• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
What makes you think that the passage you quoted was written before the passage I quoted?


This is the actual passage from Amanda's testimony:

AK: "So, the first thing that happened when I got to prison was that they made a [blood] analysis. After the analysis, they called me downstairs and told me that they had to make further tests because I might have AIDS. I was really shocked because I didn't understand how it could have happened that I could have gotten AIDS. But they advised to to think about where I might have caught it, so they wanted me to really think about it. So I was writing in my diary about how astonished I was, and then I wrote down every partner that I had ever had in my life..."

The Daily Mail misquoted her slightly and their version was picked up by several other news outlets.
 
conclusions without reasons

Sorry Halides1 your explanation doesn't wash with me.

colonelhall,

When you make future responses, would you please include either facts or an argument of some sort? Merely stating that something "doesn't wash" or someone is beginning to look foolish does not advance the discussion.
 
Thanks for the explanation. So what would cause someone to come back with a false positive, if they are HIV negative?


Other diseases can produce antibodies that can be misread as HIV antibodies.

Nonspecific reactions, hypergammaglobulinemia, or the presence of antibodies directed to other infectious agents that may be antigenically similar to HIV can produce false positive results. Autoimmune diseases, such as systemic lupus erythematosus, have also rarely caused false positive results. Most false negative results are due to the window period; other factors, such as post-exposure prophylaxis, can rarely produce false negatives.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV_test

It is very rare, though. Amanda most likely did not have a false positive test result.
 
A brief aside about a particular fallacious argument I have seen here and elsewhere:

We have put together a very solid, very well-referenced case that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent because Meredith almost certainly died around 21:10, and Amanda and Raffaele were almost certainly at home watching Naruto long after she was already dead.

Various responses have been tried out against this, but the attempts at a factual rebuttal from the Amanda-is-guily have all been trivial and have all already been dealt with.

What we're left with is an argument from sheer incredulity and, perhaps, even petulance. It's the argument that, boiled down to its essentials "I refuse to believe it could be that easy to prove us wrong!". "Judges and pathologists (well some of them) agreed with our story, it cannot be possible that anything less than an equal and opposite number of judges and pathologists could overthrow it!". "I've spend three years on this narrative, and damned if I'm going to give it up now whatever the facts are!".

I can see where some of them are coming from, in a way. It would really suck to spend three years obsessing over minutiae of the trial, translating documents, reading blogs, discussing the details with like-minded friends and so on, only to find three years in that you'd been missing a really huge hole in the story that blew the whole fantasy apart. That would be a big chunk of one's life wasted.

It would be even worse if, and I stress that this is hypothetical, you'd convinced yourself that evil-minded or deluded Friends of Amanda were conducting a campaign of lies to make people think Amanda was innocent, and that therefore it was ethically tolerable or maybe even praiseworthy to respond with lies of your own to counter this. Although this line of thinking is antithetical to the ethos of the JREF forums, many political activists consider it quite okay to try to counter propaganda with propaganda. If you'd spent three years spreading stories that you knew were unfounded that Amanda Knox was a narcissistic, promiscuous, sociopathic, rape-obsessed, Holocaust-denying, manga-reading, heroin-snorting cartwheeling she-devil because you honestly believed that she did it, it would be terrible thing to suddenly be confronted with proof that she was completely innocent all along. That wouldn't do your self-image as a decent human being, a self-image most of us cherish, any good at all.

For some people it would make it even worse if you had begun to think of yourself as an authority on the topic, perhaps even the final authority, and your worldview was destroyed by a bunch of Johnny-come-lately amateurs, some of whom didn't even care that much about the case except as one puzzle amongst many they amused themselves by solving.

The problem is, these aren't logical arguments. A logical argument proceeds from premises to inescapable conclusions, and just because you spend three years on something or because a judge says something does not mean it inescapably follows that it is true. Often, in fact, a person who is not very scientifically-minded can nurse a theory for years only to have it shot down in minutes with a single well-chosen reference to the peer-reviewed literature, or a single well-chosen experiment. Around here such amateur theories, often held for years, routinely get disproved in very short order.

In the end, it simply doesn't follow that just because you don't want something to be true, it isn't true. It's a harsh, cruel world and sometimes people are completely wrong about dearly-held beliefs, sometimes dearly-held beliefs that have led them to do reprehensible things. That's life.

Kevin, I don't agree with this at all. I haven't been following the case closely for long, I have nothing vested in whether they are guilty or not. I have no clue what is correct about the time of death, you guys say that it's reliable, others say it's not. This is why I am really looking forward to the appeals. If this is so easily proven, that a bunch of people on a forum (I don't mean that in a disrespectful way, that describes me as well, obviously) can prove that there is no way Amanda and Raffaele killed Meredith, then it should be an easy win, right?

And I've been thinking about what someone said in regards to the defense experts, and how their opinions matter as well. This frustrates me, because it seems to happen in a lot of cases; experts for the prosecution say one thing, defense experts say the opposite. How are the judges or juries supposed to know which is correct? They obviously have no scientific training, so what is the point?
 
What makes you think that the passage you quoted was written before the passage I quoted?

I didn't think that. What I meant was why would she also say this. Do you mean that she was first told she had HIV, and then told correctly that is was only a possibility?
 
Thanks for the explanation. So what would cause someone to come back with a false positive, if they are HIV negative?

They just sometimes (but extremely rarely) happen with the ELISA test. The test was originally developed mainly for blood screening for transfusions etc, and was tuned so as to virtually eliminate the possibility of false negatives (i.e. to have a very high sensitivity). In other words, if a blood sample tested with ELISA came back as HIV-negative, it was pretty much certain to actually be HIV-negative. And it means that if people have an ELISA HIV test which comes back negative, then (notwithstanding incubation periods), they can be assured that they are not HIV-positive.

Because the test was tuned in this manner, it mean that there is a small tendency to false positives. The false positive rate for ELISA has been estimated at around 4 per 1000 (or 0.4%). The false positives in the modern ELISA tests are essentially caused by the test being deliberately skewed towards eliminating false negatives.

So it's incredibly unlikely that anyone who is HIV-negative will return a false positive ELISA test result. However, the companion Western Blot test is tuned in the opposite way to ELISA - to minimise the possibility of false positives. So if the ELISA test is positive and the Western Blot test is negative, the person is essentially HIV-negative, but if both are positive then the person is essentially HIV-positive.

This small but statistically-significant false positive possibility for ELISA means that in the USA and the UK, people are not informed of a positive ELISA test result until there is a confirmatory Western Blot positive result (although they are obviously informed of a negative ELISA result immediately, due to the high sensitivity of the ELISA test). For a person in a low-risk group, a positive ELISA result is not only extremely unlikely, but its presence is actually statistically more likely to be a false positive than a true positive. This is why it's considered medically irresponsible to inform people of a positive ELISA result, since more often than not the person is put through unnecessary distress.
 
They should not have said anything without a good reason

In her own diary, Amanda says "told me that they had to make further tests because I might have AIDS". It doesn't sound like they told her she had aids, it seems like they were honest, that it was a possibility so they wanted to do further testing.

Edit: Machiavelli beat me to it, damn

Solange305,

No one has indicated a sound medical reason for saying anything at all to Amanda before the follow-up test was done.

It is possible that they told her that she was HIV-positive, based upon the Mignini interview I cited. If they did, their interpretation of the first test was an overstatement.
 
Kevin, I don't agree with this at all. I haven't been following the case closely for long, I have nothing vested in whether they are guilty or not. I have no clue what is correct about the time of death, you guys say that it's reliable, others say it's not. This is why I am really looking forward to the appeals. If this is so easily proven, that a bunch of people on a forum (I don't mean that in a disrespectful way, that describes me as well, obviously) can prove that there is no way Amanda and Raffaele killed Meredith, then it should be an easy win, right?

And I've been thinking about what someone said in regards to the defense experts, and how their opinions matter as well. This frustrates me, because it seems to happen in a lot of cases; experts for the prosecution say one thing, defense experts say the opposite. How are the judges or juries supposed to know which is correct? They obviously have no scientific training, so what is the point?


The fact that the prosecution's experts were not independent raises suspicions. Ideally, experts for both sides should have no vested interest in the outcome of the trial, or in their relationships with the prosecutors or the judges.
 
Solange305,

No one has indicated a sound medical reason for saying anything at all to Amanda before the follow-up test was done.

It is possible that they told her that she was HIV-positive, based upon the Mignini interview I cited. If they did, their interpretation of the first test was an overstatement.

Thanks LondonJohn and Halides for explaining that to me patiently, it does sound suspicious that they told her that. I would doubt that the prosecutor was involved, but maybe the jailed officials wanted to mess with their new notorious convict. If that;s the case, that is flat out wrong. It still doesnt prove guilt or innocence though.

I hope this person doesn't get mad at me for posting this here, but there is an interesting comment at PMF in regards to the time of death issue. Hammerite found this:

“The inspection of the contents of the stomach must be part of every postmortem examination because it may provide qualitative information concerning the nature of the last meal and the presence of abnormal constituents. Using it as a guide to the time of death, however, is theoretically unsound and presents many practical difficulties, although it may have limited applicability in some exceptional instances. Generally, using stomach contents as a guide to time of death involves an unacceptable degree of imprecision and is thus liable to mislead the investigator and the court”.
http://journals.lww.com/amjforensicmedicine/Abstract/1989/03000/Stomach_Contents_and_the_Time_of_Death_.10.aspx
 
Last edited:
colonelhall,

When you make future responses, would you please include either facts or an argument of some sort? Merely stating that something "doesn't wash" or someone is beginning to look foolish does not advance the discussion.


halides1, did you see what loverofzion has written in post 7874?

"Anyone with any traianing in human behavior would see very quickly that she possessed psychopathic chracteristics; she lacked empathy and had an overblown sense of her own importance, all hallmarks of a narcissistic personality."

Food for thought.

ETA: The part about loverofzion having training in human behavior, that is.
 
Last edited:
You state they were not even there.
Can you proove where Amanda Knox was at 21:00?

Even on the evening of November 1, when Francesco Sollecito called his son (it was at 20:42 pm {Meredith was probably murdered from 21:00 to 21:42} , to tell him the plot of the movie he had just seen, “The Pursuit of Happiness”), Raffaele was with Amanda and told his father that the next day he would also be with Amanda: they had in fact planned a trip to Gubbio. He recalled as well that it was on the evening of November 1, when he phoned his son at 20:42 pm, that Raffaele had told him that "ʺwhile he was washing the dishes he had noticed leaked water… that had spilled onto the floor”, and that he had specified that he was with Amanda (p. 45, statement by Francesco Sollecito).

That Amanda and Raffaele were together on the evening of November 1 is also indicated by Jovana Popovic in her testimony (see statements made at the hearing of March 21, 2009). She reported that on the evening of November 1 she went to the house of Raffaele Sollecito on Corso Garibaldi twice; on both of these occasions, she met Amanda. Jovana Popovic also testified that on October 31, 2007 her mother, who was in Milan, told her that she was sending her a suitcase on the coach departing from Milan and arriving in Perugia at midnight. So on November 1, 2007 she therefore stopped by Raffaele’s (page 6, Popovic statement, hearing of March 21,
2009) and asked if he would accompany her to the coach station. She came by
around 5:45 pm and in any case a little before 6 pm {Meredith was probably murdered from 21:00 to 21:42}. At home there was Amanda, who opened the door to her, and there was Raffaele.

A short while later, her mother had called her back saying that she was not able to send the suitcase because the coach driver refused to take it.

[53] So Jovana Popovic, after finishing her lesson at the Tre Archi, which ended at 8:20 pm, returned on foot to the home of Raffaele, to tell him that she no longer needed to be accompanied to the station. It took her about twenty minutes to walk the distance, so she arrived at around 8:40 pm, {Meredith was probably murdered from 9:00 pm to 9:42 pm} again finding Amanda, who opened the door and let her know that Raffaele was in the bathroom.

A relationship, therefore, which had sprouted between Amanda and Raffaele
recently enough but especially intensely during the immediately succeeding days, a fews days, in fact hardly any, because the tragedy that followed occurred barely a week after their first meeting. On the afternoon and in the evening and night of November 1, 2007, Amanda and Raffaele were together.

The obligations of one or the other would have separated them, even if only for a little while, but events completely independent of their choices kept them together, almost as if making an attempt on their freedom and putting them to the test:

Raffaele Sollecito, as noted above, was to accompany Jovana Popovic, a medical student, to the Perugia station to pick up the suitcase that the girl'ʹs mother wanted to send to her by coach from Milan. The driver, however, refused to accept it; so Popovic Jovana had made it known that she no longer needed a ride to the station.

As for Amanda Knox, she was scheduled to work that night at the Le Chic, the pub managed by Diya “Patrick” Lumumba. However, he had sent her a text message - at a few minutes past 8 pm {Meredith was probably murdered from 9:00 to 9:42} on November 1, 2007 - telling her that there was no need for her to go to work that evening (see statements by Patrick Lumumba, hearing of April 3, 2009, pp. 160 and following).

And so Amanda, like Raffaele, came to be free of any commitment for the evening and night of November 1, 2007.
{Massei Report pgs 63 to 64}

They have a great alibi. They can't be really guilty.
 
Last edited:
You obviously haven't had much experience with coke. All coke does is make people talk and talk and talk about how great they are, until it wears off in about half an hour's time. In Amanda's case by the sounds of her personality probably nobody would notice she was high.

Well, finally a topic I have some experience on! I don't know if Amanda and Raffaele did coke, I haven't seen anything regarding that yet. I do know that what happens after that hour of happiness, or once the coke runs out, is really ugly. It is the worst, most horrible feeling you can imagine. You aren't comfortable in your own skin, you feel like you'd rather die that sit there without any coke. It's an indescribable feeling. I can see someone coming off of coke (called as being on a "downer") killing someone or becoming violent. So although I have no reason to think that happened in this case, I don't think your assertion is correct that coke has no relation to violence.
 
Last edited:
"When you make future responses, would you please include either facts or an argument of some sort? Merely stating that something "doesn't wash" or someone is beginning to look foolish does not advance the discussion."

Your arguments don't wash with me, because they have already been fully discredit by the likes of fulcanelli, Quadraginta, Fiona and the rest. All you lot are left doing is running around with your mole-whackers until you exhaust yourselves. Is there no health and safety officer on this site?
 
Well, finally a topic I have some experience on! I don't know if Amanda and Raffaele did coke, I haven't seen anything regarding that yet. I do know that what happens after that hour of happiness, or once the coke runs out, is really ugly. It is the worst, most horrible feeling you can imagine. You aren't comfortable in your own skin, you feel like you'd rather die that sit there without any coke. It's an indescribable feeling. I can see someone coming off of coke (called as being on a "downer") killing someone or becoming violent. So although I have no reason to think that happened in this case, I don't think your assertion is correct that coke has no relation to violence.

Possibly for a hardened crack user or someone like that I suppose. I tried coke a few times and it just made me talk absolute rubbish about subjects I knew nothing about until it wore off. After that I started on internet forums...wait a minute!
 
Possibly for a hardened crack user or someone like that I suppose. I tried coke a few times and it just made me talk absolute rubbish about subjects I knew nothing about until it wore off. After that I started on internet forums...wait a minute!

Well, come to think of it, you are right about the fact that the first one or two times usually has no negative side effects. That is what gets you hooked, it makes you happy, and wears off and leaves you feeling normal. After the first couple times though, that is all takes for the negatives to start. So although you are wrong about having to be a hardened crack user, you are right about the first couple times using it not having the negative side effects.
 
You have to look at this in relation to her normal habits. If it is not normal then it could be considered "strange". Was playing laying on her bed pushing random numbers part of her normal routine? Or was connecting to a cell tower that had she had not connected to previously part of that "no implication of anything strange". The appeals point out the abnormality of these things with Meredith's phone activity including the fact that she normally called her parents before she went to bed. She had already indicated to her friends that she was tired. I see her cell phone activity as important due to the fact that it does appear to be an indication of events taking place that were not normal.

Massei doesn't seem to think this call is worthy of attention, which I find interesting in light of his speculation about other cell phone activity. He speculates at length about the activity clustered around 10 pm, and concludes that Meredith was playing with her phone, deleting an unopened message to save costs, etc.

He also finds the sequence of Amanda's calls the next day to be significant, theorizing that she called one of Meredith's phones because she wanted to learn if it had been found.

But he doesn't seem to have any curiosity about this aborted call at 8:56. He never entertains the question of why she didn't complete this call, or make a second attempt if the call didn't go through. And indeed, Machiavelli here shares Massei's belief that this call is of no interest or relevance.

But I don't share that belief. I see it as part of a system of information that also includes the unflushed toilet and the undigested 6 pm meal. One can wave this information away, or assert that it falls short of absolute proof, but one cannot plausibly deny that it constitutes the best available evidence as to when Meredith Kercher was attacked and killed - around 9 pm, just after she arrived home.

And in fact, the only evidence that contradicts this premise is the testimony of the bum on the park bench, the serial witness, the prosecutor's faithful friend who comes through when the evidence falls short.
 
possibly for a hardened crack user or someone like that i suppose. I tried coke a few times and it just made me talk absolute rubbish about subjects i knew nothing about until it wore off. After that i started on internet forums...wait a minute!


:D:D:D!!!
 
I don't see how you came to that conclusion based on the text you posted. Unless Im confusing something , I have trouble with military time..

At 8:42 pm RS was talking to his dad according to telephone records. He said AK was there.

By 10:00 MK was dead and her phones had traveled a considerable distance.

Theoretically a "quickie kill" is possible. But the concept is absurd. They would have had to have run for minutes to get over there, killed her, and then run for minutes to throw the phones away.

Anyway, wasn't a car out front?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom