expand...
.
Umm, .... Charlie, you may have noticed that both of those photos which I imagine you posted to insinuate somehow that the police were in and out several times before 18 December 2007, .... well, both photos are dated 18 December 2007.

If you have some photos dated 1 December 2007 or 25 November 2007, maybe that would be more interesting, .... but not even that, because if they were ILE photos with whatever date, we could assume that the police had authorisation to enter the cottage.

The photos you would have to dig up to surprise us would be of some "plumber" friends of the Sollecito clan, holding a late November newspaper and the bra clasp, by the light of a flashlight. But since that didn't happen (and no one, neither Raffaele's nor Amanda's legal teams have said it happened), I guess you won't be surprising us.
 
Last edited:
HumanityBlues said:
If someone with qualifications makes an argument in a public forum does that then mean their argument is invalidated because they're not summoned by defense lawyers in Italy?
Click to expand...
.
No, but it makes you wonder about the author's confidence in the strength of her own conclusions, and the confidence of the persons who engaged said author if these conclusions are published only when it's too late to have any possible entry of these conclusions into the legal process in Italy.

Then the engagers post the conclusions on a website full of infant photos and emotion.

I guess they realised that was the biggest bang they would get out of the Johnson report.
 
Kermit said:
.
No, but it makes you wonder about the author's confidence in the strength of her own conclusions, and the confidence of the persons who engaged said author if these conclusions are published only when it's too late to have any possible entry of these conclusions into the legal process in Italy.
Click to expand...

What does she say that's so invalid? The rest of what you're saying is rhetorical hyperbole that's not very persuasive.

Edit: Oh wait, I forgot. You added an out of context photo of a comment section and post of a news story about a completely different set of forensic circumstances concerning the DNA, so every claim in the report must be invalid. My bad.....
 
Last edited:
Dan O. said:
Need to look up the details and source info though.
Click to expand...
.
Hey Dan O. You're back.

So what happened with slide 17 turned left and slide 66 turned right? You insinuated that we would be blind not to see whatever it was that you knew about (remember all that business about kneeling and praying?).

We're all ears.
 
Kermit writes:

Umm, .... Charlie, you may have noticed that both of those photos which I imagine you posted to insinuate somehow that the police were in and out several times before 18 December 2007, .... well, both photos are dated 18 December 2007.

Who trashed the place and when?
 
HumanityBlues said:
What does she say that's so invalid? The rest of what you're saying is rhetorical hyperbole that's not very persuasive.
Click to expand...
.
I've read scientific papers before. For me to give them some validity, I like to see an introduction explaining what was studied, why, who it was done for, what constraints there were.

Instead, Johnson's introduction consists of a FOA sounding scripted list of statements which are not truths. If her study is introduced with falsehoods or unproven truths, what legs does her document stand on?

Here are phrases from Johnson's inexplicable intro for a supposedly scientific paper:

"Her body was found the next day when her housemate, Amanda Knox, called police after noticing blood in their common bathroom, a broken window, and Meredith’s locked door."
This is what Amanda says. In fact, even according to her own story she didn't call police after noticing blood, but rather she showered amongst it and touched the bloodstains with her hands.

"Before the police arrived, Amanda’s Italian boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, unsuccessfully attempted to force open Meredith’s door."
This is what Raffaele said, there is no evidence it happened this way, and he stopped providing testimony shortly after his arrest.

"Police initially theorized that Amanda, Raffaele and Amanda’s boss, Patrick Lumumba, were involved .... "
The police didn't theorise. Amanda stated that Patrick was the killer. That's why she was found guilty of false accusation.

" a drifter named Rudy Guede was conclusively linked ..."
Why is Rudy called a drifter by FOA and their circles of influence? He grew up in Perugia. He was living in Perugia when the crime occured.

"DNA from a bowel movement left unflushed in one bathroom"
Bacteria destroyed Rudy's DNA in his faeces. "Libby" Johnson should know this. Rudy was identified by skin DNA left on the toilet paper.

"Some months after his arrest he (Guede) changed his story ..."
Why doesn't Johnson refer to the changes and different versions in Amanda's and Raffaele's alibis?

"Although Rudy Guede has been tried and convicted of Meredith’s murder, the prosecution continues to believe that Amanda and Raffaele are complicit in this crime."
This is classic FOA spin. Rudy, Amanda and Raffaele all were charged as the result of the same investigation and the same investigative conclusions. The only difference is that Rudy decided on a fast track trial. Otherwise they could have all three been in the same courtroom.
 
Last edited:
Charlie Wilkes said:
Kermit writes:

Umm, .... Charlie, you may have noticed that both of those photos which I imagine you posted to insinuate somehow that the police were in and out several times before 18 December 2007, .... well, both photos are dated 18 December 2007.

Who trashed the place and when?
Click to expand...

You tell me. You seem to be insinuating that the place was not properly sealed and that intruders entered between the initial inspections following the crime and 18 December 2007 (a part from any authorised access, if any).

I only pointed out that the photos you used as proof in a prior post, are dated 18 December.
 
Kermit said:
.
I've read scientific papers before. For me to give them some validity, I like to see an introduction explaining what was studied, why, who it was done for, what constraints there were.

Instead, Johnson's introduction consists of a FOA sounding scripted list of statements which are not truths. If her study is introduced with falsehoods or unproven truths, what legs does her document stand on?

Here are phrases from Johnson's inexplicable intro for a supposedly scientific paper:

"Her body was found the next day when her housemate, Amanda Knox, called police after noticing blood in their common bathroom, a broken window, and Meredith’s locked door."
This is what Amanda says. In fact, even according to her own story she didn't call police after noticing blood, but rather she showered amongst it and touched the bloodstains with her hands.

"Before the police arrived, Amanda’s Italian boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, unsuccessfully attempted to force open Meredith’s door."
This is what Raffaele said, there is no evidence it happened this way, and he stopped providing testimony shortly after his arrest.

"Police initially theorized that Amanda, Raffaele and Amanda’s boss, Patrick Lumumba, were involved .... "
The police didn't theorise. Amanda stated that Patrick was the killer. That's why she was found guilty of false accusation.

" a drifter named Rudy Guede was conclusively linked ..."
Why is Rudy called a drifter by FOA and their circles of influence? He grew up in Perugia. He was living in Perugia when he was arrested.

"DNA from a bowel movement left unflushed in one bathroom"
Bacteria destroyed Rudy's DNA in his faeces. "Libby" Johnson should know this. Rudy was identified by skin DNA left on the toilet paper.

"Some months after his arrest he (Guede) changed his story ..."
Why doesn't Johnson refer to the changes and different versions in Amanda's and Raffaele's alibis?

"Although Rudy Guede has been tried and convicted of Meredith’s murder, the prosecution continues to believe that Amanda and Raffaele are complicit in this crime."
This is classic FOA spin. Rudy, Amanda and Raffaele all were charged as the result of the same investigation and the same investigative conclusions. The only difference is that Rudy decided on a fast track trial. Otherwise they could have all three been in the same courtroom.
Click to expand...

Every bit you've cited fails to negate the conclusion or the logical (or illogical depending on your opinion) steps taken to deduce it. None of these pieces of background are even close to material to the actual conclusion--that's why they're in the background section. You're just whining that things sound "FOA" but you don't say anything about what invalidates the conclusion. Specifically for the knife and the bra-clasp, Johnson explains how she arrived at such conclusion, and you can see none of the things you complain about are given as reasons to support that conclusion.

What about her conclusion is actually invalid?
 
Last edited:
Kermit makes a claim:
Kermit said:
During those 46 days, the cottage was sealed, no intrusion was detected
Click to expand...

I know this is a lot to ask of Italian authorities; but is there an official record that records when the police were at the house and the condition of the seals on each visit? Is it possible that the front door could have been left open sometime in mid November and the police not know about it?
 
I also don't know what Kermit means by "no intrusion was detected". What does that actually mean?
 
HumanityBlues said:
Every bit you've cited fails to negate the conclusion or the logical (or illogical depending on your opinion) steps taken to deduce it. None of these pieces of background are even close to material to the actual conclusion--that's why they're in the background section. You're just whining that things sound "FOA" but you don't say anything about what invalidates the conclusion. Specifically for the knife and the bra-clasp, Johnson explains how she arrived at such conclusion, and you can see none of the things you complain about are given as reasons to support that conclusion.

What about her conclusion is actually invalid?
Click to expand...

How about the fact that she claims she doesn't have all the files they claim they need to properly assess the DNA evidence?
 
BobTheDonkey said:
How about the fact that she claims she doesn't have all the files they claim they need to properly assess the DNA evidence?
Click to expand...

Just so everyone knows, these are the conclusions we are arguing about:
(1) "No credible scientific evidence has been presented to associate this kitchen knife with the murder of Meredith Kercher." AND

(2) "Handling and movement of this sample has compromised its probative value. The laboratory results for this sample cannot reliably be interpreted to show that the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito was actually on the bra clasp at the time of Meredith Kercher’s murder, and it does not establish how or when this DNA was deposited or transferred.

(3) Main Conclusion: DNA testing results described above could have been obtained even if no crime had occurred. As such, they do not constitute credible evidence that links Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito to the murder of Meredith Kercher.

This is the claim about the .FSA files: "Electronic (.fsa) files that would allow independent analysis of the data have not been disclosed." I believe the inference is the .fsa files are necessary for the proponent of the DNA's validity, and since these were not disclosed according to the writers, this is a factor against it being credible scientific evidence.

If Kermit is so disturbed by the alleged "FOA" talk, or whatever you want to refer to it as, we can agree as a group to take out what you believe to be ultimately prejudicial or nonfactual and submit back to the science forum to see what they think.
 
Last edited:
HumanityBlues said:
I also don't know what Kermit means by "no intrusion was detected". What does that actually mean?
Click to expand...

Does it help to look at his original claim for this point: (from PMF posted Jul 10, 2009)
neither "Cops" nor anyone else visited the cottage during 40 days (or so). During the first several days after the crime there were a number of inspections, all by forensic inspectors in "space suits" and with latex gloves and protective footwear. Then the cottage was sealed and no one entered until the 18th of December (I believe it was the 18th). Then, once again the forensic inspectors in their forensic outfits entered the sealed cottage.
Click to expand...


This is of course a fabrication to bolster the claim that contamination was impossible. There were several people that entered the cottage that were not forensics inspectors and were not wearing "space suits". Amanda for one and the other two roommates were escorted in on the 3rd only donning the protective footwear. Self portraits of the videographer and photographer show no protective suit.

There appears to be no mention of what happened mid November.
 
HumanityBlues said:
Just so everyone knows, these are the conclusions we are arguing about:
(1) "No credible scientific evidence has been presented to associate this kitchen knife with the murder of Meredith Kercher." AND

(2) "Handling and movement of this sample has compromised its probative value. The laboratory results for this sample cannot reliably be interpreted to show that the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito was actually on the bra clasp at the time of Meredith Kercher’s murder, and it does not establish how or when this DNA was deposited or transferred.

(3) Main Conclusion: DNA testing results described above could have been obtained even if no crime had occurred. As such, they do not constitute credible evidence that links Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito to the murder of Meredith Kercher.

This is the claim about the .FSA files: "Electronic (.fsa) files that would allow independent analysis of the data have not been disclosed." I believe the inference is the .fsa files are necessary for the proponent of the DNA's validity, and since these were not disclosed according to the writers, this is a factor against it being credible scientific evidence.

If Kermit is so disturbed by the alleged "FOA" talk, or whatever you want to refer to it as, we can agree as a group to take out what you believe to be ultimately prejudicial or nonfactual and submit back to the science forum to see what they think.
Click to expand...

What DNA evidence is there linking Rudy to the crime that couldn't have been innocently left?
 
noise

Kermit said:
-
- Comments on the other thread point out that any "contribution" of partial DNA information from dust would be simply a contribution to a low level of noise.
Click to expand...

You are misusing the word "noise." Noise arises in a spectroscopic experiment from things such as dark current. Calling the dust profiles noise shows how little you have understood what you read. Do your homework: read the article on DNA from dust I cited on the other thread, and you will see that the peaks they observed are stronger in RFUs than Raffaele's weak profile.
 
halides1 said:
You are misusing the word "noise." Noise arises in a spectroscopic experiment from things such as dark current. Calling the dust profiles noise shows how little you have understood what you read. Do your homework: read the article on DNA from dust I cited on the other thread, and you will see that the peaks they observed are stronger in RFUs than Raffaele's weak profile.
Click to expand...

So, we have dust that just so happens to match Raffaele's profile?

And yet that dust is on nothing else in the room that was tested. NOTHING.

That makes perfect sense for a contamination charge. And the reason the Defense didn't push this during the trial? I mean, they could have easily flown Dr Johnson or, well, even you Chris, over to Perugia to testify to just how crappy the DNA evidence supposedly is. And yet...and yet, they didn't. Maybe there's a reason they didn't...
 
double standard

stilicho said:
Remember that a big part of this thread, if not the entire forum, regards the media interpretation of the Perugia murder case.
Click to expand...

If you believe this, then you cannot reasonably criticize Charlie Wilkes for writing, "It's an excerpt from the book, which I've already read. If she was listening to me she might have addressed some of the points that I believe are factual errors - the bleach receipt, the Albanian and Greek supposedly "bedded" by Amanda, and the obscenity supposedly shouted in the courtroom by Raffaele's stepmother." Yet in message 6062 you wrote, "None of them are even relevant." Your logic and your grammar both need work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom