Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Strozzi said:
The Washington Post has an article about men who harass women online. The article is based on a study of online gamers conducted by researchers at the University of New South Wales and Miami University (USA). It shows that men who harass women online tend to have problems securing or maintaining their own social status. Dr. Mull, are you reading this?

You may see the Washington Post's article at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/07/20/men-who-harass-women-online-are-quite-literally-losers-new-study-finds/?hpid=z7
Click to expand...

I actually think we should give Dr. Mull a break. He was at one time one of the most obsessed and prolific posters, but he seems to have moved on... (unless I'm mistaken. I haven't seen him post in a very long time) If he has gotten help and moved on, I think we should let him.
 
Anode said:
Wow, great pic Ken. That looks like the perfect size rock to break the window with. Large enough so that its momentum would carry through the window and frame but not too large to be able to handle it. That does look too large for a petite woman to toss but a big strong guy would have no problem. (MOO)
Click to expand...

It is ipso facto naturally of a size which the perps could pick up to stage a - very theatrical - mise en scene.

"Look, dumb cops, in case you are not sure it is a burglar who smashed the window, here is a huge, unmistakeable rock of boulder size, as we are so smart and you are so stupid, we have to rub your thick, dumb-ass cops' noses in it. Get it? It was a burglary by outsiders. Kimo sabi?"
 
Desert Fox said:
Do you accept that the police all over the world have managed to get false confessions from innocent defendants all over the world including developed nations.
Click to expand...

Logical fallacy: therefore the confession by Amanda must be a "false confession from an innocent defendant".

Will Ficarra patent her police investigation method? Wow, we got the perp to voluntarily confess within two hours.

Should be part of every detective's training course.
 
Vixen said:
Logical fallacy: therefore the confession by Amanda must be a "false confession from an innocent defendant".

Will Ficarra patent her police investigation method? Wow, we got the perp to voluntarily confess within two hours.

Should be part of every detective's training course.
Click to expand...

Not that you actually care but it hits many of the red flags of a false confession
1. Does not really fit the crime scene yet fits what the police thought happened.
2. No forensic evidence supporting guilt.
3. After a long interrogation during a late night.
4. The interrogation was not recorded
 
Vixen said:
It is ipso facto naturally of a size which the perps could pick up to stage a - very theatrical - mise en scene.

"Look, dumb cops, in case you are not sure it is a burglar who smashed the window, here is a huge, unmistakeable rock of boulder size, as we are so smart and you are so stupid, we have to rub your thick, dumb-ass cops' noses in it. Get it? It was a burglary by outsiders. Kimo sabi?"
Click to expand...

Luckily for Amanda she happened to choose an accomplice who was connected by criminal evidence to a previous break-in involving a rock smashed window break-in. Here's how one of the victims of this break-in described the rock:

"window was broken with the aid of a piece of porphyry, a big rock that we found there at the spot." ... "persons that entered with the help of this very heavy porphyry"

I think it's things like this that really allow one to appreciate the intricacies of Amanda's plot, and why she ended up walking in the end.
 
Vixen said:
It is ipso facto naturally of a size which the perps could pick up to stage a - very theatrical - mise en scene.

"Look, dumb cops, in case you are not sure it is a burglar who smashed the window, here is a huge, unmistakeable rock of boulder size, as we are so smart and you are so stupid, we have to rub your thick, dumb-ass cops' noses in it. Get it? It was a burglary by outsiders. Kimo sabi?"
Click to expand...

What is wrong with you? Any normal person can see that the rock is not a boulder. Your arguments lack intellect.
 
Planigale said:
Pathetic I know but I cannot let this go. The largest viruses (megavruses) are visible under a microscope about 1 micron dia. The smallest viruses are not. One needs to use an electron microscope to image most viruses. the smallest is a circovirus 17nm dia. Parvoviruses are small at about 20 nm.

There are exactly 1 x 107 (ten million) nanometers in a centimetre. The limit of naked eye visions about 100 micron (100,000 nm). The limit of vision with an optical microscope is about 0.2 micron (200nm).

The DNA content of a single human cell is about 6 pg mass, or 2m (6 feet) in length. The nucleus containing the DNA plus other stuff is around 5 micron diameter.

It makes more sense to consider the DNA found in terms of the DNA in human cells. Lymphocytes (white cells) in blood might be 10 micron dia. and are mostly nucleus.

One microlitre of blood (a cube 1mm on each side ) contains about 10,000 WBC. The WBC contain the DNA in the blood. there are roughly a thousand times more red cells. In one microlitre there are about 5 million red cells containing 270 million haemoglobin molecules per RBC. The content of haemoglobin which is what Luminol / TMB tests for is about 100 microgram / microlitre. In comparison DNA content is about 60 nanogram - a thousand times less.
Click to expand...

Don't forget, certain types of household bleach oxidise the haematic substance (i.e. the red blood cells) which means IOW the ferric element which luminol reacts to which identifies likely blood, is no more. This can be a reason why DNA tests positive, but not blood. The other reason can be too low a level of actual blood to test positive.

Blood washes away, tissues, such as skin cells, stick.
 
Wattson said:
What is wrong with you? Any normal person can see that the rock is not a boulder. Your arguments lack intellect.
Click to expand...

Give Vixen a break. It takes a great deal of intellect to tell tall tales. That takes imagination. Granted they are missing the logic that makes them believable. But hry, you can't have everything.
 
Vixen said:
Don't forget, certain types of household bleach oxidise the haematic substance (i.e. the red blood cells) which means IOW the ferric element which luminol reacts to which identifies likely blood, is no more. This can be a reason why DNA tests positive, but not blood. The other reason can be too low a level of actual blood to test positive.

Blood washes away, tissues, such as skin cells, stick.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and the opposite explanation applies for the DNA negative luminol positive footprints, I'm sure ;)
 
Desert Fox said:
Not that you actually care but it hits many of the red flags of a false confession
1. Does not really fit the crime scene yet fits what the police thought happened.
2. No forensic evidence supporting guilt.
3. After a long interrogation during a late night.
4. The interrogation was not recorded
Click to expand...

It was recorded, there is a signed statement.

Your point numbers 1,2 and 3 are just not so. Saying it, doesn't make it so.
 
acbytesla said:
Give Vixen a break. It takes a great deal of intellect to tell tall tales. That takes imagination. Granted they are missing the logic that makes them believable. But hry, you can't have everything.
Click to expand...

At least I don't follow mindless propaganda, which Uncle Joe would have been proud of.

If I say a thing three times, it becomes true. ~ Tweedledee and Tweedledum, Lewis Carroll
 
Wattson said:
What is wrong with you? Any normal person can see that the rock is not a boulder. Your arguments lack intellect.
Click to expand...

How big would you say a boulder was?

ETA From wiki:
In geology, a boulder is a rock fragment with size greater than than 25.6 centimetres (10.1 in) in diameter.[1] Smaller pieces are called cobbles and pebbles, depending on their "grain size". While a boulder may be small enough to move or roll manually, others are extremely massive.[2]
Click to expand...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulder

Which one of us is intellectually stunted?

QED ::
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
It was recorded, there is a signed statement.

Your point numbers 1,2 and 3 are just not so. Saying it, doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...

Many posters have presented solid evidence supporting each one of the issues I raised. I am sorry that you will not accept them but I don't think you care about the evidence,

The reason why all interrogations should be recorded in their entirety in audio and video formats is to get an idea just what was said. Of course again, you don't care.
 
Vixen said:
It is ipso facto naturally of a size which the perps could pick up to stage a - very theatrical - mise en scene.

"Look, dumb cops, in case you are not sure it is a burglar who smashed the window, here is a huge, unmistakeable rock of boulder size, as we are so smart and you are so stupid, we have to rub your thick, dumb-ass cops' noses in it. Get it? It was a burglary by outsiders. Kimo sabi?"
Click to expand...

Oh, I see. A real burglar would have purposely chosen a non-optimal size rock to fool the cops. Perhaps a small one, a pebble, that you need to throw at high speed in order to break the window. This being the master plan to throw off the cop's investigation.

"Look, dumb cops, in case you are not sure it is a staged burglary, here is a rock of pebble size that even a petite girl could throw.

Sorry, don't know what a Kimo sabi is? :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom