Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[BobTheDonkey]

The post was intended as humor Bob, my other point was secondary. Did you enjoy the humor part?

I did, Rose, thanks.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Read the thread, Kevin.

Rudy had the knife in his bag, not in his hand. When he broke into the nursery, he did not break any windows (the woman who found him testified that there was no damage to the building), and the knife was one he found inside the nursery. Is that clear enough? Or do you need further clarification?

Rudy could not have had the knife when he broke into the nursery because it was the nurseries knife - that means he didn't get the knife till after he was inside.

Armed burglary, not so much.

Why exactly do you think it is important that he secured a weapon after entering the building? Do you think this negates the fact that he was indeed somewhere he shouldn't have been and in possession of a weapon?

As it goes, can you provide evidence of Rudy Guede's rap sheet? Because, so far, the defense has yet to provide it. To further explain why the onus is on you, Guede's sentence was mitigated by 4 years specifically because he has no prior criminal record.

Well what a surprise. After Fiona was done dancing with that straw man, Bob took out out for another spin.

Edited by LashL: 

Edited for civility

Charming. How about you either get some citations to back up your claims, or **** and go back to PMF? Claims without citations are just hot air. I'd be surprised if you even remembered which particular claim you were trying to weasel out of providing evidence for by now.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Why exactly do you think it is important that he secured a weapon after entering the building? Do you think this negates the fact that he was indeed somewhere he shouldn't have been and in possession of a weapon?

No, it doesn't. However, it's not quite the "breaking into a nursery while armed" that you presented, now is it?

Well what a surprise. After Fiona was done dancing with that straw man, Bob took out out for another spin.

How is that a strawman? You present actual evidence of Guede's criminal record, we'll acknowledge you were right. So far, no one's been able to do it. That's not a strawman, by any stretch.

RTFT? Charming. How about you either get some citations to back up your claims, or STFU and go back to PMF? Claims without citations are just hot air. I'd be surprised if you even remembered which particular claim you were trying to weasel out of providing evidence for by now.

Take note of the fact that I was here before this thread even started. Also note that I don't have a login at PMF, which of course means I don't post there either. I'm from JREF, Kevin. Not PMF. PMF is a source for translations, I don't care for their interpretation of those translations, just for the translations themselves. Do you have another source for the translated prison journals/email/testimonies? Didn't think so.

As for what it is that you asked for me to cite, it was a request for a cite of where in Raffaele's diary he stated that he had pricked Meredith's finger while cooking. Now, you'll note that not a single one of your "Amanda's an angel" brethren (and sistren) are willing to deny that Raffaele wrote this - rather, they attempt to argue his writing was merely him looking to find a way to make sense of what the Police had told him regarding the knife. Of course, that doesn't hold up when one realizes that Raffaele never cooked a meal with Meredith...so how, exactly, would this be merely looking for an innocent, truthful explanation for the DNA results? In fact, this flat-out-lie lends credence to the DNA results - why else would Raffaele feel the need to lie outright in an attempt to provide a reason for the DNA results if he didn't suspect they were valid...

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

No, it doesn't. However, it's not quite the "breaking into a nursery while armed" that you presented, now is it?

I just cited the specific news articles. What a surprise, you've made a straw man.

How is that a strawman? You present actual evidence of Guede's criminal record, we'll acknowledge you were right. So far, no one's been able to do it. That's not a strawman, by any stretch.

I never claimed he had criminal convictions. I just cited the specific, eyewitness accounts of his criminal behaviour in mainstream news sources. You keep trying to pretend someone is claiming he has criminal convictions, while no one is in fact making that claim, which makes your response a textbook case of arguing with a straw man.

As for what it is that you asked for me to cite, it was a request for a cite of where in Raffaele's diary he stated that he had pricked Meredith's finger while cooking. Now, you'll note that not a single one of your "Amanda's an angel" brethren (and sistren) are willing to deny that Raffaele wrote this - rather, they attempt to argue his writing was merely him looking to find a way to make sense of what the Police had told him regarding the knife.

So where's the specific citation? Crickets chirp, the sun rises and sets, days go by... where's the citation? Where, exactly, does one go to verify this claim of yours?

You'll forgive me if I assume, until you provide it, that you are completely misrepresenting the intent and/or context. That's based on previous bad experiences, you understand.

Oh, and one more thing: You characterised me as thinking "Amanda's an angel". Which form of argumentative dishonesty do you think that might be? I'll give you a clue: you and Stilicho and Fulcanelli resort to them the second you come under pressure. They rhyme with "flaw pan". Have you figured it out? No? It's a straw man!

 

[Amazer]

Kevin,

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=49

Have a look at page 9

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Kevin,

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=49

Have a look at page 9

Thanks Amazer, finally someone managed to cite a source.

I'l quote the relevant bit:

It seems like a horror movie ... Looking back
and remembering it came to mind that the night dad sent me an sms
message of goodnight to be indiscreet (knowing that I was with
Amanda), then the day after Amanda repeated to me that if she had not
been with me at this time she would be dead. Thinking and
reconstructing, it seems to me that she always remained with me, the
only thing I do not remember exactly is when she left in the early
evening for a few minutes.

I am convinced that she could not have killed Meredith and then return
home. The fact that there is Meredith's DNA on the kitchen is because
once while cooking together, I shifted myself in the house handling
the knife, I had the point on her hand, and immediately after I
apologized but she had nothing done to her. So the only real
explanation of the kitchen knife is this.

It's pretty easy to see what's happening here.

The PMF echo chamber have decided that the "her" in "I had the point on her hand" meant Meredith, which would indeed be incriminating because it makes no damned sense at all.

An equally legitimate and considerably more logical interpretation is that "her" refers to Amanda, and he's hypothesising that Amanda touched Meredith and then his knife touched Amanda's hand and thus it was contaminated with Meredith's DNA.

This makes BobTheDonkey, who claimed that "in Raffaele's diary he stated that he had pricked Meredith's finger while cooking" a ******* liar.

Chalk up one more claimed slam-dunk that, once dragged out into the light of day, turned out to be complete miss.

Why am I not surprised?

 

[odeed]

Thanks Amazer, finally someone managed to cite a source.

I'l quote the relevant bit:



It's pretty easy to see what's happening here.

The PMF echo chamber have decided that the "her" in "I had the point on her hand" meant Meredith, which would indeed be incriminating because it makes no damned sense at all.

An equally legitimate and considerably more logical interpretation is that "her" refers to Amanda, and he's hypothesising that Amanda touched Meredith and then his knife touched Amanda's hand and thus it was contaminated with Meredith's DNA.

This makes BobTheDonkey, who claimed that "in Raffaele's diary he stated that he had pricked Meredith's finger while cooking" a ******* liar.

Chalk up one more claimed slam-dunk that, once dragged out into the light of day, turned out to be complete miss.

Why am I not surprised?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...t-prison-diary-DNA-knife-pricked-cooking.html

He wrote: "The fact there is Meredith's DNA on the kitchen knife is because once when we were all cooking together I accidentally pricked her hand. I apologised immediately and she said it was not a problem."

This was published 9th December 2007 so I doubt PMF was even around then.

 

[Amazer]

Thanks Amazer, finally someone managed to cite a source.

My pleasure.

I'l quote the relevant bit:



It's pretty easy to see what's happening here.

The PMF echo chamber have decided that the "her" in "I had the point on her hand" meant Meredith, which would indeed be incriminating because it makes no damned sense at all.

An equally legitimate and considerably more logical interpretation is that "her" refers to Amanda, and he's hypothesising that Amanda touched Meredith and then his knife touched Amanda's hand and thus it was contaminated with Meredith's DNA.

That's certainly one way of interpreting it. The way it's written makes it hard to understand what he's trying to communicate. From what I understand, it's not the translation that's the problem but the way he speaks/writes his Italian that's rather poor and unconventional.

This makes BobTheDonkey, who claimed that "in Raffaele's diary he stated that he had pricked Meredith's finger while cooking" a ******* liar.

Not really, Bob's interpretation makes as much sense as yours.

Chalk up one more claimed slam-dunk that, once dragged out into the light of day, turned out to be complete miss.

Too early to tell.

Why am I not surprised?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...t-prison-diary-DNA-knife-pricked-cooking.html

This was published 9th December 2007 so I doubt PMF was even around then.

Regardless, it's clear the article you cited just made the same "mistake" Bob did.

This just demonstrates the importance of going to a primary source (the diary) instead of taking the word of a second-hand source, even if it's a mainstream newspaper's site.

Not really, Bob's interpretation makes as much sense as yours.

Even the Daily Mail, probably the most notoriously terrible of the major UK newspapers, managed to include the fact that nobody including Raffaele ever claimed before or since that Meredith had ever been in his house.

No, Bob's interpretation makes no sense at all.

Raffaele used an ambiguous pronoun when he shouldn't have, and that's all there is to this talking point.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Regardless, it's clear the article you cited just made the same "mistake" Bob did.

This just demonstrates the importance of going to a primary source (the diary) instead of taking the word of a second-hand source, even if it's a mainstream newspaper's site.



Even the Daily Mail, probably the most notoriously terrible of the major UK newspapers, managed to include the fact that nobody including Raffaele ever claimed before or since that Meredith had ever been in his house.

No, Bob's interpretation makes no sense at all.

Raffaele used an ambiguous pronoun when he shouldn't have, and that's all there is to this talking point.

Considering that Meredith is the female in the passage we're referring to, it was not an ambiguous pronoun. It was, in fact, decidedly unambiguously indicating that Raffaele intended the passage to read that the prickee was Meredith. Where does he claim that Amanda was the middle between Meredith and his knife? He doesn't. He makes the claim that the only explanation for Meredith's DNA on the blade is because he pricked her hand with the knife.

This is like elementary grammar school here, sheesh.

 

[Amazer]

Even the Daily Mail, probably the most notoriously terrible of the major UK newspapers, managed to include the fact that nobody including Raffaele ever claimed before or since that Meredith had ever been in his house.

Which is why Raffaele's apparent lack of clarity in the statement makes it so interesting.

No, Bob's interpretation makes no sense at all.

And you are entitled to that opinion. The way I see it is that the sentence can be successfully argued both ways. Since none of us knows for sure what ran through Raffaele's head when he penned this sentence the best we can do is to say that it can be explained both ways and we don't know which interpretation is the correct one.

Raffaele used an ambiguous pronoun when he shouldn't have, and that's all there is to this talking point.

So you think... just wait... let 10 pages go by and then someone else will bring this topic up again and we can (re)start this discussion from square one all over again.

 

[odeed]

Regardless, it's clear the article you cited just made the same "mistake" Bob did.

This just demonstrates the importance of going to a primary source (the diary) instead of taking the word of a second-hand source, even if it's a mainstream newspaper's site.



Even the Daily Mail, probably the most notoriously terrible of the major UK newspapers, managed to include the fact that nobody including Raffaele ever claimed before or since that Meredith had ever been in his house.

No, Bob's interpretation makes no sense at all.

Raffaele used an ambiguous pronoun when he shouldn't have, and that's all there is to this talking point.

What mistake did I make? You took a quote and implied that PMF somehow misrepresented this to mean something else. I provided you with an earlier source for the pricked finger quote to show that it didn't originate with PMF.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Considering that Meredith is the female in the passage we're referring to, it was not an ambiguous pronoun.

It was, in fact, decidedly unambiguously indicating that Raffaele intended the passage to read that the prickee was Meredith. Where does he claim that Amanda was the middle between Meredith and his knife? He doesn't. He makes the claim that the only explanation for Meredith's DNA on the blade is because he pricked her hand with the knife.

This is like elementary grammar school here, sheesh.

Well yes, and you're the student who is failing the course.

Look, I'll quote the relevant sentences for you again.

"I am convinced that she could not have killed Meredith and then return home. The fact that there is Meredith's DNA on the kitchen is because once while cooking together, I shifted myself in the house handling the knife, I had the point on her hand, and immediately after I apologized but she had nothing done to her."

"She" and "her" are Amanda, unless you are going to try claiming that he is proposing that Meredith committed suicide. Meredith is Meredith.

Nowhere is a finger pricked, as you claimed. Nowhere does he claim he drew blood from Meredith at his house with that knife.

 

[Amazer]

Considering that Meredith is the female in the passage we're referring to, it was not an ambiguous pronoun. It was, in fact, decidedly unambiguously indicating that Raffaele intended the passage to read that the prickee was Meredith. Where does he claim that Amanda was the middle between Meredith and his knife? He doesn't. He makes the claim that the only explanation for Meredith's DNA on the blade is because he pricked her hand with the knife.

This is like elementary grammar school here, sheesh.

Bob,

I think we have to keep in mind that Raffaele's style of writing is somewhat unconventional. At least, that's what I've been hearing.

Keeping that in mind, I'm open to the possibility that perhaps the sentences are just poorly constructed and that Raffaele did mean Amanda instead of Meredith.

It does make me wonder about Raffaele's mental capabilities though, if the sentence should be read as Kevin suggests it should.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

What mistake did I make?

I didn't say you made a mistake. Read the post. I said Bob made a "mistake". Are you Bob?

You took a quote and implied that PMF somehow misrepresented this to mean something else. I provided you with an earlier source for the pricked finger quote to show that it didn't originate with PMF.

Fair enough too.

 

[Agatha]

Interpreting the "her" as Amanda requires that Raffaelle is claiming some method whereby cutting Amanda's hand transfers Meredith's (and only Meredith's) DNA to the knife blade. But he doesn't even attempt to explain this method.

Interpreting the "her" as Meredith requires no such complicated method of transfer.

What was it about not multiplying entities unnecessarily?

 

[Alt+F4]

Keeping that in mind, I'm open to the possibility that perhaps the sentences are just poorly constructed and that Raffaele did mean Amanda instead of Meredith.

It does make me wonder about Raffaele's mental capabilities though, if the sentence should be read as Kevin suggests it should.

It might also be who's doing the translation. Here's the passage in question in the original Italian.

Il fatto che c’è del Dna di Meredith sul coltello da cucina è perché una volta mentre cucinavamo insieme, io, spostandomi in casa maneggiando il coltello, l’ho punta sulla mano, e subito dopo le ho chiesto scusa ma lei non si era fatta niente. Quindi l’unica vera spiegazione a quel coltello da cucina è questa.

It's practically gibberish in the Google translation. Anyone have a better translation?

 

[Alt+F4]

Interpreting the "her" as Amanda requires that Raffaelle is claiming some method whereby cutting Amanda's hand transfers Meredith's (and only Meredith's) DNA to the knife blade. But he doesn't even attempt to explain this method.

Good point. How could Amanda's DNA not be on the knife tip if she was pricked with it?

 

[Fine]

I in principle agree that there's no good reason why the defense shouldn't have identical access to the raw data like the prosecution has. They should have access to that data.

On what grounds was the release of the raw data denied? Was it due to some particular Italian laws or was there another reason given?

_________________

Hi Amazer. Yeah, I agree that the raw data should be released, but not to the nine American "DNA experts" who made this illogical statement in concluding their report:

"Summary:
DNA testing results [knife/bra clasp] described above could have been obtained even if no crime had occurred. As such, they do not constitute credible evidence that links Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito to the murder of Meredith Kercher." (See Friends of Amanda web site.)

To illustrate the fallacy, let's return to Johnny and the cookie missing from the cookie jar. There's those dirty little finger prints on the cookie jar, and those dirty foot prints in the kitchen, Johnny's red face, etc. Sure, there could have been such evidence pointing to Johnny as the culprit "even if no crime had occurred." Fine. So what? Even Johnny would not conclude that---"as such"--- there was no "credible evidence."

Amanda deserves experts who can think as well as Johnny.

///

 

[Amazer]

_________________

Hi Amazer. Yeah, I agree that the raw data should be released, but not to the nine American "DNA experts" who made this illogical statement in concluding their report:

"Summary:
DNA testing results [knife/bra clasp] described above could have been obtained even if no crime had occurred. As such, they do not constitute credible evidence that links Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito to the murder of Meredith Kercher." (See Friends of Amanda web site.)

To illustrate the fallacy, let's return to Johnny and the cookie missing from the cookie jar. There's those dirty little finger prints on the cookie jar, and those dirty foot prints in the kitchen, Johnny's red face, etc. Sure, there could have been such evidence pointing to Johnny as the culprit "even if no crime had occurred." Fine. So what? Even Johnny would not conclude that---"as such"--- there was no "credible evidence."

Amanda deserves experts who can think as well as Johnny.

///

I'd have no problem even if the data was released to those 9 scientists. I don't think they could be reliably considered independent after that letter anyhow.