Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

The troubling thing is that on occasion, Machiavelli has had information not available to us up here in the cheap seats.

While I am sure that Machiavelli does have some sources that the rest of us don't, I also know that he fabricates out of thin air much of what he writes. It is like reading Guede's statements. I know that some of it probably does have grains of truth, but I also know that a large portion is a total lie. The difficulty is learning how to tell difference.

 

[carbonjam72]

If I remember SH's theory correctly, it is totally immaterial (to his/her theory) where either of them were both between 9 and 10 pm, as well as at T.O.D. (regardless as to whether or not that time period or the T.O.D. coincided.)

SH's theory (and he can correct me if I am wrong) is something akin to Knox feeling guilty that she felt she had some indirect association with the murder, and then after that had happened returned to the cottage to effect a clean-up to mask who had done it.

Strangley this theory has legs among at least two journalists lately. One if Barbie Nadeau, whose favourite phrase is, "Knox knows more that she's telling us." Apparently CNN's Cuomo used that phrase recently too.

Yes, and Chris Cuomo got his job as a TV interviewer on merit because he's real smart, not at all because his father was a former governor of NY. Why must we be saddled with the stunted offspring of politicians?

 

[anglolawyer]

I saw no reasoning or wording in the English language translation of Hellmann's motivation report regarding the memory expert (Carlo Caltagirone) at all. I am handicapped by only having translated small sections of the expert's testimony. May be he made no statements worth refuting. But then IMO the judge should have mentioned that. Another possibility is that the translation of Hellmann's motivation report is not complete. But assuming that it is, I believe it is lacking the refutation or reasoning needed to address the false memory issue.

And regarding "arbitrary", it would be helpful if lawyers and judges defined their terms before or even after use, but this is not an ideal world. I did get 12 HUDOC case hits for the phrase "arbitrary reasoning".

ETA: Checking the hits, in a number of instances a judgment states that the ECHR did not find any arbitrary reasoning in a domestic court's decision. (So they know what it is well enough not to find it!)

No, you are right, Hellman does not cite the specific evidential basis for his findings but it cannot be inferred that those findings are not grounded in evidence. Where else, aside from the defence expert, can he have got all that stuff about her mental state? After setting it all out, he says:

However, this Court does not find that there is any significant objective evidence that, when she made her spontaneous statements and wrote her note, Amanda Knox was in not only a situation of considerable psychological pressure and stress but also even in a condition of not intending or wishing; so that, having accused of such a serious crime a person whom she knew to be innocent, she must in any case be held responsible for the crime of calumny, the constitution of which does not require any specific purpose from a psychological point of view, such as shifting the blame off of oneself [conseguire la propria impunità] (an aggravating circumstance alleged [here]). Generic criminal intent [il dolo generico] is sufficient, thus including the aim of escaping from a particularly oppressive personal situation.

I am guessing questions about her mental capacity were put to her expert and that he was not able to go so far as to say she lacked the ability to form criminal intent. We need a transcript of his evidence.

 

[Diocletus]

Yummi is worried. He's got issues with what Bruno said but also Judge Matone. He's preparing the ground for denouncing the judges if the ruling doesn't confirm the convictions. If they confirm, he'll dig over that ground.

Today is not what the guilters expected. Harry Rag thought that Mr Sollecito would be in prison by bedtime.

Now he's going on about how Bruno made comments about the murder being committed by more than one person. This is interesting. This is one of the points that the supreme court, in a pique of idiocy, determined in Guede's case and then illegally applied in the Knox/Sollecito case.

What Yummi doesn't say that Bruno said, however, is that those "other people" have to be Knox and Sollecito.

 

[Kauffer]

I remember when they were high-fiving each other about how he'd be locked up by Christmas.

I will say this . . . if I knew that, for example, Mr Maresca was going to be publicly humiliated for his role in this mess, I would be glad. I would read articles about it. I would not pop champagne, or invite my friends over, or pound the table with joy.

I'd just be glad to see a person get held accountable for hurting others. They've moved a long way past that ordinary sort of liking-justice and out into some kind of blood-lust territory. It's creepy as hell.

Yes. It's a study in itself. LJ wrote a nicely crafted post about the phenomenon earlier. I am not an expert, but there appears to be something pathological going on. I think Rome is an appropriate location, as far as they are concerned. They see the defendants in the arena, not the courtroom.

 

[Kauffer]

Now he's going on about how Bruno made comments about the murder being committed by more than one person. This is interesting. This is one of the points that the supreme court, in a pique of idiocy, determined in Guede's case and then illegally applied in the Knox/Sollecito case.

What Yummi doesn't say that Bruno said, however, is that those "other people" have to be Knox and Sollecito.

Well, well. Some developments in this case are predictable, others are not. I wouldn't like to say the cat has got amongst the guilter pigeons today, but their collective feathers are certainly a little ruffled. And these convictions don't appear to be of the slam dunk confirmation kind after this session.

 

[TruthCalls]

While I agree with you for the most part, I refrain from criticizing the Kerchers, mostly because it is both unseemly and a no win proposition to speak negatively about the parents of a murder victim.

I agree, and I thought I had pointed out I was steering clear of criticizing them. They have done some things I take serious exception to, but until I've been in their shoes - and I hope to God I never am - then I can not pass judgement on them.

My main point is it seems odd that they don't seem to be driven by the same things that I think I would be driven by. I would want to be certain of every fact. I would want to be certain that all guilty parties serve time. I would want to be certain that innocent parties do not serve time. The only way to attain these goals is to research and ask questions. To this point it seems the family is satisfied just sticking to the prosecution's case. I can not understand not seeking Gil out.

 

[Bill Williams]

I've never understood why people get their knickers in a twist about Masons anyway.

I've read its part of the drive by totalitarian society & government (Fascist, Nazi, Communist) to eliminate non-governmental or private organizations not controlled by the government - single allowed party. Plus, some Christian groups (for example, Catholic) have claimed there are pagan elements in the Mason symbols & ceremonies.

In the US, Masons are known for charitably funding hospitals. And their Shriners, who parade dressed as clowns. It's all very subversive. (Not)

ETA: George Washington, Lafayette, Ben Franklin and other US founders were supposedly Masons.

The one thing I will give Machiavelli is that there is some evidence that elements within a secret-group like Italian Masons perhaps did once have unaccountable influence over Italian life.

The equivalent in the US would be the Skull and Bones fraternity. It's a secret(ive) fraternity with an elite membership, and provides opportunity for this elite to meet (and perhaps pre-decide things) out of the glare of a democratic process.

Who really knows? When John Kerry ran against George W. Bush in 2004, it was the first time that two Bonesmen had run against each other for US President.

However, Masonic conspiracists in this case claim to know the actual amount of Euros needed to get Judge Hellmann to throw the case in 2011. I don't go with that.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Sherlock's position has not shifted one iota since he first came to this site. He has learned not to try and argue the actual facts because he is soundly defeated every time. Instead, he wraps up a big bundle and claims they are all lies without examining any of them.

Soundly defeated, thanks for the laugh, again and again.

 

[acbytesla]

If I remember SH's theory correctly, it is totally immaterial (to his/her theory) where either of them were both between 9 and 10 pm, as well as at T.O.D. (regardless as to whether or not that time period or the T.O.D. coincided.)

SH's theory (and he can correct me if I am wrong) is something akin to Knox feeling guilty that she felt she had some indirect association with the murder, and then after that had happened returned to the cottage to effect a clean-up to mask who had done it.

Strangley this theory has legs among at least two journalists lately. One if Barbie Nadeau, whose favourite phrase is, "Knox knows more that she's telling us." Apparently CNN's Cuomo used that phrase recently too.

I think this is similar to the idea that there will be some kind of split decision by the ISC. A backwards deduction either based on hope or in SH's position his original belief in their involvement and unwillingness to set that aside. For me this is like Christians who see the wisdom of evolution and try and reconcile that with their religious beliefs.

 

[Diocletus]

The equivalent in the US would be the Skull and Bones fraternity. It's a secret(ive) fraternity with an elite membership, and provides opportunity for this elite to meet (and perhaps pre-decide things) out of the glare of a democratic process.

Who really knows? When John Kerry ran against George W. Bush in 2004, it was the first time that two Bonesmen had run against each other for US President.

Some conspiracy. Bush and Kerry don't even like each other.

 

[carbonjam72]

Well, well. Some developments in this case are predictable, others are not. I wouldn't like to say the cat has got amongst the guilter pigeons today, but their collective feathers are certainly a little ruffled. And these convictions don't appear to be of the slam dunk confirmation kind after this session.

Did Bruno say this about multiple assailants being a 'judicial fact' binding in this case? I think that's significant if its true.

The statement about "uncertainty" seems like a head tip to reasonable doubt. Yet the mention of 'judicial facts' that were never challenged by any party, much less by the defendants, is just scary.

It's truly difficult to believe the trial becomes so much of a sporting match, 'could go either way', and people's entire useful lives are on the line. Will they have any chance of a useful life? Well it depends on whether we believe in magical selective clean-ups.

The whole business is just so inconceivable. Is Italy still a viable country capable of self-government, when magical thinking is substituted for reality based reasoning?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

If I remember SH's theory correctly, it is totally immaterial (to his/her theory) where either of them were both between 9 and 10 pm, as well as at T.O.D. (regardless as to whether or not that time period or the T.O.D. coincided.)

SH's theory (and he can correct me if I am wrong) is something akin to Knox feeling guilty that she felt she had some indirect association with the murder, and then after that had happened returned to the cottage to effect a clean-up to mask who had done it.

Strangley this theory has legs among at least two journalists lately. One if Barbie Nadeau, whose favourite phrase is, "Knox knows more that she's telling us." Apparently CNN's Cuomo used that phrase recently too.

Knox doesn't feel guilty at all. She was there when the attack started, and most likely started it herself. Yes, she knows way more than she telling.

 

[Numbers]

No, you are right, Hellman does not cite the specific evidential basis for his findings but it cannot be inferred that those findings are not grounded in evidence. Where else, aside from the defence expert, can he have got all that stuff about her mental state? After setting it all out, he says:

However, this Court does not find that there is any significant objective evidence that, when she made her spontaneous statements and wrote her note, Amanda Knox was in not only a situation of considerable psychological pressure and stress but also even in a condition of not intending or wishing; so that, having accused of such a serious crime a person whom she knew to be innocent, she must in any case be held responsible for the crime of calumny, the constitution of which does not require any specific purpose from a psychological point of view, such as shifting the blame off of oneself [conseguire la propria impunità] (an aggravating circumstance alleged [here]). Generic criminal intent [il dolo generico] is sufficient, thus including the aim of escaping from a particularly oppressive personal situation.

I am guessing questions about her mental capacity were put to her expert and that he was not able to go so far as to say she lacked the ability to form criminal intent. We need a transcript of his evidence.

You may have a point here. But I had assumed that Hellmann was referring to the Memoriales and to Amanda Knox's own testimony. It would be useful to have the memory expert's testimony in English.

But the part of your quote I bolded is also important; did Knox know that Lumumba was innocent at that point, or had the suggestion of the police led her to believe something (a) false and (b) she could not objectively know (assuming she was with Raffaele at his apartment at the time of the murder).

 

[acbytesla]

Yes, and Chris Cuomo got his job as a TV interviewer on merit because he's real smart, not at all because his father was a former governor of NY. Why must we be saddled with the stunted offspring of politicians?

Because who you know or blow is frequently more important than what you know . It has always been that way.

 

[RWVBWL]

4 Trials?
Mafia busters?
Dead priest rescue PM Mignini?

Gotta thank pictor
for the link to this excellent news report on the case by Peter Van Sant of 48 Hours.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKOa6B7Vgj0

Speaking of Mignini:
He's put his prestige out there, it's too late,
it's like the Duke lacrosse case, he just wouldn't back down.

 

[Dan O.]

Soundly defeated, thanks for the laugh, again and again.

Come back again some day when you care to debate the evidence and what is fact.

 

[acbytesla]

Knox doesn't feel guilty at all. She was there when the attack started, and most likely started it herself. Yes, she knows way more than she telling.

There is no reason for Amanda to feel guilty about anything. And your belief is built on air. There is no evidence that she had even said much more to the real killer "hello" and "may I take your order" a week before the murder. There isn't a shred of any evidence she was in the murder room that evening or ever. (although I would guess that sometime in the previous month she had been.) What in the world would make anyone pose such an idea when there isn't anything that leads to it?

 

[Kaosium]

Knox doesn't feel guilty at all. She was there when the attack started, and most likely started it herself. Yes, she knows way more than she telling.

A ridiculous assertion, how could anyone outside Knox and Guede possibly know this? Both of them have weighed in on this and both have said that Amanda wasn't there.

 

[Dan O.]

Knox doesn't feel guilty at all. She was there when the attack started, and most likely started it herself. Yes, she knows way more than she telling.

Sherlock Holmes knows way more than he has evidence to support.

 

[RWVBWL]

Satanic Sexual Ritualized Killing?

I gotta wonder if PM Mignini is gonna sue Peter Van Sant of 48 Hours and CBS News,
as he sued Amanda Knox and her Family for stating she was hit when interrogated.

For Van Sant tells us this of PM Mignini in this news report:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKOa6B7Vgj0

"They brought Amanda Knox in for 14 hours of interrogation by a group of men who break Mafia suspects, at the end of that she gave this false confession."

"The prosecutor, Guliano Mignini, (this is a true story, cause we interviewed the Medium who has since died), he would, he would consult a Spiritual Medium who spoke to a dead Priest, there was a bloody palm print found on the wall, and the Priest told the Medium who told Mignini that this was a Satanic Sexual Ritualized killing. That's where that came from."

 

[Bill Williams]

Knox doesn't feel guilty at all. She was there when the attack started, and most likely started it herself. Yes, she knows way more than she telling.

This is pure conjecture. It would be helpful if you said more and included some reason to even remotely believe this.

 

[kwill]

did Knox know that Lumumba was innocent at that point, or had the suggestion of the police led her to believe something (a) false and (b) she could not objectively know (assuming she was with Raffaele at his apartment at the time of the murder).

The police led her to believe something false. Her mistake was to trust them.

• They had Patrick's name
• They knew she'd seen him in the plaza
• They were bugging his bar
• They saw the famous See You Later, Have a Good Night message
• They thought it meant she'd been there
• The translator encouraged her to imagine what had happened
• The translator told her it was normal to block the memory of a traumatic event

Even without the smack to the back of her head or the threats that she'd never see her family again, they clearly thought they'd gotten her to tell them what they already believed had happened. She didn't objectively know. It wasn't a false accusation, much less a confession. It was just a young woman getting rolled.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Come back again some day when you care to debate the evidence and what is fact.

Really, debate, not argue? Doesn't sound like you, who believes in invisible blood soaked footprints, smells the poop, 14 hours afterwards, with a window and door wide open, even though she has never stated she smelled it, even when confronted with the fact that it was impossible to see it where she said she was. No, you need to start admitting where you are wrong or don't have an answer for first. Then, and only then, could we have an intelligent debate on this.

 

[Dan O.]

One of Sherlock's "proofs" that Amanda was there is:

Author : Sherlock Holmes
Date : 22nd August 2011 01:57 PM

... all the shoe prints are left foot of Rudy's, the prints clearly show he was running out of Meredith's room and stopped in the living room probably to put his coat back on that Amanda had hung up for him. Rudy clearly did not stop to lock Meredith's door no matter how you want to spin it but at the same time I know you people can not accept this, because it means Amanda is GUILTY to some degree, Good day sir.​

Author : Sherlock Holmes
Date : 22nd August 2011 07:14 PM

I think she hung his coat up around 9:00​

But Rudy denies wearing a coat that night. He says he had a yellow sweatshirt which he draped over a chair. Rudy's tracks are consistent with this as he stops at the end of the table before taking a step towards the door.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

This is pure conjecture. It would be helpful if you said more and included some reason to even remotely believe this.

Pure conjecture is saying its not true, the courts have already ruled on this, to say otherwise would require a reason to even remotely disagree with it. The reasons I've read on here do not suffice for either me or the courts.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

One of Sherlock's "proofs" that Amanda was there is:

Author : Sherlock Holmes
Date : 22nd August 2011 01:57 PM

... all the shoe prints are left foot of Rudy's, the prints clearly show he was running out of Meredith's room and stopped in the living room probably to put his coat back on that Amanda had hung up for him. Rudy clearly did not stop to lock Meredith's door no matter how you want to spin it but at the same time I know you people can not accept this, because it means Amanda is GUILTY to some degree, Good day sir.​

Author : Sherlock Holmes
Date : 22nd August 2011 07:14 PM

I think she hung his coat up around 9:00​

But Rudy denies wearing a coat that night. He says he had a yellow sweatshirt which he draped over a chair. Rudy's tracks are consistent with this as he stops at the end of the table before taking a step towards the door.

So, if Rudy says he wasn't wearing a coat, then he wasn't wearing a coat, but if he says that Amanda was there, then she wasn't there, I fully understand PIP logic.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Sherlock Holmes knows way more than he has evidence to support.

Wrong, it's the evidence that support what I claim at a bare minimum, I don't need to event liars, deception, keystone cops and conspiracies to make my summary work, it just all fits in nicely.

 

[Numbers]

The police led her to believe something false. Her mistake was to trust them.

• They had Patrick's name
• They knew she'd seen him in the plaza
• They were bugging his bar
• They saw the famous See You Later, Have a Good Night message
• They thought it meant she'd been there
• The translator encouraged her to imagine what had happened
• The translator told her it was normal to block the memory of a traumatic event

Even without the smack to the back of her head or the threats that she'd never see her family again, they clearly thought they'd gotten her to tell them what they already believed had happened. She didn't objectively know. It wasn't a false accusation, much less a confession. It was just a young woman getting rolled.

These are all sound points. From an ECHR view, the failure to warn her of her right to remain silent, the police compelling her to speak under threat and acts of violence (slaps) as she has alleged, and the failure of the police to provide her with a lawyer are all significant reasons why her statements may not be used to convict her of a crime related to those statements.

Anglo and I are looking at whether there are some other, possibly more technical or more difficult to define, reasons why her conviction for calunnia was unfair as judged under the ECHR.

 

[Bill Williams]

Pure conjecture is saying its not true, the courts have already ruled on this, to say otherwise would require a reason to even remotely disagree with it. The reasons I've read on here do not suffice for either me or the courts.

Ok have it your way.

I'm of the opinion that most, if not all, of the judges judicial facts are conjectures devoid of evidence. For example, Massei's explanation for positing a cleaning between Meredith's door and the bathroom mat.

Read Massei. Otherwise you are free to assert what you wish.

 

[Bill Williams]

Wrong, it's the evidence that support what I claim at a bare minimum, I don't need to event liars, deception, keystone cops and conspiracies to make my summary work, it just all fits in nicely.

And that evidence is........ ?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

And that evidence is........ ?

Read Massei.

 

[Kaosium]

So, if Rudy says he wasn't wearing a coat, then he wasn't wearing a coat, but if he says that Amanda was there, then she wasn't there, I fully understand PIP logic.

No you don't.

 

[codyjuneau]

Here's Machiavelli's latest tweet:

Machiavelli @Machiavelli_Aki
· 23m 23 minutes ago
Judge Bruno (like Zanetti) had said the trials had "not many certainties" beyond the girl's death and one definitely convicted.


Link:
https://twitter.com/Machiavelli_Aki

.
Thanks RW, that is a promising statement from Judge Bruno.

This case is so simple.

Forget all the contrived nonsense about Raffaele, Amanda,

- accept the crime scene for what it is, rather than postulating impossible selective DNA level cleanups.
- accept Meredith's broken window for what it is, a break and entry point, rather than a staging.
- accept Rudy for what he is, a known street wise burglar and liar, who Amanda barely knew.
- accept that Rudy had no business or permission being in the girls apartment.
- accept the abundant reliable forensics evidence that Rudy left at the crime.
- accept Rudy's story for what it is, a self serving lie to blame someone else for his crime.

Simple, obvious, and tragic.

Cody
.

 

[Bill Williams]

Read Massei.

I have. Massei is filled with speculation. Not only the clean, but the transport of the knife. Please point to the evidence Massei uses.... not his speculations but his evidence he cites.

 

[acbytesla]

Really, debate, not argue? Doesn't sound like you, who believes in invisible blood soaked footprints, smells the poop, 14 hours afterwards, with a window and door wide open, even though she has never stated she smelled it, even when confronted with the fact that it was impossible to see it where she said she was. No, you need to start admitting where you are wrong or don't have an answer for first. Then, and only then, could we have an intelligent debate on this.

Seriously, this is what you base your opinions? Conjecture that she must have smelled feces in a toilet bowl? Never mind that the poop is one of the first thing she mentioned to the police? Really Sherlock, you should look deeper than that. A big so what. All you can really say about the poop is that it might be a little strange, not that it is evidence of anything.

 

[Machiavelli]

I gotta wonder if PM Mignini is gonna sue Peter Van Sant of 48 Hours and CBS News,
as he sued Amanda Knox and her Family for stating she was hit when interrogated.

For Van Sant tells us this of PM Mignini in this news report:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKOa6B7Vgj0

"They brought Amanda Knox in for 14 hours of interrogation by a group of men who break Mafia suspects, at the end of that she gave this false confession."

"The prosecutor, Guliano Mignini, (this is a true story, cause we interviewed the Medium who has since died), he would, he would consult a Spiritual Medium who spoke to a dead Priest, there was a bloody palm print found on the wall, and the Priest told the Medium who told Mignini that this was a Satanic Sexual Ritualized killing. That's where that came from."

Mignini did not sue her family.

Mignini investigated her - and her alone - for calunnia, as a suspect of falsely blaming police officers before a court, as his duty, since calunnia has a mandatory investigation.

 

[Dan O.]

Really, debate, not argue? Doesn't sound like you, who believes in invisible blood soaked footprints, smells the poop, 14 hours afterwards, with a window and door wide open, even though she has never stated she smelled it, even when confronted with the fact that it was impossible to see it where she said she was. No, you need to start admitting where you are wrong or don't have an answer for first. Then, and only then, could we have an intelligent debate on this.

I don't admit where I have been wrong. I post the evidence that proves where I have been wrong and move on from there, discarding old theories that don't fit the evidence and producing new theories. Then I start testing those new theories.

One case that exemplifies that is with Rudy's bloody shoe prints. My original theory was that Rudy faced the door while inside Meredith's room where he could test the keys in the lock and then stepped through pulling the door closed and locking it behind him. But then I went beyond that and matched the bloody tract with the bottom of Rudy's shoe and discovered that the first tract was not facing the door but was facing into the room. And further along, when mapped to an overhead view, the tract outside Meredith's door is too close for Rudy to have locked the door from that position. I reported these findings in the thread here immediately. And I went on ... to the print outside Amanda's door that overlays one of the Luminol tracts ... to the unmarked print by the pink bag in the hall and into the living room. In the living room I discovered the stop at the end of the table, the step towards the door and the last step in the series in front of the couch facing away from the front door and towards the hallway back to Meredith's room. From this point there is no next step that has been discovered. There should be a next step somewhere in the living room but it is too faint to be spotted in the existing photographs.

I deduce from this evidence that Rudy remembered that the door was locked when he made that step towards the door and backed up to step in front of the couch instead. If the door was not locked, he could have just walked out.

 

[NancyS]

I gotta wonder if PM Mignini is gonna sue Peter Van Sant of 48 Hours and CBS News,
as he sued Amanda Knox and her Family for stating she was hit when interrogated.

For Van Sant tells us this of PM Mignini in this news report:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKOa6B7Vgj0

"They brought Amanda Knox in for 14 hours of interrogation by a group of men who break Mafia suspects, at the end of that she gave this false confession."

"The prosecutor, Guliano Mignini, (this is a true story, cause we interviewed the Medium who has since died), he would, he would consult a Spiritual Medium who spoke to a dead Priest, there was a bloody palm print found on the wall, and the Priest told the Medium who told Mignini that this was a Satanic Sexual Ritualized killing. That's where that came from."

That video made me laugh a lot - I guess you could say that Van Sant is doing a Machiavelli

 

[NancyS]

Really, debate, not argue? Doesn't sound like you, who believes in invisible blood soaked footprints, smells the poop, 14 hours afterwards, with a window and door wide open, even though she has never stated she smelled it, even when confronted with the fact that it was impossible to see it where she said she was. No, you need to start admitting where you are wrong or don't have an answer for first. Then, and only then, could we have an intelligent debate on this.

And I'd forgotten all about your poop theories, I'd love to know how you are so knowledgeable on poo smells? Have you been experimenting at home and leaving your poo for 14 hours, or do you live someone that does regular floaters?

I'm now picturing you as Gillian McKeith - and she is definitely a doctor in the Stefanoni style