• 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.
Yes. That is what I think, that testable DNA (halides could jump on me with his DNA on dust article) in the samples was affected by the luminol.

Now that I've replied to you three (or four?) times, let me request for the third or fourth time your reply to my question:

"Can you affirm positively that the luminol prints aren't made in blood?"

Ummmm

1) You're asking Withnail to prove a negative. Not easy, or - in this case - necessary, because....

2) ...it's incumbent on the prosecution to show that these prints were made in blood. It's not the burden of the defence (or of people who think the convictions were unsafe) to show that they weren't made in blood.

3) Why didn't the "crack" forensic team perform other presumptive or conclusive tests for blood prior to spraying the area down with Luminol? You seem to be unaware of the inherent contradiction in your position: you say that Luminol should always be the last test applied because it can affect blood or DNA testing, yet even though the police apparently had a number of weeks to swab the floor and conduct blood tests, they didn't do so. So either way, isn't this incompetence on behalf of the forensics team?
 
Ummmm

1) You're asking Withnail to prove a negative. Not easy, or - in this case - necessary, because....

2) ...it's incumbent on the prosecution to show that these prints were made in blood. It's not the burden of the defence (or of people who think the convictions were unsafe) to show that they weren't made in blood.

3) Why didn't the "crack" forensic team perform other presumptive or conclusive tests for blood prior to spraying the area down with Luminol? You seem to be unaware of the inherent contradiction in your position: you say that Luminol should always be the last test applied because it can affect blood or DNA testing, yet even though the police apparently had a number of weeks to swab the floor and conduct blood tests, they didn't do so. So either way, isn't this incompetence on behalf of the forensics team?

Just to make sure I understand the above 'argument'

We are to now conclude that one of the most absolutely ludicrous school yard... he said... no I did not say... multi page exchanges (arguments?) here that even rare to never posters had speak up and declare as unbelievable, was in some strange spin now a 'victory' for nails, and really just another missed opportunity to again slur the Italian Investigative authorities by saying this is all their fault.

Unbelievable indeed
 
PSS-Alt-F4,
I like reading your thoughts and opinions, you bring forth many good ideas!
I especially enjoy hearing from you since you were here before the murder of Meredith Kercher happened and will probably still be here in the future,
hence you did not come here to debate with a pre-formed opinion.:)
Take it easy,
RW

Thank you. :)

Personally, I think they will loose the appeal. Not only is the gangster's story ridiculous enough but when your defense has to use the word of a person who beat a baby to death with a shovel to help prove your innocence, you kinda know you're gonna be in prison for a long, long time.
 
Are these footprints, ones so diluted they were not visible to the naked eye and the delay in collecting samples and testing was because of defense could not agree to a date to examine them?

Missed this post, so probably answer I was looking for.

Well, the only bare footprint they had pre-December 18 was the bathmat one, and I'm not even sure that was ever mentioned or used as evidence until after April 2008 (when the shoe print evidence against Raffaele fell through). Obviously the shoe prints couldn't be explained by Amanda walking with bare feet after taking a shower anyway, even if they did tell her some of them were hers.

...

From this paper http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0531513105014299 by Onori, Onofri, Alessandrini, Buscemi, Pesaresi, Turchi, Tagliabracci
Introduction

It is well known that DNA is subject to enzymatic and chemical post-mortem damage [1]. DNasi I randomly cuts the histon-free double strand DNA and hydrolysis, oxidation, alkylation and cross-linking phenomena produce alterations at single nucleotides, hindering DNA polymerase activity or introducing mismatches [2,3].
This represents a source of errors for the correct typing in forensic casework: the STR markers commonly used give partial results with degraded DNA, and certain identification may be problematic.

and http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1872497309001483 an article of DNA degradation. Pg 151 oxidative damage, since this was dried blood:
Oxidative damage mostly includes modifications of sugar residues, conversion of cytosine and thymine to hydantions, removal of bases and crosslinkages. During
the decay process cytosine and thymine may be modified into Hydantoins by oxidation. This will block PCR amplification.
 
Psychotropics (such as THC), blood-sugar and Amanda Knox’s Nov 5th/6th “questioning"

Until it was recently suggested here, it hadn't occurred to me that AK and RS might - VERY foolishly - have continued getting stoned in the days after the discovery of MK's murder, while they were naively liasing with the cops.

Did you know that when sitting quiescentl the brain can account for an astonishing proportion of the body’s total consumption of oxygen and blood-sugar, which while learning or under the influence of pyschotropics can be as much as c. 40% of its oxygen and c. 80% of blood sugar?

A popular myth used to be that the ascorbic acid (vitamin-C) in orange-juice could help bring a person out of a bad LSD trip. The effect was real - orange juice could function as a paliative - but it was a fallacy that the ascorbic acid acid somehow attenuated the psychotropic effects of lysergic acid.

The explanation for the effect is quite prosaic, and is to do with blood-sugar levels.

The synapses of a person on a psychotropic or hallucinogenic substance are firing like crazy, burning unusually large quantities of blood-sugar and oxygen.

If blood sugar drops far enough it can have the effect of making one feel physically cold and nervous, and a spiral into panic can ensue - more fear, more brain activity, more burning of blood sugar - round and round and round. BUMMER.

Give a person in the grip of this effect anything with readily available sugar in it and the drop in blood-sugar halts or reverses, which breaks the spiral (with any luck).

It applies with cannabis (THC). I've had a few unpleasent experiences myself after imbibing potent stuff, which (I later came to realise) were almost always in the cold, during the British Winter.

If Amanda was still stoned when she entered the 'questura' at c.10.40, hadn't eaten for some time, and was then subjected to intense psychological stress for a couple of hours, it is quite possible she experienced this spiral into hypoglycemia and raw panic.

IOW - after that hour or two of the cops doing their utmost to intimidate her, if not to frighten the **** out of her, late into a chilly November night, with shouted accusations, threats of "30 years in jail" and (IIRC) that she might never see her family again - meaning those of them who mightn't be alive in 30 years, i.e. her parents - she was well and truly FREAKING OUT.

I would guess that the cops are quite familiar with the effect, even if they aren’t aware of the physiological mechanism, and readily incorporate into their techniques for interrogating suspects (but - God forbid -never when “questioning a witness”).

(Yeh, guilters, I know - "there is no evidence that the room in which Amanda was questioned wasn't nice and warm, wasn't lit with soothing ambient lighting and that that she wasn't given a comfy chair and coffee and brioche. Hah! Gotcha!").

Hence, finally, the cops got her signature (along with those of how many of their own? A dozen or more? Talk about protesting too much) to the bizarre "statement" or "confession" or "accusation" (whatever the **** it's supposed to be) that they had typed up, and then they gave her the (in)famous "brioche and coffee" (by which time it was, literally, the middle of the night).

After this her blood-sugar normalised and she regained some sense of calm, then composing the 5.45 AM "gift" (something she DID actually write herself) in which she tried to describe the "unreality" of what she had just experienced.

Closing - if AK and RS were indeed getting stoned in the days after the murder, perhaps this is a large part of the reason why, to the the cops, "the American's" behaviour was perceived as "strange" - not that this would constitue the SLIGHTEST mitigation for what the bastards subsequently infllicted on the two of them (and Lumumba).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Closing - if AK and RS were indeed getting stoned in the days after the murder, perhaps this is a large part of the reason why, to the the cops, "the American's" behaviour was perceived as "strange" - not that this would constitue the SLIGHTEST mitigation for what the bastards subsequently infllicted on the two of them (and Lumumba).

If she was stoned, why not just admit it? Her roommate had been murdered, for all she knew there was a crazed killer free in Perugia. Who would blame her for wanting to forget or calm down?
 
If she was stoned, why not just admit it? Her roommate had been murdered, for all she knew there was a crazed killer free in Perugia. Who would blame her for wanting to forget or calm down?

Admit it to whom? The cops?

Yeh, that would have been a perfectly natural thing for her to do - tell them she had been smoking hash with Raff over the past 3 days.

I'm sure they would have perfectly understanding, why couldn't Amanda see that?
 
if AK and RS were indeed getting stoned in the days after the murder, perhaps this is a large part of the reason why, to the the cops, "the American's" behaviour was perceived as "strange" - not that this would constitue the SLIGHTEST mitigation for what the bastards subsequently infllicted on the two of them (and Lumumba).
Hi Supernaut,

In Spain and perhaps in Italy - having similar legal codes and traditions - being drunk or stoned when committing a crime (even a serious crime) has normally been an attenuating factor. ("I was not in control of my actions").

I would think that such a I-was-drunk-at-the-time "defence" could extend to police declarations, and that if AK's and RS's lawyers wanted to, they could say, hey, those naughty police called us at a bad time on November 5, just when we were enjoying some Lebanese weed. Therefore, our clients' declarations are nullified or at least fuzzy-wuzzied.

However, the defence teams haven't mentioned anything of this sort.
 
painting the deckchairs on the titanic

Admit it to whom? The cops?

Yeh, that would have been a perfectly natural thing for her to do - tell them she had been smoking hash with Raff over the past 3 days.

I'm sure they would have perfectly understanding, why couldn't Amanda see that?


So they put their hands up to a 30 yr murder rap to hide the fact they had smoked a spliff.

OK we have a new leader - the bathroom 'hokey cokey' & '2 girls 1 bra' etc aren't at the races.

ETA Its even better: hypoglycemia & low blood sugar - the pizza they had just eaten must have passed thru the stomach very quickly.

Several posters here may be able to help you out on the digestion times :)

ETA 2 I could also point out that the gift wasn't at 5.45, that was the declaration, the gift came several hours later but that probably is like painting the deckchairs on the titanic (after it sank).

.
 
Last edited:
Hi Supernaut,

In Spain and perhaps in Italy - having similar legal codes and traditions - being drunk or stoned when committing a crime (even a serious crime) has normally been an attenuating factor. ("I was not in control of my actions").

citation please. What do you know about either country and specifically their respective legal systems?
 
Thank you. :)

Personally, I think they will loose the appeal. Not only is the gangster's story ridiculous enough but when your defense has to use the word of a person who beat a baby to death with a shovel to help prove your innocence, you kinda know you're gonna be in prison for a long, long time.

However, on that same note. They was prosecuted by a person that is convicted of abuse of office from violating peoples rights.
 
Hi Supernaut,

In Spain and perhaps in Italy - having similar legal codes and traditions - being drunk or stoned when committing a crime (even a serious crime) has normally been an attenuating factor. ("I was not in control of my actions").

I would think that such a I-was-drunk-at-the-time "defence" could extend to police declarations, and that if AK's and RS's lawyers wanted to, they could say, hey, those naughty police called us at a bad time on November 5, just when we were enjoying some Lebanese weed. Therefore, our clients' declarations are nullified or at least fuzzy-wuzzied.

However, the defence teams haven't mentioned anything of this sort.

Didn't the supreme court rule that the interrogation couldn't be used against her in the murder trial. Therefore there is no reason to argue that they where stoned. Read the appeals. You will see where they are argue that the admittance of the interrogation into the murder trial is against a supreme court ruling. Using the stoned defense would make no sense, because its not suppose to be used against her in the murder trial to begin with. I'm sure someone is gonna come and say but they was being tried for slander also. We all no thats just a line of BS to try and get around a loophole.

Its one of the MANY reasons that if this case doesn't get overturned on appeals, it will get overturned in the supreme court. Even the supreme court will realise that if the police can find one slander comment in a statement, the prosecution will be able to violate anyones right in Italy. They could virtually beat someone near to death and make them confess to something they didn't do. Then if the supreme court rules they violated the persons rights the prosecution could just toss in a slander charge so they could use the confession.
 
citation please. What do you know about either country and specifically their respective legal systems?

Actually, being drunk or stoned is a mitigating factor. Since its obvious Massei said that Knox and Sollecito where stoned and possible drunk. The prosecution wanted it to be premeditated, yet apparently when the prosecution used the sex and drugs as part of the crime, Massei didn't buy the premediated portion. Thus it wasn't premeditated. Thus that makes it a mitigating factor. Trust me when I say, even in the United States if drugs/alcohol is entered into the picture, there are mitigating factors. Though even if they are still convicted of the crime, when Drugs and Alcohol are involved, it tends but not always, removes the premeditated portion. Not in control of ones actions is not a defense for ones actions. Its a defense for the extreme of ones punishment. Though he is talking about an interrogation, I'm sure you can still see what I'm talking about.
 
Last edited:
citation please. What do you know about either country (Spain or Italy) and specifically their respective legal systems?
Do you want to see my Spanish ID card? I thought you had been following this discussion for some time and would have known that or that someone would have told you.

That scourge of democratic (ie. post-Franco) Spain, the terrorist group E.T.A. appears to be at a near collapse (ojalá, although they are still very capable of killing). One of the signs of this weakness is that they are sending out ever younger and less prepared terrorists who keep screwing up: Their bombs don't blow up, they leave key evidence around, they don't have time to do the terrorist "basic training course" (literally) ... in summary, the Organisation just doesn't maintain the older, tried and tested and experienced terrorists, and the fewer and fewer young ones they recruit are too fresh to be effective in replacing the old ones.

Doesn't the FOAK organisation brief anyone? And where are the old flashes in the pan? That showman lawyer who was involved in the Natalee Holloway case? Where's he now? Why didn't he continue with the pro-Amanda parade of famous people who walk on stage then promptly walk off? Was Paul Ciolino at the Vashon pig-out over the weekend? Who's going to replace the FBI agent when he burns out?
 
Actually, being drunk or stoned is a mitigating factor. Since its obvious Massei said that Knox and Sollecito where stoned and possible drunk. The prosecution wanted it to be premeditated, yet apparently when the prosecution used the sex and drugs as part of the crime, Massei didn't buy the premediated portion. Thus it wasn't premeditated. Thus that makes it a mitigating factor.

This is not correct. In any legal system, it's not a mitigating factor when accused of murder to say you were stoned or drunk.

If that were the case, all you need to do is get drunk or claim to be drunk and you can kill anyone with a reduced penalty.
 
Do you want to see my Spanish ID card? I thought you had been following this discussion for some time and would have known that or that someone would have told you.

Edited by jhunter1163: 
Edited for civility.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Didn't the supreme court rule that the interrogation couldn't be used against her in the murder trial. Therefore there is no reason to argue that they where stoned. Read the appeals. You will see where they are argue that the admittance of the interrogation into the murder trial is against a supreme court ruling. Using the stoned defense would make no sense, because its not suppose to be used against her in the murder trial to begin with. I'm sure someone is gonna come and say but they was being tried for slander also. We all no thats just a line of BS to try and get around a loophole.
.
An honest question: is the appeal only an appeal for the murder conviction, or for the murder and slander convictions?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom