• 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.

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chris C said:
So your saying the document Knox signed at 0145 was in English and the interpreter typed it up, without the use of a recording device.
Click to expand...


Bare innuendo. No, it was in Italian. But since Knox does not deny that she indeed said was in it, it doesn't matter, does it? It sound to me like you're nitpicking for the sake of it, desperate to try and find fault and hoping some of the mud you fling sticks. That's not honest debate.
 
Fulcanelli said:
They were provided with everything they were legally entitled to under Italian law.
Click to expand...

If you are correct, I cannot therefore comprehend why the defence would be arguing the opposite in the appeal. From what I have read (in this very thread) it has been shown quite clearly that evidence HAS been withheld, so I would have to disagree respectfully with what you wrote. Particularly if the appeals court rules in the defence's favour about the withheld evidence...
 
RoseMontague said:
Point taken and well made. My statement that I found it hard to believe was correct only in its subjectivity. I don't think people realize that many common products contain bleach. If those young women scrubbed their shower stall or bathtub they probably used a product containing bleach and may not have even known it.
Click to expand...

Bloody amazing how that shower stall isn't lighting up like Saturday night at the disco then isn't it? Just as amazing is how there arenj't lots of luminol footprints leading out from the shower, don't you think? Maybe she just has 'special' feet that attract bleach while other people's don't? A bit like her 'special' DNA, that 'flakes off' her more then anyone else...except for wait, Raffaele who has even more special DNA...he has homing DNA :)
 
Scorpion NITE said:
If you are correct, I cannot therefore comprehend why the defence would be arguing the opposite in the appeal. From what I have read (in this very thread) it has been shown quite clearly that evidence HAS been withheld, so I would have to disagree respectfully with what you wrote. Particularly if the appeals court rules in the defence's favour about the withheld evidence...
Click to expand...

Because it's the defence job to argue that.

No evidence was with held. The defence was given everything they had a legal right to. The defence asked for more stuff which as was stated in the trial, the prosecution don't normally give to defence counsel in criminal cases, but agreed to hand over what they had left. This was of no help to the defence (which is why that data is not normally given). The defence asked for more to which the prosecution declared "There is no more, they have everything, that's all there is".

One can't be withholding data if there is no data to withhold.
 
Fulcanelli said:
Bloody amazing how that shower stall isn't lighting up like Saturday night at the disco then isn't it? Just as amazing is how there arenj't lots of luminol footprints leading out from the shower, don't you think? Maybe she just has 'special' feet that attract bleach while other people's don't? A bit like her 'special' DNA, that 'flakes off' her more then anyone else...except for wait, Raffaele who has even more special DNA...he has homing DNA :)
Click to expand...

I sure it may have lit up like a Christmas tree on the fourth of July right after it was cleaned and those footprints were made. Many showers later of course, it's going to light up like a damp match in a hurricane in January.

The prints can't be dated because the blood tests were negatory.
 
Fulcanelli said:
Because it's the defence job to argue that.

No evidence was with held. The defence was given everything they had a legal right to. The defence asked for more stuff which as was stated in the trial, the prosecution don't normally give to defence counsel in criminal cases, but agreed to hand over what they had left. This was of no help to the defence (which is why that data is not normally given). The defence asked for more to which the prosecution declared "There is no more, they have everything, that's all there is".

One can't be withholding data if there is no data to withhold.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and in the process handed over evidence that Stefanoni lied.
 
Chris C said:
appeals and stefanoni testimony in court.
Click to expand...

It's in the appeal...then it MUST be true :rolleyes:

No other female profiles were found in the blood. All that was found was a partial trace, broken DNA. If you haven't got a profile, it doesn't count.

And by the way, unless you speak Italian, I wouldn't be referring to the appeals for ANYTHING, because it would mean you must be using Bruce Fisher's translation summaries. Only they are not translation summaries. Bruce has changed much of the original meaning and added in his own opinions and interpretations. There is much in Bruce Fishers summaries that isn't actually in the original appeals.

That leaves you with Google Translate...'nuff said.


So, be very VERY careful with those appeals.
 
RoseMontague said:
I sure it may have lit up like a Christmas tree on the fourth of July right after it was cleaned and those footprints were made. Many showers later of course, it's going to light up like a damp match in a hurricane in January.

The prints can't be dated because the blood tests were negatory.
Click to expand...


If the prints are old, any bleach will have dissipated.

And in any case, when one cleans a shower, one does not only clean the portion onto which the water sprays. All evidence of that cleaner would not just vanish without a trace. That shower would still light up.

Anyway, back to the original point off repeated, both Laura and Filomena testified they never used bleach or products that contained bleach.
 
Fulcanelli said:
It's in the appeal...then it MUST be true :rolleyes:

No other female profiles were found in the blood. All that was found was a partial trace, broken DNA. If you haven't got a profile, it doesn't count.

And by the way, unless you speak Italian, I wouldn't be referring to the appeals for ANYTHING, because it would mean you must be using Bruce Fisher's translation summaries. Only they are not translation summaries. Bruce has changed much of the original meaning and added in his own opinions and interpretations. There is much in Bruce Fishers summaries that isn't actually inthe original appeals.

That leaves you with Google Translate...'nuff said.


So, be very VERY careful with those appeals.
Click to expand...

I'll be as careful with the appeals as I was with the Massei report before it was translated. thoughtful has a nice summary of Raffaele's appeal that I refer to quite often. In any event, the appeals in Italian are out there if anyone wants to claim a Google rendered version distorts the meaning of a quote. Here is one for instance (Amanda's appeal/Google translation):

4. Finally, we must bring an additional scientific data that contradicts the Grounds.
From reading the electropherograms for tracks mixed Knox - since Kercher
analyzed here can not exclude the presence of an additional track
Biological attributable to third female subject.
Dr. Stefanoni said:
Ø <<could not exclude a third person because it profiles
very balanced>> (May 22, 2009 hearing transcript, p.. 222).
Ø <<In that case there may be a third person always female but the same features in this mixture>> (May 22, 2009 hearing transcript, p.. 229).
Ø <<And she mixed in genetic profiles that relate to the Knox preclude us
was a third person? R - This is what I was trying to say. I can not just exclude>> (hearing transcripts hearing May 22, 2009, p.. 222).
Ø <<These couplings are different so that I can include other people than those already present. This bit is u n 'and the say ...Here of course we talk about compatibility because there are certainly alleles of the victim and Knox, precisely with this combination can not be excluded that there are
more ...>> (transcripts holding a hearing May 22, 2009, p..
225).
The presence of a third person was also represented by undetectable
consultant to plaintiff, Dr. Torricelli.
Click to expand...
 
Dr. Tagliabracci; electronic data files

Fulcanelli said:
Erm, it IS a complete profile, it is Raffaele's profile.
Click to expand...

Fulcanelli,

Dr. Tagliabracci disputed many of the loci. If the profile at these loci do not match, then it is not Raffaele's DNA. Massei's reasoning that since 11 loci do match, the result should be accepted is absolutely wrong. Raffaele's appeal also discusses this. BTW, some of us know people who speak Italian, so your comment to the effect that we have to either rely upon Bruce Fisher's summaries or Google is nonsense.

On the subject of the prosecution's failure to release files, I found a quote from Andrea Roth's article, "Safety in Numbers." She wrote, "While defendants are able to cross-examine the DNA analyst about various aspects of the testing process and are typically given pretrial (upon request) a compact disc containing all the electronic data generated by the analysis software..." If you believe that Italian law stipulates otherwise, how about a citation to that effect?
 
RoseMontague said:
Point taken and well made. My statement that I found it hard to believe was correct only in its subjectivity. I don't think people realize that many common products contain bleach. If those young women scrubbed their shower stall or bathtub they probably used a product containing bleach and may not have even known it.

Interesting you mentioned oxi-clean in your earlier statement. I have looked for a list of many common products that cause a false positive reaction to luminol and ran across a science fair experiment (LOL) that showed oxi-clean reacted with luminol.

http://www.berkshirereb.org/UserFiles/File/transcript science fair 3-10.doc



Interesting that a very common product like vinegar also caused a reaction. Christianna, my research also concluded that the best method of cleaning up blood with a non luminol reacting substance= CocaCola (LOL). BTW did you ever buy that luminol testing kit?
Click to expand...

Hello Rose,

No, that wasn't me who was to purchase a kit - it was Humanity Blues. I don't know if he actually did purchase one and use it.
 
Fulcanelli said:
If the prints are old, any bleach will have dissipated.

And in any case, when one cleans a shower, one does not only clean the portion onto which the water sprays. All evidence of that cleaner would not just vanish without a trace. That shower would still light up.

Anyway, back to the original point off repeated, both Laura and Filomena testified they never used bleach or products that contained bleach.
Click to expand...

Everybody keeps saying that, so maybe you have a cite for it. I found no inventory of household cleaning products or mention of this testimony in the Massei report. In fact, such testimony seems curiously absent from the reports reasoning regarding this issue. If it were the case that there were no products containing bleach in the apartment I would think Massei would bring it up. Instead he says this:

283
It would also be necessary to believe that one or more of these substances had been present in the various rooms in which the Luminol gave a positive result; in Romanelli's room, in Knox's room, in the corridor. It appears - it was held - clearly possible that fruit juice might have been spilled in one or more places in the house; it seems [more] difficult to believe that it could have been spilled in Amanda's room, in Romanelli's room and in the corridor in front of the wall separating Amanda's room from Meredith's. These considerations also hold for the other Luminol-positive substances such as rust, various vegetables, etc. The argument concerning bleach is different: in cleaning the house, such a product might indeed have been spread about in the various rooms. But in actual fact, it was not known when and by whom such widespread and extensive cleaning, and which had involved these various rooms, had been carried out.
Click to expand...
 
Fulcanelli said:
Hardly, they held it by the edges, were wearing gloves and the clasp was dry. Raffaele's profile was on the hooks which weren't touched at all. DNA cannot be added or removed in those circumstances. But nice hyperbole anyway.
Click to expand...


Have you watched the video lately, Fulcanelli? They hold the clasp almost exclusively by the hooks. It's almost as if they think the hooks are there for them to have something to hold onto. They even rub at least one of the hooks at the beginning of the video. They try much harder to preserve the cloth than the hooks.

Notice, too, how the hooks are stretched out, as a result of the bra being pulled off. DNA might have been on the hooks if the attacker had used his fingers to unfasten the bra, but it's obvious that whoever took it off just yanked it hard -- maybe even from the front -- so they wouldn't have to bother with the hooks.

The rest is a straw man. Nobody ever suggested they cleaned up all of Raffaele's DNA.
Click to expand...


Oh, really? I have seen it suggested many, many times. I thought the guilters' argument has always been that Raffaele and Amanda cleaned up the crime scene after themselves.

Since you don't however believe there was a clean-up and if his presence anywhere in the cottage would leave his DNA painted everywhere like emulsion, we can only conclude Raffaele had never stepped foot in the cottage in his life. All those visits in previous days Raffaele made to the cottage? Never happened. Raffaele in the cottage searching it and trying to break down Meredith's door? Never happened. Raffaele showing the postal police around the cottage. Never happened.

Either that, or it's very difficult to actually leave DNA and a lack of it is not unusual.

Which one is it Mary?
Click to expand...


I am willing to agree with you that a lack of DNA is not unusual under normal circumstances, although I'm not sure we have any evidence of the forensic police going over every inch of the cottage with a fine-tooth comb, as they presumably did in the murder room.

Can you cite any forensic experts who will certify that a young man can hold a struggling murder victim and participate in the knifing and sexual assault of the victim without leaving any evidence of his presence?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom