• 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.
Wasn't there an indication that the luminol was overapplied? Would that cause more of a reaction to substances that it would not normally react strongly to?
 
odeed said:
Buy a subscription, or ask Kevin_Lowe, LondonJohn or halides1 to confirm the contents, as they all have quoted from abdtracts papers.

It's also hypocritical telling me to not post links to documents, while at the same time lauding RoseMontague post which had a link to a subscription abstract.
Click to expand...

Don't post links to documents which cannot be freely accessed in an attempt to back up your argument. Rose's link contained a complete article. Yours contained basically nothing. If you want to post a link, everyone should be able to read it.
 
Withnail1969 said:
Don't post links to documents which cannot be freely accessed in an attempt to back up your argument. Rose's link contained a complete article. Yours contained basically nothing. If you want to post a link, everyone should be able to read it.
Click to expand...

I will not take orders from you on what I can and cannot post.

Rosemontague link did not contain the complete paper, you had to buy a subscription to read the full paper.

You seem to want to believe anything, without question, which supports your point of view while dismissing anything which might spoil this belief.
 
which stabilizers

odeed,

You quoted this passage, "While bleach solutions contain stabilizers, they
are volatile, decomposing and evaporating reasonably
quickly, as observed." Which stabilizers do you mean?
 
Machiavelli said:
To enumerate all of them would take too long. I don't feel like doing these lists, it's very boring for me as I feel it as a big waste of time. You could instead ask to mention one point or two and analyse it. Clearly, the weight is given by the whole picture and its effect on Raffaele's credibility. But it is about aspects of what he wrote that and said that each of us can see and assess on his own. I like the idea that people "discover" things themselves, I don't like when clues in murder misteries are "explained" by someone else.
Click to expand...

In other words, I don't have a list, but I can point one lie. Two if I strain myself. But preferably only one. If you ask for that one, it will be Raffaele pricking someone. We can discuss and analyze pricking.

BTW it's all a masonic conspiracy, you know... :)
 
odeed said:
I will not take orders from you on what I can and cannot post.

Rosemontague link did not contain the complete paper, you had to buy a subscription to read the full paper.

You seem to want to believe anything, without question, which supports your point of view while dismissing anything which might spoil this belief.
Click to expand...

I apologize for posting this without a link to the full study. I had seen it posted at PMF and it seemed to me to be interesting. I added one similar but not complete cite as well to a forensic book. I made it clear the confusing and contradictory nature of these various quotes about different substances. That is why the forensics require a more specific test for blood after all. I still think the topic of what else may have caused this to be appropriate.
 
halides1 said:
odeed,

You quoted this passage, "While bleach solutions contain stabilizers, they
are volatile, decomposing and evaporating reasonably
quickly, as observed." Which stabilizers do you mean?
Click to expand...

I assume Creamer was referring to a chelating agent.
 
Chris C said:
Knox persuaded him to talk crap about what? What night did she go to the bar and when did she return? What exact lie was he referring to or he doesn't say. Was it a lie the police told him or knox told him.
So your saying Knox convinced him to say she wasn't at his apartment? your also saying he gave a statement to the police that Knox never returned home with him and didn't show up until 1am. Yet we know for a fact that knox was there when he got his phone call from his dad. Was this interview entered into evidence in the trial?
Click to expand...
____________________

Chris,

Yes, the Matteini Report was part of the evidence. And this sensitive subject of Amanda's scheme---as I call it--devised by Amanda and pre-planned by the lovebirds before their interrogations on the night of November 5 also figured in Amanda's testimony before the Court. But in somewhat different words. If, prior to Raffaele's police interrogation, she had persuaded him to tell the cops she went to Le Chic (and so would have seen Patrick) this can be seen as preparing the cops for Amanda's later accusation against Patrick. Patrick's attorney, Carlo Pacelli, saw this connection too. (Who wouldn't?) So he asked Amanda in court....

___________________________________________
CP: That evening, did you go to the Questura to accuse Patrick? [The
interpreter translates: "On that evening, you went to the Questura
to meet Patrick? Especially to meet Patrick?"]

AK: To meet Patrick? At the Questura?

CP: Not to meet -- to accuse!
LG or CDV [Amanda's attorneys]: I object to this question. I object....
_____________________________________________

What's most interesting is not that Amanda's attorneys don't want this question asked or answered, but the silence of Raffaele in the courtroom at the time. Why didn't Raffaele rise to his feet and make a spontaneous declaration to the Court---as was his right--- explaining that, sure, he'd lied and told the cops that Amanda went to Le Chic that night, but Amanda wasn't the one who induced him to say it. Instead, we hear not a PEEP from Raffaele. Looks like he didn't want to talk about! I wonder why.

///
 
Last edited:
Fine said:
____________________

Chris,

Yes, the Matteini Report was part of the evidence. And this sensitive subject of Amanda's scheme---as I call it--devised by Amanda and pre-planned by the lovebirds before their interrogations on the night of November 5 also figured in Amanda's testimony before the Court. But in somewhat different words. If, prior to Raffaele's police interrogation, she had persuaded him to tell the cops she went to Le Chic (and so would have seen Patrick) this can be seen as preparing the cops for Amanda's later accusation against Patrick. Patrick's attorney, Carlo Pacelli, saw this connection too. (Who wouldn't?) So he asked Amanda in court....

___________________________________________
CP: That evening, did you go to the Questura to accuse Patrick? [The
interpreter translates: "On that evening, you went to the Questura
to meet Patrick? Especially to meet Patrick?"]

AK: To meet Patrick? At the Questura?

CP: Not to meet -- to accuse!
LG or CDV [Amanda's attorneys]: I object to this question. I object....
_____________________________________________

What's most interesting is not that Amanda's attorneys don't want this question asked or answered, but the silence of Raffaele in the courtroom at the time. Why didn't Raffaele rise to his feet and make a spontaneous declaration to the Court---as was his right--- explaining that, sure, he'd lied and told the cops that Amanda went to Le Chic that night, but Amanda wasn't the one who induced him to say it. Instead, we hear not a PEEP from Raffaele. Looks like he didn't want to talk about! I wonder why.

///
Click to expand...

Amanda's plan was to frame herself as an accessory to murder? By accusing somebody that if she was present at the time of the murder she would know was not even there? This was their scheme?
 
Fine said:
____________________

Chris,

Yes, the Matteini Report was part of the evidence. And this sensitive subject of Amanda's scheme---as I call it--devised by Amanda and pre-planned by the lovebirds before their interrogations on the night of November 5 also figured in Amanda's testimony before the Court. But in somewhat different words. If, prior to Raffaele's police interrogation, she had persuaded him to tell the cops she went to Le Chic (and so would have seen Patrick) this can be seen as preparing the cops for Amanda's later accusation against Patrick. Patrick's attorney, Carlo Pacelli, saw this connection too. (Who wouldn't?) So he asked Amanda in court....

___________________________________________
CP: That evening, did you go to the Questura to accuse Patrick? [The
interpreter translates: "On that evening, you went to the Questura
to meet Patrick? Especially to meet Patrick?"]

AK: To meet Patrick? At the Questura?

CP: Not to meet -- to accuse!
LG or CDV [Amanda's attorneys]: I object to this question. I object....
_____________________________________________

What's most interesting is not that Amanda's attorneys don't want this question asked or answered, but the silence of Raffaele in the courtroom at the time. Why didn't Raffaele rise to his feet and make a spontaneous declaration to the Court---as was his right--- explaining that, sure, he'd lied and told the cops that Amanda went to Le Chic that night, but Amanda wasn't the one who induced him to say it. Instead, we hear not a PEEP from Raffaele. Looks like he didn't want to talk about! I wonder why.

///
Click to expand...

In what interview did he tell the cops this? Was that interview admitted in court?
 
RoseMontague said:
Amanda's plan was to frame herself as an accessory to murder? By accusing somebody that if she was present at the time of the murder she would know was not even there? This was their scheme?
Click to expand...

Thats guilter logic. Obscure statements that the defense doesn't want admitted into court is proof of guilt. Yet Rudy's statements that are not obscure shouldn't be allowed, because he lied about his involvment in the murder. The guy describes the murder scene and mentions the correct window that was broken into before it was known to the public. Those statements shouldn't be allowed according to quilter logic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom