Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Chris_Halkides]

A toothbrush would be a reasonable thing to try.

 

[Bill Williams]

remember Oggi's Razor,

it got there b/c Knox stuck it right in the victim's neck. just would be some real bad luck for contamination to end up on the blade of a knife at your boyfriend's house if you are accused of murder.

do you really think they are going to win the appeals trial? I think it's going to be another 8-0 jury for conviction.

I have no clue if they will win the appeal's trial. However, everyone here needs to know that if a knife is stuck in someone's neck, then there is either blood-DNA left on the knife, or the knife is cleaned completely.

Those who claim that THIS knife is the murder weapon need to explain to an FBI DNA expert why non-blood DNA is what remains? Until one can do that, they cannot claim that this is the murder weapon.

They also have to explain why there is no forensic evidence of Knox in that room, as even the convicting judge, Judge Massei, conceded. And, no, the knife does not count, because that is in contention.... the reasoning would be very circular.

The baffling thing to guilt-proponents is that there is NO forensic profile of Amanda Knox in the room, apart from the knife which was not in the room to begin with. People like John Douglas simply laugh at the suggestion.... that is not the way crime works, he says. It doesn't become true just because someone alleges it.

 

[DrTesla]

I have no clue if they will win the appeal's trial. However, everyone here needs to know that if a knife is stuck in someone's neck, then there is either blood-DNA left on the knife, or the knife is cleaned completely.

Those who claim that THIS knife is the murder weapon need to explain to an FBI DNA expert why non-blood DNA is what remains? Until one can do that, they cannot claim that this is the murder weapon.

They also have to explain why there is no forensic evidence of Knox in that room, as even the convicting judge, Judge Massei, conceded. And, no, the knife does not count, because that is in contention.... the reasoning would be very circular.

The baffling thing to guilt-proponents is that there is NO forensic profile of Amanda Knox in the room, apart from the knife which was not in the room to begin with. People like John Douglas simply laugh at the suggestion.... that is not the way crime works, he says. It doesn't become true just because someone alleges it.

dr. stef is a DNA expert. Was Dr. Stef confused about it being blood DNA on the knife?

this is the folly of appeals to authority arguments.

 

[Sonia]

What you may be missing is that the posts you make are "pushing you into obscurity", it's not anything anyone else is trying to do, because you seem completely unaware of how marginalized you are making yourself by your content, not people's reaction to it.

Your sole purpose seems to be enjoying making sexualized comments about women, all the while braying about your fundamental right to say whatever you want; all the while implying that THEY are the sluts, while ignoring the slut in your own eye.

Good for you. I am not a proponent of free speech at all costs, but am coming around to thinking that in your case I'll make an exception. You spend copious amounts of time making sexualized comments about people you've never met, and then name call - call people "feminists"..... ooooooooo, they must be hurt to be called THAT! - when they say you're being inappropriate. And then you slaim it is THEM (people you've never met) who are the sluts.... methinks thou dost protest too much!

Strangely, by saying you are being inappropriate they're actually not trying to silence you. Strangely they are doing you a favour; I mean, it actually may not be a concern to you the image of "Dr. Tesla" in cyberspace. The real you can walk away from it at any time I suppose.

Back to regularly scheduled programming - but your posts offer a unique insight into how the internet participates in pulling things off the rails; yet last time I checked a calendar it was 2013.... Your posts are so-2008. My 4 cents.

Very good post, Bill. Thank you.

 

[Bill Williams]

dr. stef is a DNA expert. Was Dr. Stef confused about it being blood DNA on the knife?

this is the folly of appeals to authority arguments.

First of all she's not a "Dr.", second of all she had to back-track on any claim that it was blood-DNA.... which is why even Judge Massei in his motivations report made mention of it being non-blood DNA.

 

[DrTesla]

What is the probability that you don't have an alibi, your boyfriend doesn't have one, and you also accused an innocent man of murder, all while being innocent. you'd think out of two people at least one of them would have 1 thing proving they were at Raffe's house.
it's a low probability that one person won't have 1 thing proving their alibi. then you throw in the false accusation of her boss, which 99.9999 is going to be proven to be a sign of guilt. what innocent person who knows they are innocent is going to accuse their innocent boss of rape plus murder after 1 hour of questioning. it's too big of a coincidence that her false accusation came 1 hour after the boyfriend broke her alibi.

ok, got to head out, been wasting too much time on here and internet in general. i might check back in in a few weeks when the SC report comes out w/ reasons for overturning Hellman.

what I'm most looking forward to in this case is Raffe having to go back to jail but Knox still free as she tries to fight extradition. that's when you are going to see some game theory, prisoner's dilemna, b/t the two. it's been going on all along but it has been suble but I think Raffe's going to start remembering stuff real soon.

 

[Bill Williams]

What is the probability that you don't have an alibi, your boyfriend doesn't have one, and you also accused an innocent man of murder, all while being innocent. you'd think out of two people at least one of them would have 1 thing proving they were at Raffe's house.
it's a low probability that one person won't have 1 thing proving their alibi. then you throw in the false accusation of her boss, which 99.9999 is going to be proven to be a sign of guilt. what innocent person who knows they are innocent is going to accuse their innocent boss of rape plus murder after 1 hour of questioning. it's too big of a coincidence that her false accusation came 1 hour after the boyfriend broke her alibi.

You are actually entitled to that opinion.

You have no obligation to answer this, but strangely I would like to hear why someone like John Douglas, who actually has experience as a criminal interrogator, says exactly the opposite. To John Douglas (someone who actually practises interrogation techniques) it is no mystery at all - the police break Raffaele's claim through coersion, then come into Knox's room and break her through coersion.

I actually do not mean this as argumentative - but why should I disbelieve John Douglas? He thinks they are innocent because he understands what went on that night. They are each other's alibi, no different than Filomena and her boyfriend. They DO know where they were that night. They've always claimed so.

 

[DrTesla]

First of all she's not a "Dr.", second of all she had to back-track on any claim that it was blood-DNA.... which is why even Judge Massei in his motivations report made mention of it being non-blood DNA.

ok i will review that but i don't think they need the dna evidence in this case, the lack of alibis and overwhelming cirmumstantial evidence is enough, it's much more than anything they had on Arias, Scott Peterson, OJ Simpson.

 

[DrTesla]

You are actually entitled to that opinion.

You have no obligation to answer this, but strangely I would like to hear why someone like John Douglas, who actually has experience as a criminal interrogator, says exactly the opposite. To John Douglas (someone who actually practises interrogation techniques) it is no mystery at all - the police break Raffaele's claim through coersion, then come into Knox's room and break her through coersion.

I actually do not mean this as argumentative - but why should I disbelieve John Douglas? He thinks they are innocent because he understands what went on that night. They are each other's alibi, no different than Filomena and her boyfriend. They DO know where they were that night. They've always claimed so.

how can Douglas know what went on that night if he was not actually there? You cannot be a witness to something that you do not yourself see/hear.

Take care, I'm on an Amanda Knox-free vacation for a bit

 

[Grinder]

Dear me what idiotic arguments. Last night my SO and I were home alone after 9 pm. We watched streamed video from Netflix and then went to bed sometime after 10. If my evil neighbor (and I do mean that, probably as bad a person as one moderator over there) had been murdered neither of us would have anymore of an alibi than Amanda or Raf.

Alibis are not required in life. They are very handy if accused of a crime one didn't have anything to do with, but certainly not required.

We have returned to bizarro world where people need to prove they are innocent.

The PGP want contamination proven but don't require how DNA got on a the item (knife) proven. If the DNA that Stefanoni "found" on the knife contained no blood what was it? How did it get there?

Contamination must be proven but evidence not.

 

[yimyammer]

Once again the video was live streamed to the defense. They didn't allow them inside but for obvious reasons the defense wanted to observe. I haven't seen the whole video but wouldn't be surprised if they showed other things to the camera as well. if the clasp is the only thing so demonstrated that would be much more incriminating for the ILE.

I suppose DNA could be moved from the inside of a dirty sock or from a blood sample or a toothbrush or the sink at his house.

Thanks for that info. Once again, this is the first time I've heard this and I've been following this case for a couple of years. That changes how I perceive the video now as there seems to be a reasonable explanation as to why they are making a production out of the bra clasp and like you said, we don't know if they did this with other things.

This case...smh.....I feel like I've got one or both arms tied behind my back while trying to determine what the actual facts are. Given the evidence was born across the ocean in another language & by the time its imported to my shores it seems to become murky, deficient, nonexistent and/or completely incorrect....ugh!

 

[Grinder]

Chris,

I while back I posted some information about Luminol and blood.

The information was that Luminol could find blood residue that was years old and implied that normal cleaning would not remove it. If the floors were cleaned using a small amount or weak cleaner the "footprints" found could have been from time well before the renters at the time had moved in.

Because of the diluted nature of the stains, if they were in fact blood (so low TMB wouldn't react), would mean to me that someone could have had their feet in diluted blood water in the shower (nose bleed, period, cut etc.) and left the prints.

Why hasn't the lack of time stamp of those footprints been more of an issue in your mind?

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>Your sole purpose seems to be enjoying making sexualized comments about women, all the while braying about your fundamental right to say whatever you want; all the while implying that THEY are the sluts, while ignoring the slut in your own eye.

Good for you. I am not a proponent of free speech at all costs, but am coming around to thinking that in your case I'll make an exception. You spend copious amounts of time making sexualized comments about people you've never met, and then name call - call people "feminists"..... ooooooooo, they must be hurt to be called THAT! - when they say you're being inappropriate. And then you slaim it is THEM (people you've never met) who are the sluts.... methinks thou dost protest too much!

Strangely, by saying you are being inappropriate they're actually not trying to silence you. Strangely they are doing you a favour; I mean, it actually may not be a concern to you the image of "Dr. Tesla" in cyberspace. The real you can walk away from it at any time I suppose.

<snip>You, on the other hand, make all sorts of sexualized comments about Amanda Knox as well as the women who use this forum. Unless you were raised in a pre-Internet culture, no this is not a dorm room where you are hanging out with your buddies doing some good, old fashioned (private) slut-shaming.

What are these two posts still doing here? There is no room in this discussion for an examination of sexism and misogyny. I call "off-topic." We're here to talk about the rape/murder of one woman and the kidnapping/imprisonment of another.

 

[Grinder]

There is something odd about the Maria Del Prato video. At least on my screen I could read anything on the street and the door information looks blurred. It's odd she seemingly made only this one short video and it is semi-professionally done.

How strange she had a locksmith with her on the day someone had broken in.

 

[Bill Williams]

You are actually entitled to that opinion.

You have no obligation to answer this, but strangely I would like to hear why someone like John Douglas, who actually has experience as a criminal interrogator, says exactly the opposite. To John Douglas (someone who actually practises interrogation techniques) it is no mystery at all - the police break Raffaele's claim through coersion, then come into Knox's room and break her through coersion.

I actually do not mean this as argumentative - but why should I disbelieve John Douglas? He thinks they are innocent because he understands what went on that night. They are each other's alibi, no different than Filomena and her boyfriend. They DO know where they were that night. They've always claimed so.

how can Douglas know what went on that night if he was not actually there? You cannot be a witness to something that you do not yourself see/hear.

Take care, I'm on an Amanda Knox-free vacation for a bit

Neither were you there. Neither was I. Neither was the lurker reading this.

The point is for me and me alone.... who am I (as someone not there) going to believe? As for me and my house, we will believe John Douglas, the FBI profiler with 25 years of experience of cutting through all the noise to get to what he considers essential.

True, he was not there. Yet for some reason he's built a distinguished career solving other crimes, none of which he was actually physically present at either.

And he says they are obviously innocent in this case.

 

[Supernaut]

There is something odd about the Maria Del Prato video. At least on my screen I could read anything on the street and the door information looks blurred. It's odd she seemingly made only this one short video and it is semi-professionally done.

How strange she had a locksmith with her on the day someone had broken in.

The school had been broken into previously (a week or so before IIRC), which was why she had the locksmith with her - he was there to improve the security of the place.

It seems rather too coincidental, and one has to wonder if that was also Guede's doing - he had travelled to Milan several times (he said he had an "aunt" there).

 

[CaptainHowdy]

What are these two posts still doing here? There is no room in this discussion for an examination of sexism and misogyny. I call "off-topic." We're here to talk about the rape/murder of one woman and the kidnapping/imprisonment of another.

Sexism and misogyny are a part of this discussion. Amanda Knox's sexuality is part of her character that makes people believe she's guilty. Because everybody knows that a pretty young American woman who can dupe Italian men into casual fornication must be a murderer.

 

[naisel]

In a thug move, Perugia prosecutors sent two police patrols to Rome today and tried to seize a DVD from the court-appointed independent experts who testified Monday in the Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito appeals trial, according to Perugia-based blogger Frank Sfarzo and confirmed by Libero News.​

That Italian source sings a different tune: it says that the court of Perugia (i.e. Hellman), not the prosecutors, ordered the acquisition of the dvd, to be used in the ongoing trial.

(quote edited because I can't post URLs)

 

[Grinder]

Sexism and misogyny are a part of this discussion. Amanda Knox's sexuality is part of her character that makes people believe she's guilty. Because everybody knows that a pretty young American woman who can dupe Italian men into casual fornication must be a murderer.

I must agree. From the earliest time in this case sex was a central theme. From Foxy Knoxy to sex orgy to consensual sex gone bad to questions about Vaseline that Amanda wrote about to Edda's "boy toy" to Amanda had to compete with her mother for men (that story was out by December) and on and on.

Then there is the other side of how good Meredith was and that she didn't approve of Amanda bringing home all the strange men. The condoms and the vibrator were central to their falling out according to the legend.

 

[Grinder]

That Italian source sings a different tune: it says that the court of Perugia (i.e. Hellman), not the prosecutors, ordered the acquisition of the dvd, to be used in the ongoing trial.

(quote edited because I can't post URLs)

The Italian paper doesn't backup the police raid in Rome. It doesn't cover that aspect at all.