Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Bruce Fischer]

.
How do you think we all identified the Dixan inaccuracy? The Preston-middle-of-the-night inaccuracy? The Mignini-was-the-prosecutor-of-Monster-of-Florence inaccuracy?

Fulcanelli has stated that we will not read my site. He made the unreasonable request that I post the entire site on this board so that he wouldn't have to visit.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

You have zero understanding of Italian law. Suspects are not made so because of police mind set, they CANNOT be. Under Italian law, EVIDENCE must be offered to make someone a suspect. If they had made her a suspect, no matter what they 'thought', without evidence that would have been ILLEGAL. Italian Law - Evidence makes a Suspect, not suspicion!

We have gone over this many times. This is part of Amanda's appeal. We will have to wait and see how it goes. We will never agree on this. I may not be an expert in Italian law but this point will be addressed on appeal so it must have some bearing on Italian law.

You are apparently not an expert on Italian law either.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Raffaele's profile on the clasp is not intense

You're talking about the knife here right, not the clasp?

No, his profile on the clasp is roughly 200 RFU, above the threshold recommended by Garofano, for example, but not at all strong, either.

 

[shuttlt]

Supernaught,

When you say the prosecution claimed she had slept with Rudy, you aren't meaning the whole "sex game gone wrong" on the night of the murder are you?

 

[Supernaut]

"Why "gag"?

Because it was one of the more disgusting insinuations made at the outset, in v.1.0 of the prosecutions' "narratives". "

Actually, it wasn't "insinuated" but *asserted* by (presumably) Giobbi or Mignini that Guede had been "one of Knox's lovers" before Merediths murder.

Perhaps they actually believed it and were hoping she would name him when they fed her lie about her being HIV+.

Either way - just despicable.

Anyone who now denies this is manifestly ..... being disingenuous

 

[shuttlt]

We have gone over this many times. This is part of Amanda's appeal. We will have to wait and see how it goes. We will never agree on this. I may not be an expert in Italian law but this point will be addressed on appeal so it must have some bearing on Italian law.

You are apparently not an expert on Italian law either.

Bruce,

so what is your source on Italian law when you assert that the interrogation was illegal? If you don't know Italian law you must have gotten this idea from somewhere. Even if you are just taking somebodies word for it, it must be someone. Do you have a quote? Has somebody emailed you an explanation? Is this something you have picked up from postings on blogs, or from CBS?

 

[Kermit]

It may be that it was suggested in the back end of 2007. So was a lot of stuff. I've been following the case on PMF and here sence December last year and I don't recall anybody making this claim since, or in any of the old postings I've slogged through. If it was ever an issue, it is a dead one that has been gathering dust for long some time.

.
The only thing that I can think of is that Supernaut may be referring to a statement that maybe Amanda made in an email well before the crime about an attractive black man she had met (if Amanda actually ever made such a statement).

Maybe Supernaut is extrapolating that to say that surely someone somewhere will have picked up on that and may have thought that Amanda had had Rudy as a lover.

Supernaut?! Do you have that reference?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Once again, you cloud the truth about PMF. It has been mentioned numerous times on PMF that Amanda was arrested in Seattle. Peggy or yourself made no attempt to correct this. Please do not tell me that the site isn't monitored at all times. I singed in to PMF and Peggy banned me in 10 minutes. You never corrected the error. Why? Because it looked bad for Amanda and you like that.

Cite it then Bruce. At 'best', all you'll be able to find is a poster on the public message board saying so, giving 'their personal opinion'. You will not find PMF saying so. Posters are posters on PMF, they are not PMF. Just as we are posters on JREF, but we are not JREF. I have stated here the break-in was staged...is JREF then stating the break-in was staged? No. However, when people state things on PMF that are known not to be true, they are 9 times out of 10 corrected and indeed, one of the Administrators actually posted a request to members to always point out any mistakes, even if that mistake is by a Moderator.

Your site is a different matter entirely. It is 'your' site made up of headline articles and declarations and assertions mostly made by you and the rest held up by you as the gospel truth.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Sure. If you're on a jury, at some point you have to stop thinking and analysing and ask yourself, "OK, am I confortable enough that this person is guilty to send them to prison for X years". I've done that. But that's not what I'm doing here. I don't want to argue with you about whether she is guilty or innocent. It's too big and complicated a question.


You believe the police had formally made her a suspect, or they informally suspected her?


Because they had formally made her a suspect, or because they informally suspected her?


Doubtless.


I'm sure she was scared.


Could you at least tell me whether, in relation to the questions I've bolded, you are meaning suspect in the formal sense, or that she was informally a suspect?


Yes, we do disagree, but it is a more complicated question. Perhaps when other questions have been dealt with....


Bruce, nobody is asking for Amanda, or her mum to assert that she knew for a fact that Patrick was involved. What Amanda and her mother didn't do is assert for a fact that any statements she made about witnessing him murder Meredith were false and had no basis in fact. That may well not have released Patrick immediately as the police already thought she was a liar, but that Patricks involvement had been partially corroborated by the text.

I think we can all agree that she wasn't formally made a suspect. I believe that that she should have been. I believe that she was considered a suspect very early on and the police never formally made her a suspect because a lawyer would have gotten in their way. It was bad immoral police work. They scared the hell out of a young woman and their tactics brought them incorrect information.

If Amanda was honestly guilty why would she ever agree that she was even in the apartment? She signed a prepared document that described a vision suggested to her by the police that she was in the kitchen.

If she was actually involved do you really think she would have went along with this?

Try to apply logic at some point.


This point is addressed in Amanda's appeal. We will see what the new judge has to say about it. Until then we can agree to disagree.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Profazio and the knife

I don't know about the bleach thing, there certainly are quotes from the police in late 2007 to back it up:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1569485/Meredith-suspects-DNA-found-on-knife.html

Quite what evidence this was based on isn't clear. It could be the "smell of bleach" claims. Clearly this also looks like a rather strong statement about what bleach does and does not remove in the light of past discussions.

As far as I'm concerned it's in the realm of maybe until the Motivations says otherwise.

Shuttit,
Thanks. From the Telegraph article, “Giacinto Profazio, the head of the Flying Squad in Perugia, Italy, confirmed that there were traces of Miss Kercher's DNA at the tip of the blade, and traces of Knox's DNA near the handle. 'It is not blood, but the DNA is very important,' he said. Knox, 20, from Seattle, Sollecito, and Patrick Diya Lumumba, a 37-year-old Congolese bar owner, are all in prison pending charges of sexual assault and murder. Police believe that although the suspects washed the knife clean of any blood, they were unable to remove the DNA. It is possible that Knox left her traces on the knife while washing it. Mr Profazio added: 'The knife had been cleaned with bleach, which removes blood, but not DNA.' It is understood the kitchen knife may have come from the house that Knox and Miss Kercher shared in Perugia.”

Here is something on bleach and forensic DNA from Promega, Corp (http://www.promega.com/profiles/802/ProfilesinDNA_802_11.pdf). “Wash all surfaces and rinse pipette barrels with a dilute bleach solution (2% to 3%). Be sure to rinse any equipment that comes into contact with reagents well, since residual bleach can cause allele or locus dropout.” In other words if you do not thoroughly rinse away a 50-fold dilution of bleach after you have cleaned your equipment, this dilution of dilute bleach can still damage DNA for forensic purposes.

His quote and the copious references to the use of bleach as a decontaminant in DNA labs demonstrate that Mr. Profazio knows not of what he speaks. Bleach is better than hydrochloric acid at destroying DNA. If Stefanoni testified that bleach was used (my recollection is that she implied the use of bleach), then I would like to know what evidence was used to reach this conclusion. Sorry, this will have to be my last post for a while.

Halides1

 

[Supernaut]

Supernaught,

When you say the prosecution claimed she had slept with Rudy, you aren't meaning the whole "sex game gone wrong" on the night of the murder are you?

See below your post.

Do you seriously expect me or anyone else to believe you *don't remember* Mignini's/Giobbi's contention, made in some of the earlier of their endless "leaks" and "press releases", that Knox and Guede had been "lovers"?

 

[shuttlt]

Actually, it wasn't "insinuated" but *asserted* by (presumably) Giobbi or Mignini that Guede had been "one of Knox's lovers" before Merediths murder.

Could you link to a newspaper article claiming this?

Anyone who now denies this is manifestly ..... being disingenuous

If it's so manifest, then it should be easy to find I quote. I've looked and I haven't found one. Perhaps I need to look harder, but again, if it's so obvious that it's undeniable, you should be able to provide a cite without much trouble.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Bruce,

so what is your source on Italian law when you assert that the interrogation was illegal? If you don't know Italian law you must have gotten this idea from somewhere. Even if you are just taking somebodies word for it, it must be someone. Do you have a quote? Has somebody emailed you an explanation? Is this something you have picked up from postings on blogs, or from CBS?

The Italian supreme court. If you are a suspect you must be offered an attorney.

The police treated her as a suspect. They did not formally make her a suspect so that they could avoid dealing with an attorney.

This will be addressed on appeal. I am not making this up. This is listed in Amanda's appeal.

We will have to wait and see how it goes on appeal. The new judge will decide.

 

[Supernaut]

Don't you worry - I'll find cites.

I have limited internet time right now, but hopefully by tomorrow.

 

[Kermit]

I think we can all agree that she wasn't formally made a suspect. I believe that that she should have been. I believe that she was considered a suspect very early on and the police never formally made her a suspect because a lawyer would have gotten in their way. It was bad immoral police work.

.
Um... Bruce, for it to have been "bad immoral police work", the police must be shown to have been in possession of evidence which directly linked Amanda to the crime, yet they withheld knowledge of owning that evidence from Amanda, avoiding having to change her status from witness to suspect.

Are you aware of any such evidence? Consult your secret sources.

 

[shuttlt]

See below your post.

Do you seriously expect me or anyone else to believe you *don't remember* Mignini's/Giobbi's contention, made in some of the earlier of their endless "leaks" and "press releases", that Knox and Guede had been "lovers"?

If there are so many press releases that claim this, post a cite. I am not claiming that such press releases weren't made. I am unaware of them though. They have certainly not been seen as important during my time being interested in the case.

 

[Fulcanelli]

We have gone over this many times. This is part of Amanda's appeal. We will have to wait and see how it goes. We will never agree on this. I may not be an expert in Italian law but this point will be addressed on appeal so it must have some bearing on Italian law.

You are apparently not an expert on Italian law either.

We won't agree because you do not understand Italian law. And understand this...the defence are not appealing it on the basis of legal grounds (she should legally have been a suspect when she actually was legally a witness'...instead, they are offering it as an 'argument' to 'explain' Amanda's false accusation of Patrick and self incrimination, e.g. 'They had her as a witness, but really in their minds she was a suspect and they therefore treated her as a suspect. It was this harsh treatment that caused her to falsely accuse another and incriminate herself'. They can't make a legal claim, because they don't have a legal case. If they try and make it they will fail, but that's not why they are making it, they know that will fail, but they will make it simply to get the opportunity to impress upon the appeal judge that she was 'under pressure'.

Comprehend, under Italian law Amanda was not a suspect until police made her one. They could not make her one without evidence. As soon as they got evidence, they indeed made her a suspect. The law was complied with fully on this particular matter.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Cite it then Bruce. At 'best', all you'll be able to find is a poster on the public message board saying so, giving 'their personal opinion'. You will not find PMF saying so. Posters are posters on PMF, they are not PMF. Just as we are posters on JREF, but we are not JREF. I have stated here the break-in was staged...is JREF then stating the break-in was staged? No. However, when people state things on PMF that are known not to be true, they are 9 times out of 10 corrected and indeed, one of the Administrators actually posted a request to members to always point out any mistakes, even if that mistake is by a Moderator.

Your site is a different matter entirely. It is 'your' site made up of headline articles and declarations and assertions mostly made by you and the rest held up by you as the gospel truth.

If there is no concern about the public board on PMF then why was I banned in 10 minutes?

My site is backed up by facts. So far this board has pointed out 1 very small error that has no bearing whatsoever on anything. The second point being made about Douglas Preston is being looked into.

You claim that a list of the inaccuracies on my site would overwhelm all of us. So far we have one proven inaccuracy about soap. I guess you are overwhelmed pretty easily.

 

[Kermit]

My site is backed up by facts. So far this board has pointed out 1 very small error that has no bearing whatsoever on anything. The second point being made about Douglas Preston is being looked into.

.
Don't you believe Douglas Preston's own article in The Atlantic?

Also, don't forget about the third error which has been pointed out to you, the one about how Mignini "took the case" with regard to the Monster of Florence.

Then, there are all the other errors. But before we advance, do clean up the Mignini comment.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The Italian supreme court. If you are a suspect you must be offered an attorney.

The police treated her as a suspect. They did not formally make her a suspect so that they could avoid dealing with an attorney.

This will be addressed on appeal. I am not making this up. This is listed in Amanda's appeal.

We will have to wait and see how it goes on appeal. The new judge will decide.

There is no such thing in Italy as being 'treated as a suspect', it is purely and solely a 'legal' designation. They can treat a witness like they suspect them as much as they want. A suspect is not defined by how they are considered or how they are treated. It is defined by a formal process and that process has legal requirements that must be provided, evidence or self incrimination. They cannot make someone a suspect without that. Once they have that, they 'have' to make them a suspect. Just in the same way, once Amanda gave her formal testimony against Patrick, he had to be made a formal suspect which meant he had to be arrested...no legal choice.

In fact, there is no such term as 'suspect' or 'witness', it is a term we simply use so that Anglos can understand it, but they are actually very different in Italy, as are the criteria.