Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

That's just not true. I had a look into several burglaries lately and each time the robbers took cash and jewellery only. TV, laptop, Chanel glasses...all left behind.

Got a link to these burglaries?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Question for the "knife as protection" theorists:
Since Amanda had just met Raffaele at a classical music concert a week or so earlier, what was she carrying around town for "protection" prior to meeting Raffaele?
Another huge knife, or maybe something smaller, such as pepper spray? Hmmm...
RWVBWL

'Who' here has that theory?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Has anything stressful happened to you during the last few days? For example was a close friend murdered or did the police interrogate you for most of a night?

No, and neither did they Amanda. They started questioning her at past midnight and she'd named Patrick by 1:45 am. That's hardly most of the night.

Most people seem to think that way, but scientific tests show that we are not nearly as good at recalling events as we believe we are.

That is why eyewitness accounts are often so far off the mark.

You know what Kestrel, I think it'll be far quicker if you just put up your micro list of the type of evidence that in your view police 'should' be allowed to use against a suspect.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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,

Speak for yourself please Katy.

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).

I guess you missed all those experts speaking for both the prosecution and for Meredith Kercher's team during the trial. And unlike Waterbury, they ARE qualified to do so.

Why shouldn't the knife evidence survive the appeal if it survived the trial and was held to be strong? How do you think the defence will get a knife thrown out in just five days that they couldn't get thrown out in a whole 11 month month trial plus a one month pre-trial? For over two years now we've been hearing from Amanda's family that the knife has either been thrown out (which it never was) or will be thrown out, echoed by their supporters. You people remind me of that Iraqi General guy who each day was coming out to the press saying how they are defeating the coalition and and will turn them back any day now.

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,

What would these "multiple" times be...can you list them for us?

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 a flat out lie. Any evidence the defence tries to admit and is refused is part of the record. There were no such refusals made during the trial for the attempt to admit such evidence was never made. The evidence doesn't exist. But I'd be willing to bet $100 this lie originated from Chris Mellas.

I'm talking about Dr Waterbury's scientific expertise, of course.

He's an engineer. What has that got to do with crime?

 

[Fulcanelli]

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"?

Why shouldn't he state or believe Barbie to be objective? Perhaps you can support your claim that she isn't with something other then an assertion.

 

[Fulcanelli]

BTW, the luminol test in Filomena's room was done on Dec. 18, the same day the photo of the dirty gloves was taken.

Just as I'd said...luminol was the final test applied. So, thankfully we can all finally lay the claims of 'bleach' causing the luminol reaction to bed, since bleach is non-persistent and dissipates in 48 hours...can't we?

It wasn't the gloves that were dirty Charlie but the clasp.

I suspect they would rather the public not have a chance to see this stuff because it makes them look bad.

Publish it then Charlie.

I don't know how it fits in the order of samples taken. My point is that one can measure what is shown on the video against recommended practices and see problems. That does not mean every DNA test yielded an incorrect result, but it does mean that any given DNA test may have yielded an incorrect result. That is why the bra fastener is so controversial. Without it, there is no physical evidence that either Amanda or Raffaele ever set foot in the room where Meredith was killed. Is it sufficient to bear the burden of proof? Given what is known about the way evidence was handled at this crime scene, is contamination a reasonable possibility? I would say no, it's not sufficient, and contamination is a very real possibility.

Only it doesn't Charlie...ALL the evidence COLLECTIVELY bears it.

Contamination is ALWAYS a possibility. You need more then a 'possibility'.

 

[odeed]

odeed writes:

....

This sample (164) tested negative for DNA, which is an unexpected result because it is clearly a bloodstain.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_blood_cell "mature red blood cells do not contain DNA and cannot synthesize any RNA" might be an explanation, though a biologist or some other expert would probably be best to answer that.

I don't know how it fits in the order of samples taken. My point is that one can measure what is shown on the video against recommended practices and see problems. That does not mean every DNA test yielded an incorrect result, but it does mean that any given DNA test may have yielded an incorrect result. That is why the bra fastener is so controversial. Without it, there is no physical evidence that either Amanda or Raffaele ever set foot in the room where Meredith was killed. Is it sufficient to bear the burden of proof? Given what is known about the way evidence was handled at this crime scene, is contamination a reasonable possibility? I would say no, it's not sufficient, and contamination is a very real possibility.

I will answer best I can, 2 am here.

If I remember from the discussions on this thread, except for a cigarette no other source of DNA for Sollecito was found at the apartments. There has also been discussion on this thread and in the science forum about a DNA collection study of living quarters of number of students, that concluded that a recognizable DNA profile was unlikely from the dust accumulated (over 8 weeks if I remember).

At the moment I think it is that it is unlikely that contamination occurred at the apartment.

I also think that it is a weakness of the defense to reiterate that contamination occurred when it was collected without proof, and regarding the page we were discussing, it is misleading to post images what you would consider evidence but actually has nothing to do with the collection of forensic evidence you are commenting on. I also add that the picture of the gloves on the kitchen floor are also meaningless without showing the history of them, which you admit you can not:

... Nor do I have a log that documents which gloves were used where. ...

 

[Amazer]

Most people seem to think that way, but scientific tests show that we are not nearly as good at recalling events as we believe we are.

That is why eyewitness accounts are often so far off the mark.

The thing is that except for both being in RS apartment there is virtually no agreement between AK and RS what they have been doing there.

If you want to ascribe that to not being too good at recalling what they actually did that evening/night, be my guest.
I'm going with 'One or both of them are lying through their teeth'.

 

[JREF2010]

They did say they watched the movie, ate, smoked-up, surfed, washed dishes and had a leak. The Patrick message was proved and the Popovic visit was documented.

I doubt they recorded the evening on a video, if thats what you want.

Many people don't record themselves during an evening.

Even the police of Perugia and Romes finest, the great Edgardo Giobbi, didn't record an evening of the Great Confession.

So I guess no one really records their evenings very well.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

odeed writes:

I also think that it is a weakness of the defense to reiterate that contamination occurred when it was collected without proof, and regarding the page we were discussing, it is misleading to post images what you would consider evidence but actually has nothing to do with the collection of forensic evidence you are commenting on. I also add that the picture of the gloves on the kitchen floor are also meaningless without showing the history of them, which you admit you can not:

I am posting the information that I have available, and I am answering your questions honestly. I don't have pictures or video showing the luminol reaction being swabbed in Filomena's room. The crime scene video shows the taking of a few samples, and in most of them, it's possible for a layman to see that the investigators did not follow recommended procedures for gathering DNA evidence.

Do you want to see this video? Even with the most invasive footage removed, it is very, very disturbing material.

 

[Mary_H]

They did say they watched the movie, ate, smoked-up, surfed, washed dishes and had a leak. The Patrick message was proved and the Popovic visit was documented.

I doubt they recorded the evening on a video, if thats what you want.

Many people don't record themselves during an evening.

Even the police of Perugia and Romes finest, the great Edgardo Giobbi, didn't record an evening of the Great Confession.

So I guess no one really records their evenings very well.

If memory serves, people in that age group make love for many hours at a time -- like pretty much all night. It is understandable they were reluctant to admit this outright to the police, and/or to their parents. Not knowing that there was actually a chance they would be arrested -- much less tried -- for the murder, they had no reason to broadcast this information.

Possibly for the same reasons, Filomena said her room was clean when she left the house.

 

[stilicho]

If memory serves, people in that age group make love for many hours at a time -- like pretty much all night.

......

Possibly for the same reasons, Filomena said her room was clean when she left the house.

Back to the old assertion that everyone in Perugia is a liar except for RS and AK. Filomena testified at the trial for four hours. She was the one who told the Polizia that it was uncommon for Meredith to close and lock her door during the day. Your continued portrayal of Filomena as a liar and potentially an accomplice is absolutely sickening.

To your first assertion: Where did this come from? When did either of them even suggest such a thing? They had elaborate and shifting stories about being together, surfing the internet, watching a movie, reading Harry Potter books, making love, not being together, smoking pot, not remembering what they were doing, eating variously at 9 pm, 10 pm or 11 pm, playing with bleeding fish, looking at a swamp forming under the sink, and so forth. Those are just the stories you and I can get from publicly available articles. I haven't even included AK's statements about witnessing Patrick sexually assaulting and murdering her roommate or the Kate Mansey interview with RS.

It is inconceivable--in a murder investigation--that anyone would refuse to say exactly what they were doing when asked by the police. Only in FOA-World would this be considered remotely possible.

 

[Mary_H]

He was at the book reading in person, to report. Why, were you at the book reading?

Bil Edelblute is not reporting on the murder case, per se. He is a political reporter ("Spokane Political Buzz Examiner") who is using the case as a platform from which to criticize Senator Maria Cantwell, who is a member of a different political party.

Accordingly, Edelblute did not start covering the case until after the verdict in December, when Senator Cantwell made a public protest against it. Five out of the first six pieces he wrote about the case had Senator Cantwell's name in the title, as does the current piece and a few others. In order to make a case against the senator, he has to take the opposite side in the murder case; in other words, any friend of Senator Cantwell is an enemy of Bill Edelblute.

In general, his pieces are blatantly slanted in favor of the verdict and against Amanda. He parrots the guilters' arguments to the extent that truejustice has reprinted some of his pieces on their site, providing links for its readers so they can scurry over and leave praise for the author in the comment sections.

As a rule, Edelblute leaves out evidence that supports the pro-innocence side; worse, he liberally weaves editorial comments into his pieces but is unclear about where the reporting stops and his opinions start, leading people to believe that his opinion is a fact of the story.

I will give him credit for one relatively objective article, in which he discussed Mignini's penchant for filing defamation suits.

http://www.examiner.com/x-32288-Spo...ecutor-Migninis-tactics-may-taint-Knox-result

 

[Mary_H]

Back to the old assertion that everyone in Perugia is a liar except for RS and AK. Filomena testified at the trial for four hours. She was the one who told the Polizia that it was uncommon for Meredith to close and lock her door during the day. Your continued portrayal of Filomena as a liar and potentially an accomplice is absolutely sickening.

What the wha-? Have I ever even mentioned Filomena before?

To your first assertion: Where did this come from? When did either of them even suggest such a thing? They had elaborate and shifting stories about being together, surfing the internet, watching a movie, reading Harry Potter books, making love, not being together, smoking pot, not remembering what they were doing, eating variously at 9 pm, 10 pm or 11 pm, playing with bleeding fish, looking at a swamp forming under the sink, and so forth. Those are just the stories you and I can get from publicly available articles. I haven't even included AK's statements about witnessing Patrick sexually assaulting and murdering her roommate or the Kate Mansey interview with RS.

From that point of view (not that I agree with it), it should be even more apparent that they were evading the issue. Later on in their writings, they both talked about having made love that night; something they hadn't mentioned right out of the gate -- who would?

It is inconceivable-- in a murder investigation-- that anyone would refuse to say exactly what they were doing when asked by the police. Only in FOA-World would this be considered remotely possible.

I find it completely conceivable. If I had nothing to do with a murder and I knew where I had been all night, then telling the police where I had been and who I was with would be enough, without also telling them what I did there.

 

[stilicho]

What the wha-? Have I ever even mentioned Filomena before?

The pronoun "your" is also a plural.

I find it completely conceivable. If I had nothing to do with a murder and I knew where I had been all night, then telling the police where I had been and who I was with would be enough, without also telling them what I did there.

You are right about saying just enough to the police. You sound clever enough to know that if they're asking more pointed questions about times and places that they aren't just interested in shooting the breeze. You'd probably "lawyer up" pretty quickly.

Your position is a little different. You're suggesting that they were at home making love all night but deceived the police by creating scenarios that turned out to be lies. I don't know where you're going with this but it ought to be interesting.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Stilicho writes:

It is inconceivable--in a murder investigation--that anyone would refuse to say exactly what they were doing when asked by the police. Only in FOA-World would this be considered remotely possible.

What if you tell the truth about what you were doing and the police don't believe you?

 

[stilicho]

Accordingly, Edelblute did not start covering the case until after the verdict in December, when Senator Cantwell made a public protest against it. Five out of the first six pieces he wrote about the case had Senator Cantwell's name in the title, as does the current piece and a few others. In order to make a case against the senator, he has to take the opposite side in the murder case; in other words, any friend of Senator Cantwell is an enemy of Bill Edelblute.

You're sidestepping the issue. Did Edelblute lie when he said Ms Dempsey was musing about AK's makeup?

 

[stilicho]

Stilicho writes:

It is inconceivable--in a murder investigation--that anyone would refuse to say exactly what they were doing when asked by the police. Only in FOA-World would this be considered remotely possible.

What if you tell the truth about what you were doing and the police don't believe you?

My quotation was a response to Mary's suggestion that AK and RS were "reluctant" to tell the police they were at home making love so they invented an elaborate series of false alternate scenarios. That's what I find inconceivable.

I don't find it inconceivable that someone would say nothing and secure an attorney right away. I also don't find it inconceivable that a guilty party would lie.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

stilicho writes:

I don't find it inconceivable that someone would say nothing and secure an attorney right away.

That's what I would do. But I have the benefit of a lifetime's experience. When I was 20, I might have said way too much, acted inappropriately, and made myself a suspect, even if I was completely innocent.

 

[stilicho]

stilicho writes:

I don't find it inconceivable that someone would say nothing and secure an attorney right away.

That's what I would do. But I have the benefit of a lifetime's experience. When I was 20, I might have said way too much, acted inappropriately, and made myself a suspect, even if I was completely innocent.

That's not what Mary said, though. She said they might have been reluctant to say one thing about their whereabouts and activities and chose to invent an elaborate set of false statements instead. I think they were reluctant, too, but that their false statements weren't meant to cover up their love-making.