Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

In the interest of minimizing the ensuing 50,000++ Luminol or luminol spins

Wouldn't it make a lot more sense and a be a lot more considerate on fellow followers here if L J simply admitted:

1) he has absolutely no formal training nor expertise in this area
2) his Google/Library Card/You Tube research was sufficiently superficial to lead him to argue erroneous conclusions that have been repeatedly rightfully refuted by several eminently more qualified observers

End of story for 50,001.

Hi Pilot!

1) Why do you think I'm wrong in my assertion that the product used in the cottage was "traditional" luminol, rather than Bluestar, Hemaglow, or any other product?

2) Why do you think others are right in their assertions that the product used was "probably" one of the newer proprietary products?

3) Who are the "several eminently more qualified observers" who have "rightfully refuted" me? In what way are they more qualified?

4) Do you have anything to say about the case itself, rather than focussing on the commentators? For example, at what time on Nov 1st do you think Meredith Kercher died?

 

[platonov]

Perhaps - was there smoke involved

<snip>

Originally Posted by platonov

* Note - not that he wasn't sure if she went out after he fell asleep as London John and others have claimed ~ 46 times despite being corrected several times.

Being as during that time the ones (perhaps not you personally dun recall) were trying to base it on a poor translation of a portion of his diary and the Michaeli Report, and using it to pretend he never recanted his 'load of crap,' perhaps that he also said he couldn't be sure if she went out when he was sleeping made more sense to most people.

Perhaps ? but how would that explain London John & Kevin Lowe repeating this (most fatuous of arguments) in the last 2/3 days

 

[LondonJohn]

So - the story is.

On the 2nd AK & RS found at crime scene with body locked in bedroom.

On the night of the 5th RS 'admits' his earlier alibi story [which he says was AK's idea ] was 'a load of BS' and now claims that AK was out between 9pm and 1 am* on the night of the murder but he was at (his) home.

* Note - not that he wasn't sure if she went out after he fell asleep as London John and others have claimed ~ 46 times despite being corrected several times.

Are you sure that this claim of Sollecito's that Knox was not in his apartment between 9pm and 1am wasn't an erroneous reference to the night before, when Knox went to a Halloween party without Sollecito?

Can you also point me towards the point in the first trial where testimony was introduced that had Sollecito placing Knox outside his apartment between 9pm and 1am on the night of 1st/2nd November? Because I'm having an awful lot of trouble finding any reference to it - either in press reports of the trial or in the Massei Report. I would have thought that this would be a very damning piece of evidence against Knox if it was true and admissible. Of course, if it either wasn't true or wasn't admissible, then it is utterly irrelevant.

 

[LondonJohn]

Perhaps ? but how would that explain London John & Kevin Lowe repeating this (most fatuous of arguments) in the last 2/3 days

By what measure is it a fatuous argument?

 

[pilot padron]

Hi Pilot!

1) Why do you think I'm wrong in my assertion that the product used in the cottage was "traditional" luminol, rather than Bluestar, Hemaglow, or any other product?

2) Why do you think others are right in their assertions that the product used was "probably" one of the newer proprietary products?

3) Who are the "several eminently more qualified observers" who have "rightfully refuted" me? In what way are they more qualified?

4) Do you have anything to say about the case itself, rather than focussing on the commentators? For example, at what time on Nov 1st do you think Meredith Kercher died?

Hi

1 thru 3) Even a superficial scan of previous 3-4+ pages will make the answers self evident and additional verbiage redundant

4) Since more than 3 full years years of initial discovery and hearings by some of the best Defense Attorneys in the land, as well as their laborious Appeals preparation did not deem your personal, also Googled/Library Card/You Tube based TOD observations, to have enough merit to even superficially refer to them, why should others here, including myself, now address same simply to senselessly comply with another of your 'requests'

 

[LondonJohn]

Hi

1 thru 3) Even a superficial scan of previous 3-4+ pages will make the answer self evident and additional verbiage redundant

4) Since more than 3 full years years of initial discovery and hearings by some of the best Defense Attorneys in the land, as well as their laborious Appeals preparation did not deem your personal, also Googled/Library Card/You Tube based TOD observations, to have enough merit to even superficially refer to them, why should others here, including myself, now address same simply to senselessly comply with another of your 'requests'

So, let me paraphrase for a moment:

Your answer to my question "Why do you think I'm wrong?" is essentially this: "Because the discussion of the past few pages shows that you're wrong".

Your answer to my question "Why do you think others are correct?" is essentially this: "Because the discussion of the past few pages shows that others are correct".

Your answer to my question "Who are the several more-qualified people who have refuted my argument, and in what way are they more qualified?" is essentially this: "The discussion of the past few pages shows who they are , how they are more qualified, and how they refuted your arguments".


I must try this style of argument some time: it looks dishonestly refreshing...

 

[Chris_Halkides]

registry numbers

Secondly, Bluestar and Hemaglow do indeed use the base luminol chemical in their composition, but they are (as you say) bound with different reagents, so the chemical composition of the actual product is different than what would be termed "traditional luminol".

I agree that once one changes the protonation state of a molecule, one has a different, although closely related, molecule. BTW, the CAS registry numbers to which I previously referred are actually in Wikipedia (not Barni and coworker's worthwhile review article, as I had previously stated). Also, the addition of other chemicals also changes the composition of the entire mixture, if that is what you meant. I agree that the term luminol is ambiguous; that problem is alleviated by using registry numbers or formal (IUPAC) chemical names.

I have not been able to find anything on the composition of Hemaglow, except that this MSDS suggests that isopropanol (2-propanol) is probably present as the solvent.

 

[pilot padron]

Oh dear yes; please do so.

So, let me paraphrase for a moment:

Your answer to my question "Why do you think I'm wrong?" is essentially this: "Because the discussion of the past few pages shows that you're wrong".

Your answer to my question "Why do you think others are correct?" is essentially this: "Because the discussion of the past few pages shows that others are correct".

Your answer to my question "Who are the several more-qualified people who have refuted my argument, and in what way are they more qualified?" is essentially this: "The discussion of the past few pages shows who they are , how they are more qualified, and how they refuted your arguments".


I must try this style of argument some time: it looks dishonestly refreshing...

With all due modesty, imitation is indeed the best form of flattering this form for future arguing the case.
It may also even have the ancillary benefit of eliminating the need for many of the next 10,000+ pedantic 'arguments' yet to be posed

 

[LondonJohn]

By the way Pilot, it is of course totally up to you whether or not to give your view on Meredith's time of death. No need to "senselessly comply" with "another of my requests" - it was just a question.

You could always answer something like: "I think she died at 11.40pm, as per the judgement of Massei in the first trial". Or you could answer something like: "I think she died at around 10.30pm". Or you might answer something like: "I think she died between 9pm and 9.30pm, but I still think that Knox and Sollecito were involved in her murder".

I'm just asking what you currently think about the most likely time of death, and how that might impact (or not impact) on the case for Knox's and Sollecito's participation.

As for the stuff about

Since more than 3 full years years of initial discovery and hearings by some of the best Defense Attorneys in the land, as well as their laborious Appeals preparation did not deem your personal, also Googled/Library Card/You Tube based TOD observations, to have enough merit to even superficially refer to them....

I'd point out a number of things: first, Knox's/Sollecito's defence criminal defence lawyers were not (in my opinion) anywhere the "best in the land" (and I'm interested as to how you arrived at that opinion), and I believe they made a number of significant errors in the first trial; second, the prosecution in the first trial pushed back the time of death in the closing arguments - a completely improper tactic that should not have been allowed by the court - in order to tally with the testimony of Curatolo and Capezzali, thereby not giving the defence a proper chance to introduce testimony or evidence to refute the later ToD; thirdly, I think you'll find that the defence teams argue quite hard on ToD in the first appeal - if things get that far, that is.....

But feel free to carry on with the unsubstantiated insults based on "Googled/Library Card/You Tube based observations" if it makes you feel more secure in your counter-arguments - it's certainly easier and quicker than dealing with the substance of the original arguments themselves.

 

[platonov]

" Utterly Irrelevant "

By what measure is it a fatuous argument?

Even by the standard of many of the Foaker arguments put forward in this thread.

As to the relevance - apart from the oft-explained and very obvious, one wonders if it is utterly irrelevant why so many varied, desperate & fatuous arguments are deployed against it (about 4 in the last couple of posts)

RS hardly thought so when as a result he was made a Suspect & arrested on a murder rap for which he is now doing 25 yrs.

Indeed to claim it is " Utterly Irrelevant " - is, if it were possible, an even more fatuous argument

 

[Chris_Halkides]

tea and crumpets

Maybe she screamed because she fell on her head when she unsuccessfully tried to turn a cartwheel in the police station.

Or Edgardo Giobbi is lying.

Your choice.

RandyN and The Central Scrutinizer,

No one claimed that Ms. Knox turned a cartwheel during the interrogation, and I see no reason to believe that Dr. Giobbi is lying. Her scream is something upends the prosecution's tale of tea and crumpets. MOO.

 

[LondonJohn]

Even by the standard of many of the Foaker arguments put forward in this thread.

As to the relevance - apart from the oft-explained and very obvious, one wonders if it is utterly irrelevant why so many varied, desperate & fatuous arguments are deployed against it.

RS hardly thought so when as a result he was made a Suspect & arrested on a murder rap for which he is now doing 25 yrs.

Indeed to claim it is " Utterly Irrelevant " - is, if it were possible, an even more fatuous argument

I must be very slow - I don't really understand anything you are arguing here.

Let's take things one by one. Firstly, could you point me towards the evidence that Sollecito said Knox left his apartment between 9pm and 1am on the night of the 1st/2nd November 2007? Anything will do: transcripts of police interviews, tapped phone calls, testimony documented in the Massei Report, media reports of the trial, anything....

 

[Antony]

Amanda's lying to the police makes me think, bizarre behaviour, what was she smoking? - oh, wait....

The rest of your post is sensible, but it needs to be pointed out that Amanda didn't lie to the police. The story of her alleged "lies" has the same origin as all the other falsehoods: the police/prosecution claimed that she "lied" and changed her alibi as part of their strategy of character assassination, and the press and the guilters lapped it up.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

It depends on what the definition of prompt is

An accusation repeated twice more - once embellished, once hedged (in the unsolicited handwritten gift).
An accusation then not withdrawn in a further unsolicited prison 'memo' of the 7th or an appearance before a Judge on the 8th (she invoked her right to silence).
An accusation that, when she is pressed for an explanation of it by a PM (magistrate) on Dec 17 leads to her becoming 'confused' / 'stoned' again and she/her lawyer promptly terminates the interview.

platonov,

Your answer is misleading. First, no one should ever hesitate to invoke his or her right to remain silent, and I do not believe that any inference should be drawn from doing so (the Griffin principle). Second, Amanda had not seen her lawyer until just prior to her appearance before Judge Matteini, and it would have been doubly foolish to speak before such meetings could occur. Third, Ms. Knox testified for about six hours on 17 December, IIRC. That is not my definition of terminating an interview promptly. MOO.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

RandyN and The Central Scrutinizer,

No one claimed that Ms. Knox turned a cartwheel during the interrogation, and I see no reason to believe that Dr. Giobbi is lying. Her scream is something upends the prosecution's tale of tea and crumpets. MOO.

Oh really? At least one person built her entire "Amanda is innocent" case around it: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=161229

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Where or when

Oh really? At least one person built her entire "Amanda is innocent" case around it: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=161229

The Central Scrutinizer,

I chose my words carefully. The alleged cartwheel was prior to the interrogation. Therefore, what you presented (either she screamed do a cartwheel during the interrogation or Dr. Giobbi is lying) is a false alternative. Neither statement need be true.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The Central Scrutinizer,

I chose my words carefully. The alleged cartwheel was prior to the interrogation. Therefore, what you presented (either she screamed do a cartwheel during the interrogation or Dr. Giobbi is lying) is a false alternative. Neither statement need be true.

If she was partial to turning cartwheels in police stations (a perfectly normal behavior, we are told), then there's no reason to think she wasn't also turning cartwheels during the interrogation.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Dr. Giobbi's testimony

The strongest evidence for guilt remains Amanda's false accusation of Patrick, and Raffaele's load of bull, in my opinion. The rest of the evidence has either been discredited, is highly doubtful, or proves nothing.

RoseMontague, platonov, and Rolfe,

Dr. Giobbi testified that he heard Amanda scream. That is at least consistent with ILE's putting pressure on her and flies in the face of their stories of chamomile tea. Her fears started well before she got the idea that Patrick was involved, so linking her fears with Patrick does not make much sense to me. No one in the pro-guilt community has explained why it was OK for ILE to do something that would provoke a scream that I can recall reading. MOO.

 

[Kaosium]

Kaosium,

According to Virkler and Lednev's review article (Forensic Science International, vol. 188 (2009) pp. 1-17), microscope identification can be used in some instances (it sounds as if the cells have to be intact). The two crystal tests are the Teichman and the Takayama tests, and both make small crystals, and crystals typically have sharp edges. The fuzzing up you describe sounds like type of immunochemistry test known as Ouchterlony analysis. The fuzziness you are thinking of sounds like precipitation, which occurs when an antigen (the substance you are trying to detect) meets an antibody (also known as an immunoglobulin). Antigens and the antibodies that are specific for them can be thought of as binding together as in this yin yang symbol.

Thank you, crystals are much cooler than fuzz, that's reminiscent of what you get when you don't eat your fruit fast enough. I like your example, the way it kinda complements in a sense, not Manichean, and there's those little lost dots in the middle of the other side.

If Stefanoni was on site, which of these could be done there for certain? Keeping in mind her strict adherence to scientific and forensic protocols displayed throughout the case?

 

[pilot padron]

Can't have it both ways

By the way Pilot, it is of course totally up to you whether or not to give your view on Meredith's time of death. No need to "senselessly comply" with "another of my requests" - it was just a question....

But feel free to carry on with the unsubstantiated insults based on "Googled/Library Card/You Tube based observations" if it makes you feel more secure in your counter-arguments - it's certainly easier and quicker than dealing with the substance of the original arguments themselves.

May I preface with a disclaimer.

Your ability to walk that fine line between insulting and just arguing is IMHO superior to most arguers here.
Your past arguments to opponents almost always include at least one, and often several sentences in the 'argument' that have been seen by many, and often actually cited by recipients as insults.
Yet as a testament to your fine line ambulatory abilities, most of these remain unmolested by Administration.
Therefore, I yield to your demonstrated 'skills' in this area of 'parsing' just what constitutes an 'insult'.

However, having said that, your categorizing part of my previous argument to you as an insult requires a specific suspension of disbelief as well as acquiescence allowing you to 'have it both ways'.

This since you yourself have boasted on more than a single past occasion as self aggrandizing support for credibility, that your ability to type words into Google and You Tube, and your possession of a Library Card made your layman's arguments about TOD and other areas superior to degreed and professionally accredited and long experienced ILE Officials.

Superior arguments to these professional individuals who have the highest academic degrees available in applicable areas as well as professional accreditation and decades of combined experience in these areas that they 'argue'.
This superiority of your arguments, you proudly postulated, again, is based on your "Googled/Library Card/You Tube based observations"

Are you suggesting now that you per chance slipped off the 'fine line' and in the past have 'insulted' yourself by boasting about the very same activities that you now say I employ as "unsubstantiated insults" in my argument. ??