Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[HumanityBlues]

Drop the adjective. The hypothesis remains the same.

What's the hypothesis the detectives should have tested instead?

Why did you use the word abundant in the first place?

 

[HumanityBlues]

.
Well, I think that in the case of the other possible DNA on the clasp, Amanda's legal team wanted to dump boron on pursuing the other faint traces, because the Sollecito DNA expert suggested that one of those traces points to Amanda.

Maybe you're right. That trace could be relevant.

Interesting.

That's not the reason the police didn't test for it.

 

[stilicho]

Why did you use the word abundant in the first place?

It's an adjective with a soothing timbre. Using it or not does not change the hypothesis.

What's the hypothesis you are proposing?

 

[HumanityBlues]

It's an adjective with a soothing timbre. Using it or not does not change the hypothesis.

What's the hypothesis you are proposing?

So was it abundant or not?

 

[stilicho]

So was it abundant or not?

How long are you going to play this game?

Do you have an alternate hypothesis to be tested or not?

 

[HumanityBlues]

How long are you going to play this game?

Do you have an alternate hypothesis to be tested or not?

An alternate hypothesis to what? The abundance of Raffaelle's DNA coupled with the DNA of 3 unknown persons? Are you saying it's "abundant" because it wasn't low copy? Or was it rhetorical with no meaning?

 

[Kermit]

Or was it rhetorical with no meaning

.
No, what was rhetorical with no meaning was for Dan O. to state that Meredith wore Amanda's bra, and that that explains Raffaele's DNA.

What was rhetorical with no meaning was making us play a guessing game of a mysterious image which only pro-Amanda types could see in slide 17 and 66 of the powerpoint (coinciding with a need to divert attention from an accusation against the Italian investigators).

What was rhetorical with no meaning was Kestrel going on and on about emotion rather than reason as the basis for persons to not want to wear other persons' underwear.

The list goes on ...

 

[shuttlt]

I think the bra swapping idea is a good one and the defence should definitely consider using it in court.

 

[HumanityBlues]

.
No, what was rhetorical with no meaning was for Dan O. to state that Meredith wore Amanda's bra, and that that explains Raffaele's DNA.

What was rhetorical with no meaning was making us play a guessing game of a mysterious image which only pro-Amanda types could see in slide 17 and 66 of the powerpoint (coinciding with a need to divert attention from an accusation against the Italian investigators).

What was rhetorical with no meaning was Kestrel going on and on about emotion rather than reason as the basis for persons to not want to wear other persons' underwear.

The list goes on ...

Take it up with Dan-O and Kestrel then.

ETA: If you do take it up with Dan-O, he actually never stated what you just phrased.

 

[Kermit]

.No, what was rhetorical with no meaning was for Dan O. to state that Meredith wore Amanda's bra, and that that explains Raffaele's DNA.

What was rhetorical with no meaning was making us play a guessing game of a mysterious image which only pro-Amanda types could see in slide 17 and 66 of the powerpoint (coinciding with a need to divert attention from an accusation against the Italian investigators).
...

Take it up with Dan-O and Kestrel then.

ETA: If you do take it up with Dan-O, he actually never stated what you just phrased.

.
Well, please find below the chain of main references to Dan O.'s "borrowed bra" statements.

If we asked for a show of hands, I think that most readers would say that they were under the impression that Dan O. was saying that Raffaele's DNA was on the bra that Meredith wore, because it was actually a borrowed bra of Amanda.

Maybe I just don't know how to read Dan O.

... I have to admit that I got it wrong:

Dr. Sollecito did speak at one point on behalf of his son to explain that Raffaele's DNA was on Meredith's bra for an innocent reason: Amanda and Meredith got on so well that they wore each others' bras, and since Raffaele was intimate with Amanda in the short week they were together, his DNA could have got on the bra that way.

Thankfully, Giulia Bongiorno, applying her own female experience, did not present that explanation in the courtroom.

Such nonsense ...

Why do you call it nonsense? On the morning of Nov. 1, Meredith's own laundry was in the washing machine. Amanda testified that on that morning Meredith went to take something out or put something into the machine. Meredith's friends testified that she called to say she would be late getting to the party. So what is Meredith to do? Miss a party, wear a wet or dirty bra or borrow a freshly cleaned and dry bra from her close friend that's sitting there on the drying rack in the hall outside their rooms.

That is certainly a possibility. After all, Raffaele was at the cottage the afternoon before the murder while Meredith was doing laundry.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

An alternate hypothesis to what? The abundance of Raffaelle's DNA coupled with the DNA of 3 unknown persons? Are you saying it's "abundant" because it wasn't low copy? Or was it rhetorical with no meaning?

I'm going to go with false dichotomy

How about "abundant in relation to the other 3 unknown signatures"

And then I'll ask you the question:


Do you have an alternate hypothesis to be tested or not?

 

[Mr.D]

Maybe I just don't know how to read Dan O.

That's because he's trolling.

Now can the thread get back to the real issues?

 

[stilicho]

I'm going to go with false dichotomy

How about "abundant in relation to the other 3 unknown signatures"

And then I'll ask you the question:


Do you have an alternate hypothesis to be tested or not?

I got to the limit of my requests for an alternate hypothesis after trying 4 or 5 times on this page alone. Maybe you'll have better luck.

 

[shuttlt]

Maybe Raffaele wore the bra? Not me personally you understand, but I've heard of guys borrowing girls bras to just try them out and stuff.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Bob the Donkey writes:

Who knows (other than those 3)...maybe Rudy did break in. But that doesn't explain how we go from him being startled by Meredith to the presence of multiple assailants. Are you going to say Amanda and Raffaele broke in with him?

The victim's wounds and the bloodstain patterns in her room show an attack by one assailant. All the violence took place in one corner, close to the floor, in front of the wardrobe. The attacker clapped his hand over her face, and gripped her tightly enough to leave bruises on her jawline and her neck. He threw her to the floor and savagely cut her throat, and then he moved her body and sexually assaulted her. It wasn't a prank that escalated and got out of hand. It was a surprise attack that happened over the course of three or four minutes.

 

[quadraginta]

That's because he's trolling.

Now can the thread get back to the real issues?

 

[Amazer]

Bob the Donkey writes:

Who knows (other than those 3)...maybe Rudy did break in. But that doesn't explain how we go from him being startled by Meredith to the presence of multiple assailants. Are you going to say Amanda and Raffaele broke in with him?

The victim's wounds and the bloodstain patterns in her room show an attack by one assailant. All the violence took place in one corner, close to the floor, in front of the wardrobe. The attacker clapped his hand over her face, and gripped her tightly enough to leave bruises on her jawline and her neck. He threw her to the floor and savagely cut her throat, and then he moved her body and sexually assaulted her. It wasn't a prank that escalated and got out of hand. It was a surprise attack that happened over the course of three or four minutes.

An interesting theory... and one that the prosecution and the courts clearly disagreed with.

So what makes you think that your theory will do any better during the appeal?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Fulcanelli writes:

What?? 'What' library? What 'primary source'? You don't get away with just throwing that out there Charlie, you need to clarify exactly what you mean by that.

Here is a partial list:

- the DNA results
- more than 400 high-resolution photos from the crime scene
- several hours of police video
- several hundred files that constitute the output of the security camera across the street
- composite images showing the location of key evidence, like fingerprints, luminol prints, etc.
- spheron imagery (360 degree high-resolution images)
- forensic reports prepared by both the prosecution and the defense

So, when someone says, "police found Amanda's blood mixed with Meredith's blood," I know that is that is not what the evidence shows. Ditto when someone says, "they used bleach to clean away evidence," "Raffaele called the police after they were already there," "Amanda and Raffaele tracked blood around on their bare feet," "the police changed gloves before handling each new piece of evidence," "the crime scene was sealed," "Meredith was attacked by more than one person."

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Amazer writes:

An interesting theory... and one that the prosecution and the courts clearly disagreed with.

So what makes you think that your theory will do any better during the appeal?

Eventually the truth will prevail. It takes a long time. People with a lot of power, locally at least, have a strong interest in suppressing the truth. That is what is going on in the Vatican. It is what happened in Texas last fall after the New Yorker published its article about Cameron Todd Willingham. These situations are relentlessly similar all over the world...

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Meredith's DNA on the clasp

Which means, if we accept this premise, we must also then take it to it's rational conclusion:

Rafaelle had more contact with the bra clasp than did the person the bra belonged to, that (presumably) wore it often.

That would, I think, shoot down the claims of contamination or lack of significant contact.

Meredith's DNA was 6-10X more abundant than Raffaele's on the clasp. Here is what the Johnson/Hampikian letter said about the clasp:

"DNA testing cannot determine how biological material was deposited onto an item of evidence: whether by direct deposit, or by secondary transfer through an intermediary. DNA testing cannot determine how long biological material may have been on an item, or whether contamination occurred during collection."

This paragraph is entirely consistent with everything I have read or been told about forensic DNA. I asked an expert and he said that contamination can present itself in any intensity. The Leskie case bears this out.