• 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.
Mary_H said:
Hmmm, apparently you are not reading my posts, John. Should I skip yours, too? ;) Earlier today I posted:

"Italian police investigating the murder of Meredith Kercher are testing blood-smeared hairs found in her hand that could have come from her killer or killers, it emerged today.

The Turin daily La Stampa said that several hairs had been found in the fingers of Ms Kercher's left hand "and now the laboratory examinations will tells us whether these bloody hairs belong to whoever killed her".

"We know that Meredith Kercher, on that evening of November 1, fought back and tried to defend herself," it added."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2862541.ece

There were a couple of responses to the post, too.
Click to expand...

PS Please don't stop reading my posts! you're probably one of the few people that bothers reading my verbose ramblings all the way to the bottom ;)

And also, my Marriott commission depends on a positive peer review from you, so please keep liking me!
 
Mary_H said:
LOL! Here he goes again....:D

Isn't that what Fulcanelli claimed was the point of Matteini's report -- just a preliminary that could be sorted out later?
Click to expand...

Really? You mean...Filomena and the boys downstairs and Meredith's friends were all arrested with no evidence?

Actually, Mary, what Fulcanelli stated could be sorted out later was the exact scenario - because the scenario is icing on the cake. At the time of the arrests and subsequent report, there was sufficient reason to hold Amanda and Raffaele - that was the purpose of the report.

But, nice try ;)
 
If a picture paints a thousand words, the Police around Amanda outside the cottage, speaks volumes. While Amanda,s hands are clasped in *prayer*, also read as *please believe me*, the police don,t look too convinced in what she,s *trying to say*. Amanda just wouldn,t stop talking, and talking, and writing and writing.
 
I meant to add, that the Police,s suspicions must surely have been *aroused* (PLEASE do NOT misconstrue that word, Mary H:). Right from the get go. That would include the *oopla* swivel of the hips. Inappropriate behaviour does send signals.
 
journal articles are written for a reason

BobTheDonkey said:
So, Charlie, I think this memo does not state what I think you think it does. This memo actually rather proves that Raffaele needed direct transfer to the clasp for his DNA profile to have been found in the strength it was found. The memo also includes reference to a study showing the viability of DNA profiles from single cells.

In other words: Charlie, this memo shows you're wrong about secondary transfer of Raffaele's DNA to the clasp. This memo also shows Halides1 is very probably wrong when he claims that the knife DNA doesn't match Meredith's DNA (or that there wasn't enough DNA material for a match...or that the results aren't a match...I'm not quite sure what he's claiming this week).
Click to expand...

BobTheDonkey,

If you are implying that secondary transfer gives only partial profiles, you are wrong.

Lowe A, Murray C, Whitaker J, Tully G, Gill P. The propensity of individuals to deposit DNA and secondary transfer of low level DNA from individuals to inert surfaces. Forensic Science International, 129, 10 September 2002, Pages 25-34.

“In three out of four replicates, the full profile of the good shedder was transferred to the object by the poor shedder along with up to 90% of the poor shedder’s own profile.”

This article, among others, contradicts your assertion that primary transfer would be needed to produce Raffaele’s profile on the bra clasp.

Your discussion of the knife is so far out in left field that it is difficult to know where to begin. The memo in question is about DNA from primary and secondary transfer of touched objects. It has no bearing on the problematic knife profile whatsoever.

Halides1
 
Re: By Mary H,
"It's not playing the race card if they had evidence a black man committed the crime. If you read early news reports, you will find that the people of Perugia were counting on the murderer turning out to be a foreigner."

and
RE: by LondonJohn,
"The race thing is of interest to me. How and why did they have evidence that a black man committed the crime? Did they find Afro-Caribbean hair at the scene? Or was that linked to some of the eyewitness testimony? I genuinely don't know, and would like to find out more. The alleged "will of the people" to find and convict a foreigner is also new to me, and - if true - is clearly indicative of something quite different from firm evidence.
"__________________________________________________________________________

Didn't Miss Alessandra Formica say that as she and her boyfriend were descending the stairs of via della Pergola that lead to viale S.Antonio, where their car was parked and where the cottage is, a black guy coming up the stairs suddenly bumped into them and ran away that night of the murder?

Does anyone know what day it was when Miss Formica told the police this? I've read that she did tell them a few days later. If it was before the night of the 5th/6th, might the police have already had a notion that a black male was possibly involved in Miss Kercher's murder, before even questioning Miss Knox about that "see you later" text message?
If so, it adds another reason to understand Mr. Lumumba getting arrested, for the police might have been on the lookout for a black male. Now if Mr. Lumumba was a white male, I wonder if he would have even been arrested?
Hmmm...
RWVBWL
 
Last edited:
halides1 said:
It must be. BobTheDonkey was able to read the whole thing in less than 5 minutes. Seriously, it makes its points with clarity.
Click to expand...

Obviously, I didn't read the article.

And the reason why I didn't? Because you choose not to discuss it's relevancy here, and given the previous articles you've posted, I have to wonder exactly what the relevance of this particular article to this particular case is. As you have failed to mention that, I have failed to bother reading this article.

Again, I ask the question:

Are you simply attempting to throw a generalized argument at the forensics in this case? Should we disallow all forensics evidence from the Courtroom?
 
halides1 said:
BobTheDonkey,

If you are implying that secondary transfer gives only partial profiles, you are wrong.

Lowe A, Murray C, Whitaker J, Tully G, Gill P. The propensity of individuals to deposit DNA and secondary transfer of low level DNA from individuals to inert surfaces. Forensic Science International, 129, 10 September 2002, Pages 25-34.

“In three out of four replicates, the full profile of the good shedder was transferred to the object by the poor shedder along with up to 90% of the poor shedder’s own profile.”

This article, among others, contradicts your assertion that primary transfer would be needed to produce Raffaele’s profile on the bra clasp.

Your discussion of the knife is so far out in left field that it is difficult to know where to begin. The memo in question is about DNA from primary and secondary transfer of touched objects. It has no bearing on the problematic knife profile whatsoever.

Halides1
Click to expand...

It's good to see you bothered to actually read and then respond to my entire post. Were you to have read the quoted sections, you would know exactly what I was referring to with regards to the knife.


And where, pray tell, was Raffaele's DNA transferred to the clasp from? Again, just because contamination can happen does not mean contamination did happen. At this point, there is no source for the DNA to have arrived in Meredith's bedroom. If you want to claim dirt on the floor, then how did Raffaele's DNA get to the dirt on the floor - or are you going to insist on tertiary transfer now? If it was DNA from the door, then you need to evidence not only that the forensics team touched the door with the same gloves they used to retrieve the clasp, but also that Raffaele's DNA was found on the door (here's a hint - it wasn't).

So again, Chris...where did the DNA come from to be transferred to the clasp? Keeping in mind that unless Raffaele directly shook the gloved hand of the Forensics Team members who retrieved the clasp, we're discussing not secondary, but tertiary or even quaternary (Raffaele -> ? -> floor -> gloves -> clasp or Raffaele -> ? -> dirt -> gloves -> clasp or Raffaele -> door -> gloves -> clasp, etc) transfer.
 
Last edited:
BobTheDonkey said:
It's good to see you bothered to actually read and then respond to my entire post. Were you to have read the quoted sections, you would know exactly what I was referring to with regards to the knife.


And where, pray tell, was Raffaele's DNA transferred to the clasp from? Again, just because contamination can happen does not mean contamination did happen. At this point, there is no source for the DNA to have arrived in Meredith's bedroom. If you want to claim dirt on the floor, then how did Raffaele's DNA get to the dirt on the floor - or are you going to insist on tertiary transfer now? If it was DNA from the door, then you need to evidence not only that the forensics team touched the door with the same gloves they used to retrieve the clasp, but also that Raffaele's DNA was found on the door (here's a hint - it wasn't).

So again, Chris...where did the DNA come from to be transferred to the clasp? Keeping in mind that unless Raffaele directly shook the gloved hand of the Forensics Team members who retrieved the clasp, we're discussing not secondary, but tertiary or even quaternary (Raffaele -> ? -> floor -> gloves -> clasp or Raffaele -> ? -> dirt -> gloves -> clasp or Raffaele -> door -> gloves -> clasp, etc) transfer.
Click to expand...

Bob,

You should have learned by now that as long as something is possible (and in some cases even if it isn't) AND it favors Amanda's innocence that we can safely assume that is precisely what happened. Likewise, if something is possible (and in some cases even more likely) AND it does NOT favor Amanda's innocence, we can safely assume that it didn't happen that way.

Why is it so hard for you to wrap you head around this rather neat and simple concept?

Amazer
 
Amazer said:
Bob,

You should have learned by now that as long as something is possible (and in some cases even if it isn't) AND it favors Amanda's innocence that we can safely assume that is precisely what happened. Likewise, if something is possible (and in some cases even more likely) AND it does NOT favor Amanda's innocence, we can safely assume that it didn't happen that way.

Why is it so hard for you to wrap you head around this rather neat and simple concept?

Amazer
Click to expand...

Apparently because I'm a dirty old man with fantasies and am sexually attracted to Amanda?
 
BobTheDonkey said:
Apparently because I'm a dirty old man with fantasies and am sexually attracted to Amanda?
Click to expand...

Isn't it amazing? The things you learn about yourself in threads like this?

It seems that I'm old before my time and also have be careful about letting my wife access this computer. She wouldn't be pleased to find out that I have dirty fantasies I haven't shared with her.

I don't think I have to worry too much about the 'being sexually attracted to Amanda' rumor though... my wife knows she (Amanda) is so completely not my type.
 
katy_did said:
.

At one point in his diary/letters, Raffaele writes "I remember that was Thursday, therefore Amanda had to go to the pub where she usually works, but I don't remember how much time she was absent and remember that subsequently she had said to me that the pub was closed
Click to expand...


Maybe, Amanda never told RS that she didn't have to work that night, everyone assumes she would have told him, but maybe she didn't so she would have some time to do something without him, maybe thats why she had them turn their cell phones off too.
 
LondonJohn said:
PS Please don't stop reading my posts! you're probably one of the few people that bothers reading my verbose ramblings all the way to the bottom ;)
Click to expand...

Oh, I doubt that, judging from the number of responses you get.

And also, my Marriott commission depends on a positive peer review from you, so please keep liking me!
Click to expand...

I hear ya -- at $10.00 per word, you must be getting rich, rich, rich!

(About the black hair -- I thought that article said black hair, but I see now it doesn't. I will search for another.)
 
BobTheDonkey said:
I'm not quite sure what is being debated here...That's not any different from what Stilicho and I have been posting...

...

I suppose I should have rephrased that last comment. Perhaps: Would you prefer the Police just arrested everyone that might possibly have had anything to do with the murder and then sort it all out?
Click to expand...

That's what I'm wondering, too. LJ agrees that Patrick should have been arrested after Amanda named him:

And it was the middle of the night by this point, so the logical thing to do was to continue with questioning of AK, and then to get Lumumba in some time later on the 6th.

His only objection appears to be when they "knew" that Patrick had murdered Meredith. I suppose we will always disagree about that. We think it was only after Amanda told them; he thinks it was about halfway into the interview and that they were playing mind games with her for a while.

I think Amanda's own testimony sums it all up very nicely:

So I am asking you, why start accusing [Patrick] when you could calmly explain the exchange of messages? Why did you think those things could be true?

I was confused.
 
stilicho said:
That's what I'm wondering, too. LJ agrees that Patrick should have been arrested after Amanda named him:

And it was the middle of the night by this point, so the logical thing to do was to continue with questioning of AK, and then to get Lumumba in some time later on the 6th.

His only objection appears to be when they "knew" that Patrick had murdered Meredith. I suppose we will always disagree about that. We think it was only after Amanda told them; he thinks it was about halfway into the interview and that they were playing mind games with her for a while.

I think Amanda's own testimony sums it all up very nicely:

So I am asking you, why start accusing [Patrick] when you could calmly explain the exchange of messages? Why did you think those things could be true?

I was confused.
Click to expand...

LJ does not agree that Patrick should have been arrested after Amanda named him. He wrote:

"...In my view, they could and should have visited Lumumba first thing the next morning - but not in the "dawn raid" that they somehow deemed necessary just a few hours after AK's naming of him. They could have asked him to come to the station for questioning. If he'd refused, they could then have sought an arrest warrant, since a refusal to cooperate would also be potentially incriminating in itself. I strongly suspect, however, that Lumumba WOULD willingly have attended the police station. And the rest might have turned out very different both for Lumumba and the police.

As an addendum to this, the way the police went about the arrest of Lumumba on the 6th is in itself very instructive of the way the Perugia force went about its business in general, and I'd argue that it doesn't paint them in a good light at all. Whilst of course they were dealing with a high-profile case of the highest gravity, there was no justification whatsoever for the raid they launched on Lumumba's house in the early hours of the 6th November. After all, Lumumba himself was demonstrably not a flight risk at that point (otherwise he'd have left Perugia already).

Further, regardless of what they'd learned - or thought they'd learned - during the previous night (text message, AK "confession"), they could have been certain that Lumumba himself could not have got any wind of their suspicion of him. After all, AK and RS were securely in custody, so they couldn't have warned him in any way, and the only other people who knew of the new "evidence" against Lumumba were the police themselves. In addition to that, Lumumba had no prior history of violent conduct (am I right to suggest that he'd never been arrested before either?). All in all, a completely unjustified way in which to bring a person in Lumumba's position into custody, I'd argue."

(Post 12793, page 320)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom