Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[shuttlt]

Cranking up the machine reveals that the lab's not 100% pure - that's how I see it.

It's got to be full of other stuff the Meredith's DNA floating around though. If you were to tell me that half an hour earlier it was used to test something that we know had Meredith's DNA on it, sure. I assume that would be covered by what ever the new experts are going to check.

Yes I see. That somewhat fits an "accident at questura", despite using clean gloves accidents can happen There's also a question how much of a mixture can we have at such low levels of DNA material.

Which means whatever did the transfer must have been very clean of other DNA, no?

 

[shuttlt]

At last we agree!

Can we agree that he did at least a couple of stupid things early on in the case as well?

 

[Katody Matrass]

I don't see why he would write a made up explanation in his diary unless he expected somebody else to read it. Presumably it was them that he intended to "lie" to.

That would be extremely stupid move, especially that the knife was evidence against Amanda, not against him. By lying about he'd took the blame.

But in fact I see nothing controversial in the idea that he wrote it just for himself. Why would he made up an explanation? That's what humans do all the time - making up fictions in the face of cognitive disonance. Raffaele was in a state of extreme stress and trying to reconcile what he learned about the knife with the fact he knew they were both innocent.

 

[Matthew Best]

Can we agree that he did at least a couple of stupid things early on in the case as well?

What are you referring to?

 

[shuttlt]

What are you referring to?

You can't think of anything that was probably a bit foolish?

 

[shuttlt]

That would be extremely stupid move, especially that the knife was evidence against Amanda, not against him. By lying about he'd took the blame.

But in fact I see nothing controversial in the idea that he wrote it just for himself. Why would he made up an explanation? That's what humans do all the time - making up fictions in the face of cognitive disonance. Raffaele was in a state of extreme stress and trying to reconcile what he learned about the knife with the fact he knew they were both innocent.

Was he writing the best truth he could think of as well then?

 

[Katody Matrass]

It's got to be full of other stuff the Meredith's DNA floating around though. If you were to tell me that half an hour earlier it was used to test something that we know had Meredith's DNA on it, sure. I assume that would be covered by what ever the new experts are going to check.

I believe that's one of the things Stefanoni was most reluctant to produce - logs revealing what and when had been tested before. I think most recent of the "stuff floating around" came from the cottage and the murder room - after all Stefanoni just got back from there with samples to test.

Which means whatever did the transfer must have been very clean of other DNA, no?

Possibly. It's also possible something containing a mixture with Meredith's DNA touched the knife, and only hers DNA got amplified to detectable levels. We're talking about extremely low amount.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Was he writing the best truth he could think of as well then?

What do you mean?

 

[shuttlt]

I believe that's one of the things Stefanoni was most reluctant to produce - logs revealing what and when had been tested before. I think most recent of the "stuff floating around" came from the cottage and the murder room - after all Stefanoni just got back from there with samples to test.

My money is on the equipment in the lab having been used on another sample in the case more of less immediately before - if it turns out to be contamination.

Possibly. It's also possible something containing a mixture with Meredith's DNA touched the knife, and only hers DNA got amplified to detectable levels. We're talking about extremely low amount.

If the material on the contaminant was mainly Meredith's, then that could do it too I suppose.

 

[shuttlt]

What do you mean?

Oh, just that Amanda signs/says/writes/whatever a bunch of stuff that isn't true. It's not that in a pressured situation she said some stuff that wasn't true, it was the best truth she could remember. Same with Raffaele. I'm not saying that they necessarily can't have gotten confused, I just don't see why people are so keen to avoid the possibility that they may have been aware that what they were saying/writing/signing wasn't true. It's not as if lying when they were scared means they would be guilty.

 

[Aber]

and the computer evidence proves Raffaele could not have left his apartment that night

I assume the computer evidence refers to his Macbook - how does activity on a laptop show that he didn't leave the apartment?

 

[Matthew Best]

You can't think of anything that was probably a bit foolish?

What are you referring to?

 

[shuttlt]

I assume the computer evidence refers to his Macbook - how does activity on a laptop show that he didn't leave the apartment?

Supposedly there is a screensaver log that shows human interaction often enough all night.

 

[shuttlt]

What are you referring to?

I don't mean to be coy, and I'm not setting a trap, but are you really not willing to pick anything he did and say that it was a stupid thing to have done?

 

[Matthew Best]

Perhaps Aber is seeking to suggest that human interaction on a portable device could have happened anywhere, not just in Sollecito's apartment.

I wonder if this is going to be the fallback position of the guilters if the computer activity is demonstrated?

 

[Matthew Best]

I don't mean to be coy,

Sure seems like you are.

are you really not willing to pick anything he did and say that it was a stupid thing to have done?

No more than you seem to be.

 

[shuttlt]

Sure seems like you are.

OK. I can't be bothered. How about taking a flick knife to a police interview about the violent knife murder of your girlfriends housemate. Good idea/bad idea?

 

[Matthew Best]

OK. I can't be bothered. How about taking a flick knife to a police interview about the violent knife murder of your girlfriends housemate. Good idea/bad idea?

I'd say a bad idea. What were the other things you were referring to?

 

[pilot padron]

Why we are at 50,000++ and still counting

What are you referring to?

What do you mean?

..... What were the other things you were referring to?

Just an opinion (since I claim no supernatural abilities to read the minds of others).

However, IMHO since both the above personages argue here on an average, at least daily, they both have read here the answers to the questions they now pose to opponents at least a score of times , even in the very recent past.

Ever so obvious and repetitive queries are characteristically 'argued' here yet again for reasons other than requiring an answer to be yet again provided by unsuspecting, gracious acquiescent opposing arguers

 

[Aber]

Perhaps Aber is seeking to suggest that human interaction on a portable device could have happened anywhere, not just in Sollecito's apartment.

I wonder if this is going to be the fallback position of the guilters if the computer activity is demonstrated?

Well it is an obvious point for the lawyers to make in court.

It seems unlikely that this eveidence will have any significant impact.