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

[Bill Williams]

MACFLY!!! MACFLY!!! THINK...THINK!!!! But what was found on the knife was. There was no DNA of Meredith Kercher on the knife. C'mon Grinder, beat that dead horse some more!!!!



You must think that anyone who wrote a book about this to be frauds. How about all the newspapers? How about Dateline NBC? Or 48 Hours? How about 60 Minutes? They all did specials about Amanda Knox and they all sold a lot of advertising making millions off the Amanda Knox story. And they all came to the conclusion that this was a railroad job from hell.

Guess, they all weren't balanced either.

What acbytesla said.

Grinder - you hate Dempsey. We get that. You've barely tried to hide it. Admit you've made the point you wish to make and move on.

With respect this is beginning to feel like a personal vendetta. You may not intend it but going on and on making the same point where you've been responded to, and your reply is to restate your hatred, is what makes it look like being stuck in a feedback loop.

 

[Bill Williams]

What is it that Edmund Burke said Bill?

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -

When you know something is wrong, shouldn't you do something about it? I don't see Candace as an agent of Amanda's, but an agent of truth which just happens to support Amanda and Raffaele.

What acbytesla said.

 

[xinonix]

I think you guilters need a new strategy if you want to keep the myth of Foxy Knoxy and the sex game gone wrong alive.
Perhaps you could say that a bug (listening device) was planted in Raffaele's flat and Mignini or his pal heard them say something that proved they killed her, along with this guy they called the ******.
This would explain why it appears Mignini knew who did it even though he claims he did not get the information for this case from a psychic.

 

[Supernaut]

I'll take a shot:
In the last trial, a speck the police claimed contained the victim's DNA turned out to be starch.

Still inaccurate though.
Second try:
In the last trial, where the police claimed to find DNA, the latest tests only showed starch.

Still not great though. If I had been writing it I would have used more words (And I probably wouldn't have found anybody that was interested in paying me for the right to publish it).

Previously I gave Grinder and acbytesla each a score of 50% right. I have changed my view a bit based on a LondonJohn post. I understood from his post that Dempsey's claim was a little closer to the truth than I had realized. My new scores: Grinder 40% acbytesla 60%. However Grinder has kept pounding away on this issue for reasons that aren't clear, I am on the edge of deducting another 10% for continuing to make a big deal out of a very small issue.

How about;

In the last trial, a speck the police claimed was had yielded the victim’s DNA turned out to be starch.

To be strictly accurate, one could say;

in the last trial, the knife which the police claimed had yielded the victim's DNA from speck of material (which wasn't photographed) found on the blade, turned out to have no biological material on it, except for traces of starch.

A bit wordy, and possibly less likely to make the issue clear to the casual reader - I think Dempsey's description does so largely without misleading or mis-representing.

Are we having fun yet?

 

[Bill Williams]

I think you guilters need a new strategy if you want to keep the myth of Foxy Knoxy and the sex game gone wrong alive.
Perhaps you could say that a bug (listening device) was planted in Raffaele's flat and Mignini or his pal heard them say something that proved they killed her, along with this guy they called the ******.
This would explain why it appears Mignini knew who did it even though he claims he did not get the information for this case from a psychic.

What is of interest is that even the convicting Judge does not believe it was a sex game gone wrong. To Massei it was Rudy's lust and Rudy's alone.

I wonder if Machiavelli will return to address what Massei wrote?

 

[Supernaut]

Re. the kitchen knife;

Grinder seems to have a problem with "unbalanced" reporting about what was or wasn't found on it, such as referring to the material Stephony ran her DIY LCN DNA amplification on as "starch", when it was never positively identified as such (it was never identified as anything).

Actually, given the dearth of documented and photographed information from the lab in question, how is anyone supposed to be any more balanced than Dempsey is being?

A "speck" was tested and destroyed (and a speck is a speck is a speck, even to the supernaturally intuitive eye of the Great Stephony) in a one-time amplification run, and later tests on the knife yielded nothing but rye-starch. Why shouldn't one simply put 2 and 2 together and assert that this "speck" was also starch?

That's certainly a far less outlandish assertion than most of those made by the Great Stephony about her work and what it supposedly revealed.

 

[moije2]

Saying that they are bad is generally accurate or at least how it is viewed by the majority of scientists at this time. Would it be accurate or balanced to say pollution is good?
You can dance and wave your arms all you want but the DNA wasn't deemed to be starch by anyone but Dempsey and it is well known, as Charlie pointed out. This is a little like the PGP is with Amanda.

A voice from up in the gallery.

I keep hearing you say that the <DNA> wasn't deemed to be <starch>, and the quote from CD saying that the "speck" asserted by the police to contain the DNA. I am paraphrasing that last part, and may not have it exactly right. BTW, comments have been made that she corrected the statement. I haven't seen that nor the date comparison of the two. Nor do I understand fully where this occurred. On her SeattlePI blog?

The reason I bother to dip my toes into this protracted discussion is because I am a person that has followed extensively this case, but at the same time have not had the time or inclination to try to learn very nth detail of the science re the DNA because of 2 reasons: 1) I have always maintained that it is bordering on major arrogance to think that you can trace DNA of individuals occupying the same house and time stamp them as well. Me thinks people have watched too much CSI. 2) Even if they in the labs determine Meredith's DNA to be present on the knife, the case is rife with so many suspicious events that I wouldn't trust the findings anyway, especially given the totality of the events and personalities involved.

So maybe she fooled/mislead you folks, but I don't feel misled at all.

Now with that said, back to the argument about CD being a "liar" and part of the propaganda machine, and no more trust worthy than Vogt with her directing people to that extremely biased web site http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Main_Page.

So as a person that isn't ensconced in the "DNA details" like those of you here, who are much more knowledgeable than me, what I read when I saw the statement in question was that they tested something (a speck?) that turned out to be starch. That may not be what actually happened. Still don't know. But I can tell you one thing, I don't know how a person can think that DNA becomes starch. If in fact it is DNA to start out with. Everybody has heard that the original substance tested by the Italian labs, and found to contain Meredith's DNA, was "used up" and thus repeat studies could not be done to verify accuracy. One of the reasons to challenge the validity of the evidence. Although Machiavelli I think disagrees with that. But for me, again, I simply read that they tested something and it was found to contain starch, and I thought that something was something besides the original DNA containing sample.

So as someone said, does a "speck" translate into the original DNA sample? I didn't and don't read it as that. Doesn't make sense to me. I did not think of her statement as referring to the CV report and their findings about the purported found DNA. I read it as the new "speck" which they thought or hoped would contain more DNA of Meredith to confirm the first test in terms of showing that yes, some DNA is to be found on the knife, albeit at a different location. Isn't that in fact what happened? I do not see CD's statement as a statement that the found DNA was magically transformed into starch. I don't know how someone could interpret that.

My anecdotal testimony may reveal my lack of understanding about the issue. But after listening to the back and forth about who is lying or not, my vote is that this is blown way out of proportion and too much vitriol is being spouted for little reason.

So as for CD "lying" with the intent to mislead, I will let you return to your regular broadcast.

PS: Now maybe I misunderstand everything. Perhaps you are saying, in spite of my lay interpretation to the contrary, that CD intended her statement to mean that the very same sample containing DNA was retested and found to be wrong. Given that it is widely known that the original sample was used up or consumed, I don't know how she could have intended that.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the same area yielded no DNA

It is essentially impossible to time stamp DNA on the basis of the DNA profile itself. Conti and Vecchhiotti swabbed the same areas as Stefanoni, but the area that originally generated 36B yielded no DNA. There is a good chance that there was never any of Meredith's DNA on the knife to begin with.

 

[Grinder]

What acbytesla said.

Grinder - you hate Dempsey. We get that. You've barely tried to hide it. Admit you've made the point you wish to make and move on.

With respect this is beginning to feel like a personal vendetta. You may not intend it but going on and on making the same point where you've been responded to, and your reply is to restate your hatred, is what makes it look like being stuck in a feedback loop.

And what do you think the last two weeks of Vogt and Mach seem like?

MACFLY!!! MACFLY!!! THINK...THINK!!!! But what was found on the knife was. There was no DNA of Meredith Kercher on the knife. C'mon Grinder, beat that dead horse some more!!!!

There was DNA on the knife from Meredith, but it was judged to be invalid because of poor handling and testing contamination couldn't be ruled out.

 

[Grinder]

It is essentially impossible to time stamp DNA on the basis of the DNA profile itself. Conti and Vecchhiotti swabbed the same areas as Stefanoni, but the area that originally generated 36B yielded no DNA. There is a good chance that there was never any of Meredith's DNA on the knife to begin with.

And I totally agree but it didn't turn out to be starch.

 

[moije2]

It is essentially impossible to time stamp DNA on the basis of the DNA profile itself. Conti and Vecchhiotti swabbed the same areas as Stefanoni, but the area that originally generated 36B yielded no DNA. There is a good chance that there was never any of Meredith's DNA on the knife to begin with.

Thank you for your reply. So more or less I was correct in my thinking. Perhaps!

So if they swabbed the same area, and it revealed no DNA, am I correct to assume this is the area that turned up starch? (Just for my clarity.) With its various possible implications?

 

[Dan O.]

Well your snip of CD's doesn't even mention the knife.

You've been snipping it even further and not even preserving a full sentence as in:

... the victim’s DNA turned out to be starch. ​

Which is itself a dishonest paraphrase of her writings.


Nobody reading this thread is mislead by her writings. Everybody here should be fully aware that the spec that presumably showed Meredith's DNA came from sample 36B on the center of the blade while the spec that revealed starch granules came from sample 36I at the junction of the blade and the handle. Also, this new finding wasn't a sudden revelation that the knife wasn't sparkling clean. If we scroll way back to where the images of the knife was first presented in this thread, you will find where I pointed out the debris at that very location.

Let's get back to searching for the best truth given the current evidence and stop bickering about where someone might have been incorrect in the past.

 

[Grinder]

A voice from up in the gallery.

I keep hearing you say that the <DNA> wasn't deemed to be <starch>, and the quote from CD saying that the "speck" asserted by the police to contain the DNA. I am paraphrasing that last part, and may not have it exactly right. BTW, comments have been made that she corrected the statement. I haven't seen that nor the date comparison of the two. Nor do I understand fully where this occurred. On her SeattlePI blog?

She hasn't corrected it as of now - yes on her blog put up Sept 30th.

I fear we’ll see the rejected kitchen knife, wrapped with a bright red ribbon, brought back to court under melodramatic armed guard. Too large to fit victim Meredith Kercher’s wounds, it doesn’t match a bloody imprint on the victim’s bed. In the last trial, a speck the police claimed was the victim’s DNA turned out to be starch​

The reason I bother to dip my toes into this protracted discussion is because I am a person that has followed extensively this case, but at the same time have not had the time or inclination to try to learn very nth detail of the science re the DNA because of 2 reasons: 1) I have always maintained that it is bordering on major arrogance to think that you can trace DNA of individuals occupying the same house and time stamp them as well. Me thinks people have watched too much CSI. 2) Even if they in the labs determine Meredith's DNA to be present on the knife, the case is rife with so many suspicious events that I wouldn't trust the findings anyway, especially given the totality of the events and personalities involved.

No argument with that.

So maybe she fooled/mislead you folks, but I don't feel misled at all.

Do you feel misled my Vogt "I was there"? I don't.

I think that for someone not aware of the facts that it is a very misleading statement.

Now with that said, back to the argument about CD being a "liar" and part of the propaganda machine, and no more trust worthy than Vogt with her directing people to that extremely biased web site http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Main_Page.

So as a person that isn't ensconced in the "DNA details" like those of you here, who are much more knowledgeable than me, what I read when I saw the statement in question was that they tested something (a speck?) that turned out to be starch. That may not be what actually happened. Still don't know. But I can tell you one thing, I don't know how a person can think that DNA becomes starch. If in fact it is DNA to start out with. Everybody has heard that the original substance tested by the Italian labs, and found to contain Meredith's DNA, was "used up" and thus repeat studies could not be done to verify accuracy. One of the reasons to challenge the validity of the evidence. Although Machiavelli I think disagrees with that. But for me, again, I simply read that they tested something and it was found to contain starch, and I thought that something was something besides the original DNA containing sample.

Yes basically correct but that doesn't change the fact that she put out a known falsehood. She was working on her book from nearly the first day and everyone here knows that the DNA was used up by Stefanoni and that no expert ever posited or claimed it was starch. Clearly if it were true that it was starch that makes the evidence even more ridiculous than the joke it is.

So as someone said, does a "speck" translate into the original DNA sample? I didn't and don't read it as that.

In the last trial, a speck the police claimed was the victim’s DNA turned out to be starch

The only "speck" ever claimed to be DNA was the one used up by Stefanoni. Please explain what else it could mean but what I've said.

Doesn't make sense to me. I did not think of her statement as referring to the CV report and their findings about the purported found DNA. I read it as the new "speck" which they thought or hoped would contain more DNA of Meredith to confirm the first test in terms of showing that yes, some DNA is to be found on the knife, albeit at a different location. Isn't that in fact what happened? I do not see CD's statement as a statement that the found DNA was magically transformed into starch. I don't know how someone could interpret that.

As you can see she was referring to the last trial the one C&V were involved in. The new "speck" is reported to be Amanda's DNA although that it isn't official yet. It is not at clear that they thought one way or the other on whose DNA it might be. It wasn't found by the police or the prosecution side but rather C&V themselves.

My anecdotal testimony may reveal my lack of understanding about the issue. But after listening to the back and forth about who is lying or not, my vote is that this is blown way out of proportion and too much vitriol is being spouted for little reason.

So as for CD "lying" with the intent to mislead, I will let you return to your regular broadcast.

PS: Now maybe I misunderstand everything. Perhaps you are saying, in spite of my lay interpretation to the contrary, that CD intended her statement to mean that the very same sample containing DNA was retested and found to be wrong. Given that it is widely known that the original sample was used up or consumed, I don't know how she could have intended that.

Well read the story yourself. Here you go.

There is no doubt that she should have known that the sample was used up and that no one ever said it had been starch the whole time. No defense expert. No independent expert. No PMF or FOA expert.

She knew and and was told by Randy just before publishing that it was wrong. People here are in contact with her yet it remained at least until ten minutes ago.

I don't think you misunderstand everything at all.

 

[Grinder]

You've been snipping it even further and not even preserving a full sentence as in:

... the victim’s DNA turned out to be starch. ​

Which is itself a dishonest paraphrase of her writings.

Bull. I've quoted the whole paragraph multiple times.

Nobody reading this thread is mislead by her writings. Everybody here should be fully aware that the spec that presumably showed Meredith's DNA came from sample 36B on the center of the blade while the spec that revealed starch granules came from sample 36I at the junction of the blade and the handle. Also, this new finding wasn't a sudden revelation that the knife wasn't sparkling clean. If we scroll way back to where the images of the knife was first presented in this thread, you will find where I pointed out the debris at that very location.

Anybody here misled by Vogt's "I was there"?

Let's get back to searching for the best truth given the current evidence and stop bickering about where someone might have been incorrect in the past.

No problem. You think two weeks of Mach bashing over satanic rite is helping?

One thing that has never been questioned is the account the british girls gave about their evening. The fact that alcohol was found in Meredith's system and that the same pathologist found no chyme in the duodenum makes their account very difficult to fully believe. Had they really eaten at 6 pm there should have been some chyme in the duodenum by 8 pm. Certainly by 8:30 pm.

If Meredith had enough alcohol in her system from the night before she would have had about .12 in her system when she woke up and interacted with the cottage folks. The science is clear that people, all people, get rid of about .015 of alcohol per hour. She would have been noticeably drunk. No one mentioned that.

Perhaps they ate later and had a few drinks, say two. That would explain the alcohol and the lack of chyme.

The early reports had Meredith looking like a party girl. The cottage girls wanted Amanda to lie about pot smoking. There seems to be a widespread cover-up of normal college behavior. Understandably everyone wanted Meredith not to be besmirched in any way, but could this have led to poor information being given to the police. Related to this angle is Filomena and her orderly clothes and shutting of the outer shutters. Why would she shut them when in a hurry?

 

[Grinder]

Thank you for your reply. So more or less I was correct in my thinking. Perhaps!

So if they swabbed the same area, and it revealed no DNA, am I correct to assume this is the area that turned up starch? (Just for my clarity.) With its various possible implications?

I believe it written up thread but IIRC the starch was found closer to the handle and not on the tip of the knife.

The big deal about the starch is that people say that the knife couldn't have been that clean if there was starch. While I agree with that a bit it is not clear to me how much starch was found. Too much and the PGP would just say it proves Amanda was a slob

 

[acbytesla]

And what do you think the last two weeks of Vogt and Mach seem like?

​

There was DNA on the knife from Meredith, but it was judged to be invalid because of poor handling and testing contamination couldn't be ruled out.

No in fact, there is only Stefanoni's word on this and nothing else. Without proper substrate controls and given C&V's review, it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT Meredith's DNA was on the knife.

 

[Katody Matrass]

To my knowledge he had:

1 imitation combat knife

What is your source for this one?

 

[Grinder]

What is your source for this one?

PMF and TJMK have posted what they claim to be pictures of two of his knives. IIP and other PIP sites haven't countered with pictures.

The PGP pictures show knives that are more tactical ones than the old jackknives or pen knives.

If someone has pictures of the models or actual knives please share.

Dan O do you have them on your wiki?

 

[Bill Williams]

No problem. You think two weeks of Mach bashing over satanic rite is helping?

Engaging in undue hyperbole is simply unhelpful. For Pete's sake, even Machiavelli has engaged us in good faith.

But it's what he is claiming which is being "bashed", not Machiavelli himself. Your hyperbole is simply not helpful.

Mach claims to have original documents which demonstrate that Mignini never claimed a "Satanic Rite" theory of the trial. AFAIR this whole thread started with Mignini himself writing a letter to the editor, himself denying he had ever claimed a Satanic rite.

Both you and Machiavelli have missed my point - which may have been missed because there are a lot of people who read a lot about "Satanic Rites" back in 2007 and 2008. Even Barbie Nadeau, no friend to FOA, writes about it - even John Kercher writes about it, conceding it is controversial.

Machiavelli calls Nadeau a liar for claiming that Manuela Comodi threatened to quit the case if Mignini took "Satanic Rite" to trial. Machiavelli calls John Kercher "misinformed".

My thing is this - why is this such a hot button issue in 2013!?

No one has bashed Machiavelli - unless you call it "bashing" simply to ask him to post the documents he says he's reading to prove that Mignini never had such a theory.

 

[Bill Williams]

What acbytesla said.

Grinder - you hate Dempsey. We get that. You've barely tried to hide it. Admit you've made the point you wish to make and move on.

With respect this is beginning to feel like a personal vendetta. You may not intend it but going on and on making the same point where you've been responded to, and your reply is to restate your hatred, is what makes it look like being stuck in a feedback loop.

And what do you think the last two weeks of Vogt and Mach seem like

If the difference isn't plain then there's not much I can do for you.

Mach has simply avoided most of the questions put to him. His responses have been to try to "reframe" the question into one he's more comfortable handling. When one then returns to the original question, they are met with a second "reframing", leaving the question basically unanswered.

Between RandyN and halides1 and Charles Wilkes, they have answered all you questions. You return saying you're not convinced, that you still hate Dempsey, and then you simply repost the original stuff they refuted as if they had responded.

Around and around we go..... Machiavelli could end the "Mignini never theorized about a Satanic Rite" but simply posting the stuff he claims to possess that demonstrate this.... and he does not post it.

There is a lot of difference.... or do you think that Mach defending Andrea Vogt's horrible misinterpretation of "I was there" by reframing it as Amanda and Edda speaking in "Mafia code" has any merit to it!?

Sheesh.