Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dan O. said:
Did Raffaele actually say that he looked at the toilet or was he quoting what Amanda said to him? This second interpretation is supported by the testimony of Monica Napoleoni as recorded in Massei and elsewhere
Click to expand...

Raffaele's diary:
"We look around [facciamo un giro] the house and Amanda is terrified and jumps on me because she tells me that the faeces were no longer in the toilet since presumably before, when she was taking a shower, she had seen that there were faeces in the bathroom and nobody had flushed the toilet. I have a look and leaning over I see the reflection of the water and, not seeing any faeces, I believe what Amanda had told [diceva] me."


No way that someone who had ever had a look at that toilet would speak about the "reflection of the water and not seeing any faeces".

I don't see how this is not a lie.
He clearly has never seen it.
 
bolint said:
Raffaele's diary:
"We look around [facciamo un giro] the house and Amanda is terrified and jumps on me because she tells me that the faeces were no longer in the toilet since presumably before, when she was taking a shower, she had seen that there were faeces in the bathroom and nobody had flushed the toilet. I have a look and leaning over I see the reflection of the water and, not seeing any faeces, I believe what Amanda had told [diceva] me."


No way that someone who had ever had a look at that toilet would speak about the "reflection of the water and not seeing any faeces".

I don't see how this is not a lie.
He clearly has never seen it.
Click to expand...

Amanda has never seen it either, right?
 
Katody Matrass said:
So you can't fit the bra clasp into any narrative, too.
Click to expand...

There are narratives even if he did not entered the room (for example one of his pocket knife was used to cut it by someone else), but I'm not satisfied with them.

It had month and a half and multiple police inpections to get contaminated. I don't understand your problem.
Click to expand...

How? Piling Meredith's clothes into another corner does not yield Raffaele's DNA.
 
bolint said:
There are narratives even if he did not entered the room (for example one of his pocket knife was used to cut it by someone else), but I'm not satisfied with them.
Click to expand...
And it touched specifically the hooks, transferring DNA there but nowhere else? How probable is it?


bolint said:
How? Piling Meredith's clothes into another corner does not yield Raffaele's DNA.
Click to expand...

Walking around and handling objects indiscriminately, without changing protective gear does.
 
Last edited:
BTW speaking about narratives, bolint, I'm still waiting for you to explain what happened after Amanda by chance met Meredith and Guede at the cottage - that's where your story ended last time.
 
Katody Matrass said:
She was first to look and not notice it, wasn't she?
Click to expand...

Yes, she said that according to Raffaele. But it's another thing.

Raffaele, however, lied, on it's own, of having a look at it.
Why?

BTW you do realise how ridiculous it is to argue that he lied about it?
Click to expand...

No, I don't realise but I guess I'll learn it now.
 
bolint said:
Suppose you were to contaminate it in the cottage.
What would you have done?
Click to expand...

If I wanted to have a good shot at getting Raffaele's DNA on there, I would have touched the door handle and then the bra clasp.

If I just wanted some general, nonspecific contamination, I might very well have left it on the floor and come back to pick it up after the cops had completed whatever it was they thought they were doing.
 
Diocletus said:
If I wanted to have a good shot at getting Raffaele's DNA on there, I would have touched the door handle and then the bra clasp.

If I just wanted some general, nonspecific contamination, I might very well have left it on the floor and come back to pick it up after the cops had completed whatever it was they thought they were doing.
Click to expand...

It amazes me how someone who stores, possibly the most critical piece of evidence, incorrectly, until it is beyond worthless and then claims they do perfect work and that contamination is impossible.
 
We discussed the DNA before the appeal. I was 100 percent sure of Amanda's innocence before the appeal started and I'm 100 percent sure now. Finding starch on the blade rather than blood strengthens the argument that the knife is not the murder weapon.

What mystifies me still is:
1.) Why others think the knife is the murder weapon.
2.) Why others think Amanda conspired with Guede.
3.) Why others think there is sufficient evidence to convict.
4.) Why she can't now be released on bail or house arrest.
5.) Why the USA state department (or Clinton) can't get involved.

Hey, the guys that lived downstairs had a closer relationship with Guede. They played basketball with him. Why not consider them suspects, it seems like a stronger case could be built against them.
 
Fine said:
(Is it time now to start unearthing the remains of certain "identified" tsunami victims?)

///
Click to expand...

At this point, I don't even have any confidence that the people she identified were actually deceased. Some of those poor folks might have just been sleeping.
 
secondary or tertiary transfer of DNA to the clasp

With respect to the clasp, Raffaele's fingerprints were on Meredith's door, IIRC. That would be a route for either secondary transfer or contamination. I think it is a safe assumption (since he prepared food there) that his DNA would be on one or more towels. If those were the same towels that Guede took into Meredith's room, then Raffaele's DNA could transfer by secondary or tertiary transfer, as katy_did first noted.
 
nonsense from a New York Post columnist

Maureen Callahan wrote, “Her beauty has dimmed considerably over the past two years, and it is this change of circumstance — as much as new DNA evidence and forensic findings and a distinct shift in public opinion — that may very well lead to a lesser sentence, if not an acquittal, of Amanda Knox… As the concurrent Casey Anthony case proved, the notion that a young, attractive, privileged white woman could commit such a deviant crime strikes many as both shocking and fascinating, with looks as the ultimate determining factor in how much interest the public expresses.”

Let’s try to figure out how many ways in which these two passages are wrong. One, Casey Anthony does not come from a privileged environment, and I would say that Amanda Knox comes from a middle class background. Two, the comparison with Casey Anthony (also made by Seamus O’Reilly, the Statement Analysis blogger), is intellectually lazy. Casey is more like Rudi, a serial liar whose actions merit more prison time than meted out. Three, the notion that one’s personal appearance is driving interest is insulting to everyone who has examined this carefully from legal, forensic, or legitimate psychological perspectives, using the scholarly literature where appropriate. I find Ms. Callahan’s column to be ill-informed and nasty.
 
Justinian2 said:
What mystifies me still is:
1.) Why others think the knife is the murder weapon.
2.) Why others think Amanda conspired with Guede.
3.) Why others think there is sufficient evidence to convict.
4.) Why she can't now be released on bail or house arrest.
5.) Why the USA state department (or Clinton) can't get involved.

Hey, the guys that lived downstairs had a closer relationship with Guede. They played basketball with him. Why not consider them suspects, it seems like a stronger case could be built against them.
Click to expand...

We can go back to the beginning, guilt was applied to the two,before there was any lab work done. This is the most disturbing, in how the two were perceived guilty by Edgardo Giobbi.
I liked what Antony stated, two ways to a crime, 1) evidence leads to the criminal, or 2) find the criminal and build a case against them.
#2 was used in this case of Amanda and Raffaele while # 1 was used for Rudy in the evidence came first.


Here's an example of a current PMF list for #3- aka. other evidence:

Knox and Sollecito weren't convicted solely on the knife and bra clasp evidence.

The following evidence is also key: the mixed blood samples, Sollecito’s bloody footprint on the blue bathmat, the Luminol footprints, the three traces of Meredith’s blood in Knox’s room, the mobile phone and computer records that provide irrefutable proof that Knox and Sollecito lied, Knox’s telephone calls and conversations with Filomena and the postal police on 2 November 2007, Knox’s false and malicious accusation against Diya Lumumba which she didn’t retract the whole time he was in prison, the staged break-in, the testimony of Nara Capezzali and Marco Qunitavalle and the testimony of numerous forensic experts who testified that more than one person killed Meredith.

Look at how many of these are from the "non- science" type beliefs.

1) the mobile phone and computer records that provide irrefutable proof that Knox and Sollecito lied

2) Knox’s telephone calls and conversations with Filomena and the postal police on 2 November 2007

3) the staged break-in,

4) the testimony of Nara Capezzali and Marco Qunitavalle



The science/forensic type:

1) the mixed blood samples,

2) Sollecito’s bloody footprint on the blue bathmat,

3) the Luminol footprints,

4) the three traces of Meredith’s blood in Knox’s room,

5) the testimony of numerous forensic experts who testified that more than one person killed Meredith


My point was the guilt-vote is not all based on science, which we all know.
This list is 50% science & 50% non -sense (joke).
 
halides1 said:
Maureen Callahan wrote, “Her beauty has dimmed considerably over the past two years, and it is this change of circumstance — as much as new DNA evidence and forensic findings and a distinct shift in public opinion — that may very well lead to a lesser sentence, if not an acquittal, of Amanda Knox… As the concurrent Casey Anthony case proved, the notion that a young, attractive, privileged white woman could commit such a deviant crime strikes many as both shocking and fascinating, with looks as the ultimate determining factor in how much interest the public expresses.”

Let’s try to figure out how many ways in which these two passages are wrong. One, Casey Anthony does not come from a privileged environment, and I would say that Amanda Knox comes from a middle class background. Two, the comparison with Casey Anthony (also made by Seamus O’Reilly, the Statement Analysis blogger), is intellectually lazy. Casey is more like Rudi, a serial liar whose actions merit more prison time than meted out. Three, the notion that one’s personal appearance is driving interest is insulting to everyone who has examined this carefully from legal, forensic, or legitimate psychological perspectives, using the scholarly literature where appropriate. I find Ms. Callahan’s column to be ill-informed and nasty.[/QUOTE
What would one expect from a Murdoch paper, maybe they where let down due to the fact they could not hack into Amanda phone voice mails
Just saying:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
 
JREF2010 said:
Here's an example of a current PMF list for #3- aka. other evidence:

Knox and Sollecito weren't convicted solely on the knife and bra clasp evidence.

The following evidence is also key: [...]the staged break-in[...]
Click to expand...

They may as well just say: "the fact that Knox and Sollecito killed Kercher". That would make the case really strong!
 
Last edited:
Diocletus said:
If I wanted to have a good shot at getting Raffaele's DNA on there, I would have touched the door handle and then the bra clasp.
Click to expand...

Yes, the outer door handle is the best candidate.
But as I understand it was touched by many others after Raffaele.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom