Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

There's none at all. It's evidence of Vaseline lip balm. If it isn't, tell us why it isn't.

Vaseline, made from petroleum, is oily and stays oily. You can find a description of the composition of semen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semen I don't see any mention of fats or oils, and the article states that semen dries.

 

[Fulcanelli]

More hysterics from Fulcanelli. He knows it was Vaseline based on absolutely nothing. He just made it up. They can easily test it and find out if it is semen or not. Fulcanelli just makes stuff up, and he's not even hiding it this time.

Based on the fact Meredith used Vaseline lip balm and lay her face on her pillow every night.

In contrast, your evidence for semen is...what?

 

[HumanityBlues]

Based on the fact Meredith used Vaseline lip balm and lay her face on her pillow every night.

In contrast, your evidence for semen is...what?

You have no idea what it is. You have what you think it is, but you have no idea. You're stating it as fact, thus making it up.

 

[RWVBWL]

Based on the fact Meredith used Vaseline lip balm and lay her face on her pillow every night.

In contrast, your evidence for semen is...what?

Hi Fulcanelli,
I've been a sexually active male for some 34 years,
and I betcha a case of beer, your choice or mine,
that whenever that stain is tested, it is indeed found to be semen...
RWVBWL

 

[Fulcanelli]

You have no idea what it is. You have what you think it is, but you have no idea. You're stating it as fact, thus making it up.

???

Please elaborate, for those of us sitting at your feet...waiting to learn.

 

[HumanityBlues]

???

Please elaborate, for those of us sitting at your feet...waiting to learn.

You need elaboration about something you made up? Stop making stuff up.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Hi Fulcanelli,
I've been a sexually active male for some 34 years,
and I betcha a case of beer, your choice or mine,
that whenever that stain is tested, it is indeed found to be semen...
RWVBWL

I don't think putting a case of beer on the line wins you the argument. Although I grant you, it's a novel strategy.

Save your case of beer...bet it with the defence (under the same rules) instead. See if they take up your offer.

 

[Mary_H]

Hi Fulcanelli,
I've been a sexually active male for some 34 years,
and I betcha a case of beer, your choice or mine,
that whenever that stain is tested, it is indeed found to be semen...
RWVBWL

Yeah, I just looked at those photos you linked to on perugiashock and I am definitely going to have to go along with you on this one, RWVBWL.

 

[Fiona]

It seems to me that we do not know what it is because it has not been tested. It seems to me that the police may have been in a position to detect it and test it, or they may not. It has been suggested they did not have the right equipment to detect it. I do not know if that is true. It has been suggested that they did indeed detect it but made a judgement that doing so would spoil other evidence that they deemed to be more important. I do not know if that is true either. The defence do appear to have been able to detect it: that does not seem to be in dispute. The defence could either test it or they could not. Perhaps they never had possession of it and so could not test it. Perhaps they decided not to test it for some reason, even though they could have done that. Maybe they had a very good reason for asking for it to be tested very late in the day; or maybe it was a delaying tactic as has also been argued. I have no idea.

But I have asked for an outline of the facts and nobody has been willing to give them to me. I do not think people are so ungenerous with their knowledge as to withold those facts and so I conclude that nobody here has any facts beyond the observation that there is a stain and it has not been tested.

This has been used to try to say that the investigation was sloppy: but unless we know for sure that the police had the ability to detect it, that is not demonstrated. It has been suggested that the defense may have chosen not to test it in case it was detrimental to their client: but unless we know they had possession of it that is not demonstrated either.

Personally I am not prepared to denigrate either the police or the defence about this, because we do not appear to have enough information to base such a conclusion on. Both are just smears so far as I can see. The rest is just bickering. That is how it seems to me anyway

 

[HumanityBlues]

It seems to me that we do not know what it is because it has not been tested. It seems to me that the police may have been in a position to detect it and test it, or they may not. It has been suggested they did not have the right equipment to detect it. I do not know if that is true. It has been suggested that they did indeed detect it but made a judgement that doing so would spoil other evidence that they deemed to be more important. I do not know if that is true either. The defence do appear to have been able to detect it: that does not seem to be in dispute. The defence could either test it or they could not. Perhaps they never had possession of it and so could not test it. Perhaps they decided not to test it for some reason, even though they could have done that. Maybe they had a very good reason for asking for it to be tested very late in the day; or maybe it was a delaying tactic as has also been argued. I have no idea.

But I have asked for an outline of the facts and nobody has been willing to give them to me. I do not think people are so ungenerous with their knowledge as to withold those facts and so I conclude that nobody here has any facts beyond the observation that there is a stain and it has not been tested.

This has been used to try to say that the investigation was sloppy: but unless we know for sure that the police had the ability to detect it, that is not demonstrated. It has been suggested that the defense may have chosen not to test it in case it was detrimental to their client: but unless we know they had possession of it that is not demonstrated either.

Personally I am not prepared to denigrate either the police or the defence about this, because we do not appear to have enough information to base such a conclusion on. Both are just smears so far as I can see. The rest is just bickering. That is how it seems to me anyway

I agree that there is a lot that we could know more about. I've been careful to say that it "possibly" could be semen (as opposed to lying and saying it was "vaseline" with no proof at all). I think Charlie Wilkes needs to come back here and perhaps elaborate a little more, that would be nice.

I'm having trouble with them "not having the equipment" to test it. I could be wrong, but that seems somewhat far fetched. These are supposedly "world class" investigators, or so we're told on this thread, and they don't have the equipment to test or detect semen? Maybe I'm wrong, but it certainly seems a test is possible evidenced by them asking for it during the trial and on appeal. Was there really something preventing them from testing it back then that has changed and is not preventing them from doing it now?

 

[Mary_H]

This has been used to try to say that the investigation was sloppy: but unless we know for sure that the police had the ability to detect it, that is not demonstrated. It has been suggested that the defense may have chosen not to test it in case it was detrimental to their client: but unless we know they had possession of it that is not demonstrated either.

Personally I am not prepared to denigrate either the police or the defence about this, because we do not appear to have enough information to base such a conclusion on. Both are just smears so far as I can see. The rest is just bickering. That is how it seems to me anyway

I also get a little impatient with discussions that are based on less than factual information, for example, the "keyhole" that supposedly allowed the defendants to look into Meredith's room and see her sleeping on the floor, or even the footprints, which no one has really been able to provide a definitive diagram of.

The topic of the stain has been quite instructive, though, not necessarily for the subject matter but because it provides such a clear illustration of who wants to gain as much information as they can, versus who wants information covered up.

 

[Fiona]

I agree that there is a lot that we could know more about. I've been careful to say that it "possibly" could be semen (as opposed to lying and saying it was "vaseline" with no proof at all). I think Charlie Wilkes needs to come back here and perhaps elaborate a little more, that would be nice.

I'm having trouble with them "not having the equipment" to test it. I could be wrong, but that seems somewhat far fetched. These are supposedly "world class" investigators, or so we're told on this thread, and they don't have the equipment to test or detect semen? Maybe I'm wrong, but it certainly seems a test is possible evidenced by them asking for it during the trial and on appeal. Was there really something preventing them from testing it back then that has changed and is not preventing them from doing it now?

The suggestion was not that they did not have the equipment to test it: it was that they did not have the equipment to detect it. That does not sound implausible to me: but then public service here is underfunded

 

[Mary_H]

I'm having trouble with them "not having the equipment" to test it. I could be wrong, but that seems somewhat far fetched. These are supposedly "world class" investigators, or so we're told on this thread, and they don't have the equipment to test or detect semen? Maybe I'm wrong, but it certainly seems a test is possible evidenced by them asking for it during the trial and on appeal. Was there really something preventing them from testing it back then that has changed and is not preventing them from doing it now?

I completely agree, HB. Even in the unlikley scenario that they don't have the equipment, there is no reason they couldn't have had it done by a lab with the equipment.

And as for the blood stains, if you look at the photos on perugiashock, you see that this stain is not near any blood.

 

[Danceme]

Frank seems to say Vinci found the stains over a year after the murder and that the defense deliberately did not test them.

"But it's a fact that the defense has been withholding some arguments and evidence for strategy reason. Useless to deny it by now since things are leaking: yes, on certain elements there has been a pact of silence.
But pacts are done to be broken (not by me) and today we can also talk about some important traces on the pillowcase found more than one year after the crime.

The stains should be tested to know if the substance is really sperm and who belongs it to. But nobody required that test and the evidence wasn't presented in court. Why was that?

Useless asking the defenses, the reserve is total about that.
But we can understand that a contamination may have easily occurred, and if the test resulted a DNA belonging to Raffaele that would be a serious problem. Better not to take the risk, they must have thought (for not to mention that the defenses, for technical reason, maintain that there wasn't sexual violence).

So, it looks like the piece of evidence will not enter this trial since both defense and prosecution seem to be paralyzed by the risk that the test may result something inconvenient for them.

In conclusion, for a number of reasons, we don't know yet if that substance is really semen. It could, for instance, be vaseline, which doesn't have DNA and could go undetected with the swabs."

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/10/defensive-strategy-for-knox-and.html

 

[Fine]

I completely agree, HB. Even in the unlikley scenario that they don't have the equipment, there is no reason they couldn't have had it done by a lab with the equipment.
And as for the blood stains, if you look at the photos on perugiashock, you see that this stain is not near any blood.

__________________

You can buy a semen test kit yourself online for about 5 or 10 dollars. A "Fidelity Test" sold to men and used to test the panties of a wife or girlfriend.

///

 

[Fulcanelli]

I agree that there is a lot that we could know more about. I've been careful to say that it "possibly" could be semen (as opposed to lying and saying it was "vaseline" with no proof at all). I think Charlie Wilkes needs to come back here and perhaps elaborate a little more, that would be nice.

I'm having trouble with them "not having the equipment" to test it. I could be wrong, but that seems somewhat far fetched. These are supposedly "world class" investigators, or so we're told on this thread, and they don't have the equipment to test or detect semen? Maybe I'm wrong, but it certainly seems a test is possible evidenced by them asking for it during the trial and on appeal. Was there really something preventing them from testing it back then that has changed and is not preventing them from doing it now?

Oh give us a break, like you've been coy. You've outright accused everyone of X, Y and Z without knowing jack and then whined when called up on it.

World class investigators? They're paid by the state. What about a world class defence that have cost well in excess of million dollars who couldn't even test a pillow? What's their excuse?

And your question applies to the defence...what prevents them testing the pillow now...or yesterday...or last month? For that cost, were I the defendants, I'd have wanted it tested last YEAR. Unless it's not really important...which we all know it isn't.

 

[Danceme]

I also get a little impatient with discussions that are based on less than factual information, for example, the "keyhole" that supposedly allowed the defendants to look into Meredith's room and see her sleeping on the floor, or even the footprints, which no one has really been able to provide a definitive diagram of.

I agree. I would like to see a proper diagram. I would like to also see the high resolution photographs of Rudy's shoeprints outside Meredith's door which Bruce Fisher mentioned numerous times yet never posted. If he used them to convince himself of the leaving and locking of the door method Rudy must have employed, instead of writing complex descriptions for us to try at home I think we should get to see these photographs and make up our own minds.

 

[stilicho]

I agree that there is a lot that we could know more about. I've been careful to say that it "possibly" could be semen (as opposed to lying and saying it was "vaseline" with no proof at all). I think Charlie Wilkes needs to come back here and perhaps elaborate a little more, that would be nice.

I have a problem characterising that stain as anything specific either. I do object to characterising the collection or assessment of evidence as incompetent. I haven't read the estimated 10,000+ pages of evidence nor any of the primary sources regarding the cottage investigation.

There may be any number of different reasons the defence is asking for some sort of testing to be done but it seems they keep doing this after the fact. They declined to attend testing sessions and complained about it later. They had an official request for a recess allowed yet two weeks later complained that they actually meant they didn't have the correct files.

The Pillow Case Caper simply looks like another similar tactic. And of course sitting here thousands of kilometres away without one iota of the primary investigative data (which would be in the wrong language anyhow) I can't see how we can judge the relevance of the request.

Maybe this one is finally the smoking gun that will set Amanda free. I guess we'll find out on appeal.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I also get a little impatient with discussions that are based on less than factual information, for example, the "keyhole" that supposedly allowed the defendants to look into Meredith's room and see her sleeping on the floor, or even the footprints, which no one has really been able to provide a definitive diagram of.

The topic of the stain has been quite instructive, though, not necessarily for the subject matter but because it provides such a clear illustration of who wants to gain as much information as they can, versus who wants information covered up.

'Who' supposed that?

And information covered up? Good point. It explains why you guys are ignoring the Massei Report.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Oh give us a break, like you've been coy. You've outright accused everyone of X, Y and Z without knowing jack and then whined when called up on it.

World class investigators? They're paid by the state. What about a world class defence that have cost well in excess of million dollars who couldn't even test a pillow? What's their excuse?

And your question applies to the defence...what prevents them testing the pillow now...or yesterday...or last month? For that cost, were I the defendants, I'd have wanted it tested last YEAR. Unless it's not really important...which we all know it isn't.

Get over it. That you don't read isn't my fault. I never said it was semen. You lied and said you knew what it was and are going into hysterics over it. Don't lie and you won't have to get defensive. If you're saying I'm accusing you of lying, I'm definitely not. You did lie. And it wasn't the first time. No accusation necessary. Moving right along.