Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[katy_did]

You are claiming that 1.4 ng is the total amount of dna on the clasp? Well presumably you have read the motvations report and of course I have not yet. If that is what it says then so be it

ETA: having read your post again your inference if not valid. If the report actually states that 1.4 ng is the total amount of dna on the bra clasp you point stands. However the discussion of the ratio is not necessarily to do with that: the significance of the ratio is that it is quite odd for his dna to be on the clasp in such huge quantities relative to meredith's. That is what is telling and why it is discussed. Indeed I do not think you can be right because I have never seen it suggested that RS's dna was tested using lcn techniques; on the contrary it was specifically stated that the amount was abundant and certainly well over what is needed for standard testing

As I said to Fulcanelli, I'm going to have to check the figure you mention. You could be right, I'm not sure.

I *am* certain, though, that the defence expert was arguing that the amount of RS's DNA was LCN in terms of the amount that was found. Originally he said it was 10:1, then I think received more information and said it was 8:1, which is within the LCN range in terms of the amount; Stefanoni disagreed and said 6:1. As I said, I'm puzzled as to why that was discussed at all, if they knew for sure what the amount was. Back to Massei's hundreds of pages to check, I guess...

 

[Fiona]

As I said to Fulcanelli, I'm going to have to check the figure you mention. You could be right, I'm not sure.

I *am* certain, though, that the defence expert was arguing that the amount of RS's DNA was LCN in terms of the amount that was found. Originally he said it was 10:1, then I think received more information and said it was 8:1, which is within the LCN range in terms of the amount; Stefanoni disagreed and said 6:1. As I said, I'm puzzled as to why that was discussed at all, if they knew for sure what the amount was. Back to Massei's hundreds of pages to check, I guess...

Had gone to bed when it occurred to me that my reasoning is not valid in the edit to that post: I need to think that through again but I am too tired tonight: sorry, all

 

[Fiona]

Tertiary transfer can occur.

http://www.bioforensics.com/ downloads/ BelfastDNAworkshop.ppt

I infer that one of the scientists was Marc Taylor. Sorry cannot stay today.

Cannot find what you are talking about in your link

The only thing I can find including Taylor is this:
http://www.bioforensics.com/conference07/Transfer/index.html

It refers to the Greineder case and it is neither published nor peer reviewed: it is worthless in establishing your point. Is there another study ?

 

[Amazer]

We may agree - just coming at it from different perspectives.

I see what matters for a conviction is the evidence that proves they are at the crime scene - not the lack of a credible alibi.

1. Conclusive evidence and no alibi - guilty.
2. Inconclusive evidence and no alibi - not guilty
3. Inconclusive evidence and alibi - not guilty
4. Conclusive evidence and credible alibi - can't have both

Agree?

To this I happily agree.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

shuttit writes:

I wondered what your thoughts were on this and whether you had any pictures from the kitchen showing other sharp knives not so far accounted for?

To the best of my knowledge, the knife they tested was the only good cutting knife in Raffaele's kitchen.


Fulcanelli writes:

I see no small amount of hypocrisy here Wilkes, for you were only too happy to claim Rudy hopped to the bathroom.

No, that's not what I think happened, nor have I ever made that claim.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

"The Machine" is challenging Steve Moore on PMF.

"Steve Moore claimed there is absolutely no evidence of Amanda Knox in Meredith's room at the time of the murder and claims there were no footprints belonging to Amanda Knox in the room. This isn't true. The judges attributed the woman's bloody shoeprint on the pillow to Amanda Knox."

Just in case anyone was wondering about that Shoe print. Here is the information. That shoe print belongs to Rudy Guede.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.com/footprints-04.html

 

[Kermit]

There was a series of murders that occurred in Italy during the 1970s and 80s. The perpetrator of the murders was given the name "Monster of Florence" by the press. Young couples who were parked in remote areas presumably to have sex, were shot and the bodies of the female victims were mutilated. Crime experts believed that the perpetrator was a Jack the Ripper type killer. Mignini took the case. He was far from an expert in these types of murders.

.
Here's another item on your website which is as incorrect as washing dishes with Dixan.

Mignini never "took" the Monster of Florence case. Florence is one jurisdiction. Mignini works in Perugia, a different jurisdiction (just a hint).

You'd better start cleaning up and correcting your site.

 

[Kermit]

Douglas Preston was interrogated by Mignini. He was brought in during the middle of the night. He was accused of being an accessory to murder involving the Monster of Florence case.

.
What you write sounds like something to get all upset about, Bruce, but in fact even the enigmatic sci-fi fiction author Douglas Preston describes his encounter with Mignini in different terms and at a different time of day than you do:

"On February 22, as I was heading out for a morning coffee, my cell phone rang. A man speaking Italian informed me that he was a police detective and that he needed to see me—immediately ....

The next day, I was ushered into a pleasant office in the Procura della Repubblica, just outside the ancient city walls of Perugia. Present were one of the detectives from the previous day, a small and very tense captain of police with orange hair, a stenographer, and Giuliano Mignini, sitting behind a desk."
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/07/the-monster-of-florence/4981/6/?

You're not turning out to be a very believable scribe, what with your Dixan screwup. And there's much more incorrect or false information on Injusticeinperugia.org.

 

[Amazer]

.
What you write sounds like something to get all upset about, Bruce, but in fact even the enigmatic sci-fi fiction author Douglas Preston describes his encounter with Mignini in different terms and at a different time of day than you do:

"On February 22, as I was heading out for a morning coffee, my cell phone rang. A man speaking Italian informed me that he was a police detective and that he needed to see me—immediately ....

The next day, I was ushered into a pleasant office in the Procura della Repubblica, just outside the ancient city walls of Perugia. Present were one of the detectives from the previous day, a small and very tense captain of police with orange hair, a stenographer, and Giuliano Mignini, sitting behind a desk."
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/07/the-monster-of-florence/4981/6/?

You're not turning out to be a very believable scribe, what with your Dixan screwup. And there's much more incorrect or false information on Injusticeinperugia.org.

Don't you just hate it when those pesky little facts come in the way of telling a sensational story.

 

[Dan O.]

So investigate it. Provide evidence that someone in this chain is lying.

What would you accept as evidence? I have the feeling that whatever I provide will just be squirmed around with much waffling on your part.

Easier still, provide evidence that the defence teams called any of these three liars in court, and include the data they provided to establish the claim.

So the defense should have preemptively presumed that Massei was going to lie in the post trial report about there being no stick and call him a liar during the trial?

Otherwise it is only you who is being deceptive.

If I show you the stick at the crime scene, will you accept that Massei's statement about there being no such tool is a lie?

 

[Amazer]

What would you accept as evidence? I have the feeling that whatever I provide will just be squirmed around with much waffling on your part.

A crime scene photo of a stick would do the trick.

So the defense should have preemptively presumed that Massei was going to lie in the post trial report about there being no stick and call him a liar during the trial?

If Massei was not aware that there was a stick, then it's clear that he wouldn't have been lying about it in his report. Lying implies that he knew there was a stick on the crime scene but consciously decided to disregard that evidence.

If I show you the stick at the crime scene, will you accept that Massei's statement about there being no such tool is a lie?

Knock yourself out... show us that stick.

And by the way, how your sim coming along of that rock being thrown from the outside? Making any progress?

 

[Dan O.]

Unless you consider this 'forest' to be part of the crime scene... there wasn't a lie.

Trying to squirm away already? What is your definition of "The crime scene"?

The absence of a stick near the window suggest that no stick was used.

According to Fulcanelli, Massei's report is claiming that no stick was available. Whether the stick was used is not the issue. The issue is why are the officials creating this lie.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Unless you consider this 'forest' to be part of the crime scene... there wasn't a lie.[/qoute]

Trying to squirm away already? What is your definition of "The crime scene"?




According to Fulcanelli, Massei's report is claiming that no stick was available. Whether the stick was used is not the issue. The issue is why are the officials creating this lie.

No. Emphatically, NO. The issue is indeed whether a stick was used. That's the real issue. The other "issue" is secondary only to the first.

The officials did not lie if there is no stick involved, thus becoming a non-issue - this means the issue of a stick is most important.

 

[stilicho]

So the defense should have preemptively presumed that Massei was going to lie in the post trial report about there being no stick and call him a liar during the trial?

So you've narrowed it down and exonerated the prosecutor and the investigators. It is Massei who is the liar.

All right, cough up the evidence.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Raffaele's profile was not intense

BobTheDonkey,

In message #8303 you wrote, “I was under the impression that Raffaele's DNA was found in a concentration of 1400RFU, whereas the other 3 signatures measured <200RFU.” My most recent message (#8281) indicated that Raffaele’s DNA was only about 200 RFU, and it was not the first time I have provided this information. You can also check the electropherogram yourself. May I respectfully suggest that you read and digest the answers you have been given before asking any more questions?

@Fiona, Whether or not the quote function here suits your purposes is up to you to decide, but it fails to suit my needs, inasmuch as it does not provide the message number.

halides1

 

[stilicho]

You're not turning out to be a very believable scribe, what with your Dixan screwup. And there's much more incorrect or false information on Injusticeinperugia.org.

Maybe we could simplify the exercise and just tell Bruce Fisher what on his site isn't either deceptive or false.

For starters, I think his name is Bruce Fisher.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

BobTheDonkey,

In message #8303 you wrote, “I was under the impression that Raffaele's DNA was found in a concentration of 1400RFU, whereas the other 3 signatures measured <200RFU.” My most recent message (#8281) indicated that Raffaele’s DNA was only about 200 RFU, and it was not the first time I have provided this information. You can also check the electropherogram yourself. May I respectfully suggest that you read and digest the answers you have been given before asking any more questions?

@Fiona, Whether or not the quote function here suits your purposes is up to you to decide, but it fails to suit my needs, inasmuch as it does not provide the message number.

halides1

Do you have a cite for the <200RFU? I know there was a discussion earlier in this thread in which Fulcanelli posited Raffaele's DNA was in a concentration of 1400RFU.


ETA1: Btw, I was under the impression that anything under 200RFU required LCN testing. We know that LCN testing was not used here, so I find it hard to believe there was <200RFU of Raffaele's DNA.
ETA2: The quote function does include the post number - that's what the little red arrow is next to the poster's name in the quote box. It is also possible to multi-quote.

 

[tsig]

Maybe we could simplify the exercise and just tell Bruce Fisher what on his site isn't either deceptive or false.

For starters, I think his name is Bruce Fisher.

Turn it 90⁰ and see.

 

[Amazer]

Trying to squirm away already? What is your definition of "The crime scene"?

No, no squirming... and pretty poor form to take a post from hours earlier to try and score some cheap points.

And the crime scene... The cottage itself, the immediate area below the window of Philomena.

According to Fulcanelli, Massei's report is claiming that no stick was available. Whether the stick was used is not the issue. The issue is why are the officials creating this lie.

It doesn't matter at all if no stick was used to open those outside shutters. But I get it Dan. You are so desperate to portray the police, the prosecution and the courts in bad light that you will use anything, no matter how trivial or unrelated, to try and stick it to them.

 

[Dan O.]

So the defense should have preemptively presumed that Massei was going to lie in the post trial report about there being no stick and call him a liar during the trial?

So you've narrowed it down and exonerated the prosecutor and the investigators. It is Massei who is the liar.

All right, cough up the evidence.

Now you are lying about what I said.