Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Chris_Halkides]

intensity of the signals

BobTheDonkey,

The open letter gives approximately 200 RFU as the intensity, and I would suppose that PMF has a copy of the electropherogram, though I have not looked for it there. I have seen the electropherogram a while ago, and a few peaks are a little higher than 200 RFU, but not much more. On the other hand, Meredith's peaks are 1200-1500 RFU, IIRC. Thanks for the tip about the red arrow; I had never noticed it until just now.

halides1

 

[Dan O.]

No, no squirming... and pretty poor form to take a post from hours earlier to try and score some cheap points.

And the crime scene... The cottage itself, the immediate area below the window of Philomena.

Are you deliberately limiting your definition of the crime scene because I had already indicated that the stick and rocks were somewhat away from the window? (It may be away from the window but it's not out of the way)

It doesn't matter at all if no stick was used to open those outside shutters. But I get it Dan. You are so desperate to portray the police, the prosecution and the courts in bad light that you will use anything, no matter how trivial or unrelated, to try and stick it to them.

It doesn't bother you that the prosecution would make up testimony to counter defense arguments? They lied about there being no stick. What's to say they weren't lying about finding no glass below the window.

 

[Amazer]

Are you deliberately limiting your definition of the crime scene because I had already indicated that the stick and rocks were somewhat away from the window? (It may be away from the window but it's not out of the way)

No, just limiting it to those areas where it's clear that evidence relevant to the case can or might be found. Since no stick was found near the window, there is no reason to include the 'forest' in the crime scene.

It doesn't bother you that the prosecution would make up testimony to counter defense arguments? They lied about there being no stick. What's to say they weren't lying about finding no glass below the window.

You have yet to provide evidence about a stick actually being on the crime scene. Till you do so, i have no reason to think that the prosecution made up testimony. Or even that they lied.

You talk a lot, imagine even more... but as always fail rather spectacularly at backing up your 'thoughts' with anything that resembles evidence. Till you start providing some evidence for your claims I'm forced to completely discount your claims.

 

[Dan O.]

No, just limiting it to those areas where it's clear that evidence relevant to the case can or might be found. Since no stick was found near the window, there is no reason to include the 'forest' in the crime scene.

I should have know that statement would be to subtile for this forum. "They can't see the forest for the trees". The stick is not in the forest. It's in a "forest" of other sticks.

You have yet to provide evidence about a stick actually being on the crime scene. Till you do so, i have no reason to think that the prosecution made up testimony. Or even that they lied.

I'm not asking you to judge them without evidence. That's their game. I'm asking for you to commit that the existence of a stick at the crime scene of sufficient length to reach the shutter would be proof that someone in that chain I posted earlier is lying.

You talk a lot, imagine even more... but as always fail rather spectacularly at backing up your 'thoughts' with anything that resembles evidence. Till you start providing some evidence for your claims I'm forced to completely discount your claims.

I'm fully prepared to back my claim once the goal posts are firmly set in place.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

.
What you write sounds like something to get all upset about, Bruce, but in fact even the enigmatic sci-fi fiction author Douglas Preston describes his encounter with Mignini in different terms and at a different time of day than you do:

"On February 22, as I was heading out for a morning coffee, my cell phone rang. A man speaking Italian informed me that he was a police detective and that he needed to see me—immediately ....

The next day, I was ushered into a pleasant office in the Procura della Repubblica, just outside the ancient city walls of Perugia. Present were one of the detectives from the previous day, a small and very tense captain of police with orange hair, a stenographer, and Giuliano Mignini, sitting behind a desk."
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/07/the-monster-of-florence/4981/6/?

You're not turning out to be a very believable scribe, what with your Dixan screwup. And there's much more incorrect or false information on Injusticeinperugia.org.

Kermit, why do you put so much importance on small details that have no bearing whatsoever on the case? We will hear about the detergent until the end of time. It was a very small point that has already been edited. It had absolutely no bearing on the case and means nothing. It would be the same as pointing out a grammatical error in an article and using that one error to discredit the entire article.

Your "perfect Match" with the shoe prints argument was a weak attempt to prove me wrong. You and I both know that the photographs I presented to you prove that those prints belong to Guede. You tried to deflect this known truth with sarcastic comments about Amanda's vibrator.

Not one person on this forum that believes Amanda is guilty corrected you. It was pretty clear for me at that point what this forum was all about.

Your post here is another lame attempt to discredit me. Watch the first 30 seconds of this video and you will see that my statements about Douglas Preston are 100% accurate.

http://www.cbs.com/thunder/player/thunder.php?pid=9_rfoC6qJocWS7XQxEAyX6jqfuB_ZpQ3


You attempt to discredit my website because of a reference to soap that I made that was incorrect. I acknowledged the mistake and I corrected it. It had absolutely no bearing on the case at all. The correction simply strengthened my websites message. You see Kermit, I want the site to be factual. The truth will prevail in this case. The truth will eventually correct this injustice.

Go ahead and keep repeating this useless information over and over again. The PMF crowd will continue to cheer you on and you can feel good about yourself. Adults in the real world see right through your childish games.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Maybe we could simplify the exercise and just tell Bruce Fisher what on his site isn't either deceptive or false.

For starters, I think his name is Bruce Fisher.

You keep posting false comments about me on PMF. This shows your true character. I just proved Kermit to be completely incorrect in my previous post. I am sure you will remain silent and not acknowledge that fact on this board. Then you will run back to PMF and write that Kermit is slapping me around on JREF.

You have no credibility. All you have is sarcasm.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Turn it 90⁰ and see.

Hopefully you will acknowledge that Kermit was incorrect with his comments in regard to Douglas Preston. I have a feeling that your true character will be exposed when you fail to acknowledge that your friend Kermit is incorrect.

 

[Amazer]

I should have know that statement would be to subtile for this forum. "They can't see the forest for the trees". The stick is not in the forest. It's in a "forest" of other sticks.
Evidence.....

I'm not asking you to judge them without evidence. That's their game. I'm asking for you to commit that the existence of a stick at the crime scene of sufficient length to reach the shutter would be proof that someone in that chain I posted earlier is lying.

You are asking me to judge without evidence. Show the evidence... see if it holds up... then I'll judge.


I'm fully prepared to back my claim once the goal posts are firmly set in place.

We'll see about you backing up your claim... when you post evidence.

See, my goal posts firmly set. Now be a good boy and post that damn evidence that you claim to have.

Mr Conductor says "while you've not arrived at "Rule 0 Station" you are on your way...please have your ticket in hand."

To put another way...consider this a friendly remember to keep the conversation civil & polite.

Posted By: Locknar

 

[tsig]

Hopefully you will acknowledge that Kermit was incorrect with his comments in regard to Douglas Preston. I have a feeling that your true character will be exposed when you fail to acknowledge that your friend Kermit is incorrect.

You're swing kinda wild here. My remark had nothing to do with you and i have no interest in your private feud with Kermit who is just another poster here and no more known to me than you are.

Your dig about my "true character" is rude and completely uncalled for.

 

[Fiona]

Hopefully you will acknowledge that Kermit was incorrect with his comments in regard to Douglas Preston. I have a feeling that your true character will be exposed when you fail to acknowledge that your friend Kermit is incorrect.

Your statement about Doug Preston is tosh. The sensational "spooky" footage might have given you a clue as to the fact that that is not serious journalism, even if it fits with what you would like to believe.

I am not saying that your site is riddled with inaccuracies because you are dishonest in any way, Bruce Fisher. But whatever the reason, your site is riddled with inaccuracies. And they are not trivial, because, just like the prosecution, you are using accrestion of detail to build a narrative that is of much more significance than the sum of the details themselves. Therefore it matters that the detail is accurate.

Preston was not arrested and he did not go to the prosecutors office in the middle of the night. If you listen to your own link you will notice he says nothing whatsoever about the "middle of the night". That is because he never claimed this: I do not know if he willingly colluded with giving a false impression or whether his words have been misused without his consent. If the latter he should sue: but he won't IMO because the publicity is handy.

But soon afterward, Preston's cell phone rang. A judge overseeing the monster case wanted to talk to him immediately. Preston went to his office.

Preston: The judge nodded to the stenographer, she pressed a button on her computer, and here's my voice. And here I am talking to Mario Spezi.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19333195/ns/dateline_nbc-crime_reports/page/6/

and see Kermit's quote also.

 

[Matthew Best]

I do not know if he willingly colluded with giving a false impression or whether his words have been misused without his consent. If the latter he should sue:

Really? What sort of damages do you think he would get?

 

[Fiona]

Well in view of the fact that he already established himself as an idiot, probably not a lot now you come to mention it

 

[lector]

I'm fully prepared to back my claim once the goal posts are firmly set in place.

O Dan, you're such a tease. Won't you please, just this once, whip out your stick & show it to us?

Then, while we're all dazzled by how big and long it is, maybe we'll finally be ready to receive the answer to The Riddle Of The Rotated Photographs.

We've been waiting patiently for days on end, y'know, we've really been very good about it.

 

[michellesings]

I am fairly sure that in most investigations, all of the knives would have been taken, and in both apartments. I agree with you, however, that of course, the knife taken looked the most logical.
What are your thoughts as to why one of the knives would have been washed and put away, and the "other" one not...
Not sure why there were no clothes, shoes, and the other knife missing, and this one kept, washed, and put away.

 

[michellesings]

Is there a picture...

 

[michellesings]

Does it 'matter' what they 'declared'? They obviously hadn't closed the case for they continued the investigation for over 6 months.

I thought that this time was mainly going through different theories from what evidence they did, or did not have...?

 

[Kermit]

You attempt to discredit my website because of a reference to soap that I made that was incorrect. I acknowledged the mistake and I corrected it. It had absolutely no bearing on the case at all ....

Adults in the real world see right through your childish games ....

I just proved Kermit to be completely incorrect in my previous post. I am sure you will remain silent and not acknowledge that fact on this board ....

You have no credibility ....

.
Well, where do we start?

First of all, if you publish on your website details (whether true or false) which have "absolutely no bearing on the case at all", well, why publish them to begin with?

Secondly, my advice is that self-righteousness and vehemence is always a bad combination, especially when you're wrong. Your "proof" that I was wrong is this CBS tape:
http://www.cbs.com/thunder/player/tv/video.php?pid=9_rfoC6qJocWS7XQxEAyX6jqfuB_ZpQ3

I should warn you that anything tainted with the CBS name in this case, especially when Paul Ciolino (Paul the Private Eye) or Peter Van Sant appear, is not a solid or unbiased reference.

Ciolino is the one who continued insisting on national television that Amanda had "never set eyes" on Rudy, one week after she had testified in court that they had smoked marijuana together at the party downstairs.

Anyway, I've learned on JREF to always read the links provided by the contrary opinion. Often, those links do not support, but rather go against the opinion of those who provide them (good example: Hilades and his DNA-on-household-dust as a good transfer mechanism for Raffaele's complete DNA profile to the bra clasp).

So, I clicked on Bruce's CBS link, and what do I see? If you do it, don't think you made a mistake if you think it's the start of the extended version of the Thriller video. Instead of Michael Jackson strutting on stage and doing a moon dance to drive the ecstacy of his fans, we see the following:



Okay, so Paul the Private Eye is Bruce's documentary reference for stating on his infamous site Injusticeinperugica.org: "Douglas Preston was interrogated by Mignini. He was brought in during the middle of the night. He was accused of being an accessory to murder involving the Monster of Florence case."

Rather than Paul the Private Eye, Bruce should have quoted Preston himself concerning the moment and conditions of this questioning:

"The next day, I was ushered into a pleasant office in the Procura della Repubblica, just outside the ancient city walls of Perugia .... I had dressed smartly—Italians judge harshly in such matters—and I had a folded copy of the International Herald Tribune under my arm as a prop.

Mignini was a small man of indeterminate middle age, well groomed, with a fleshy face and thinning hair. His voice was calm and pleasant and he addressed me with elaborate courtesy ...

His questions were gentle, posed almost apologetically. The stenographer typed the questions, and my answers, into her computer .... The questions went on like this for an hour, and I was starting to feel reassured. I even had a glimmer of hope that I might get out in time to join my wife and children for lunch at a nearby restaurant, which came highly recommended in the guidebooks."

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/07/the-monster-of-florence/4981/6/?

 

[shuttlt]

To the best of my knowledge, the knife they tested was the only good cutting knife in Raffaele's kitchen.

Thanks for the straightforward answer Charlie.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I am fairly sure that in most investigations, all of the knives would have been taken, and in both apartments. I agree with you, however, that of course, the knife taken looked the most logical.
What are your thoughts as to why one of the knives would have been washed and put away, and the "other" one not...
Not sure why there were no clothes, shoes, and the other knife missing, and this one kept, washed, and put away.

My understanding is that the knife actually belonged to Raffaele's Landlord - i.e. was a furnished apartment with cutlery. Rather than have to pick up a new knife and/or risk the knife being found missing during the investigation, it was cleaned (scrubbed and bleached) and returned to the drawer.

 

[shuttlt]

I am not saying that your site is riddled with inaccuracies because you are dishonest in any way, Bruce Fisher. But whatever the reason, your site is riddled with inaccuracies. And they are not trivial, because, just like the prosecution, you are using accrestion of detail to build a narrative that is of much more significance than the sum of the details themselves. Therefore it matters that the detail is accurate.

I wanted to second Fiona's point about the importance of the details. Without the details what would be left of the Illegal Interrogation article? You have, I think, dismissed my criticism of the duration as details, and similarly about the claims about her being denied food and water. If these things are unimportant, remove them. All you have done so far is remove the specific figure of 14 hours, but left in all of the adjectives implying that it was long. Yet we know that the interrogation was three hours long at the absolute longest, and she was put under pressure for 1 hour 45 minutes at the absolute longest.

The two most important details to me in the Illegal Interrogation article are the following:

1. That she confessed "Suffering from extreme exhaustion with no food nor water, after a long and grueling interrogation".
You don't seem willing to defend the position that the interrogation was long, that she was exhausted, or that she was denied food and water to any degree beyond that which we all suffer between meals. She herself says that that evening she came to the police station immediately after dinner.

2. "The interrogation of Amanda Knox was illegal."
I don't know why, but you haven't engaged with any of my requests to defend your claim that the interrogation was illegal. Your article makes it sound like you think it was illegal because she wasn't interrogated as a formally declared suspect, even though informally the police suspected her. One can criticise Al-Fakh Yugoudh's style, but his/her explanation about Italian law is currently being met with silence on your blog.

Once details like this are stripped out, the article becomes very thin indeed.