Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RWVBWL]

i didn't argue from this forum's authority. What i requested was for you to stop stating 'the court believed it' to back up anything you say. The court's decision is exactly what's in question here, or this thread would not exist.

Lol, this forum was around long before this case came to be discussed here. And it will most likely still be around long after this case has reached its final conclusion.

This particular thread however is a different story.

__________________________________________________________________________

Hi Withnail1969,
After reading Amazer's response earlier today to your simple mistake, mis-stating forum for use of the word thread, I realized that he is from the other side, you know, the 1 that probably had thought that Ci vediamo piu tardi. Buona serata, ACTUALLY meant "I will see you later". LOL...
RWVBWL

PS-I wanted to comment then, but had to run out the door.
Just noticed that you have corrected it though!
Have a good one, RWVBWL

 

[isotope1]

1) RG claims he went into the room and found Meredith dying. He then left the room, went to the bathroom to get some towels, and then went back to Meredith. Guede admits to going to the bathroom where the bloody footprint was found, and then returning back to Meredith. Then he left. Guede's words, not the defenses. Of course guilters try to forget Guede's admissions. Because nearly all contradict what the prosecution convicted knox/sollecito of.

Even as I try to withhold a stance on AK/RS guilt, RS claims (above) appear solidly bogus. Shoe prints (in room + hallway + out the front door), hand print, dna, etc evidence in MKs room pretty much make his assertions nonsense. Case for me turns on "others", and evidence for same.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Oh really?
And what are your credentials, professional qualifications, work experience, research etc that would qualify your group as such experts in the field of human behavior?

I'm sure you are already aware that the guilter group has some very unsavoury members, Mary_H, but it's still worth saying that I would strongly advise not responding to any attempts to bait you into posting personally identifying information where nutbags can see it.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Massei's genetics

Hello Machiavelli.

I think I have the same opinion from my first time reading the motivations. I have never thought Massei reasoned it was acceptable for the disputed loci not to match Raffaele.

Massei gives deference to Stefanoni's interpetation over Professor Tagliabracci's interpretation and gives his reasoning for doing so. Massei is not stating that because a majority of the loci matched Raffaele it is good enough even if the rest do not. Massei is saying that Stefanoni's interpretation and method are sound which makes the whole result reliable.

Christianahannah,

I agree with Katy_did. Massei might have simply said words to the effect, “I take Dr. Stefanoni’s views over Dr. Tagliabracci’s.” Yet he did not. He specifically points out that profiles used to consist of only six loci, and also that the number of undisputed loci is greater than the disputed loci. If he did not intend those facts to be construed as a portion of his reason, then there was no point in mentioning them.

 

[Withnail1969]

isotope,

Charlie Wilkes has explained it here by the following scenario: Guede took off his shoe to clean blood. At some point he stepped into bloody water and put his foot on the bathmat or onto a towel on top of the bathmat making the print. Then he put his shoe back on and went back into the bedroom. Hope this helps.

i envisage Rudy with blood splashed over the uppers of his (white)? tennis shoes. he rinsed off the blood in the bathroom to avoid anyone noticing the obvious stains on the way home, but didn't leave bloodstains in the corridor because there was no blood on the soles.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

alleles and loci

Actually i think its more complicated than that. If they used STR Analysis DNA testing, I think the loci have to come in pairs.

SNIP

Example of my Paternity Test.

D3S1358
Mother 14,17
Child 17,17
Father 17,17

vWA
Mother 16,18
Child 15,16
Father 15,17

Chris_C

Just a quick note on terminology. The alleles at a single locus come in pairs, such as 15,16 in vWA. The only exception is when the child inherits identical alleles from both parents, as 17 in the D3 locus. The loci come from various DNA locations, mostly on different chromosomes.

 

[Withnail1969]

I was just reading the front page of http://truejustice.org/. What a piece of ◊◊◊◊! They were wanting people to submit the names of people hostile to Italy as a result of the AK and RS verdict. So Americans that exercise freedom of speech are to be sued? The implication was that H. Clinton wanted the information!

I tried to get on their forum about a year ago. They wouldn't let me on! They didn't know me from Adam, yet they denied my membership. It's a closed site. They don't want freedom of speech unless it is their own.

Run that one by me again - they want a list of names of Americans who have expressed negative sentiments about Italy as a presumed result of the trial? Where would they be sued and on what grounds? I'm not really understanding this.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Run that one by me again - they want a list of names of Americans who have expressed negative sentiments about Italy as a presumed result of the trial? Where would they be sued and on what grounds? I'm not really understanding this.

I wouldn't take too much stock in such postering. The idiot also said hate speech is illegal in the United States.

"Hate speech is a crime in this country. Those who propagate hate speech tend to end up being watched these days. We have heard from someone in Congress that hate speech against Italy has gone up 4-5 times since this case began, and Italy has become one of the most reviled of countries. There is now at least one investigation, as we have already posted."


I know it sounds crazy, but if you have a hard time understanding the concept that unpopular speech is protected, here is a little known law from 1776 that should help explain it.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

DNA evidence summary

Even as I try to withhold a stance on AK/RS guilt, RS claims (above) appear solidly bogus. Shoe prints (in room + hallway + out the front door), hand print, dna, etc evidence in MKs room pretty much make his assertions nonsense. Case for me turns on "others", and evidence for same.

isotope,

A summary of some of the DNA evidence has recently been offered at this site. BTW my favorite isotope of carbon is C-13 because one can see it in nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy.

 

[Machiavelli]

This is simply not correct, and I am finding it increasingly difficult to take your denials seriously.

You, who are not able to understand when a single sentence can be interpreted in only one meaning? You find it difficult to take seriously what I write? Strange.

 

[Mary_H]

Ms. Nara had no chronometer with her. She testified she heard a terrible scream. Ms. Monnacchia also heard a terrible scream that night and she, too, had no chronometer or audiometer to gauge the decibel digit to write down for the scientifically inclined.

They both testified in good faith and their testimony is part of the investigation. They were believable to the people hearing the case in Perugia.

That's as scientific an honest lay witness will get. It would be truly unbelievable if these two ladies had said any different.

The testimony of these ear witnesses is unreliable. Research studies show that false memories can be planted by suggestion, somewhat easily, in fact. Neither woman reported hearing a scream until after she had learned there had been a murder. This is basically the same process that happened with Quintavalle, who said he remembered seeing a girl at his store, and, "It was the girl I saw in the newspaper." There is no way to rule out in any of these cases that the witnesses weren't influenced by what they learned after the murder had been discovered.

Another reason to question the credibility of the ear witnesses is that they both reported hearing the scream upon awakening from sleep. Mrs. Capezzalli claims to have been up already, while Ms. Monacchia said she was awakened by the sound of people arguing. People's senses are not very reliable when they first wake up. Sometimes sounds in our dreams wake us up and we think we actually heard what we dreamt, until we check with someone else who says that no such sound was taking place at that time.

On the other hand, Mrs. Capezalli said she always wakes up about two hours after having gone to sleep. According to sleep research, at the 2-hour mark of a night's sleep, the sleeper is on her way into stages 3 or 4 (deep) sleep, the stages at which it is hardest to wake up. She has gone through one complete sleep cycle, starting with stage 1 (light), descending through stages 2 and 3 to stage 4 at about the one-hour mark, then climbing back up to stage 1 and into REM sleep (very light) at 90 minutes, and then back down. If Mrs. Capezalli was waking during a period of deep sleep every night, it is reasonable to expect she would be groggy at that particular time.

Ms. Monacchia, on the other hand, says she went to bed around 11:00 and doesn't know what time she woke up. She said, "I looked at the clock and it was late; after, I can’t say the precise time, I woke up hearing two people arguing in an animated way, a man and a woman in Italian; after which I heard an extremely loud scream and, seized by anxiety, I opened the window and looked to see if there was someone outside, but I couldn’t see anything and I closed the window." (page 97)

The easiest time for her to have been awakened by the argument would have been when she was in REM sleep, which is the lightest stage, but that would put her waking up around 12:30, not 11:30. She could have been awakened by arguing during deep sleep, if it were really loud, but she also says the man and the woman were arguing in Italian, and Amanda wasn't fluent in Italian at that time, so it's unlikely that's who she heard.

http://www.lucidipedia.com/library/index.php?wakka=REMsleep

http://www.biotele.com/facts.html

Judge Massei's reasoning about Mrs. Capezzali is frankly ridiculous:

"Several times in the course of her own deposition Mrs. Capezzali spoke of a special scream, heart-rending to the point that after she heard it she could not get back to sleep; a scream the likes of which she had never heard before. If there had not been such a scream, and if Mrs. Capezzali had not actually heard it, then the Court can see no reason why she would have spoken about it."

I think many of us can see plenty of reasons why she would have spoken about it. It's hardly unheard of to think you remember something that didn't actually happen. Most of the prosecution's witnesses ended up in that boat. In fact, there's a whole lot of people in this case who speak about things that don't exist. I don't know why the judge thought Nara would be any different.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Try it yourself, hang up the phone, you and your partner prepare for the trip (jackets, doors, step), walk .3 miles at a normal pace, and see how long it takes. If you think .3 miles is wrong , check GoogleEarth.
If its les than 15 mins, I would be surprised. Uphill or downhill won't matter much.

So what is it you are saying, Amanda lies, .... we know that. Tell you what, I plan, not this year but maybe next, or the one after, going to Italy, and Purgia, I'll walk it and get back to you.

 

[Machiavelli]

You appear to have convinced yourself based on weak, highly inconclusive arguments (like the diary, the internalised false witness statement and such) that they did it, and so you have to struggle mightily to overturn the much, much stronger arguments based on objective, verified facts that show that they could not possibly have been present at the most likely time of death.

I don't see anything "internalized", only the most classical pile of lies, perfectly transparent in its building up. And paradoxically, Charlie Wilkens agrees with me in a significant degree.
You shall start to measure footprints, look af DNA findings, coroner's reports, luminol testing and a lot of pictures. And you should start to read seriously.

 

[Machiavelli]

The evening was described as relaxed by participants, so Meredith was not stressed. The meal was described as small to moderate by participants, and the volume of her stomach contents is consistent with this, so Meredith did not overeat. The participants agree that no alcohol was consumed with the meal. No evidence has ever been found that Meredith was sick or had any gastrointestinal condition, either at the autopsy or at any other time. The latest possible time the meal could be consumed can be established using schoolchild maths based on the length of the DVD they watched.

The "evening" in Italy starts at 21:00, maybe when Meredith cam home and found Amanda and Rudy Guede petting on the outside terrace, a scene that, united with the tension she could feel in the aprtment and the subsequent quarrel, understandably would block her digestion. A relaxed atmosphere. The meal was "described" (lol). Pizza bread made with Italian wheat cooked in a kitchen oven. And you establish things. Lalli declared she drank alcohol, so obviously I think she did at some time. And all the rest...

 

[Mary_H]

I'm sure you are already aware that the guilter group has some very unsavoury members, Mary_H, but it's still worth saying that I would strongly advise not responding to any attempts to bait you into posting personally identifying information where nutbags can see it.

Thank you, Kevin, for your wise advice. I will be careful.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I don't see anything "internalized", only the most classical pile of lies, perfectly transparent in its building up. And paradoxically, Charlie Wilkens agrees with me in a significant degree.
You shall start to measure footprints, look af DNA findings, coroner's reports, luminol testing and a lot of pictures. And you should start to read seriously.

Do I take it that you concede all the points we were discussing, if you have nothing further to add?

Also, believe me we do read seriously here, and we have already done so. You have merely listed moles that we have already whacked repeatedly: Kindly learn to use the search function and respond to the already-existing posts on those topics if you absolutely must pop those moles up one more time.

So far you have not demonstrated that your factual grasp on the pertinent matters with regard to this case is much good. This is not your fault in some sense, since it seems that your primary source of information is whatever someone posts on PMF or TJMK, and as I have previously stated it's astounding how much of the folklore that gets echoed about on those sites is directly contradicted by provable facts or the Massei report itself. However this does mean that you are not an authority that you can appeal to: Before directing others to "read seriously", you might want to demonstrate that you have "read seriously" yourself by getting the facts about this case straight before you post any more incorrect information. Reading PMF and TMJK is the opposite of reading seriously.

 

[Machiavelli]

I am confused. The pro-guilt people generally assert that Raffaele stopped covering for Amanda. Although I do not believe that he stopped giving her an alibi myself, let us say he did for the sake of argument. If he is not covering for her, and he has an alibi, then he is innocent. Yet you say otherwise. Would you please explain?

There is simply evidence Amanda and Raffaele took part in a clean-up, staging and an altering of the scene after the murder. And they hampered investigations.
The evidence consists in this. The footprints, the lies, the DNA findings, the staging, the alterations in the room, the coroner's report, all is convergent and shows their activity in the context of the murder, involved in a cleanup of the scene.
It doesn't matter who was where at the times of the evening. If you take part to the covering - both phisically by altering the scene and by obstructing investigations - you are participating to the development of crime and you take responsability for the previous chain of events. It is not possible to know who was there performing activities like cleaning or killing, but Raffaele is Amanda's alibi, so their responsability is equal.

 

[Solange305]

Actually i think its more complicated than that. If they used STR Analysis DNA testing, I think the loci have to come in pairs. Like 15, 18 or 23, 39. Which is probably why the dna expert for the defense was able to rule out so many loci. Human DNA has 23 chromosomes. When performing STR Analysis testing they target the 13 CODIS Core STR Loci. So basicly its 13 Loci with 2 numbers. Thats my understanding of how it works. If anyone has a better idea please correct me.

So as an example if Sollecito has a 15,18 and the Loci testing comes back 15,18.1 its not his marker. I think thats how the defense expert was able to eliminate so many loci. Because the prosecutions expert was trying to do a dna match using only 1 number of the pair. Which is probably why they are asking for LCN testing to even see if the remaining loci are correct. Because 18 is not the same as 18.1, so they want a more accurate test done. Once again I'm no expert and I welcome someone to correct me so I can get a better understanding of what I'm reading.

If anyone has ever done a dna test to prove paternity which I have. You might have a better understanding of this if you have the results of your paternity test. I've had to adopt my own child because my name wasn't on the birth certificate. I actually have a copy of my DNA test. Which used 16 chromosomes to compare with.

Example of my Paternity Test.

D3S1358
Mother 14,17
Child 17,17
Father 17,17

vWA
Mother 16,18
Child 15,16
Father 15,17

As you can see I've actually listed 2 of my chromosome markers above. D3S1358 17,17 vWA 15,17

Also I will share this with you. So please no inbred redneck jokes. The mother was from Germany, I was from Mississippi. The mother and I had 3 Genetic Markers that where exact matches. Which also means our daughter had the same markers. My daughter and I share 2 more loci that are exact matches.
D2S1338 25,25
D5S818 12,13
TPOX 8,10
http://www.biology.arizona.edu/human_bio/activities/blackett2/str_codis.html

That;s interesting Chris, thanks for sharing that with us. Im glad you took initiative to adopt your daughter and be a father to her, she is lucky to have you.

 

[Mary_H]

I wouldn't take too much stock in such postering. The idiot also said hate speech is illegal in the United States.

"Hate speech is a crime in this country. Those who propagate hate speech tend to end up being watched these days. We have heard from someone in Congress that hate speech against Italy has gone up 4-5 times since this case began, and Italy has become one of the most reviled of countries. There is now at least one investigation, as we have already posted."


I know it sounds crazy, but if you have a hard time understanding the concept that unpopular speech is protected, here is a little known law from 1776 that should help explain it.

LOL, HB!

A perfect Peter Quennellism: "We have heard from someone in Congress...." Again I laugh aloud -- he's always "hearing" from "someone."

"...hate speech against Italy has gone up 4-5 times since this case began, and Italy has become one of the most reviled of countries."

How does that fit with the guilter view that hardly anybody in the world thinks Amanda and Raffaele are innocent?

 

[Machiavelli]

Do I take it that you concede all the points we were discussing, if you have nothing further to add?

Also, believe me we do read seriously here

No, I consider I simply "won" the argument long ago, from the very first point where you are "unable to read Raffaele's diary". You avoided to answer also all other subsequent arguments where I proved you were wrong, from the narcissistic personality style to the abgsence of evidence of relaxing evening, from the lack of literature and so on. The denial that there are literature and scietific arguments contrasting with your ideas, your denial that state of digestion was advanced as explicitly stated in the autopsy, your arbitrary statements on everything.
What you say makes simply no sense, as telling as what you chose to not say. You are making up your castle on clouds. There is nothing to concede. There is nothing at all.