Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
halides1 said:
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
Click to expand...

The manufacturers must have been great indeed if they designed a machine that if it went beyond the settings and the machine 'made' DNA that wasn't there. The machine was a DNA reader, not maker.

Also, there is only your assertion that Dr Stefanoni took the threshold beyond the limits set by the manufacturer, rather then those set by the lab itself. How does a machine read beyond a limit it's not designed to read? If it was not, she would not have been able to read the sample...no?
 
Bruce,

I think you may have gotten the wrong end of the stick of, or I was less than clear in, a previous post of mine.

I don't think it is possible, with a good level of knowledge of the case to hold a position that both Amanda's family, PR firm etc. etc. are being honest, open and plain dealing and simultaneously hold a position that the Italian court is honest, open and plain dealing. I intended to draw a distinction between those groups and you and Falcanelli. They have access to the deep information of the case, you (I think), me, Falcanelli, Halides and others do not. We may simply be misinformed, the family, PR firm and courts have access to the deep information and are not misinformed. They know what Filomena said about the state of her room because they have access to her statements. I certainly haven't discarded as hopeless the idea that both you and Falcanelli are sincere.

In PMF's defence though, given the level of access they claim to have they have made a very great amount of undisputed direct information about the case public - see the 'in their own words' section for starters. Is there very much that they claim to have and/or use as authority for their statements which they don't make public? A few unpleasant bits from the autopsy perhaps... Given the level of access FOA/Dr Waterbury/the PR firm claim to have and are presumed to have, the amount of direct information about the case that they have made public has always seemed to me to be pretty underwhelming.
 
Last edited:
Lol. Ok then. I thought passing the "Evidence of God's Existence" thread was a benchmark in itself. Can you link me to the Deeper Than Primes thread? I usually just peruse the science and general skepticism sections.
 
And I thought the Evidence for why we know thread was long... :eek:
Starting a new thread might have one big pro though: It would get rid of the ridiculous thread title. "The Murder of Meredith Kercher" seems entirely more appropriate.
 
shuttlt said:
Bruce,

I think you may have gotten the wrong end of the stick of, or I was less than clear in, a previous post of mine.

I don't think it is possible, with a good level of knowledge of the case to hold a position that both Amanda's family, PR firm etc. etc. are being honest, open and plain dealing and simultaneously hold a position that the Italian court is honest, open and plain dealing. I intended to draw a distinction between those groups and you and Falcanelli. They have access to the deep information of the case, you (I think), me, Falcanelli, Halides and others do not. We may simply be misinformed, the family, PR firm and courts have access to the deep information and are not misinformed. They know what Filomena said about the state of her room because they have access to her statements. I certainly haven't discarded as hopeless the idea that both you and Falcanelli are sincere.

In PMF's defence though, given the level of access they claim to have they have made a very great amount of undisputed direct information about the case public - see the 'in their own words' section for starters. Is there very much that they claim to have and/or use as authority for their statements which they don't make public? A few unpleasant bits from the autopsy perhaps... Given the level of access FOA/Dr Waterbury/the PR firm claim to have and are presumed to have, the amount of direct information about the case that they have made public has always seemed to me to be pretty underwhelming.
Click to expand...

I understand your position. We have had this discussion before. I am not misinformed. If you chose to obtain your information from PMF, I cannot help you.
 
Last week or so on the board I saw some discussion about a transcript of Amanda Knox's police interrogation.

It seemed to suggest that it was agreed by all now that: 1) there is a transcript, and 2) it has been made public.

Is that correct? Confirmation by a reliable source would be appreciated. If it is correct, I expect that Amanda Knox's version of what transpired will generally be corroborated.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
I understand your position. We have had this discussion before. I am not misinformed. If you chose to obtain your information from PMF, I cannot help you.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I had thought you had thought I was saying that you were not honest. As for PMF, are you saying that the transcripts on PMF are not accurate? If so, please could you give some specific examples, if not I don't see what your argument is. PMF is not my source of information. I am not relying on information from PMF that is only backed by PMF. The information I rely on from PMF can be tracked back to source. Some bits have turned out to track back to errors, mistranslations and misunderstandings - the running washing machine say - but that has been a very small minority. Michael can sometimes make statements for which he does not link to the source, but I don't think I rely on such statements for my understanding of the case.

One of the things I have been trying to do on your site, and on Perugia-Shock, is track back the claims and assertions of your camp back to original sources in order that I can have the same degree of confidence in them. In my experience this has been far harder than on PMF. Most posters just haven't been interested in where the facts come from.
 
lane99 said:
Last week or so on the board I saw some discussion about a transcript of Amanda Knox's police interrogation.

It seemed to suggest that it was agreed by all now that: 1) there is a transcript, and 2) it has been made public.

Is that correct? Confirmation by a reliable source would be appreciated. If it is correct, I expect that Amanda Knox's version of what transpired will generally be corroborated.
Click to expand...
Bruce says he has a copy of the document Amanda signed at 1:45am. I haven't heard of, or seen anybody else saying they have a copy. Doubtless if Bruce has it others do. Charlie probably does. If any of the PMF crowd had it I would expect it to be translated and posted which I don't think it is.
 
Last edited:
*tries to make an argument from the number of times he has posted in this thread and totally fails*

Ok, enough with the thread jokes. Let's get back to topic.
 
Kestrel said:
Amanda did go back to the cottage the next morning to shower and change clothes. Assume she had grabbed her cell phone charger, returned to Raffaele's flat and the two of them then head for Gubbio. When does Amanda get a chance to charge her cell phone?
Click to expand...

After she returned to Raffaele's apartment she testified that they ate breakfast, talked and she mopped the kitchen. They were in no rush. She could have charged the phone during that time (20-30 minutes?). There is no evidence that they were going to run out of his apartment the minute she got back. She intended to mop.
 
HumanityBlues said:
Tit for tat. My only point is that the lack of stealing the laptop proves absolutely nothing and is completely subjective and irrelevant...The laptop not being stolen isn't probative of anything; it's significance goes no further than mere unsubstantiated speculation.
Click to expand...

It's well said. Not probative, in particular, of making this a "staged" burglary. For multiple reasons which have been mentioned several times throughout this thread.

Anyone who can't get over the hump, and continues to insist that the laptop would have been taken if this was a "genuine" robbery, I'll refer to an interesting case which was reported on tv the other day:

A man was murdered during the course of a botched robbery. And not only did the perpetrator not take the victim's laptop, he did not even take the money the victim had in his hand (preparing to turn it over to the gun wielding robber) at the moment he (the victim) was shot.

The victim was eventually found laying on the floor- murdered- with his arm outstretched and a wad of bills in his hand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom