I've been reading the lovely UK media and apparently Amanda bought some pants, ate pizza and left some of her own DNA in her own bathroom - case closed :highfive:
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito
- Thread starter anglolawyer
- Start date
- Status
I've been reading the lovely UK media and apparently Amanda bought some pants, ate pizza and left some of her own DNA in her own bathroom - case closed :highfive:
Desert Fox
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 6,147
I think I have an idea of a new "Law" (in the scientific sense) for criminal cases.
"If a real life murder case reads (or sounds) like something you might read in a murder novel, it is probably fiction."
"If a real life murder case reads (or sounds) like something you might read in a murder novel, it is probably fiction."
Desert Fox
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 6,147
I believe the English term is 'Knickers"
AmyStrange
Philosopher
-
and how the police told us that Amanda finally broke and told them (in a "non-confession") what they already knew to be true.
I wonder what would have happened to L if he hadn't had an alibi or if Rudy's presence in the room hadn't been established? Steffy might have found his DNA mixed in with Meredith's alleged profile on the knife (along with the flour and no blood),
d
-
-
and how the police told us that Amanda finally broke and told them (in a "non-confession") what they already knew to be true.
I wonder what would have happened to L if he hadn't had an alibi or if Rudy's presence in the room hadn't been established? Steffy might have found his DNA mixed in with Meredith's alleged profile on the knife (along with the flour and no blood),
d
-
Don't forget about the "make out " session.
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,986
Nencini's willful stupidity with respect to the bra clasp
From pages 223-224 of the translation: "In essence, according to the above-mentioned defense hypothesis, there may have been more of Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA in the apartment on Via della Pergola no. 7, since he had visited the apartment in the days preceding the murder, and this DNA – never, for that matter, identified during the trial – could have been accidentally transferred onto the little bra hook by means of an action of the police during the day of 18 December 2007.
"Now, even if [we] wished to follow the same method of argument, we would have to conclude that a police operator, having picked up Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA elsewhere without noticing, had transferred it accidentally, but by some exceedingly selective manner, only onto the tip of the little hook, but not onto the adjacent cloth too, or onto other pieces of evidence that were collected during the search carried out on 18 December 2007 in the cottage (for example, the above-mentioned sweatshirt belonging to Meredith Kercher, on which was found only Rudy Hermann Guede’s DNA), which had definitely come into contact with that same forensic police operator."
Nencini's arrogant ignorance is breathtaking. Does he really believe that Sollecito only deposited DNA on the clasp and the cigarette but?! Does he not know that DNA cannot be seen? Does he not know that Raffaele's fingerprints were found on Meredith's door and that fingerprints can yield DNA?
Page 261: "It is enough to read the conclusions reached by Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni in her technical report, page 208, cited earlier at length, to check that the word “only” is a term arbitrarily added by the court-appointed experts, since in the report submitted by Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni there is no trace of it. Thus there is no objective documentary confirmation of that which is written on page 142 of the Conti-Vecchiotti report." In this passage Nencini is trying to say that Patrizia Stefanoni did not exclude that there were other contributors. Stefanoni did not include the alleles in her tables. How would someone know that the additional DNA even existed? Both Stefanoni's actions and Nencini's defense are morally equivalent to lying.
"This makes it reasonable to find it plausible that the girl’s boyfriend could have also left his traces on the bra hook; it is also reasonable to hold that some other one of her girlfriends could have at some point touched the bra hook and left her DNA." This passage is just plain-vanilla bad science. There is no reason to claim that a certain individual left DNA in the complete absence of evidence to that effect.
p. 262: "Essentially, in not very technical but maybe more expressive terms, it is possible that many hands touched that bra clasp, but the one that is important at trial is that of Raffaele Sollecito..." This is risible. If the DNA of several men is on the clasp from means unrelated to sexual assault, then there is no basis for claiming that Raffaele's got there in any other manner.
From pages 223-224 of the translation: "In essence, according to the above-mentioned defense hypothesis, there may have been more of Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA in the apartment on Via della Pergola no. 7, since he had visited the apartment in the days preceding the murder, and this DNA – never, for that matter, identified during the trial – could have been accidentally transferred onto the little bra hook by means of an action of the police during the day of 18 December 2007.
