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

[Rolfe]

wasn't that random if it was in Raffe's house, and it looked like it had been cleaned. Plus the house smelled like bleach. according to police, the blade matched the big cut on victim

How does this fail? Let me count the ways....

One of a double-figure drawerful of knives in Raffaele's kitchen. It hadn't been cleaned. No bleach had been used in the house, or on that knife. The blade is not a match for the victim's wound.

Rolfe.

 

[acbytesla]

So Geoffrey. Why haven't you told us what medical school you attended? I'm still waiting.

Also, you keep saying that people should apologize to you. Don't you think you should apologize for your lies?

How about the one you said that a judge told Amanda?

 

[acbytesla]

first jury disagree, vote was 8-0 too. given Meredith's dna was on the tip, and rich boy made up a story about accidentally pricking her with it whilst cooking, we must conclude it is the murder weapon.

the maid said there was no bleach kept at the house although i think she later changed her story when rich boy's daddy paid her off. lol

Let's see Geoffrey. No apologies for your earlier lies....you just make up new ones? That is an interesting tactic.

How did you arrive at your diagnosis that Amanda Knox is a sex addict Dr Geoffrey? What medical school did you attend Dr. Geoffrey? I'm very curious about your work with sex addiction.

Please tell us about all of the medical studies you worked on while you are an attending physician at what psychiatric hospital?

 

[Bill Williams]

There was never atrace of Meredith on that blade.

"too low"

Ack. Someone quoted Goeffrey!

He's asking for apologies? If he can get a hold of the EDF's I may consider it....

 

[Bill Williams]

Let's see Geoffrey. No apologies for your earlier lies....you just make up new ones? That is an interesting tactic.

How did you arrive at your diagnosis that Amanda Knox is a sex addict Dr Geoffrey? What medical school did you attend Dr. Geoffrey? I'm very curious about your work with sex addiction.

Please tell us about all of the medical studies you worked on while you are an attending physician at what psychiatric hospital?

It may have been the same university that Machiavelli studied at to arrive at the conclusion that Knox could choose not to sleep, and avoid any consequences.

Must be nice to be able to make up lies on the fly...

 

[snook1]

^^
LOL

 

[smkovalinksy]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Nad_cSmjo...lU/KxzrqmtfBnk/s320/stefanoni-5-sett-2011.jpg

For the lurkers out there, this is the woman, Dr. Stef, that people on here want to say is evil or incompetent. Their entire defense of Knox rests on this woman being evil or so stupid it is an embarrassment.

I guess that picture really does make her seem incompetent or evil. Let's try and focus on her qualifications, and not make fun of her crazy looks.

 

[snook1]

That's what I was thinking...

 

[snook1]

I guess that picture really does make her seem incompetent or evil. Let's try and focus on her qualifications, and not make fun of her crazy looks.

Is it a good idea, though? Concentrating on her qualifications would mean concentrating on lying and mop wrapping.

 

[smkovalinksy]

the problem you have is it is hard to demonize somebody when they are there. Now people can see she doesn't look like a bad person.

And you aren't qualified to speak to her qualifications. Clearly she's qualified or why would she be in the role she is in. Seems like a high level job.

I'm starting to suspect some sexism is at play here b/c Stef is eminently qualified as DNA expert.

Sorry, but you posted a very bad picture of her. You are no more qualified than anyone, to speak of her professional expertise. Let's move on. It will be for the courts to decide, whether her MK DNA is given weight. If yes, so be it.

 

[Dan O.]

Hi - lurker here.

Welcome to the JREF and our normally quiet little thread. Sorry about the draft. It seems someone forgot to latch a window.

I've previously measured the number of followers on this thread and it is much larger than the number of posters. Lurkers should not be afraid to speak up if they have questions. Collectively we have a lot on information surrounding this case and can support our answers with excruciating details. Sometimes we even get it right

 

[acbytesla]

I noticed you went from lie to lie to lie.

1. You said that a judge warned Amanda. A lie.
2. You said that Amanda is a sex addict. A lie.
3. You said you were a psychiatrist. A lie.
4. You said that Raffaele's parents paid the maid to lie. Another lie.

And these are just the lies that Geoffrey has posted in the last hour.

 

[acbytesla]

tesla

you don't know what the word amateur means. so i didn't lie about that you are just ignorant. look up the word in the dictionary.

according to news report, a judge said that to Amanda. I didn't write the news item. So it isn't my lie if it is a lie or not true. Why would the news item make that up though.

My sex addict thing is a theory. I never said it was a fact.

One of the two maids flipped her original story. It is logical to believe somebody got to her.

the cops said the house smelled like bleach and one of the maids said they were told not used bleach so that would mean Raffe bought some bleach for something.

Wonder what? hmmmmmmmmmm peeling pototes , right? LOl

No, you are not an amateur...you are a ...L..... There is a difference.

You said you were a bit of a psychiatrist. That is a lie.
You said that a judge in Seattle warned Amanda. That is a lie.
You said Amanda is a sex addict. That is a lie.
You said that Raffaele's maid was paid off by Raffaele's father. That is a lie.

When you make crap up out of whole cloth. Those are lies.

That makes you a ?????

 

[acbytesla]

I don't want you banned. I want you to keep running your mouth. I want people to see just how deceitful and despicable you are. I want people to see the IQ of the average guilter.

 

[acbytesla]

some of that was tongue in check, some of that was my theory which is why i said theory. theory doesn't mean proven fact nobody denies. You can't prove a motive anyway, most of the time.

take it up with the newspaper that said the thing about the judge. You are amking that a bigger deal than I did. It isn't relevant to the trial at this point so loosen up. She has bigger things to overcome like DNA evidence. lol don't sweet the small stuff like that.

It's not your tongue in your cheek. It is deceit and ignorance. Your theory of course doesn't have a shred of evidence to back it up.

No, I'm taking it up with you. You're the one spreading the lies on this forum.
You're the one who has a tenuous relationship with the truth.

And of course, in a most crimes you absolutely can prove motive. There is a reason why the cops check out the spouses first. Everyone understands what OJ Simpson's motive was or Ken Lay's, or the guy who said he was Clark Rockefeller. People understand when people kill for money, or anger or in the act of committing a burglary. But of course you don't have any of that.

All you have is bull.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
TESTED NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD, TESTED NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD, TESTED NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD, TESTED NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD. TESTED NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD, TESTED NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD, TESTED NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD, TESTED NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD.

Broken.
You can relax. It was only negative to TMB.
Something which - is proven by literature - does not imply that a latent stain dwas not made in blood; it doesn't even make it become probable.

 

[Machiavelli]

How about this:

Sollecito apparently handled the outside of Meredith's door heavily and repeatedly (by his own account) when he and Knox were (by their own account) trying to get into Meredith's room before the Postal Police turned up.

It's therefore - shall we say - not improbable that Sollecito shed epithelial and/or sweat* DNA at various parts on the outside face of Meredith's door, including of course the handle.

Where it was not found...

What if - just what if - one of the "crack" forensics team that turned up in December had pushed on the outside of Meredith's door to open it - or indeed had turned the door handle - and in doing so had transferred some of Sollecito's DNA to his/her glove.

And then, what if - just what if - that same "crack" forensic technician had neglected to change his/her gloves?

And then, what if (etc...) (s)he had then been part of the bizarre spectacle where the bra clasp was passed around several white-suited goons, each of whom handled it quite clearly, and quite clearly with non-sterile gloves, and turned it around and over in their hands?

And what if the video (and the testimonies) show they didn't?

 

[Samson]

Proving the body wasn't staged, as well as the burglary wasn't stage, is a good way of helping prove their innocence. The prosecution was arguing otherwise.

That's easy, the body wasn't staged it was an actual murder, the burglary wasn't staged, it was an actual burglary. I would bet the family home on both those facts.

 

[LondonJohn]

Where it was not found...

How many samples did they take from a) the outside door handle, and b) the actual wood outside face of the door?

Do you think it's possible - just possible - that Sollecito's DNA was on one (or several) part(s) of the door that they didn't swab....?

And what if the video (and the testimonies) show they didn't?

You're joking, right? Seriously - you're joking, right?

 

[Matthew Best]

I don't want you banned. I want you to keep running your mouth. I want people to see just how deceitful and despicable you are. I want people to see the IQ of the average guilter.

Surely Goeffrey isn't the average guilter? He believes in all sorts of other lunacy as well (like Intelligent Design), it's almost as though he is trying to make guilters look bad.

He can't even spell his own name properly!