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

[Bill Williams]

How about you produce some cites of your own for this bone fragment idea?

How did you get over 2,100 posts ahead of me on this site?

 

[anglolawyer]

How did you get over 2,100 posts ahead of me on this site?

That's not counting all the posts in AAH (including this one, probably )

 

[Grinder]

I'll split this one 50-50 with you. I'll agree not to put quote marks around paraphases if you cite ONE legitimate source of the claim that non-blood material on a knife makes it suspicious.

Can you cite ONE source which says it was bone?

How about you produce some cites of your own for this bone fragment idea?

I'm saying, what is quite clear, that all DNA isn't blood related. I do not have any proof that it was bone and clearly gave an example of something that could be there without blood remaining.

I was responding to some FBI's quote (or in the case of Bill alleged quote) that if there is no blood it can't have been the murder weapon.

Perhaps Chris has an example of non-blood DNA being found on a knife.

Click - click

 

[anglolawyer]

I'm saying, what is quite clear, that all DNA isn't blood related. I do not have any proof that it was bone and clearly gave an example of something that could be there without blood remaining.

I was responding to some FBI's quote (or in the case of Bill alleged quote) that if there is no blood it can't have been the murder weapon.

Perhaps Chris has an example of non-blood DNA being found on a knife.

Click - click

You lazy so and so

So, which bone are we talking about here? The knife went into her throat. Check your throat for bone. Mine doesn't have any.

 

[Grinder]

You lazy so and so

So, which bone are we talking about here? The knife went into her throat. Check your throat for bone. Mine doesn't have any.

I feel a lawyer joke coming on . They only have two parts and they are interchangeable, the ******* and the mouth, is the punch line.

The hyoid bone was either broken or cut.

 

[anglolawyer]

I feel a lawyer joke coming on . They only have two parts and they are interchangeable, the ******* and the mouth, is the punch line.

The hyoid bone was either broken or cut.

So what are you suggesting? The knife went in through all that skin, muscle and blood and cut the hyoid bone, withdrew some tissue comprising all of the above including a microscopic fragment of hyoid bone, the knife was washed and everything but 10 cells of hyoid bone was removed. Is that the idea? Does the hyoid bone have blood in it?

PM the lawyer joke. I don't know that one.

 

[Grinder]

So what are you suggesting? The knife went in through all that skin, muscle and blood and cut the hyoid bone, withdrew some tissue comprising all of the above including a microscopic fragment of hyoid bone, the knife was washed and everything but 10 cells of hyoid bone was removed. Is that the idea? Does the hyoid bone have blood in it?

PM the lawyer joke. I don't know that one.

Dear me. I was just countering the idea that the knife had to test positive for blood to be the murder weapon if DNA was found.

I'm not contending that it was bone but could have been bone or some other part that didn't have blood. It is possible that the knife picked up a microscopic piece of bone in the infamous crevice that stuck there even as the blood was all washed off the knife. Remember I don't believe that knife was a murder weapon.

 

[anglolawyer]

Dear me. I was just countering the idea that the knife had to test positive for blood to be the murder weapon if DNA was found.

I'm not contending that it was bone but could have been bone or some other part that didn't have blood. It is possible that the knife picked up a microscopic piece of bone in the infamous crevice that stuck there even as the blood was all washed off the knife. Remember I don't believe that knife was a murder weapon.

What parts of the body don't have blood in them? And I guess you know she got a negative human species test. What about that? Not blood, not human. No cytomorphology. What do you make of that?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-amanda-knox-guilty

Thanks for the link, the thing I noticed is how many people said she was guilty even if she didn't actually do the murder, she is involved, exactly what I said. More and more people are seeing this as a third option.

 

[Bill Williams]

Thanks for the link, the thing I noticed is how many people said she was guilty even if she didn't actually do the murder, she is involved, exactly what I said. More and more people are seeing this as a third option.

Strangely, this is what Monica Napoleoni thought from Nov 2 onward. In my opinion it is one of those non sequitors of this case, that has the strange property of attracting proponents.

Note how Raffaele drops out of this narrative, though. My view is that the problem with this notion that "she knows something she's not telling us," only finds oxygen when non-provable stuff is thrown at it. I don't know why, like all this non-provable stuff, I'll just assert it, and dare others to disprove it.

The non-provable stuff includes guilters who believe someone can commit a murder while not leaving a forensic trace, or that she didn't commit the murder but returned to lock a bedroom door.

That's the oxygen for the notion. Asserting it and daring others to disprove it.

And I agree, it has a lot of proponents, the imagination seems to be the only limit.

 

[Grinder]

What parts of the body don't have blood in them? And I guess you know she got a negative human species test. What about that? Not blood, not human. No cytomorphology. What do you make of that?

If in fact it came up as negative for being human that should have ended the testing.

 

[Bill Williams]

What parts of the body don't have blood in them? And I guess you know she got a negative human species test. What about that? Not blood, not human. No cytomorphology. What do you make of that?

I'd settle for a citation that it was bone, rather than just the assertion that it was.

 

[Grinder]

The reason the knows something angle has some legs is that those that propose actual involvement can't put together a scenario that makes sense and sort of fits the timelines.

If Amanda wasn't at fault there is no way she wouldn't have blurted out the "truth" at some point.

The fact that people that talk about mixed blood, bleach receipts, standing in the plaza for three hours and the rest of the "evidence" that isn't valid having the same opinion as one shouldn't give that one solace.

Even today Amanda and Raf could come out and say what really happened if they weren't involved but just say, opened the door for Rudi.

 

[Grinder]

I'd settle for a citation that it was bone, rather than just the assertion that it was.

Bill it wasn't ID'ed as anything. I said that I was just giving an example of what it could be rather than having to be blood.

I know you like to paraphrase. I didn't say it definitively was bone. If I didn't make that clear enough - it could be bone on the murder knife.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Thanks for the link, the thing I noticed is how many people said she was guilty even if she didn't actually do the murder, she is involved, exactly what I said. More and more people are seeing this as a third option.

If a million people think a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. That remark is widely attributed to Voltaire but I don't believe there's any proof he said it.

Regardless of who said it, it's true. If you seek validation for a factual claim in finding people who agree with you, rather than in the evidence, you are looking in the wrong place.

 

[billyryan]

From the quotes above from the Massei motivations report, it is clear that Massei himself knows that Stefanoni is being accused of lying. This is particularly stark when Massei goes to great length to say that even if Professor Cingolani, someone appointed by a preliminary hearing judge!!!!!, saw no striations or crevices, that the good Professor probably did not use the same lighting source as Stefanoni and then again, probably didn't move the knife from side to side to reflect better the striations......

..... the dog ate my homework.....

But this is particularly stark because Massei seems to feel the need to say in black and white, "Stefanoni told no falsehoods." Not that she may have been mistaken, or that she was not misled by someone else....

.... but the Judge had to, in effect, rule on whether Stefanoni was a liar. (And what was at stake here was the very verdict Massei's court had come to 3 months' previous. He's BETTER clear up if Stefanoni was a liar or not! After all, she'd had a better light and remembered to move the knife from side to side....)

[qimg]http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQRo_r8vozOTemqNQ-fuYVq7Ft540YmLfv0fGa3EJs7xcxjeM9c[/qimg]​

Professor Cingolani is likely to be a witness in Florence,just one more person Mignini and his goons will have to threaten with a twenty year investigation if he don't give evidence favourable to the prosecution

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The reason the knows something angle has some legs is that those that propose actual involvement can't put together a scenario that makes sense and sort of fits the timelines.

If Amanda wasn't at fault there is no way she wouldn't have blurted out the "truth" at some point.

The fact that people that talk about mixed blood, bleach receipts, standing in the plaza for three hours and the rest of the "evidence" that isn't valid having the same opinion as one shouldn't give that one solace.

Even today Amanda and Raf could come out and say what really happened if they weren't involved but just say, opened the door for Rudi.

No they could not, any change to they 'story' will only prove what so many already say, they are lying, and if they are lying, they did do the dead and are still lying. They had their chance to tell the truth and call the cops once, but once they decided on the course that they did take, it was too late from then on. I personally think the drugs, young age and the fact that Raff was trying to protect Amanda was their eventual downfall, now they have to pay for it, sorry.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill it wasn't ID'ed as anything. I said that I was just giving an example of what it could be rather than having to be blood.

I know you like to paraphrase. I didn't say it definitively was bone. If I didn't make that clear enough - it could be bone on the murder knife.

Ok, I get you. I suppose I should then start a thread suggesting it could be cottage cheese. And that someone locked the refrigerator with their foot 180 degrees pointed away from the 'fridge door. Prove me wrong.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Bill it wasn't ID'ed as anything. I said that I was just giving an example of what it could be rather than having to be blood.

I know you like to paraphrase. I didn't say it definitively was bone. If I didn't make that clear enough - it could be bone on the murder knife.

Just to clarify, which of these is a more accurate gloss on your claim?

1. "I know as a matter of scientific fact that it's a reasonably plausible hypothesis that a bit of bone got stuck on the 'double DNA knife', that this bone survived washing when absolutely no blood did, and that a correct DNA profile was found using that bone fragment".

2. "I have no idea whether that is actually plausible. I just don't know absolutely for certain that it's not plausible, because I know little about the topic, and as far as I'm concerned anything that hasn't been specifically debunked is still fair game. I call this the Guilt of the Gaps principle".

 

[Dan O.]

It is very odd that at that time of the month 2000 Euros would be in the cash box.

Maybe it's enough to cover the deductible on the insurance.