Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Desert Fox]

And that, the probably innocent crowd tends to think in terms of science, but I can see a little religious zealousness there also, but that's all just my opinion.

There is nothing wrong with passion for a subject. . . .I do not knock the pro guilt side for their passion just that they don't seem to be backed up with evidence.

 

[MDDVS]

A "rather deep" scratch only visible for 3/4 days.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The PG wiki misstatements on YSTR DNA and on luminol

Those are is some pretty strong claims?

Desert Fox,

That Wiki willfully misstates things even when it is not particularly beneficial to their own rabidly PG viewpoint. ISF's RoseMontague uncovered a miscaptioned photograph there. What was claimed to be one of Sollecito's knives was actually a knife brought into the court for a demonstration.

They claimed that YSTR testing is so discriminating that even your male relatives may or may not have the same profile. Yet the mutation rates for loci in YSTR testing are generally in the neighborhood of -.2 to 0.6%. Therefore, your close male relative will probably have an identical YSTR profile to yours, and even distant relatives may be the same or nearly the same. In addition, an unknown number of unrelated men will also share your profile.

Or how about this luminol gem: "to a sensitivity of 1 in 1,000,000 parts on the low end and 1 in 100,000,000 parts on the high end.[29]" The 100,000,000 number comes from a very old study (1930s IIRC) that has long been superceded. But even the 1,000,000 number may be...optimistic. Consider the most recent work I have seen: "We found that BlueStar® Magnum showed the greatest sensitivity compared to other formulations and detected 50 μl of 1/100,000 blood dilutions on both porous and non-porous surfaces."
Int J Legal Med. 2013 Jul;127(4):723-9. doi: 10.1007/s00414-012-0800-9. Epub 2012 Dec 21. "An evaluation of luminol formulations and their effect on DNA profiling." Patel G, Hopwood A. In other words, this wiki overstates the minimum detection by 10-fold to 1000-fold.

 

[Bill Williams]

The days of Knox's arrest was six days after the neck lesion allegedly occurred, and according to Lalli a scratch may well be perceptible for about only 3/4 days.

But Laura Mezzetti saw Amanda the day after the murder and noticed that it was not a stain nor a hickey but a scratch, the scratch was very well visible and "rather deep".

Please stop this, Machiavelli. It's embarrassing. For one thing, Guede committed the murder at about 9:30 pm on the 1st, and Amanda was photographed 4 1/2 days later. You really do not need to embellish like this.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

There is nothing wrong with passion for a subject. . . .I do not knock the pro guilt side for their passion just that they don't seem to be backed up with evidence.

-

Evidence or science or both? I think they have a little evidence,

d

-

 

[Desert Fox]

Or how about this luminol gem: "to a sensitivity of 1 in 1,000,000 parts on the low end and 1 in 100,000,000 parts on the high end.[29]" The 100,000,000 number comes from a very old study (1930s IIRC) that has long been superceded. But even the 1,000,000 number may be...optimisitic. Consider the most recent work I have seen: "We found that BlueStar® Magnum showed the greatest sensitivity compared to other formulations and detected 50 μl of 1/100,000 blood dilutions on both porous and non-porous surfaces."
Int J Legal Med. 2013 Jul;127(4):723-9. doi: 10.1007/s00414-012-0800-9. Epub 2012 Dec 21. "An evaluation of luminol formulations and their effect on DNA profiling." Patel G, Hopwood A. In other words, this wiki overstates the minimum detection by 10-fold to 1000-fold.

I have no idea how the pro guilt side can misunderstand luminol so much. Seen it on this forum and all I can do is shake my head.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

real documentation versus flim flam

Stefanoni provided authentic documentation herself,

Nonsense. Authentic and complete documentation can only be provided in the form of electronic data files. If Stefanoni were an ethical and competent forensic scientist, she would have provided them.

 

[Desert Fox]

Evidence or science or both? I think they have a little evidence,

Creationists present what they called "evidence" for creationism. I don't call it evidence. This situation is basically the same.

 

[MDDVS]

I was scrached by a fingernail years ago on my lower abdomen. It was a "rather deep" scratch (no medical intervention needed lol). The scar is still visible to this day.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

A "rather deep" scratch only visible for 3/4 days.

-

Someone here showed a photo of the "alleged" scratch (I think it was from the video of Raffaele and Amanda outside the apartment the day Meredith was discovered), and to me, it could have been either a scratch or a hickey, but I could not see any broken skin so I'd have to side with the hickey crowd on this one.

I'd sure like to see some better photos though.

The other thing is, if it's a scratch from Meredith, why wasn't Amanda's DNA found under her fingernails?

d

-

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli, you are making things up again. Let Massei do the talking here....

Massei talking about Sollecito's intent to perpetrate a sexual violence together with Guede, Sollecito and Guede "united" together, equally active, sharing a same purpose, related to the arousal in the context of violence and sex:

Rudi Guede per quanto riguarda una bretellina ed a Raffaele Sollecito per quanto riguarda i gancetti, pongono l'uno e l'altro insieme e attivamente presenti sulla scena del crimine; entrambi uniti nell'intento di denudare Meredith che subiva la violenza sessuale quale è documentata dal tampone vaginale. Entrambi, quindi, a perseguire lo stesso obiettivo (cfr. sul concorso che può realizzarsi anche con un'intesa istantanea, senza un previo accordo, per es. Casso 15.5.2009 n. 25894) connotato di violenza e sessualità

And about the violent intent of Amanda Knox, also within a sexual context, an intent/motive she "shared with Rudi and Raffaele":

Anche Amanda, quindi, si trova sulla scena del delitto ed anche lei partecipa alle violenze su Meredith, accomunata a Raffaele e Rudi, dall'unico obiettivo insieme perseguito e insieme partecipato: soggiogare Meredith, consentire a Rudi di abusarne sessualmente, creare una situazione di violenza e di erotismo secondo quanto si è già osservato

Then you also have Massei talking about violent charachters of Sollecito and Knox; talks about Raffaele's interest for violent Manga and aroused byt the mixture of sex and violence, and also mentions that drug-fuelling is an element that matters ("not foreign") to the reasons of the murder, this goes for both Knox and Sollecito who were both "active" in pursueing the "subjugation" of Meredith:

Pertanto è da ritenere che, non estraneo il consumo di sostanze stupefacenti e gli effetti dello stesso, Amanda Knox e Raffaele Sollecito parteciparono attivamente all'azione delittuosa di Rudi finalizzata a vincere la resistenza di Meredith, a soggiogarne la volontà e consentire così a Rudi di sfogare i propri impulsi lussuriosi; e questo è da ritenere che avvenne perché, in chi non disdegnava l'uso di droga (Amanda ha dichiarato che quella sera, prima di "fare l' amore" avevano consumato droga), la visione di film e la lettura di fumetti nei quali la sessualità si accompagna alla violenza ed a situazioni di paura e prescinde dall'incontro di persone mosse dal reciproco e libero sentimento (v. i fumetti sequestrati a Raffaele Sollecito e le dichiarazioni sulla visione di film che avevano attirato l'attenzione degli educatori del Collegio ONAOSI frequentato da Raffaele Sollecito), la prospettiva di aiutare Rudi nel proposito di soggiogare Meredith per abusarne sessualmente, poteva apparire come un eccitante particolare che, pur non previsto, andava sperimentato.
Un movente, quindi, di natura erotico sessuale violento che, originatosi dalla scelta di male operata da Rudi, trovò la collaborazione attiva di Amanda Knox e di Raffaele Sollecito.
Che tale partecipazione, attiva e violenta, abbia coinvolto anche gli attuali imputati in concorso con Rudi deriva da quanto si è osservato parlando delle lesioni subite da Meredith, dell'esito delle indagini genetiche, dalle impronte di piede nudo rinvenute in varie parti della casa.

It's no wonder you do not want to quote Massei. It is not a "party" he's describing, and BTW he's not describing it as a "riti" associated with Halloween either. Amanda and Raffaele are in Amanda's room (acc. to Massei) and Rudy on his own initiative (acc. to Massei) begins the sexual violence.

There is no "rito" or "riti" in the prosecution arguments.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Creationists present what they called "evidence" for creationism. I don't call it evidence. This situation is basically the same.

-

I don't know DF, even though (in my opinion) the DNA found on the bra-clasp is possibly from contamination and can't be date stamped, it's still evidence,

d

-

 

[MDDVS]

-


-

Someone here showed a photo of the "alleged" scratch (I think it was from the video of Raffaele and Amanda outside the apartment the day Meredith was discovered), and to me, it could have been either a scratch or a hickey, but I could not see any broken skin so I'd have to side with the hickey crowd on this one.

I'd sure like to see some better photos though.

The other thing is, if it's a scratch from Meredith, why wasn't Amanda's DNA found under her fingernails?

d

-

It couldn't have been a deep scratch and disapear in 3/4 days. That's just not possible. The ppoint about Meredith's fingernails is a good one.

 

[Machiavelli]

Nonsense. Authentic and complete documentation can only be provided in the form of electronic data files. If Stefanoni were an ethical and competent forensic scientists, she would have provided them.

Had the defence experts asked her during the incidente probatorio, when they were invited for month and they didn't come, she would have provided them all what was requested.

After that, the evidence is settled.

Had Bongiorno requested them at the preliminary hearing, maybe she would have provided them too.

In 2009, still there was no clear request of raw data.

Anyway, what you think matters little. What matters is the principles of procedure: in 2009 to discuss raw data would have meant re-opening the discussion about the same piece of evidence, factually re-presenting the evidence again, evidence which was already settled. This would be not fair in procedure. As a rule you need to preliminarily decide some boundaries of what you intend to discuss, because the evidence is never discussed entirely, and you are not supposed to change the boundaries only at the end when you see it's getting bad.

 

[Machiavelli]

I was scrached by a fingernail years ago on my lower abdomen. It was a "rather deep" scratch (no medical intervention needed lol). The scar is still visible to this day.

Laura Mezzetti is not a doctor, so "deep" must be a relative concept, but she is a reliable witness, so it's certainly true.

 

[MDDVS]

Laura Mezzetti is not a doctor, so "deep" must be a relative concept, but she is a reliable witness, so it's certainly true.

Sorry mate but it can't be true. She's either lying or exagerating.

 

[Machiavelli]

Please stop this, Machiavelli. It's embarrassing. For one thing, Guede committed the murder at about 9:30 pm on the 1st, and Amanda was photographed 4 1/2 days later. You really do not need to embellish like this.

Amanda Knox was photographed in the afternoon of Nov. 6., certainly later than 12:45 (the advice of inspection was notified to her at 12:45); so let's say at least 111 hours after the scratch occurred (3 days being 72 hours, and 4 days is 96 hours).

But photos are not everything; don't forget Laura Mezzetti.

 

[Machiavelli]

Sorry mate but it can't be true. She's either lying or exagerating.

She says "scratch", and there is no way out from this. It's a testimony.

 

[MDDVS]

Amanda Knox was photographed in the afternoon of Nov. 6., certainly later than 12:45 (the advice of inspection was notified to her at 12:45); so let's say at least 111 hours after the scratch occurred (3 days being 72 hours, and 4 days is 96 hours).

This discussion is nonsensical. If she had a deep scratch it would still be visible many days after the event and the scar probably forever.

 

[MDDVS]

She says "scratch", and there is no way out from this. It's a testimony.

Did she say scratch or "rather deep" scratch?