Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Ampulla of Vater]

But the outline of the blade intercepts the most external line of drops of the stain on one side, and the most external spots on the other side, doesn't it?
The spots that I "ignore" are the ones "in the middle" of the area, which I don't consider borders of the imprint, I think legitimately..

The overlapping is certainly not a definitive piece of evidence, but its shows compatibility with a theory.

Blow that picture up and look at the "bottom" line. The knife was clearly moved "upwards" after it first hit the sheet. This makes your measurements moot. The spot(s) on the "bottom" edge match up exactly with both positions of the knife. If you can't see that, I can't help you. I think it is clear as day the 2 positions of the knife.

 

[Kauffer]

Nothing at all of Knox is required in the murder room. (Btw, actually not even her own presence in the murder room is required in order to be guilty of the crime).
But anyway we happen to have her table light inside the room, and the murder weapon - that was in the room too - with her own DNA on it. And her boyfriend's DNA inside the room too (plus their evidence in corridoor and bathroom as bloody and luminol prints, blood stains etc.).

If you want her stabbing Ms Kercher to death, you have to put her in the room. The lamp doesn't cut it - that's not evidence of her in the room at all, let alone at the time the murder was committed. The knife doesn't cut it either. Regardless of any other consideration it wasn't found in the room. Aside from that, all norms tell us that the result of Ms Kercher's DNA on the blade should not have been declared: "Too low" etc etc. The evidence on the body was that the murder weapon was plunged to the hilt.

You have nothing.

You cannot explain the alleged presence of Mr Sollecito's DNA on the clasp without any other physical evidence of his presence in the room. You try of course. You say they ran out of the room before there was a chance for evidence to be left. Ludicrous!

Find a bona fide scientist or crime scene investigator to support this nonsense. Good luck with that!

 

[Numbers]

1. I didn't manipulate absolutely anything. I overlapped pictures. Not manipulated them (except mild contrast enhancement)

2. Why is the overlapping absurd?

A very large number of knives of various dimensions would be "compatible" with the blood stains on the sheet using your "forensic" technique.

Therefore, you have established nothing of probative value. Unless you are attempting to show your "expertise".

And whose blood is on the sheet? Where are the DNA profiles of the stains on the sheet from Italy's "great expert" of forensics, "Doctor" Stefanoni?

 

[Bill Williams]

I note that your post contains no argument.

It seems like you are only attempting to attack the poster.

The intent was to mock the poster.

Your post made no argument. All there was, was a laughably photoshopped, and awkwardly manufactured piece of evidence.

You made no argument to respond to. All you did was manufacture an illusion.

 

[LondonJohn]

I will tell you why. I just had to log in because of that picture you posted. You line up the one edge and the rest of the spots and splats, well, they are just all over the blade for some reason. How convenient.

More of those lines mean something. They are not just spots which happened to be on the blade. For example, the one square-ish spot is clearly the hilt of the knife, yet in your example it is just arbitrarily on the blade.

Bull-oney. If I had photoshop skills I would show you what you've done completely wrong.

If the "crack" investigators had decided that Kercher had been killed with a gun, then look how I just carefully matched the outline of a revolver to that stain:

 

[anglolawyer]

If the "crack" investigators had decided that Kercher had been killed with a gun, then look how I just carefully matched the outline of a revolver to that stain:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_4023754c53e785faa5.jpg[/qimg]

That is a badly drawn map of the Ivory Coast, put there by Knox and Sollecito as a symbolic pointer to Guede, whom they were fitting up for the crime. You can see the Umpopo river draining into the Orinoco basin and if you look closely a little fishing smack is plying into port with some haddock.

 

[Numbers]

That is a badly drawn map of the Ivory Coast, put there by Knox and Sollecito as a symbolic pointer to Guede, whom they were fitting up for the crime. You can see the Umpopo river draining into the Orinoco basin and if you look closely a little fishing smack is plying into port with some haddock.

You've cracked the case!

 

[tsig]

tsig,

About a month ago you claimed to have no animosity toward Ms. Knox and claimed not to be active on other discussion boards about this case. Yet on another discussion board your "tsit" alter ego made 60-70 comments, including some that harshly criticized Ms. Knox's personal life. All of your statements here should be judged accordingly.

60-70 vs 7000+

Obsession?

 

[Bill Williams]

If the "crack" investigators had decided that Kercher had been killed with a gun, then look how I just carefully matched the outline of a revolver to that stain:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_4023754c53e785faa5.jpg[/qimg]

Machiavelli is only after the truth. How do we know this? He told us so.

Then comes his most embarrassedly awkward lie. The manufactured evidence/photo above.

I think he's totally sincere in believing his stuff. But there's a stunning ignorance of all sorts of technical problems with what he's accomplished. Yet his only technical comment is; "I measured."

Holy cow. I think his real purpose was to stun us into incredulous silence.

 

[Numbers]

Machiavelli is only after the truth. How do we know this? He told us so.

Then comes his most embarrassedly awkward lie. The manufactured evidence/photo above.

I think he's totally sincere in believing his stuff. But there's a stunning ignorance of all sorts of technical problems with what he's accomplished. Yet his only technical comment is; "I measured."

Holy cow. I think his real purpose was to stun us into incredulous silence.

Do you mean because no one knew that he could measure?

 

[Machiavelli]

The intent was to mock the poster.

Your post made no argument. All there was, was a laughably photoshopped, and awkwardly manufactured piece of evidence.

You made no argument to respond to. All you did was manufacture an illusion.

Obviously you felt need to respond because you felt the blow. Somehow this photo was a blow. If it was a "non argument" you would not attack the poster on it, by throwing irritated, messy and off topic quibble.
And yet, I was talking with Planigale, about another topic, and the purpose was to explain the consistency of my position within the Stefanoni-knife discussion, not to convince you or others that my interpretation of the stain is better than another one (if you think have better pictures you may well post them to explain the grounds for your belief - do you think the knife is incompatible?).
Yet you feel the need to attack the poster.

 

[Bill Williams]

You feel need to respond because you felt the blow. Somehow this photo was a blow. If it was a "non argument" you would not attack the poster on it, by throwing irritated, messy and off topic quibble.

LOL. Yes, that must be it.

 

[Machiavelli]

A very large number of knives of various dimensions would be "compatible" with the blood stains on the sheet using your "forensic" technique.

Yes. And so what?
This one is among them.

Therefore, you have established nothing of probative value. Unless you are attempting to show your "expertise".

Why are you so iffy and apparently annoyed about the post?
I was actually neither establishing probative things neither "showing expertise". Don't you have room for third possibilities?

And whose blood is on the sheet? Where are the DNA profiles of the stains on the sheet from Italy's "great expert" of forensics, "Doctor" Stefanoni?

I don't get the quotation marks.

 

[Bill Williams]

Why are you so iffy and apparently annoyed about the post?
I was actually neither establishing probative things neither "showing expertise". Don't you have room for third possibilities?
.

Mentioning the third possibility would get him banned!!!

 

[Machiavelli]

Blow that picture up and look at the "bottom" line. The knife was clearly moved "upwards" after it first hit the sheet. This makes your measurements moot.

It doesn't. This isn't an argument. The knife was probably moved, and - this is only my personal guess - this happend when it was picked up and taken away, by those murderers who altered and "cleaned" the scene (this was a cleaning action). The edge (actually the back of the knife) was shifted when the knife was picked by slightly shifting the blade while its blade lifted vertically while still wet, this is my inference.

However, no way this makes the measurements "moot". I don't how it could. The second imprint doesn't remove the first one. There is still a clear edge that is compatible with the blade, and there are still external dots intercepted by the outline. It's still compatible.

The spot(s) on the "bottom" edge match up exactly with both positions of the knife. If you can't see that, I can't help you. I think it is clear as day the 2 positions of the knife.

The two theoretical positions of the edge are clear (the second not as clear as the first), but they don't contradict the picture at all.

 

[Bill Williams]

It doesn't. This isn't an argument. The knife was probably moved, and - this is only my personal guess - this happend when it was picked up and taken away, by those murderers who altered and "cleaned" the scene (this was a cleaning action). The edge (actually the back of the knife) was shifted when the knife was picked by slightly shifting the blade while its blade lifted vertically while still wet, this is my inference.

However, no way this makes the measurements "moot". I don't how it could. The second imprint doesn't remove the first one. There is still a clear edge that is compatible with the blade, and there are still external dots intercepted by the outline. It's still compatible.



The two theoretical positions of the edge are clear (the second not as clear as the first), but they don't contradict the picture at all.

You are manufacturing evidence to fit your theory.

Strange: this is what the case has been about since the beginning. If it wasn't for folk like you manufacturing evidence, there wouldn't be any at all!!!!!

 

[Machiavelli]

If you want her stabbing Ms Kercher to death, you have to put her in the room. (...)

Amanda Knox is currently charged and convicted of sexual violence and murder, not of "stabbing to death". I tell you this independently from the rest of your other fallacies.
You heve multiple fallacies in your argument. The first, it is false that there is no physical evidence of Knox. The second, it is false that you need to find physical evidence of Knox in order to place her in the murder room (absence of findings is not a finding of absence). The third, it is false that you need to place Knox inside the room n order to find her guilty of murder (guilt means responsability, does not mean a physical action or presence).
A fourth, but not the last one, is that it looks like you are not willing to acknowledge several other physical findings, among them the physical evidence that Meredith was murdered by multiple assailants, and that this is something that - to any "good" guilter - is an independently established finding.

 

[Machiavelli]

You are manufacturing evidence to fit your theory.

Strange: this is what the case has been about since the beginning. If it wasn't for folk like you manufacturing evidence, there wouldn't be any at all!!!!!

Sorry, Planigale presented an argument that involved a putative bloody handle (mark).

What I did, is simply I responded to that argument, by debunking it, showing that a different interpretation fits the physical findings.

I repeat: I am responding to that argument (about a hypothetical bloody handle).
Why do you call my argument "manufactured evidence", rather than calling so the "bloody handle" evidence assumption?

 

[Numbers]

Yes. And so what?
This one is among them.



Why are you so iffy and apparently annoyed about the post?
I was actually neither establishing probative things neither "showing expertise". Don't you have room for third possibilities?



I don't get the quotation marks.

I am more amused than annoyed. The purpose of the "scare quotes" (perhaps they are not used everywhere?) is to show that the words are meant sarcastically or satirically.

What you have done is the same as this "proof":

The person who murdered Meredith Kercher was a person who breathed air and ate food.

An internet poster using the screen name Machiavelli is a person who breathes air and eats food.

Therefore, the internet poster screen name Machiavelli is a person who should be a suspect in the murder, because of the compatibility of breathing and eating.

Do you perhaps see the logical flaw in the argument I have presented? The characteristics used in the syllogism were not specific enough to identify a particular person. The same flaw is present in your attempt to match the kitchen knife to the blood stains. Almost any knife would match using your method. However, if one actually considered the details of the blood stains, one can see that the knife that made them was much smaller than the kitchen knife.

ETA: The size of the knife merely needs to be large enough to cover the stains to be "compatible" using your method.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Posts like this keep me clicking on this thread.

"In a stunning new development"
"fleeing his own appeal"
"PR consultant"
"cut your relative loose like a wounded albatross"

This reads like a sleazy tabloid. Do you read the National Enquirer or Star? Enjoy Maury Povich and Jerry Springer? I have noticed the pro-guilt crowd all seem to enjoy tabloid style journalism over scientific sources such as Peter Gill or Conti & Vecchiotti. The pro-guilt community oozes this yellow journalism writing style, as evidenced here by stilicho. It's like they're a bunch of 45 year old housewives with nothing better to do than gossip about their slutty neighbor.

There are ways to evaluate quality and unbiasedness of sources. Of course, the best way is to critically evaluate the piece using your brain and cross-checking the claims with other known, reliable sources. Another way is to look for sensationalist words. Like "in a stunning new development". "Cut your relative loose like a wounded albatross". Compare this with something scientific and rigorous:

"The quantification of the extracts obtained from the samples obtained from item 36 (knife) and item 165B (bra clasps), conducted via Real Time PCR, did not reveal the presence of DNA."

It is telling that you like to get your evidence from Jerry Springer and the National Enquirer over the world's top forensic scientists. No wonder you think Amanda is guilty.