• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
DNA in hair shafts

Science marches on:

A simple method to extract DNA from hair shafts was developed by using enzymatic laundry powder at the first step of the process. The whole extraction can be finished in less than 2 hours. The simple extraction reagent proposed here contains only two cheap components: ordinary enzymatic laundry powder and PCR buffer. After extraction, an ultra sensitive fluorescent nucleic acid stain, PicoGreen, was used for quantifying trace amount of double-stranded DNA in the solution extracted. For further validation of DNA extraction, four primers were employed to amplify DNA microsatellite loci. Both fluorescence spectroscopy and PCR results suggested that this method can extract DNA from hair shafts with good efficiency and repeatability. The study will greatly facilitate the use of hair shafts in future for DNA analyses on genome-wide scale.
 
Classy. And it's gone pages without comment. When AK and RS supporters scramble towards the moral high ground and rabbit on about hate sites, I think of comments like this and others denigrating Meredith's family.


Perhaps you can relate to us how Meredith's family responded to the news that the man that sexually assaulted and murdered their daughter will soon be out of prison on work release.

What's that? You don't actually have any comments related to the case but only jump in here to attack the posters that believe Amanda Knox and Raffaele are 100% innocent. If the Kerchers were really decent folks they would have pulled that dog of a lawyer off the case and sent in someone that was looking after their interests instead of propping up the prosecution and looking for the biggest personal gain. The Kerchers haven't got a moral ant hill as long as Maresca is representing them.


PS, what has Lionking ever done to try to find the Truth of what happened that night and through the ensuing prosecutions?
 
Last edited:
As ever the original point now gets lost or simple ignored, making jokes about the murder victim is okay here now, because some other non JREF member, on some other site has made crass comments about Raffaele or Amanda. Yeah, win hearts and minds.

What joke was made about Meredith?

It is difficult not to have points made that are about Meredith when things like this were said:

This was reported by the magistrates, who speak of "intent of sexual abuse by the alleged perpetrators to the victim, and subsequent rebellion of the latter." John Kercher, Meredith's father, finds it hard to believe that, albeit unintentionally, the young person is involved in a sex story ended badly: "It was not that kind of person - he said - he would never have got involved in something like that. "​

The ILE and the PGP have painted Amanda and Raf as some sexual deviates and Meredith as saintly. This factoid has led people even here that Meredith could not possibly have made a date with Rudy. I think that is not out of the question and don't think that should in any way demean her character.

I don't think John knew his daughter that well and his influence might have changed the course of the investigation.
 
Perhaps you can relate to us how Meredith's family responded to the news that the man that sexually assaulted and murdered their daughter will soon be out of prison on work release.

What's that? You don't actually have any comments related to the case but only jump in here to attack the posters that believe Amanda Knox and Raffaele are 100% innocent. If the Kerchers were really decent folks they would have pulled that dog of a lawyer off the case and sent in someone that was looking after their interests instead of propping up the prosecution and looking for the biggest personal gain. The Kerchers haven't got a moral ant hill as long as Maresca is representing them.

I blame the system far more than I blame the Kerchers. What kind of court allows the victim or the victim's family to participate in the actually prosecution.
 
As ever the original point now gets lost or simple ignored, making jokes about the murder victim is okay here now, because some other non JREF member, on some other site has made crass comments about Raffaele or Amanda. Yeah, win hearts and minds.

In this case, silence does not imply agreement. As far as I know, no one has said making jokes about the murder victim is okay. I don't think you and/or lionking could make a case that people here don't disagree with each other when they feel it is necessary.
 
Welshman,

That is a good question. And if Amanda and Raffaele should suffer reduced credibility for their false statements (which are quite small in number, as Bill Williams pointed out), shouldn't the police and prosecution suffer reduced credibility for their many documented false statements and half-truths. Has Professor Dershowitz never defended someone who was the victim of police coercion, police lies, or prosecution stonewalling on discovery?

Since no guilter that I know of EVER tries to nail down their own allegations, many years ago I tried to lst a"all the lies" Amanda and Raffaele were supposed to have told. The following is my reconstruction, nased many on a list Garry Ragg/The Machine once posted... as well as some unknown blogger (who added a couple of unique ones).

For some reason guilters (and it seems, the Italian Courts) like making allegations. And as long as they are "logical" and fit into some large "osmotic" configuration they seem to exempt themselves from actual evidence.

So here they are, long since reprinted... the list of lies. If you know of any more (a challenge to guilters) please add them.
What is telling to me, is that so few of them are attributed to Amanda, and it's she who is supposed to be the cunning liar!!!

It would also be useful to see a list of prosecution/witness/court lies laid side by side.

This is a reconstruction from two sources, first Peter Quennell's page, post by The Machine aka. Harry Rag.

Lie one. Raffaele Sollecito first claimed in an interview with Kate Mansey from the Sunday Mirror that he and Amanda Knox were at a friend’s party on the night of the murder. It would have been obviously a tad difficult for Sollecito to find any witnesses who had attended an imaginary party to provide him and Knox with an alibi. This alibi was predictably abandoned very quickly.

Lie two. Sollecito then claimed that he was his apartment with Amanda Knox. This alibi is flatly contradicted by a silent witness: forensic evidence. According to the scientific police, there are six separate pieces of forensic evidence, including an abundant amount of his DNA on Meredith’s bra clasp, that place him in the cottage on Via della Pergola on the night of the murder.

Lie three. Sollecito then came up with a third alibi. He claimed that he was alone at his apartment and that Knox had gone out from 9pm to 1am. Both Sollecito and Knox gave completely different accounts of where they were, who they were with and what they doing on the night of the murder. These weren’t small inconsistencies, but huge, whopping lies.

Lie four. Sollecito and Knox told the postal police that he had called the police before the postal police had turned up at the cottage and were waiting for them. Sollecito later admitted that this was not true and that he had lied because he had believed Amanda Knox’s version of what had happened.

Lie five. He said he went outside “to see if I could climb up to Meredith’s window” but could not. “I tried to force the door but couldn’t, and at that point I decided to call my sister for advice because she is a Carabinieri officer. She told me to dial 112 (the Italian emergency number) but at that moment the postal police arrived. He added: “In my former statement I told you a load of rubbish because I believed Amanda’s version of what happened and did not think about the inconsistencies.” (The Times, 7 November, 2007).

Lie six. Knox and Sollecito said they couldn’t remember most of what happened on the night of the murder, because they had smoked cannabis. It is medically impossible for cannabis to cause such dramatic amnesia and there are no studies that have ever demonstrated that this is possible.

Lie seven. Sollecito claimed that he had spoken to his father at 11pm. Phone records show that there was no telephone conversation at this time. Sollecito’s father called him a couple of hours earlier at 8.40pm.

Lie eight. Sollecito claimed that he was surfing the Internet from 11pm to 1am. The Kercher’s lawyer, Franco Maresca, pointed out that credible witnesses had shattered Sollecito’s alibi for the night of the murder. Sollecito still maintains he was home that night, working on his computer, but computer specialists have testified that his computer was not used for an eight-hour period on the night of Meredith’s murder

Lie nine. Sollecito claimed that he had slept until 10pm the next day. However, he used his computer at 5.32am and turned on his mobile phone at 6.02am. The Italian Supreme Court remarked that his night was “sleepless” to say the least.

Lie ten. When Sollecito heard that the scientific police had found Meredith’s DNA on the double DNA knife in his apartment. He told a cock and bull story about accidentally pricking Meredith’s hand whilst cooking at his apartment. “The fact that Meredith’s DNA is on my kitchen knife is because once, when we were all cooking together, I accidentally pricked her hand." Meredith had never been to Sollecito’s apartment. Sollecito could not have accidentally pricked her hand whilst cooking. (Note: this is the one, and only one, bona fide lie Sollecito told. It was remarkable as an awkward lie.)

Now from the blog there are.....

Lie eleven. - Finally, a lie from Amanda, about how Knox gave a sontaneous confession to Mignini in interrogation, a lie about Patrick Lumumba.

Repeat of lie 1. Just two days after the murder, Raffaele Sollecito gave an interview to Kate Mansey of the UK’s Sunday Mirror in which he explained his first version of the events. “It was a normal night. Meredith had gone out with one of her English friends and Amanda and I went to party with one of my friends.”

Lie twelve. - from Amanda, about the spot of blood she saw in the bathroom - "At first I thought they had come from my ears. But then when I scratched the drops a bit, I saw they were all dry, and I thought ‘That’s weird. Oh well, I'll take my shower.’” After that, she dried her hair, got dressed and calmly returned to Raffaele’s apartment.

Lie thirteen. “…Then he came out and we made breakfast, and while we were preparing it and drinking coffee, I explained to him what I had seen, and I asked him for advice, because when I went into my house, everything seemed in order, only there were these little weird things, and I couldn't figure out how to understand them.” This is hardly the panicked girl that Raffaele described. (Note: So this is a lie attributed to Raffaele?)

Repeat of lie #2, although the blog calls it a "change of story". - Raffaele told police that he and Knox stayed at his flat the entire night of November 1, 2007 (night of the murder)

Repeat of lie #3, although the blog calls it a "change of story". - During his November 5, 2007 interrogation and subsequent arrest, Sollecito wanted to come clean, and he told police that his previous version to them was “un sacco di cazzate” (a load of rubbish). “In my former statement I told you a load of rubbish because I believed Amanda’s version of what happened and did not think about the inconsistencies.” (The Times, 7 November, 2007). He said he and Knox returned to his flat at approximately 8:30pm, and that Knox left his apartment, while he stayed there, and she returned at around 1:00am. He claimed that he believed that she went to see if she had to work that evening. This was clearly an attempt to exonerate himself from any culpability, as Knox had received a text message from her then boss, Patrick Lumumba, at 8:19pm that evening informing Knox that it was slow at the bar and she would not be needed to work that evening.

Variation of lie #3, although the blog calls it a "change of story". - after his arrest, Raffaele wrote several letters to his father while in prison. This was written under no duress. In the letter, Raffaele explains to his father that he and Knox had arrived at his flat at about 8 – 8:30 pm on the night of the murder. “Amanda had [then] left for work,” he writes, but he could not remember how long she was gone—but he writes that he is “certain” that Knox had stayed with him the “entire night.”

Variation of lie #3. - Then, he shows uncertainty whether or not Knox had committed the murder (or knew something about it) and blatantly calls her a liar...Raffaele writes to his father: “I try to understand what Amanda's role was in this event. The Amanda that I know is an Amanda who lives a carefree life. Her only thought is the pursuit of pleasure at all times. But even the thought that she could be a killer is impossible for me. I have read her version of events. Some of the things she said are not true, but I don't know why she said them.” (Note: this says precisely the OPPOSITE of what the blogger claims it says.

That's it. That's "all the lies" they told. If you have more, please add to the list.
 
Last edited:
Extradition? What does the ECHR have to say about its member states requesting the extradition of people who have been illegally convicted?

I believe in your dialect a "dumbass" is a "bloody idiot".

Illegally convicted? True Raffaele and Amanda’s 1st and 2nd level trial verdicts have been guilty, but the Italian Supreme Court haven’t made their final ruling.

Well the only institution that moves slower than the Italian justice system is ECHR and as we all know ECHR can’t even look at case until a member state has completed its judicial process. I can’t recall where I read the ECHR has a back log measured in years, I’ll have to check.

I am familiar with American vernacular, I was being ironic. You are being too hard on yourself though, I certainly do not regard you as a dumbass or an idiot. Satire. ;-)
 
What joke was made about Meredith?

It is difficult not to have points made that are about Meredith when things like this were said:

This was reported by the magistrates, who speak of "intent of sexual abuse by the alleged perpetrators to the victim, and subsequent rebellion of the latter." John Kercher, Meredith's father, finds it hard to believe that, albeit unintentionally, the young person is involved in a sex story ended badly: "It was not that kind of person - he said - he would never have got involved in something like that. "​

The ILE and the PGP have painted Amanda and Raf as some sexual deviates and Meredith as saintly. This factoid has led people even here that Meredith could not possibly have made a date with Rudy. I think that is not out of the question and don't think that should in any way demean her character.

I don't think John knew his daughter that well and his influence might have changed the course of the investigation.
Never mind Grinder, as ever I am happy for anyone (non PIP or PGP) reading these exchanges to draw their own conclusions. Hearts and Minds.
 
What joke was made about Meredith?

It is difficult not to have points made that are about Meredith when things like this were said:

This was reported by the magistrates, who speak of "intent of sexual abuse by the alleged perpetrators to the victim, and subsequent rebellion of the latter." John Kercher, Meredith's father, finds it hard to believe that, albeit unintentionally, the young person is involved in a sex story ended badly: "It was not that kind of person - he said - he would never have got involved in something like that. "​

The ILE and the PGP have painted Amanda and Raf as some sexual deviates and Meredith as saintly. This factoid has led people even here that Meredith could not possibly have made a date with Rudy. I think that is not out of the question and don't think that should in any way demean her character.

I don't think John knew his daughter that well and his influence might have changed the course of the investigation.

I think we need to give the ILE and PGP credit where credit is due. AK and RS are no longer sexual deviants, they are mere hygiene killers now.
 
I think we need to give the ILE and PGP credit where credit is due. AK and RS are no longer sexual deviants, they are mere hygiene killers now.

Early, unverified reports on Nencini is that he regards this as a "Boys night out" crime. I'm not sure what that means.
 
In this case, silence does not imply agreement. As far as I know, no one has said making jokes about the murder victim is okay. I don't think you and/or lionking could make a case that people here don't disagree with each other when they feel it is necessary.
You know Mary, as ever I am content for the largest constituent group to make their own minds up reading these posts.

For me as a father with daughters such comments are beyond the pale, it’s like joking about a women wearing a short skirt and asking to be raped or brutally murdered, poor taste, but hey that’s me.

Is this how you spell “misogyny”? Never sure what with American English and English spelling.

Hearts and minds.
 
You know Mary, as ever I am content for the largest constituent group to make their own minds up reading these posts.

For me as a father with daughters such comments are beyond the pale, it’s like joking about a women wearing a short skirt and asking to be raped or brutally murdered, poor taste, but hey that’s me.

Is this how you spell “misogyny”? Never sure what with American English and English spelling.

Hearts and minds.

What exact comments are you talking about?

You can easily quote them and bring them to the attention of the thread so that people can help you in addressing them.


Otherwise you leave yourself open to the community to make up their minds about wheter you are concern trolling again or not.
 
Never mind Grinder, as ever I am happy for anyone (non PIP or PGP) reading these exchanges to draw their own conclusions. Hearts and Minds.

Well I do mind because you make an accusation that by its nature includes all posters here that are not PGP.

You say there was a joke about Meredith recently posted here yet you refuse to tell us what it was.

The original theory put out by the police was that a sex game gone bad had resulted in the murder. They even speculated that the murderer might well be someone she met at the party the night before. Just before the arrest of Amanda they started to turn the story and at the heart of it was the character of Meredith as portrayed by her father. I will not be graphic about her but those that have followed the case know that she wasn't a wallflower.

It would have been just as wrong to reverse how Amanda and Meredith have been portrayed but had that been done the case Amanda would never have been charged much less convicted.

If in the end Amanda is found not guilty and vindicated on all counts, do you think the Kerchers would owe her anything (not monetary)?
 
Last edited:
Really? Kind of strikes me as an unsurprising response from the murder victims family, like it or not, agree with it or not, they accept the prosecution’s case.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

I feel sorry for the Kerchers. They've been sold a bill of goods and they can't and won't face the fact that they are suckers. I don't mean that in a derogatory way. We all get taken once in a while.

This is far more sad than most of us that get suckered by a car salesman who sold us a lemon. No, this one is filled with serious emotion. They bought this horrible story with their hearts and they refuse to listen to their brain and logic.

It wouldn't matter today if Rudy pulled out a video of him climbing the cottage wall and then of him murdering their daughter alone, they would insist that Amanda and Raffaele somehow were off camera somewhere cheering him on.

I'm a salesman and the one lesson I've learned is that NEVER EVER EVER tell someone that they made a mistake in buying your competitors product. Why? Because they will instinctively defend their decision and the harder you attack the competitor, the harder they will defend them. You competitor's product might be the biggest POS ever, and they will defend it....almost without exception. You will almost guaranty that they won't switch to your product.

They have to come to the conclusion on their own. In fact, a better way to get them start bashing your competitor is for you to speak highly of that company. Then they don't feel defensive, they are more comfortable actually discussing its flaws.

The Kerchers are exactly that way. They bought into this bizarre scenario with their hearts and telling them that they are wrong only makes them dig their heels in deeper. I don't see them changing their minds any time soon...maybe never. You never know that a few of them might have an ephiphany. But I'd bet almost everything I have that John Kercher won't. He wrote a book showing his opinion. Might as well be chiseled in stone on the Pharaohs' tombs.
 
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

I feel sorry for the Kerchers. They've been sold a bill of goods and they can't and won't face the fact that they are suckers. I don't mean that in a derogatory way. We all get taken once in a while.

This is far more sad than most of us that get suckered by a car salesman who sold us a lemon. No, this one is filled with serious emotion. They bought this horrible story with their hearts and they refuse to listen to their brain and logic.

It wouldn't matter today if Rudy pulled out a video of him climbing the cottage wall and then of him murdering their daughter alone, they would insist that Amanda and Raffaele somehow were off camera somewhere cheering him on.

I'm a salesman and the one lesson I've learned is that NEVER EVER EVER tell someone that they made a mistake in buying your competitors product. Why? Because they will instinctively defend their decision and the harder you attack the competitor, the harder they will defend them. You competitor's product might be the biggest POS ever, and they will defend it....almost without exception. You will almost guaranty that they won't switch to your product.

They have to come to the conclusion on their own. In fact, a better way to get them start bashing your competitor is for you to speak highly of that company. Then they don't feel defensive, they are more comfortable actually discussing its flaws.

The Kerchers are exactly that way. They bought into this bizarre scenario with their hearts and telling them that they are wrong only makes them dig their heels in deeper. I don't see them changing their minds any time soon...maybe never. You never know that a few of them might have an ephiphany. But I'd bet almost everything I have that John Kercher won't. He wrote a book showing his opinion. Might as well be chiseled in stone on the Pharaohs' tombs.
Nah, for sure making a crass joke about the murdered victim is counter-productive and only appeals to those of a like mind which is certainly not PIP folks I know here.
 
I didn't see the comment because I mostly just skim this forum. I still don't know what was said.....
 
Illegally convicted? True Raffaele and Amanda’s 1st and 2nd level trial verdicts have been guilty, but the Italian Supreme Court haven’t made their final ruling.

Knox has been convicted of callunnia (application pending before ECHR), almost certainly illegally. And of course, we all know that they will be convicted in the case in chief.

Well the only institution that moves slower than the Italian justice system is ECHR and as we all know ECHR can’t even look at case until a member state has completed its judicial process. I can’t recall where I read the ECHR has a back log measured in years, I’ll have to check.

The callunnia application presumably argues that there was a violation of human rights that led to the conviction. I think that the argument is a good one. I wonder what relief is available to Knox within the ECHR process, and what the effect of a pending colorable/meritorious ECHR application will be on any prospective Italian request for extradition and/or US answer? Is there an unclean hands defense to extradition? Can Knox move within Italy and/or the ECHR to block extradition?

I am familiar with American vernacular, I was being ironic. You are being too hard on yourself though, I certainly do not regard you as a dumbass or an idiot. Satire. ;-)

What is this, some version of "I'm rubber, you're glue"?
 
Last edited:
People within ABC are unhappy too, but they can't do anything because Abrams is a big shot. Abrams has been advised of numerous factual errors, he has been presented with documentation that proves the errors, and he refuses to allow any changes. The most he would allow was removal of the bogus quotes he attributed to Amanda.

Everyone who cares about this should flame ABC hard.

Most effective way to do that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom