Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[stilicho]

Is this a proper translation of what Raffaele wrote in his diary concerning the knife or a Google translation? Or did he write this passage in English rather than Italian and that is why the paragraph reads rather confusing?

I asked exactly the same question when I first saw it. He writes that way and it is indeed rather bizarre. I think in all the blitz about Amanda's so-called eccentricity that we're missing the true oddball in the pairing.

 

[stilicho]

I think Mark Waterbury's qualifications somewhat exceed putting on a lab coat and peering through a microscope! He certainly has far more knowledge on the science of the case than I do, and than the majority of us here, so for that reason I'm looking forward to his perspective. The fact Mark and Chris's (and others') qualifications are attacked on here is, I believe, because people simply don't have the scientific knowledge to attack their arguments. Much easier, then, to attack the person or their qualifications.

Posters here rightly want to know what qualifications they possess to adequately interpret and challenge forensic analysis from an ocean away. Telling us that they are scientists, making assertions, or posting links to irrelevant topics isn't the way to create an honest discussion of the evidence.

Remember: It is Chris H and Mark W who are claiming their credentials make them more credible than you or me. They make the claim; they need to back it up. They haven't.

The problem with your statement about other scientists challenging Waterbury with regard to his take on the forensics is that, well, none of them have done, have they? The posts from Greggy I quoted illustrate that point: even scientists who believe Knox and Sollecito to be guilty think that the knife evidence should never have been admitted. Personally I'd love to read a discussion between scientists who have opposing takes on the knife evidence. Trouble is, there aren't any scientists advocating the opposite take to Waterbury. In view of that, I can't see any way that the knife evidence will survive the appeal(s).

Once Mark submits his analysis to peer review then it will be taken seriously. That's how scientific inquiry works. He knows it and now you do too.

As regards Mark's take on Rudy being an informant, well, that's a different issue of course. It's certainly interesting that Rudy appears to have been caught by the police multiple times, yet never arrested. Apparently the defense wanted to include evidence that he was involved in six separate crimes in the weeks leading up to the murder, but weren't allowed to admit it because it's not directly linked to the case. But anyway, that's a different discussion.

This is yet another claim that Mark needs to support.

 

[katy_did]

As an aside, since Katy_did was recently enquiring about Candace Dempsey's new book and whether she should buy it or not. There's an excellent review here and I thought of her when I saw it

http://www.examiner.com/x-32288-Spo...x-author--cites-Senator-Cantwell-in-book-tour

No offence to Mr. Edelblute, but he does rather nail his colours to the mast when he describes Barbie Nadeau as "objective", doesn't he...? Barbie may be a lot of things, but she isn't objective, and neither is anyone who thinks she is. Not that there's anything wrong with her giving her subjective opinion, of course, but it shouldn't be represented as the undisputed truth, either.

Anyway, I'm sure by now we all know the different perspectives taken by Candace and Barbie. What prevented me buying Barbie's book wasn't the perspective she takes, since I would still have been interested to read it; it was the many errors it seems to contain. You still haven't answered my question from earlier: are there any glaring inaccuracies in Candace's book comparable to Barbie's famous "seven traces of flesh on the knife"?

 

[odeed]

Regarding Mark Waterbury scientific analysis, there are three articles which could be considered scientific.

The first, "Canary in the LCN DNA Mine, Part I" dated 7 August 2009, is as he describes "background on DNA", and the information can be found from better scientific articles on the web.

The second, "LCN DNA Profiling Part II: Watch Where You Sneeze", dated 16 August 2009, is criticism he has arrived at from reading other blogs and media reports, and not from "access to the court documents" as he describes earlier in the thread, from what I can tell.

The third, "Methods of the Polizia PseudoScientifica: A Knife, a Clasp, a Glow" dated August 28, 2009, some of the contents of this article has been discussed on these boards in much more detail, and he contradicts some of his arguments later in his blog (was Sollecito DNA in the room or not in the room).

Plus he needed someone (anonymously) to check his reasoning, and the rest of his blog contains xenophobic rants and a (unoriginal) conspiracy theory that Knox and Sollecito was framed with planted evidence to cover up for Guede, who was also arrested and charged (how does that work, they plant evidence to frame someone, but not destroy evidence to cover up for Guede?).

 

[katy_did]

Actually Rudy took the credit cards, cash and phones. He removed the duvet off of the bed and covered Meredith. He placed the bloody knife on the bed leaving the imprint, he then went through Meredith's purse taking the credit cards, cash and phones. Then he walked out the front door leaving shoe prints, set in Meredith's blood.

Random question I've been wondering about, Bruce: was Meredith's purse (as in, the wallet she kept her money/cards in, not her bag) ever found? Did someone take the cards out of her wallet, leaving it empty on the bed, or did they just take her wallet? I've been checking the reports but haven't been able to find an information on this.

 

[katy_did]

What, Massei's judgement is suddenly sound when he says something you happen to like? And actually, he doesn't commit on that, he leaves it open.

Well now, that's rather a radical interpretation of the text.

Fact 1: Judge Massei says the postal police believe they arrived at 12:35.

Fact 2: Judge Massei says the postal police arrived shortly before 1.

Question: at what time does Judge Massei believe the postal police arrived?

