The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 25

[Stacyhs]

You "provided" nothing. There is no test "that showed the footprints were not in blood".

So you deny that the SAL cards showed Stefanoni tested them with TMB and the results were negative for blood? Is that what you are saying? Just want to be clear here.

 

[Machiavelli]

Mach, you can argue their guilt until the cows come home and for whatever psychological and emotional reasons you have, but that will not change the fact that they have been definitively acquitted. You lost. It's over.

Maybe you didn't notice that I've argued things in response to posts by Numbers and Plaingale, posts that reported falsehoods, and I've argued things you are unable to disprove.

 

[bagels]

You have a bias because you pick some facts - by the way, also quite bending them - and you ignore completely some others. In fact, you ignore the almost whole of them. Your not seeing things - or seeing things crooked - is systematic.

I ignore extraneous data, like the luminol yes. Because it's indeterminate, and cannot be judiciously connected to a specific person or specific time or specific substance.

You go "well since it probably wasn't horse radish sauce, it must be Meredith's blood, and since they're vaguely in the shape of feet, they must be Amanda's." That's just plainly bad reasoning, and worse, it isn't connected to any corroborating data, such as evidence of an active cleanup or management of the crime scene in any way. Rudy Guede just walked around spreading blood and prints everywhere, and it's all there.

There's one single piece of evidence in the entire case that doesn't just self evidently collapse on an immediate first glance, which is the bra clasp DNA. It collapses on a second glance. The prosecution lost their shoe prints, so they went back to the crime scene to grab a mysteriously un-collected/self moving clasp, and Stef did her duty and turned it into evidence against Raff, then destroyed it so nobody could double check her work. It was a nice try but not enough to make the case into something it wasn't.

The defense actually has an abundance of reasonable doubt. You could dump evidence and they would still have reasonable doubt. It's enough that Guede the burglar shows up on CCTV alone, the wounds and imprint all match a single small knife, and only his forensics are time stamped to the murder, but you also have his confession to his friend that nobody he knew was with him when she was attacked. You also have the unexplained wounds on his hands he voluntarily connects to the murder weapon. You also have a witness statement saying Guede had a history of pulling a switchblade sized knife during home burglaries. And for the break-in it's enough that the climb was doable and the rock was proven to be thrown from outside, but you also have a criminal record of Guede connected to a nearly identical break-in with a difficult climb and a rock smashed window.

The prosecution has Quintavalle the lying bozo, and Curatolo the helpful serial witness junkie. The case is shooting fish in a barrel for the defense really.

 

[Stacyhs]

Maybe you didn't notice that I've argued things in response to posts by Numbers and Plaingale, posts that reported falsehoods, and I've argued things you are unable to disprove.

The end point of all of your arguments is to prove Knox and Sollecito guilty. You can't.

I've never even tried to disprove anything you've argued except for your claim that the footprints were not proved to be blood negative.

 

[Machiavelli]

So you deny that the SAL cards showed Stefanoni tested them with TMB and the results were negative for blood? Is that what you are saying? Just want to be clear here.

1) not the SAL cards, but Stefanoni herself, on 8th October 2008, declared before Judge Micheli that "other tests" (without specifying them) had been performed on some luminol samples, and that they tested negative, and also told the judge that usually those tests are negative from latent traces. I say this just to point out that the existence of other negative tests was not revealed by the SAL cards, it was already known since 2008.

2) negative TMB tests do not show whether latent traces are in blood or not. They contain no additional information. This is because there is no known substance that has the property of being positive to luminol and negative to TMB at the same concentrations (even less a plausible substance).
TMB in the way it is performed it is also a much less sensitive test than luminol, and most important it is much less sensitive because it is an indirect test (therefore forced to operate on much smaller concentrations: it's not a trace that is tested, but a sample, which will have to be further diluted).
TMB is also even less specific than luminol, and all substances that test positive to TMB, also test positive to luminol.

 

[Machiavelli]

The end point of all of your arguments is to prove Knox and Sollecito guilty. You can't.
(...)

I can, albeit it is unnecessary, it has been already proven; simply, it is actually not the end point of all my arguments, and not what I am interested about in all my posts. If I respond to a post by Numbers who is reporting false things about Bruno/Marasca verdict, the topic I am talking about is not Knox's guilt, but the pro-Knox campaign.

 

[Vixen]

LOL! Really? That's what you provide to support that she said she "slept soundly" all night long? She says she woke up around about 10:30. She does not say she didn't wake up at all during the night! And you've provided nothing from Sollecito!

If you were relating the events of a day, would you mention if you'd woken up during the night or just what was relevant...what time you actually got up? Sorry, but you've got nothing and you know it.

Are you serious? You've never heard of lying by omission?

She sends an email to the world headed, 'how i found my roommate murdered' and she completely omits what she was doing during the relevant time?

Seems to show she knew what time the murder was to be able to ensure she could alibi it by constantly changing the time of supper, depending on what evidence the police were finding and reporting to her lawyers.

 

[Stacyhs]

1) not the SAL cards, but Stefanoni herself, on 8th October 2008, declared before Judge Micheli that "other tests" (without specifying them) had been performed on some luminol samples, and that they tested negative, and also told the judge that usually those tests are negative from latent traces. I say this just to point out that the existence of other negative tests was not revealed by the SAL cards, it was already known since 2008.

2) negative TMB tests do not show whether latent traces are in blood or not. They contain no additional information. This is because there is no known substance that has the property of being positive to luminol and negative to TMB at the same concentrations (even less a plausible substance).
TMB in the way it is performed it is also a much less sensitive test than luminol, and most important it is much less sensitive because it is an indirect test (therefore forced to operate on much smaller concentrations: it's not a trace that is tested, but a sample, which will have to be further diluted).
TMB is also even less specific than luminol, and all substances that test positive to TMB, also test positive to luminol.

We are not concerned with other negative tests for unidentified samples. We are talking about the identified so-called "bloody footprints" of Knox. These were tested with TMB and were negative. Do not try the "not sensitive enough" crap. It's tiresome and a desperate hail Mary pass. Even Stefanoni admitted that a negative TMB test means no blood is present.

Consultant. – I would like to proceed to my observations at last: the traces we discussed last time, luminol-positive traces. What emerges from the documents disclosed in July 2009? These luminol-positive traces were named exhibits 176, 177, detected in Romanelli’s room, traces 178, 179, 180 detected in Knox’s room, and exhibits 181, 182, 183, and 184 found in the corridor outside the victim’s room. These tracks, let’s recall, are those tracks that were brought into evidence by the spraying of luminol. Analyzing these SAL cards, we learn – in contrast to what the technical report of the Scientific Police represents, and to what has been claimed in the courtroom – that not only the luminol tests were performed but these traces were also subjected to a generic blood tests with {74} tetramethylbenzidine.
Tetramethylbenzidine is the test we normally use in the lab to find out if a trace is possibly blood or not; it is a very sensitive method; I believe that Professor Tagliabracci during his last round of testimony stressed that repeatedly; however it is not specific because we have seen there exist false positives with this… with tetramethylbenzidine, so something that gives a positive result is not blood in reality. This data, however, is new; only now that we have the SAL cards do we know that a second test was performed; and what did that test produce? It produced negative results for the exhibits for which it was possible to obtain a genetic profile, that is 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 183, while for exhibit 183, the other three exhibits… sorry, exhibits 181, 182 and 184 gave an “uninterpretable” result.

Not even the prosecution bothered to dispute this in court after it was revealed by the defense. Why not?

 

[Stacyhs]

Are you serious? You've never heard of lying by omission?

She sends an email to the world headed, 'how i found my roommate murdered' and she completely omits what she was doing during the relevant time?

Seems to show she knew what time the murder was to be able to ensure she could alibi it by constantly changing the time of supper, depending on what evidence the police were finding and reporting to her lawyers.

Are you serious? You've never heard of just admitting that you cannot cite either of them ever saying they did not wake up at any time during that night? Why on earth would either of them think waking up during the night is at all relevant? What should she have written?
"I woke up at 12:43, looked at the clock, and went back to sleep. I got up at 3:30 and went to the bathroom. Used Tempo double ply. I woke up at 5:47, turned on my other side, fluffed my pillow, and fell back to sleep."

How is that in any way relevant to the actual murder?

It can "seem" to you all you want. It means nothing.

 

[Machiavelli]

I ignore extraneous data, like the luminol yes. Because it's indeterminate, and cannot be judiciously connected to a specific person or specific time or specific substance.

You go "well since it probably wasn't horse radish sauce, it must be Meredith's blood, and since they're vaguely in the shape of feet, they must be Amanda's." That's just plainly bad reasoning, and worse, it isn't connected to any corroborating data, such as evidence of an active cleanup or management of the crime scene in any way. Rudy Guede just walked around spreading blood and prints everywhere, and it's all there.

There's one single piece of evidence in the entire case that doesn't just self evidently collapse on an immediate first glance, which is the bra clasp DNA. It collapses on a second glance. The prosecution lost their shoe prints, so they went back to the crime scene to grab a mysteriously un-collected/self moving clasp, and Stef did her duty and turned it into evidence against Raff, then destroyed it so nobody could double check her work. It was a nice try but not enough to make the case into something it wasn't.

The defense actually has an abundance of reasonable doubt. You could dump evidence and they would still have reasonable doubt. It's enough that Guede the burglar shows up on CCTV alone, the wounds and imprint all match a single small knife, and only his forensics are time stamped to the murder, but you also have his confession to his friend that nobody he knew was with him when she was attacked. You also have the unexplained wounds on his hands he voluntarily connects to the murder weapon. You also have a witness statement saying Guede had a history of pulling a switchblade sized knife during home burglaries. And for the break-in it's enough that the climb was doable and the rock was proven to be thrown from outside, but you also have a criminal record of Guede connected to a nearly identical break-in with a difficult climb and a rock smashed window.

The prosecution has Quintavalle the lying bozo, and Curatolo the helpful serial witness junkie. The case is shooting fish in a barrel for the defense really.

Your bias is grotesque. You don't seem even real to me.
Your blindness and twisting of each element is so systematic that it requires a big effort to show all the points one by one. There might be a step by step process, but, I can see that you are unflinched by some very disturbing aspects of Hellmann's verdict, for example by its racist point. You don't seem sensitive to racial issues and you seem to not see aspects of bias that are really huge, before your eyes - someone says, it requires considerable effort to notice things that are before our eyes.
You say Guede appeared on CCTV. There is actually no evidence that he is on CCTV more than Knox is, or more than Sollecito's car. But you note Guede.
There is not even evidence beyond reasonable doubt that he was a burglar, btw, he has no precedent for burglary. There is a suspicion of link, to only one burglary. Reality is made of details.
You could have equally said - based on the same type of evidence - that Amanda Knox is the one who picks up drug dealers in series, who has precedents for drug fuelled parties dangerously running out of control and rape pranks on roommates, who used to spend 1k euros cash in excess on unknown items every months; or recall of Sollecito as the knife collector and an enthusiast of snuff movies.
These are elements of profiling, but they are not evidence. They are contextual elements, they may help understand a scenario.
They are not evidence neither for Knox, Sollecito or Guede.
You cannot "use" a precedent (or suspicion) of burglary against Guede that way, as if it was evidence that Guede committed that specific crime, alone. I caught a burglar (a girl, 16/18 yo) yesterday, as she was trying to enter my dining room, an a second girl was hiding in the garden. My city - just like Perugia - is full of burglars, but nobody rapes tortures and murders women in the house: you need specific evidence about a crime.
And one of the most obvious sets of evidence about this crime, not the only one but just one of the obvious sets of evidence, is that it was not committed by a single perpetrator.

 

[Stacyhs]

I can, albeit it is unnecessary, it has been already proven; simply, it is actually not the end point of all my arguments, and not what I am interested about in all my posts. If I respond to a post by Numbers who is reporting false things about Bruno/Marasca verdict, the topic I am talking about is not Knox's guilt, but the pro-Knox campaign.

And there's your problem, Mach. You can't and you just can't or won't accept that. You've been trying for over 9 years without success. As for it having already been proved, the fact that AK and RS are definitively acquitted would more than suggest otherwise. Accept it and move on.

There is no "pro-Knox campaign". There are only people who believe in her and Sollecito's innocence. Give up the whole "mega PR machine", "paid shills", blah blah blah nonsense. It's just silly.

 

[Machiavelli]

We are not concerned with other negative tests for unidentified samples. We are talking about the identified so-called "bloody footprints" of Knox. These were tested with TMB and were negative. Do not try the "not sensitive enough" crap. It's tiresome and a desperate hail Mary pass.

(...)

It's nothing but objective science. Negative TMB test on a luminol sample means nothing, to any logical effect.
I explained why. Those are the properties of the test. As for scientific literature. It's quite simple to understand.

Or tell me about a plausible substance that has the property of being positive to luminol but not to TMB

 

[Machiavelli]

And there's your problem, Mach. You can't and you just can't or won't accept that. You've been trying for over 9 years without success. As for it having already been proved, the fact that AK and RS are definitively acquitted would more than suggest otherwise. Accept it and move on.

There is no "pro-Knox campaign". There are only people who believe in her and Sollecito's innocence. Give up the whole "mega PR machine", "paid shills", blah blah blah nonsense. It's just silly.

Stachys, stop talking about the poster

 

[Stacyhs]

It's nothing but objective science. Negative TMB test on a luminol sample means nothing, to any logical effect.
I explained why. Those are the properties of the test. As for scientific literature. It's quite simple to understand.

Or tell me about a plausible substance that has the property of being positive to luminol but not to TMB

No, it's deep denial and desperation. If "Negative TMB test on a luminol sample means nothing" then why is TMB used around the world by forensic techs, including Stefanoni, to test luminol positive samples for blood? Perhaps they should be informed that they're doing it all wrong.

 

[Bill Williams]

What I've learned today is to sustain a PGP view, words are said to mean something other than what they mean.

There we have it. When you can reverse meanings of words conveniently, then you can prove anything.

Have at it.

 

[Stacyhs]

Stachys, stop talking about the poster

Oh, sorry. Let me rephrase that.

And there's the problem, Mach. The PGP can't or won't accept that. The PGP have been trying for over 9 years without success. As for it having already been proved, the fact that AK and RS are definitively acquitted would more than suggest otherwise. The PGP should accept it and move on.

There is no "pro-Knox campaign". There are only people who believe in her and Sollecito's innocence.The PGP need to give up the whole "mega PR machine", "paid shills", blah blah blah nonsense. It's just silly.

And I'm still waiting for you to cite a test that proved the footsteps were in blood. Luminol does not count.

 

[Bill Williams]

There is no "pro-Knox campaign". There are only people who believe in her and Sollecito's innocence. Give up the whole "mega PR machine", "paid shills", blah blah blah nonsense. It's just silly.

Stachys, stop talking about the poster

This case has been over for more than two years. There is no pro-Knox campaign. All the principals have long since gotten on with their lives.

What's left are folk trying to argue that "hypothetical" doesn't mean "hypothetical".

There we have it.

 

[Stacyhs]

And I'm still waiting for some forensic evidence that Knox washed her hands of Kercher's blood.

I'm beginning to think I'm not going to get it.

 

[Machiavelli]

No, it's deep denial and desperation. If "Negative TMB test on a luminol sample means nothing" then why is TMB used around the world by forensic techs, including Stefanoni, to test luminol positive samples for blood? Perhaps they should be informed that they're doing it all wrong.

You realize there is no argument in what you say, don't you? Yes they are doing it "wrong", or at least it's just useless most of the times. One reason why TMB is so easilly performed with reduncancy, even on latent luminol traces, is that TMB is very cheap, very easy to perform, and very easy to record; whilst luminol may be very difficult to perform and difficult to record. Therefore a double collection is mostly regarded as a convenient protocol.
But this does not mean that it adds information.
Scientific literature shows it doesn't.

The fact that a procedure is wide spread, is not a scientific argument to claim that it's valid or useful. History of science is full of procedures or protocols that had been previously wide spread and believed to be efficient, that were later deemed not useful and changed.

 

[Machiavelli]

This case has been over for more than two years. There is no pro-Knox campaign. All the principals have long since gotten on with their lives.

What's left are folk trying to argue that "hypothetical" doesn't mean "hypothetical".

There we have it.

Open your ears: what if I show you a verdict where the judge calls the crime ipotizzato and in the same paragraph says it is certain beyond reasonable doubt and the defendant is guilty?