Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

There is a term for someone who consistently misrepresents the facts. Can anyone help me with this?

A lawyer...?

 

[Vixen]

Bill's a lousy Canuck

Whoops!

 

[Bill Williams]

Vixen:
Please answer a couple of questions, because on the face of it, you've just advanced yet another random factoid, from your random factoid generator.

1) When did Amanda take it into Meredith's room?

2) For what purpose did Amanda take it into that room?

3) name the forensics which demonstrate that Amanda took it into Meredith's room. (Hint: that the lamp belonged to Amanda is not proof she took it into the room.)​

Bill, your gung-ho jingoistic patriotism is commendable. Sadly, if Amanda was not American, you wouldn't go to such extraordinary lengths to deny the obvious.

Like others have said, I cannot really believe you think this is a reasonable response.

You probably, then, have no idea what "the lamp" as an issue means, either pro or con. Therefore you lash out, and attach an ad hominem to your evasion - an evasion because you have no clue at all how to apply evidence to this case.

Re: "lousy Canuck". See, even Grinder has lost his usual edge. He is imprecise in his designation..... by saying that I am a "lousy Canuck", is he implying that ALL Canucks are lousy, and I'm simply one of them, or is he saying that Canucks are a good lot, it's just that I am one of the few lousy ones?

A rare imprecise statement from Grinder!

However, even Grinder can give you a couple of sentences on the value of "the lamp" as evidence.

Which is the long way of saying, "wrong again, Vixen". There is no gung-ho patriotic jingoism in my post. (Or was it jingoistic patriotism? "O say can you see, by the dawn's early light, what.....")

Vixen - your posts have been delivered from a random factoid-generator, and you have proven yourself simply unable to deal with evidence. Sorry to say it, but that's a fair assessment of your 250+ posts since April 23, 10 days ago.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

"Unfortunate, but understandable?".

Let me get this right. Amanda was elsewhere when Mez' door was kicked down.

How would Amanda know Mez had her [insert foulmouthed word] throat cut?

Please don't say that suddenly she spoke fluent Italian and heard the cop say it.

It was a vulgar brag and foreknowledge of the crime.

Most burglars or others, acting in self-defence will simply make a thrust to the chest, so it is not even rational to consider it.

Going forward if you want to present better arguments, there is something you need to bear in mind.

The two competing hypotheses in this case are "Knox and Sollecito are guilty", and "Knox and Sollecito are innocent, but the Perugian law enforcement community made a determined effort to make a case against them out of nothing".

Perugian law enforcement members saying "Knox totally had knowledge of the murder, I say she said something about Meredith being wounded in the throat before I told her that happened" is equally compatible with either hypothesis. As such it's not evidence in any meaningful sense. To differentiate the two hypotheses you need something that is only true in a scenario where the two are guilty, not something which will be true in either scenario.

Nobody is saying "Knox and Sollecito are innocent and Mignini and the rest of the Perugian law enforcement community did an excellent job", so your arguments are answering a question that nobody asked.

 

[js202]

At a time when almost all of this subject matter has become completely academic, the fact that some very smart people are stooping to repeat themselves for the benefit of a spamming nincompoop - whom likely they have already encountered multiple times posting under another nom de guerre - proves at least one of two things: 1) the internet is the devil, and/or 2) this thread has officially jumped the shark.

 

[Grinder]

While I will not accuse Anglo of having a sock puppet just to tease the rest of us I don't think it is beyond the possibility that he has enlisted someone that he feeds these "factoids" to. I have yet to see both the new girl and Anglo online at the same time.

Personally I think it is either the writer gathering information or just taking and publishing an edited dialog or one of the lost souls from .org having a last fling. There are people like the Cornell law student that pop up periodically.

Anyway while we wait for the report and maybe some other action in Italy she is obviously entertaining some here but unfortunately aggravating a few.

Just kidding Anglo

 

[Bill Williams]

At a time when almost all of this subject matter has become completely academic, the fact that some very smart people are stooping to repeat themselves for the benefit of a spamming nincompoop - whom likely they have already encountered multiple times posting under another nom de guerre - proves at least one of two things: 1) the internet is the devil, and/or 2) this thread has officially jumped the shark.

Ouch!

 

[Bill Williams]

While I will not accuse Anglo of having a sock puppet just to tease the rest of us I don't think it is beyond the possibility that he has enlisted someone that he feeds these "factoids" to. I have yet to see both the new girl and Anglo online at the same time.

Personally I think it is either the writer gathering information or just taking and publishing an edited dialog or one of the lost souls from .org having a last fling. There are people like the Cornell law student that pop up periodically.

Anyway while we wait for the report and maybe some other action in Italy she is obviously entertaining some here but unfortunately aggravating a few.

Just kidding Anglo

There's actually far more evidence that anglolawyer is Vixen, than there is on any of the other stuff Vixen's brought here.

 

[js202]

Ouch!

Or, of course, Grinder is right, and I forgot: 3) the sinister and brilliant anglolawyer has way too much time on his hands, and has propped up *the* ultimate avatar of an absurd sock puppet, so that he can have one final go at this terrific material, just for old times sake.

 

[Numbers]

Bill, your gung-ho jingoistic patriotism is commendable. Sadly, if Amanda was not American, you wouldn't go to such extraordinary lengths to deny the obvious.

Like others have said, I cannot really believe you think this is a reasonable response.

You probably, then, have no idea what "the lamp" as an issue means, either pro or con. Therefore you lash out, and attach an ad hominem to your evasion - an evasion because you have no clue at all how to apply evidence to this case.

Re: "lousy Canuck". See, even Grinder has lost his usual edge. He is imprecise in his designation..... by saying that I am a "lousy Canuck", is he implying that ALL Canucks are lousy, and I'm simply one of them, or is he saying that Canucks are a good lot, it's just that I am one of the few lousy ones?

A rare imprecise statement from Grinder!

However, even Grinder can give you a couple of sentences on the value of "the lamp" as evidence.

Which is the long way of saying, "wrong again, Vixen". There is no gung-ho patriotic jingoism in my post. (Or was it jingoistic patriotism? "O say can you see, by the dawn's early light, what.....")

Vixen - your posts have been delivered from a random factoid-generator, and you have proven yourself simply unable to deal with evidence. Sorry to say it, but that's a fair assessment of your 250+ posts since April 23, 10 days ago.

Bill,
I think Vixen's vicious ad hominem attack on you illustrates the emptiness of his or her campaign of logic-free posting. Implying that someone is a US national when he or she is in fact from that other sorta mostly English-speaking nation - the one with the moose and loons - in North America should not go unnoticed.

Grinder, on the other hand, failed to include a cite or adequate definition. In particular, checking this site:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lousy,

one may find:

Full Definition of LOUSY
3. of silk : fuzzy and specked because of splitting of the fiber

 

[Grinder]

I wonder if there is anyone here that could explain why contamination must be proven has any traction with the PGP. Why do they believe that international experts weighing in on procedures and protocol in some way lowers Italian justice if they listen? What do they think would motivate people like Dr. Gill to lie for Amanda?

Why don't they see that DNA found of Rudi isn't the same as the sub LCN sample of Meredith on the knife even without the fact that other circumstantial and direct evidence puts him there at TOD?

Do they understand that the sample on the knife only weighed about 1/580,000 of a grain of salt?

Here a little new material from .net

The article is crap. It incorrectly reduces the Nencini report to just looking at the DNA, when in fact Nencini looked at the eight different categories of evidence: the context and time of death, staging and discarding cellphones, calunnia and false alibis, witnesses, biological traces including DNA, footprints and fingerprints, deviant testimony, Guede testimony.

Also the article incorrectly says "The experts, however, testified that their methodology of extraction of the DNA had left out from the analysis some biological components of the blood present on the knife." This is completely incorrect. The DNA on traces 36B was simply too small to do a double analysis. They did not "leave out" "biological components". Dr. Stefanoni clearly explained why she had to sample for DNA first and leave a small amount to determine the carrying substance for that DNA. That Meredith's DNA was on the knife was never in doubt. Whether the carrying substance was blood or not is an open question, but that doesn't make the DNA evidence any less relevant.

Also, the article fails to mention the overall context of the knife, i.e that it was the cleanest knife in the drawer, it had scouring grooves parallel to the blade (signs it had been vigorously cleaned) and that Meredith's DNA was found in the deepest of these grooves, and that it was at S's apartment, a place Meredith had never been to.

The article then says: "Moreover, even though Raffaele’s DNA was found on Meredith’s bra, the bra had been contaminated by traces of rust and multiple DNA profiles were retrieved from this object." Except that there was no dispute as to the presence of Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp. There was only a question posed by the defense of possible contamination, but no one was able to prove any such contamination, whether in the lab or during the retrieval of the clasp.

The article then says: "Thus, by accepting the DNA tests as relevant evidence, the Appellate Court seemed to exclude a priori alternative explanations of why Amanda and Raffaele’s DNA were found on those items, likely because of its bias based on the non-scientific evidence against them. Therefore, given the uncertain results of the DNA tests, the Supreme Court has likely viewed the evidence insufficient to convict them." The DNA results are not uncertain. A cursory look at all the DNA testing done will show this. Also, the issue is not Amanda's DNA but Meredith's DNA on the knife, AND how this is statistically affected by the finding of Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp, and how both of these are statistically affected by all the remaining evidence: the staging, witnesses, footprints, fingerprints, mixed blood traces, cellphone evidence, false alibis, calunnia, no evidence others with Guede, Guede testifying S and K did it, S and K lies, delayed discovery, etc. If Marasca and Bruno say there is reasonable doubt because the DNA is somehow flimsy, then they are morons. Anyone familiar with the case will know these judges failed to do their duty, given that the previous SC decision specifically emphasized the need to view the totality of ALL the evidence.​

 

[acbytesla]

At a time when almost all of this subject matter has become completely academic, the fact that some very smart people are stooping to repeat themselves for the benefit of a spamming nincompoop - whom likely they have already encountered multiple times posting under another nom de guerre - proves at least one of two things: 1) the internet is the devil, and/or 2) this thread has officially jumped the shark.

It has jumped the shark. The argument for guilt is totally asinine and Vixen's arguments prove that.

But what is really absurd is this charade that Vixen is playing. Her insistence that she's neutral and her info comes only from books. I say that is NONSENSE. She is repeating every guilter point there is and instead of listening and thinking about the response, she just rolls out the next one. The prosecutors, the police, the forensic personnel are all right, despite the evidence to the contrary.

I'd be happy to have a conversation with a thinking rational person about the evidence in this case. But that isn't what is happening here. Vixen is not unbiased and neutral as she claims. She is a typical guilter who spouts nonsense point after nonsense point never entertaining anything that is in conflict with her preconceived ideas.

I'm done with her.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill,
I think Vixen's vicious ad hominem attack on you illustrates the emptiness of his or her campaign of logic-free posting. Implying that someone is a US national when he or she is in fact from that other sorta mostly English-speaking nation - the one with the moose and loons - in North America should not go unnoticed.

Grinder, on the other hand, failed to include a cite or adequate definition. In particular, checking this site:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lousy,

one may find:

Full Definition of LOUSY
3. of silk : fuzzy and specked because of splitting of the fiber

There, I fixed it for you.

Vixen is nothing if not determined - determined to not actually discuss anything - just get those randonly-generated factoids into the discussion on thise thread - o n e m o r e t i m e .

It actually does not matter. We can argue what this thread meant pre-March 27th, 2015 - but this thread is meaningless post that date.

It's just hard to believe that someone would want to spread these meaningless factoids NOW! I suppose I should go off and watch that welter-weight fight....

 

[acbytesla]

I wonder if there is anyone here that could explain why contamination must be proven has any traction with the PGP. Why do they believe that international experts weighing in on procedures and protocol in some way lowers Italian justice if they listen? What do they think would motivate people like Dr. Gill to lie for Amanda?

Why don't they see that DNA found of Rudi isn't the same as the sub LCN sample of Meredith on the knife even without the fact that other circumstantial and direct evidence puts him there at TOD?

Do they understand that the sample on the knife only weighed about 1/580,000 of a grain of salt?

Here a little new material from .net

The article is crap. It incorrectly reduces the Nencini report to just looking at the DNA, when in fact Nencini looked at the eight different categories of evidence: the context and time of death, staging and discarding cellphones, calunnia and false alibis, witnesses, biological traces including DNA, footprints and fingerprints, deviant testimony, Guede testimony.

Also the article incorrectly says "The experts, however, testified that their methodology of extraction of the DNA had left out from the analysis some biological components of the blood present on the knife." This is completely incorrect. The DNA on traces 36B was simply too small to do a double analysis. They did not "leave out" "biological components". Dr. Stefanoni clearly explained why she had to sample for DNA first and leave a small amount to determine the carrying substance for that DNA. That Meredith's DNA was on the knife was never in doubt. Whether the carrying substance was blood or not is an open question, but that doesn't make the DNA evidence any less relevant.

Also, the article fails to mention the overall context of the knife, i.e that it was the cleanest knife in the drawer, it had scouring grooves parallel to the blade (signs it had been vigorously cleaned) and that Meredith's DNA was found in the deepest of these grooves, and that it was at S's apartment, a place Meredith had never been to.

The article then says: "Moreover, even though Raffaele’s DNA was found on Meredith’s bra, the bra had been contaminated by traces of rust and multiple DNA profiles were retrieved from this object." Except that there was no dispute as to the presence of Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp. There was only a question posed by the defense of possible contamination, but no one was able to prove any such contamination, whether in the lab or during the retrieval of the clasp.

The article then says: "Thus, by accepting the DNA tests as relevant evidence, the Appellate Court seemed to exclude a priori alternative explanations of why Amanda and Raffaele’s DNA were found on those items, likely because of its bias based on the non-scientific evidence against them. Therefore, given the uncertain results of the DNA tests, the Supreme Court has likely viewed the evidence insufficient to convict them." The DNA results are not uncertain. A cursory look at all the DNA testing done will show this. Also, the issue is not Amanda's DNA but Meredith's DNA on the knife, AND how this is statistically affected by the finding of Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp, and how both of these are statistically affected by all the remaining evidence: the staging, witnesses, footprints, fingerprints, mixed blood traces, cellphone evidence, false alibis, calunnia, no evidence others with Guede, Guede testifying S and K did it, S and K lies, delayed discovery, etc. If Marasca and Bruno say there is reasonable doubt because the DNA is somehow flimsy, then they are morons. Anyone familiar with the case will know these judges failed to do their duty, given that the previous SC decision specifically emphasized the need to view the totality of ALL the evidence.​

This has always been the essence of the prosecution argument. 6 crappy pieces of evidence must equal guilt. The knife was always crap. There is NO WAY IN HELL, that cooking knife was used. NONE, or damn close to zero. So why should anyone really consider it? Even if Meredith's DNA was proven to be on the knife, the fact that it didn't match the wounds or the stain on the sheet, not to mention that it simply isn't the kind of knife that anyone would carry makes it absurd.

 

[Numbers]

1. I wonder if there is anyone here that could explain why contamination must be proven has any traction with the PGP. 2. Why do they believe that international experts weighing in on procedures and protocol in some way lowers Italian justice if they listen? 3. What do they think would motivate people like Dr. Gill to lie for Amanda?

4. Why don't they see that DNA found of Rudi isn't the same as the sub LCN sample of Meredith on the knife even without the fact that other circumstantial and direct evidence puts him there at TOD?

5. Do they understand that the sample on the knife only weighed about 1/580,000 of a grain of salt?

6. Here a little new material from .net

....

Grinder,
I will put on my mind-reader's cap and, using its powers, attempt to explain the pathological thought of the guilters.

1. The guilters believe that it is incumbent on a defendant to prove his innocence. That is, they reverse the presumption of proof from the standard used in democratic countries. This may be due to their worship of authority, at least when that authority is persecuting innocent people.

2. Guilters dislike rational thought, science and the scientific method, and logic. Application of any of the above might interfere with the persecution of innocent persons and cast doubt on the hoax of guilt.

3. The guilters believe that the experts who have shown the flaws in the evidence and legal procedures used in this case are all either suffering from jingoist patriotism or have been bribed by Evil Americans, and that the experts in question are not really experts because a) they have been highly educated in relevant areas, b) they have done original research in relevant technical areas, and c) the position of the experts exposes the guilter and prosecution hoax.

4. The guilters cannot think this through because it requires rational thought and the acceptance of facts contrary to the guilter hoax.

5. See (4).

6. The "new material" is a collection of misstatements and illogic. Others may wish to deal with the details.

 

[Dan O.]

At a time when almost all of this subject matter has become completely academic, the fact that some very smart people are stooping to repeat themselves for the benefit of a spamming nincompoop - whom likely they have already encountered multiple times posting under another nom de guerre - proves at least one of two things: 1) the internet is the devil, and/or 2) this thread has officially jumped the shark.

For myself, I was spurred on when a side question led me to look closely at a piece that I had previously disregarded and surprisingly discovered a new piece of this puzzle.

I am afraid though that the process where one poster throws old crap at the wall in rapid succession is not conducive to the deep reflections necessary to find new knowledge in this case.

 

[lonepinealex]

Or, of course, Grinder is right, and I forgot: 3) the sinister and brilliant anglolawyer has way too much time on his hands, and has propped up *the* ultimate avatar of an absurd sock puppet, so that he can have one final go at this terrific material, just for old times sake.

I think this might actually be true...

Vixen is such an archetypal guilter that Poe's law surely applies. It's definitely someone British who knows how to push our buttons anyway.

 

[Dan O.]

There's actually far more evidence that anglolawyer is Vixen, than there is on any of the other stuff Vixen's brought here.

Accusing Anglo is exactly what Grinder would do if Grinder were running the sock.

 

[lonepinealex]

Accusing Anglo is exactly what Grinder would do if Grinder were running the sock.

But would Grinder chuck in a Molesworth reference?

 

[Dan O.]

This has always been the essence of the prosecution argument. 6 crappy pieces of evidence must equal guilt. The knife was always crap. There is NO WAY IN HELL, that cooking knife was used. NONE, or damn close to zero. So why should anyone really consider it? Even if Meredith's DNA was proven to be on the knife, the fact that it didn't match the wounds or the stain on the sheet, not to mention that it simply isn't the kind of knife that anyone would carry makes it absurd.

Please try to keep up. That's "stains" (plural) on the sheet.