Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[RoseMontague]

I believe Amanda staged the break-in Bob. Just because I think hanging that picture was both wrong AND stupid does not mean I think the police planted evidence or "cheated".

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I believe Amanda staged the break-in Bob. Just because I think hanging that picture was both wrong AND stupid does not mean I think the police planted evidence or "cheated".

But that's exactly my point. Just because the picture was hung does not mean the evidence was faked. I don't believe it even shows a bias on the part of the Lab techs. My $0.02

 

[RoseMontague]

But that's exactly my point. Just because the picture was hung does not mean the evidence was faked. I don't believe it even shows a bias on the part of the Lab techs. My $0.02

No worries, Bob. I understand you are convinced. However, those that may be undecided (including some that may judge this appeal), may look at this "picture Problem" differently.

 

[Kestrel]

This is incorrect Kestrel. You are quoting from the part where the defence make their case.

It's rather clear at this point to all but the most committed PMF trolls that you have been caught bluffing. I called your bluff and provided page numbers and quotes to back it up.

Go ahead and try to prove your point. To do so, you need to give us page numbers and a quote that supports your claim. But it's going to be hard considering that the word "stardust" shows on the two pages I already mentioned. And that section of the report doesn't support your claim.

 

[Moss]

No worries, Bob. I understand you are convinced. However, those that may be undecided (including some that may judge this appeal), may look at this "picture Problem" differently.

The pertinent question then should be IMO: if there was bias (and after mulling it over in my head for a while it actually looks a bit like it), did it have any impact on the case?
I think the answer is no. But given the fact that I got it wrong who processed the forensic evidence, the impact of my opinion is potentially negligible anyway.

Edit: Damn you Kestrel for posting faster than me!

 

[BobTheDonkey]

No worries, Bob. I understand you are convinced. However, those that may be undecided (including some that may judge this appeal), may look at this "picture Problem" differently.

I wouldn't say I'm "convinced", I just believe the evidence points very strongly to Amanda and Raffaele being involved.

I have no problem accepting valid arguments against this evidence, however - those are few and far between and mostly consist of attempts to brush away the evidence through obfuscation.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The problem you get in many cases is where LE becomes so convinced and focused on the "target" that they ignore other possibilities and other leads. I think the discussion here is questioning the relative strength or weakness of the case evidence. I have not hidden my opinion on other websites that I think Amanda and Rafaelle are hiding something and have not been truthful. However, I think putting this picture up was (to use Bob's word), unprofessional. The police and investigators need to have an open mind while they are building their case. From a PR standpoint it is also counter productive. The questions now coming up seem to be hinting that the police may have made the evidence fit their target. This picture doesn't help disprove that picture, if you get the picture.

Only, this was not the case. They released Patrick, they pursued and arrested Rudy Guede, they interviewed multiple witnesses, they examined all of the forensic evidence at the cottage. And it must also be noted, the defence teams also performed their own investigations in order to exculpate their clients.

 

[Fulcanelli]

It's rather clear at this point to all but the most committed PMF trolls that you have been caught bluffing. I called your bluff and provided page numbers and quotes to back it up.

Go ahead and try to prove your point. To do so, you need to give us page numbers and a quote that supports your claim. But it's going to be hard considering that the word "stardust" shows on the two pages I already mentioned. And that section of the report doesn't support your claim.

We shall see when it's published, won't we?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

labs should be objective

Let's be honest, there was sufficient reason to suspect Amanda as being at least a party to the murder. Can you expect the Lab to not be biased?

BobTheDonkey,

That is exactly what I do expect. Forensic scientists are scientists, not police (not that tunnel-vision is desirable for them, either). Scientists attempt to falsify hypotheses, and when they fail to do so, they accept them. A friend of mine tells his students, “Don’t fall in love with your own ideas.” That’s very good advice, IMHO. From a site I gave a few days ago, Norah Rudin and Keith Inman wrote, “Forensic scientists should aggressively pose alternate hypotheses. Hypothesis testing and comparison is the very core of science.”

Chris

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for civility et. al.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

BobTheDonkey,

That is exactly what I do expect. Forensic scientists are scientists, not police (not that tunnel-vision is desirable for them, either). Scientists attempt to falsify hypotheses, and when they fail to do so, they accept them. A friend of mine tells his students, “Don’t fall in love with your own ideas.” That’s very good advice, IMHO. From a site I gave a few days ago, Norah Rudin and Keith Inman wrote, “Forensic scientists should aggressively pose alternate hypotheses. Hypothesis testing and comparison is the very core of science.”

Chris

And your evidence of bias by the Lab is the photo? That's it? That's not worth much, Chris. That's my point.

 

[RoseMontague]

The pertinent question then should be IMO: if there was bias (and after mulling it over in my head for a while it actually looks a bit like it), did it have any impact on the case?
I think the answer is no. But given the fact that I got it wrong who processed the forensic evidence, the impact of my opinion is potentially negligible anyway.

Edit: Damn you Kestrel for posting faster than me!

I'm not certain it matters if the answer is yes or no. Others may perceive it as yes. This has been a media trial from the beginning and the timing of this story just a couple of days prior to the filing of the appeal is more than a coincidence. Smart move on somebody's part.

It would not surprise me if mention of this is in that 200 or so page appeal.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

It's pretty comical that the phones have been such a hot topic today. Massei says that it was a casual murder, not premeditated.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

It's pretty comical that the phones have been such a hot topic today. Massei says that it was a casual murder, not premeditated.

Turning off their phones with the intent of terrorizing Meredith does not make the murder premeditated. The terrorizing of Meredith was likely premeditated (knife, phones), the murder was likely an accident that occurred during the terrorizing.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I'm not certain it matters if the answer is yes or no. Others may perceive it as yes. This has been a media trial from the beginning and the timing of this story just a couple of days prior to the filing of the appeal is more than a coincidence. Smart move on somebody's part.

It would not surprise me if mention of this is in that 200 or so page appeal.

Media trial? Hardly. The media may be holding their own trial, as they do in all high profile cases, but the trial itself is in the court room and has nothing to do with the media.

Why would mention of the photo be in the 200 page appeal? It sounds as though you are implying the police broke Italian law or their own code of conduct. If they have not, then it has no grounds to be in the appeal. The appeal must be based on the law and on the evidence.

 

[Fulcanelli]

It's pretty comical that the phones have been such a hot topic today. Massei says that it was a casual murder, not premeditated.

Nobody has said the murder is premeditated. Your problem is that you see only in black and white and cannot discern shades of grey.

 

[Moss]

I'm not certain it matters if the answer is yes or no. Others may perceive it as yes. This has been a media trial from the beginning and the timing of this story just a couple of days prior to the filing of the appeal is more than a coincidence. Smart move on somebody's part.

It would not surprise me if mention of this is in that 200 or so page appeal.

It may not be particularly relevant to the media or the perception of the case in public, but at least for me it helps to sort out what is FUD and what is fact. And who is more likely to be reliable.
I wonder if that was some kind of test balloon to keep the public interested in the case. Let's hope their appeal is more substantial.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited response to modded post.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

outline

And your evidence of bias by the Lab is the photo? That's it? That's not worth much, Chris. That's my point.

BobTheDonkey,

I just have time for one last post today, and it will have to be an outline for others to fill in if they wish. One difference between RG vs. AK and RS is that AK and RS were already in custody by the time the forensics were being done but the forensics identified RG as being present in Meredith’s room without any other information. The lack of DNA reference samples or reference footprints from Laura or Filomena does not indicate that the forensics team was trying to form a complete picture, but quit when they had evidence that implicated RG or AK. Stefanoni used a lower threshold than the manufacturer had set when she analyzed the knife, and no evidence exists that she analyzed the other samples with the same threshold (she moved the goalposts, then moved them back). Did the forensics team follow up each luminol test with tests that are more specific for blood? Comodi acknowledged that they did not. I will have to leave it there for now.

As for the photo, its importance is for each of us to decide for himself for herself.

Chris

 

[BobTheDonkey]

BobTheDonkey,

I just have time for one last post today, and it will have to be an outline for others to fill in if they wish. One difference between RG vs. AK and RS is that AK and RS were already in custody by the time the forensics were being done but the forensics identified RG as being present in Meredith’s room without any other information. The lack of DNA reference samples or reference footprints from Laura or Filomena does not indicate that the forensics team was trying to form a complete picture, but quit when they had evidence that implicated RG or AK. Stefanoni used a lower threshold than the manufacturer had set when she analyzed the knife, and no evidence exists that she analyzed the other samples with the same threshold (she moved the goalposts, then moved them back). Did the forensics team follow up each luminol test with tests that are more specific for blood? Comodi acknowledged that they did not. I will have to leave it there for now.

As for the photo, its importance is for each of us to decide for himself for herself.

Chris

I thought it was indeed Meredith's DNA on the knife, but it got there through contamination? Still can't make up your mind on that, Chris?

Scrambling to find anything you can find that may throw any doubt on the evidence serves to throw no doubt on the evidence. See, here's how you're playing it:

"Well, it's not Meredith's DNA. But even if it was, it got there through contamination."

In other words, you're simply setting yourself up to shift the goalposts (again) (or is that No-True-Meredith's-Contact (similar to no-true-scotsman)).