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

[MDDVS]

You should check the quantification records for those "cat" blood samples.

What are those quantification records?

 

[Machiavelli]

Either way here... Mignini is called to the stage at an anti-Satanism conference, with slides cycled behind him on a screen....

This is not an 'anti Satanism' conference!

It is a conference about 'Le Bestie di Satana' murders case, and extensively, about judicial cases where links with satanism are made (by investigators or by media).
The conference does not actually talk much about satanism. It talks about cases.

...... SATAN ...
...... AMANDA KNOX ...
...... CUTTHROAT FREE ...

Incidentally, I remind you that you failed to produce a single cite or piece evidence that the prosecution ever made satanism claims in the Kercher case.
The best you were able to do is stubbornly resist to all requests to quote a source (even for your wild claim that "all journalists reported this") and, with a peculiar depisal of any sense of critical thinking, to resort at using repeatedly Nadeau and Kercher as human sheilds.
I also remind you that your claim - which you are probably about to parrot, as you usually do, despite the manifest proof of the contrary - has been shown to be totally wild, unsupported, and is contradicted by the prosecution argument in court.

(just in case you claim that this conference is NOT making the connection between Mignini and his Satanic Rite theory of the murder of Meredith.... even in discounting it.)

This conference is not making any connection between Mignini and any sort of satanic rite scenario in the Meredith case, which, by the way, has NEVER been put forward on the Meredith case.

And Mignini first tries to distance himself from the claim he'd once made this connection himself - without once correcting the impression made by the slides behind him.....

The slides behind him are magazine titles. About several murders covered by that magazine.
People here are waiting for you to put a proof behind your wild assertions "Mignini said..."; people have been asking you to prove it or acknowledge that you are making a wild unsupported claim, as any onest rational person would do. I said honest and rational, so I was not necessarily talking about you.

Says that Satanism cannot be preempted! as an explanation.

Read back. Also says that the contrary of any scenario cannot be preempted: nothing should be preempted.
There is no 'explanation' to give actually: it's clear that there is nothing related to your claims and wild projections, in what Mignini ever claiemd or said, either in the courtroom or in conferences.

Says that Satanism can never be ruled out! as an explanation.

It's false: YOU say "Satanism can never be rule out", and you falsely attribute statements like this one - which you build on your own - to people who did not say them (to me, to Mignini, and to others).
Mignini means anything can indeed be ruled out, including the improbable things like satanism, but you need to be based on the elements you find, just the facts, not decide preemptively, based on your previous beliefs.

I think that actually everybody understood it, and you are desperately spinning it, because you really don't like to abandon your idea of "Mignini who builds satanic ritual scenario". Somehow you "need" to project this lie for your good health.
Just like you need to imagine that Msssei "found no psychoapthology" in Knox and Sollecito, and so on.

 

[Bill Williams]

Incidentally, I remind you that you failed to produce a single cite or evidence that the prosecution ever made satanism claims in the Kercher case.
I also remind you that your claim - which you are probably about to parrot, as you usually do, despite the manifest proof of the contrary - has been shown to be totally wild, unsupported, and is contradicted by the prosecution argument in court.

No - you said you had the proof. And then you said it would be unethical to show it.

So, how can you possibly say this has been "shown" to be wild unsupported, and contradicted? You have the proof and I tried to get it out of you. You refused.

You need to get your story straight, or else I'll be saying that this is Mach 2 unaware of what Mach 1 said....

 

[Machiavelli]

Or gross incompetence from the person doing the testing?

There is zero chance that a drop of undiluted blood (whether cat blood or human blood) will fail to give a positive in either a Hemastix or proper TMB test, if the test is conducted properly.

Perhaps you should be considering that as the curious aspect of all this....

You curious approach to science apparently includes denial of experimental results...

 

[RoseMontague]

What are those quantification records?

Going by memory, they somehow showed the presence of human DNA. Go figure. Might not be cat blood after all.

 

[Diocletus]

You curious approach to science apparently includes denial of experimental results...

The "SAL" is not a record of experimental results. It's just a summary (possibly wrong in many cases) of experiments that Stefanoni says she conducted. But where are the real records of these experiments? Hidden.

 

[Machiavelli]

No - you said you had the proof. And then you said it would be unethical to show it.

No, I said I have the transcript.

The proof does not require the transcript.

So, how can you possibly say this has been "shown" to be wild unsupported, and contradicted? You have the proof and I tried to get it out of you. You refused.

1. You are making a claim. You have to bring the proof of your claim.
2. Quotes of Mignini's speeach from Sep. 2008 are enough to prove that no satanic nor ritual scenario was ever put forward by the prosecution. Because they show how the prosecution offered a totally different scenario.

Your Mach 1- Mach 2 story is a good test, a good example to show your capability of stubbornly maintaining paranoid wild claims.

 

[Diocletus]

Going by memory, they somehow showed the presence of human DNA. Go figure. Might not be cat blood after all.

Precisely. She has numerous blood samples identified as "Gatto," yet these same samples amplified quantities of human DNA greater than what was found in 36i. Hmm. I sense another LIE coming on.

 

[Machiavelli]

Going by memory, they somehow showed the presence of human DNA. Go figure. Might not be cat blood after all.

Only one of them, if I recall correctly, on the bed sheet.

 

[Diocletus]

No, I said I have the transcript.

The proof does not require the transcript.



1. You are making a claim. You have to bring the proof of your claim.
2. Quotes of Mignini's speeach from Sep. 2008 are enough to prove that no satanic nor ritual scenario was ever put forward by the prosecution. Because they show how the prosecution offered a totally different scenario.

Your Mach 1- Mach 2 story is a good test, a good example to show your capability of stubbornly maintaining paranoid wild claims.

Did he say any of the following:

"Halloween"

"initiation"

"ritual"/"rite"

 

[Diocletus]

Only one of them, if I recall correctly, on the bed sheet.

Nope. More than that. And she made egrams of them, too. It's just that they're . . . hidden.

 

[Dan O.]

Another curios SAL:
the blood drop on Knox's pillowcase tests 'not decidable' to TMB (a false negative? or a false 'non-postive'?)

There are several of those. The substance from the grey hairdryier Is another. Have we forgotten already that there are three possible results from the two part TMB test: Positive, Negative and Not Determinable. The third case is the result if there is an oxidizing agent in the sample so the test turns color before the peroxide is applied.

(Of course, it probably didn't help that LJ had a typo in the post where he mentioned this. I intended to post a correction but couldn't find the post again)

 

[MDDVS]

Going by memory, they somehow showed the presence of human DNA. Go figure. Might not be cat blood after all.

Sorry for so may questions. What happened to the cat?

 

[LondonJohn]

You curious approach to science apparently includes denial of experimental results...

Hahaha. I don't somehow think that you are qualified to pass judgement on my "approach to science....

Here's the scientific fact: if a drop of blood is tested properly with any form of TMB test, and a negative (or even inconclusive) result is returned then there are only three possibilities:

1) Blood present, but a false negative (NB I'm making the perhaps-optimistic assumption that you know the sensitivity ratios of TMB testing).
2) Blood not present.
3) Improper conduct of the test.

Which of these do you think is - by several orders of magnitude - the most likely of the three, when the sample being tested is visibly identifiable as blood? (I'll give you a little help: it's option 3)

 

[Bill Williams]

It's false: YOU say "Satanism can never be rule out", and you falsely attribute statements like this one - which you build on your own - to people who did not say them (to me, to Mignini, and to others).
Mignini means anything can indeed be ruled out, including the improbable things like satanism, but you need to be based on the elements you find, just the facts, not decide preemptively, based on your previous beliefs.

I will leave it to Italian speakers to translate what he said. One of whom says that Mignini says that one must keep an open mind that Satanism can sometimes play a role in a crime.

I think that actually everybody understood it, and you are desperately spinning it, because you really don't like to abandon your idea of "Mignini who builds satanic ritual scenario". Somehow you "need" to project this lie for your good health.
Just like you need to imagine that Msssei "found no psychoapthology" in Knox and Sollecito, and so on.

This is what I imagine, and unlike you posting the proof you have, here's what Massei says.... to which you, true to form, say means the opposite.

Both defendants are very young, and were younger still at the time the events [took place]. The inexperience and immaturity characteristic of youth were accentuated by the situation in which both found themselves because it [the situation] was different from that in which they had grown up and did not have the usual points of reference (family, friends, acquaintances made through the years, one’s own country and town of origin) which might have served as a continual support, [point of] comparison and check in the decisions of daily life. Thus Amanda Knox, who had been in Perugia for less two months, driven only (as far as the proceedings have allowed [us] to judge) by curiosity and by the desire to have several experiences, found herself living without that protection and shelter constituted, in particular, by her family (in this regard what Amanda declared with regard to her ‚big‛ family, *and+ to the intense and continual [lasting] relationships existing within it, appears even more significant); analogously [the same applies to] Raffaele Sollecito whose father phoned him regularly, signifying the need his son still had for a presence [someone to be there] to continually listen to, support and guide him; phone calls which were, however, incapable of taking the place of the [physical] closeness and control which were evidently still necessary

As I recall, you made this last time seem like it was saying the opposite of what it said.

Why are you defending Mignini?

 

[Diocletus]

Sorry for so may questions. What happened to the cat?

It lawyered up and got out of town.

 

[MDDVS]

It lawyered up and got out of town.

Smart cat lol

 

[Bill Williams]

No, I said I have the transcript.

The proof does not require the transcript.

Sigh...... here you actually admit to having the facility to put this whole issue to rest..... as I pointed out last time.

Just upthread you said I had "been shown" that I was wrong....

Sigh. I "sigh" because you do not argue in good faith at all. This is trollish behaviour. Apologies for saying it, but it is.

You have provided neither the transcript nor the proof, yet you insist on saying that I've "been shown". You simply assert.

Are we going to have another discussion about what "riti" means?

 

[moodstream]

I can't help but feel that the Vogt article is good news for AK. I notice the date of the *reply* from BSU is 2/2012, so why is Vogt writing about it now, getting on two years later. I wonder if her inside sources tell her something related to DNA in Knox's favor will come out soon and swamp her boat, so to speak, and she is venting her frustration about it now.

 

[LondonJohn]

It lawyered up and got out of town.

I don't blame it: if it had stuck around, it'd probably have found Mignini slotting it into his "theory" as the witch's (Knox's) cat, whose blood was drawn ritualistically during the murder......