• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Please pass this around. It is of Mr. Mignini being called up from the audience to address Satanism, at a presumed anti-Satanism conference. Whereas he does not make direct reference in his remarks about the Kercher case and Satanism, he also did not take the opportunity to dispel rumours that he'd once offered this as a motive for the crime.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_53971526aa87b315e7.jpg[/qimg]
.
Poor Machi. She's fighting a rear guard action to cover Migi's ass, and Migi is sneaking off to Satanisim conferences behind her back. Drop him Machi, you're too good for that cheating scumbag. :mad:

By the way, what exactly are Satanic murders anyway? I presume you have to at least be religious to believe in them.
.
 
People lie about their sexual encounters. That much I'm sure of. They are more concerned about how they are viewed, than they are about the truth.

I read a study that everyone DOES lie.... at the end of college/university, everyone says they had 4 sexual encounters.

The people who have had none lie by saying they'd had 4.

The people who have had gazillions lie by saying they'd had 4.

They lie for different reasons.
 
Please pass this around. It is of Mr. Mignini being called up from the audience to address Satanism, at a presumed anti-Satanism conference. Whereas he does not make direct reference in his remarks about the Kercher case and Satanism, he also did not take the opportunity to dispel rumours that he'd once offered this as a motive for the crime.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_53971526aa87b315e7.jpg[/qimg]

While trying to distance himself at this conference from suggestions that he'd claimed Satanism had something to do with the Kercher case, he also says that, "You have to have an enormously open mind," to the subject, because it cannot ever be ruled out at the start of an investigation.

Machiavelli? Is there an Italian law out there which will mean this to be something other than what Mr. Mignini said? Will the ISC take "sex game gone wrong" out, and substitute "Satanic Rite" because as Mr. Mignini has said, it can never really be ruled out?
 
Another thing. The idea, painted in the American and Italian press, that she was some sort of a drug-fiend nymphomaniac party girl couldn't have been further from the truth in retrospect. They made her sound like a near-Satanic version of Paris Hilton.

So she smoked some weed once in a while. Got drunk a few times. And slept with three people over the course of a month and a half in Italy, including Sollecito. And with him, as they had known one another for barely a week, it was a few times at most. Wow, so shocking, coming from a 20-year-old. :rolleyes:

This is supposed to be scandalous? Compared to what some people I knew in college got up to, this is boring. She was a sheltered and rather awkward nerd kid from the suburbs who loved languages and Harry Potter. It seems as if her behavior was only "edgy" in her own mind. In comparison to other people their age, Knox and Sollecito lived like a nun and a monk. If anything, the scandal might be that she didn't party more.

LoL. You've got to laugh, or else you'll cry.

Thanks for getting this back into some perspective.
 
the sensitivities of blood tests

There is a blog entry here that surveys the sensitivities of presumptive and confirmatory blood tests. There are links to earlier entries from the same blog. PGP tend to downplay the sensitivity of TMB, quoting a figure that it only detects blood down to 1 part in 10,000. That is at the very low end of the range. The version of the TMB test that Conti and Vecchiotti used has a sensitivity of 1 part in 300,000 to 500,000. Sarah Gino testified that about half of all luminol-positive hits were not positive by TMB.

There is a paper that deals with false negatives, namely, Castello et al., Journal of the Canadian Society of Forensic Science, 35(3), 2002, 113-121. They used ascorbic acid and showed that luminol has a higher resistance to interference from ascorbic acid than other presumptive tests, but they only show their luminol results in this paper. The results for other presumptive tests are in an earlier paper. Ascorbic acid is a component of lemon juice. So maybe the reason why the TMB tests were negative was because the stains had lemon juice. What would Comodi say about that?

“At the scene of the crime there is a footprint made in blood on the bathmat and Knox and Sollecito’s footprints made in blood on the floor,” Comodi said. “and these were supposedly made at some different time because they stepped in bleach or rust or fruit juice? It’s up to you to decide.”
 
Last edited:
Hi Machiavelli,
I was under the impression that TMB was a presumptive test for blood. As I understand it, that means that if the result is positive then the sample might contain blood but if it is negative the doesn't contain blood at a sufficient concentration to trigger a positive TMB reaction.

Is your claim here that there might have been blood in the samples because the concentration was too low for a positive TMB test? Is that possible if there is a positive luminal result? Even if this is theoretically possible what probative value would a negative TMB result have with regards to a trial? Wouldn't it just be a non informative result? Something that might have been blood was found but the concentration was too low to determine if it was blood or not.

You mentioned that the literature does not support Kaosum's claims. Could you cite which literature that is? I looked briefly and all I found was information about the possibility of false positives with TMB testing, false negatives were only discussed with regards to the required concentration of blood to get a positive result.

Machiavelli and his fellow cultists have carried out extensive research, and they have concluded that luminol is a definitive rather than presumptive test for blood, at least in this case. It is more sensitive than TMB or a DNA swab, which is why the TMB/DNA tests on the latent footprints came back negative. Other substances can react with luminol, but none of them could have been present in this particular crime scene environment. If they had been, the reaction would have looked different.

Machiavelli has further explained why the footprints are in random locations and don't form a trail or pattern. That is because Amanda and Raffaele were shuffling around the floor on towels, but they stepped on the bare floor in a few places.

If you want a reference point for purposes of comparison, check out some of the websites devoted to the Shroud of Turin, where cranks expound on the intricacies of carbon dating.
 
Sinner

In all five years I was in college, I slept with one person. Once. :boxedin:Seriously, that's it. Once with one person from the age of 18 to 23. (There were a few dates but they didn't go past kissing and holding hands and the like.) So I'm also inclined to think "Seven at the age of 20? Good on you."

The people who think Amanda is some sort of demonic whore have no idea what they are talking about. Amanda's so-called "depravity" was lame and tame next to what other college kids do. Her "antics" barely scratch the surface of the real partying possible in college and study abroad programs. Barely sleeping with seven boys (four of them back home) is supposed to be sordid? That's Sodom and Gomorrah? That's not particularly nasty or weird.

The whole business with the diary was disgraceful. So she was told she had HIV and made a list to determine who it could have been that gave it to her. That's what anyone would do in that situation. That's what everyone should do. That it was confiscated from her, given to the press and used against her as some sort of "evidence"- that's the scandal. Shocking that this still goes on in our times.


Please keep in mind that the local custums are very different in Perugia, Italy.
I mean, Amanda Knox's roomate, err, make that her landlord, stated in court that she sinned! By smoking marijuana! Once!

Oh my goodness!
I've been to church many a time,
but never have I read anywhere in the Bible that it's a sin to smoke marijuana!

I thought court was a place to find out the truth about a crime,
not a place to confess a supposed sin.

But what do I know?
:confused:
 
I read a study that everyone DOES lie.... at the end of college/university, everyone says they had 4 sexual encounters.

The people who have had none lie by saying they'd had 4.

The people who have had gazillions lie by saying they'd had 4.

They lie for different reasons.

Exactly. Either you don't want people to think you are promiscuous or you don't want people to think you are a failure with the opposite sex.
 
Mach, do you assert that Raf called the police after the postal police arrived?

Do Italians and the court still believe this?

I've seen this argued extensively in multiple places with PIP's saying it didn't happen and PGP's saying it did. The whole discussion gave me tired-head and I found it difficult to follow.

The prosecution made a big deal out of this claim until near the end of the original trial, when Bongiorno demolished it.

The proof is somewhat complicated. A camera across the street shows the Carabinieri arriving at the scene, shortly after the body was discovered. But the time stamp on this camera had to have been at least 10 minutes slow, because it logs the Carabinieri as arriving several minutes before the time when they called to get driving directions to the cottage.

Once you make the required adjustment, the camera shows the Postal Police arriving at the crime scene a couple of minutes after Raffaele made his second call to the police, exactly as he has always said.

So, in this particular case, Raffaele was telling the truth, and the cops were lying through their crooked teeth. That is why Massei doesn't mention the controversy at all. He just notes the times when Raffaele called.

I got banned from Wikipedia for trying to correct this falsehood, just before Jimbo Wales stepped in to curb the guilter editors who controlled the article about Meredith Kercher.
 
Why does it appear that a Police Chief in Perugia, Italy lied to the Court?

Me said:
Writing of goof-ups, gosh the ILE sure did many.What police officer, who sees a foot sticking out from under a blanket,
does not approach and check the victim for a pulse?


RandyN said:
The police officer did check MK according to two witnesses. The real question is why he would decide to lie in court about that. Why lie about that which makes logical sense...concern if the victim was still alive and in need of assistance?


Hi RandyN,
I still can not understand why a police officer said that He Did Not Enter the bedroom where Miss Kercher's foot was seen jutting out from under that blanket.

Whether a cop writes tickets, is a file clerk, an undercover cop, a detective or a Police Chief,
well I'd like to believe that ANY police officer would check on the well being of a woman, especially 1 of whom her roommates were very concerned about her well being, as some blood was found in her shared bathroom, and her roommates window was broken open. Don'tcha agree?

At the least,
I believe that Chief(*) Detective Inspector Michele Battistelli should have been demoted or fired for apparently not caring enough about the safety of Perugia's residents to have entered into Miss Kercher's bedroom and at least take her pulse to see if she was still alive, if barely!

Or did he enter Miss Kercher's bedroom+take her pulse?

If so:
Why lie about it to the Court?

Something smells fishy to me,
and it ain't because we have a few Great White Sharks swimmin' around here,
right now in the local waters off Los Angeles,1 of which I am swimmin' behind
in this bitchin' photo I shot the other day:

Hmmmm...
:boggled:


(*)-Heya Grinder,
there's that Chief word again!
Seems they use it alot in Italy!, hahahaha! :D
Here'sa link for ya, my good debatin' buddy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher#Discovery_of_the_body


PS-Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito DID NOT murder nor help murder Miss Meredith Kercher...
 
Last edited:
The prosecution made a big deal out of this claim until near the end of the original trial, when Bongiorno demolished it.

The proof is somewhat complicated. A camera across the street shows the Carabinieri arriving at the scene, shortly after the body was discovered. But the time stamp on this camera had to have been at least 10 minutes slow, because it logs the Carabinieri as arriving several minutes before the time when they called to get driving directions to the cottage.

Once you make the required adjustment, the camera shows the Postal Police arriving at the crime scene a couple of minutes after Raffaele made his second call to the police, exactly as he has always said.

So, in this particular case, Raffaele was telling the truth, and the cops were lying through their crooked teeth. That is why Massei doesn't mention the controversy at all. He just notes the times when Raffaele called.

I got banned from Wikipedia for trying to correct this falsehood, just before Jimbo Wales stepped in to curb the guilter editors who controlled the article about Meredith Kercher.

Not exactly.... Massei's motivations report has the second call Raffaele made to the carabinieri at 12:54 pm on Nov 2. Massei wrote that the Postal Police arrived "just before 1 pm." Massei leaves the door open for you an me to argue like cats and dogs what "just before" means. But, yes, Massei leaves out the controversy....

Massei knows EXACTLY when the Postal Police arrived. So do the lying liars of police who once tried to claim that the Postal Police arrived at the cottage as early as 12:30 to 12:35 pm.
 
Please keep in mind that the local custums are very different in Perugia, Italy.I mean, Amanda Knox's roomate, err, make that her landlord, stated in court that she sinned! By smoking marijuana! Once!

Oh my goodness!
I've been to church many a time,
but never have I read anywhere in the Bible that it's a sin to smoke marijuana!

I thought court was a place to find out the truth about a crime,
not a place to confess a supposed sin.

But what do I know?
:confused:

Aren't they just.

Have you read The Monster of Florence?

The reason the Monster was able to kill so easily is that respectable un-married couples just don't shack up together, period, hence so many of them go out into the sticks in their cars to make out, which is where he found almost all his victims.

And there were Amanda and Raff, casually living it up together at his place.
 

Another capture of the YouTube piece - note the projection behind him.....

There is now talk about a "part 2" of this YouTube sensation, where it would seem possible that this whole thing was a set-up to get Mignini to say embarrassing things. I have not seen it, and if you know me I am desperately looking for it... but suffice it to say, he's called to task for bringing Satanism into the Monster of Florence investigation.

When he's challenged to explain how it is possible that Satanism is involved in the Monster of Florence case, he starts to mumble and say something about threatening phone calls. People at this conference appear to know his reputation!
 
Last edited:
This is no "Satanism conference". It is a conference organized by the magazine "Delitti & Misteri", dedicated to a number about "Le Bestie di Satana" - a series of Satanic murders that actually took place in Italy.
I suppose the number also extends the topic to Satanism and other cases in a more wide sense.

It is interesting: you should listen to what Mignini actually says.
He says, among other things, that he never had experience of anly link to satanism-related things in any case over his career, except once, in one minor case (which is not the Narducci- MoF case and it is not the Meredith case).

This very well could be Machiavelli's last post about Mignini and Satanism.
 
Not exactly.... Massei's motivations report has the second call Raffaele made to the carabinieri at 12:54 pm on Nov 2. Massei wrote that the Postal Police arrived "just before 1 pm." Massei leaves the door open for you an me to argue like cats and dogs what "just before" means. But, yes, Massei leaves out the controversy....

Massei knows EXACTLY when the Postal Police arrived. So do the lying liars of police who once tried to claim that the Postal Police arrived at the cottage as early as 12:30 to 12:35 pm.

Right. Massei understands that the timing was established beyond a shadow of a doubt by the cell logs and the garage video. But he doesn't mention that this proof arose by debunking a bogus claim. I remember the media coverage, and the rhetoric of the prosecution, back in 2008-2009. This was a big deal to them as long as they could present it as incriminating to Raffaele. But it suddenly became a non-issue, a taboo subject, when the evidence proved that the cops had been lying through their teeth.
 
Not exactly.... Massei's motivations report has the second call Raffaele made to the carabinieri at 12:54 pm on Nov 2. Massei wrote that the Postal Police arrived "just before 1 pm." Massei leaves the door open for you an me to argue like cats and dogs what "just before" means. But, yes, Massei leaves out the controversy....

Massei knows EXACTLY when the Postal Police arrived. So do the lying liars of police who once tried to claim that the Postal Police arrived at the cottage as early as 12:30 to 12:35 pm.


This case, smh.....
 
The only reason I can think of that a Police Chief would tell a Court of Law that he DID NOT enter a bedroom where a young woman lay under a blanket and check on her condition, ya know, to see if she was even alive, would be to change the narrative of what actually transpired.

Come on, JREF regulars!
Let's dig into what really happened with the Perugian cops!
Forget CD or BN, 1 of the real stories is why does a cop, a Police Chief at that,
probably lie to a Court of Law that he did not enter a bedroom to check if a possible victim of foul play was still alive?

Would that happen in your neighborhood, your town, your city?
Of course not!


Heya Machiavelli,
is it common practice in Italy to not check to see if a woman is still alive
if she is found lying under a blanket where a home robbery possibly occured?
What gives?

If ya even answer, please don't give me some Italian statute that states:
No, we don't check on the condition of a person whose foot happens to stick out from under a blanket!
I look forward to your reply, hahahaha...
:D


PS-Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito DID NOT murder nor help murder Miss Meredith Kercher...
 
Last edited:
The only reason I can think of that a Police Chief would tell a Court of Law that he DID NOT enter a bedroom where a young woman lay under a blanket and check on her condition, ya know, to see if she was even alive, would be to change the narrative of what actually transpired.

Come on, JREF regulars!
Let's dig into what really happened with the Perugian cops!
Forget CD or BN, 1 of the real stories is why does a cop, a Polioce Chief,
probably lie to a Court of Law that he did not enter a bedroom to check on a possible victim of foul play?
Would that happen in your neighborhood, your town, your city?
Of course not!


Heya Machiavelli,
is it common practice in Italy to not check to see if a woman is still alive
if she is found lying under a blanket where a home robbery possibly occured?
LOL!

Because he knew he'd just walked over the space outside the door that Raffaele has failed at breaking in a few minutes before... and the police chief tracked in Raffale's touch DNA and stepped on the bra-clasp.

Ok, ok.... my suspicious little conspiratorial mind is on overdrive today...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom