Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Charlie Wilkes]

Fulcanelli writes:

Oh Charlie...you've just invented this (note all, the absent 'gel control' raised for the very first time by the FOA on the 1st May - that even rhymes).

Here is an article on the web that talks about controls:

http://faculty.unlv.edu/wmojica/PCR_LAB2.htm

Excerpt:

"Since PCR is so sensitive we should always use a positive and negative control. The positive control should be a PCR mix with DNA known to work in amplification. The negative control should be a PCR mix without DNA. The experimental part should be your PCR mix with DNA."

Was this done when they tested the knife? My understanding is that the lab has not provided the data necessary to answer this question.

 

[stilicho]

Amanda made a big mistake when she signed a statement accusing Lumumba. She created a problem for him, she made her own situation worse, and everyone admits that.

She did worse than that. She knowingly lied. Her mother knew that she lied. Neither of them did anything to assist Patrick while he sat in prison for two weeks.

If she was involved with the murder then she knew Patrick was not there. Hence she would have been knowingly lying. If she was not involved in the murder then she would not have known who murdered Meredith and would have no reason to persist in her allegations against Patrick. Therefore, either way, she knowingly lied.

Don't try to sugar-coat it. She lied. Admit it.

 

[stilicho]

Really? It's pretty much been included in the discussion since Day One. Have you never noticed in the blogs how many hundreds of times Amanda has been called a whore, a tramp, a skank, a bitch, a slut, a nympho, a bimbo? Does this not suggest to you that there is a sexual aspect to the case that attracts the kind of people who would use that terminology?

Certainly not on this forum. I've never seen quite anything as lurid as the blog you quoted. I don't even understand what that sort of sexual pleasure would entail. Is it common?

Have you never noticed how often in the past 2 1/2 years the video of Amanda and Raffaele kissing in the yard outside the cottage has been shown on TV, over and over and over, many more times than any other video related to the crime? Have you never reflected on why that might be?

I haven't seen that clip on TV. The only clips I'd seen on TV showed AK being escorted by guards.

Do you think the police in Perugia never saw the video or that they were not influenced by it?

I have no idea. Was it in their arrest report? How did you arrive at the conclusion that seeing AK kissing her boyfriend might cause them to want to charge her with murder? How common are these types of arrests? Any examples to compare with would be acceptable.

In the same way, we can't measure the hormone levels in the men who dealt with Amanda over the course of the days leading up to her arrest, and we can't get an accurate report of what feelings rose in Mignini when he watched a young Italian boy kissing a young American girl on his TV twenty, thirty or fifty times in those days, but we can put all the pieces together -- like Fiona -- to hazard a pretty good guess.

This is just bizarre. Does Mignini collect videos of girls kissing boys and then send out the police to arrest them? (By the way, Amanda was not a "young American girl" when she murdered Meredith. She was a young adult.)

Let's stop hazarding guesses. Exactly what happened and how do you know this is what happened?

The picture Kermit posted comes in another version, which actually may be a cropped version of the original version. It shows Amanda surrounded by eight men, like moths to a flame. That's how hormones work, guys, and it happens whether you're aware of it or not. Why do you think, out of all the pictures they have of Amanda, they chose that one to frame and hang and hang on the wall in Rome?

I don't understand this at all. Are you saying that the police investigators were not asking Amanda questions and listening to her replies but instead asking her for a date or something? Or do you think that eight men would not similarly ask me (I'm a guy) a series of questions if I was found at the scene of a murder, at my home, where the body was discovered in a locked room? Would they just let me go? Or do they send homosexual police officers to question male suspects?

How exactly does this work?

 

[stilicho]

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.

Why don't we just put the whole "open letter" on the back burner for a while? The reason is simple: Until either of them are retained by the defence teams, their insights are no more helpful than mine or yours are. We already know they do not speak for the forensics community. Therefore the "open letter" is irrelevant regardless of any points you might agree with.

 

[stilicho]

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?

Did he climb through the window again that time too? How did he enter the apartment the second time? Did he bring his gloves with him?

Evidence?

 

[Kermit]

Bruce Fisher was making reference a couple of days ago to a supposed mark on Filomena's inside blackout shutters, supposedly made by the rock found on Filomena's floor as it supposedly flew in through the glass from the outside.

I had mentioned that I was going to make a Powerpoint, and started out to do so. However, I'm getting bogged down again with work, so instead of putting out a smoother presentation, please find below the flow of the main ideas I was going over.

In the end, I believe it is impossible that the rock made that mark on the inside shutter, or at least it certainly didn't make that mark when flying through the window from the outside.





Now let's twist the rock around progressively and see if it's logical to believe that in any one of the scenarios the rock may have been capable of making Bruce's fly-through mark.



In none of the scenarios does the rock hit the staging mark. Scenario 4 is where it comes closest, but even there if I got the shape of the rock wrong and it had a sharp point right on top of the staging mark, that scenario "4b" would require the flight of the rock to be perfectly straight, with no wobbling. That is just about impossible for an irregularly shaped rock.

 

[stilicho]

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

Evidence? I don't hold the Kate Mansey interview as scriptural but it certainly is intriguing. When did the Daily Mail retract it? Linky?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Fulcanelli writes:

Oh Charlie...you've just invented this (note all, the absent 'gel control' raised for the very first time by the FOA on the 1st May - that even rhymes).

Here is an article on the web that talks about controls:

http://faculty.unlv.edu/wmojica/PCR_LAB2.htm

Excerpt:

"Since PCR is so sensitive we should always use a positive and negative control. The positive control should be a PCR mix with DNA known to work in amplification. The negative control should be a PCR mix without DNA. The experimental part should be your PCR mix with DNA."

Was this done when they tested the knife? My understanding is that the lab has not provided the data necessary to answer this question.

I see. You don't offer any information that they were legally required to do this, or that if they were they didn't do so. Instead, you give a link to a paper where a scientist offers an opinion.

Again, I repeat the question. Please provide your data that this was a requirement in an Italian court of law and that it wasn't adhered to.

I still wait.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Evidence? I don't hold the Kate Mansey interview as scriptural but it certainly is intriguing. When did the Daily Mail retract it? Linky?

There is no link for there was no retraction. Mary's just bottom burping again.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Kermit, what do you think caused the chipped paint on the shutter? Was the paint chipped intentionally as part of the staging, or was it already present from something else that happened?

 

[stilicho]

In none of the scenarios does the rock hit the staging mark. Scenario 4 is where it comes closest, but even there if I got the shape of the rock wrong and it had a sharp point right on top of the staging mark, that scenario "4b" would require the flight of the rock to be perfectly straight, with no wobbling. That is just about impossible for an irregularly shaped rock.

Where are the sexually aroused police officers in your scenarios?

 

[stilicho]

Which brings us back to the main question for this issue. Do you have evidence that the lab didn't do this blind controls?

If so, why didn't the defense bring this up during the trial?

And, yet to be answered, why did Gino bring up the so-called missing dates two weeks after the trial had resumed? If these were supposed to be reason for dismissal then why wouldn't the lawyers include them in their original motion?

 

[stilicho]

Kermit, what do you think caused the chipped paint on the shutter? Was the paint chipped intentionally as part of the staging, or was it already present from something else that happened?

I thought you said you had access to most of the data. Why don't you tell us where and when it's from?

Supply evidence.

 

[Kermit]

Kermit, what do you think caused the chipped paint on the shutter? Was the paint chipped intentionally as part of the staging, or was it already present from something else that happened?

I assume you're referring to the inside (blackout) shutter.

I don't know how that mark got there.

Even in the FOA Lone-Wolf-Spiderman scenario, the inside shutters could have been left open (not blacking out the room, but letting filtered light in), therefore not requiring there to be any mark or chip on those inside shutters.

 

[Kermit]

Where are the sexually aroused police officers in your scenarios?

Mary's got her magnifying glass out looking for them!

 

[stilicho]

Originally Posted by stilicho
Evidence? I don't hold the Kate Mansey interview as scriptural but it certainly is intriguing. When did the Daily Mail retract it? Linky?

There is no link for there was no retraction. Mary's just bottom burping again.

To date, I cannot find a shred of evidence to support any of Mary's claims.

@Mary_H: Please note that this forum has a reputation for requiring fully sourced documentation for assertions. Otherwise, you might want to preface your statements with a disclaimer. To wit: This is my unsubstantiated opinion and nothing more. If you do that, as a courtesy, we can safely skip those posts and discuss the facts and the evidence. As it is, you have a impressive backlog of posts and subsequent challenges that remain unanswered. A blanket disclaimer to acknowledge that they're all simply unsubstantiated will allow us to move on to more productive things.

 

[Mary_H]

Well, if she's telling the truth...they were telling her the truth. Were they lying to her? If she was found to be involved in the murder she would indeed have been looking at 30 years +. There is no rule that police can't tell someone they're questioning how serious the matter is and how much trouble they might be in of they don't speak the truth, especially if they believe the person is telling lies or holding back. Police do that everywhere. What's the foul?

Or is this just you insisting again she should have got special treatment in comparisson to everyone else and should have been treated like the Her Royal Majesty the Queen of England?

But you know what, things may go faster (and be incredibly shorter) if you simply list the things that in you book the police 'are' allowed to do. What a short list that will be!

I thought the issue was that Charlie said in Italy a life sentence is 30 years and Fulcanelli said it was more. Then it got turned into the issue of how Amanda knew a life sentence was 30 years, Fulcanelli said from her lawyers, and it was shown that she reported that figure before meeting with her lawyers. I think you should just drop it, Fulcanelli, before trying to spin it into yet another issue.

 

[Mary_H]

Mary, excuse me for addressing you thus, but isn't this a rather unpleasant comment? I find it much harder to understand why old men are so willing to make fools of themselves slobbering over a convicted murderer. She was found guilty as I understand it, meaning she killed a young woman and helped in her sexual assault! What is remotely attractive about her in the light of this? There are some mighty strange tastes out there, to be sure. Amanda, attractive? She's rough Mary. Maybe that's the attraction!

Let's not go there, Montmorency.

 

[stilicho]

I thought the issue was that Charlie said in Italy a life sentence is 30 years and Fulcanelli said it was more. Then it got turned into the issue of how Amanda knew a life sentence was 30 years, Fulcanelli said from her lawyers, and it was shown that she reported that figure before meeting with her lawyers. I think you should just drop it, Fulcanelli, before trying to spin it into yet another issue.

Can you print the source for the original claim, please?

 

[Mary_H]

To date, I cannot find a shred of evidence to support any of Mary's claims.

@Mary_H: Please note that this forum has a reputation for requiring fully sourced documentation for assertions. Otherwise, you might want to preface your statements with a disclaimer. To wit: This is my unsubstantiated opinion and nothing more. If you do that, as a courtesy, we can safely skip those posts and discuss the facts and the evidence. As it is, you have a impressive backlog of posts and subsequent challenges that remain unanswered. A blanket disclaimer to acknowledge that they're all simply unsubstantiated will allow us to move on to more productive things.

Sorry, I did not realize that was the reputation. I thought it went without saying that everyone was offering his or her opinion, as on the other blogs. After all, there are so many unknowns about the case, such as what happened at the interrogation, what happened at the crime scene, what happened in the labs, etc. Like the judges, we are left to speculate.

I documented everything for so long in the blogs and found that it made no difference anyway to the guilters, so eventually got a little more casual about it. Also, I assumed the experienced posters on this site were aware of most of the data. I definitely see the value of citations, though, and will do my best.

I do notice that not everyone is documenting everything, or explicitly notifying the others that it is an opinion, for example, in your post about Amanda's accusations against Patrick. But I will address that in my next post.