Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Planigale]

We established the Mez' DNA at your purported "1/500" of a grain of salt weighing 5.82 g /cubic gram, was 29200 picograms, which meets your self-reported criterion of being >100 picograms.

Being low copy number, Stef's lab were only able to perform one DNA test on it, and it was a definitively strong DNA profile of Mez, which the prosecution, defense and judges all agreed on (15 allelles; basic legal minimum being 10).

There is no question it is Mez', was on the knife blade of a kitchen knife that had been scrubbed so clean, only about five traces of organic matter could be found, and which the defense expert DNA scientists witnessed Stef performing, as is their legal right and expectation.

There are no two ways about it, the test was valid, came up with a highly significant result and is absolutely positively Mez' DNA profile beyond any doubt at all.

So assuming we are considering the sample from the blade of the knife.
Q. What was the quantity of DNA found when sample 36b was quantified?
A. None detected

So no DNA was detected in sample 36b when it was subject to DNA quantification. None. How many other samples with no detectable DNA were put through for typing?

Q. When questioned in court how much DNA did Steffanoni say was found?
A. A few hundred picograms.
Q. Was this true?
A. No Stefanoni gave false testimony
Q. How did Stefanoni testify the DNA was quantified?
A. Real time PCR
Q. Was this true?
A. No Stefanoni gave false testimony

 

[Desert Fox]

Bagels:
It is called quantum guilt. . . .No matter what evidence or argument is presented, even if it is the direct opposite of previous evidence / argument, it is always evidence of guilt.

 

[Vixen]

Well, Grinder has stated on multiple occasions that Rudy was not a real burglar but was more of a "fence". Therefore it is possible and even probable that Rudy threw the "boulder". He was big and strong enough yet not a real burglar.

There we have it folks! Rudy was a fence and threw the rock!

What-if? logic is fine for a forum, but a court of law expects a bit more than, what if Rudy really did smash the window and scale an 11 foot wall, what if the glass over the rummaged room is just a fluke, what if he killed Meredith cos she interrupted his burglary; what if he got horny and was able to restrain her with both arms wrenched behind her back whilst at the same time hilding one knife to her left neck and one to the right and at the same time sexually assault her; what if he undressed her after death, posed her body, just like in Raff's comic!; what if he cleaned up afterwards and managed to steal Mez' two phones, credit card and rent whilst ignoring everything else; what if he managed to find Mez' key to lock it without leaving footprints and then leave the front door swinging open. What if Rudy was a police informer who managed to persuade the police to frame Raff and Amanda in exchange for a reduced sentence?

What if he bribed Steff to forge the DNA evidence?

What if the moon is made of blue cheese?

 

[bagels]

What-if? logic is fine for a forum, but a court of law expects a bit more than, what if Rudy really did smash the window and scale an 11 foot wall, what if the glass over the rummaged room is just a fluke, what if he killed Meredith cos she interrupted his burglary; what if he got horny and was able to restrain her with both arms wrenched behind her back whilst at the same time hilding one knife to her left neck and one to the right and at the same time sexually assault her; what if he undressed her after death, posed her body, just like in Raff's comic!; what if he cleaned up afterwards and managed to steal Mez' two phones, credit card and rent whilst ignoring everything else; what if he managed to find Mez' key to lock it without leaving footprints and then leave the front door swinging open. What if Rudy was a police informer who managed to persuade the police to frame Raff and Amanda in exchange for a reduced sentence?

What if he bribed Steff to forge the DNA evidence?

What if the moon is made of blue cheese?

What if the evidence against AK was really weak and all of it was consistent with a lone male criminal committing a murder and sexual assault after breaking into the cottage in a similar manner to a previous break-in he was directly connected to, and there was no solid case to be made against AK and she walked free? Oh that's what happened lol

 

[Diocletus]

No, it doesn't. English law aims for closure. Judge and Jury's verdict final.

You can apply for any appeal at any level and over any court decision.

Once verdict passed, you can apply for an appeal hearing, to put your case.

Ninety-nine out of a hundred appeal applications are refused by the registrars - normally judges - who do the sifting, without any further hearing.

I took about 2 minutes to google this and have concluded that you are full of crap. I will wait for others more knowledgeable than I to confirm.

I can tell you have to lose at least one, and probably many appeals, before you are executed in Seattle (if there ever is another execution there).

 

[Planigale]

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.

This is so much nonsense.
1) Bleach is used because it inactivates DNA, DNA is more sensitive to bleach than Haemoglobin.
2) You add bleach to allow Luminol to work. This is one reason why there is a concern that using Luminol destroys DNA. The Luminol spray contains a mixture of bleach and Luminol. The haemoglobin catalyses the oxidation of Luminol by the bleach.
3) Blood clots. It gets into cracks and clots. Skin cells are a poor source of DNA. They are not sticky. As previously posted the ratio of haemoglobin to DNA molecules in blood is about 100 billion haemoglobin molecules to 1 set of DNA (genome).

 

[Ken Dine]

Sorry, don't know what a Kimo sabi is?

It is what the Lone Ranger's Indian side-kick, Tonto, called him. It is sometimes translated as "trusty scout" or "faithful friend."

Ultimately derived from gimoozaabi, an Ojibwe and Potawatomi word, it is sometimes translated as "trusty scout" or "faithful friend."

The correct spelling is either "kemosabi" or "kemo sabi."

In Spanish, "tonto" translates as "moron" or "fool".

 

[Ken Dine]

For some reason, it struck a great chord with cockneys. I had a cockney friend who used to say, Kimo Sabi (SIC)? to imply, do you speak English? Do you not understand? For some reason, it stuck.

I thought it good shorthand, rather like "boaty". Insulting someone, without their realising.

Not that I would do such a thing, being as I am, very direct.

Since the term "kemo sabi" is actually a term of endearment, you obviously have no idea what kemo sabi even means, but if you're going to use the term, it's spelled with an 'e' and not an 'i'.

You are getting chin-deep in 'tonto' around here.

 

[Ken Dine]

I took about 2 minutes to google this and have concluded that you are full of crap. I will wait for others more knowledgeable than I to confirm.

I can tell you have to lose at least one, and probably many appeals, before you are executed in Seattle (if there ever is another execution there).

In America a death verdict automatically entitles the convicted person with multiple appeals, as well as free lawyers to file the mountain of paperwork for them.

Actually, death row is a rather cushy jail environment and many murderers prefer death sentences rather than a life sentence. In many states, your chances of dying from old age rather than by execution is likely.

Texas is rather no nonsense about executions, so murderers should probably avoid that state.

 

[acbytesla]

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

Mindless propaganda? Surely ye jest? Don't you mean the evidence? Or the absence of evidence?

If I say a thing three times, it becomes true. ~ Tweedledee and Tweedledum, Lewis Carroll

Is that what you are trying to do Vixen? That if you tell a lie enough times that somehow it will become real? That's really sad.

 

[zotz]

What-if? logic is fine for a forum, but a court of law expects a bit more than, what if Rudy really did smash the window and scale an 11 foot wall, what if the glass over the rummaged room is just a fluke, what if he killed Meredith cos she interrupted his burglary; what if he got horny and was able to restrain her with both arms wrenched behind her back whilst at the same time hilding one knife to her left neck and one to the right and at the same time sexually assault her; what if he undressed her after death, posed her body, just like in Raff's comic!; what if he cleaned up afterwards and managed to steal Mez' two phones, credit card and rent whilst ignoring everything else; what if he managed to find Mez' key to lock it without leaving footprints and then leave the front door swinging open. What if Rudy was a police informer who managed to persuade the police to frame Raff and Amanda in exchange for a reduced sentence?

What if he bribed Steff to forge the DNA evidence?

What if the moon is made of blue cheese?

Of course we should go with Occam's razor. The principle that states that among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

Three people, two of which had no history of violent crime, and of whom two had never met at all (apologies to Koko) would conspire to murder and rape the flatmate of the conspiracy mastermind because she criticized the mastermind's housekeeping and didn't go out with her on Halloween. Add to this the fact that no one had ever witnessed any altercation ever between the two girls (except for a fight over coffee once). Then two of the conspirators conspire again to frame the third conspirator by staging a fake break-in and blaming it on him and then doing a 180 degree reversal and pretending that they didn't know the accomplice that they wanted to frame in the police interrogations and instead blame the boss of the conspiracy mastermind (who had nothing to do with it) in order to derail the police investigation.

This theory offers the fewest assumptions and is an excellent demonstration of Occam's razor.

 

[Kauffer]

If a man walks into a police station and blurts out a confession, can you see the difficulty in the logistics of police being able to wind back time so they can get it on camera?

In law, a simple signature signing a statement which is true to the best of your knowledge is sufficient.

"You don't care" = logical fallacy straw man.

What utter rubbish. If a man walks into a police station to blurt out a confession, then either there is something wrong with him and he he is confessing to something he didn't do, or, following consultation with an attorney, having been appraised of his rights, he may decide to stand by it or he may not. Statements made without benefit of counsel cannot ordinarily be used against the maker unless later adopted.

In Amanda Knox's case, there was no walking into a police station to blurt out confession. What you are simply unable or unwilling to do is consider the amount of time between her being taken in to the interrogation room and her verbal statement nor what actually happened and what was actually said before she made it. Nor can you account for why she was given a statement to sign without first conferring with counsel, nor why she was given a further statement to sign nor why she was denied access to counsel for two days.

According to you, in effect, there was no interrogation! Ridiculous!

 

[acbytesla]

What utter rubbish. If a man walks into a police station to blurt out a confession, then either there is something wrong with him and he he is confessing to something he didn't do, or, following consultation with an attorney, having been appraised of his rights, he may decide to stand by it or he may not. Statements made without benefit of counsel cannot ordinarily be used against the maker unless later adopted.

In Amanda Knox's case, there was no walking into a police station to blurt out confession. What you are simply unable or unwilling to do is consider the amount of time between her being taken in to the interrogation room and her verbal statement nor what actually happened and what was actually said before she made it. Nor can you account for why she was given a statement to sign without first conferring with counsel, nor why she was given a further statement to sign nor why she was denied access to counsel for two days.

According to you, in effect, there was no interrogation! Ridiculous!

Vixen's posts are downright absurd. And frankly, there is something wrong with us that we argue with her. We all know this to be true. The posts
are either the same old guilter fabrications, or lack any logical reasonings.

This forum is about addressing the argument and not the person which is great. But it leaves a hole for that person who floods the forum with nonsense. If we attack every falsehood and absurdity that they post, we find ourselves running in circles, playing whack a mole. This amuses the mole as it taunts us appearing from the many hundreds of holes she pops out of.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

If a man walks into a police station and blurts out a confession, can you see the difficulty in the logistics of police being able to wind back time so they can get it on camera?

In law, a simple signature signing a statement which is true to the best of your knowledge is sufficient.

"You don't care" = logical fallacy straw man.

Of course, that isn't what happened with Raffaele and Amanda. They had been at the police station for many hours over the course of several days.

Do you think the police so incompetent that they can't prepare a tape recorder when they bring in a suspect and interrogate her over the course of several days? If they are that incompetent, what does that say of their investigative ability? Or do you think they simply did not record it (given they tapped Amanda's phone at one point) because they did not want anyone else to know what happened in that room?

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Vixen, now that you see the rock in the photo I would like to ask you WHY you refer to it as a boulder?

It is for not-so-subtle propaganda purposes. If someone (who either knows nothing about the facts of the case or cannot reason properly) reads "boulder", they get the impression that it was a massive rock that could not be heaved into a second story window, thus the break in was definitely staged.

If Vixen were to describe the situation honestly by calling it a large rock (as "boulder" gives off the implication the rock was so massive it could not be thrown), then the reader would know immediately that of course it is possible it was thrown into a second floor window. Then they would later read that Rudy (the lone culprit) actually broke into another building in the exact same way, with a large rock, recently in the past. Then people who try to spread lies and propaganda across the internet for nearly 7 years to smear two innocent people start to look like lunatics. And Vixen doesn't like that. Thus the lies and manipulative wording must continue unabated.

 

[Anode]

Vixen's posts are downright absurd. And frankly, there is something wrong with us that we argue with her. We all know this to be true. The posts
are either the same old guilter fabrications, or lack any logical reasonings.

This forum is about addressing the argument and not the person which is great. But it leaves a hole for that person who floods the forum with nonsense. If we attack every falsehood and absurdity that they post, we find ourselves running in circles, playing whack a mole. This amuses the mole as it taunts us appearing from the many hundreds of holes she pops out of.

Agreed. The motivations can not come soon enough. BTW, just spent two days up in Seattle. Beautiful city! (2 days sandwiched around an Alaskan cruise).

 

[Grinder]

OK, here are a couple of other high profile cases were scant DNA evidence was enough to convict (blood being excluded by Grinder in his criteria):

No Vixen I'm not excluding blood. The test on the knife excluded blood. Tiny amounts of DNA are fine as long as there is no way it got there by secondary or tertiary transfer.

The amount of DNA of MK allegedly found on the knife was about 100 pico grams or 1/585,000 of a grain of salt.

Steffi claims to have seen the striations with her naked eye. The sample supposedly was stuck in the striation so it couldn't be smaller. It would seem to be bigger than 100 pico grams but it wasn't

They cleaned with bleach according to you. Are you saying they didn't clean the knife with bleach because that would have damaged the DNA if not wiping it out.

So have you found one case where a certified lab tested a murder for blood and it came up negative but they found the DNA of the victim and the knife wasn't the victims or previously used by the victim?

 

[Grinder]

Grinder, do you still want to argue, "Stefanoni could not have identified Mez' DNA on such a small sample of DNA"?

Never said anything of the sort. Now since she couldn't retest it, it is not an acceptable test for a legal case.

 

[acbytesla]

Agreed. The motivations can not come soon enough. BTW, just spent two days up in Seattle. Beautiful city! (2 days sandwiched around an Alaskan cruise).

I'm glad you enjoyed it. Seattle in the summer is definitely one of the prettiest cities in the world, if not the prettiest. Now, about those other 9 months of the year,

 

[Strozzi]

Absolutely, spot on.

A real burglar would use a small implement to break the glass and it would be a real burglary and not a staged one.

We will never know what position Filomena left her outside shutters in when she left for the night. There are 3 possibilities.

After her housemate was found murdered, Filomena claimed that she pulled them as close as feasible given that they didn't close completely due to swollen wood. That is what she allegedly told Mignini when he first asked her about it.

Mignini later claimed that Filomena in (subsequent) questioning said she closed her shutters, implying all the way (what about the swollen wood problem?)

Filomena was running late getting ready for a friend's birthday party that evening. She asked Raffaele to wrap her gift because she was short on time. Perhaps she did not reach outside and close her shutters at all as she hurridly left for the party.

We will never know the real position of the shutters when Filomena left that day, but whatever the position of the shutters - mostly closed, closed, or possibly even wide open - that were not a deterrent to someone who can climb up the lower window bars as if it were a ladder.

We do know from photos of a divot in and a glass shard driven into the outside side of an inside shutter, and glass fragment and rock dispersal and fragment patterns in the room that the rock was thrown through the window from the outside. That is what physics tells us, even though Mignini, Massei, Vixen, Dr. Mull, van der Leek, et al, don't want to hear it. (Yea, science is a bitch, Kimo Sabi.)