Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Supernaut]

While I was looking for cites for the assertions made via the pressin late 2007, that Guede was "one of seven sexual partners Knox had in three months in Italy", one of the first results in google was this, on page 149 of this thread;

Originally Posted by halides1
To all,

From the Guardian about her testimony
guardian.co.uk/world/2009...r-murder-trial
“She had written about her seven lovers in her prison diary only after she was mistakenly told she was HIV positive ¬following a prison blood test.
‘I was crying, thinking I cannot have children,’ she said of the two weeks before she was told she was negative.”

From the Guardian by John Hooper
guardian.co.uk/world/2009...of-amanda-knox
“So many were taken aback to learn that, by the time she was arrested at the age of 20, Knox had had sex with seven men. They were less outraged by how this information was obtained: Knox was told in prison she was HIV-positive and asked to write a list of her lovers. Before she was told that a mistake had been made, the list was passed to investigators, one of whom passed it to a journalist.”

From the Seattle Times
seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...aknox17m0.html
“Most recently, media reports in Europe, based on leaked information, said Knox admitted having sex with seven men in less than two months in Italy. But the stories were wrong: Knox, told by a prison doctor she had tested positive for HIV, actually had listed all her life's sex partners. ‘Please oh please let it not be true,’ she wrote in her diary. ‘I don't want to die.’ It turned out to be a false positive.”

From Newsweek, Barbie Nadeau
newsweek.com/id/146214
“And by her own account in a prison diary leaked to the media, she details her sexual escapades with at least seven men she'd been with in her three months in Italy before her arrest. She even wrote that she might have HIV and then she uses a process of elimination to narrow down who might have given it to her.”

I have spoken with a couple of doctors about HIV testing. One said that a positive ELISA test should not be reported until confirmed by the Western. Another said that a positive ELISA should only be reported before knowing the results of the Western under rare circumstances and then only with counseling.

I stand by my previous comment on the matter.

Chris

You quote newspaper articles, ones fed by claims made by the FOA. Not a single one actually interviewed Amanda.

Her own words in her diary explains how it went down. She makes no mention of being 'asked' to write a list. And her list was made in her diary, not the place to make it if you planned to give it to the authorities...she made the list for herself. Nobody asked her to make it and her diary wasn't taken in order to obtain the list, since it was standard procedure that all diaries were taken (Raffaele's and Rudy's were also taken).

And it was Amanda's lawyers that were giving out her diary to the press. That's where Barbie Nadeau got her copy. And Frank Sfarzo got his from the family. It was Frank Sfarzo who published the list on Perugia Shock. Can you quote any other news article that published the list?

Your claims of conspiracies are therefore hollow.

Wow, what a piece of work you are.

pre·var·i·cate (pr-vr-kt)
intr.v. pre·var·i·cat·ed, pre·var·i·cat·ing, pre·var·i·cates
To stray from or evade the truth; equivocate. See Synonyms at lie.

 

[Kermit]

It would appear the "speculation" that Guede was "one of Knox's lovers" disappeared as quickly as it started.

In other words, you don't have a link or reference.

It was at about the time the media was dutifully "informing" us about Knox's SEVEN sexual partners in the 3 months she was in Italy.

I got my copy of Amanda's diary with description of the Magnificent Seven from Judge Heavey's post on Anne Bremner's site.

I'm not going to spend hours trying to prove it, but this "report" is from 23/11/07, covering Guede's arrest (I'm not allowed to post links yet);

thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23422527-new-meredith-suspect-i-had-sex-with-her-on-the-night-she-died-but-then-fought-the-real-killer.do

"The judge also said Guede "had a strong attraction" to Meredith's American housemate, Amanda Knox, 20, who is also being held over her murder".

Why would Matteini have said that, do you think? Perhaps hoping inferences would be made?

Your logic "if A then B" is more than flawed, if I understand the insinuation you're trying to make. Are you saying this?:

1) Matteini says Guede is attracted to Amanda
2) Matteini hopes news outlets pick up on her hint and publish that Amanda and Rudy had slept together
3) After the scandal dies down, the newspapers surreptitiously delete all references to the issue that they had ever made (this must be what Dan O calls "moving the goalposts")

This logic makes as much sense as Bruce's socratic line of thought: "Many dish detergents in Italy contain bleach. So it would not be unreasonable to say that any bleach smell or possible residue could have come from soap."
The problem is that he hasn't replied to my request for an example of an Italian (or even non-Italian) household brand of dishwashing liquid with odourous bleach.

 

[Fulcanelli]

If Amanda or Raffaele had blood soaked clothing or shoes, what happened to these items?

We know that Rudy disposed of the clothing and shoes he was wearing on the night of the murder.

Ehh...no he didn't. He disposed of them in Germany, well over a week later.

 

[Supernaut]

pre·var·i·cate (pr-vr-kt)
intr.v. pre·var·i·cat·ed, pre·var·i·cat·ing, pre·var·i·cates
To stray from or evade the truth; equivocate. See Synonyms at lie.

Edit >> that's for you "kermit".

 

[shuttlt]

Ehh...no he didn't. He disposed of them in Germany, well over a week later.

Surely the "on the night of the murder" could be referring to when the clothes were worn, rather than when they were thrown away?

 

[Kermit]

pre·var·i·cate (pr-vr-kt)
intr.v. pre·var·i·cat·ed, pre·var·i·cat·ing, pre·var·i·cates
To stray from or evade the truth; equivocate. See Synonyms at lie.

Edit >> that's for you "kermit".

.
Don't be so coy. Please tell me where I strayed:

- by saying that I owe my copy of Amanda's Seven to Judge Heavey?
- by saying that you have no link for whatever you're upset about (a supposed rumour of Amanda sleeping with Rudy)?
- by attempting to get Bruce to clean up his site?
- by asking Bruce to name an Italian dish detergent which smells of bleach?

 

[Amazer]

While I was looking for cites for the assertions made via the pressin late 2007, that Guede was "one of seven sexual partners Knox had in three months in Italy", one of the first results in google was this, on page 149 of this thread;

Originally Posted by halides1
To all,

From the Guardian about her testimony
guardian.co.uk/world/2009...r-murder-trial
“She had written about her seven lovers in her prison diary only after she was mistakenly told she was HIV positive ¬following a prison blood test.
‘I was crying, thinking I cannot have children,’ she said of the two weeks before she was told she was negative.”

From the Guardian by John Hooper
guardian.co.uk/world/2009...of-amanda-knox
“So many were taken aback to learn that, by the time she was arrested at the age of 20, Knox had had sex with seven men. They were less outraged by how this information was obtained: Knox was told in prison she was HIV-positive and asked to write a list of her lovers. Before she was told that a mistake had been made, the list was passed to investigators, one of whom passed it to a journalist.”

From the Seattle Times
seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...aknox17m0.html
“Most recently, media reports in Europe, based on leaked information, said Knox admitted having sex with seven men in less than two months in Italy. But the stories were wrong: Knox, told by a prison doctor she had tested positive for HIV, actually had listed all her life's sex partners. ‘Please oh please let it not be true,’ she wrote in her diary. ‘I don't want to die.’ It turned out to be a false positive.”

From Newsweek, Barbie Nadeau
newsweek.com/id/146214
“And by her own account in a prison diary leaked to the media, she details her sexual escapades with at least seven men she'd been with in her three months in Italy before her arrest. She even wrote that she might have HIV and then she uses a process of elimination to narrow down who might have given it to her.”

I have spoken with a couple of doctors about HIV testing. One said that a positive ELISA test should not be reported until confirmed by the Western. Another said that a positive ELISA should only be reported before knowing the results of the Western under rare circumstances and then only with counseling.

I stand by my previous comment on the matter.

Chris




Wow, what a piece of work you are.

pre·var·i·cate (pr-vr-kt)
intr.v. pre·var·i·cat·ed, pre·var·i·cat·ing, pre·var·i·cates
To stray from or evade the truth; equivocate. See Synonyms at lie.

And do you see the name Rudy mentioned anywhere?

 

[tsig]

This is Preston talking to Candace Dempsey.

"When I lived in Italy, I was the target of an investigation by Mignini in which he tapped my cell phone, bugged my writing partner's car and hauled me down to Perugia for an interrogation," Preston says. "He accused me of obstruction of justice, perjury, planting false evidence and even being an accessory to murder. I am still under indictment in Italy for a string of secret crimes."

Whether you agree with him or not, the time of the interrogation is of little importance.

Deletes

 

[tsig]

Who cares!

This is what Preston says. This is what he says happened. It looks bad for Mignini. The time doesn't matter.

"When I lived in Italy, I was the target of an investigation by Mignini in which he tapped my cell phone, bugged my writing partner's car and hauled me down to Perugia for an interrogation," Preston says. "He accused me of obstruction of justice, perjury, planting false evidence and even being an accessory to murder. I am still under indictment in Italy for a string of secret crimes."

Is there any evidence of the truth of that statement?

 

[tsig]

.
You have no conflict of sources.

In one corner you have Paul "Private Eye" Ciolino, the one and only person on this whole Earth who believes has stated that "Douglas Preston got picked up in the middle of the night, and he got dragged down to police headquarters".

And in the other corner you have Preston himself who describes being requested to go down to Perugia (a couple of hours away) from one day to the next, and the next day going with his wife and family, and hoping to be out of the questioning in time to have lunch with them in a nice restaurant.

WHICH ONE are you going to believe? I don't understand (and neither do the rest of the many readers here) why you hesitate to recognise that Ciolino's words are falsehoods.

Are you worried that such a recognition may set a trend for other statements by Paul "Private Eye" Ciolino? Like him stating that Amanda had "never set eyes" on Rudy? I'll get you more examples if you want.

FOA has stated on their website that your own website "is part of a wave of activism that continues to build in support of Amanda and Raffaele. This wave is spontaneous, it is not under the control of any individual or agency ..." Yet the wave of supposed spontaneous activism is somewhat lacking in solid facts.
======================

Maybe the mystery as to why you don't update your site is simpler, and more human focussed on your own pride. Maybe one correction of facts per day is all that you can emotionally handle. Don't worry, there'll be more with each passing day.

However, before we get into more erroneous data, let's let you correct the time of day when Preston "got dragged down to police headquarters" first. You could also eliminate the insinuation of being physically "dragged down" by stating something like: "when Preston went voluntarily to Perugia for a prearranged late morning questioning session as a witness with Prosecutor Mignini".

That's much cleaner and more honest.

And also lacking in spontaneity.

 

[tsig]

So how does the time of the interrogation change anything at all? How is the outcome different? Like I said 50 times already, Once I confirm the time, I will edit it.

How much more convincing will the mans' own words be than the man's own words?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

bleach and the knife

Aaaaand. There we have it. Bald faced liar.






In regards to the RFU vs pg (measurement terms, the both, btw), I was confused about the difference in measurements and given the crosstalk, misremembered Fulcanelli's unit of measure (pg) as what had more recently been discussed by Fiona, et al (RFU). However, that oversight on my part does not, in any way, mean my point then (nor this one now) is less than valid. My mistake was an honest one - and in the scheme of the point I was making, a mistake that mattered little.

You, however, have not even admitted that you made a mistake. You have attempted to wiggle your way out of a conclusion you, for whatever reason, do not want to face - and this time have been caught lying to do so. At one point, I found this habit of yours merely disingenuous. Following your most recent comment regarding your position on the bleaching of the knife, I now have no compunctions about calling you a liar.

Note that this part may be considered an ad-hominem attack. However, I am doing nothing more than pointing out the duplicity you, yourself, have exhibited here. I have shown, time and again, that your arguments are invalid on their own fallacies - and will continue to do so.

BobTheDonkey,

My statement in message #8704 was that neither the signers of the open letter nor I said specifically that bleach was used to clean the knife. I further stated that the signers did say that cleaning the knife would probably removed DNA before blood. I also stated that if bleach had been used on the knife, that the claim of finding DNA would be even more dubious. You have documented what the signers of the letter said and what Dr. Johnson said alone. I also summarized Dr. Johnson’s position in message #3769 (page 95). You have also recalled some of my posts on bleach and DNA. The reason for writing them was that there were reports suggesting that bleach might have been used to clean the knife (I cited one myself, quoting Colonel Garofano from Darkness Descending in one of my comments).

I never said the knife was cleaned with bleach, having no clear evidence, one way or another. None of the messages you quoted says otherwise, despite what you think. Note the use of the word “If” in message #2635 (page 66). In message #4595 (page 115) I wrote, “Also, do you have a cite for their being a smell of bleach on the knife? I think that is one of those rumors that did not pan out.” With this question I was probing for the existence of evidence that the knife had been cleaned with bleach, not being sure.

You have called me a bald faced liar once, and I indicated where your thinking had gone wrong. You repeated these words, and I am now showing you where your research into what I wrote has gone wrong. You were mixed up about the timeline of the photograph in Rome. You got the units of DNA measurement wrong (a less trivial mistake, BTW, than you realize). Correcting your mistakes costs time, which owing to some unfortunate circumstances, I no longer have. I do, however, expect you to apologize for behavior that is way, way out of line.

Halides1

 

[christianahannah]

I have posted here very few times and have also posted very few times at Chris's blog, "View From Wilmington" so I realize my words may not hold much weight, however, I don't view Chris as a liar.

I will agree he is a strong advocate for Knox and Sollecito, whether he believes in their innocence, I am not sure. He has questions concerning the investigation, evidence gathering, testing, subsequent results, etc., however, he has been nothing but respectful with regards to opposing viewpoints on his blog. I am one of those opposing viewpoints.

Though I don't post much here or at his blog, I lean more towards the evidence showing Knox's and Sollecito's guilt. I am interested in why others have an opposing view and their reasons for support of that view.

There are strong advocates for one side or the other posting on this forum. I don't think that makes either side liars, just people who are very firm in their belief of what happened that night.

I will be most glad when the motivations is made available publicly. Maybe that will answer some of questions from both sides. Until then, I hope to glean more information from the various analysis and views concerning this case from those who post here.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

.
Don't be so coy. Please tell me where I strayed:

- by saying that I owe my copy of Amanda's Seven to Judge Heavey?
- by saying that you have no link for whatever you're upset about (a supposed rumour of Amanda sleeping with Rudy)?
- by attempting to get Bruce to clean up his site?
- by asking Bruce to name an Italian dish detergent which smells of bleach?

Actually Kermit, I corrected the minor errors on my site. Why don't you correct your major errors that you have posted online that continue to lead people to believe that there is a shoe print belonging to Amanda on the pillow?

You and I both know this is not true.

So make your edits and then come back and we can discuss this further.

 

[odeed]

halides1,

I asked before but you could of missed it.

Could you explain why the open letter from Johnson and Hampikian uses a 200 RFU threshold for the DNA on the bra clasp, and I think you yourself stated that 200 RFU was an acceptable minimal threshold, but most articles and scientific papers I have read use 150 RFU as an acceptable threshold, and this level is also the recommended threshold by the main manufacturer of DNA testing equipment. If I remember, I don't think I have seen an article using 200 RFU as a threshold.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

intensity level versus threshold

halides1,

I asked before but you could of missed it.

Could you explain why the open letter from Johnson and Hampikian uses a 200 RFU threshold for the DNA on the bra clasp, and I think you yourself stated that 200 RFU was an acceptable minimal threshold, but most articles and scientific papers I have read use 150 RFU as an acceptable threshold, and this level is also the recommended threshold by the main manufacturer of DNA testing equipment. If I remember, I don't think I have seen an article using 200 RFU as a threshold.

Odeed,

I have seen thresholds between 50 and 150 RFUs recommended. The figure of 200 RFU is not a threshold. Most of the peaks attributed to Raffaele are 200 RFU or slightly greater.

halides1

 

[Kermit]

Actually Kermit, I corrected the minor errors on my site. Why don't you correct your major errors that you have posted online that continue to lead people to believe that there is a shoe print belonging to Amanda on the pillow?

You and I both know this is not true.

So make your edits and then come back and we can discuss this further.

.
Hi Bruce. After a good night of sleep, I hope you are feeling better today.

I guess you are just so roaring to go today that you didn't read the overnight (your time) posts, including mine which you can reach with the following link. I think it pretty much explains the difference between comments or discussion documents which I've made on PMF, on one hand, and affirmative statements presented as fact which you make on your site.

.

Now, there is an option. I have no problem going on PMF, and saying: "hey, remember that pillow analysis from over a year ago, where we were all trying to discern footprints on the pillow? Yeah, the one which we all felt wasn't too definitive. Well there are better quality images available, a couple of which point to a Nike sole, and a couple of others which aren't so clear and could correspond to a number of shoes or other objects."

I insist, I have no problem underlining to the PMF readers what they already know: that my Powerpoints are works-in-progress. (That is why some of the ppt's have several versions, each one dated appropriately. Charlie has taken pride in the past in pointing out some of my errors, and I have no problem with that.)

But if I do that (saying something that everyone already knows), then you have to promise to take out all affirmative conjecture on your site which you present as fact. Okay? Shake on it! It's a deal!!!

((People??!! Did he shake?))

 

[Bruce Fischer]

My anger on this board last night was due to the fact that anyone that believes in Amanda's innocence is simply mocked and attacked on this board. The latest attack on Halides is a perfect example. I was attacked as soon as I made my first post. Fulcanelli accused me of spam for simply letting all of you know who I was. I spoke with Halides about this and told him that this board brings out the worst in people. I am a very nice guy. I am laid back and rarely get angry. Anyone that knows me will tell you this.

There is never an answer to any question on this board. Every answer creates a new Question. This game can be played on both sides. Conclusions are never reached. With this way of thinking, no one would ever be convicted and no one would ever be innocent.

Shuttlt has stated that he doesn't care who killed Meredith, he is simply here to nit pick every point that is made.

I know that 90% of you feel that Amanda is guilty. You attack any viewpoint that differs from that.

This has been proven by the total silence that occurs every time any of you are proven wrong. But if you find a small error on my site the entire board erupts in a party like you won the lottery.

I have repeatedly shown that Kermit is completely wrong when it comes to the shoe prints. Kermit also thought it was necessary to put a comment about Amanda's vibrator on a powerpoint presentation in regard to shoe prints.

Fulcanelli refuses to admit that he failed to correct an error on his site in regard to Amanda being arrested in Seattle. This is a major issue. It related directly to the character assassination that has occurred in the media over the past 2 years.

Any objections from the board? Nope, nothing. Silence.

So please don't try and tell me that the majority of you are here for an honest debate.

You write my site off as FOA. You think I am just another American that is defending Amanda because she is American. All of the attack talking points are the same.

It would have been nice if someone had called Fucanelli on his statement about America hanging black guys from trees, but why would I expect anyone of you to correct him or at least tell him he was out of line.

 

[odeed]

Odeed,

I have seen thresholds between 50 and 150 RFUs recommended. The figure of 200 RFU is not a threshold. Most of the peaks attributed to Raffaele are 200 RFU or slightly greater.

halides1

I apologize and you are correct, I was under the impression that 200 RFU was being used as a threshold, I have just read back some pages, and looked at the letter in question again and see that it was the peak RFU value being discussed with regards to the bra clasp.

ETA: Just want to add that my original question, was after your post #8281 and I think I was just trying to clarify this comment:

...Fulcanelli, especially, calls Raffaele’s DNA abundant or copious, in reckless disregard of the fact that it is only 200 RFU in intensity, far weaker than typical profiles....

but the thread went on to another subject.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Fulcanelli refuses to admit that he failed to correct an error on his site in regard to Amanda being arrested in Seattle. This is a major issue. It related directly to the character assassination that has occurred in the media over the past 2 years.

Please provide the link to this 'error'.