• 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 Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Machiavelli said:
Because something was already detectable. Look in her final profile there are peaks as high as 120 RFU.
Click to expand...

You lie. She ran the quantification before she ran the electropherogram. And the quantification just said "too low." Therefore, she didn't have any 120RFU peaks before she ran the electropherogram. All she had was a qubit flourometer reading that said "too low".
 
I've just managed to read both PMF forums up to date, from the time of the verdict - or at least, the bits left by the data corruption at .net, which of course they initially ascribed to "FOAKer hacking", believing they had something so critical it had to be eliminated.

Total respect to Greggy, as noted above, for being prepared to consider that he may be mistaken.

Best post award to norbertc, for the link to the video of a climber scaling the Eiger Nordwand in 2 hours 47 minutes.


It has nothing to do with the case, but it's great!

By the way, someone called teabreak is currently having fun with .net.

Rolfe.
 
Machiavelli said:
You are talking of those who assert "abuses" with no argument?

Or those who openly state they believe false things?
look at this video:

http://youtu.be/GSHrTbD0xis//

Guede answers correctly to the question on the meaning of words in his letter, at 27:30.
Click to expand...
-

Double speak is saying (or writing) a lot of something (this, that, and the other) that really says nothing at all. You're good at it, but those who can think critically can see right through it.

I mean, you make some good points, but most of it doesn't prove anything, although you've proven that you can definitely think outside the box, but unfortunately most of everything you say is in reference to the wrong box.

You're like the comedian that complains about airplane peanuts when the real important point is that the plane landed safely and Amanda ain't never going back to Perugia.

But, we love you anyway Mach,

Dave
 
Absolutely not, for what concerns negative tests. It is instead Vecchiotti who lied: the whole Vecchiotti / Conti argument about the knife hinges on the allegged lack of negative controls. Vecchiotti and Conti asserted the negative controls were not done. And this is false. The negative controls were done. Their argument about contamination is based in a great part abput this lie.
The fact that negative controls did exist, and thus Vecchiotti's assumption was false, was implicitly acknowledged by Hellmann's court, as they refused to admit the negative controls with a peculiar motivation: because after all they were not necessary, since a contamination could have occurred outside the laboratory.
For what concerns PCR quantification, again this is a myth, it is mystified both by the defense and then by Vecchiotti and Conti themselves.
In fact, there is no lie about PCR quantification in Stefanoni's report. There is not a single lie in her report, not a single false datum. All her data are identical to the one found in the C&V report.
Click to expand...

So you're betting that C&V will charged with calunnia?
 
AmyStrange said:
-

Double speak is saying (or writing) a lot of something (this, that, and the other) that really says nothing at all. You're good at it, but those who can think critically can see right through it.

I mean, you make some good points, but most of it doesn't prove anything, although you've proven that you can definitely think outside the box, but unfortunately most of everything you say is in reference to the wrong box.

You're like the comedian that complains about airplane peanuts when the real important point is that the plane landed safely and Amanda ain't never going back to Perugia.

But, we love you anyway Mach,

Dave
Click to expand...


What matters is two things:
Meredith, and the truth.

Where Amanda is, it matters nothing.
(and anyway personally I won't bet on where she goes)
 
Hi Rolfe,
If the video was meant to show how easy it would be for RG to climb to Filomenas window, it won't work. You know Mach will just say yes but Rudy didn't have ice axes to help him lol.
Great video.
 
Last edited:
In Stefanoni's questioning of 2008 - not that one before Massei's court, but a previous one before the preliminary judge - Stefanoni said she did not recall the amount of DNA on the knife, she said she *thought*it could be - highlight the concept "she thought", as far as she remembered - that could be of the kind of hundreds picograms. But Stefanoni also said "it could be a low copy number", and when asked when do you start considering a peak "low" she said "I start to be more careful in interpretation when peaks are below 50 RFU".
Click to expand...

So when Stefanoni " thinks" and tells an untruth that's not the same as Amanda seeing visions that don't seem the truth?
 
Rolfe said:
I've just managed to read both PMF forums up to date, from the time of the verdict - or at least, the bits left by the data corruption at .net, which of course they initially ascribed to "FOAKer hacking", believing they had something so critical it had to be eliminated.

Total respect to Greggy, as noted above, for being prepared to consider that he may be mistaken.

Best post award to norbertc, for the link to the video of a climber scaling the Eiger Nordwand in 2 hours 47 minutes.


It has nothing to do with the case, but it's great!

By the way, someone called teabreak is currently having fun with .net.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...


Outstanding effort! Do you now feel depressed and no hope for humanity? :p
Jk - a little bit. It's a pretty dark place imo.

I'm glad Greggy was able to do change his mind. I'm surprised that didn't happen after the CV report came out. I don't know why the verdict itself would change his mind. I'm still bemused by Thoughtful, not sure why they are a guilter. I hope none of them leave the mental ward and try and hurt Amanda. I had hoped that now that the verdict is over they would close up shop or find a new target. I guess it is hard to give up the hate site they use as a neighborhood bar. When will it finally really end? After the motivation report?

Greggy, if you read JREF could you explain what made you change your mind and when?

Does Peggy Ganong really believe Amanda is guilty or does she really not care? I suspect she enjoys playing queen bee more than anything.
 
Poppy1016 said:
Hi Rolfe,
If the video was meant to show how easy it would be for RG to climb to Filomenas window, it won't work. You know Mach will just say yes but Rudy didn't have ice axes to help him lol.
Great video.
Click to expand...


I don't think it was meant to show anything! I think he just liked it, and I second that. I enjoyed it enormously.

You do make a good point about the break-in though. Guilters repeatedly claim that climbing in through that window is impossible. Probably impossible for them or me, whose only chance of getting to the top of the Eiger involves the train. Athletic basketball player in his early 20s, who had done that sort of thing before? ompletely different proposition, and completely different from some lawyer dude in a desk job, too, even if young-ish and slimmish.

I'd barricade the window, personally, rather than rely on its geometry to keep me safe.

Rolfe.
 
Machiavelli said:
Stefanoni said she thought she recalled of hundreds picograms (not "several") and it was during a preliminary hearing. Then stated it could be a low copy number.
And this, to me, means nothing.
If you think that this lie is malicious, my answer is that this "malice", besides unproven, is irrelevant to me, it does not make the defendant become innocent and does not invalidate anything about DNA findings. This is not a trial about Stefanoni's charachter or way of talking to the preliminary judge. This is about her data, which are consistent, correct, and true, and she answered truthfuly and correctly about all of them.
Click to expand...

But when Amanda Knox stated that she "thought" she "might" remember being at the scene with Lumumba (under circumstances where confusion was to be expected, since the police intentionally tried to confuse her), that's a malicious lie. You crack me up.

What Stefanoni said was untrue, and she has no excuse for "thinking" she recalled something that in fact wasn't true, and that she could have double checked to refresh her memory. She was testifying in court as an expert, for **** sake. It is obvious to anyone who isn't in the tank for the prosecution that she lied.
 
Last edited:
Machiavelli said:
You keep clinging to my two - if not only one - wrong, probabilistic, predictions. To assert that I am "wrong". You magically cancel all the dozens of points of knowledge - not mere prediction - where I just proved right. You have a very simplified memory. Do you know what the people on the innocentisti forums predicted about the preliminary hearings? And about the first trial? Do you recall that I predicted exactly the outcome (even the number of years of jail time)?
I think you forgot the huge - overwhelming, total - load of information on which I am right, which is not made of bets.
Knox and Sollecito are guilty. This can be proven and will be. I don't know if in a courtroom, but could well be in a courtroom.
Click to expand...

Which voice are you using now, Machiavelli? I thought the real Machiavelli respected the court's judgement, both about the murder and about the calunnia.

And speaking of your thousand points of light, you seem to have forgotten the huge - overwhelming, total - load of information on which Amanda and Raffaele were both presumed and found innocent, which is not made of bets.
 
Antony said:
Careful Machiavelli. The tarriff for making a false accusation in Italy is 3 years in prison.
Click to expand...

Nah. Any self-respecting lawyer would be too embarrassed to file a suit against someone who used the word calunniatrix.
 
Antony said:
Careful Machiavelli. The tarriff for making a false accusation in Italy is 3 years in prison.
Click to expand...

Not if you're a prosecutor, or if you're echoing the false accusations of a prosecutor.
 
Last edited:
Mary_H said:
Which voice are you using now, Machiavelli? I thought the real Machiavelli respected the court's judgement, both about the murder and about the calunnia.

And speaking of your thousand points of light, you seem to have forgotten the huge - overwhelming, total - load of information on which Amanda and Raffaele were both presumed and found innocent, which is not made of bets.
Click to expand...

You seem to believe much to your own judgement that I have an authoritarian culture; and you seem to believe the idea that I wil believe autority whatever it says.
But I never had these ideas. I will decide if and how to respect the court's decision only after I read the motivation report, and anyway the decision is not definitive. It does not change Knox's legal status by now: until the Cassazione, Knox is still under trial for murder.
But aside of this, my conclusions are not based on trust in authority nor on trust in judges' conclusion. My conclusions are based on my assessment of the evidence. I've seen the evidence, I see evidence of their implication beyond doubt. In fact, I've seen a load of information pointing towards their guilt.
I also have some confidence in my assessments on the law, and by now I see some of Hellmann's procedure choices as profoundly flawed. I also have some kind of information about Vechiotti and Hellmann and other people. But before having an opinion on Hellmann's verdict, I have to read it.
 
Freddy said:
But when Amanda Knox stated that she "thought" she "might" remember being at the scene with Lumumba (under circumstances where confusion was to be expected, since the police intentionally tried to confuse her), that's a malicious lie. You crack me up.

What Stefanoni said was untrue, and she has no excuse for "thinking" she recalled something that in fact wasn't true, and that she could have double checked to refresh her memory. She was testifying in court as an expert, for **** sake. It is obvious to anyone who isn't in the tank for the prosecution that she lied.
Click to expand...

Knox is suspected for murder. She was not questioned about havin met Bugs Bunny in Disnayland when she was 10 or about how many picograms did she think there were in sample 165-B.
Knox had to say whether someone entered her apartment and murdered her roommate while she was there. And she is suspected for murder. Stefanoni is not. Mignini himself decided to withdraw the dcumentation about the knife DNA from the preliminary investigation, the judge deciding that it was not a topic to be discussed in depth in the hearing. If you want to state that Stefanoni's tests are not valid because of her performance in reporting of quantification in the preliminary hearing, I say: that's absurd to me. You can keep your opinions. But they are absurd. In my opinion they only show lack of arguments.
 
Machiavelli said:
No they can't be. But if Stefanoni feels like, they can be sued for defamation.
Click to expand...

Stefanoni could sue for defamation - if she feels like being further embarrassed and possibly implicated in a crime. I really hope she's dumb enough to do that, because it would be hilarious.
 
Grinder said:
So when Stefanoni " thinks" and tells an untruth that's not the same as Amanda seeing visions that don't seem the truth?
Click to expand...

Of course it's not the same. Knox lying is obvious, and it is to misguide an investigation for the murder of her friend. And even if it were the same and they were both liars, this would mean Knox is a liar. And Knox is the one suspected with murder, not Stefanoni.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom