• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
Wrong. It is a hard scientific fact that Mez' blood was trailed into Filomena's room by Amanda from (a) the luminol and (b) the mixed Amanda/Mez DNA.

We can assume that for Amanda to trail blood, she must have been there whilst Mez was dead or dying and her blood had not yet dried. There is no DNA trace of Rudy in the room.

If Rudy was in there earlier, as he claims, looking out of Filomena's window, then it's clear he wasn't leaking any DNA in order to do so. Fingerprints fade after about 24 hours. Those that have been in contact with the greasy sebacious layers of the skin will "stick" longer. Likewise, DNA, being a protein, doesn't usually stick unless there are moist or oily conditions, such as saliva, perspiration, moist skin cells, blood and other bodily fluids.

Amanda left a LOT of DNA on that specific night (this we know, for Mez' prolific DNA shedding from her fatal injuries, was not a normal every day domestic condition and it mixed with Amanda's bloodshed).
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about Filomena's room, which I'm not really interested in. I was talking about the visible blood in the bathroom. Meredith was the only person known to be bleeding that night, therefore I conclude it was probably hers. The prosecution claims the blood on the tap was Amanda's, perhaps it was, I would need to see the sample documented, tested, and dated prior to their arrest of Amanda. It makes more sense for it to be Meredith's IMO.
 
Bill Williams said:
I am sure Vixen would not use "exoneration" terminology.

Many people, including some innocentisti like Grinder, resist that word. You seem not to. That's all I was getting at.
Click to expand...

Are all not guilty verdicts exonerations? Simple question. Why would what Mike says matter?
 
Vixen said:
Living there gave her, her boyfriend and other chum access to Mez and the abomination of Amanda wading in Mez' blood. Should she be entitled to take Mez' life "because she lived there"? No, I don't think so.
Click to expand...

Do you believe it is Amanda's footprint on the bathmat in Meredith's blood?
 
Bill Williams said:
Me neither. At first blush paragraph 1 vs. paragraph 2 acquittals are like two sides of the same coin. Heads it's an acquittal, tails it's also an acquittal.
Click to expand...

There is no doubt that the 2 was not as strong a statement as a 1 would have been. The verdict has left doubt. You can repeat it over and over but Cheli summed it up - when I saw it was a 2 I knew it wouldn't be a clear verdict of innocence.

O.J. was found not guilty just like the kids but he wasn't exonerated.
 
acbytesla said:
I do. Definitely. A "not guilty" verdict is the very definition of "exoneration". If we choose to continue that he is guilty is our issue.
Click to expand...

OJ not guilty of murder found guilty in civil court. Go figure.

And that's in a system that has no para 1 option.
 
bagels said:
I wasn't talking about Filomena's room, which I'm not really interested in. I was talking about the visible blood in the bathroom. Meredith was the only person known to be bleeding that night, therefore I conclude it was probably hers. The prosecution claims the blood on the tap was Amanda's, perhaps it was, I would need to see the sample documented, tested, and dated prior to their arrest of Amanda. It makes more sense for it to be Meredith's IMO.
Click to expand...

It is an established scientific fact and legally upheld fact that:

Knox's blood was found on the tap of the wash basin.
 
Vixen said:
It is an established scientific fact and legally upheld fact that:

Knox's blood was found on the tap of the wash basin.
Click to expand...

I know that's what the courts ruled. I'm just wondering if it was another mistake. Amanda doesn't remember there being blood on the tap the day before the murder. The easy conclusion is the blood was deposited the night of the murder.
 
Vixen said:
The large footprint has been identified as highly compatible with Raff. There is a smaller footprint, also, which some believe is indeed Amanda's. It's too non-specific to know for sure.
Click to expand...

If you were willing to toss out the prosecution's provably bad "expert measurements", you might have more flexibility with your theory.
 
bagels said:
I know that's what the courts ruled. I'm just wondering if it was another mistake. Amanda doesn't remember there being blood on the tap the day before the murder. The easy conclusion is the blood was deposited the night of the murder.
Click to expand...


There is copious Amanda DNA derived from it. These tests aren't subjective, you know, they are done by a machine that churns out specific numbers that either match a person's loci or they do not.
 
Vixen said:
There is copious Amanda DNA derived from it. These tests aren't subjective, you know, they are done by a machine that churns out specific numbers that either match a person's loci or they do not.
Click to expand...

Assuming the scientist has all the samples well organized and documented and isn't trying to pass off different samples from different sources.
 
Vixen said:
Wrong. It is a hard scientific fact that Mez' blood was trailed into Filomena's room by Amanda from (a) the luminol and (b) the mixed Amanda/Mez DNA.

We can assume that for Amanda to trail blood, she must have been there whilst Mez was dead or dying and her blood had not yet dried. There is no DNA trace of Rudy in the room.

If Rudy was in there earlier, as he claims, looking out of Filomena's window, then it's clear he wasn't leaking any DNA in order to do so. Fingerprints fade after about 24 hours. Those that have been in contact with the greasy sebacious layers of the skin will "stick" longer. Likewise, DNA, being a protein, doesn't usually stick unless there are moist or oily conditions, such as saliva, perspiration, moist skin cells, blood and other bodily fluids.

Amanda left a LOT of DNA on that specific night (this we know, for Mez' prolific DNA shedding from her fatal injuries, was not a normal every day domestic condition and it mixed with Amanda's bloodshed).
Click to expand...

You can say it is a hard scientific fact till you're blue in the face. That does NOT make it true. In fact, scientific tests show the opposite. The TMB test proved it was not blood.as Stefanoni testified. All you can prove is that scattered samples of Amanda's own DNA was found in her own home and there is NOTHING incriminating about that.

SO QUIT LYING.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
It's such a shame Dr Gill didn't pop up during the trial so he could put his expertise forward personally. What a waste of an illustrious career that it should end in the ignominy of writing a paper based on the legally discredited fraudulent report written by Vecchiotti and Conti, of whom the attorney they consorted with, Maori, is now facing possible corruption charges for having done so.

It's a shocking faux pas.
Click to expand...

Vixen,
OK, this makes sense. Yeah I myself was wondering why Dr. Gill did not randomly show up in court one day, walk up to the stand, and begin testifying. Strange that he did not fly out to Italy for such a thing. I wonder if the other professors and experts with Ph.D.'s who testified on behalf of the defense played a role. Do you think every expert in the world should have showed up in court to support the defense (whether invited or not) or else that completely discredits the defense? I can see your rationale here Vixen. May be perplexing to some, but those people don't truly understand what lies beneath the surface of this conspiracy. Although I wonder how every genetics expert on the planet could fit into a single courtroom.... Ah, irrelevant details though.

I agree Gill should feel ashamed to be one of the founding fathers of the field of forensic genetics. And now he has to resort to publishing a paper in the top journal in the world in his field. What a buffoon! If only he would see the obv truth of Amanda's witchcraft his career would be saved. The only way to get ahead professionally is to support conspiracy theories these days.

Oh yes, got a cite on Maori's possible corruption charges? Not that I believe you just made it up... it's just that with a lot of these accusations some seriously mentally ill people like to trot out "possible charges" against professionals on the pro-innocence side (Peter Quennell comes to mind. Maybe some people who post here as well) when the stories are entirely in their heads. The reason they do this is called psychological projection -- a number of people on the prosecution's side have been formally silenced and reprimanded for corruption proving it is their side who is corrupt. So some less mentally healthy people on the pro-guilt side have to compensate by making up "formal charges of corruption" to maintain their veneer of sanity. Their mind can't handle the fact they are the bad guys in all this, and perhaps they aren't intelligent enough to rationally analyze evidence that clearly points to the innocence of Amanda and Raffaele.

Again, not saying you just entirely made up this accusation against Maori. Someone with your pedigree in chess (beating national champions) and professional level understanding of advanced topics in accounting, law, game theory, and probability certainly is smart enough to tell good sources from bad.

So anyway, got that cite? I would just like to glance it over. :D
 
acbytesla said:
Amanda Knox won in both criminal and civil court.
Click to expand...

Yes the civil parties that were in the case tied to the murder case did not win. But as usual you missed the point. You stated that a not guilty verdict is equal to exoneration yet O.J. was found not guilty and then was found responsible for the murders in another trial.

We don't know if new suits can be filed as Mach maintains. We know other related cases have proceeded. Could the Kerchers sue for their loss in England? If UK allows it the para 2 verdict would not a finding of exoneration.
 
Grinder said:
There is no doubt that the 2 was not as strong a statement as a 1 would have been. The verdict has left doubt. You can repeat it over and over but Cheli summed it up - when I saw it was a 2 I knew it wouldn't be a clear verdict of innocence.

O.J. was found not guilty just like the kids but he wasn't exonerated.
Click to expand...

Once again, you're picking at the wrong issue. Acquittals are not designed to give, "clear verdict(s) of innocence."

Cheli's point is one that is (apparently) well known in Italy and it is very different from the way you're trying to spin it - .... but it has nothing to do with anything which can be derived legally; it has to do with semi-official chatter/speculation about what judges are trying to signal. There's even dispute in Italy whether or not that is a legitimate pasttime!

It has to do with how some in Italy, including judges themselves apparently, go to some dietrological level of what is appeared to be "signalled" in a judgement.

The conversation around the Knox/Sollecito exonerations about this is that Marasca/Bruno were "signalling" that they were departing from the "dice-roll" method of judicial rendering. They were going to rule on the evidence, not on the reputations of previous courts or on previous judicial truths.

Indeed, with that other case where the ISC overturned acquittals to convict, some commentators cited that as a return to the dice-roll of Italian jurisprudence, and specifically cited that it reversed the Marasca/Bruno panel's signalling of ruling solely on the evidence and the law.

Dude - I believe you are misreading Cheli. But then again, this whole thing is rather moot - you still have not stated what the difference is in any "what's next" process between the two.

Vixen is clear - the "what's next" for a #2 is that the charges remain open, they've just been dropped. What then IS the difference in remedy? Unless you can come up with one, for me it's picking gnat-pooh from pepper.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
The proportion of para 1 acquittals is virtually 100%.

The para 2 one in this case is a complete abberation, arising from Bruno-Marasca's agenda to get the kids off the hook by using whatever ambit they could.
Click to expand...


Reference please.
 
Vixen said:
The large footprint has been identified as highly compatible with Raff. There is a smaller footprint, also, which some believe is indeed Amanda's. It's too non-specific to know for sure.
Click to expand...

The large footprint is also compatible with Rudy and probably half the adult men in Perugia. And what smaller footprint? Is this another of your delusions? Be specific.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom