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

[Vibio]

Re: DNA on the knife:

One thing Nencini makes no bones about... as reported by Barbie Nadeau:

"Nencini also ruled that there was plenty of forensic evidence tying Knox and Sollecito to the crime scene, writing “they left their tracks in the victim’s blood” more than once in the document. "

Ooooops!

 

[proudfootz]

You are debating dishonestly, here, ignoring, pell mell, numerous posts which have demolished your points. Given that this is a very serious matter, both for the persons directly involved, as well as for the cause of justice, it is, at a minimum, shameless behavior.

Address the points that have been made to you. Kwill and Chris Halkides are correct. You are wrong.

I see - now I'm 'dishonest' and 'shameless'.

It seems to me I've seen several posters' debating points get demolished - like the one about the sneaky way Dr Stephanoni found those scratches on the knife. One says there are no scratches, another says all knives have them.

These guys do a pretty good job of refuting themselves.

 

[Diocletus]

Re: DNA on the knife:

One thing Nencini makes no bones about... as reported by Barbie Nadeau:

"Nencini also ruled that there was plenty of forensic evidence tying Knox and Sollecito to the crime scene, writing “they left their tracks in the victim’s blood” more than once in the document. "

Ooooops!

Not impressed.

What's more interesting is Nencini's repeated reference to "procedural facts," by which he means facts that were determined in some other guy's trial, by some other judge, which are binding on these defendants. Garbage.

 

[Vibio]

Re DNA on knife... as Nadeau explains in her recent article:

"An earlier court heard testimony that a tiny smidgeon of DNA on the groove of the blade was Kercher’s, but the first appellate court agreed with witnesses who testified that the sample was too small to be considered a perfect match. The second appellate court not only considered the knife to be the murder weapon, it also ruled that Knox “plunged the knife into the left side of Kercher’s neck, causing the fatal wound.”

The Knoxians (hey, if I'm a "guilter"... can I call them Knoxians?) seem to forget that the Hellman court and C&V have been scathingly criticized as being corrupt and incompetent. Hellman's ruling was ANULLED dears.

 

[acbytesla]

Yes, I was unaware that Douglass attended the proceedings and heard all the evidence.

He's heard all the evidence... Hell, we all know what "all the evidence is" in this case which is very, very, very little.

There are only two pieces of physical evidence that potentially incriminate Amanda or Raffaele and both are beyond suspect. Both of which cannot be confirmed by anyone outside of Stefanoni a lab tech who refuses to provide the electronic data that documents her testing procedures. hmmmm...I wonder why? What is she hiding??

Conti and Vechiotti the court appointed INDEPENDENT DNA experts who reviewed the knife and the bra clasp could not confirm Stefanoni's results on either. Why is that I wonder? hmmmmm??? The DNA that Stefanoni claimed that she found on the knife was consumed during her test and the bra clasp was mysteriously stored improperly in a plastic bag when any DNA Lab tech knows that this results in moisture that destroys the sample...which of course it was. Even the RIS who examined 36I on the knife (Rome DNA Lab) tech said that a single test on a sample is unacceptable and should never be used.


This is really sad...

 

[Anode]

Re: DNA on the knife:

One thing Nencini makes no bones about... as reported by Barbie Nadeau:

"Nencini also ruled that there was plenty of forensic evidence tying Knox and Sollecito to the crime scene, writing “they left their tracks in the victim’s blood” more than once in the document. "

Ooooops!

Yes, I saw that a few pages back. Well that's new. I'm anxious to read more about this new found evidence. The only evidence I've ever read about regarding foot and hand prints in the room where the murder was commited were from Rudy.

If Nencini ruled this then new evidence must have come forward in this trial regarding the murder scene.

 

[acbytesla]

Re: DNA on the knife:

One thing Nencini makes no bones about... as reported by Barbie Nadeau:

"Nencini also ruled that there was plenty of forensic evidence tying Knox and Sollecito to the crime scene, writing “they left their tracks in the victim’s blood” more than once in the document. "

Ooooops!

Where did they leave their tracks in the victim's blood? Where?? I challenge you or Nadeau or Nencini to prove that absurd lie.

 

[carbonjam72]

Just a quick note on the appearance of Vibio and Proudfootz, and similar oddities of human nature...

Does anyone really care what either of these posters have to say? They are unconcerned with the case facts, evidence and law. Whatever petty thrill they get from posting here, its not about debating the facts, for the purpose of clarifying an accurate picture of the case or its development. They delight in the misery of the innocent, because they aren't normal people.

So why are all the thoughtful posters on this site putting energy into an utterly pointless engagement? Does anyone expect to sway these types with reason or argument?

They aren't arguing in good faith. Get over it. Their mindset is criminal. Recognize it. They aren't interested in furthering the conversation, only distracting from it. Which they have very successfully done, today at least.

With characters such as these, people would be wise to take the advice of one who faced a similar mob, in a barely less enlightened day, not all that long ago;

"Leave that vile rabble alone". - Danton, on the way to the guillotine.

 

[carbonjam72]

The Vile Rabble Interrupts Discourse Yet Again

Just a quick note on the appearance of Vibio and Proudfootz, and similar oddities of human nature...

Does anyone really care what either of these posters have to say? They are unconcerned with the case facts, evidence and law. Whatever petty thrill they get from posting here, its not about debating the facts, for the purpose of clarifying an accurate picture of the case or its development. They delight in the misery of the innocent, because they aren't normal people.

So why are all the thoughtful posters on this site putting energy into an utterly pointless engagement? Does anyone expect to sway these types with reason or argument?

They aren't arguing in good faith. Get over it. Their mindset is criminal. Recognize it. They aren't interested in furthering the conversation, only distracting from it. Which they have very successfully done, today at least.

With characters such as these, people would be wise to take the advice of one who faced a similar mob, in a barely less enlightened day, not all that long ago;

"Leave that vile rabble alone". - Danton, on the way to the guillotine.

 

[proudfootz]

There is zero evidence that Stefanoni's lab conformed to any standards. And until she releases the raw data files (as demanded by the courts) there is no real way to assess "expert" testimony.

The evidence was debated in open court by legal professionals.

What is backwards is making spurious claims about 'contamination' in the absence of evidence of such an occurrence.

As for you, you prefer a picture on Mad Pete's website of the kitchen knife to the preliminary judge's own expert who said he did not see striations on the knife.

The photograph confirms what forensic scientists could see with their naked eyes by the 'underhanded' means of using a light. ZOMG!

You also believe that blood can shield other DNA from a scrubbing. I think this alone enables reasonable people to discern your opinions on who you believe is or isn't an expert.

It's just common sense that something lodged in a scratch or in a crevice would be harder to remove than something on the surface.

 

[anglolawyer]

You are now an honourary Canadian.

I'm willing to put a few 'bob on this. How much? Please remember exchange rates.

All the money in Grinder's pocket. Are you saying the ISC will over turn Nencini. Man, I hope you are right.

I have a simple question that I am sure has been answered.

According to Nencini An argument characteristically objective that emerged procedurally was evidence that, after the murder of Meredith Kercher, selective or not, there was a clean-up of the traces of the murder, ... , at the end of the aggressive phase. Someone spent much time within the cottage on the night between November 1st and 2nd, 2007, altering the crime scene and destroying numerous traces.

Did Knox know with certainty that none of the other residents of the cottage, downstairs as well as her flatmates, would not return that evening or even in the morning? If not, speaking of big risks, taking all that time to clean up / stage the scene is a mighty big risk indeed!

She did not know. You and I are the only two people posting on this thread who think this significant.

Unfortunately for the perpetrators, professional forensic investigators concluded otherwise.

Unless you're trying to say Meredith Kercher had a clone whose DNA profile was found on the blade of the knife in Sollecito's possession...?

This would be an interesting new twist on the increasingly bizarre CT scenario!

Proudfootz - you have no idea what you are talking about. You have not read or considered Conti-Vechiotti. Admit it.

Proudfootz represents well the guilters' dilemma.

Knox and Sollecito were obvious suspects right from Nov 2.

Yet at interrogation starting 11 pm Nov 5, the slate had been inexplicably wiped clean. Despite senior police saying that they had already solved this case with behavioural observation, before the interrogation and before the evidence came in pointing to Rudy.....

..... suddenly, Knox (particularly) had to be suddenly not a suspect any more. Because what they need is for Amanda to suddenly blurt out Lumumba's name, with NO pressure or even any inclination from the cops that she was involved.

And Nencini has booted this by saying in his motivations report that the confessions ruled inadmissible by the ISC are key to understanding this crime.

Proudfootz has caught the guilters' 'flu. Amanda has to be seen as suspicious except when she's conveniently not seen as suspicious. At stake is whether or not she required a lawyer and a competent translator (not the mediator Donnino said she was) at interrogation.

Exactly! There is no squaring this circle. There is no evidence against them so fools resort to their suspicious behaviour forgetting (among other things) that they were supposedly not suspected until Amanda amazed everyone by blurting out her accusation of Lumumba.

proudfootz, you want doors?

How about Raffles telling his dad that when they got back to the cottage the door to Filomena's room was "wide open".

Of course Knox tells us that the door was shut.

(as liars are want to do)

You mean 'wont'.

Re: DNA on the knife:

One thing Nencini makes no bones about... as reported by Barbie Nadeau:

"Nencini also ruled that there was plenty of forensic evidence tying Knox and Sollecito to the crime scene, writing “they left their tracks in the victim’s blood” more than once in the document. "

Ooooops!

What is the evidence for this blood tracking? Is this the luminol again?

Just a quick note on the appearance of Vibio and Proudfootz, and similar oddities of human nature...

Does anyone really care what either of these posters have to say? They are unconcerned with the case facts, evidence and law. Whatever petty thrill they get from posting here, its not about debating the facts, for the purpose of clarifying an accurate picture of the case or its development. They delight in the misery of the innocent, because they aren't normal people.

So why are all the thoughtful posters on this site putting energy into an utterly pointless engagement? Does anyone expect to sway these types with reason or argument?

They aren't arguing in good faith. Get over it. Their mindset is criminal. Recognize it. They aren't interested in furthering the conversation, only distracting from it. Which they have very successfully done, today at least.

With characters such as these, people would be wise to take the advice of one who faced a similar mob, in a barely less enlightened day, not all that long ago;

"Leave that vile rabble alone". - Danton, on the way to the guillotine.

I welcome them and hope they stick around. But they won't.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

ignorance is not bliss, and it is not a becoming quality

I'm merely answering the patent nonsense offered in response to my reasonable posts.

William Thompson's expert opinion was offered at which part of the trial or appeal? I'd like to read his testimony and its weight relative to the other expert testimony.

Your labeling a very reasonable substrate control experiment is proof that you are ignorant of basic forensic theory. Professor Thompson's writings about negative controls are general and some predate this case, but they are applicable to this or any other case involving DNA forensics. Only a fool would stopper his or her ears. Your comments about him are feckless and snarky. If you want to have a serious discussion about DNA forensics, you are going about it 180° wrong.

 

[NancyS]

It's just common sense that something lodged in a scratch or in a crevice would be harder to remove than something on the surface.

Isn't that why the experts and the defence wanted the knife to be taken apart - if blood was on the knife, they wouldn't have been able to clean under the handle. And remind me again who didn't want this to be done?

 

[proudfootz]

Just a quick note on the appearance of Vibio and Proudfootz, and similar oddities of human nature...

Does anyone really care what either of these posters have to say? They are unconcerned with the case facts, evidence and law. Whatever petty thrill they get from posting here, its not about debating the facts, for the purpose of clarifying an accurate picture of the case or its development. They delight in the misery of the innocent, because they aren't normal people.

So why are all the thoughtful posters on this site putting energy into an utterly pointless engagement? Does anyone expect to sway these types with reason or argument?

They aren't arguing in good faith. Get over it. Their mindset is criminal. Recognize it. They aren't interested in furthering the conversation, only distracting from it. Which they have very successfully done, today at least.

With characters such as these, people would be wise to take the advice of one who faced a similar mob, in a barely less enlightened day, not all that long ago;

"Leave that vile rabble alone". - Danton, on the way to the guillotine.

^^ Classic psychological projection? ^^

Where should people who have a non-CT point of view go to discuss the case?

But I do enjoy the petulant accusations about those who thoughtfully concur with the evidence presented in this case as a 'mob of criminally minded unreasoning abnormal people who delight in the misery of innocents'.

I can just imagine the spittle flying as these turgid posts are typed!

 

[Poppy1016]

Of whom I am one.

Of whom I am another.

 

[Vibio]

....because they aren't normal people.

Normal people don't idolize murderers.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

osmotic shock

It's just common sense that something lodged in a scratch or in a crevice would be harder to remove than something on the surface.

Cells exposed to water will lyse under osmotic stress. Detergents will aid the process by dissolving the phospholipids that make up the plasma membrane. The cellular contents will then spill out and be washed away. I suggest you assuage your ignorance of basic cellular biology by reading a textbook.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Rudy Guede, the forgotten killer

Normal people don't idolize murderers.

But a surprising number are willing to make excuses for a rapist-murderer named Rudy Guede. Who called him "poor Rudy?"

 

[Desert Fox]

What are you talking about? C&V both examined the methodology and the results of the original tests, and attempted to duplicate the results. They tore apart the methodology and were unable to duplicate the results.

Scientists appointed for the Nencini trial were unable to reproduce Stefanoni's results. In other words, *they did not find Ms. Kercher's DNA on the blade*.

Am I ready correctly that the judge ordered this test and them summarily dismissing the results?
I would like to ask him "Why did you bother with the test"
Why even bother with a trial while he was at it.
First day just declare them guilty and get it over with.

 

[proudfootz]

Proudfootz - you have no idea what you are talking about. You have not read or considered Conti-Vechiotti. Admit it.

I'm perfectly willing to look at it, and also critiques of it.

Indeed, I think subsequent courts have had a little to say about that whole affair.

ETA - as for sticking around, it all depends on how much irrational abuse I have an appetite for.