Mrs.Columbo
Scholar
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2010
- Messages
- 103
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case
- Thread starter Justinian2
- Start date
- Status
Justinian2
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 2,804
I'm not going to let you get away with that, Justinian!
If you're going to have fun with Massei, you have to use his favorite line! The one that could have convicted me, or you--or Coulsdon!
I just love that last line: like everyone carries a butcher's knife in their handbag. It just explains everything. Everyone has one these days, officer, honest!
Massei is a theologist. Theology and theories have no place in the courts.
There is Theory and Theism. One is speculation and other word is the study of religion. The suffix (-ology) means a branch of learning. Theory + ology isn't the norm; Theism + ology is. Oh well, you get the point. The statement that Massei is a theoretician is more correct. Still, there is no place in the courts for theoreticians or theologists.
In science, once a theory is discredited, so is the theorist. Yet Massei is allowed to propose one baseless theory after another. It shames not only the Italian system of justice, but world justice.
Last edited:
el buscador
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2010
- Messages
- 288
Everyone who's friend is a collector of knives carries a butcher knife around in their handbag?
Dan O.
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,594
I think we would get a better analysis from a student in a high school home economics class than what Stefanoni's BS in biology is able to deduce.
It is very clear that the material has been cut. That is how things are made. You cut the material out following a pattern and then stitch it together.
In the end of the band we can see the stitch lines where the strap and clasp were attached. It would take a magician to cut the band outside the stitch line while the clasp is attached.
I thought she was being quite definitive on page 207 of the Massei report:
With reference to the room of the victim showed that she had arrived "there were numerous exhibits" and it posed a bra of particular interest because the straps were frayed, and also there was "an area that was not only missing a piece but it was been cleanly severed "
One of Raffaele's experts also assumed that the clasp had been cut off. Is it possible that we now have better access to the material than the people who presented the case in the trial?
babycondor
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 634
Supernaut
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,271
'Amanda Knox — Murder on Trial in Italy' - groan.
My heart sank when I began to read accounts from people who've watched it, even if the trailer gave fair warning of what to expect. Quennell and several other PMF reprobates are expressing their approval, which should tell you a lot (PQ was apparently so excited he was compelled post at regular intervals as he watched it).
Not only has it treated Mignini's infantile "narrative" as a credible "true story", they've taken dozens of unconscionable libertys with documented events, and completely invented others. Crass isn't the word.
Just a few examples - AK waves and smiles to the press and public (hello Solange) wearing push-up bras and low cut tops (AK has always been tomboyish for ****'s sake), there are obvious bloodstains in the bathroom when she takes a shower (shades of the "house of horrors" bathroom photo), AK and RS exchange furtive, knowing glances in court (the idea probably coming from the many press images chosen by editors because they caught segues between facial expressions), forensic evidence is analysed before the arrests - on and on, ad nauseam (literally for Amanda, by all accounts).
To all intents, it appears that every crapulous tabloid rumour seeded by Miggy and co. has been exhumed and re-animated, and some gratuitous 'embellishments' thrown in to spice things up. I'm almost surprised they didn't re-enact Mudede's "My people killed your people!! Hahahahahaha!!" anecdote, which would have played as well as anything else they seem to present as credible.
Frankly, something smells. I find it hard to believe that so many exaggerations and "errors" which all happen to reinforce the perception of AK and RS's guilt weren't intended to do so. Can they really regard them as "incidental details" to be freely ******* with for "dramatic effect" because they're "just telling a story"? As if the very idea of their "dramatisation" and its potential to effect the outcome of an ongoing trial wasn't egregious enough, they think it's fine if they just make **** up while they're at it? And this for no other purpose than making a fast buck? Really?
(Lifetime, you can be certain, always take legal advice when producing any "dramatisation" which depicts "living persons" who have not given them approval, particularly when they concern court cases, and I would have thought the lawyers in question would have been less than sanguine about the potential for legal action against the company, which was presumably ignored - bear in mind that this might be a 'budget' TV movie but there was still some serious money at stake, Hayden Panettiere alone cost them $1 million - they had plenty to lose if things had gone pear-shaped. I suspect that the only reason an injunction wasn't sought and obtained in the US is because AK's family simply don't have the money.)
I have to wonder who floated the idea for this piece of garbage and who then green-lighted the finance and had 'executive' control of the production (screenplay, direction etc' ), what their motivations are, because at this point it's hard to imagine a more effective propaganda coup.
My heart sank when I began to read accounts from people who've watched it, even if the trailer gave fair warning of what to expect. Quennell and several other PMF reprobates are expressing their approval, which should tell you a lot (PQ was apparently so excited he was compelled post at regular intervals as he watched it).
Not only has it treated Mignini's infantile "narrative" as a credible "true story", they've taken dozens of unconscionable libertys with documented events, and completely invented others. Crass isn't the word.
Just a few examples - AK waves and smiles to the press and public (hello Solange) wearing push-up bras and low cut tops (AK has always been tomboyish for ****'s sake), there are obvious bloodstains in the bathroom when she takes a shower (shades of the "house of horrors" bathroom photo), AK and RS exchange furtive, knowing glances in court (the idea probably coming from the many press images chosen by editors because they caught segues between facial expressions), forensic evidence is analysed before the arrests - on and on, ad nauseam (literally for Amanda, by all accounts).
To all intents, it appears that every crapulous tabloid rumour seeded by Miggy and co. has been exhumed and re-animated, and some gratuitous 'embellishments' thrown in to spice things up. I'm almost surprised they didn't re-enact Mudede's "My people killed your people!! Hahahahahaha!!" anecdote, which would have played as well as anything else they seem to present as credible.
Frankly, something smells. I find it hard to believe that so many exaggerations and "errors" which all happen to reinforce the perception of AK and RS's guilt weren't intended to do so. Can they really regard them as "incidental details" to be freely ******* with for "dramatic effect" because they're "just telling a story"? As if the very idea of their "dramatisation" and its potential to effect the outcome of an ongoing trial wasn't egregious enough, they think it's fine if they just make **** up while they're at it? And this for no other purpose than making a fast buck? Really?
(Lifetime, you can be certain, always take legal advice when producing any "dramatisation" which depicts "living persons" who have not given them approval, particularly when they concern court cases, and I would have thought the lawyers in question would have been less than sanguine about the potential for legal action against the company, which was presumably ignored - bear in mind that this might be a 'budget' TV movie but there was still some serious money at stake, Hayden Panettiere alone cost them $1 million - they had plenty to lose if things had gone pear-shaped. I suspect that the only reason an injunction wasn't sought and obtained in the US is because AK's family simply don't have the money.)
I have to wonder who floated the idea for this piece of garbage and who then green-lighted the finance and had 'executive' control of the production (screenplay, direction etc' ), what their motivations are, because at this point it's hard to imagine a more effective propaganda coup.
Last edited:
Katody Matrass
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,119
This photo is very hi-res, haven't seen it yet.
I must say I have no doubt now that Ron Hendry's analysis was right about it and Stafanoni was dead wrong.
CoulsdonUK
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 1, 2010
- Messages
- 1,838
I doubt that Amanda and Raffaele see the humour in their convictions just before lights out and their cell door locking these past years. Maybe this is where the defence teams have been going wrong rather than thinking their task is to refute the conclusions in the Massei report their approach should be one of ridiculing its findings after all that is bound to result in their release.
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 13,011
Massei musings
CoulsdonUK,
I have previously discussed here and elsewhere that Massei violated a fundamental principle of forensic genetics in his treatment of the DNA on the bra clasp. Raffaele's appeal first made that argument. Commenters here have highlighted its errors of fact or logic in other areas as well. I am not sure what else we are supposed to do, besides point them out.
CoulsdonUK,
I have previously discussed here and elsewhere that Massei violated a fundamental principle of forensic genetics in his treatment of the DNA on the bra clasp. Raffaele's appeal first made that argument. Commenters here have highlighted its errors of fact or logic in other areas as well. I am not sure what else we are supposed to do, besides point them out.
Justinian2
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 2,804
There are the facts, the science and the extrapolations. Then there are the very low quality theories. Just because the science, facts and extrapolations don't prove that Amanda and Raffaele are guilty, does not justify using the theory of lunatics to explain what the absence of good evidence cannot.
The convoluted logic and statements of the Massei Report are facts too.
___________________
Katody,
They were both wrong.
Stefanoni was wrong in concluding the bra had been cut. Hendry realized that the bra was flimsy enough to be ripped off---I'll give him credit for that--- but he thought the bra was ripped off while Meredith was on her back. A serious error. Hendry, in his scenario, can't explain why the detached bra clasp was found under Meredith's hips. (Or why the bra proper was found at her feet.) And though he thinks the respirated blood droplets were deposited while Meredith was on her back, he can't explain the anomalous line-of-demarcation in blood droplet pattern, which---by coincidence?---places virtually all the droplets on the top of the bra cup. Those droplets landed on the bra while she was standing, when the lower half of the bra cup was "in shadow" from the rain of droplets.
The bra was ripped off during the struggle, after Meredith had been seriously wounded but was still standing.
///
Last edited:
CoulsdonUK
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 1, 2010
- Messages
- 1,838
I have no issue with people discussing their own analysis, is that was being done in that particular example?
Kevin_Lowe
Unregistered
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2003
- Messages
- 12,221
I still don't follow your reasoning. If blood was spraying from a wound on her neck and she was lying on her back it seems immediately obvious that there would be more blood on the areas of the bra closest to the wound and less on the areas further away, exactly as we see.
I raised this issue earlier and you had no response.
Kaosium
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 6,695
I think that makes it even less likely! The reason for that is if she wanted to carry a knife around to 'protect' herself, she'd get one a whole lot more suited for the task from her boyfriend, the knife collector, not a cheap kitchen knife which would do little more than cut up her bag and maybe her hands each time she reached into it.
__________________________
Kevin,
It's not that there's more blood droplets on the top. If Meredith had been on her back, respirated blood ---from her mouth and the large wound to her neck--- wouldn't show this pronounced line of demarcation between the top and bottom of her bra. Why does this line of demarcation just happen to run along the line separating the top and bottom of the bra cup? Coincidence? Here's the photograph again.....
The respirated blood was deposited on her bra while she was standing, and struggling with her assailant(s).
///
el buscador
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2010
- Messages
- 288
Actually, I would think that if Meredith was standing the top of the bra would be blood soaked from the throat wound, like the bra strap is soaked.
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 13,011
reasoning not convincing
I thought so. It seemed to me that Massei's reasoning with respect to the influence of drugs was one thing that was ridiculed.
I thought so. It seemed to me that Massei's reasoning with respect to the influence of drugs was one thing that was ridiculed.
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,464
That's a very good point. The top and rear parts of the shoulder straps appear to be saturated in blood, whereas there only appears to be aspirated blood spray on the cup areas.
This, to me, would strongly suggest that Meredith was lying on her back, causing blood from her neck wound to flow not towards the cups but over her shoulders and towards her back. Thus the shoulder straps became saturated in blood flow from the neck wounds. The aspirated blood spray on the cups is also entirely consistent with Meredith lying on her back, with aspirated blood from her throat and mouth covering the cups in an arcing spray.
I personally can't see any way in which Meredith can have been in a standing position (or, for that matter, an "all fours" position) which matches the blood evidence on the bra. I think the bra evidence very strongly suggests that Meredith was lying on her back, with her top pulled up and her bra exposed, very shortly after the fatal neck wounds were made. In addition, the misting patterns of blood on the areas of her torso under the bra cups also strongly indicates that the bra was removed while Meredith was still alive, and still lying on her back.
christianahannah
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2010
- Messages
- 1,426
There was a shirt on Meredith, rolled up. How would this affect the flow of blood?
Kevin_Lowe
Unregistered
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2003
- Messages
- 12,221
As El Buscador says, if she was standing when a fatal neck wound was inflicted I imagine there would be lots more blood on the top of the bra, since it would run down her neck to that point.
Whereas it seems absolutely normal and intuitive to me that if a spray of droplets is directed side-on at a bra that you would find all the droplets on the side the spray came from. Anything else would require the droplets either to go straight up and fall back down on the bra at a near vertical angle, or fly over the bra and then spin back like boomerangs to hit the far side of the bra. Both seem pretty weird ideas.
I'm struggling to see how your idea is even reconcilable with the evidence, let alone a watertight conclusion to draw from the evidence.
Bear in mind this isn't an issue I really care about. If it turned out Meredith was stabbed while she was standing on her head, to me that would just mean that Guede stabbed her while she was standing on her head. When all's said and done the forensic evidence and computer evidence rule out the possibility that Amanda and Raffaele could have been present when she died, so the details of the murder's mechanics are irrelevant unless something incredibly game-changing is found. So I'm pretty sure there is no confounding emotional attachment to one theory over another on my part here - your theory just doesn't make any sense.
- Status