Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Mary_H]

In fairness Mary, seven men and one woman.

Second from the left?

 

[Kermit]

What do you mean by relationship? That they're related?

Poster Halides claims to be in contact with Chris Mellas and "signers" of the Johnson letter.

He stated that she was "working pro bono". That implies a written or unwritten engagement.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Poster Halides claims to be in contact with Chris Mellas and "signers" of the Johnson letter.

He stated that she was "working pro bono". That implies a written or unwritten engagement.

There's no evidence that Johnson is dishonest. And if you are claiming there was an agreement between anyone related to Amanda's defense to falsify analysis, then back it up. Pretty bold claim.

If you're paranoid about some sort of agreement where the defense says "Please look at these documents and falsify a scientific conclusion for us", well I don't think you have even close to enough to show that. No. Sorry.

I also know what limitations of advocacy innocence projects have because I did my first summer internship at one in law school (not in Idaho). These organizations don't say 'we think X person is innocent and we will prove it all costs for you, even if it means being dishonest'. Sorry, doesn't work that way.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Second from the left?

Yes.

 

[Fiona]

I did. And I appreciate that fact that you took the extra steps to look it up. I also found a more recent article on it a while ago and posted it here and everyone ignored it. Regardless, nothing I read made me think Johnson was somehow unqualified to examine evidence, nor do I have any reason to think she's dishonest.

Well we cannot pick up everything again and again, HumanityBlues. As you see all who have been here from the start already had that information. You were not here then and cannot be expected to know. If you find truly new information I think it will be gratefully received. But you cannot expect people who have already taken what you post into account in reaching their conclusion to get excited: this thread goes around and around. If we could reach agreement about any facts at all we might make progress: but it isn't like that

 

[HumanityBlues]

Well we cannot pick up everything again and again, HumanityBlues. As you see all who have been here from the start already had that information. You were not here then and cannot be expected to know. If you find truly new information I think it will be gratefully received. But you cannot expect people who have already taken what you post into account in reaching their conclusion to get excited: this thread goes around and around. If we could reach agreement about any facts at all we might make progress: but it isn't like that

In my defense, I didn't just bring it out of the blue. It was in response to people talking about the letter again, which comes up quite frequently.

Edit: Fiona, I'm not trying to harp on this Dr. Johnson issue too much, but it is very easy to google about people who are at all in the public eye and get a very inaccurate picture of someone. That's just my point. I don't understand what we are to draw from what little we know about Johnson from google, but it seems to me that some very much want to hint at Dr. Johnson being a flat out liar and doing this for inappropriate or dishonest reasons that I have yet to see any justification for believing.

Also, why is Dr. Johnson only mentioned and not Greg Hampikian from the innocence project?

I still see no reason to think these two are dishonest unless you buy into the grand FOA conspiracy for which I think has been blatantly overstated and exaggerated by some here. Maybe the FOA police put a gun to Dr. Johnson and Greg Hampikian's heads.

 

[Fiona]

Everything comes up frequently, HumanityBlues. In truth your charge that I just post up anything without trying to get both sides is disappointing: and I do not know what led you to that conclusion. I fondly imagine that I put some thought and effort into what I post, most of the time. I cannot say the same for some others here.

I really am not partisan and this makes me feel you are pushing me into that corner: as are others. I am like most people: if you do that it is apt to be self fulfilling: a trait which Amanda's defenders might do well to remember.

 

[Kermit]

Here's the link, darling. I bet there's even a bigger one out there, too.

Well, your CBS-Doug Longhini link was a bit of a let-down, given the prior buildup in your previous post.

I was expecting your photo to be of eight strapping Italian Stallions, and you can only dig up a lady cop, and a handful of unshaven guys scratching their chins (and not any other bodily zone) and looking confused as Amanda spins her tale.

In any case, just for you, Mary, I've updated the prior image combo:



These sorts of FOA / Entourage arguments are not going to sway many hearts and minds, nor change much in Amanda's legal predicament.

 

[Kermit]

There's no evidence that Johnson is dishonest. And if you are claiming there was an agreement between anyone related to Amanda's defense to falsify analysis, then back it up. Pretty bold claim.

.
REF. DISHONESTY:

I never claimed Johnson to be dishonest.

I do claim that her letter is a limited scope document. As such I am interested in knowing her terms of reference, the data she had access to, what she didn't do and why.

I am confused why a supposedly scientific analysis (which should almost not make any reference to persons, but rather "Sample A" etc.) dedicates almost as much space to a non-science preamble which outlines the Knox defence background to the murder.


REF. AGREEMENT TO FALSIFY ANALYSIS

I don't understand how you get to that accusation against me.

I do believe there is an agreement to do an analysis. That much we know from your fellow pro-Knox poster Halides.

What I want to know is "who was she working for?". Under what terms and conditions?

 

[Mary_H]

Well, your CBS-Doug Longhini link was a bit of a let-down, given the prior buildup in your previous post.

I was expecting your photo to be of eight strapping Italian Stallions, and you can only dig up a lady cop, and a handful of unshaven guys scratching their chins (and not any other bodily zone) and looking confused as Amanda spins her tale.

In any case, just for you, Mary, I've updated the prior image combo:

These sorts of FOA / Entourage arguments are not going to sway many hearts and minds, nor change much in Amanda's legal predicament.

Thank you, Kermit, for the update and for the scintillating phrase, "eight strapping Italian Stallions," which I may just take to bed with me tonight (the phrase, not the stallions).

It's perfectly all right with me if nobody changes their mind on my account. Lord knows I have never let any of the guilters affect my opinions in any way. I mostly write because I like to write. It would be a minor miracle if anything in the blogs changed Amanda's legal predicament.

 

[Fiona]

it's perfectly all right with me if nobody changes their mind on my account. Lord knows i have never let any of the guilters evidence affect my opinions in any way. I mostly write because i like to write. It would be a minor miracle if anything in the blogs changed amanda's legal predicament.

ftfy

 

[Mary_H]

ftfy

You are too gracious, my dear.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Everything comes up frequently, HumanityBlues. In truth your charge that I just post up anything without trying to get both sides is disappointing: and I do not know what led you to that conclusion. I fondly imagine that I put some thought and effort into what I post, most of the time. I cannot say the same for some others here.

I really am not partisan and this makes me feel you are pushing me into that corner: as are others. I am like most people: if you do that it is apt to be self fulfilling: a trait which Amanda's defenders might do well to remember.

I'm not charging that at all Fiona. I think you did try to get both sides and put thought into it,. I'm sorry if you got some other impression, honestly. But I'm sorry, I didn't know what else to think since you just posted that link again of that comment section by itself.

Maybe I didn't fully understand your point and got the wrong impression. You wrote: "Is there any comparable evidence that Stefanoni's integrity is compromised?" after putting that link. If you want to elaborate I'm perfectly willing to listen.

 

[HumanityBlues]

What I want to know is "who was she working for?". Under what terms and conditions?

What kind of answer are you expecting?

 

[Fiona]

I do not know what is confusing about it, HumanityBlues.

The information is from a site for lawyers: nothing to do with this case and no indication there is any axe to grind at all. Just seems to be lawyers getting on with their business: and that observation appears to be given in good faith.

On this thread Stefanoni's integrity has been impugned again and again and there is not so much as one piece of evidence given in support of the assertions. Not even that kind of thing. It is obviously harder for most of us since we don't speak Italian: perhaps there is similar comment and experience in the Italian speaking web.

But if you cannot see it is wrong to impugn Stefanoni's integrity without evidence: then I cannot see how you can claim it is wrong to wonder about Johnson's when there is at least some evidence. It seems obvious to me

 

[Fulcanelli]

Amanda was with Raffaele at his apartment. She told the police this many times.

Raffaele doesn't agree. Neither does any of the evidence.

That is what burglars do. They find out information about future break-ins. Rudy would have possibly talked with the guys downstairs, he would have asked questions to see where people were going to be.

Had he have done that, don't you think that would have come up in the investigation and the trial?

 

[HumanityBlues]

.
REF. DISHONESTY:

I never claimed Johnson to be dishonest.

I do claim that her letter is a limited scope document. As such I am interested in knowing her terms of reference, the data she had access to, what she didn't do and why.

I am confused why a supposedly scientific analysis (which should almost not make any reference to persons, but rather "Sample A" etc.) dedicates almost as much space to a non-science preamble which outlines the Knox defence background to the murder.

I believe we talked about this a month ago, but whatever. The preamble is unnecessary anyways.

Let's just talk about the knife:
"The knife was selected from among several knives in the kitchen drawer of Raffaele’s apartment. It was the only knife collected from the kitchen, although it had no visible stains or notable characteristics." True?

"Testimony has been given in court that this knife could not have made two of the three slash wounds to the victim’s neck, but that a smaller knife could have made all three wounds. Furthermore, this knife did not match a bloody knife imprint left on the bed." True?

"An extremely sensitive chemical test for the presumptive presence of blood, tetramethyl benzidine (TMB, a chemical capable of detecting at least a 1:10,000 dilution of blood), was negative for both the handle and blade." True?

"A swabbing of the handle revealed the presence of Amanda’s DNA. This is not unexpected since she had used the kitchen knives to prepare food at Raffaele’s apartment." True?

• A swabbing of the center portion of the flat edge of the blade was taken for further analysis. This sample tested negative for blood with TMB.
�� An extremely low level, partial DNA profile was developed for the blade swabbing using the Identifiler kit. The alleles detected were consistent with the DNA of the victim. The highest peak in the electropherogram was approximately 100 relative fluorescence units (rfu), while 21 of the 29 peaks that were detected and labeled as alleles fell between 20 and 50 rfu.
�� This DNA does not originate from blood. A highly sensitive chemical test for blood was negative, and it is unlikely that all chemically detectable traces of blood could be removed while retaining sufficient cells to produce a DNA profile consistent with the victim.
�� Numerous samples were collected from the crime scene that were tested and shown to contain high quantities of the victim’s DNA. There exists the real possibility that the low level, partial profile attributed to the knife blade is a result of unintended transfer in the laboratory during sample handling. Numerous examples of this have been documented by other laboratories.
�� Electronic (.fsa) files that would allow independent analysis of the data have not been disclosed.
�� Neither the extraction nor amplification of the low template DNA from the kitchen knife blade was duplicated. The test can not be reproduced as the swab and DNA extract were consumed during testing.

True?

So what exactly do you think is missing here that needs to be in there? I realize the case file is very large, but I seriously doubt there are hundreds of pages on just the knife to analyze. What material evidence is left out that bothers you?

Edit: Sorry Kermit. Fulcanelli is back after a long hiatus, so there are probably going to be about 40 posts by him after this one and you might lose it, but the question is obviously directed to you.

 

[Fulcanelli]

There is no evidence to contradict her statement that she was at Raffaele's.
If you ask Raffaele where Amanda was on the night of the murder, he will say that she was with him at his apartment.

That's not what Raffaele said to the police in his statement of the 5th. That's noy what he saud to the High Court in March/April 2008 and he never said so during the trial.

There's every evidence to prove it isn't so. She claimed they were watching Amelie, eating dinner and there was a leak in the kitchen while the murder was taking place. All of these things actually happened well before 9 PM. She claims she and Raffaele made love...Raffaele can't remember. She claimed they had a ling and deep conversation about her being called a lesbian while she was at school and Raffaele's suicided mother...Raffaele can remember none of those things. She claimed she and Raffaele had a long erotic shower together. Raffaele says there was no shower. She claimed she read him Harry Potter in German. Raffaele recalls no such reading and instead claims to have been on the computer all noght...alone. The computer proves him a liar. Two eye witnesses put them both at or around the crimes scene just after 9:30 in one case and just after 10:30 in the other. Two ear witnesses heard multiple people at the scene and as for the scene itself, Amanda and Raffaele's DNA and footprints put them there and that's all before even getting to all the lues they told.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Proving my point. The police have no intentions of opening and closing those shutters every day and they need to secure the crime scene. They would have pulled the shutters closed against the friction of the sill and latched them, possibly even wiring the latch closed for extra security. Filomena could not latch the shutters because they were not closed when she left the morning of the murder

No they did not. Perhaps you didn't bother listen to the testimony or reading the section of the Massei Report but they would not pull tight enough to latch.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Every single person in Perugia that was either alone at home or with only one other person on the night of the murder would all have no alibi.

That's funny, because Laura and Filomena were able to prove their alibi's, as were the boys downstairs. Neither did they give alibis that completely contradicted the alibi given by their partner, or by the evidence.