Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vibio]

Back to the drawing board, right Vibio?

No fingerprints, no DNA of his found at the murder scene. And again: he did not hang around to clean-up: he fled the scene (the murder victim called 911 while he was being murdered.)

And gloves? Perhaps. Who knows....


--

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Oh, I forgot to mention in my gloved sex murder scenario, that after Raffaele put his gloves back on and left his DNA on the bra clasp at the murder scene (since, despite being criminal masterminds that leave no trace of themselves, they're kinda forgetful actually), two other people rolled in at some point afterwards and fiddled with the bra clasp. Which is why there are two other profiles present. We're not yet sure why they didn't report the murder while they were there. Or why they forgot their gloves on this cold November night. (Nothing else in this scenario makes sense, so this shouldn't have to, right?)

Or maybe the bra clasp was actually contaminated by the investigators, and Amanda and Raffaele were at Raffaele's apartment during the murder, which is the only scenario that is compatible with Meredith's time of death. Then we don't have to construct an impossible scenario to explain the evidence.

How about that, Vibio?

 

[NotEvenWrong]

No fingerprints, no DNA of his found at the murder scene. And again: he did not hang around to clean-up: he fled the scene (the murder victim called 911 while he was being murdered.)

OK, probably gloves then. Although it only takes a few seconds to wipe down things you may or may not have touched. So still certainly possible. And he was obviously mindful of cleaning up evidence, since he removed the floor mats from his car later and changed his clothes.

Who knows! That's why we try to avoid making things up. Unless we just don't like some American tramp and want to keep her in prison for a few decades. Then all bets are off!

 

[Vibio]

How about that, Vibio?

The Knoxians claim that it's IMPOSSIBLE for Knox to have been in the room where the murder took place because in the areas tested there was none of her DNA, no fingerprints, no footprints. So, it's IMPOSSIBLE for her to have been there.

Well no, it's not impossible and the Latko trial is another example. 20 stab wounds... 2 throats slit: yet no DNA, no fingerprints, no footprints where found.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

I would say it is impossible for her to have been there because they were at Raffaele's apartment at the known time of death AND there was absolutely no evidence of them in the murder room.

By impossible, of course I mean the probability is vanishingly small. She could have had some quantum teleportation device in Raffaele's closet, enabling them to go back and forth to the murder room while they watched Amelie in the comfort of Raffaele's bedroom.

I gotta wonder though -- why the need to speculate on a bunch of nonsense?

 

[carbonjam72]

Re: post 1605

Sorry, but not even a good try.



We are talking about in the house. There was no clean-up there. He murdered and fled.




No....let me repeat: there was no cleanup at the crime scene.




That has nothing to do with the point of my post. And I specifically wrote: "Evidence did definitely eventually link Latko to the murders but in the house there was none of his fingerprints, no DNA, and no footprints of him. He struggled with 2 people, slit two throats but there was NO physical evidence found of him being in that house."

So the point Vibbio wants to make, IIUC, is that there was a clean-up in the room where the victim was brutally murdered, but there was not a clean-up in the rest of the house.

And, while the was no clean-up in the Kercher killing in the room where Meredith was killed, there (was or was not?) a clean-up in the rest of the cottage.

So they found no DNA/fingerprints or other biological evidence of Latko in the room where he killed his victim, and therefore it could just as easily happen that there would be no trace of Amanda and Raf in the room where meredith was killed and they still have been there.

What counts for Vibbio and Mach, AND the convicting judges, is the evidence in the rest of the house, not the room where Meredith was killed, because everyone agrees there is no evidence of Knoz in the room where meredith was killed, and only a trace of Raf's DNA on the bra clasp that was obviously contaminated because of the additional profiles.

SO unless the other evidence of Amanda and Raf in the house, NOT INCLUDING the room where Meredith was killed, can be considered evidence against Amanda and Raf, then Vibbio and Mach, and the convicting judges all agree that Amanda and Raf could not be convicted.

So the central question here, again which Mach refuses to discuss: is the complete absence of Amanda and really Raf, in the room where Meredith was killed, while there being loads of evidence of ONLY Rudy Guede - including a single set of footprints in Meredith's blood - proof that no one but Rudy Guede was in the room when Meredith kercher was assaulted, right up until the door was broken in by the police on Nov 2, 2007?

Call me a wild eyed optimist, but I smell a meeting of the minds!

 

[carbonjam72]

Yeah, I can read. You are, not surprisingly, providing a snippet of the statement that I quoted, leaving out the full context. The kind of thing a dishonest troll would do (not saying you are one; maybe it was an honest mistake!). I bolded it in my previous reply, but I'll do it again for you:



A phone is a physical object. Thus it is physical evidence. Unless you're talking about some ethereal, intangible phone that was somehow "found" at the crime scene, you are completely, incontrovertibly wrong.

Now if you actually meant to say "no DNA, and no fingerprints" sure. But then you should have NOT said "NO [in caps, no less!] physical evidence"



Probably because he cleaned up or was wearing gloves. You didn't provide your source showing there was no clean up. I wonder why that is?



Indeed! So it doesn't necessarily prove Amanda and Raffaele weren't there. After all, Amanda may have manipulated Raffaele and Rudy to gang rape and murder Meredith over $300 (that conniving she-devil!), but made sure Raffaele left his gloves on but Rudy took his off. Since she made Rudy out to be the fall guy and that's how she rolls. But Raffaele, being under the bedazzled spell of his American sex goddess, forgot to leave them on at the moment he ripped off the bra clasp! (That's what you believe, right? It wasn't contaminated so Raffaele had to remove his gloves?) But then he realized his mistake and quickly put his gloves back on! But forgot the bra clasp and left it there for investigators to find! Or something! What the ****! (Yes, I know this doesn't make any sense. Just trying to help you out here to construct some type of scenario since your side has repeatedly refused to do so.)

So, since it doesn't prove they weren't there, I guess we better look at all the other evidence. Oh wait.

Back to the drawing board, right Vibio?

Oh, and how about that source showing there was no cleanup in the Latko case? Still trying to dig it up, I'm hoping?

Much as I am enjoying your festival of ridiculous explanations, the presence of only one set of footprints in Meredith's blood makes it an impossibility that anyone else besides Rudy Guede stepped in her wet blood. So I apologize, but I'm satisfied that this fact, and the analysis of Ron Hendry is sufficent to establish beyond any doubt this criminal assault was committed by only Rudy Guede. Neither Amanda nor raf, nor anyone else was present, or there would be additional foot steps in Meredith's blood. (Old luminol strikes that test negative for blood obviously don't count, at least in the land of rational thought).

 

[carbonjam72]

The Knoxians claim that it's IMPOSSIBLE for Knox to have been in the room where the murder took place because in the areas tested there was none of her DNA, no fingerprints, no footprints. So, it's IMPOSSIBLE for her to have been there.

Well no, it's not impossible and the Latko trial is another example. 20 stab wounds... 2 throats slit: yet no DNA, no fingerprints, no footprints where found.

But there were footprints in Meredith's blood found in the room where Rudy Guede killed her. Rudy admits the footprints in blood are his. there are only one set of footprints in blood, and they belong to Rudy. No one else could have been there, or they would have stepped in Meredith's blood, and/or left some other trace in that violent bloody struggle.
The point is, there is no evidence of anyone else present other than Rudy Guede, so what actual evidence is there that anyone else helped Rudy kill Meredith. Nothing in the room where she was killed. Nothing against Amanda, and nothing against Raf.

You may prefer charlatans to scientists, but the rest of the world is not obligated to respect your preferences.

 

[Desert Fox]

Every argument is blown out of the water by Machiavelli...it is fascinating to read his posts.

Often when discussing with creationists in the past, somebody will argue something from a creationist book The other creationists begin to crow that the book disproves everything the evolutions argue but is total BS. As far as I can see, this is more of the same.

 

[Kaosium]

Can you read? Let me repeat it for the THIRD time: ""Evidence did definitely eventually link Latko to the murders but in the house there was none of his fingerprints, no DNA, and no footprints of him."

And that's the point: he slit 2 throats... 20 stab wounds and left not biological evidence.

Would you like to know why?

Because Low Template DNA analysis has not been accepted in US courts, and requires special laboratory procedures to be used. Also, a biological substance must be identified, generally a bodily fluid, something that establishes the probative value of the sample. Like blood under fingernails, saliva in a bite wound, semen in underwear. They don't just sample everything and try to tease a profile out by using suspect-centered methodology (having a reference profile and then looking for it in the samples) from an unidentified substance which may have nothing to do with the crime and was transferred innocently--or the result of contamination.

Many of the Rudy Guede samples were low template as well and were found all over the crime scene, whereas nothing from Raffaele or Amanda was found during the initial forensic investigation. That means everything was tested to the lowest level and only Rudy Guede showed up, nothing from Raffaele or Amanda even using the least reliable methods. In Guede's case having never been to the crime scene and having admitted to being there when the murder took place there's no reason to doubt the legitimacy of the DNA found. That doesn't hold for Raffaele who was at the discovery and was a visitor to that cottage the previous week and with the condition of the scene resembling Mount Trashmore anything could have transferred, there's no way to establish any solid probative value for DNA found.

You cannot compare evidence from the two different methodologies, however you can note that all that DNA was found from Rudy Guede but nothing from Amanda and only the bra clasp from after the scene had been reduced to a pile of rubble by the polizia scientifica.

 

[Machiavelli]

What silliness - the court must assess the value of each piece of evidence before it is permitted to form part of the corpus. This is what your own law says! This is one of the main reasons why Italian justice has become a laughing stock. You can't actually apply your own articles nor accord defendants their constitutional protections.

My own law says exactly what I explained, and actually, it's just what the Supreme Court explained in their jurisprudence. A list of "there is another possible explanation" is worth nothing, when the possible alternative explanations are improbable or weak.

 

[Desert Fox]

My own law says exactly what I explained, and actually, it's just what the Supreme Court explained in their jurisprudence. A list of "there is another possible explanation" is worth nothing, when the possible alternative explanations are improbable or weak.

So, since Italian law can do whatever it wants, you should be fine with a US judge stating "Italian law does not apply to the United States and there will be no extradition. In the United States, Amanda Knox is considered an innocent woman."

Also, you are not stupid. You also have know that in the future, this case will be looked at again and again and history will consider Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito innocent and will be a blight on the Italian legal system. The only face saving thing which can be done is to dismiss charges.

 

[Kaosium]

This is false. You have no evidence to accuse Giacomo Silenzi of being a drug dealer. He has no criminal record, did not commit any offence and did not earn money from drug traffic. To cultivate plants is not a crime and is not dealing. You should be more careful she talking about people with no criminal records.

He was a drug producer then, and you most certainly don't know he wasn't earning money from it.

If it's normal for Knox to hang around with drug dealers working in the surrounding area, then it would be normal for her to hang around with Rudy Guede.

Rudy Guede was Giacomo Silenzi's friend, not Amanda's. So the guy who grew plants was the one who knew best the burglar/drug 'facilitator'/rapist/ murderer. Neither Meredith nor Amanda would have even known of Rudy Guede if it wasn't for Giacomo Silenzi.

 

[tsig]

Why would a foreign student, new in town, who supposedly didn't speak Italian all that well have phone contacts with a drug dealer?

She was working undercover for the police and when she didn't squeal they rolled on her.

 

[Desert Fox]

This is false. You have no evidence to accuse Giacomo Silenzi of being a drug dealer. He has no criminal record, did not commit any offence and did not earn money from drug traffic. To cultivate plants is not a crime and is not dealing. You should be more careful she talking about people with no criminal records.
If it's normal for Knox to hang around with drug dealers working in the surrounding area, then it would be normal for her to hang around with Rudy Guede.

I missed this. . . .Even assuming that this is the case, it needs to be proven. While I still don't think it would be enough evidence to argue guilt, if there was any actual evidence of real contact between Amanda Knox and Rudy Guede, that would at least be something.

 

[Samson]

My own law says exactly what I explained, and actually, it's just what the Supreme Court explained in their jurisprudence. A list of "there is another possible explanation" is worth nothing, when the possible alternative explanations are improbable or weak.

This is not so. You listed the Lumumba accusation as having no alternative explanation than guilt. However we must consider two alternatives
1. An innocent Amanda.
2. A guilty Amanda.

An innocent Amanda does not know if Patrick was there, despite believing he was operating a pub so there is an explanation that she was led to speculate on his presence.

A guilty Amanda is vastly more problematic when considering this accusation. She knows he was not at the cottage, she also believes he has an alibi, he was operating a pub. She believes this because he sent her a message saying he was there. No interpretive sleight of hand allows for a guilty Amanda to advance her cause by telling what she knows is a lie.

So belief and knowledge are juxtaposed.

I gotcha this time Machiavelli.

 

[Kaosium]

Why would a foreign student, new in town, who supposedly didn't speak Italian all that well have phone contacts with a drug dealer?

She didn't know him as a drug dealer, she just happened to meet him coming into town, on a train or something. Perugia, Italy is known as 'The Disneyland of Drugs.' It wasn't actually the guy she knew who was the real dealer, he was just a contact for the one who was.

 

[Samson]

Would you like to know why?

Because Low Template DNA analysis has not been accepted in US courts, and requires special laboratory procedures to be used. Also, a biological substance must be identified, generally a bodily fluid, something that establishes the probative value of the sample. Like blood under fingernails, saliva in a bite wound, semen in underwear. They don't just sample everything and try to tease a profile out by using suspect-centered methodology (having a reference profile and then looking for it in the samples) from an unidentified substance which may have nothing to do with the crime and was transferred innocently--or the result of contamination.

Many of the Rudy Guede samples were low template as well and were found all over the crime scene, whereas nothing from Raffaele or Amanda was found during the initial forensic investigation. That means everything was tested to the lowest level and only Rudy Guede showed up, nothing from Raffaele or Amanda even using the least reliable methods. In Guede's case having never been to the crime scene and having admitted to being there when the murder took place there's no reason to doubt the legitimacy of the DNA found. That doesn't hold for Raffaele who was at the discovery and was a visitor to that cottage the previous week and with the condition of the scene resembling Mount Trashmore anything could have transferred, there's no way to establish any solid probative value for DNA found.

You cannot compare evidence from the two different methodologies, however you can note that all that DNA was found from Rudy Guede but nothing from Amanda and only the bra clasp from after the scene had been reduced to a pile of rubble by the polizia scientifica.

These are important points about lack of dna. This brings proof to the table that exhaustive attempts were made, and these attempts failed, to link them to the bedroom.
And the photographs you posted yesterday prove the bra clasp was stood on before becoming evidence. Standing on a metal hook may just be a good way for secondary transfer of dna to occur via pressure application.

 

[Machiavelli]

We really are deep in "Baghdad Bob" territory now!

This has been explicitly pointed out to you several times now: the scientific literature you are using is NOT comparing the proper two-part TMB test with Luminol. Rather, it's comparing the quick in-field combined Hemastix test. The proper two-part test (which is the test that not-a-proper-doctor Stefanoni should have performed following a Luminol positive) is only very marginally less sensitive (in the sense of dilution ratio) than Luminol, but is very considerably more sensitive. And of course that's exactly why it's the test that's done after a positive Luminol - it is able to rule out pretty much all non-blood substances that give a Luminol positive.

(...).

It is not true, LJ. There is first of all no "two part" TMB tests, all tests involve a preparation set made of TMB and an oxidant. The mixture can be manual or already prepared in some dry mixture or wafer like in Hemastix (what you call two steps, is in fact just a manual preparation).
But even in the best mist sensitive version, TMB is still regarded by authors ad being at least 5 times less sensitive than luminol.
There is no ground to call one version of TMB "proper" as opposed to others, such alleged hierarchy of legitimate vs. improper TMB tests is something you made up.
However that limit is theoretical, because TMB is an indirect test and this is the reason why it becomes much less sensitive in the practice use.
Moreover TMB sensitivity it's sensitivity is lowered by the fact that very time sensitive protocols are employed for the reading. This is a basic difference from luminol, in which you have an immediate glowing and you can spray again. In TMB the reading of the colour change must be within 60 seconds, if the reaction is slower the samples are read as negative.
And yet, all this is still not relevant, since the only relevant test (type or version of TMB test performed) the only one useful for comparison, would be the one that was actually performed; the reference is not the theoretical properties of this or that laboratory test.
And given that TMB is not only less sensitive, but also less specific (don't forget that) and also has the same false positives of luminol (don't forget that), what happens is that TMB brings no additional information, unless you are able to indicate an alternative substance that would have the property of reacting with luminol and not with TMB.

 

[Kaosium]

These are important points about lack of dna. This brings proof to the table that exhaustive attempts were made, and these attempts failed, to link them to the bedroom.

Yes, and it should be remembered that the bra clasp was not the only thing collected from the scene the second time around, thus they had a number of chances to get a 'hit' from contamination thus the bra clasp find wasn't quite as fortuitous as it's sometimes assumed.

And the photographs you posted yesterday prove the bra clasp was stood on before becoming evidence. Standing on a metal hook may just be a good way for secondary transfer of dna to occur via pressure application.

No one knows how it got to-and-fro, and being stepped on is certainly a possibility. I've also wondered if it was swept up by something to end up in that pile of trash that wasn't there when the murder occurred.