Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Katody Matrass]

"Raffaele had no reason to disbelieve the DNA result, so he conjured up an answer to the question of why the profile was there, "

Hmm! So he was lying, then.

Interesting, that it is not what he said in court or during an interview by a judge or the police. Wasn't it something he scribbled in his diary while sitting in jail in shaky mental state, having what was it? Tachycardia, panic attacks?

I'm not sure I would convict someone based on this.

 

[quadraginta]

Apart from broken window, damaged sill, glass spray indicating a rock thrown from the outside, traces of dust, a snagged cable indicating that someone tripped on it when jumping in, possible missing nails in the wall (not investigated), possible scuff marks (not investigated), possible glass in the foliage below (not investigated) what other traces must have been left by an intruder according to you?

Apparently not having any photos on the internet of police in the act of looking through the leaves constitutes incontrovertible proof that the leaves were not looked through.

Or something.

Your litany of "traces" have all been discussed ad nauseum, but no more convincingly than the one I just picked out. Except for people who want to believe that there had to be a break-in.

There's too many "could have" and "might have" and "what if"scenarios needed to make it work.

Sorry.

 

[RoseMontague]

"Raffaele had no reason to disbelieve the DNA result, so he conjured up an answer to the question of why the profile was there, "

Hmm! So he was lying, then.

Meredith's DNA was not on the knife blade before it was collected because it was not the murder weapon. If it was there at all (which is doubtful), it is the result of contamination. The first lie is that there is Meredith's DNA on the knife blade, Rudy's response is BS along those same lines (some here will disagree).

 

[Katody Matrass]

So the clothes were already on the floor when they were dusted with chalk, probably from the rock.

I commented once on this. But i noticed something else about the comment also. The clothes would have had to already been on the floor which goes against prosecutions staged crime scene theory.

Nice catch Chris C and piktor

 

[RoseMontague]

Apparently not having any photos on the internet of police in the act of looking through the leaves constitutes incontrovertible proof that the leaves were not looked through.

Or something.

Your litany of "traces" have all been discussed ad nauseum, but no more convincingly than the one I just picked out. Except for people who want to believe that there had to be a break-in.

There's too many "could have" and "might have" and "what if"scenarios needed to make it work.

Sorry.

You keep ripping different scenario's and disputing posts from those that think that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent, yet I still have not heard your theory nor even your opinion on this case. Maybe I missed something. I would like to know what you think.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Kekule's strictures

"Raffaele had no reason to disbelieve the DNA result, so he conjured up an answer to the question of why the profile was there, "

Hmm! So he was lying, then.

Colonelhall,

I don't think any of us can be sure he was lying. People can convince themselves of things that did not happen. I had this happen to me the other day in lab (I remembered a brown solid as being a clear liquid).

Another possibility is that he was referring to Amanda, not Meredith, when he said he pricked "her." This implies secondary transfer of Meredith's DNA onto Amanda, then onto the knife. The general idea of secondary transfer to the knife is not easy to dismiss out of hand. Dr. Alexander Kekule is a professor in the subject area of microbial genetics who sometimes writes on current events for a German newspaper (his article has some minor factual errors). He wrote, “The DNA traces on the knife blade could have been transmitted through the hands of Amanda Knox, who lived together with the victim and used her boyfriend’s knife for cooking. The evidence would have more weight if in addition blood stains were found.”


I think it is worthwhile to raise these caveats; however, for the purposes of further discussion, I am willing to assume what he said referred to Meredith and was false.

 

[Chris C]

Apparently not having any photos on the internet of police in the act of looking through the leaves constitutes incontrovertible proof that the leaves were not looked through.

Or something.

Your litany of "traces" have all been discussed ad nauseum, but no more convincingly than the one I just picked out. Except for people who want to believe that there had to be a break-in.

There's too many "could have" and "might have" and "what if"scenarios needed to make it work.

Sorry.

They sure did make alot of noise about their pictures of the luminol prints though didn't they. You know, the luminol prints with no dna in it. Funny how luminol can pick up old blodd stains 10,000 years old and use LCN to find the dna. Yet they can't find dna in luminol prints a few weeks old.

Perhaps a few pictures of the grass with no glass would have helped prove there was no glass there.

 

[colonelhall]

"The first lie is that there is Meredith's DNA on the knife blade,"

You may think that this is a lie, but there is evidence to back it up.

I am glad that you agree that he was lying though.

"I'm not sure I would convict someone based on this."

So lying is O.K. and not the sign of a guilty person? I get it. With arguments like this, is it no wonder that people have given up on this thread?

 

[quadraginta]

What evidence was gathered to prove a break in didn't happen? 2 dna swabs on the window? Theories by the judge that claims not only was the break in staged, but they staged the break in to look exactly like it wasn't staged.

That's one of the silliest statements I've ever heard, even for this thread, which is quite an achievement.

If someone sets out to stage a break-in, just what exactly would you expect them to try and make it look like?

I'm trying to visualize the conversation.

"Let's stage this break-in to make it look faked. That'll fool 'em."

"Um. Don't you think we oughta try and make it look like a real break-in, so they'll suspect someone else?"

"Gee, maybe you're right. Okay, we'll try to stage it so it doesn't look staged. Good thinking."

 

[colonelhall]

halides1 - Give up for goodness sake, you are starting to look foolish.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Apparently not having any photos on the internet of police in the act of looking through the leaves constitutes incontrovertible proof that the leaves were not looked through.

Well, it's their job to document their work. From what I've seen up to now I don't believe them by word.
BTW the best clue that they didn't search is how Massei tip-toes around that subject in the motivation.

Your litany of "traces" have all been discussed ad nauseum, but no more convincingly than the one I just picked out. Except for people who want to believe that there had to be a break-in.

There's too many "could have" and "might have" and "what if"scenarios needed to make it work.

Sorry.

So you concede there is enough evidence of a break-in? I agree.

 

[piktor]

Are you saying that some here believe Rudy did it because he was black?

No. Some people here have concluded all accusations and against Guede are right and all accusations and evidence against the other two defendants are wrong.

The same investigation that put Guede in jail was used to put the two other defendants in jail.

Somehow if it all points to Guede, there is no problem.

If there is no trace of Guede in Filomena's room, that's ok. He WAS in that room and left no traces.

Knox/Sollecito left no traces in Meredith's room, so, they WERE NOT there.

There are traces of Knox mixed with Meredith's blood in Filomena's room but Knox WAS NOT there.

There are no traces of Guede in the small bathroom and the bloody foot print on the bathmat is too small for his foot size but IT IS his, although measurements describe Sollecito's foot but it IS NOT Sollecito's. And on and on.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

This is the thread where
the prosecution was wrong,
the police was wrong,
the judges were wrong
and
the defense was wrong.

What was right:
the black guy did it. ​

Piktor,

I happen to think that the defense was basically right in this case (not perfect), and I am not sure what you mean when you say that they were wrong.

In the Duke lacrosse case the prosecution was wrong, the police were wrong, the judges were wrong, but the defense was right. I would go further and say that the prosecutor and police were demonstrably corrupt. "Until Proven Innocent" can be consulted to verify these statements (or PM me). I think Charlie or any number of other people here could give us examples of miscarriages of justice that involve something other than a single bad apple.

 

[quadraginta]

You keep ripping different scenario's and disputing posts from those that think that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent, yet I still have not heard your theory nor even your opinion on this case. Maybe I missed something. I would like to know what you think.

Probably missed something.

Start here to catch up.

 

[LondonJohn]

They sure did make alot of noise about their pictures of the luminol prints though didn't they. You know, the luminol prints with no dna in it. Funny how luminol can pick up old blodd stains 10,000 years old and use LCN to find the dna. Yet they can't find dna in luminol prints a few weeks old.

Perhaps a few pictures of the grass with no glass would have helped prove there was no glass there.

Or, even more preferably, a police report stating unequivocally that the area below the window was sealed as a crime scene, and that a fingertip search of the ground, including a sifting of the leaves for very small glass shards, had taken place. If there was a report stating that these things were done and no traces of glass were found, then I'd be confident in believing that there was in fact no glass on the ground underneath the window. Until then though, it's fallacious to infer that there was no glass there.

 

[quadraginta]

They sure did make alot of noise about their pictures of the luminol prints though didn't they. You know, the luminol prints with no dna in it. Funny how luminol can pick up old blodd stains 10,000 years old and use LCN to find the dna. Yet they can't find dna in luminol prints a few weeks old.

Perhaps a few pictures of the grass with no glass would have helped prove there was no glass there.

Do you really think that? Would you believe such pictures if you were to see some?

Would that be proof for you?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Willingham lied but he was probably innocent

halides1 - Give up for goodness sake, you are starting to look foolish.

colonelhall,

If you think an argument is foolish, spell out why. Otherwise, it is just an argument from intellectual intimidation, and I don't think those are very convincing.

With respect to a comment of yours about lying, I can offer the Cameron Todd Willingham case in Texas. He lied to the investigators about having entered his daughters' room to try to save them from a fire. He was executed for arson, yet every single indicator of arson used by the fire inspector either had been or later was discredited by advances in arson forensics. Perhaps he paid for his lie with his life, inasmuch as many now believe he was innocent.

Innocent people lie frequently. It is not a smart thing to do, but it does happen. Moreover, Raffaele's probable lie was not even intended for anyone else to see, IMHO. It was in his prison diary.

 

[Chris C]

That's one of the silliest statements I've ever heard, even for this thread, which is quite an achievement.

If someone sets out to stage a break-in, just what exactly would you expect them to try and make it look like?

I'm trying to visualize the conversation.

"Let's stage this break-in to make it look faked. That'll fool 'em."

"Um. Don't you think we oughta try and make it look like a real break-in, so they'll suspect someone else?"

"Gee, maybe you're right. Okay, we'll try to stage it so it doesn't look staged. Good thinking."

Actually its the prosecution/judges theory not mine.
They had to break the glass while standing in the room and make it look like the rock was thrown from outside while the windows where closed.

So to come up with a working theory, the prosecution/judge propose they trashed the room, walked outside, got a rock, came back inside, broke the window from inside the room while the window was closed, picked up clothes and put glass underneath them, picked up glass and put it on the window sill, then opened the shutters. They had enough common sense to do all this to stage a crime scene.

Yet, they didn't have enough common sense to open the shutters walk outside, pick up a rock and toss it through the window. Then grab something from the room that filomena was sure to miss. All they needed was a broken window to prove a break in happened. The dead body would have verified everything else. Yet instead they decide to trash filomena's room and take nothing.

 

[RoseMontague]

"The first lie is that there is Meredith's DNA on the knife blade,"

You may think that this is a lie, but there is evidence to back it up.

I am glad that you agree that he was lying though.

"I'm not sure I would convict someone based on this."

So lying is O.K. and not the sign of a guilty person? I get it. With arguments like this, is it no wonder that people have given up on this thread?

There was a unapproved LCN DNA testing procedure in a lab set not set up for handling LCN DNA that violates most of the standards and protocols set for LCN DNA testing. If you are really interested I can give you some links.

As for lying that is everybody as far as I am concerned.

 

[Chris C]

Do you really think that? Would you believe such pictures if you were to see some?

Would that be proof for you?

Yeah, showing that they actually performed an investigation into their claim of a false break in would be proof that they tried to perform their job.