Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[BobTheDonkey]

Oh Lordy! No sooner has the inappropriate usage of the term "strawman" come up, than a barrage of actual strawmen turn up - a bit like London buses.....

And here is why this particular post is a corking strawman: I never argued that the voluntary samples (DNA, hair, blood, prints) were solely to identify or eliminate those who provided the samples. In fact I specifically said that they would be to help the police analyse and make sense of the murder scene. For example, if and when the police came across - say - a fingerprint on a light switch in the hallway, they could immediately check it against all the prints from all the people who had regular access to the house. If it matched any of those prints, it would likely be of little or no evidential value (unless the print was made in blood). But if it didn't match any of these prints, the police could immediately and justifiably suspect that it might me linked to any potential stranger-killer.

In other words - to spell it out once again - even if the police had totally verified and accepted Filomena's (say) alibi by midday on the 3rd, there was still enormous value in requesting all the relevant samples from Filomena in order to assist and expedite the ongoing forensic investigation. Does this make sense?

I'm sorry, that's not a strawman argument.

You presented the argument that DNA testing of the other roommates would have been beneficial to the investigation. I pointed out that the majority of the evidence had nothing to do with the other roommates unless you don't believe their alibis (which were easily corroborated/proven).


In other words:

You argued that more reference samples would help
I argued that no, they likely wouldn't because the others weren't around during the murder and that it does nothing to change what DNA evidence was found against Amanda/Raffaele

 

[Fulcanelli]

Interesting argument, Fulcanelli, especially after putting Kevin down for believing Mignini said something about Satanic rituals.

How about this: Actually it was, it must have been, since Micheli includes the rituals in his report. He must have got the idea from someone, therefore it must have been raised in the trial.

"(un po’ lumeggiate dal P.M., pur non contestandole, nella a dir poco fantasiosa ricostruzione descrittiva di riti, festini di Halloween, pubblicazioni manga ed occasioni da non lasciarsi sfuggire, magari dopo una pantomima di prova generale davanti al malcapitato K.)"

http://www.penale.it/page.asp?mode=1&IDPag=750

Unfortunately, we don't have records of what Mignini said to the judges outside of the trials, but we can safely assume he said a lot. They must have gotten their ideas from someone.

Thanks for the 'ritual' bit, I have rituals too, every day, for example my shaving ritual...then there's my checking the news ritual...and a lot of others after that too. I missed the bit in your cite about 'Satanic cults' though, can you point them out for us?

 

[tsig]

Oh Lordy! No sooner has the inappropriate usage of the term "strawman" come up, than a barrage of actual strawmen turn up - a bit like London buses.....

And here is why this particular post is a corking strawman: I never argued that the voluntary samples (DNA, hair, blood, prints) were solely to identify or eliminate those who provided the samples. In fact I specifically said that they would be to help the police analyse and make sense of the murder scene. For example, if and when the police came across - say - a fingerprint on a light switch in the hallway, they could immediately check it against all the prints from all the people who had regular access to the house. If it matched any of those prints, it would likely be of little or no evidential value (unless the print was made in blood). But if it didn't match any of these prints, the police could immediately and justifiably suspect that it might me linked to any potential stranger-killer.

In other words - to spell it out once again - even if the police had totally verified and accepted Filomena's (say) alibi by midday on the 3rd, there was still enormous value in requesting all the relevant samples from Filomena in order to assist and expedite the ongoing forensic investigation. Does this make sense?

So they don't use the samples to solve the crime but only to make sense of the crime scene.


Some might call analyzing the crime scene solving the crime.

 

[LondonJohn]

So it appears that it's only in the UK that you are denied the right to refuse and denied the right to a lawyer. That is, unless LJ is wrong.

STRAWMAN!!! Seriously: are certain people taking part in some sort of charity strawman-athon this evening?

At the risk of starting to cry with frustration at misinterpretation of my arguments (surely, SURELY not willfully.....):

I am categorically NOT referring in any way here to compulsory requests for DNA etc from all people with access to the crime scene. Where have I ever said that? Please, please can you show me where I've mentioned compulsory sample collection before? In fact, ever since my first post on this subject (I'm sure you can check back) I've only ever specifically mentioned the word "voluntary" or "voluntarily"?

In the UK (and in New Zealand and in any other country where this technique is employed), prospective sample-providers are asked to provide samples VOLUNTARILY to help the swift investigation of the crime; they are ABSOLUTELY ALLOWED to refuse to give a sample, and do not have to give a reason (and they are also informed that refusal to give a sample is not taken as a sign of guilt); they are informed explicitly of their right to consult a lawyer if they so wish. Could I make it any more clear?

Please, I beg of you, no more strawmen arguments. I'm beginning to think something....ermmmm....."strange" is going on here........

 

[Fulcanelli]

No. It happens in many different countries, including (but far from limited to) the UK. I suspect (but admit that I don't know) that it could happen in Italy - and it definitely should (in my view)

Incidentally, stilicho helpfully provided the way in which it happens in New Zealand - which superficially looks very similar indeed to the relevant parts of PACE in the UK, and might well be based on it.

Does it happen in Italy? Do you have a source to show it?

 

[RoseMontague]

Don't worry, it doesn't show.

Thanks, Mary_H but I ran out hours ago. One example is given in Ms. Nadeau's book. She says that Mignini always believed that Frank's blog was inspired and financed by Mario Spezi. Even Fulcanelli has disputed that one with me on several occasions. Perhaps there is evidence of this somewhere, but that would probably undercut Fulcanelli's claims.

He does seem very concerned with bad press, with all of these wiretaps and lawsuits against reporters and media not kind to him or that he felt were out to get him. And he was "surprised" when he was called to account for it recently in court. So as Fulcanelli would say, the court found him guilty of doing these things, that is taken as part of his evidence in the case against Raffaele, so I consider it as evidence in the case of his being a bit whacked.

And some of it is purely subjective on my part, what I have seen and read gives me the impression he considers himself to be very important and not subject to being wrong about something. After all, proving someone is insane is difficult even for a professional. That is strictly my opinion.

Forgot to add the enemies list, surely that one is not true is it?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

So they don't use the samples to solve the crime but only to make sense of the crime scene.


Some might call analyzing the crime scene solving the crime.

Well, tsig, some are interested in solving the crime, and analyze the crime scene evidence as such.

Others are interested in proving someone innocent, and analyze the crime scene evidence as such.

Does that help clarify?

 

[Matthew Best]

Please, I beg of you, no more strawmen arguments. I'm beginning to think something....ermmmm....."strange" is going on here........

Certain people are reading things into what you've said that aren't actually there. It does make you wonder how good their skills at evaluating evidence and coming to conclusions must be if they can hallucinate like this.

 

[LondonJohn]

This is your mistake John, this case only involves Italy.

Oh. My. God. Seriously? Seriously?!!!!

For one thing, your original quote (to which I counter-argued) made no mention of Italy. Your original quote said "If Amanda was innocent, then why why she found guilty in a court of law?" You seemed to be generically linking conviction in a "court of law" with definitive proof of actual guilt.

For another thing, even if you'd specifically mentioned Italy (i.e. "If Amanda was innocent, then why was she found guilty in an Italian court of law?"), then I could still quote the smaller number of Italian-specific miscarriage cases from that list to refute your argument. In fact, a SINGLE Italian miscarriage would refute your argument if you'd specified Italy.

But you didn't even specify Italy in your original quote. So, I'm afraid, if we're dealing in who's "right" and who's "wrong", then I know which of the two I am.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I don't know that I agree with that logic, Fulc.

1: Why, once Rudy said it could be his footprint could it no longer be argued that it was Raffaele's?

2: Just because he knowingly left evidence of his presence does not mean he didn't clean other traces up first.

I agree that Rudy didn't bother trying to clean up, his tracks out the front door seem to indicate that while the blood was still wet on his shoes, he simply was attempting to flee the scene. However, the footprint on the bathmat, and whether it's Rudy's or not, has no bearing on whether Rudy attempted to clean or not.

Because as soon as Rudy said it may be his, he put overwhelming reasonable doubt on it. It may not have been the case with say a fingerprint or DNA, which can be exactly matched, but with a shoe print that is not perfect, it puts that evidence into question.


Why would someone interested in cleaning their traces, then suddenly leave clear traces of themselves? It follows no logical pattern.

As for the print on the mat, from that I draw no firm conclusions of whether Rudy (or anyone else) attempted to clean or not. The trick is to not only look at each individual piece of evidence, but to put them together to create a whole. This provides a picture, a picture of the crime. Some want to take each piece in isolation and keep them there, ensuring a picture is impossible. This is by design, for the alternative for them, is unthinkable.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Thanks, Mary_H but I ran out hours ago. One example is given in Ms. Nadeau's book. She says that Mignini always believed that Frank's blog was inspired and financed by Mario Spezi. Even Fulcanelli has disputed that one with me on several occasions. Perhaps there is evidence of this somewhere, but that would probably undercut Fulcanelli's claims.

He does seem very concerned with bad press, with all of these wiretaps and lawsuits against reporters and media not kind to him or that he felt were out to get him. And he was "surprised" when he was called to account for it recently in court. So as Fulcanelli would say, the court found him guilty of doing these things, that is taken as part of his evidence in the case against Raffaele, so I consider it as evidence in the case of his being a bit whacked.

And some of it is purely subjective on my part, what I have seen and read gives me the impression he considers himself to be very important and not subject to being wrong about something. After all, proving someone is insane is difficult even for a professional. That is strictly my opinion.

Forgot to add the enemies list, surely that one is not true is it?

Sorry, Rose, but I do not find Nadeau's book of opinions to be worth much. Just as I don't accept Darkness Descending as a credible source. These are books, written to sell, and thus, as both sides have shown, both are subject to errors/fabrications/"little white lies"/etc.

What I have read does not indicate that Mignini is insane, nor "whacked".

As you have yet to provide solid, credible evidence that he is "whacked", I ask that you refrain from further attacks on Mignini's character and, rather, stick to the evidence involved in the case.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Because as soon as Rudy said it may be his, he put overwhelming reasonable doubt on it. It may not have been the case with say a fingerprint or DNA say, bit with a shoe print that is not perfect, it puts that evidence into question.

Fair enough.

Why would someone interested in cleaning their traces, then suddenly leave clear traces of themselves? It follows no logical pattern.

This is my argument regarding the shoeprints from Meredith's room to the front door. However, Rudy was not certain that it was his footprint on the bathmat - in other words, he didn't recall leaving it there. As he didn't recall leaving it there, it possibly never occurred to him to clean it up. Regardless, this is a moot point given the shoeprints.

As for the print on the mat, from that I draw no firm conclusions of whether Rudy (or anyone else) attempted to clean or not. The trick is is to not only look at each individual piece of evidence, but to put them together to create a whole. This provides a picture, a picture of the crime. Some want to take each piece in isolation and keep them there, ensuring a picture is impossible. This is be design, for the alternative, for them, is unthinkable.

I agree.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Thanks, Mary_H but I ran out hours ago. One example is given in Ms. Nadeau's book. She says that Mignini always believed that Frank's blog was inspired and financed by Mario Spezi. Even Fulcanelli has disputed that one with me on several occasions. Perhaps there is evidence of this somewhere, but that would probably undercut Fulcanelli's claims.

You don't think Spezi was involved in Sfarzo's site, really? So innocent

The longer you become involved in this case, the more you realise how tangled the web is...and I don't mean this just from discussion on message boards or stuff you read in the odd article or book, but from the contacts you make directly involved in the case. I'm not going to tell any tales...but there is MUCH going on behind the scenes few here are aware of.

Mignini believes Spezi is involved in Sfarzo's site? He's NOT alone

And no, I never disputed Spezi's involvement in Perugia Shock..especially when I know different.

 

[LondonJohn]

Certain people are reading things into what you've said that aren't actually there. It does make you wonder how good their skills at evaluating evidence and coming to conclusions must be if they can hallucinate like this.

I can't help but (regretfully, I promise) come to the same conclusion.

 

[Alt+F4]

But you didn't even specify Italy in your original quote. So, I'm afraid, if we're dealing in who's "right" and who's "wrong", then I know which of the two I am.

Why would you assume I was referring to any other country than Italy where the murder, trial and appeal were/are in.....wait for it....Italy.

 

[Fulcanelli]

This is my argument regarding the shoeprints from Meredith's room to the front door. However, Rudy was not certain that it was his footprint on the bathmat - in other words, he didn't recall leaving it there. As he didn't recall leaving it there, it possibly never occurred to him to clean it up. Regardless, this is a moot point given the shoeprints.

Well, I wasn't talking about the print on the bath mat, neither was Rudy (he's never said that was his or even might be). The print I'm talking about (as was Rudy) was the one in Meredith's room originally assigned to Raffaele.

 

[LondonJohn]

To assist it 'how'...specifically?

I've already explicitly explained how it would assist and expedite the investigation.

Regretfully, I've decided that there's something going on here. As a result, I won't be responding to any of your posts, nor following up any of your responses to mine. I'm not going to explain in detail why not.

 

[Alt+F4]

STRAWMAN!!!

Yawn.

 

[Alt+F4]

Regretfully, I've decided that there's something going on here.

The conspiracy sub-fourm is thata way --->

 

[LondonJohn]

I still think he's wrong anyhow. I think he's mistaking the issues over the national DNA bank with the rights of the individual to refuse to submit to a test unless many provisions are made and not just the ones LJ thinks are OK.

I can tell he's working from hearsay because he's also jumbled in an anecdote about first responders being swabbed. That's a written condition of their contract in most jurisdictions. You don't become a peace officer or first responder unless you agree to submit to the DNA tests.

You can tell I'm working from hearsay because I jumbled in an anecdote about first responders being swabbed? Maybe you'd like to check, first of all, who posted the part about first responders being swabbed (I'll give you a clue: it wasn't me).

Also, you're continuing to misrepresent me over the whole issue of compulsory vs voluntary, and rights to refuse to give samples. Again, I have explicitly set out my position more than once on all this, yet you continue to grossly misrepresent me.

I can only conclude that such behaviour is willful. I won't be responding to your posts again, nor commenting on any responses that you might make to any future posts of mine. Just so you know.