"Now, even if [we] wished to follow the same method of argument, we would have to conclude that a police operator, having picked up Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA elsewhere without noticing, had transferred it accidentally, but by some exceedingly selective manner, only onto the tip of the little hook, but not onto the adjacent cloth too, or onto other pieces of evidence that were collected during the search carried out on 18 December 2007 in the cottage (for example, the above-mentioned sweatshirt belonging to Meredith Kercher, on which was found only Rudy Hermann Guede’s DNA), which had definitely come into contact with that same forensic police operator."
Nencini's arrogant ignorance is breathtaking. Does he really believe that Sollecito only deposited DNA on the clasp and the cigarette but?! Does he not know that DNA cannot be seen? Does he not know that Raffaele's fingerprints were found on Meredith's door and that fingerprints can yield DNA?
Page 261: "It is enough to read the conclusions reached by Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni in her technical report, page 208, cited earlier at length, to check that the word “only” is a term arbitrarily added by the court-appointed experts, since in the report submitted by Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni there is no trace of it. Thus there is no objective documentary confirmation of that which is written on page 142 of the Conti-Vecchiotti report." In this passage Nencini is trying to say that Patrizia Stefanoni did not exclude that there were other contributors. Stefanoni did not include the alleles in her tables. How would someone know that the additional DNA even existed? Both Stefanoni's actions and Nencini's defense are morally equivalent to lying.
"This makes it reasonable to find it plausible that the girl’s boyfriend could have also left his traces on the bra hook; it is also reasonable to hold that some other one of her girlfriends could have at some point touched the bra hook and left her DNA." This passage is just plain-vanilla bad science. There is no reason to claim that a certain individual left DNA in the complete absence of evidence to that effect.
p. 262: "Essentially, in not very technical but maybe more expressive terms, it is possible that many hands touched that bra clasp, but the one that is important at trial is that of Raffaele Sollecito..." This is risible. If the DNA of several men is on the clasp from means unrelated to sexual assault, then there is no basis for claiming that Raffaele's got there in any other manner.
AmyStrange
Philosopher
AmyStrange
Philosopher
-
How could I, that's what got me started thinking they were guilty... until I actually looked at all the evidence in it's entirety and applied probabilities.
I can't say definitively they are innocent, but until someone can convince me my probabilities are wrong; I will stick with my belief that the probabilities are that they are innocent.
And using improbabilities (like using extreme improbabilities* as a way to skew the duodenum time limits so that the more improbable time limit is more probable than the average probabilities) does not count, in my opinion,
d
-
ETA: *even if the extreme probabilities are more probable, you still have to explain Meredith's last call to her Mom and Rudy's Skype call which increases the probability that the duodenum timeline (that death occurred at about 9:20 to 9:30) is correct. So like I said, yes let's discuss the evidence Supercal. You first...
-
-
How could I, that's what got me started thinking they were guilty... until I actually looked at all the evidence in it's entirety and applied probabilities.
I can't say definitively they are innocent, but until someone can convince me my probabilities are wrong; I will stick with my belief that the probabilities are that they are innocent.
And using improbabilities (like using extreme improbabilities* as a way to skew the duodenum time limits so that the more improbable time limit is more probable than the average probabilities) does not count, in my opinion,
d
-
ETA: *even if the extreme probabilities are more probable, you still have to explain Meredith's last call to her Mom and Rudy's Skype call which increases the probability that the duodenum timeline (that death occurred at about 9:20 to 9:30) is correct. So like I said, yes let's discuss the evidence Supercal. You first...
-
Last edited:
AmyStrange
Philosopher
-
Also, with that kind of logic, there must be a million cheerleaders out there killing people left and right. oh the horror of it,
d
-
-
Also, with that kind of logic, there must be a million cheerleaders out there killing people left and right. oh the horror of it,
d
-
carbonjam72
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,324
I might be making a mistake on this, but I thought there was hair evidence at the crimes scene, and that the hair was ethnically african, ie a black man (or woman).
The was also a few hairs I thought found on the window sill of the broken window in Filomena's room, and a few drops of blood there as well. I think the tests on these items "never came out".
I'd hate to be wrong about this, I hope someone has more or better info on it.
So if they did find hairs they could conclude belonged to a black person, then they could have been looking at anyone including Patrick. Or alternatively, have seen one more confirming element that Rudy might have been behind it.
It's easy enough to look at elements in isolation and say, not much there. But there are elements you have to have an explanation for, or be open to other explanations that incorporate those unresolved elements.
