• 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 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
carbonjam72 said:
Machiavelli said:
Bill the balcony is 35 meters away from the neared point of the road and in the dark, and there it will remain.

Filomena's window is by the road, illuminated and the most illogical point of entry.
Click to expand...

It may not be the one you find most logical, but it is the one Rudy used. You can tell by the broken window, and that Rudy stepped in glass that left a fragment in his sneaker print in Meredith's blood, as found by the defense.

Your problem Mach, is that you start from the assumption that Amanda and Raf are guilty, and that's why you have to invent scenarios to support your preconceived ideas.

If you start with the evidence, its an easy case.

If you want to know why Rudy chose Filomena's window, you need to ask Rudy. AND, BY THE WAY, was there a similar metal grating under the balcony you believe Rudy should have used to gain access? Because using the metal grating as a ladder to climb to a second story to break and enter, after throwing a rock through the window to test if anyone's home, is after all Rudy's MO.
And while we're at it, why wasn't the glass tested to see which direction the glass was broken from? Again, an easy test that could disprove the prosecution's case - and it doesn't get done - the prosecution doesn't want it done, the civil parties don't want it done, and the judges don't want it done.

Welcome to the Monkey House.
Click to expand...
.
Not only is it Rudy's MO, but because he has had experience climbing grate(s) to gain entry, he can judge the level of difficulty . And unlike the guilter couch potatoes who for years argued ignorantly it was an impossible climb, the channel 5 TV show demonstrated that it was in fact easy.

The same show also hired a sound technician to scientifically test whether Nara ? could have heard the running footsteps on the metal stairs as she had claimed. The tester stated unequivocally no.

I still do not understand the defence team not testing these things themselves, nor do I understand them not showing the channel 5 TV video in court.

I wonder if Nencini decided the break in must have been staged because Rudy could not possibly have gotten through the bars on Filomena's window, not realizing at the time that the bars were put on after Meredith was murdered.

Cody
.
 
christianahannah said:
Ah, I see. I thought maybe there was some scientific principle I was unaware of (which are many).

I have thought that Rudy could be responsible for the staging of the window (without having to throw the rock from the outside or break in through the window). I understand why others think Amanda did it (the area of mixed blood - Amanda's and Meredith's - in Filomena's room) but of that I am less certain.
Click to expand...

There is no mixed blood. There was a luminol hit which tested negative for blood with TMB and returned samples which indicated both Meredith and Amanda contributed DNA to them. Those samples were taken from a completely trashed crime scene which had dozens of people walking all over the floors where both Meredith and Amanda lived. There's no reason to think they're blood nor that they were deposited as a result of the murder and immediate aftermath.

Perhaps the reason we end up spending so much time on luminol in this thread is an inability for some to accept that a negative TMB test effectively eliminates blood as a likelihood, that's why they do them. That Stefanoni tried to hide those inconvenient results by omitting them from her technical report and when that was discovered dreaming up a low probability scenario where the blood was diluted below the TMB threshold but was still enough to make luminol react doesn't do anything to change that, any inconvenient test results can be eliminated in that fashion.

However you're not talking about science anymore, that's ignoring the science and letting belief in a theory run rampant. At that point you've left science behind.
 
Last edited:
DNA transfer study

There was a recent study on how many transfer events are possible with DNA. The authors used several different primary transfer events, including touch. Subsequent transfers used contact, with the pressure being supplied by a 1.4 kg weight, applied for 15 seconds. From the abstract: "Dry blood gave a full profile well beyond the secondary transfer events on glass only, but to a lesser extent than wet blood. Touch DNA only produced a full profile on the primary substrate on both cotton and glass, and detectable quantities beyond the secondary transfer event on glass only." From the Results and Discussion: "When glass was the substrate, wet and dry blood produced full profiles from the 1st to the 6th substrate. Touch DNA produced a full profile on the 1st glass substrate only, and partial profiles on the 2nd to the 5th substrate..." From the concluding paragraph: "Under pressured conditions, using certain combinations of substrate, biological material, and moisture, DNA can be transferred at least through six contact events, while some combinations give none or very little DNA transfer beyond the initial contact after deposition." IMO one of the take home messages is that dried blood might be under appreciated as a source of DNA transfer. It is not clear to me what their cutoff was.

"Following the transfer of DNA: How far can it go?"
V.J. Lehmann, R.J. Mitchell, K.N. Ballantyne, R.A.H. van Oorschot
Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series 4 (2013) e53–e54.
 
Last edited:
Machiavelli said:
I think the case is sound and closed beyond reasonable doubt. I can't see it as weak. It is iron-clad as for the amount of evidence.
There is lack of information on certain areas about events, but this is normal and must nor be confused with weakness of a case. A case does not equate to a scenario or a narrative or timeline of events, this needs to be clear.
Click to expand...
.
I have been particularly impressed by the clarity, logic, and preciseness of the ECHR judgments that Numbers has researched and posted. They leave little room for ambiguity. Time is running out on your fantasy.

Cody
.
 
The position of the balcony.

The blue circle is the street lamp that Bill Williams thinks illuminates the balcony (it is in fact 23 meters distant)



A Google view from the closest point of the street from which the balcony is visible (note: a car driver does not have the sight of a Google car, would sit lower and have even less view).



Not exactly attracting attention.
 
platonov said:
Oh Bill - this is priceless:)

I may get back to you on the rest of the confusion in your post but I regret to inform you that despite this latest gem you may no longer be my favourite poster here.
Click to expand...

Your reply is meaningless. Literally.
 
codyjuneau said:
.
I have been particularly impressed by the clarity, logic, and preciseness of the ECHR judgments that Numbers has researched and posted. They leave little room for ambiguity. Time is running out on your fantasy.

Cody
.
Click to expand...

Yes, they leave little room for ambiguity: Knox is toast, while Numbers has not the farthest clue about what jurisprudence or criminal law is, or even what ECHR law is.
 
Last edited:
codyjuneau said:
.
Not only is it Rudy's MO, but because he has had experience climbing grate(s) to gain entry, he can judge the level of difficulty . And unlike the guilter couch potatoes who for years argued ignorantly it was an impossible climb, the channel 5 TV show demonstrated that it was in fact easy.
(...)
.
Click to expand...

But the way through balcony is much easier, safer, and less visible.
 
Numbers said:
I don't expect you to understand.

A (rough) blood substitute - watered-down spaghetti sauce - was spooned onto the knife - handle and blade. I could have used some other liquid, but a small amount of spaghetti sauce was left over and convenient.

The point is to illustrate the stain that a liquid on a knife creates. There are obvious differences between blood, which has a viscosity that changes after it leaves the body, and is sticky, and clots over time, and the blood substitute I used. The points demonstrated by the experiment:

1. There is a gap in the stain between the handle and the blade. This is due to the knife resting on the blade tip area and the handle area nearest the blade. Thus, there is no contact with the paper towel (or sheet) in the area of the blade adjecent to the handle.

2. The part of the handle in contact with the paper towel (or sheet) leaves an approximately rectangular stain, conforming to the geometry (shape) of the handle.

3. In this experiment, the stain left by the blade was solid, while in the murder case, the stain of the blade consisted of edge markings. The difference is likely a result of the difference in material properties of the blood substitute in the experiment compared to real blood.

4. Based on the results mentioned in (2) and (1), the mock-up showing the large kitchen knife blade covering the solid approximately rectangular blood stain of the real case cannot be correct. The real knife blade had to be smaller, and the approximately rectangular stain is the image of the part of the handle nearest the blade.
Click to expand...

The experiment doesn't make the slightest sense, under any point of view.

There is just no logical link between your experiment and the bed sheet print.

You decide to see what a print from a knife its handle covered with some substance looks like (on a paper towel).

But there is simply no reason why I should assume "our" murder weapon had its handle covered with blood; and not even that the bedsheet is a paper towel.

Moreover, #4 is not a logical consequence of any of the other points.
 
Machiavelli said:
But the way through balcony is much easier, safer, and less visible.
Click to expand...

"Easier" is not an issue, when it is easy to get in Filomena's window.

It is not safer to go in through the balcony, because it is more visible. You can deny this all you want, but the pics of the cottage and the layout of the road are clear.
 
Machiavelli said:
The position of the balcony.

The blue circle is the street lamp that Bill Williams thinks illuminates the balcony (it is in fact 23 meters distant)

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_4347454c840f5073e2.jpg[/qimg]

A Google view from the closest point of the street from which the balcony is visible (note: a car driver does not have the sight of a Google car, would sit lower and have even less view).

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_4347454c84183614d3.jpg[/qimg]

Not exactly attracting attention.
Click to expand...

Nice try, Machiavelli. When I posted the open view of the balcony from the road, with street lamp pointing right at it, you denied the streetlamp was there.

Now you are pointing to a second street lamp! LOL!
 
Here's a streetlamp higher up. Although this is a sight-line from above the road, and the residences above, it still illuminates the deck for other vantage points.

 
Machiavelli said:
Bill the balcony is 35 meters away from the neared point of the road and in the dark, and there it will remain.

Filomena's window is by the road, illuminated and the most illogical point of entry.
Click to expand...


The baloney is all yours. The balcony was chosen as the logical entry point contemporaneously with the commission of the crime on November 1. No argument can change that fact.
 
Bill Williams said:
Nice try, Machiavelli. When I posted the open view of the balcony from the road, with street lamp pointing right at it, you denied the streetlamp was there.

Now you are pointing to a second street lamp! LOL!
Click to expand...

What are you making up? I said exactly what I am sayin gon: that the closest street lamp is 23 meters far from the balcony. And obviously only illuminates the road.
Now if you like choose an even farther one...
 
Last edited:
-

Machiavelli said:
The balcony will be still the logical point of entry, to any burglar (besides the other evidence of staging, of course).
Click to expand...
-

I've burgled before, and I have to side with Mach on this one, maybe not the balcony part, but from what I've seen and heard, that window wouldn't be my first choice.

Of course I would have to visit the house first at night before making a real conclusion, but if that window WAS the best choice (I like ground floor entries myself, maybe that makes me biased), I would have first climbed up there (to make sure I could), broke the window, and then jumped down and waited ten or fifteen minutes before finally going in,

d

-
 
Bill Williams said:
Comparison of Italy's prosecution of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox with France's Dreyfuss affair. By S. Michael Scadron, retired Senior Trial Counsel with the U.S. Department of Justice and currently on the advisory board of Injustice Anywhere.

http://groundreport.com/italys-persecution-of-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-recalls-the-dreyfus-affair/
Click to expand...

I will sue for breach of copyright! I made that comparison ages ago, not just because of the longevity of the case but because of its potential for fracturing Italy along political fault lines. The damages will be enormous! :). Drinks are on me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom