Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

If you buy bleach to clean up a murder scene, of course you would throw away the receipt.

Yet there is no evidence, none of a bleach cleanup. No telltale swirls and streaks in Luminol. Nothing. An assertion must have proof.Something to support it. But instead you are again arguing that the absence of evidence is proof.Time and time again you argue that nothing is something. Between these absurd misinterpretations and your misrepresentations of the facts it's surprising that you're not pinning the JFK assassination on Amanda too.

 

[Vixen]

Why ask for items that never existed? Which is what you are doing.

What is consistent about the Perugian experts was their total lake of expertise. They said that no one could climb a wall that was easily climbable. They said all those bloody shoe prints belong to Raffaele when all they needed to do was accurately count the rings on the shoe (how hard is it to count?) They interrogate Amanda and Raffaele for murder and lose the recordings. They conduct tests for blood and then ignore even hide the results. They conduct DNA tests that are totally outside International protocols, they hide the machine results. They test 4 computer hard drives and damage every one. They fail to do any tests in Filomena's windows. They misinterpreted the cellular radio findings. They don't complete the forensic collection and come back suspiciously 40 days later. They left Meredith's bloody sweatshirt in the hamper making it unusable for DNA testing. They collect samples and pass them around like a bottle of wine amongst drunks. They didn't change gloves often contaminating samples.

Why would anyone believe this group of Keystone Cops?

Nice try at obfuscation.

 

[Bill Williams]

So everyone at the scene was a moron except for Filomena, or were Raff and the "very astute" Amanda (as described by the highly experienced prosecutor) simply only acting dumb?

You have no intention of analyzing evidence, just a continuous slagging of twopeople.

 

[Vixen]

Super athletic? Yes ..... Rudy was a semi-professional basketball player who spent most of his time on the courts. He certainly was in the top 1 percent of humans in this regard. But he needn't be. That wall was easily climbable despite your ridiculous claims that it wasnt.

There is zero correlation between being good at basketball and being of gymast's build. Male gymnasts have especially well-developed upper body muscles that benefits them on the horse, rings and rope. Basketball is merely bouncing a ball along a floor and good eye-hand coordination in scoring goals, or whatever they call it. The main attribute needed is being tall.

 

[Vixen]

Other than a veiled accusation against Raffaele - what are you talking about?

Please keep up.

 

[Vixen]

You say you do not consciously lie. Read the post above and explain the factoids.... shower together? Is tha a lie or simply the repetition of something someone else made up?

It is a police opinion Raff showered there, hence his - er, hullo? - bloody footprint larger than life on the bathmat.

Are you saying it is untrue Amanda showered when she wrote an email to the world she did? Well, she had to say that didn't she, given the police would find out anyway.

Hence, Dr. Watson, we can deduce the pair showered together, but hours earlier than claimed by Amanda.

 

[Vixen]

One person, One and only one was really concened. Filomena ended up being right. But that doesn't mean that Amanda not panicking meant something. You're applying your own confirmation bias interpretation to the evidence as opposed to acknowledging the fact that this is NOT evidence of wrongdoing.

What...? In her email to the world, Amanda claimed she was panicking like mad, banging on Mez' door and shouting her name louder and louder. She went out along Mez' ledge to try to look in the window.

I feel sorry for you. It must be hard work having to keep explaining away all of Amanda's lies, which inevitably contradict each other. LMAO.

Perhaps it was the "confused" state Analemma put forward as a possible explanation.

 

[Vixen]

Ah wouldn't one use the bleach? Why not dispose of the bleach bottles with the other items you claim they disposed of? Why didn't they dispose of the knife with the bloody clothing, shoes, cleaning materials and bleach bottles?

Hind sight is a fine thing. This is how detectives build a case against suspects: noting all the oversights that point to highly suspicious behaviour.

 

[Vixen]

Yet there is no evidence, none of a bleach cleanup. No telltale swirls and streaks in Luminol. Nothing. An assertion must have proof.Something to support it. But instead you are again arguing that the absence of evidence is proof.Time and time again you argue that nothing is something. Between these absurd misinterpretations and your misrepresentations of the facts it's surprising that you're not pinning the JFK assassination on Amanda too.

Luminol won't highlight the bleach as it was not done within about ten hours. You recall Amanda and Raff delayed the body being found by up to sixteen hours.

Unless one of the perps really was one-legged and Rudy did indeed break the triple jump Olympic records, there is no other conclusion to be drawn than clean up (failed).

 

[Vixen]

You have no intention of analyzing evidence, just a continuous slagging of twopeople.

I thought you said you did not hero worship. So what are you doing now?

 

[sept79]

From Wikipedia--

"Forum spam is usually posted onto message boards by automated spambots or manually with unscrupulous intentions with one idea in mind: to get the spam in front of readers who would not otherwise have anything to do with it intentionally."

 

[Bill Williams]

I thought you said you did not hero worship. So what are you doing now?

I accuse you of never presenting evidence, and you claim this is hero worship of them!? LOL!

Moderators - please take note of today's spamming of this thread.

 

[Grinder]

Luminol won't highlight the bleach as it was not done within about ten hours. You recall Amanda and Raff delayed the body being found by up to sixteen hours.

Unless one of the perps really was one-legged and Rudy did indeed break the triple jump Olympic records, there is no other conclusion to be drawn than clean up (failed).

Luminol chemiluminescence can also be triggered by a number of substances such as copper or copper-containing chemical compounds,[13] and certain bleaches. As a result, if someone cleans a crime scene thoroughly with a bleach solution, residual cleaner makes the entire crime scene produce the typical blue glow, which effectively camouflages organic evidence such as blood.

If luminol reveals apparent blood traces, investigators will photograph or videotape the crime scene to record the pattern. Typically, luminol only shows investigators that there might be blood in an area, since other substances, including household bleach, can also cause the luminol to glow. Experienced investigators can make a reliable identification based on how quickly the reaction occurs, but they still need to run other tests to verify that it is really human blood.


Testing Out Bleaches
To properly assess whether bleach could fully remove blood, researchers soaked some bloodstained clothing in oxygen bleach for a couple of hours. After the bleaching, stains did look faded, although they were still somewhat noticeable. On the other hand, even though there was some visible marking, luminol and phenolphthalein didn't detect the haemoglobin on the clothing.
Challenges Of Detecting Bleach
The results are worrying because a stain on clothing could be assumed to occur from something else when a test shows up negative for haemoglobin. Eventually, valuable evidence could ultimately be dismissed, which then affects the entire criminal investigation and trial proceedings.
Forensics experts will not examine and check for important DNA Evidence until they have initially found an appropriately identified blood sample. In this way, the entire investigation is compromised and the opportunity to obtain more information is lost.

Fortunately, there is a better chance of obtaining useful information from the seams of clothing. While washing does remove a great deal of evidence in the rest of the garment, it is far more challenging for a criminal to remove evidence found in the clothing seams.

 

[Bill Williams]

It is a police opinion Raff showered there, hence his - er, hullo? - bloody footprint larger than life on the bathmat.

Are you saying it is untrue Amanda showered when she wrote an email to the world she did? Well, she had to say that didn't she, given the police would find out anyway.

Hence, Dr. Watson, we can deduce the pair showered together, but hours earlier than claimed by Amanda.

LOL! Deduce away.......

 

[Bill Williams]

The judgment will come in the morning and the case of Meredith, in Perugia, makes it clear that no prediction has now some credibility.

Pretty clear that they are questioning what M&B did. At a minimum they are saying that the law no longer acts in a predictable way. As Mach said they either violated the law or set new precedent.

We do agree that a native translation would help.

Not as I read it. There were very few, with the exception of Frank Sfarzo, who said the March 2015 ISC would do what they did - so this sounds more like a criticism of prognosticators, rather than the legitimacy of the court.

However, apparently the Stasi verdict is in, and he was found guilty. Perhaps the coming motivations report will explain the role the M&B decision made in this decision.

 

[Grinder]

Not as I read it. There were very few, with the exception of Frank Sfarzo, who said the March 2015 ISC would do what they did - so this sounds more like a criticism of prognosticators, rather than the legitimacy of the court.

However, apparently the Stasi verdict is in, and he was found guilty. Perhaps the coming motivations report will explain the role the M&B decision made in this decision.

Bill seriously? They are saying the verdict was something so different that predictions can no longer be made. They have no idea who Frank is and aren't score keeping.

ETA - Why in world would they mention the M&B verdict? The newspaper was suggesting that after M&B anything goes.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill seriously? They are saying the verdict was something so different that predictions can no longer be made. They have no idea who Frank is and aren't score keeping.

ETA - Why in world would they mention the M&B verdict? The newspaper was suggesting that after M&B anything goes.

We had an election here recently where all the polls and all the pundits were suggesting a landslide win for the opposition. The pre-election buzz was so convincing that long-time cabinet ministers from the soon-to-be-turfed party "retired" so as not to face an electorate.

The problem was, everyone was wrong. The ruling party stormed back into power with a majority.

The next-day rhetoric was like the piece noted above. They wondered if predictions could ever be made.

So - pending a better translation - there still is no news source that is criticizing the legitimacy of what Marasca-Bruno did. I'd suggest that pre-decision, even Italian-innocenctisti were expecting some form of conviction..... given the track record of the lower courts.

It still seems like what they're saying is that Italians can get used to courts now ruling on the facts, and not the predictable hyperbole.

 

[Bill Williams]

..... except there are now some claiming that ISC upholding Stasi's 16 year sentence is a return to keystone cop judging.

 

[bagels]

Bill seriously? They are saying the verdict was something so different that predictions can no longer be made. They have no idea who Frank is and aren't score keeping.

ETA - Why in world would they mention the M&B verdict? The newspaper was suggesting that after M&B anything goes.

Well IMO after Chieffi anything goes so I guess it all balanced out in the end.

 

[bagels]

Yes, the pair had a shower together after the murder in the early hours of the morning. That much is true. The police who found her outside the house on the morning of 2nd Nov 2007 reported objectively that she smelt rank.

No, of course she didn't discover the break in, the pair were responsible for it, remember, to throw police off the scent it was an inside job.

Rubbish. Of course you can call the police.

Your whole theory doesn't make any sense you know. Amanda and Raffaele go to all the trouble to stage a break-in and crime scene, and then don't react to their staged scene the next day. It's an incompatible theory. But because you need to rationalize it you just pretend their ditzyness is proof they're killers.

This is what a killer acts like for a scene they staged: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFhnSej1fQY