It seems to me this is a piece of the puzzle that remains unresolved.
But either way, Mignini was under indictment, was getting his hat handed to him in Florence as his latest iteration of psychic medium Gabriella CArlizzi's satanic cult murder conspiracy was getting shredded in open court.
Meredith's murder was a lucky stroke for Mignini no more how you cut it. Protecting Rudy Guede would be only one more strand to a Mignini led farce, not essential to Mignini knowingly pursuing the innocent, but one more incentive for him to do so.
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 41,028
I feel confident enough to say that they are DEFINITELY INNOCENT. That the murder took place before 9:45 and Amanda and Raffaele were at his apartment at 8:40 and 9:23 and it is unreasonable that Amanda and Raffale took a ten minute walk and within ten minutes of arriving at the apartment they joined together with a man that Raffaele had never met and Amanda had met basically in passing to kill Meredith Kercher. Frankly, I believe you have to be either corrupt or incredibly stupid to think that they killed Meredith. .
Last edited:
I agree. If you're going to put forth this preposterous scenario you'd better have solid proof. It's just asinine on the face of it and then you add zero credible evidence and it becomes a complete farce. It would be comical if it wasn't so tragic. The Kerchers deserve better than this.
Aha, but then why did they announce their intention to appeal Hellmann's verdict BEFORE he issued his reasoning for finding them uninvolved in any way in their Meredith's murder?
platonov
Master Poster
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2010
- Messages
- 2,339
I hope I haven’t said too much.
Of course THEY ARE.
That’s obvious.
But ..... well..... OK I’m not at liberty to say what’s behind the conspiracy.
But I will say this, given the incomprehension over simpler issues, I don’t think the explanation would be either understood or accepted.
Just put it down to ... the Muslims or the Russians or whatever.
The reality is a lot scarier than your wildest nightmares.
Of course THEY ARE.
That’s obvious.
But ..... well..... OK I’m not at liberty to say what’s behind the conspiracy.
But I will say this, given the incomprehension over simpler issues, I don’t think the explanation would be either understood or accepted.
Just put it down to ... the Muslims or the Russians or whatever.
The reality is a lot scarier than your wildest nightmares.
Last edited:
AmyStrange
Philosopher
My skeptical mind won't allow it...
-
I wish I felt as confident, and not to belittle (or downplay) either of your beliefs, but my skeptical mind won't allow me to think that way.
I do agree though that not only do the Kerchers, but Meredith also deserves better,
d
-
-
-
I wish I felt as confident, and not to belittle (or downplay) either of your beliefs, but my skeptical mind won't allow me to think that way.
I do agree though that not only do the Kerchers, but Meredith also deserves better,
d
-
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 41,028
Corruption comes in many forms platonov. It is rarely a spoken agreed upon conspiracy. It is more, you go along to get along. That people know where there bread is buttered. Group instead of independent thought. Noble corruption. Frankly, I can see how they suspected Amanda and Raffaele, even to the point of arresting them. But as the evidence fell apart, the Italians had invested their own credibility and refused to consider that they were very very wrong and change course. That is the corruption in this case. Nencini, is corrupt, but he did as the Italian Supreme court ordered him to do. And his absurd motivation is dumber than Massei's...much much dumber.
Last edited:
AmyStrange
Philosopher
-
It's interesting that a very limited conspiracy (not saying that there is a conspiracy) to convict Raffaele and Amanda is unbelievable, but a conspiracy between three virtual strangers getting together to psychologically agree to kill Meredith is possible,
d
-
AmyStrange
Philosopher
-
Some people refer to this kind of police conspiracy as the "thin blue line" and has more collaborative evidence to back it up then three virtual strangers psychologically agreeing to kill one person, which involves a probability of happening on the same scale as someone getting three royal flushes in a row, in my opinion,
d
-
ETA: A better analogy (than mine above) would be the probability of three people getting a royal flush at the same time in the same game
-
-
Some people refer to this kind of police conspiracy as the "thin blue line" and has more collaborative evidence to back it up then three virtual strangers psychologically agreeing to kill one person, which involves a probability of happening on the same scale as someone getting three royal flushes in a row, in my opinion,
d
-
ETA: A better analogy (than mine above) would be the probability of three people getting a royal flush at the same time in the same game
-
Last edited:
- Status