Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Amazer]

I'm not prosecuting anybody, Bob. My opinion is not going to put anybody in jail.

Mary,

Flippant remarks like this won't do your credibility here any good. I kindly urge you to change your approach, if you want people to take you serious.

You are the one that claimed that there is a conflict of interest due to the fact that both Stefanoni and the prosecutor are employed by the state. Now you have to show that this conflict of interest actually exists and then how this impacted this particular case.

Amazer

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Of course I like Shuttit. I'm here to do the same thing as he is - pick apart the fallacious arguments.

I believe Amanda and Raffaele are guilty - not because I necessarily want to, but because the evidence points towards them and there have been no arguments presented that explain all the evidence (other than a conspiracy...imagine the size of it)

I think it is very interesting that you would view a simple burglary gone wrong as some kind of conspiracy theory.

The prosecution's case required many more illogical occurrences.

 

[Amazer]

Of course I like Shuttit. I'm here to do the same thing as he is - pick apart the fallacious arguments.

I believe Amanda and Raffaele are guilty - not because I necessarily want to, but because the evidence points towards them and there have been no arguments presented that explain all the evidence (other than a conspiracy...imagine the size of it)

I agree with the above.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I think it is very interesting that you would view a simple burglary gone wrong as some kind of conspiracy theory.

The prosecution's case required many more illogical occurrences.

No, I don't view this as a conspiracy.

What you are attempting to assert/argue is that Amanda and Raffaele are in prison due to a conspiracy amongst the entire Italian Judicial System.

That's a pretty big conspiracy. And one which you have been lax in providing evidence of.

Walking into this thread and asserting that the evidence we have is wrong is all well and good - as long as you can provide evidence that such is the case. So far all you've been able to present is the assertion that you have more evidence than we have, that you're right and we're wrong, and that Amanda/Raffaele are innocent victims of a cover-up/conspiracy.


Any time you're ready to provide evidence to refute that which was used to convict Amanda and Raffaele, you're welcome to post it up.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

The very fact that the lab is run by the state that employs the prosecutor represents a conflict of interest from the word go. Others who have examined what data are available are independent.

This idea bears further consideration. In the U.S. many state facilities, often universities, are used by the local LE to process evidence. Are these necessarily a conflict of interest?

Also various local and state LE agencies routinely use FBI labs to process evidence they do not have the equipment, expertise or experience to at in-state facilities. This is probably a more accurate analogue to an Italian jurisdiction using a central national facility. Are you suggesting that U.S. courts are inviting a conflict of interest by allowing state investigations to use FBI resources?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

No, I don't view this as a conspiracy.

What you are attempting to assert/argue is that Amanda and Raffaele are in prison due to a conspiracy amongst the entire Italian Judicial System.

That's a pretty big conspiracy. And one which you have been lax in providing evidence of.

Walking into this thread and asserting that the evidence we have is wrong is all well and good - as long as you can provide evidence that such is the case. So far all you've been able to present is the assertion that you have more evidence than we have, that you're right and we're wrong, and that Amanda/Raffaele are innocent victims of a cover-up/conspiracy.


Any time you're ready to provide evidence to refute that which was used to convict Amanda and Raffaele, you're welcome to post it up.

You are looking at this entirely wrong. Do you believe that every wrongful conviction is the result of a major conspiracy?

I have told you why I believe that the knife was not the knife and I have provided scientific evidence, I have told you why I believe the bra clasp should have been thrown out and I have provided information showing how it was contaminated. I have shown you that none of the foot prints or shoe prints set in blood belong to Amanda or Raffaele. I have shown you that Raffaele called the police before the postal police arrived. I have shown you why Meredith's body was not moved later to stage a break in. I have shown you that Filomena's room was not staged.

You might not agree with me but if you have read this thread over the last 10 days, then you know that I have provided a lot of information. I didn't just show up and say I'm right and you are wrong.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

A little cut and paste from my site in regard to Patrizia Stefanoni.

Why would Patrizia Stefanoni try so hard to get the desired result for the prosecution? Because she needed to deliver the expected results to her boss, Dr. Renato Biondo. Biondo was not only the head of the DNA Unit at Polizia Scientifica, Rome, he was also a consultant for the prosecution. I'm not making this up. This is how ridiculous this case is. Even more ridiculous, the defense asked for an independent review of the DNA results and their request was denied.

 

[quadraginta]

A little cut and paste from my site in regard to Patrizia Stefanoni.

Why would Patrizia Stefanoni try so hard to get the desired result for the prosecution? Because she needed to deliver the expected results to her boss, Dr. Renato Biondo. Biondo was not only the head of the DNA Unit at Polizia Scientifica, Rome, he was also a consultant for the prosecution. I'm not making this up. This is how ridiculous this case is. Even more ridiculous, the defense asked for an independent review of the DNA results and their request was denied.

Of course he was a consultant for the prosecution. They consulted the facility he was in charge of on the area of expertise they offered.

The fact that the results were positive in regards to Knox and Sollecito also make him (or his facility) a witness for the prosecution. So be it. When the results are negative he would be a witness for the defense. Shall we condemn those results as well? The same logic would seem to apply.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Of course he was a consultant for the prosecution. They consulted the facility he was in charge of on the area of expertise they offered.

The fact that the results were positive in regards to Knox and Sollecito also make him (or his facility) a witness for the prosecution. So be it. When the results are negative he would be a witness for the defense. Shall we condemn those results as well? The same logic would seem to apply.

Renato Biondo wants convictions. He was seen sitting at the prosecution's table. I don't remember anyone claiming to see him sitting with Amanda or Raffaele.

 

[Amazer]

You are looking at this entirely wrong. Do you believe that every wrongful conviction is the result of a major conspiracy?

No, that is not what I believe.

I have told you why I believe that the knife was not the knife and I have provided scientific evidence

And Bob (i believe) provided a counter argument as to why the 4cm knife alone couldn't have inflicted all the wounds. I did not see your response to that. If you did, can you give me a post/page number?

I have told you why I believe the bra clasp should have been thrown out and I have provided information showing how it was contaminated.

Counter arguments have been given as to why it was unlikely to be contaminated.

I have shown you that none of the foot prints or shoe prints set in blood belong to Amanda or Raffaele.

You did indeed show that non of the foot or shoe prints set in blood could positively be attributed to Amanda or Raffaele.

I have shown you that Raffaele called the police before the postal police arrived.

This issue has been discussed at length earlier in this thread (before you started posting here). It's a unresolved issue in my mind.

I have shown you why Meredith's body was not moved later to stage a break in.

Counter argument was provided to which I didn't see a response of you (yet).

I have shown you that Filomena's room was not staged.

And plenty of arguments have been provided that it was staged. In my opinion you have to overlook more evidence to arrive at a 'real break in' then if it were staged.

You might not agree with me but if you have read this thread over the last 10 days, then you know that I have provided a lot of information. I didn't just show up and say I'm right and you are wrong.

That is correct.

 

[Mary_H]

What you are attempting to assert/argue is that Amanda and Raffaele are in prison due to a conspiracy amongst the entire Italian Judicial System.

That's a pretty big conspiracy. And one which you have been lax in providing evidence of.

It is not explicit and overt, it is a conspiracy of silence that some of its members are not even aware they are part of. It is an example of a dysfunctional system that has no whistle-blowers. Charlie provided a similar example earlier today, one of much greater proportions -- the Catholic Church, in relation to the priest sex abuse crisis.

Any time you're ready to provide evidence to refute that which was used to convict Amanda and Raffaele, you're welcome to post it up.

Where ya been, Bob?

 

[Mary_H]

This idea bears further consideration. In the U.S. many state facilities, often universities, are used by the local LE to process evidence. Are these necessarily a conflict of interest?

Also various local and state LE agencies routinely use FBI labs to process evidence they do not have the equipment, expertise or experience to at in-state facilities. This is probably a more accurate analogue to an Italian jurisdiction using a central national facility. Are you suggesting that U.S. courts are inviting a conflict of interest by allowing state investigations to use FBI resources?

If the scientists who process the evidence from a case are personal friends of the prosecutor or defense attorneys, then yes, I would say the results would be suspect. I assume precautions are taken to avoid that situation, but there are a lot of failures in the U.S. as well as in other countries.

There have been several cases reported in the United States lately about labs that have falsified evidence for one side or the other. And here is a little article about the independent National Research Council committee, which recommended:

"The best solution would be to establish a independent National Institute of Forensic Science to lead research efforts and oversee education standards, the panel said in a report commissioned by Congress."

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE51H5GK20090218

Here is an interesting take on the collusion Bob is wondering about, only this author calls it "team spirit mentality."

"This is another example of a "team spirit" mentality that contributes to many forensic-based false convictions. Houston crime lab workers apparently weren't acting as scientists seeking independent answers but considered themselves part of the prosecution's team, omitting lab results that might not favor the side they wanted to win."

http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2009/04/houston-crime-lab-only-reported.html

 

[Kermit]

I think it is adorable that you can read my mind; but like all psychics it would be better if you got it right

How about you cite some actual evidence in support of your opinion now: if it has been documented a million times it will not be hard. You could start with the evidence that Guede went through Meredith's purse: I am really interested in that

Frankly, I don't feel like doing that right now. Let's not be picayune. Whether or not I can document that Rudy went through Meredith's purse has little bearing on the big picture

.
If your accusations and insinuations have little bearing on the big picture (especially when they're falsehoods), then why make them?

Your reply to Fiona reminds me of Bruce Fisher's replies to the inaccuracies pointed out on his website (like saying that Preston was hauled in to police headquarters in the middle of the night, or that Raffaele washes his dishes with Dixan, or that Mignini took on the Monster of Florence case). He first of all didn't agree with the exception taken to the errors, then he was loathe to admit and correct his errors (upon realizing his was wrong), then he said that it's foolish to be concerned about these errors because they aren't part of the bigger picture.

This is a lesson in classic spin, brought to us by the FOA / Entourage spin factories.

When you look at the pro-Amanda websites, you find all these legitimate, educated experts, professionals and scientists speaking out against the conviction ... Why don't you guys solicit an equally large group of legitimate, educated experts, professionals and scientists to support your claims? It would add a lot of credibility to your arguments.

.
With all due respects to Hilades, who seems to be a university science professor, half of the links he provides to support his arguments (household dust-borne DNA, DNA from fingerprints ...) in fact support the contrary opinion.

Paul "Private Eye" Ciolini, supposedly a hot shot detective, makes up stories about Preston being taken in by police at night, or Amanda "never setting eyes" on Rudy (this, a week after she testifies in court that she went to a party with him and other friends).

Anne Bremner, hot shot lawyer and media pundit, by her own account one of the smartest persons in Washington State (yeah, read her website), points out terrible police actions thinking she's referring to the girls' flat, when in fact the images are of the boys' flat.

"Libby" Johnson (perhaps related to FOA members through her participation in the Innocence Project), a DNA expert witness in many US trials, prepares a totally unscientific preamble to her limited scope letter, a preamble which is almost as long as her scientific opinion, and where she spews out the pro-Amanda script of events. She has never explained her relationship to FOA or FOA individual members, nor who engaged her or commissioned her to do her "pro bono" work.

Judge Michael Heavey (investigated sometime back for irregularities ... nothing came of it from a strictly legal perspective, although the report underlined that his supposed favouritism did not look good and he was forced to publish an apology in a Seattle newspaper), made unsubstantiated accusations of illegalities allegedly committed in the Perugia murder case investigation, in a letter he sent on Washington State official letterhead to Italian authorities.

Etc. etc.
================
I assume The Cook, Bruce and others don't present themselves as experts in any particular field, so I won't make any comments about them in relation to your post on the supposed high quality of the FOA / Entourage experts.

 

[Kermit]

If the scientists who process the evidence from a case are personal friends of the prosecutor or defense attorneys, then yes, I would say the results would be suspect. I assume precautions are taken to avoid that situation, but there are a lot of failures in the U.S. as well as in other countries.

There have been several cases reported in the United States lately about labs that have falsified evidence for one side or the other. And here is a little article about the independent National Research Council committee, which recommended:

"The best solution would be to establish a independent National Institute of Forensic Science to lead research efforts and oversee education standards, the panel said in a report commissioned by Congress."

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE51H5GK20090218

Here is an interesting take on the collusion Bob is wondering about, only this author calls it "team spirit mentality."

"This is another example of a "team spirit" mentality that contributes to many forensic-based false convictions. Houston crime lab workers apparently weren't acting as scientists seeking independent answers but considered themselves part of the prosecution's team, omitting lab results that might not favor the side they wanted to win."

http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2009/04/houston-crime-lab-only-reported.html

.
Are you referring in your post to "Libby" Johnson's relationships with members of FOA?

 

[Kermit]

... if you have seen no evidence of an issue of physical attraction between the Perugian men and Amanda Knox, then you need a great deal more education in the areas of human nature and cultural attitudes.

Please elaborate. Maybe I should get out more. I don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you saying that the Perugia police felt a strong physical attraction to Amanda and parlayed that into a murder charge?

I know there are some strange forms of courtship out there but I didn't know about that one.

Provide details, please.

.
Hi Stilicho. It's interesting, I read Mary's comment in just the opposite way: that Mary is saying that Amanda felt a physical attraction to Perugian men.

Either way, it doesn't make sense, as Amanda was never with any Perugian men.

 

[stilicho]

They have admitted that they interrogated her based on their "intuition."

That, I believe, would be the "intuition" between their legs.

If you guys don't have the life experience to detect the undercurrents in this case, I can give you a short course is human sexuality, psychology, cultural anthropology, etc. I have to go out for awhile, though, so more later.

I've reprinted your original allegation.

I asked what you meant and you reprinted some bizarre blog entries about AK's crying sisters and something about Perugian men finding themselves aroused in the presence of the accused.

What do you mean? I am trying to decipher it but it appears you're saying something like this: Amanda came under suspicion by the male Perugian police officers because they had sexual fantasies involving imprisoned females and their female family members crying.

Is that about it?

So how does Monica Napoleoni fit into this scenario? Do Italian women approve of and encourage the physical manifestations of these fantasies? Do Italian men need foreigners to satisfy these urges? Why wouldn't they have arrested Meredith's British friends?

 

[Fiona]

Have we forgotten this?

http://tdcaa.infopop.net/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=347098965&f=2623030567&m=8811064581&inc=1

Is there any comparable evidence that Stefanoni's integrity is compromised ?

 

[stilicho]

Hi Stilicho. It's interesting, I read Mary's comment in just the opposite way: that Mary is saying that Amanda felt a physical attraction to Perugian men.

Either way, it doesn't make sense, as Amanda was never with any Perugian men.

Read the blog entries that she said she enjoys reading. They are difficult to follow but it appears she is saying the opposite. I don't know why the Perugian authorities would go to the trouble of prosecuting RG and RS if all they wanted to do was find a foreign woman to put into prison.

This is easily the most unusual thing I've ever seen posted regarding this case.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Have we forgotten this?

http://tdcaa.infopop.net/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=347098965&f=2623030567&m=8811064581&inc=1

Is there any comparable evidence that Stefanoni's integrity is compromised ?

Are you actually impugning this woman's integrity and entire career based on this stupid little discussion in a comment section that tells us almost nothing, with no context whatsoever?

 

[Fiona]

I am saying that it is something to bear in mind. You can read my original post (#1159) if you like. I think it has to be treated with caution: but I do not think it unimportant given the partisan tone of the "open letter".