Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

The first paragraph can be backed up with evidence you're familiar with. The second paragraph would take a little longer but I could support it.

Or are you impressed with the honorable way in which Mignini has filed suit against about a dozen people who have voiced objections about him? And the way Stefanoni conducted the testing of the DNA evidence on the knife?

Who are these 'doezen people'? And do you know the difference between 'objections' and slander/libel?

As for Dr Stefanoni, her method was ingenious.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

The first paragraph can be backed up with evidence you're familiar with. The second paragraph would take a little longer but I could support it.

Or are you impressed with the honorable way in which Mignini has filed suit against about a dozen people who have voiced objections about him? And the way Stefanoni conducted the testing of the DNA evidence on the knife?

You have no evidence that corruption occurred, only bare assertion. Would you have all evidence found after an arrest be discarded in every case? That's hardly wise or judicious. Besides, why would the Police have searched Raffaele's flat before he was a suspect? You'd think that if the Police were suspicious of him from the start, they would have worked harder to get into his flat looking for evidence...

Are the objections against Mignini valid or slanderous/libelous? If slanderous/libelous, I have no problem with his filing suit. I would do so myself if I was in his position. He has, unfairly, had his name dragged through the mud by the FoA juggernaut in an attempt to discredit him in the public opinion.

And as the memo posted by Charlie yesterday explained, DNA has been extracted from single cells in the same way Stefanoni used to extract Meredith's DNA since 2001. Thus, I have no real issue with the procedure. It might not be common - but when the atom was first split, it wasn't a common procedure either

Now, do you have any real evidence that the DNA results were planted - or is this still bare assertion based on your undying belief that Amanda is just too much of an angel to have participated in this horrible crime?

 

[Mary_H]

Why would they have found the knife 'before' Raffaele's arrest?

Don't you think they should have had some forensic evidence implicating him in the crime before they arrested him?

They found the clasp before Amanda and Raffaele's arrest and it was recorded.

And then they very competently left it on the bedroom floor.

Mignini has been nothing but honourable. One only believes the 'low character' twaddle if they've been reading too much FOA propaganda and too much Douglas Preston.

Dr Stefanoni has shown herself to be an exceptional forensic scientist. And I think you're in for a shock when You read the Massei Report (if you bother that is, you'll probably pick up a Douglas Preston paperback instead).

My opinion of Mignini has been formed by his behavior, not by what other people have written about him.

This whole part of your post throws into question your ability to evaluate authority figures objectively.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

If they didn't actually have the information from her lawyer, which they no doubt did have, what was preventing them from going to Amanda's cell and discussing with her what they had heard ? That's what a mature, responsible magistrate would do. And what prevented them from believing her on the 6th when she told them she was confused?

Face it, they believed her when they wanted to and they ignored her when they wanted to -- their choice.

Really? Again, there's a difference between:

"I was wrong"

and

"I'm confused".


A very very big difference when we're discussing a murder investigation.

And there you go, dragging Mignini's name through the mud again. Do you have evidence to suggest what a mature, responsible magistrate would do or is that, again, conjecture on your part?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Don't you think they should have had some forensic evidence implicating him in the crime before they arrested him?

Why would they need that when they had Amanda's new story placing him at the scene with her - or at the very least, lying about his presence in his flat all night. Remember, they insisted that they were together all night prior to Amanda's revelation that it was Patrick who had raped/murdered Meredith.

 

[Fulcanelli]

But it is when the eyewitnesses say it?

Yes, unless they are shown to be unreliable.

It's like this Mary...when you go for a job or to rent somewhere and they ask you for a reference...you can't simply say 'Well, you don't need those, I say I make the grade' and then when they insist say 'Oh, it's okay if the people in my references say it, but not when I say it?'

There's a reason for this. The principle is not independent, they have a stake. The witness is independent and therefore have greater credibility, hence the term 'independent witness' and they are accepted as such unless and until it can be shown otherwise. This is how the world works, this is how courts work.

Which goes to show you how willing the court was to accept unreliable testimony, as long as it favored the prosecution's case.

Since you've not even read the the court's judgement I don't see how you can make any sweeping judgements on it. It does however, demonstrate your entrenched bias and prejudice.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Fulcanelli writes:

My point is, is how could Charlie Wilkes possibly know they were at Raffaele's apartment all evening?

I don't know. I merely assume they were because I do know they weren't involved in the murder or present when it happened. If they had been, they'd have left real evidence, and the prosecutor wouldn't be trying to spin DNA from the bathroom.

None of the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele - the bra fastener, the knife, the luminol footprints - was known to the police on November 6, when they announced they had solved the murder. So how did they know what had happened or who was responsible? They didn't. It was pure speculation. The evidence only came in later, through a desperate, frenzied effort to justify a wild accusation. People who are well-informed about criminal investigations know it is all meaningless junk.

But with Guede, it was the other way around. They analyzed the fingerprints, and matched them to prints they had on file, and on that basis they identified the suspect. Then they went to his apartment and got DNA off his toothbrush, and sure enough, it matched DNA found at the crime scene, inside the victim's body no less. They did it right, but only after they had done it wrong very publicly and committed themselves.

This is the kind of brainless arrogance that derailed this case from Day One:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/giobbi.mp4

 

[Fulcanelli]

Don't you think they should have had some forensic evidence implicating him in the crime before they arrested him?

No. Where is it written that one must have forensic evidence against someone before arresting them?

And then they very competently left it on the bedroom floor.

They left lots of evidence at the crime scene. That's why they keep the crime scenes, so they can store the evidence there. What's wrong with that?

My opinion of Mignini has been formed by his behavior, not by what other people have written about him.

oh, that 'explains' everything

 

[Mary_H]

You have no evidence that corruption occurred, only bare assertion. Would you have all evidence found after an arrest be discarded in every case? That's hardly wise or judicious. Besides, why would the Police have searched Raffaele's flat before he was a suspect? You'd think that if the Police were suspicious of him from the start, they would have worked harder to get into his flat looking for evidence...

You're absolutely right about that. The fact that they didn't shows they were working off of emotional hunches instead of evidence.

Are the objections against Mignini valid or slanderous/libelous? If slanderous/libelous, I have no problem with his filing suit. I would do so myself if I was in his position. He has, unfairly, had his name dragged through the mud by the FoA juggernaut in an attempt to discredit him in the public opinion.

I would hope you're not insecure enough to file suit against people who criticize you. Are they valid? They seem valid to me -- they're mostly people's opinions. But I live in a country that guarantees freedom of speech, so maybe I'm biased.

And as the memo posted by Charlie yesterday explained, DNA has been extracted from single cells in the same way Stefanoni used to extract Meredith's DNA since 2001. Thus, I have no real issue with the procedure. It might not be common - but when the atom was first split, it wasn't a common procedure either

The fact that the sample from the knife cannot be retested should throw it out of contention.

Now, do you have any real evidence that the DNA results were planted - or is this still bare assertion based on your undying belief that Amanda is just too much of an angel to have participated in this horrible crime?

It's not my undying belief that Amanda is an angel (although she IS innocent), it's my undying belief that the prosecution and the lab worked hand in hand to get the results they wanted.

We are allowed to have opinions and beliefs here, aren't we? You guys certainly seem to have enough of them.

 

[Mary_H]

Really? Again, there's a difference between:

"I was wrong"

and

"I'm confused".

"Uh, Mr. Lumumba, the witness says she's not sure you were there; she's very confused. I'm afraid we're going to have to hold you for two weeks anyway."

 

[BobTheDonkey]

It's not my undying belief that Amanda is an angel (although she IS innocent), it's my undying belief that the prosecution and the lab worked hand in hand to get the results they wanted.

Evidence?

We are allowed to have opinions and beliefs here, aren't we? You guys certainly seem to have enough of them.

Yes...but I actually have evidence backing mine up...not just bare assertion/wishful thinking

 

[Mary_H]

Why would they need that when they had Amanda's new story placing him at the scene with her - or at the very least, lying about his presence in his flat all night. Remember, they insisted that they were together all night prior to Amanda's revelation that it was Patrick who had raped/murdered Meredith.

Oh, so now it's Amanda's fault that Raffaele got arrested, too?

 

[Mary_H]

Fulcanelli writes:

My point is, is how could Charlie Wilkes possibly know they were at Raffaele's apartment all evening?

I don't know. I merely assume they were because I do know they weren't involved in the murder or present when it happened. If they had been, they'd have left real evidence, and the prosecutor wouldn't be trying to spin DNA from the bathroom.

None of the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele - the bra fastener, the knife, the luminol footprints - was known to the police on November 6, when they announced they had solved the murder. So how did they know what had happened or who was responsible? They didn't. It was pure speculation. The evidence only came in later, through a desperate, frenzied effort to justify a wild accusation. People who are well-informed about criminal investigations know it is all meaningless junk.

But with Guede, it was the other way around. They analyzed the fingerprints, and matched them to prints they had on file, and on that basis they identified the suspect. Then they went to his apartment and got DNA off his toothbrush, and sure enough, it matched DNA found at the crime scene, inside the victim's body no less. They did it right, but only after they had done it wrong very publicly and committed themselves.

This is the kind of brainless arrogance that derailed this case from Day One:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/giobbi.mp4

Yeah. What he said.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I don't know. I merely assume they were because I do know they weren't involved in the murder or present when it happened. If they had been, they'd have left real evidence, and the prosecutor wouldn't be trying to spin DNA from the bathroom.

Thank you Charlie. I see, so it really is simply a point of faith.

The evidence I saw was pretty real. And the prosecutor didn't try and spin anything about the DNA, this was the opinions given by the experts who did the forensic work.

But with Guede, it was the other way around. They analyzed the fingerprints, and matched them to prints they had on file, and on that basis they identified the suspect. Then they went to his apartment and got DNA off his toothbrush, and sure enough, it matched DNA found at the crime scene, inside the victim's body no less. They did it right, but only after they had done it wrong very publicly and committed themselves.

Only because events ensured it happened that way and it wasn't able to happen any other. If police had found him at the crime scene, he too would no doubt have been arrested before any forensic evidence was assessed. You do have this nasty habit of using Rudy to write your own set of 'laws' (Rudy did 'X' so everyone must do 'X' in the process of a crime, they arrested Rudy under 'X' circumstances so Raffaele and and Amanda should also have been arrested under 'X' circumstances and not 'Y' circumstances). There are many different kinds of evidence and all have validity.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Oh, so now it's Amanda's fault that Raffaele got arrested, too?

She certainly helped...she put him at the cottage.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Fulcanelli writes:

My point is, is how could Charlie Wilkes possibly know they were at Raffaele's apartment all evening?

I don't know. I merely assume they were because I do know they weren't involved in the murder or present when it happened. If they had been, they'd have left real evidence, and the prosecutor wouldn't be trying to spin DNA from the bathroom.

None of the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele - the bra fastener, the knife, the luminol footprints - was known to the police on November 6, when they announced they had solved the murder. So how did they know what had happened or who was responsible? They didn't. It was pure speculation. The evidence only came in later, through a desperate, frenzied effort to justify a wild accusation. People who are well-informed about criminal investigations know it is all meaningless junk.

But with Guede, it was the other way around. They analyzed the fingerprints, and matched them to prints they had on file, and on that basis they identified the suspect. Then they went to his apartment and got DNA off his toothbrush, and sure enough, it matched DNA found at the crime scene, inside the victim's body no less. They did it right, but only after they had done it wrong very publicly and committed themselves.

This is the kind of brainless arrogance that derailed this case from Day One:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/giobbi.mp4

Given they had an eyewitness (Amanda), I'm not surprised that the Police claimed they'd solved the crime. They very much thought they had.

Of course, if the Police were really interested in saving face and planting evidence...why did they continue the investigation - not only freeing Patrick, but also finding Guede?

That doesn't really fit terribly well with the whole conspiracy bit...

 

[Fulcanelli]

You're absolutely right about that. The fact that they didn't shows they were working off of emotional hunches instead of evidence.

No, they were working off of statements and the fact there were strong grounds for suspicion of the pair along with the indications coming from the crime scene and the autopsy of the victim.

I would hope you're not insecure enough to file suit against people who criticize you. Are they valid? They seem valid to me -- they're mostly people's opinions. But I live in a country that guarantees freedom of speech, so maybe I'm biased.

Again, you are completely clueless of the difference between 'criticism' and 'libel/slander'.

The fact that the sample from the knife cannot be retested should throw it out of contention.

Who says? And this is not required in Italy since the experts for the defence (and victims) are present during testing. Moreover, Dr Stefanoni gave very good reasons (you'll see in the report) why a retest is not necessary.

We are allowed to have opinions and beliefs here, aren't we? You guys certainly seem to have enough of them.

Sure, but you need to start making it clear what is simply your opinion or conjecture and what is fact.

 

[Mary_H]

Given they had an eyewitness (Amanda), I'm not surprised that the Police claimed they'd solved the crime. They very much thought they had.

Of course, if the Police were really interested in saving face and planting evidence...why did they continue the investigation - not only freeing Patrick, but also finding Guede?

That doesn't really fit terribly well with the whole conspiracy bit...

They had no choice but to find Guede -- they had a whole lab full of evidence against him. Patrick, meanwhile, had an ironclad alibi.

Maybe in Italy, prosecutors don't look that foolish when they mistake one African immigrant with another -- who cares about African immigrants, anyway? But that's a far cry from admitting they falsely imprisoned THREE suspects against whom they had no evidence, including one lovely, young American college student. That tends to look pretty bad in the international media.

 

[Fulcanelli]

"Uh, Mr. Lumumba, the witness says she's not sure you were there; she's very confused. I'm afraid we're going to have to hold you for two weeks anyway."

'Not sure' does not qualify as a retraction.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

They had no choice but to find Guede -- they had a whole lab full of evidence against him. Patrick, meanwhile, had an ironclad alibi.

Maybe in Italy, prosecutors don't look that foolish when they mistake one African immigrant with another -- who cares about African immigrants, anyway? But that's a far cry from admitting they falsely imprisoned THREE suspects against whom they had no evidence, including one lovely, young American college student. That tends to look pretty bad in the international media.

Wait, you mean the lab could come up with results showing Amanda and Raffaele were guilty, but couldn't cover up that Guede was involved? Nor manufacture evidence against Patrick?

Another Keystone Cops episode, maybe?