It's like a fourth grade comprehension exercise! Interestingly, only Fact 1 appears on PMF's version of "Massei's Timeline".

 

[Kestrel]

Random question I've been wondering about, Bruce: was Meredith's purse (as in, the wallet she kept her money/cards in, not her bag) ever found? Did someone take the cards out of her wallet, leaving it empty on the bed, or did they just take her wallet? I've been checking the reports but haven't been able to find an information on this.

Meredith's purse was sitting on her bed when her body was discovered.

 

[katy_did]

Meredith's purse was sitting on her bed when her body was discovered.

Are you sure it was actually her purse that was found, rather than her bag? I know the various reports tend to refer to her bag as her 'purse' in translation (along with the fact that Rudy's DNA was found on it).

 

[katy_did]

Posters here rightly want to know what qualifications they possess to adequately interpret and challenge forensic analysis from an ocean away. Telling us that they are scientists, making assertions, or posting links to irrelevant topics isn't the way to create an honest discussion of the evidence.

Remember: It is Chris H and Mark W who are claiming their credentials make them more credible than you or me. They make the claim; they need to back it up. They haven't.

Their opinions are out there for all to see and criticize, aren't they? Yet for some reason it's never the arguments that are questioned, except by the occasional poster like Shuttlt; almost invariably it's their right to comment in the first place that is attacked. No scientist has stepped forward to contradict them, in fact even a PMF stalwart like Greggy agrees that the knife evidence should never have been admitted.

As I said, I would totally welcome an alternative scientific perspective; some sort of discussion amongst scientists as to the validity of the forensic evidence would be very interesting. Unfortunately, at this point you'd just have Stefanoni on one side of the debate, and every other scientist who's ever commented on the case on the other... Might still be interesting, though.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Random question I've been wondering about, Bruce: was Meredith's purse (as in, the wallet she kept her money/cards in, not her bag) ever found? Did someone take the cards out of her wallet, leaving it empty on the bed, or did they just take her wallet? I've been checking the reports but haven't been able to find an information on this.

Meredith's purse was on the bed. The imprint of the knife was also on the bed. Guede most likely laid the bloody knife on the bed when he went through the purse.

 

[el buscador]

Bruce, I think Katy_did was asking about Meredith's wallet, if she had one. Most women carry a purse but keep their credit cards, cash, etc. in a wallet inside their purse. Katy wanted to know what happened to the wallet, if there was one.

 

[katy_did]

Meredith's purse was on the bed. The imprint of the knife was also on the bed. Guede most likely laid the bloody knife on the bed when he went through the purse.

Thanks Bruce, but is it definitely her *wallet* that Rudy went through, or was it her bag? I thought that Rudy's DNA was on her bag, rather than her wallet (the brown bag that's pictured on her bed in the crime photos), though I might have misunderstood. Were both a bag and a wallet found on the bed?

 

[katy_did]

Bruce, I think Katy_did was asking about Meredith's wallet, if she had one. Most women carry a purse but keep their credit cards, cash, etc. in a wallet inside their purse. Katy wanted to know what happened to the wallet, if there was one.

Ah yes, thanks, you beat me to it.

 

[Jungle Jim]

There is still some confusion in my mind when referring to (a) a hand bag or purse in which one might put keys, sunglasses, wallet, etc and (b) a wallet which contains credit cards and cash. I assume when Bruce says the purse was found on the bed he is referring to a hand bag as I described above. Was a wallet found in the bag (sans credit card and cash)?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Bruce: do you think the postals arrived to the cottage before Raffaele called the police?

Fulcanelli: Yes. What now?

That's all I needed to know.

You probably still think that there is a shoe print belonging to Amanda on the pillow.

Do you still think that the entire bathroom was covered in blood? You stated in the past that Amanda and Raffaele cleaned the entire bathroom with buckets and towels because the bathroom was covered in blood.

 

[el buscador]

I was really curious, also.

 

[Mary_H]

Well, firstly your concern assumes they left DNA in the room TO clean and secondly, they didn't clean DNA away that effectively anyway, since there is DNA on the bra clasp, in several of the luminol prints, in numerous of the blood stains and in the luminol blood stain in Filomena's room. As for the cleaning of the 'self', when one gets covered in something unpleasant (and not to mention something that can get you in trouble) it's second nature to clean yourself isn't it? I mean, we'd would hardly expect them to walk around with blood on them the whole night and all the next day, would we?

Did they wear HazMat suits to a sex murder? How erotic.

Odd that investigators never found any sign of bloody clothing anywhere. They should have sent the guy who knew where to look for the knife; he would have found them right off the bat.

 

[Mary_H]

If you're convinced on the basis of what the newspapers might say, I don't see how you can hide that when you write your report. Finally, why would judges turn to newspapers for their case information when they have the full case file in front of them, all the experts in front of them and all the witnesses in front of them?

Judge Claudia Matteini turned to Myspace for her report when she wrote that Raffaele was looking for intense experiences.

 

[Mary_H]

For a lawyer you seem remarkably certain about the outcome of a case you never tried.

Here in this thread the opinion seems to be against you.

Is this a popularity contest?

 

[Mary_H]

It's odd then that the police accepted her story about Patrick.

It certainly is. Now, there's some cherry-picking for you.