• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fulcanelli said:
Yup...to go with his Go-Go-Gadget legs that got him up through Filomena's window.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the Go-Go-Gadget knife he used as the murder weapon...or did he use his Go-Go-Gadget magnifying glass to identify the knife in Sollecito's apartment that had pricked Meredith's finger, use his Go-Go-Gadget arms to steal, murder with, and return it to the drawer?
 
I'm working on a theory that Berlusconi is actually the killer. Think about it, who else could pull off such a conspiracy? The traffic cameras wiped to hide his motorcade. The forensics rigged, the phone company and ISP bought off, the interrogations carried out by experts in injecting false memories, his media empire onside to make sure the right story gets out.

Why pick on Knox? He'd seen her Facebook page and thought she'd look hot in prison clothes.
 
shuttlt said:
I'm working on a theory that Berlusconi is actually the killer. Think about it, who else could pull off such a conspiracy? The traffic cameras wiped to hide his motorcade. The forensics rigged, the phone company and ISP bought off, the interrogations carried out by experts in injecting false memories, his media empire onside to make sure the right story gets out.

Why pick on Knox? He'd seen her Facebook page and thought she'd look hot in prison clothes.
Click to expand...

Or maybe he figured he could pardon her...and then "pardon her" if you'll excuse the innuendo there...
 
stilicho, If you are offering an olive branch to set aside the distractions and analyze this case from in a civilized discussion, I am willing to join you.

Lets get back to laying the foundation of the evidence available and how it is supported. Then we can build on that to construct possible events that have no direct evidence.
 
You don't accept any evidence at all Dan_O. So that is not likely to be productive
 
Moss said:
The knife might not have been immersed for the right length. Or not thoroughly enough.
Click to expand...

Maybe. This whole bleach thing is bothersome. The cleaning lady testified that she never used bleach and that the apartment didn't smell like bleach when she was last there, November 5th from 2p-4p. RS was arrested on the 6th and when the police searched his apartment on the 7th(?) they said there was a strong odor of bleach.

The logical conclusion is that RS and AK (cleaning lady said she was there on the 5th) did a quick bleach clean up of the apartment after the cleaning lady left, but if they were trying to cover up evidence why did they let the cleaning lady clean that day and possible discover something incriminating?

Another possibility is that the police jumped to the conclusion that the apartment smelled like bleach after finding the bleach.
 
Thanks for finding the link to the story about the traffic cameras Dan O. It's a pity there isn't more to go on. For my own curiocity, I'd like to know why the request was denied and why the footage wasn't collected in the first place. Doubtless this is the kind of thing the defence would have looked into during the case, or will do for the appeal.
 
Fiona said:
I did not think they had testified to a smell of bleach in court. Did they?
Click to expand...

I think you're right. I think the judge only allowed the police officer to say the apartment smelled clean.

RS supporters seem to want it both ways. If the knife was cleaned with bleach then there is no way Meredith's DNA could be on it. No explaination as to why RS would do this.

On the other hand, if the the knife wasn't cleaned with bleach then it did have Meredith's DNA on it. Only RS's lie to explain this.
 
On bleach

Moss and Fiona,

I was the first person on the board to cite the Kemp/Smith paper, in comments #1018 and 1286, which deals with the decontamination of bone. It is you who are ignoring the more relevant Prince/Andrus citation, which I first made in #1289. This paper shows that a 10% dilution of commercial bleach is more effective than an approximately 16% dilution of concentrated hydrochloric acid.

BobTheDonkey,

I noted that commercial bleach is about 5% sodium hypochorite in water in a previous comment. A 10% solution means to take 1 part full strength (5%) bleach and mix with 9 parts water. A 2% solution means to take 1 part bleach and 49 parts water. Note that the Promega technical bulletin I cited says that one must thoroughly rinse away the 2% bleach solution, or the remainder will harm the DNA of interest. In other words even a dilution of dilute bleach residue can destroy DNA.

Alt+F4,

Dr, Johnson’s argument, which I have referenced in a previous comment, is that cleaning would remove DNA before blood, period. The notion that cleaning with bleach will remove all traces of blood without removing all DNA strikes me as particularly strange, given the mechanisms by which bleach can act. Sollecito’s words, or Mignini’s for that matter, cannot conjure up DNA that cannot be on the blade.

Chris
 
Dan O. said:
We are not in a court so we have time to explore the alternative scenarios where facts are not available to exclude them. Only juror like idiots will conflate the details in different scenarios and assume that one must be a lie because they both cannot be true. Nobody here is such an idiot because the forum rules won't permit it.
Click to expand...
That's an interesting turn of phrase.
 
This is interesting from a psychological standpoint.

Why are you all so obsessed with vindicating some random American girl arrested and convicted in a foreign country?
 
Nobody here argued that bleach is ineffective in removing DNA. But as you can see from your own quote the source is talking directly removing "pure" DNA , not about bleach breaking down DNA in cells and/or tissue. I can only assume that complicates matters.

Funny sidenote: I remembered having read a paper like that (but without its context) when I wondered about possible contamination issues with the DNA test done on skull fragments that may or may not belong to Hitler. Because it was rather interesting I posted it here again. Sorry for the commotion, I sometimes seem to work back and forth in strange ways. :D
 
TheDaver said:
This is interesting from a psychological standpoint.

Why are you all so obsessed with vindicating some random American girl arrested and convicted in a foreign country?
Click to expand...

"You all"? Have you even read this thread?
 
TheDaver said:
This is interesting from a psychological standpoint.

Why are you all so obsessed with vindicating some random American girl arrested and convicted in a foreign country?
Click to expand...

It's actually an interesting case study. I've learned a lot about a foreign justice system that I knew nothing about before. I've also learned a fair amount about some of the linguistic differences that make it difficult to translate phrases straight across either way. I've even learned something about US DNA laboratories and how their dependence upon law enforcement agencies can make some of their procedures questionable. Although, unlike Fiona, I'm a proponent of privatisation, I can see how this relationship can force what halides1 calls results-based testing.

There are a handful of people here who are arguing the innocence of Knox and Sollecito. Those are Dan O, halides1, Matthew Best, and Kestrel, so I suppose your question was aimed primarily at them.

I'll keep participating, though, as long as there are interesting new facts such as the EU accreditation methods for forensics laboratories.

And, of course, there's the breathless anticipation of the sentencing report due out in early March. What's not to like?
 
halides1 said:
Sollecito’s words, or Mignini’s for that matter, cannot conjure up DNA that cannot be on the blade.

Chris
Click to expand...

Can we reference this back to Tagliabracci's evidence somehow? Also, this was only Sollecito's expert. Where was AK's?*
It sounds as though you're arguing there is no possible way for DNA to be on an object if blood is not. If that's true, then why have we elsewhere been stating that some of Meredith's DNA left outside her room in the cottage was not blood?

----------

*EDIT: I answered my own question. It was Carlo Torre: http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=8014386. It appears most of his testimony centred on the size and depth of the wounds.
 
Last edited:
shuttlt said:
Thanks for finding the link to the story about the traffic cameras Dan O. It's a pity there isn't more to go on. For my own curiocity, I'd like to know why the request was denied and why the footage wasn't collected in the first place. Doubtless this is the kind of thing the defence would have looked into during the case, or will do for the appeal.
Click to expand...

That was the second reference that I found. I somehow failed to save the first which mentioned the tapes being erased.

And now this from 1 day earlier: (Republica_2007-11-14) "Of little help instead 's examination of the frames of the cameras square Grimana. And for the cameras of the parking lot next to Meredith's house, according to the Flying Squad's images do not allow to identify the person shooting."

It sounds like someone did acquire the tapes and looked at them (though I could just be confused by the less than stellar translation job).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom