Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kestrel]

A PCR DNA test does, an LCN DNA test does not.

Please provide a source for you claim that PCR DNA test can differentiate between DNA from blood and DNA from other human cells.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Amazer,

In the previous thread I presented a lengthy quote from pp. 326-328 in the new afterward to "The Monster of Florence." I will summarize it by saying that journalist Francesca Bene identified the policewoman, saying "She's violent. She scares me."

Who subsequently denied she ever spoke to Preston.

 

[Fulcanelli]

So not being able to identify the person means it didn't happen? So the person that hit her in the back of the head was standing in front of her when she did it?

I'd know who hit me if I was hit. Are you suggesting Amanda was blindfolded? Couldn't turn her head? The person behind her remained standing behind her the whole questioning? Didn't start from a point in front of her to walk behind her?

Really, the whole argument of 'she was behind her, how could she know who hit was?' is a bit pitiful.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Actually, Rudy told police that he grabbed the towels out of that Bathroom to help stop Meredith's bleeding. So its not suspiciously blank, since its known that he took those towels. What i'm asking was there anything else missing. Was it entered into evidence that towels, or rags. Something that could have been used in the cleanup. Because we know the towels from that bathroom where brought to Meredith by Rudy. His own admission and he hasn't taken it back. Which means those towels where already in Meredith's room when this supposed clean up the prosecution claimed happened. This same clean up also happened after Rudy left, so any mention of the towels in Meredith's room had to happen before he left. So therefore those towels where not used to help clean up.

RoseMontague has argued passionately that no inventory was taken. So, if no inventory was taken, how can it be known if anything was missing?

I also recall the housemates were brought to the cottage to view the knives...to see if any were missing. I recall no reports that they were also taken to view the cleaning cupboard to see if any cleaning materials or products were missing.

So, how can the police know if any products were missing or not?

And incidentally, excuse the anecdote...but, were I to view my cleaning cupboard which contains lots of cleaning products, some rather obscure and old (which I bought because 'it seemed like a a good idea at the time') I very much doubt if I'd notice if a bottle/can/tub of this or that was missing.



In short...I don't think this is something that can ever be known.

 

[Mary_H]

It would have helped if she could have identified the person who hit her.
It would have helped if she had a witness who testified that a person hit her.

I'm sure that between the two of us we could come up with a number of things that could have helped settle this issue in favor of Amanda.

The fact that we have to deal with however that none of those things that could have helped settle this issue in favor of Amanda's claim have actually happened.

Quite the opposite actually. There is one independent witness, and that witness maintains nothing of the sort happened.

So while i recognize that it's not impossible that Amanda got slapped on the back of the head, I also recognize that there is absolutely no evidence presented that backs up this claim. Therefore i'm forced to conclude that said event did not occur.

Perhaps if you present new, fresh evidence that I will have to reconsider my position, but I somehow doubt that you will be able to.

One of the primary reasons behind taping interrogations is to protect the police from false claims of harassment or abuse. If the police don't have the foresight to tape interrogations, they should not expect to be automatically considered the most credible of differing sources about what happened. In this case, though, it seems to be a given. It really isn't fair -- they could get away with absolutely anything with a suspect alone in a room with them.

It's not as if Amanda mulled it over and days, weeks or months after the interrogation she said, "And, oh yeah, they hit me, too." She put it down in writing the same day it happened, before she had legal advice and before she talked to her mother or any advocates. If she were Italian, like Raffaele and Patrick, she might have known better than to make the claim, but she comes from the U.S., where you don't get sued for telling the truth about the cops.

Her note to the police is about trying to make some sense of everything that had happened up to that point. If she were lying in order to make the cops look bad, she could have gone into much greater detail than she did.

From the transcript of Amanda Knox's handwritten statement to police on the evening of November 6, the day she was arrested:

"The next thing I remember was waking up the morning of Friday November 2nd around 10am and I took a plastic bag to take back my dirty cloths to go back to my house. It was then that I arrived home alone that I found the door to my house was wide open and this all began. In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion. Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly. I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received."

She also wrote:

"I have a clearer mind that I've had before, but I'm still missing parts, which I know is bad for me. But this is the truth and this is what I'm thinking at this time. Please don't yell at me because it only makes me more confused, which doesn't help anyone. I understand how serious this situation is, and as such, I want to give you this information as soon and as clearly as possible."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1570225/Transcript-of-Amanda-Knoxs-note.html

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Or alternatively, LionKing could save much of their precious time and simply turn back a couple of pages to where I already answered this list of questions.

You did answer them in a very limited sense. You posted strings of text in response, true. However those questions were not... how should I put it...

But the fact they've been adequately factually answered

Thank you! They were not adequately and factually answered.

I refer you again to THIS POST which you "couldn't be arsed" responding to. Unfortunately those questions, and your answers, are not going to vanish whatever you can or cannot "be arsed" to do.

Your factual claims about the accuracy of stomach evidence are just plain wrong, as the scientific literature we have cited shows. Perhaps more damningly from the guilter perspective, where the scientific literature is seen as meaningless but Massei's pronunciations have Papal infallibility, the Massei report acknowledges this. Professor Ronchi is well aware that the lack of food in the duodenum falsifies the prosecution time of death unless he can rescue it with his fairy story about Lalli botching the autopsy.

Your factual claims about the DNA evidence on the knife and the floor, the handling of the hard drives and the "evidence" for a staged break-in were also just plain wrong, as we have demonstrated thoroughly.

You made no factual claims at all to refute the points made about the 22:13 ping, the fact that Amanda's statement has the characteristics of an internalised false confession, the 20:26 Naruto file opening, but merely handwaved these points away.

You couldn't even bring yourself to admit that you had Rudy's foot size completely wrong, and that the Massei report flatly contradicted you on this talking point too.

I mean seriously, when you're trying to pretend the Massei report doesn't exist because it's inconvenient for you, don't you have to ask yourself whether just maybe you've got a problem here?

and you are still asking them proves my point about the pointlessness of engaging in debate with you. A hundred other people could answer your list and you'd still be posting it, like it was fresh.

A hundred could answer it as you did, certainly, and indeed the list would not change.

I don't know where you think you are posting, but around here scientific evidence is respected, facts are respected, and bluster doesn't cut any ice.

Oh and just a tip, drop the leading and preaching ones.

It seems to me that it's working exactly as intended, exactly as it is.

It's going to keep getting posted until it gets satisfactory answers, too

 

[Chris_Halkides]

antibodies

I have a question on a somehow parallel topic of the luminol traces.

From what I read it appears that both TMB and luminol are presumptive tests for blood.
Does anybody know what kind of confirmatory tests for blood were used on the traces detected by luminol?

Katody,

There are also immunological confirmatory tests, meaning tests using antibodies, but I have no information on whether or not they were used in this case.

 

[Mary_H]

Does that method also apply to Rudy Guede?

There's evidence against Rudy Guede.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Her note to the police is about trying to make some sense of everything that had happened up to that point. If she were lying in order to make the cops look bad, she could have gone into much greater detail than she did.

Ahh, Amanda 'wrote it'...it MUST be true

 

[Fulcanelli]

There's evidence against Rudy Guede.

As there is against Amanda and Raffaele...so much in fact, it took eleven months to debate in court.

 

[Kestrel]

Oh, Kestrel...keep up!

You're a big boy now, you should know this stuff already. Don't be demanding I waste my time running around the web to teach you the basics. Google is your friend...look it up for yourself...I'm busy.

Argument by insult and reversal of burden of proof.

 

[Mary_H]

Ahh, Amanda 'wrote it'...it MUST be true

Ahh, the police 'said it'...it MUST be true.

 

[Fulcanelli]

One of the primary reasons behind taping interrogations is to protect the police from false claims of harassment or abuse. If the police don't have the foresight to tape interrogations, they should not expect to be automatically considered the most credible of differing sources about what happened. In this case, though, it seems to be a given. It really isn't fair -- they could get away with absolutely anything with a suspect alone in a room with them.

Which only applies to questioning of suspects. Not the taking of statements from witnesses.

We've been here, we've done this.

 

[Dan O.]

Does that method also apply to Rudy Guede?

A skeptic would form a premiss and rationally discuss it in an open forum. I find that there are very few skeptics here.

 

[Mary_H]

As there is against Amanda and Raffaele...so much in fact, it took eleven months to debate in court.

That observation could work for or against your position. The length of time it takes to debate something could suggest that a great many details are at issue but that there are no objective authorities present to put the issues to rest. It also could suggest that there are people with their minds made up, who will not allow themselves to be affected by facts.

In this case, though, all it suggests it that the trial was conducted two days a week and they took the summer off.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Ahh, the police 'said it'...it MUST be true.

Since they are not on trial for any crime I'm inclined to believe them, unless any evidence is provided to suggest otherwise.

That is a reasonable position. It is also the legal position, the one the law and the courts take.

Clearly, you want to reverse the process...reading you, one would think it was the police on trial. It's a wonder they can ever do their job.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Katody,

There are also immunological confirmatory tests, meaning tests using antibodies, but I have no information on whether or not they were used in this case.

It seems strange that they didn't bother with confirmatory tests. I guess even if they did such tests they were negative for blood otherwise the results would be disclosed.

 

[Mary_H]

Which only applies to questioning of suspects. Not the taking of statements from witnesses.

We've been here, we've done this.

By that logic, the police should have no fear of false accusations of harassment and abuse of witnesses. I repeat, it really isn't fair. The police could get away with absolutely anything with a witness alone in a room with them.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Your factual claims about the accuracy of stomach evidence are just plain wrong, as the scientific literature we have cited shows. Perhaps more damningly from the guilter perspective, where the scientific literature is seen as meaningless but Massei's pronunciations have Papal infallibility, the Massei report acknowledges this. Professor Ronchi is well aware that the lack of food in the duodenum falsifies the prosecution time of death unless he can rescue it with his fairy story about Lalli botching the autopsy.

Okay Kevin...this is from an expert:

Gastric contents

If the last known meal is still present in the stomach of a
corpse and the time of that meal is known, then it can give
some general indication of the interval between the meal and
death. In general if all or almost all of the last meal is present
within the stomach then, in the absence of any unusual factors,
there is a reasonable medical certainty that death occurred
within 3 to 4 hours of eating. Similarly if half of the meal is
present then it is reasonably certain that death occurred not
less than one hour and not more than 10 hours after eating.
However, these are broad generalisations and difficulties arise
in individual cases because the biology of gastric emptying is
complex and influenced by a wide variety of factors including
the size and type of meal, drugs, stress and natural disease.

Remarkably liquids, digestible solids and non-digestible solids
ingested together in the same meal will leave the stomach at
different rates. The emptying of low-calorie liquids is volume-dependant
(monexponential) resulting from the motor activity
of the proximal stomach. By contrast digestible solids empty
more slowly, in an approximately linear pattern after an initial
lag period, primarily as a result of the motor activity of the
distal stomach. Non-digestible solids which cannot be ground
up by the stomach into smaller particles are emptied after the
liquid and digestible solids, during the so called inter-digestive
period, as a result of a specific wave of motor activity in the
stomach. In general meals of a higher osmotic and caloric
content are emptied more slowly.

However, there is a substantial variation in gastric emptying
rates in normal people. Individuals who suffer severe injuries
resulting in coma and survive several days in hospital may still
have their last meal within the stomach at autopsy. These are
extreme examples of delayed gastric emptying but serve to
illustrate the point that the stomach is a poor forensic timekeeper.

There have been several cases of alleged miscarriages of
justice in which medical experts have wrongly used the
stomach contents at autopsy to provide estimates of time of
death to an accuracy of half an hour whereas the degree of
accuracy possible is at best within a range of 3 or 4 hours.

TIME SINCE DEATH

 

[Mary_H]

Since they are not on trial for any crime I'm inclined to believe them, unless any evidence is provided to suggest otherwise.

That is a reasonable position. It is also the legal position, the one the law and the courts take.

Clearly, you want to reverse the process...reading you, one would think it was the police on trial. It's a wonder they can ever do their job.

I find the resistance to believing what Amanda wrote very odd in light of the fact that her statement is often used to support arguments against her, as is her false confession. You guys get to have both ways -- Amanda is lying when you say she is lying, but if she says something that suggests she's guilty, then she's telling the truth. How convenient for you. How easy, non-reflective and inconsistent.

Your position -- "the legal position, the one the law and the courts take" -- would be reasonable under reasonable circumstances, but obviously the circumstance surrounding this case are extraordinary. That is why many of us have become skeptical of what is normally a reasonable position.