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

[Katody Matrass]

The second sample from Amanda only adds to the probability it was used on the victim

Excuse me?

That's the second of the only two independent and correctly done tests that both show no victim's DNA, no victim's blood or any other tissue on the knife.

 

[acbytesla]

Hold on no one has ruled out the DNA of Meredith on the knife. The second sample from Amanda only adds to the probability it was used on the victim

Actually, if you read the RIS report, you will see that they definitely ruled out Meredith's DNA on the knife.They mentioned the non repeatability of Stefanoni's test. Not only was no outside source able to repeat her results, Stefanoni couldn't either.

 

[Sergei Walankov]

You "don't doubt"?

No evidence then, thank you.

I don't think you understood me there.

 

[Dan O.]

Um - I would have thought that if one lived in a house shared with three others one had known for less than 2 months, and friends and acquaintances of the latter (i.e. complete strangers) coming and going, then locking one's door when one has several 100 Euro stashed would be a no-brainer.

Rudy got into Filomena's room because she didn't latch the outside shutters. Rudy was able to enter the rest of the cottage because Filomena had not locked her own bedroom door while she was away. It's almost like Filomena invited Rudy inside. Meredith would be alive today if only Filomena had been more responsible and secured her windows and door.

 

[acbytesla]

Rudy got into Filomena's room because she didn't latch the outside shutters. Rudy was able to enter the rest of the cottage because Filomena had not locked her own bedroom door while she was away. It's almost like Filomena invited Rudy inside. Meredith would be alive today if only Filomena had been more responsible and secured her windows and door.

I like it. If they can make things up...so can we.

 

[Skind]

I don't you can see by the transcript Skind posted he lied , even obvious in English.

Except the transcript demonstrates the exact opposite of your claim.

The transcript demonstrates that the responder - not Sollecito - raised the issue of theft first, and that the responder carried the issue of the blood trail into the second conversation.

 

[Skind]

They were interviewed as witnesses so there was no requirement to record them. This has been discussed many times. Amanda has said some curious things like she was worried about the knife. She also totally forgot that she had called her mother earlier and didn't even remember when questioned.

Yet they taped several of the interviewees, even with no legal or proceedural requirement to do so. This has been discussed many times.

They were in a room that was designed for taping interviewees. This has been discussed many times.

The cost and difficulty of taping the interview would have been minimal. This has been discussed many times.

 

[Briars]

Excuse me?

That's the second of the only two independent and correctly done tests that both show no victim's DNA, no victim's blood or any other tissue on the knife.

The test on the victim's DNA cannot be repeated , it was a clean sample of one individual.Amanda has two profiles on the handle and blade . RS the owner none.
That knowledge combined with the totality of the case reduces the likelihood of error. It will be a judgement call by the court to add the DNA onto the pile of evidence or not. Fortunately Crini has reintroduced the whole case ,where the debunked Hellman tried to toss it all out based on the DNA review by an"independant" team.

 

[Antony]

The test on the victim's DNA cannot be repeated , it was a clean sample of one individual.Amanda has two profiles on the handle and blade . RS the owner none.
That knowledge combined with the totality of the case reduces the likelihood of error. It will be a judgement call by the court to add the DNA onto the pile of evidence or not. Fortunately Crini has reintroduced the whole case ,where the debunked Hellman tried to toss it all out based on the DNA review by an"independant" team.

You do realise that this invalidates it as evidence, don't you? The knife is not the murder weapon.

 

[Briars]

Except the transcript demonstrates the exact opposite of your claim.

The transcript demonstrates that the responder - not Sollecito - raised the issue of theft first, and that the responder carried the issue of the blood trail into the second conversation.

The responder was being told in the first sentence that someone broke in the window made a huge mess and there is a closed door. That was the opening sentence from Sollecito. Then the responder takes the names and the address of the event. Then having done that he says so "they broke the window and there was a theft?"That was in response to RS's call a question or statement. Sollecito says right away "no there was no theft" This isn't difficult.

 

[Briars]

Well no I don't tell me who has come out and said that please.

 

[acbytesla]

The test on the victim's DNA cannot be repeated , it was a clean sample of one individual.Amanda has two profiles on the handle and blade . RS the owner none.
That knowledge combined with the totality of the case reduces the likelihood of error. It will be a judgement call by the court to add the DNA onto the pile of evidence or not. Fortunately Crini has reintroduced the whole case ,where the debunked Hellman tried to toss it all out based on the DNA review by an"independant" team.

Don't you get it Briars? The RIS not only said that only Amanda's DNA was in the sample 36I they also said Stefanoni's test on 36B was bogus. They criticized her methods and her results. They said that they would throw out any results that they themselves could not repeat. So not only has NO ONE been able to repeat Stefanoni's results on 36B, Stefanoni herself failed to repeat it.

If the court follows the RIS suggestion, they will also throw out 36B.

 

[Katody Matrass]

The test on the victim's DNA cannot be repeated , it was a clean sample of one individual.Amanda has two profiles on the handle and blade . RS the owner none.
That knowledge combined with the totality of the case reduces the likelihood of error. It will be a judgement call by the court to add the DNA onto the pile of evidence or not. Fortunately Crini has reintroduced the whole case ,where the debunked Hellman tried to toss it all out based on the DNA review by an"independant" team.

Let's see.
Every subsequent correct and independent test confirmed there is no blood, no other tissue and no DNA of the victim on the knife.
RIS tests the knife with much more precise technology and finds no DNA of the victim.
Looks like the probability there ever was any victim's DNA there is dwindling. Stefanoni's single questionable result looks more and more for what it is - a contaminated product of poor collection and testing methods.

 

[whoanellie]

You really don't know what you are talking about. I lived in a rooming house near the UW when I went to school. Shared Bathrooms and Kitchen. We each had locked bedrooms. Some of us were close to each other and others were in another world. You simply CAN'T make this kind of blanket statement about others. You don't know, I don't know.

This takes me back 30 years. I too lived for a year in a rooming house a couple blocks from Udub on frat row. What an experience! The place eventually became condemned.

The guy who lived above me was schizophrenic and had a habit of blasting his stereo. One day he locked himself out of his room with his stereo blasting. After a day or so I finally broke into his room and turned the stereo off. After that, thankfully, he would leave but not lock his door. ONe day I went into his room to turn off his stereo and he came flying out of his closet where he had been sleeping.

 

[Briars]

It may have been discussed and a certain blogger may have said was part of the Perugian plot to frame an innocent, so what.It was not required and it has been used by supporters as a defence lifeline.

 

[Antony]

Well no I don't tell me who has come out and said that please.

Is this a reply to my challenge about the non-repeatable test? All reputable scientific comment states that any scientific test must be repeatable in order to have validity. The scientific reviewers appointed by the current Nencini court in Florence stated that at least 2 tests are needed to validate any results.

The fact that you seem unaware of this calls everything you have to say in this debate into question.

 

[Briars]

They said it was bogus?

 

[Briars]

Ah yes but did you use one of those long keys that they use in Italy you know the ones that take a few attempts to get in and turn properly. A distinctive rattling metal sound.

 

[Skind]

The responder was being told in the first sentence that someone broke in the window made a huge mess and there is a closed door. That was the opening sentence from Sollecito. Then the responder takes the names and the address of the event. Then having done that he says so "they broke the window and there was a theft?"That was in response to RS's call a question or statement. Sollecito says right away "no there was no theft" This isn't difficult.

Thank you for confirming that the responder asked about the theft first.

 

[Briars]

A plausible route of contamination will need to be shown to the court for them to make a mental note and toss it out . There is no plausible contamination route yet and ditto for the clasp.