acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 39,540
This is kind of like the argument on spelling Khaddafi maybe? I know I don't care.
Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito
- Thread starter acbytesla
- Start date
- Status
This is kind of like the argument on spelling Khaddafi maybe? I know I don't care.
I agree.
For some reason, many of the people who are pro-guilt have put forth the POV that Amanda's writing is terrible, that she is crass, has poor hygiene, and all sorts of other things that seem irrelevant to the murder. I have found her writing quite good, much better and more insightful than most people write.
It seems that, if the evidence showed it, she could be guilty of murder without being a horrible writer who smells?
Re: TJMK: Maybe one of PQ's 100 lawyers told him it was OK to post the entire afterward online.
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 39,540
Boy do I agree with this. I would also suggest that people ignore Vixen's posts. Her latest post employs an old political trick. She is basically spreading garbage around tricking people into picking up the garbage. This leaves the casual reader into just focusing on the garbage, not knowing what is true and what isn't.
We all know that 90 percent of her post is false. I'm sure even vixen knows. After all, who would believe newspaper and tabloid accounts instead of the trial records?
Thanks for the links
90 Days from March 27 is June 25, so I think the Motivation will be due on or before June 25
Grinder
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 10,033
Please note I have dropped the Clemente/Moore discussion except giving the links at request.
I would suggest showing the Clemente knife section to friends and then asking how many knives were tested at his place. Obviously I think the vast majority would say one knife.
For years the best information available was that only the one knife was tested. This was a major point on how ridiculous the PLE and ICSI were. I doubt the total defense (lawyers and spokespeople) weren't aware that Raf's personal knife had been tested. I doubt Clemente didn't know it by 2014.
In addition to my dislike of misinformation, I also think that the early media efforts of the PIP group actually hurt the case. Everyone's new darling, Mach, made the case for years that the demonizing of the Italians when accurate wasn't helping the kids and when false even more so.
Much of the early media work was on TV and the radio and may be lost or at least difficult to find. In those early days it is my opinion that statements like Amanda had never met or didn't Rudi at all hurt the perception when it came out she had met him and did know him in the common use. I remember CM saying no connection adamantly and then the connection, albeit minor, came out and made the PIP POV look sketchy.
I believe I read that she named him in an early statement or at mentioned him even if she didn't remember his name.
As a person that began doubting their guilt and certainly how the police were acting from the De Felice "she buckled and told us what we know to be correct" remark those early misstatements were very irritating.
I would suggest showing the Clemente knife section to friends and then asking how many knives were tested at his place. Obviously I think the vast majority would say one knife.
For years the best information available was that only the one knife was tested. This was a major point on how ridiculous the PLE and ICSI were. I doubt the total defense (lawyers and spokespeople) weren't aware that Raf's personal knife had been tested. I doubt Clemente didn't know it by 2014.
In addition to my dislike of misinformation, I also think that the early media efforts of the PIP group actually hurt the case. Everyone's new darling, Mach, made the case for years that the demonizing of the Italians when accurate wasn't helping the kids and when false even more so.
Much of the early media work was on TV and the radio and may be lost or at least difficult to find. In those early days it is my opinion that statements like Amanda had never met or didn't Rudi at all hurt the perception when it came out she had met him and did know him in the common use. I remember CM saying no connection adamantly and then the connection, albeit minor, came out and made the PIP POV look sketchy.
I believe I read that she named him in an early statement or at mentioned him even if she didn't remember his name.
As a person that began doubting their guilt and certainly how the police were acting from the De Felice "she buckled and told us what we know to be correct" remark those early misstatements were very irritating.
MichaelB
Muse
- Joined
- May 27, 2013
- Messages
- 555
The British Girls
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/the-british-girls/
There's a closer look at what they said. It just needs to be footnoted.
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/the-british-girls/
There's a closer look at what they said. It just needs to be footnoted.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
You have not actually answered the points I made.
Last edited:
While not wanting to parse each word, I generally agree with this. My only additional comment is that I think, in the earliest days particularly, the pro-innocence folk felt so under siege by false information, and so enraged by how it was being used to smear an otherwise ordinary young couple, that the attacks on Italy, and Perugian authorities in particular, spawned from that. There was lots of criticism of Amanda's parents in particular, saying that they (and Amanda) should be acting deferential to the PM, courts, the Italian process, etc. Yet, how do you react when those people get up in public, say the most insulting, horrible things about your daughter with no proof, plant stories in the media about the same things, etc?
While I agree some of the public criticism of the Italians may have caused some people to dig in and refuse to consider innocence, I think that many people thought they had no choice. It was either fight back, or allow what was going on to continue. Not sure there is a nice way to say that the authorities in another country have made up a case against your daughter. Not one that gets anyone to pay attention.
Where in the world did you get that idea?
It would really help if the stuff you post were true. If you are able to provide evidence that the above highlighted comment is true, I will gladly retract my question.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
I provided you with a clear wiki link which spelt out luminol will not detect a bleach clean up, unless it is within eight hours. The police applied luminol six weeks after the crime.
Instead of acknowledging this in fact is the case, you have maintained a false premise, "police failed to discover a bleach clean up". We can infer true facts are not important to you. Rather, you are keen to push "soundbites" plucked from thin air to fool the unwary.
You're obviously not interested in learning so what's the point?
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 39,540
Why should he or anyone? We know and you know that the points you have made are not just factually questionable but proven countless times to be demonstrably false by the court records themselves. You are just attempting to [post to] the forum with claims of facts, not any actual facts.
Edited by Loss Leader:
Edited for Rule 0
Last edited by a moderator:
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Learning what? In which way did police fail to use luminol to highlight a bleach based clean up, when Amanda and Raff delayed anyone finding the body until Mez had been dead at least 14 hours?
Come on, teach me.
Grinder
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 10,033
Could u provide a paste of the section you are citing. Are you maintaining that no evidence of a bleach cleanup can ever be found?
ETA - what type of bleach was purchased 11-2 and what type was at Raf's and what type (the bottles she had never seen at his place) did the last maid say she was ordered not to use?
Last edited:
The luminol does not just respond to bleach and other cleaners. When there is a clean up of a bloody crime scene, what the Luminol later shows is smear marks from the mopping/wiping, etc. of the blood and other substances that were moved around. In this case, the luminol revealed foot and shoe prints, which later tested negative with TMB, which is used to confirm that the luminol found blood, not some other substance it reacts to.
Your other points, about the woman's shoe, Raffaele's fingerprint on inside of Meredith's door, etc. have been refuted many times in the past by others here.
No soundbites, just factual information you don't seem able to refute. What I asked is for you to please provide proof of your personal attack that myself, and other posters here are members of a group that where we "See it as their mission to suppress truth ..." .
Here the relevant part of your post, in case you forgot:
Originally Posted by Vixen
Any independent person reading this needs to bear in mind this poster, and most of the posters in this thread are signed up members of an aggressive pro-innocence lobbying advocacy group (IIP). They see it as their mission to suppress truth and run down the Italian cops and prosecution.
If the facts you are posting are accurate, please show us. There have been several you have been asked to prove, and have not been able (or willing to).
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
I gave you a clear link to what the luminol tests revealed. Your turn to explain in which way the information was refuted; by whom and when.
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Luminol_Traces
Here's another link re bleach clean ups and crime scenes.
http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/detecting-evidence-after-bleaching.html
Bearing in mind, we recently established on this forum, the effects of bleach will only show up in luminol within eight hours, and will tend to show as a blanket light blue glow.
The Scientific Police did not use luminol testing until 18th Dec, so how do you suggest they could have detected a bleach clean up?
Remember, you soundbited that "no bleach clean up was found."
Grinder
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 10,033
How do people parse this:
Imagine for a minute a schoolroom chalkboard with a couple of footprints drawn on it in chalk. Now, take an eraser and erase the prints. This is a little what a bleach-cleaned crime scene looks like under luminol examination. A crime scene cleaned with bleach wouldn’t have footprints or fingerprints; it would have wide swaths of bleach, many times in arcs that give away the tell-tale motions of cleaning and wiping, kind of like we used to see on chalk-board erasures. You would see luminol reactions everywhere; it would look like a huge florescent blue paint spill.
This was not what the Polizia Scientifica found at Raffaele’s apartment on November 13. They found approximately 14 luminol ‘hits’, and no blood. And, no indications of a cleanup. The crime scene investigators knew on November 13 from luminol tests that the scene wasn’t cleaned with bleach. How can we be sure that the luminol ‘hits’ were not blood? Because finding blood would be damaging evidence, and Mignini would have used it. How do we know that the scene wasn’t cleaned with bleach? Because of the 14 luminol ‘hits’, and the fact that a cleanup would be damaging evidence, and Mignini would have used it.
However, in a court filing on November 28, two weeks after the tests, Prosecutor Mignini alleged that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito cleaned both the cottage and Raffaele’s apartment with bleach. He knew that to be untrue from luminol testing. He had known for two weeks that no cleanup occurred at Raffaele’s cottage, but still insinuated it throughout the trial—knowing it to be a lie.
Would the author be saying that the cottage was luminolled on the 13th?
Imagine for a minute a schoolroom chalkboard with a couple of footprints drawn on it in chalk. Now, take an eraser and erase the prints. This is a little what a bleach-cleaned crime scene looks like under luminol examination. A crime scene cleaned with bleach wouldn’t have footprints or fingerprints; it would have wide swaths of bleach, many times in arcs that give away the tell-tale motions of cleaning and wiping, kind of like we used to see on chalk-board erasures. You would see luminol reactions everywhere; it would look like a huge florescent blue paint spill.
This was not what the Polizia Scientifica found at Raffaele’s apartment on November 13. They found approximately 14 luminol ‘hits’, and no blood. And, no indications of a cleanup. The crime scene investigators knew on November 13 from luminol tests that the scene wasn’t cleaned with bleach. How can we be sure that the luminol ‘hits’ were not blood? Because finding blood would be damaging evidence, and Mignini would have used it. How do we know that the scene wasn’t cleaned with bleach? Because of the 14 luminol ‘hits’, and the fact that a cleanup would be damaging evidence, and Mignini would have used it.
However, in a court filing on November 28, two weeks after the tests, Prosecutor Mignini alleged that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito cleaned both the cottage and Raffaele’s apartment with bleach. He knew that to be untrue from luminol testing. He had known for two weeks that no cleanup occurred at Raffaele’s cottage, but still insinuated it throughout the trial—knowing it to be a lie.
Would the author be saying that the cottage was luminolled on the 13th?
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Luminol chemiluminescence can also be triggered by a number of substances such as copper or copper-containing chemical compounds,[13] and certain bleaches; and, as a result, if a crime scene is thoroughly cleaned with a bleach solution, residual cleaner will cause the entire crime scene to produce the typical blue glow, effectively camouflaging any organic evidence, such as blood.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminol
ACE Bleach ingredients:
http://www.sainsburys.co.uk/shop/gb/groceries/ace-laundry-bleach--colour-safe-1l
Ken Dine
Muse
Another 'Guilter' posting the usual mountain of sludge, but I will address one claim about "phone records" since that claim is clearly false:
'Guilters' claim that Amanda had left Raffaele’s apartment because Amanda's cell-phone had used this tower that night:
Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3
The claim is that the Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 tower did not service Raffaele's apartment, so they claim that as proof that Amanda had lied.
However, Amanda had connected to the Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 from within Raffaele's apartment at other times, as can be easily proved by reading Massei (see below citations).
Apparently, how that prosecution error had occurred, is that a police expert went to Raffaele's apartment, and while standing in front of the building he couldn't detect the Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 tower.
The prosecution expert couldn't detect the Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 tower from the front of the building since the building was blocking the signal (since that tower was on the other side). HOWEVER, defense experts proved that inside Raffaele's kitchen the Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 tower's signal was strong.
Based upon erroneous testing Massai incorrectly concluded that the Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 tower doesn't service Raffaele's apartment. This was one of the prosecution's main proofs attacking Amanda's alibi, but the prosecution was clearly WRONG since Massei’s own report proves that this cell-tower does indeed service Raffale’s apartment (at PAGE 323 below):
Massai at PAGE 322:
However, Judge Massai does say that Amanda was back at Raffaele's apartment just a few minutes later when she replied to Lumumba using the Via Berardi sector 7 tower, which DOES service Raffaele's apartment:
Elsewhere in Massai's report the judge incongruously states that the Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 tower DOES indeed service Raffaele's apartment:
Massai at PAGE 323:
So which is it, does the Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 tower service Raffaele's apartment, or not?
Clearly, the Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 tower DOES service Raffaele's apartment (since Amanda connected to that tower at other times when we know she was at Raffaele's apartment), so this is just another example of Italian bumbling, as well as a prime example of 'Guilters' running off half-cocked with yet another phony claim that Amanda had lied.
'Guilters' claim that Amanda had left Raffaele’s apartment because Amanda's cell-phone had used this tower that night:
Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3
The claim is that the Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 tower did not service Raffaele's apartment, so they claim that as proof that Amanda had lied.
However, Amanda had connected to the Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 from within Raffaele's apartment at other times, as can be easily proved by reading Massei (see below citations).
Apparently, how that prosecution error had occurred, is that a police expert went to Raffaele's apartment, and while standing in front of the building he couldn't detect the Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 tower.
The prosecution expert couldn't detect the Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 tower from the front of the building since the building was blocking the signal (since that tower was on the other side). HOWEVER, defense experts proved that inside Raffaele's kitchen the Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 tower's signal was strong.
Based upon erroneous testing Massai incorrectly concluded that the Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 tower doesn't service Raffaele's apartment. This was one of the prosecution's main proofs attacking Amanda's alibi, but the prosecution was clearly WRONG since Massei’s own report proves that this cell-tower does indeed service Raffale’s apartment (at PAGE 323 below):
Massai at PAGE 322:
However, Judge Massai does say that Amanda was back at Raffaele's apartment just a few minutes later when she replied to Lumumba using the Via Berardi sector 7 tower, which DOES service Raffaele's apartment:
Elsewhere in Massai's report the judge incongruously states that the Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 tower DOES indeed service Raffaele's apartment:
Massai at PAGE 323:
So which is it, does the Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 tower service Raffaele's apartment, or not?
Clearly, the Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 tower DOES service Raffaele's apartment (since Amanda connected to that tower at other times when we know she was at Raffaele's apartment), so this is just another example of Italian bumbling, as well as a prime example of 'Guilters' running off half-cocked with yet another phony claim that Amanda had lied.
- Status