Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Matthew Best]

Speak for yourself.

I do speak for myself and I'm saying we've seen your type before, both here and in the 9/11 sub-forum.

They usually arrive saying that they are unconvinced either way, but they just have a few small questions they'd like cleared up. Within a very short time they reveal themselves as die-hard truthers/guilters and set off on an extended Gish Gallop of gibberish.

You're just following a well-worn pattern. You're not the first and you won't be the last. And you're far from being the best.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Peter Gill wrote a book, and chapter 5 is about this case

Vixen,

Stefanoni is a forensic technician with a bachelor's degree. Here is Bruce Fischer's article on Peter Gill. Dr. Gill's book on DNA evidence has a chapter on this case, and the quotes in this article are from that book.

 

[Vixen]

Stupid response ignores the links. In one case Rudy was identified by an eye witness. In the other Rudy was caught in possession of the stollen property. Did you really not know this?

Yes, and the so-called eye witness, Christian Somebodyorother, was not allowed by the court to testify, that tells you what the judge thought. Having stolen property = convicted of possession of stolen property.

 

[Vixen]

I do speak for myself and I'm saying we've seen your type before, both here and in the 9/11 sub-forum.

They usually arrive saying that they are unconvinced either way, but they just have a few small questions they'd like cleared up. Within a very short time they reveal themselves as die-hard truthers/guilters and set off on an extended Gish Gallop of gibberish.

You're just following a well-worn pattern. You're not the first and you won't be the last. And you're far from being the best.

We've seen your type before. A lurker who pops up now and then to flame throw.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen,

This is utter hogwash. One, the luminol foot tracks have no distinguishing marks. The one in Amanda's room does not look like her reference footprint with respect to the second toe. Can you provide an exact quote with respect to what Amanda said. Two, Like DNA, luminol cannot be dated. Three, Rinaldi discredited himself so badly with respect to the shoe prints in Meredith's room, that I don't see how he has even the slightest bit of credibility with respect to the track on the mat.

IMHO the bathmat print should not be taken as evidence against anyone; it lacks detail; it was made on an irregular surface; it was probably made in bloody water that did not allow for a particularly clear image to be made. It is more likely than not that the luminol tracks were not made in blood. This point has been discussed ad nauseum here and elsewhere.

There were luminol-positive blobs in Filomena's room, but a true confirmatory test for blood was either not done, or it was not reported. The evidence collected on 18 December deserves to be taken with a deep discount, if it is even accepted as evidence at all. The risk of contamination over six weeks, with so much foot traffic in the intervening period, is too great.

Stefanoni explained, you do one test or the other, but not both.

 

[Dan O.]

Mez had a lamp of her own, which was also in the room.

The astonishing thing about this lamp was there were no fingerprints at all of Amanda's, she didn't report it missing, and she was evasive under oath that it belonged to her.

The astonishing thing about this lamp is that it wasn't even collected as evidence on December 18th and hadn't been dusted for fingerprints. Several months later possibly even after the subsequent breakin at the cottage was discovered, the two lamps were collected. There was no evasion. Amanda admitted having such a lamp.

 

[Kauffer]

Mez had a lamp of her own, which was also in the room.

The astonishing thing about this lamp was there were no fingerprints at all of Amanda's, she didn't report it missing, and she was evasive under oath that it belonged to her.

Rudy said there was a lot of blood in the hallway - and if Mez was assaulted near her door it would explain Raf and Amanda's gloating brags they left no trace - which was not apparent when the postal police turned up. Rudy is a liar. Yet, what happened to all the blood in the hallway, with just Rudy's shoeprints left?

You still cannot address what is put to you. It's a a dreadful habit.

Amanda's lamp is seen in at least three different positions in the crime scene photographs. Almost certainly, in my view, it was taken by one of the CSIs for a light source in order that evidence in the room was not disturbed. Alternatively, Kercher may have borrowed it herself for additional light - though I think not.

What you need to do is either endorse the theory that the lamp was used by Amanda in a cleaning exercise and explain the absence of evidence of such activity or else come up with some alternative theory with evidence for its plausibility.

There is no evidence that Kercher was "assaulted near her door". There is no evidence of "a lot of blood in the hallway" and there is no evidence of any cleaning carried out in an effort to remove traces linked to perpetration of the crime anywhere in the flat.

Additionally, I hardly see that pointing out the truth that there is no evidence in Kercher's room to support prosecution claims, amounts to "gloating brags". Why would you describe it in such pejorative terms?

You make claims which are patently untrue and embrace fantastical theories that require the accomplishment of impossible acts - in particular, the successful removal of evidence of the presence of two people whilst leaving intact, evidence of a third.

 

[Vixen]

Too Funny!
Dan O. foolin' guilters!!!

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1240&pictureid=9772[/qimg]





The hickey Raff gave his girl Amanda can be seen up a few posts above this one...
RW

Raff "gave his girl a hickey". Was that before or after buying the "wild sex" lingerie?

 

[Vixen]

The astonishing thing about this lamp is that it wasn't even collected as evidence on December 18th and hadn't been dusted for fingerprints. Several months later possibly even after the subsequent breakin at the cottage was discovered, the two lamps were collected. There was no evasion. Amanda admitted having such a lamp.

Very reluctantly, and only because she couldn't deny it.

 

[Kauffer]

Stefanoni explained, you do one test or the other, but not both.

I think you've misunderstood Chris's point - it is the difference between presumptive tests and confirmatory tests. Both luminol and TMB are presumptive tests of different variety. Confirmatory tests for blood were not reported.

 

[RWVBWL]

I do speak for myself and I'm saying we've seen your type before, both here and in the 9/11 sub-forum.

They usually arrive saying that they are unconvinced either way, but they just have a few small questions they'd like cleared up. Within a very short time they reveal themselves as die-hard truthers/guilters and set off on an extended Gish Gallop of gibberish.

You're just following a well-worn pattern. You're not the first and you won't be the last. And you're far from being the best.

We've seen your type before. A lurker who pops up now and then to flame throw.

Hi Vixen,
Just a FYI,
Matthew Best has been posting in this thread
within the 1st 24 hours of its existence here on The JREF,
aka The ISF...

Link:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=161229

 

[Chris_Halkides]

DNA does fly, and it also transfers quite easily

I can't claim to be a biogeneticist. However, prosecution, defense and court accepted it was a strong Mez DNA profile on the blade, albeit LCN.

Vixen,

The DNA was Meredith's profile, but the DNA might or might not ever have been on the blade. If the knife were used in the attack, then there would be blood and DNA on it. Several forensic scientists, including Dr. Hampikian and Dr. Budowle, have commented on the unlikelihood of being able to clean a knife of blood but not DNA. The paper by Peel and Gill (2004) points in the same direction. The fact that Gubbiotti opened the knife for no good reason is enough to have it tossed as evidence even if there were a normal DNA profile IMO. However, with respect to low template work, anti-contamination protocols must be even more stringent. Airborne DNA is a serious problem, for example.

 

[Vixen]

You still cannot address what is put to you. It's a a dreadful habit.

Amanda's lamp is seen in at least three different positions in the crime scene photographs. Almost certainly, in my view, it was taken by one of the CSIs for a light source in order that evidence in the room was not disturbed. Alternatively, Kercher may have borrowed it herself for additional light - though I think not.

What you need to do is either endorse the theory that the lamp was used by Amanda in a cleaning exercise and explain the absence of evidence of such activity or else come up with some alternative theory with evidence for its plausibility.

There is no evidence that Kercher was "assaulted near her door". There is no evidence of "a lot of blood in the hallway" and there is no evidence of any cleaning carried out in an effort to remove traces linked to perpetration of the crime anywhere in the flat.

Additionally, I hardly see that pointing out the truth that there is no evidence in Kercher's room to support prosecution claims, amounts to "gloating brags". Why would you describe it in such pejorative terms?

You make claims which are patently untrue and embrace fantastical theories that require the accomplishment of impossible acts - in particular, the successful removal of evidence of the presence of two people whilst leaving intact, evidence of a third.

Seriously, as Amanda herself scoffed, "Mez had her &$@#ing throat cut", are you really postulating there wasn't much blood?

There is proof of a clean up, as blood diluted with water was found, missed by the cleaner/s.

 

[Antony]

Do you believe every prosecution claim Vixen? There is NO SUCH PRINT.

One of the first things I read in the online readers' comments on this case, in December 2009 when I knew almost nothing about it (other than "this doesn't sound right"), was the assertion:

Her bloody footprints were found all over the flat! One of them under the corpse!​

Of course, it turned out that the "bloody footprints" were in an unidentified substance and not necessarily associated with the crime, and the one "under the corpse" was a shoeprint which we now know was a partial print from one of Guede's shoes. Ho hum.

 

[Kauffer]

It's in the court testimony.

Examine the evidence! Don't assume, just because something is reported to be true, that it is true. Test it!

 

[RWVBWL]

Raff "gave his girl a hickey". Was that before or after buying the "wild sex" lingerie?

Oh my goodness,
I've thought that you have read a few books, Vixen!!!

What gives?
You're not pullin' old RW's leg, are ya?

Another FYI,
I have read a few books too...
So let's debate, OK?
Cool.


You should recall our, ah, discussion
a few days ago when you asked if Amanda asked to use the restroom on the night of The Interrogation.

I gave you her answer,
she asked to use the restroom because of feminine issues.
Perugia's finest said no...

* * *

So now you wonder
What kinda lingerie did AK buy from Bubbles after Meredith was discovered raped+murdered by Rudy Guede and Miss Knox's clothes + underwear were locked inside a Crime Scene? Gosh, wouldn't you agree that it'd suck to not have some clean underwear to wear when you too started your period?

No?

* * *

Hmmmm.
Let me see if I can remember reading of any answer to your quoted question up above.

OK Vixen, let's play,
like Brenda did when playin' Whack-a-Mole on The Santa Monica Pier...

Were they:
1) G-string?
2) Thong lingerie?
3) Red granny panties with a cow on 'em?


I luv helpin' ya out Vixen,
when I have the time, to help you further better understand this horrible murder case we discuss!

Here's some info Vixen, from an old post of mine:
If you have really read "Waiting to be Heard",
You would have learned that Miss Knox bought
red granny panties at Bubbles...

I quote Miss Amanda Knox:
"It was red,
but it's a pair of bikini briefs with a cartoon cow on it," she writes.

Or do ya believe this crap, found on the WWW:
"Knox bought a G-string and talked about having "hot sex" once the couple – who had been dating just a week – got home."

 

[Chris_Halkides]

presumptive and confirmatory testing redux

Stefanoni explained, you do one test or the other, but not both.

This is seriously incorrect on more than one front. One, Stefanoni did TMB testing also, but she was less than forthcoming about it. This is actually standard procedure (following up a luminescent test with a colorimetric one), a point that I have documented many times in these threads and elsewhere.

Two, TMB is not a true confirmatory test for blood in the way that the HemaTrace test for hemoglobin and the RSID test for glycophorin are. It is only when one gets a positive result from a confirmatory test that one can conclude that blood is present. If one reads the relevant portion of the Conti Vecchiotti report, one finds that a species-specific test was performed on the knife (there was also a similar or identical test performed on Rep. 199 if I am not mistaken). The species-specific test is probably a confirmatory blood test, but more information would be needed to pin this down with certainty. I have several blog entries on this general subject.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen,

The DNA was Meredith's profile, but the DNA might or might not ever have been on the blade. If the knife were used in the attack, then there would be blood and DNA on it. Several forensic scientists, including Dr. Hampikian and Dr. Budowle, have commented on the unlikelihood of being able to clean a knife of blood but not DNA. The paper by Peel and Gill (2004) points in the same direction. The fact that Gubbiotti opened the knife for no good reason is enough to have it tossed as evidence even if there were a normal DNA profile IMO. However, with respect to low template work, anti-contamination protocols must be even more stringent. Airborne DNA is a serious problem, for example.

It's my experience a good cop's hunch is often a good one. Many perps have been brought to justice based on such "hallelujah" moments. It's just a sniff that something's not quite right. The super shiny knife in the drawer, proved such a moment.

 

[Matthew Best]

We've seen your type before. A lurker who pops up now and then to flame throw.

I've been posting on this subject since page 1 of the first Part, so another fail from you I'm afraid.

Besides, where have "we" seen my type before? Another forum, perhaps?

 

[Matthew Best]

Damn! Ninja'd by Randy!