Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
LondonJohn said:
Why? Why do you feel great pity for me? Expand and explain please.
Click to expand...

It has been carefully explained to you why persisting in bringing in a fictitious Mr. & Mrs. B is a logical fallacy, including a quote from Plato, together with pointing out a complete lack of legal particularisation about the imaginary pair, yet it seems to have gone over your head.

I wish you well.
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
No, it shows that there was none of Raff's DNA on the places tested, not that there was "no DNA of Raff at all in his own car". Several places tested would not be expected to have DNA since they don't come into contact with the body like the clutch, brake and gas pedals, or floor mats unless Raff drove barefoot. The underside of the steering wheel shaft would also not come into contact with his body nor would the back rear seat. All those were places tested according to Prof. Potenza's notes. Additionally, they were not looking for DNA, they were looking for blood that might have been deposited from the bottom of shoes or clothing. See Dr. Potenza's report.

How do you explain no fingerprints, bloody shoeprints, palm prints, etc of either Knox or Sollecito in Meredith's room? Why was it only Guede who left all of these and not AK or RS? And please, don't resort to the "they cleaned it up" excuse.

You have not answered my question regarding the fingerprints on the lamp. Were there NO fingerprints or just UNIDENTIFIABLE due to poor quality prints?
Click to expand...

Oh, I see. If there is no Raff DNA found in his own car, it's because he drives clothed, yet the DNA of his in the murder room underneath Mez' body is contamination from a cigarette butt elsewhere in the cottage. All Amanda DNA is explained by you as her living there.

People can get away with murder in that cottage, because for you, only DNA counts, and any DNA of Raff's or Amanda's, or lack thereof, has a ready explanation by you. Yet the same type of evidence of Rudy's (only four DNA samples, as compared to five mixed Amanda/Mez DNA samples) is rock solid and 'all over the murder scene'.
 
The DNA quantification step

There was DNA in the Raff's car (see batch 3 in this link). The DNA quantitation document indicates that DNA was found, but it was never turned into a profile (or the profile was never disclosed).
 
Vixen said:
It has been carefully explained to you why persisting in bringing in a fictitious Mr. & Mrs. B is a logical fallacy, including a quote from Plato, together with pointing out a complete lack of legal particularisation about the imaginary pair, yet it seems to have gone over your head.

I wish you well.
Click to expand...


You are misapplying (or simply don't understand) the terms "logical fallacy" and "particularisation" in this instance (your sudden - but fundamentally misunderstood - fascination with particularisation is intriguing in itself...).

And I hesitate to return the "compliment" :)
 
Chris_Halkides said:
There was DNA in the Raff's car (see batch 3 in this link). The DNA quantitation document indicates that DNA was found, but it was never turned into a profile (or the profile was never disclosed).
Click to expand...


Yeah, strange that. Why would the police want to (apparently) actively suppress the results of those swab tests? Either they match Sollecito's reference (in which case why would they be suppressed?) or Knox (ditto) or other person(s) known or unknown (in which case this would surely be potentially salient information). In addition, of course, in the real world it's quite hard to deposit DNA in a car interior in the normal course of events, other than on the steering wheel, gear stick, switches and interior door handle. And further, there's a fundamental difference between a) there being DNA present in the car interior, and b) the police happening to swab and test that DNA, let alone in a competent, reliable fashion.

But it's probably best to let the pro-guilt idiots run with their manufactured conspiracy theory that Sollecito's car interior had been carefully wiped clean of all DNA by the evil and manipulative Knox & Sollecito. Why let the truth get in the way of the vindictive myth, eh?! :rolleyes:
 
Open discovery? huh, what's that?

LondonJohn said:
Yeah, strange that. Why would the police want to (apparently) actively suppress the results of those swab tests? Either they match Sollecito's reference (in which case why would they be suppressed?) or Knox (ditto) or other person(s) known or unknown (in which case this would surely be potentially salient information). In addition, of course, in the real world it's quite hard to deposit DNA in a car interior in the normal course of events, other than on the steering wheel, gear stick, switches and interior door handle. And further, there's a fundamental difference between a) there being DNA present in the car interior, and b) the police happening to swab and test that DNA, let alone in a competent, reliable fashion.
Click to expand...
That's an interesting question. My speculation is that the police may have obtained profiles but not suppressed them for any particular reason. They may not even have given it a second thought.
 
Planigale said:
Vixen you boasted about how you always got to primary sources. What was the primary source for the claim that the murder scene was based on a staging from a halloween murder scene in the manga 'Blood: the first vampire'?

If you say you go to primary sources you should be able to reference them.
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
No, it is respecting the person's confidentiality.
Click to expand...

I concede that the two posts above are somewhat out of sequence.

Yet, Vixen claims access to a secret source here. This is yet another way of saying......

....... Vixen just made it up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_(journalism)#Anonymous_sources
 
Vixen said:
Oh, I see. If there is no Raff DNA found in his own car, it's because he drives clothed, yet the DNA of his in the murder room underneath Mez' body is contamination from a cigarette butt elsewhere in the cottage. All Amanda DNA is explained by you as her living there.

Apparently you don't see. Once again, his DNA was not found in the 16 samples taken in the car which does not mean it wasn't elsewhere in his car. They weren't looking for his DNA; finding his DNA in his own car would have been no more incriminating than finding Amanda's DNA in her own house. When they tested the mats and pedals, they were looking for blood that would have been tracked by his shoes. You know, like Guede's shoes did.
Why would his back seat have his DNA on it? He doesn't drive his car from the back seat.

The bra hook was not tested after being found under Meredith's body; it was tested 6 weeks later after somehow migrating across the room and under a rug coming into contact with who knows what during that time. What we DO know is that it was picked up by techs wearing dirty gloves, passed around to several other techs, dropped on the floor, and being placed there once again.

People can get away with murder in that cottage, because for you, only DNA counts, and any DNA of Raff's or Amanda's, or lack thereof, has a ready explanation by you. Yet the same type of evidence of Rudy's (only four DNA samples, as compared to five mixed Amanda/Mez DNA samples) is rock solid and 'all over the murder scene'.
Click to expand...

No, not only DNA. The lack of ANY evidence of Amanda in Meredith's room is what counts. Guede couldn't manage not to leave a shred of evidence behind, but you think Amanda could. Guede left multiple and varying evidence there. Even if you discarded his DNA altogether, his bloody fingerprint, palm print, and shoe prints would be enough to convict him.
Amanda LIVED there and her DNA would naturally and innocently be there, even mixed with Meredith's, just as Raff's and Amanda's DNA were found mixed at his apartment and Raff's DNA with another male's DNA. Guede had never been to the cottage so his DNA has no innocent and logical reason for being there.
Answer this; do you think your DNA would be found mixed with others' in a home you shared or do you think DNA somehow never gets mixed together except during a murder?

Quote me one single expert who says collecting Meredith's blood samples could not also pick up DNA previously deposited by Amanda. We both know you can't because it is a proven fact that it can.
 
Vixen said:
No, it is respecting the person's confidentiality.
Click to expand...

I see. So an unidentified source just told you something without providing any proof. I know none was provided because you could cite that evidence if it existed without naming the source.

Reminds me of all those "sources close to the investigation" who revealed such damning "facts" as the "running washing machine" and "they were caught with a bucket and mop when the police arrived".
 
Stacyhs said:
I see. So an unidentified source just told you something without providing any proof. I know none was provided because you could cite that evidence if it existed without naming the source.

Reminds me of all those "sources close to the investigation" who revealed such damning "facts" as the "running washing machine" and "they were caught with a bucket and mop when the police arrived".
Click to expand...

The thing I don't get is how Vixen herself cannot see comments like hers as hopelessly and transparently stupid.

Emptor caveat.
 
LondonJohn said:
You are misapplying (or simply don't understand) the terms "logical fallacy" and "particularisation" in this instance (your sudden - but fundamentally misunderstood - fascination with particularisation is intriguing in itself...).

And I hesitate to return the "compliment" :)
Click to expand...

How sweet. I wish you well.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
That's an interesting question. My speculation is that the police may have obtained profiles but not suppressed them for any particular reason. They may not even have given it a second thought.
Click to expand...



What interests me (and I failed to notice before) is that they check Sollecito's and Guede's sink trap. Strangely the shower from the cottage seemed not to be sampled and the u bend from the shower / bidet / basin not checked. indeed I could not spot any samples from the shower where the murderer was supposed to have cleaned up. The phones not swabbed. The possible semen sample. No fibre analysis.

There are so many suppressed results it is hard to interpret, the suppressed results may have found DNA from other flatmates, or from unknown third parties, or from police. If the police decide whats relevant and irrelevant evidence it deprives the defence of access to potentially exonerating information.

Certainly as you point out DNA was found in Sollecito's car so yet again what Vixen says is not true.
 
Stacyhs said:
No, not only DNA. The lack of ANY evidence of Amanda in Meredith's room is what counts. Guede couldn't manage not to leave a shred of evidence behind, but you think Amanda could. Guede left multiple and varying evidence there. Even if you discarded his DNA altogether, his bloody fingerprint, palm print, and shoe prints would be enough to convict him.
Amanda LIVED there and her DNA would naturally and innocently be there, even mixed with Meredith's, just as Raff's and Amanda's DNA were found mixed at his apartment and Raff's DNA with another male's DNA. Guede had never been to the cottage so his DNA has no innocent and logical reason for being there.
Answer this; do you think your DNA would be found mixed with others' in a home you shared or do you think DNA somehow never gets mixed together except during a murder?

Quote me one single expert who says collecting Meredith's blood samples could not also pick up DNA previously deposited by Amanda. We both know you can't because it is a proven fact that it can.
Click to expand...

Mez' DNA came from fresh blood, so for Amanda's DNA mixed in in even higher quantity of DNA implies she too was bleeding at the same time, and indeed, we have her blood on the faucet, which she admitted was fresh.

As well as the bra-clasp, there was incriminating DNA on the knife. There was the ladies size 37 shoeprint in blood, with narrow ladies heel, three long fair hairs (definitely not Rudy's) , one gripped in Mez' hand, one 'downstairs', as it were, and one long strand across the top of Mez' bag, from whence probably the credit cards and second phone were removed. Only one of the three perps knew Mez had two phones to steal.

There is also the issue of bits of paper scattered over the duvet, in accordance with the bits scattered in Filomena's room, some of which had Amanda's footprints on. The paper was found on top of the duvet, so we can infer the 'burglary' happened after the murder, for sure.

A shard of glass from Filomena's room was found nearby the body, so as we know the burglary happened after the murder, and that Rudy, from his shoeprints left immediately towards the front door, then the person who left the shard was the person in Filomena's room performing the burglary.

Surprise surprise, one of the mixed DNA blood spots in Filomena's room (Mez' blood) was Amanda's. Mez' blood was trailed into the room, police believe, by Amanda, because of the mixed DNA.

Your claim that no DNA found of Amanda in Mez' room (even though she lived there and must have frequented it on occasion) proves she is innocent, must prove Rudy is innocent of the burglary as none of his DNA was found in Filomena's room.

You note the disparity in your logic, don't you? All DNA pointing to your heroes is 'contaminated' or 'planted by Stefanoni', yet that of Rudy is an absolute proof he is the sole perp.

Do at least try to aim for internal consistency in your theories.
 
Last edited:
Planigale said:
What interests me (and I failed to notice before) is that they check Sollecito's and Guede's sink trap. Strangely the shower from the cottage seemed not to be sampled and the u bend from the shower / bidet / basin not checked. indeed I could not spot any samples from the shower where the murderer was supposed to have cleaned up. The phones not swabbed. The possible semen sample. No fibre analysis.

There are so many suppressed results it is hard to interpret, the suppressed results may have found DNA from other flatmates, or from unknown third parties, or from police. If the police decide whats relevant and irrelevant evidence it deprives the defence of access to potentially exonerating information.

Certainly as you point out DNA was found in Sollecito's car so yet again what Vixen says is not true.
Click to expand...


'Suppressed' is rather an inflammatory way of putting it. Common sense should tell you forensic police at a murder scene will literally collect thousands of samples, and of course, it has to be narrowed down in terms of relevance and materiality.

The police whittled the samples down to circa 459 (IIRC) or thereabouts.

The information cannot be presented to the court in an unwieldy fashion, and I am not sure why you are demanding it should be.
 
Vixen said:
'Suppressed' is rather an inflammatory way of putting it. Common sense should tell you forensic police at a murder scene will literally collect thousands of samples, and of course, it has to be narrowed down in terms of relevance and materiality.

The police whittled the samples down to circa 459 (IIRC) or thereabouts.

The information cannot be presented to the court in an unwieldy fashion, and I am not sure why you are demanding it should be.
Click to expand...

Why? Because you're the one who was drawing bizarre conclusions because of this information.

Why should people who disagree with you "demand" to see the evidence you claim means something!?!? If you cannot answer that question there's no hope for you.
 
Vixen said:
Mez' DNA came from fresh blood, so for Amanda's DNA mixed in in even higher quantity of DNA implies she too was bleeding at the same time, and indeed, we have her blood on the faucet, which she admitted was fresh.

As well as the bra-clasp, there was incriminating DNA on the knife. There was the ladies size 37 shoeprint in blood, with narrow ladies heel, three long fair hairs (definitely not Rudy's) , one gripped in Mez' hand, one 'downstairs', as it were, and one long strand across the top of Mez' bag, from whence probably the credit cards and second phone were removed. Only one of the three perps knew Mez had two phones to steal.

There is also the issue of bits of paper scattered over the duvet, in accordance with the bits scattered in Filomena's room, some of which had Amanda's footprints on. The paper was found on top of the duvet, so we can infer the 'burglary' happened after the murder, for sure.

A shard of glass from Filomena's room was found nearby the body, so as we know the burglary happened after the murder, and that Rudy, from his shoeprints left immediately towards the front door, then the person who left the shard was the person in Filomena's room performing the burglary.

Surprise surprise, one of the mixed DNA blood spots in Filomena's room (Mez' blood) was Amanda's. Mez' blood was trailed into the room, police believe, by Amanda, because of the mixed DNA.

Your claim that no DNA found of Amanda in Mez' room (even though she lived there and must have frequented it on occasion) proves she is innocent, must prove Rudy is innocent of the burglary as none of his DNA was found in Filomena's room.

You note the disparity in your logic, don't you? All DNA pointing to your heroes is 'contaminated' or 'planted by Stefanoni', yet that of Rudy is an absolute proof he is the sole perp.

Do at least try to aim for internal consistency in your theories.
Click to expand...

One more time around the merry-go-round. Every factoid you present has been debunked multiple times; yet you reboot and present them anyway.

It's the problem with regarding Darkness Descending as a source, all the while when even you admit it is "tabloidese".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom