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

[Diocletus]

Except the blood on the faucet.

As for the test results missing, I don't think they are. What has been made public by documents is a small portion of what is in the case file as the recent availability of trial transcripts has shown (and as a result I now believe in the 10,000+ pages as previously referred to in various writings).

Nothing incriminating about Knox's dna on her own faucet.

Stefanoni produced a report of all of her results, and produced a bates-stamped set of her egrams. The ones I mention as missing aren't there. Why not? My guess: contamination.

10,000 pages is nothing. The file must be way bigger than that.

 

[Grinder]

Except the blood on the faucet.

As for the test results missing, I don't think they are. What has been made public by documents is a small portion of what is in the case file as the recent availability of trial transcripts has shown (and as a result I now believe in the 10,000+ pages as previously referred to in various writings).

Just curious as to why Amanda's blood on the faucet is incriminating? She had no signs of having bled recently except the ear. It was in her bathroom. It wasn't time dated (think semen). There was no mixing of blood except by the photographer recruited to do CSI work.

Amanda had hours to wipe away the blood but didn't. She even said she didn't remember the blood being there the day before, so even her account didn't 'erase' the blood.

If she was bleeding after the murder why wasn't there any DNA in the murder room and why wasn't there any evidence of how this injury was caused?

 

[Machiavelli]

Thanks, I'm aware of the mainstream view on this subject. I'd just like to know if pro-guilt people have any kind of rational response to this because I don't understand how you can otherwise keep arguing for guilt in view of this fact (i.e. full stomach at time of death). If they can't refute this single point (and yes, I'm aware there are many other pieces of evidence independently pointing to the same conclusion).

But yes, it was fun to read your post. People that have no idea of what a distribution is should really abstain from commenting on this issue.

Personally I have my belief, my "theory" or "response" to this point. Which consists in three points:

1. actually the time of meal may not be calculated as if it was one event taking place at 18.30 pm. In fact it has been defined even by defence pathologists as a non-continuous meal stretching up to 19.30 or 20.00. This further ingestion may well complicate the calculation, because the stomach is not compartimented, despite the defence experts deny it.

2. moreover I have a theory which I call from cooking experience, theory of the "house baked bread" . The girls ate a hand made pizza, they made the bread themselves in their kitchen oven and this may easilly lead to results which are somehow unsatisfactory as for the digestibility of the bread. Yeast, leavening kneading and cooking (includes oven quality) determine the digestibility of bread or lack thereof. I think their bread was raw or insufficiently leveaned. New York baker Jim Lahey is one of my "bibles" about that, but he has a receip for pizza which has not enough leavening, he likes it like that but to me it is undigestible. I think the bread is the point.

3. anyway there is no need to place the time of death after 23.30. I don't feel compelled to believe 100% Antonio Curatolo correctly identified the couple; and even if he did, the murder could even have already been committed.

 

[christianahannah]

Just curious as to why Amanda's blood on the faucet is incriminating? She had no signs of having bled recently except the ear. It was in her bathroom. It wasn't time dated (think semen). There was no mixing of blood except by the photographer recruited to do CSI work.

Amanda had hours to wipe away the blood but didn't. She even said she didn't remember the blood being there the day before, so even her account didn't 'erase' the blood.

If she was bleeding after the murder why wasn't there any DNA in the murder room and why wasn't there any evidence of how this injury was caused?

Any blood at the scene of a crime could be incriminating, especially when combined with other pieces of evidence that might come along later.

ETA: And that is why I suggested wouldn't the attorneys have tried to have that evidence rejected if it was tested illegally by Stefanoni?

 

[Bill Williams]

Personally I have my belief, my "theory" or "response" to this point. Which consists in three points:

1. actually the time of meal may not be calculated as if it was one event taking place at 18.30 pm. In fact it has been defined even by defence pathologists as a non-continuous meal stretching up to 19.30 or 20.00. This further ingestion may well complicate the calculation, because the stomach is not compartimented, despite the defence experts deny it.

2. moreover I have a theory which I call from cooking experience, theory of the "house baked bread" . The girls ate a hand made pizza, they made the bread themselves in their kitchen oven and this may easilly lead to results which are somehow unsatisfactory as for the digestibility of the bread. Yeast, leavening kneading and cooking (includes oven quality) determine the digestibility of bread or lack thereof. I think their bread was raw or insufficiently leveaned. New York baker Jim Lahey is one of my "bibles" about that, but he has a receip for pizza which has not enough leavening, he likes it like that but to me it is undigestible. I think the bread is the point.

3. anyway there is no need to place the time of death after 23.30. I don't feel compelled to believe 100% Antonio Curatolo correctly identified the couple; and even if he did, the murder could even have already been committed.

This is doing forensics from a personal experience of cooking, when the subject is stomach contents. It corresponds to nothing to do with reality.

 

[Machiavelli]

-

Not really. It's the prosecutor's job to prosecute. They did what they thought was right, in their own minds anyway. And THAT is what I think Hellmann meant.

Well, Hellmann said he would have done the same things. He said "exactly the same things". He also said "they did nothing wrong". Not just that thet they were in good faith, but that they made no mistake; not that he would have done something that he thought it was right, but he would have done exactly the same things they did.

On the flip side, It's Hellmann's job to decide if their conclusions were correct and he didn't think they made their case and THAT IS WHY he said NOT GUILTY to the murder charge.

Another curious thing, if you like, is that Hellmann-Zanetti (I just don't forget the second guy) they uttered this opinion prior to and not after the trial. In fact Hellmann mentioned art. 530 § 2 before the opening of the discussion (something that should have urged Galati to call for judge impeachment), and Zanetti made his announcement about what he thought "the only sure thing" was, before the opening of the discussion.
These are not the only "curious" procedure step made by Hellmann Zanetti, so much that they were bashed the way you see by the SC.

What I think IS curious is what they said after Amanda confessed and that was that she finally told them what they already knew to be true, and then without any investigation went out and arrested Lumumba.

And yet, you don't wonder about that.

No, I found nothing strange in what De Felice said (he is a parson, not "they"). Also because, he did not say exactly that. I recall him saying somethign slightly different, as I already explained on this forum.

 

[Machiavelli]

This is doing forensics from a personal experience of cooking, when the subject is stomach contents. It corresponds to nothing to do with reality.

Bread doesn't have to do with reality?

 

[Diocletus]

2. moreover I have a theory which I call from cooking experience, theory of the "house baked bread" . The girls ate a hand made pizza, they made the bread themselves in their kitchen oven and this may easilly lead to results which are somehow unsatisfactory as for the digestibility of the bread. Yeast, leavening kneading and cooking (includes oven quality) determine the digestibility of bread or lack thereof. I think their bread was raw or insufficiently leveaned. New York baker Jim Lahey is one of my "bibles" about that, but he has a receip for pizza which has not enough leavening, he likes it like that but to me it is undigestible. I think the bread is the point.

I also have a theory. I call it my "Rudy killed her at 9:15" theory. It's better than your half-baked theory.

 

[Diocletus]

ETA: And that is why I suggested wouldn't the attorneys have tried to have that evidence rejected if it was tested illegally by Stefanoni?

What makes you think they would exclude it anyway?

Cripes. They didn't even exclude the illegally-obtained statements even though the Supreme Court actually decided that mignini broke the law.

 

[Machiavelli]

I also have a theory. I call it my "Rudy killed her at 9:15" theory. It's better than your half-baked theory.

It's apparently simple, but in fact it is not. It misses a huge amount of pieces of evidence, which is unable to explain, and requires Guede to do quite an elaborate and inconsistent sequence of actions.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bread doesn't have to do with reality?

What is amazing is that people make defaming comments about Italian judges and scientists, and then try to reinvent forensic stomach content analysis using their own cooking experience(!).

This is a trial where two innocents have their freedom on the line, and it began with the horrible murder of another innocent.

 

[Machiavelli]

What makes you think they would exclude it anyway?

Cripes. They didn't even exclude the illegally-obtained statements even though the Supreme Court actually decided that mignini broke the law.

The Supreme Court never decided Mignini broke the law. It's a delusional assumption. If you are still by these FoA "myths", at this learning level, no wonder you will remain were you are.

 

[Bill Williams]

It's apparently simple, but in fact it is not. It misses a huge amount of pieces of evidence, which is unable to explain, and requires Guede to do quite an elaborate and inconsistent sequence of actions.

Like?

Break in through Filomena's window as demonstrated by UK's Channel 5 demonstration.

Sit on Filomena's toilet, leaving a sample of his smelly DNA, listening to some tunes.

Meredith comes in at circa 9 pm and locks the door behind her, not knowing there's an intruder.

Guede accosts her in her room, and leaves the only forensics traceable to a perp.

He grabs her wallet and cellphones and keys, locks the bedroom door and closes the front door when he leaves, unaware it doesn't latch unless locked.

For this someone would make defaming comments about judges and scientists?

 

[Bill Williams]

The Supreme Court never decided Mignini broke the law. It's a delusional assumption. If you are still by these FoA "myths", at this learning level, no wonder you will remain were you are.

January 15th is coming up. There will be a need for pro-Mignini posters to remythologize what is happening to him.

 

[Grinder]

Personally I have my belief, my "theory" or "response" to this point. Which consists in three points:

1. actually the time of meal may not be calculated as if it was one event taking place at 18.30 pm. In fact it has been defined even by defence pathologists as a non-continuous meal stretching up to 19.30 or 20.00. This further ingestion may well complicate the calculation, because the stomach is not compartimented, despite the defence experts deny it.

And if someone kept eating food would never reach the duodenum, right?

The british girls said they ate pizza around 6 and apple crumble later. The 2 to 4 hours starts with the beginning of the meal.

3. anyway there is no need to place the time of death after 23.30. I don't feel compelled to believe 100% Antonio Curatolo correctly identified the couple; and even if he did, the murder could even have already been committed.

So his testimony isn't reliable. He never identified the couple except in court after their pictures had been in the papers a million times and they were sitting at the defendant table. Too bad they could have had Filomena and Marco sitting there ala Perry Mason.

From all the real evidence she was killed before 10. Even 10 stretches the digestion time.

 

[Diocletus]

The Supreme Court never decided Mignini broke the law. It's a delusional assumption. If you are still by these FoA "myths", at this learning level, no wonder you will remain were you are.

Yes they did. If he had followed the law then the statements would have been admissible. But he didn't, and so they weren't admissible.

 

[Diocletus]

It's apparently simple, but in fact it is not. It misses a huge amount of pieces of evidence, which is unable to explain, and requires Guede to do quite an elaborate and inconsistent sequence of actions.

Most of your "evidence" is not evidence of anything.

Here's what happened: climb, crap, kill, rape, steal, run.

 

[Samson]

Personally I have my belief, my "theory" or "response" to this point. Which consists in three points:

1. actually the time of meal may not be calculated as if it was one event taking place at 18.30 pm. In fact it has been defined even by defence pathologists as a non-continuous meal stretching up to 19.30 or 20.00. This further ingestion may well complicate the calculation, because the stomach is not compartimented, despite the defence experts deny it.

2. moreover I have a theory which I call from cooking experience, theory of the "house baked bread" . The girls ate a hand made pizza, they made the bread themselves in their kitchen oven and this may easilly lead to results which are somehow unsatisfactory as for the digestibility of the bread. Yeast, leavening kneading and cooking (includes oven quality) determine the digestibility of bread or lack thereof. I think their bread was raw or insufficiently leveaned. New York baker Jim Lahey is one of my "bibles" about that, but he has a receip for pizza which has not enough leavening, he likes it like that but to me it is undigestible. I think the bread is the point.

3. anyway there is no need to place the time of death after 23.30. I don't feel compelled to believe 100% Antonio Curatolo correctly identified the couple; and even if he did, the murder could even have already been committed.

It seems to me what you are suggesting is that the timing for the stomach contents to begin exiting is conceivably set by the completion of the meal rather than the commencement. This sounds a particularly easy proposition to have analysed, eg by Rolfe. I have not heard that argument, and it certainly sounds nonsensical. How does the stomach determine when there is no more eating planned?
Given that Crini has used the six years of available study to refine his time to a death before the tow truck, and considering it allows Meredith's phone to be operated by someone else, surely it is time to limit the discussion to accommodate these high probabilities.

 

[Rolfe]

The stomach does functionally compartmentalise itself, so that it can digest different portions of food in separate packets.

And the time that is important is the time of the start of the meal.

Rolfe.

 

[billyryan]

I want it made known that I totally disagree with the poster Bill Williams personalising the debate here,If any poster believed that a judge or judge's have been bought off to render a particular verdict it is the said poster's right to hold such a view,even though I might not agree with such a view,in the spirit of this particular JREF forum I will defend to the death any poster's right to hold such a view point

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Removed image.