Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
shuttlt said:
The knife wasn't taken at random from a draw full of other equally plausible looking knives as claimed. All the knives that might plausibly have been involved in the murder was taken from Raffaele's flat and analysed.
Click to expand...

Can you document that?
 
Mary_H said:
There is an article out there somewhere, Supernaut, about an incident on an airplane involving Quennell's wife, after which he wrote a letter of complaint to the airline. I guess you could find it with the right key words. I also saw some of his contributions to a blog about luxury yachts or something.

You can see a cameo appearance by Quennell on the TLC documentary about Amanda. I would describe my impression of him, but I tried that on the West Seattle Heals and they deleted my post.:D
Click to expand...

Interesting.

So he is real, and really is obsessed. Or is he paid by somone, do you think?
 
Mary H said:
The Kate Mansey articles are laughably fake, along the lines of the so-called interview of Patrick Lumumba in the Mail. Finn McCool and I had a good discussion about them on the Seattle P-I; I'll try to dig it up.

If that fake interview is the only record you have of what Raffaele said to the police or anyone else before November 5th, then you have nothing. Again, there is no evidence that Amanda and Raffaele's stories did not match BEFORE they were questioned by the police on the 5th and 6th. Their stories only stopped matching after the police lied to them and confused them. Any "evidence" that was gained in the interrogations was created evidence.
Click to expand...

Knock yourself out and provide your evidence that they are fake...instead of giving us yet another unsupported assertion.
 
Supernaut said:
Interesting.

So he is real, and really is obsessed. Or is he paid by somone, do you think?
Click to expand...

No, he's rich. Retired investor, as is one of his co-administrators.

What is your take on the travelogues he writes on his site, of the places "Meredith might have visited?" Nobody else seems to think that's as nutty as I do -- I think it's completely insane.
 
Supernaut said:
Guede returned to the flat sometime after 4 AM (when he was last seen), in a calmer state than when he had fled earlier, to check for any money or valuables he might have missed (but even he wasn't moronic enough to take items such as the laptops, which would not be merely stolen property but clues in a murder manhunt).

He felt a little, shall we say, uncomfortable rifling Meredith's room with her body on the floor in full view.

Nahh, that's just too 'out there', isn't it?
Click to expand...

I see...he returned to the cottage just so he could 'not' clean up all the the evidence he had left and earlier and so as to 'not' take the valuable stuff he'd left behind earlier. Why did he return again? Remind us.
 
Last edited:
Fulcanelli said:
I see...he returned to the cottage just so he could 'not' clean up all the the evidence he had left and earlier and so as to 'not' take the valuable stuff he'd left behind earlier. Why did he return again? Remind us.
Click to expand...

Necrophilia. Apparently
 
Fulcanelli said:
Knock yourself out and provide your evidence that they are fake...instead of giving us yet another unsupported assertion.
Click to expand...

I couldn't prove the interview with Patrick was fake but I could smell it a mile away; then the Mail retracted it.

I think we talked about this on the Daily Beast, too, which I will look up when I look up the P-I stuff. I need to get some shut-eye now.

It's mostly a matter of analyzing what she wrote -- for example, looking at the extremely creative differences between the first article she wrote versus the "interview," written after she found out Raffaele was a suspect. Also -- was the interview conducted in English or Italian? Is it likely that the shy, retiring Raffaele would have sat down alome in a cafe with a reporter in the days after the murder? Where was Amanda, who Bob claims was with Raffaele at all times?

The only reason the articles ever came to anyone's attention is because "La Machine" used them to "prove" Raffaele was a liar. Why? Because in the article, Raffaele allegedly said he was at a party the night of the murder. Upon reading the article, though, we find another interviewee talking about the parties they all attended Halloween night, and it becomes clear that was what Raffaele was referring to, as well. IF he was ever interviewed.

Pretty slim pickin's.
 
shuttlt said:
A photo was posted upthread. The photo was originally emailed to me by Charlie. It is a still from a police video that Charlie has. Charlie has confirmed in this thread that he isn't aware of any other knives in the kitchen.

My original post with the photo of the knife draw is here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5808121&postcount=6547
Post 6547 seems such a long time ago now.
Click to expand...

Thank you, shuttlt. My understanding was that the investigating officer testified that there were other knives in the drawer but that he did not take them.

The main problem with taking only one item from the drawer is that the lab had no control group against which to measure any differences between the "murder weapon" and the other silverware. If Meredith's DNA actually were on the knife, it signifies nothing unless every other piece of silverware in the drawer had none of her DNA on it. Since that was not tested for, the defense could have claimed that there was as much likelihood that the other items in the drawer could have held some of Meredith's DNA, which would have gotten in there by some means other than stabbing.

I believe Mark Waterbury discusses this on Science Spheres.
 
Mary_H said:
No, he's rich. Retired investor, as is one of his co-administrators.

What is your take on the travelogues he writes on his site, of the places "Meredith might have visited?" Nobody else seems to think that's as nutty as I do -- I think it's completely insane.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I'd just about had all I could take of TJMK long ago.

I know the piece you mean, but it isn't exactly 'informative' or relevent so I'd only scanned it briefly.

He seems to be trying to convince everyone of his sincerity. He really must have .... feelings for this poor dead girl, who he never met.

But it is rather disturbing that it would precipite such malice toward another, equally attractive and concientous young woman, one who is still actually alive.
 
Fulcanelli said:
I see...he returned to the cottage just so he could 'not' clean up all the the evidence he had left and earlier and so as to 'not' take the valuable stuff he'd left behind earlier. Why did he return again? Remind us.
Click to expand...

What are you blathering about?
 
Supernaut said:
To be honest, I'd just about had all I could take of TJMK long ago.

I know the piece you mean, but it isn't exactly 'informative' or relevent so I'd only scanned it briefly.

He seems to be trying to convince everyone of his sincerity. He really must have .... feelings for this poor dead girl, who he never met.

But it is rather disturbing that it has have precipited such malice toward another, equally attractive and concientous young woman, one who is still actually alive.
Click to expand...

There is more than one piece -- now he has mused about several of the places Meredith might have enjoyed traveling to or living in.

Yes, preferring a dead girl he never met to a live girl he never met speaks volumes about his psychology. Not to mention the fact that he is as motivated by his fantasy life as was Mignini.

Brrrr.
 
Mary_H said:
Thank you, shuttlt. My understanding was that the investigating officer testified that there were other knives in the drawer but that he did not take them.

The main problem with taking only one item from the drawer is that the lab had no control group against which to measure any differences between the "murder weapon" and the other silverware. If Meredith's DNA actually were on the knife, it signifies nothing unless every other piece of silverware in the drawer had none of her DNA on it. Since that was not tested for, the defense could have claimed that there was as much likelihood that the other items in the drawer could have held some of Meredith's DNA, which would have gotten in there by some means other than stabbing.

I believe Mark Waterbury discusses this on Science Spheres.
Click to expand...

And how do you propose that Meredith's DNA could have been present on other cutlery in that drawer? By all account she never visited Raffaeles house.
Did he make it a habit to bring his cutlery drawer over to Amanda's cottage?

As for Mark Waterbury.... the last article I read on Science Spheres was one big conspiracy theory from beginning till the end. Not someone I trust as a source to base my opinion on.
 
The essential problem with the test on the knife blade is that quantity of DNA detected is beneath the threshold of reliability. Stefanoni does not seem to have run any blank controls, so there is no way of knowing whether the test detected something from the sample or from trace contamination on the instruments. Such trace contamination is a factor even in well-run DNA labs, which is why the good ones include controls with each run of tests.
 
Amazer said:
And how do you propose that Meredith's DNA could have been present on other cutlery in that drawer? By all account she never visited Raffaeles house.

Did he make it a habit to bring his cutlery drawer over to Amanda's cottage?
Click to expand...

That's not the point, Amazer. From a scientific standpoint, the prosecution would have had to prove that it was absolutely impossible for Meredith's DNA to have gotten into the drawer by any means other than murder, and I don't think they could do that.

The point is moot, anyway, because Meredith's DNA wasn't on anything in the drawer, including the knife.

As for Mark Waterbury.... the last article I read on Science Spheres was one big conspiracy theory from beginning till the end. Not someone I trust as a source to base my opinion on.
Click to expand...

Your loss.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
The essential problem with the test on the knife blade is that quantity of DNA detected is beneath the threshold of reliability. Stefanoni does not seem to have run any blank controls, so there is no way of knowing whether the test detected something from the sample or from trace contamination on the instruments. Such trace contamination is a factor even in well-run DNA labs, which is why the good ones include controls with each run of tests.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the Judges report will shed more light on this?
 
Mary_H said:
I couldn't prove the interview with Patrick was fake but I could smell it a mile away; then the Mail retracted it.

I think we talked about this on the Daily Beast, too, which I will look up when I look up the P-I stuff. I need to get some shut-eye now.

It's mostly a matter of analyzing what she wrote -- for example, looking at the extremely creative differences between the first article she wrote versus the "interview," written after she found out Raffaele was a suspect. Also -- was the interview conducted in English or Italian? Is it likely that the shy, retiring Raffaele would have sat down alome in a cafe with a reporter in the days after the murder? Where was Amanda, who Bob claims was with Raffaele at all times?

The only reason the articles ever came to anyone's attention is because "La Machine" used them to "prove" Raffaele was a liar. Why? Because in the article, Raffaele allegedly said he was at a party the night of the murder. Upon reading the article, though, we find another interviewee talking about the parties they all attended Halloween night, and it becomes clear that was what Raffaele was referring to, as well. IF he was ever interviewed.

Pretty slim pickin's.
Click to expand...

I can't see any differences. Can you lay them out?

It's clear from the interview Raffaele said he went to a party on the night of the murder.

I don't see why it's 'unlikely' that Raffaele would have sat down with a reporter...why's it so very unlikely, because he's supposedly shy?

Sorry, you need to do better then this to label Kate Mansey a liar.

Actually, the Sunday Mail interview wasn't fake, it took place (he was paid 70,000 euros for it. However, they used poetic license to embellish what he had said with things he didn't say. I suppose they felt they had the right to put words in his mouth since they'd paid him so much money for the story. And also, the story wasn't a news story but a human issues story (and those tend to be embellished). And as it happens the Sunday Mail never retracted it. Neither did they stand by it. But it was Patrick himself who had to go on TV several times to set the record straight...that he wasn't hit and didn't sack Amanda from his bar. Since he didn't retract any of the other stuff he said in the article, the other stuff is probably true.
 
Mary_H said:
Thank you, shuttlt. My understanding was that the investigating officer testified that there were other knives in the drawer but that he did not take them.

The main problem with taking only one item from the drawer is that the lab had no control group against which to measure any differences between the "murder weapon" and the other silverware. If Meredith's DNA actually were on the knife, it signifies nothing unless every other piece of silverware in the drawer had none of her DNA on it. Since that was not tested for, the defense could have claimed that there was as much likelihood that the other items in the drawer could have held some of Meredith's DNA, which would have gotten in there by some means other than stabbing.

I believe Mark Waterbury discusses this on Science Spheres.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that Waterbury is a an engineer, not a geneticist or forensic scientist. Why is his opinion any more special then anyone else's?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom