XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25 - JUNE 18, 2013

Main Discussion Forum

Moderators: Skeptical Bystander, Fly by Night

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby jar » Mon Jun 10, 2013 9:04 am

The Machine wrote:
undecided wrote:As for your question/comment Machine, It's odd. I agree. If in fact AK and Meredith were the closest in the house (naturally, due to a shared language as AK put it)--it doesn't make sense that the would call Filomena first.


Knox didn't call Filomena first. She called Meredith's mobile first, then Filomena. When Filomena asked her about calling Meredith's mobile, Knox didn't tell her that she had called Meredith's mobile literally seconds earlier.

In her e-mail to friends on 4 November 2007, Knox falsely claimed that she had called Filomena first, then Meredith.


Knox is obviously very touchy on the issue of that 12.07 call, lasting 16 seconds, to Meredith's english phone. In her own mind she is well aware of how incriminating it is in the context of the other calls. Not only does she not mention it in her book but she does an additional cover up job as well. She writes that the first of the 3 and 4 second calls was to Meredith's English phone and that she received a message that the phone was out of order. Well, the first of those two brief calls was in fact to Meredith's Italian phone. So why turn it round? I think Amanda writes this to emphasize her close friendship with Meredith and perhaps it's also a mental slip, or given her knowledge of the original call, some sort of delicious "one-over" on the ignorant reader - and was the English phone out of order when just 4 minutes before it was engaged for, or just ringing out for, 16 seconds? Remember that in the case of a call to a foreign number, such as to Meredith's English phone, a record is generated even if the call does not connect. Even if the phone wasn't just ringing for 16 seconds, does anyone listen for 16 seconds if told the phone is out of order?

I have to say, though, I am not entirely sure why she chose to ring Meredith's English phone at 12.07. Was that simply a case of "So what. It doesn't matter"? Or was there some sort of inner personal connection she was making with her victim which was gratifying her?
Last edited by jar on Mon Jun 10, 2013 10:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
jar
 
Posts: 1132
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 4:31 pm

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby undecided » Mon Jun 10, 2013 9:06 am

The Machine wrote:
undecided wrote:As for your question/comment Machine, It's odd. I agree. If in fact AK and Meredith were the closest in the house (naturally, due to a shared language as AK put it)--it doesn't make sense that the would call Filomena first.


Knox didn't call Filomena first. She called Meredith's mobile first, then Filomena. When Filomena asked her about calling Meredith's mobile, Knox didn't tell her that she had called Meredith's mobile literally seconds earlier.

In her e-mail to friends on 4 November 2007, Knox falsely claimed that she had called Filomena first, then Meredith.



I'm not debating the order. I'm just saying that in the book Knox claims she called Filomena first, and doesn't mention an earlier phone call. So, it's a bit weird. She spends all this time saying how close they were (she and Meredith), how there was such a language barrier, etc... and then calls Filomena first?! What she put so much effort into proving (their friendship, closeness, etc) falls apart when she states she called Filomena first. That's why I felt it didn't make sense (even if it were true). So as I had mentioned before--I felt there were things missing, and it was somewhat misleading in certain parts. I also agree you could not possibly understand what really happened by reading AK's book. It's not complete in any way...

That was my point...

ETA: Basically--I was disappointed with the book. There was nothing new, and it was very slanted in her favour. Not that I would expect anything less--It's written from her perspective. BUT, I think it would have been better if the book had more substance and more explanation rather than a glossing over of facts as she saw them presented.
User avatar
undecided
 
Posts: 250
Images: 21
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 6:52 am

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby The Machine » Mon Jun 10, 2013 10:00 am

Why do you think Knox didn't tell Filomena that she had called Meredith's mobile?

Why do you think Knox lied about calling Filomena first?

Thanks in advance.
Steve Moore's media career 2010-2014 rip-)
The Machine
 
Posts: 5130
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby Jackie » Mon Jun 10, 2013 11:10 am

What about 'DNA Enthusiasts'?

Halkides started to lose me when he appealed to "LondonJohn" for an opinion on forensic pathology/ gastroenterology. (Couldn't believe my eyes when I read that one!)

Adorning himself with the label "DNA Guy" at the 'FU cabin party' certainly didn't help to bolster my opinion of him (I wonder what the boys and girls back home in the GENETICS Dept. would think about a CHEM Prof doing that on his vaycay...).

It was certainly poor form to spend the last half decade or so holding himself out in these online debates as a disinterested party with no skin in the game only to admit, in 2013, that he had been doing research for the defense team.

Alas, the final straw was reading Halkides latest (and repeated) references to a "Professor" Allan Jamieson.

Have I missed an earlier discussion on this topic?

As I understand it, the term "professor" is bestowed only upon senior/ recognized academics at accredited universities yet, insofar as I have been able to determine the matter, it seems this AJ character is not affiliated with ANY accredited university.

AJ claims to be affiliated with a "forensics institute" but, according to Lord Justice Thomas of the England and Wales Court of Appeal (http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cg ... od=boolean):

"...it is not an institute in the normal sense of the word, but a private commercial organisation. It is not accredited by United Kingdom Accreditation Service or any other body in England and Wales or any Scottish Body."

Indeed, as noted in articles by the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/nort ... 427509.stm) and the Scotsman, critics contend that the institute appears to be "little more than a one-man band" (http://www.scotsman.com/news/controvers ... -1-1433265).


It gets worse.

According to the Court of Appeal:

"...His experience in the interpretation of DNA profiles is limited.

He took a one day training course in the use of the relevant software and had no training in interpretation.

He bases much of his knowledge of DNA and the analysis of Low Template DNA on papers and discussion with other scientists; he does not conduct laboratory research...


He gives evidence with a degree of gravitas and fluency that is impressive and is able to explain concepts clearly. However his expertise on the interpretation of DNA profiles is limited, without any relevant first hand laboratory or research experience.

He is not qualified to make a scene of crime investigation.

...it is impossible to understand how he had sufficient expertise to be able to give evidence in R v Hoey, let alone to assist in the attack made in that case on the LCN process...

We retain clear reservations about the extent of his expertise in relation to DNA profiles.."


You'd be hard pressed to find an "expert" that's been effectively certified as a quack by an appellate court, but it looks like Team Knox might have done it!

I hope the prosecution is doing their homework on these people.

Don't get me wrong: If there's a problem with the DNA collection or analysis in this case, by all means, let's hear about it! However, I worry that courts (populated as they are by triers of fact with little or no formal education in the sciences) are too easily led astray by scientific "experts" with dubious credentials, impure motives (money and recognition) & questionable characters.
Last edited by Jackie on Mon Jun 10, 2013 11:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Jackie
 
Posts: 1207
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby bucketoftea » Mon Jun 10, 2013 11:13 am

DNA enthusiast. Funny! b-((
"There is no evidence and what there is is unreliable" Ted Simon
User avatar
bucketoftea
 
Posts: 2415
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby Hammerite » Mon Jun 10, 2013 11:55 am

bucketoftea wrote:
Catnip wrote:
bucketoftea wrote: :roflao:

It's probably ignorant of me to laugh, but is this a new trend? Medical conferences organised according to where one set of grandparents/great-grandparents came from? Gee, that must be really useful.




It’s a polo club mentality.

If Hampikian is a member, though, then he’s brought its repute down to the level of the Geebung Polo Club:


But their style of playing polo was irregular and rash -
They had mighty little science, but a mighty lot of dash:

– [Paterson]
For reference in the verse: A “waddy” is a hefty stick, used for conking something on the head.


lol

Vanity conferencing for a few continuing education points and a tax-deductible Fourth of July vaycay. Not to mention Pharmacy break-outs! Genius.


Funny but I would have thought that the “11th Armenian Medical World Congress” would be held in …well…Armenia. There must be something I am missing here. LA, USA? Huh!

Wanders off scratching head, mumbling gibberish. “maybe the British one will be held in Iceland this year so!!!
User avatar
Hammerite
 
Posts: 883
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby stilicho » Mon Jun 10, 2013 11:58 am

Catnip wrote:
stilicho wrote:She also lies in her book:

“What do you mean?” she asked, her voice instantaneously on high alert. “I didn’t stay there last night—I was at Marco’s—and Laura’s in Rome on business. Have you talked to Meredith?”

“No, I tried you first,” I said.




Perhaps the scenario was this:

A: (presses button): ring ring.
A: (realising): "Oh, ^%$$#! She's dead. Wrong number!" (cancels call)
A: (presses the other button):ring ring.
F: Hello?



Technically, it's sort of true that Amanda didn't actually talk to Meredith, or tried talking to her first (cancelled mistake calls don't count as calls, do they?).


There's too much "technical", to be sincere.


Far too technical for Massei:

It is strange that Amanda did not say a word to Filomena about the phone call to their flatmate, when the call, not having been answered, would normally have caused anxiety and posed some questions as to why Meredith did not answer the phone at such an advanced hour of the day.


Hellmann is a lot more accommodating but he entirely ignores the fact that Knox didn't advise Filomena that she had already tried to reach Meredith:

[One] cannot comprehend how two young people, certainly skilled with cell phones ... did not think of removing the SIM cards and the batteries ... before throwing them away, so as to make it practically impossible to recover them.


That's Hellmann, the mind-reader, explaining to his own court how to more perfectly commit a crime and attributing a certain level of intellect and guile to the accused that they had never revealed in anything else they said or did.

---------------

@Jackie: It was "Arthur" but "Clive" works almost as well. I still underestimated the sales by about three or four thousand as it stands. I'd be extremely surprised if HarperCollins didn't have someone who knew the potential downside of a $4 million payday for an unknown author in the midst of a murder trial and adjusted their liability side accordingly. There has to be a reason that Bargain Bob was on board as a carnival barker instead of just signing the paperwork and booking his fee in silence.

It's also no surprise that Bruce & Co have been challenging Skep and others to waste their time photographing the bargain bins at their local booksellers. It's another reason to suspect that Knox really was supposed to be everyone's retirement fund but have sunk them further into debt. Even if "Sarah" isn't MadPax, "she" is someone else risking a lot on the reputation and marketability of a temporarily free murderer.
“I’m a girl. I never thought girls get arrested for murder. It’s not very ladylike.”
--Kelly Ellard, murderer.
User avatar
stilicho
 
Posts: 9426
Images: 3
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Location: Western Canada

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby stilicho » Mon Jun 10, 2013 12:11 pm

Hammerite wrote:
bucketoftea wrote:....lol

Vanity conferencing for a few continuing education points and a tax-deductible Fourth of July vaycay. Not to mention Pharmacy break-outs! Genius.


Funny but I would have thought that the “11th Armenian Medical World Congress” would be held in …well…Armenia. There must be something I am missing here. LA, USA? Huh!

Wanders off scratching head, mumbling gibberish. “maybe the British one will be held in Iceland this year so!!!


There are about 3 million ethnic Armenians living in Armenia and anywhere from 200,000 to half a million in Greater Los Angeles.
“I’m a girl. I never thought girls get arrested for murder. It’s not very ladylike.”
--Kelly Ellard, murderer.
User avatar
stilicho
 
Posts: 9426
Images: 3
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Location: Western Canada

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby Jackie » Mon Jun 10, 2013 12:32 pm

stilicho wrote:There are about 3 million ethnic Armenians living in Armenia and anywhere from 200,000 to half a million in Greater Los Angeles.



How many of those are Kardashians?



PS Love those Hellmann quotes!

[One] cannot comprehend how two young people, certainly skilled with cell phones ... did not think of removing the SIM cards and the batteries ... before throwing them away, so as to make it practically impossible to recover them.


Let's apply that "reasoning" to Jodi Arias:

'One cannot comprehend how a young photographer, certainly skilled with digital cameras...did not think of removing the Memory Card ... before throwing it away, along with the gun, so as to make it practically impossible to recover the incriminating photos it contained.'


OOOOPS!
Last edited by Jackie on Mon Jun 10, 2013 1:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Jackie
 
Posts: 1207
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby Catnip » Mon Jun 10, 2013 12:48 pm

Budowle sounds very much a rule-follower, rather than a rule-understander or even a rule-evaluator.


"We cannot, however, accept his evidence that a properly qualified expert cannot evaluate the enumerated possibilities of the circumstance of transfer. We reject it primarily because it does not stand the test of analysis as set out in our conclusion at paragraphs 120* and following. It is significant to note that he accepted that an expert could in other circumstances give evaluative evidence. When he declined to evaluate the possibilities that had been enumerated in this case, he claimed he did not have sufficient information or that there were other possibilities. He never identified those other possibilities. Nor could he explain why he could not do so, save to say that a DNA scientist should not do so, as the scientist did not have the requisite knowledge and that the possibilities should be evaluated by others by reference to other evidence."

R v Reed and Reed, R v Garmson,
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) (21 Dec 2009),
[2009] EWCA Crim 2698, per Thomas LJ, for the Court, at [102].




A side remark, at paragraph 75, indicates that, if the expertise level were to be kept constant, things could have been done a bit better in terms of explanation and presentation, or alternatively, perhaps, that the expertise had lapsed slightly: “We have also considered his comments about the protocols and guidelines for the interpretation of LCN DNA with which he had been provided, but the materials before us did not support the observations he made.”




* The appeal was partly about whether an expert witness could talk about possible ways transfer of DNA might have occurred at the scene of crime. Paragraph 120:

It is also, in our view, clear that, as a witness can express an opinion on the possibilities with suitable caveats, then logic dictates that it will not only be possible to give some evaluation of each of the possibilities of the circumstances of transfer, but essential to do so when there is sufficient undisputed other evidence that enables this to be done. It seems to us that it is not logical, as was the essence of the evidence of Professor Jamieson and Dr Budowle, to say that an expert could never give such evidence, once it is accepted that the possibilities can be enumerated. Indeed, as we have mentioned, Dr Budowle accepted that a forensic scientist could do this in relation to other areas of science. His reservation concerned unidentified cellular material, whatever the quantity.
User avatar
Catnip
 
Posts: 6320
Images: 81
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am
Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby Catnip » Mon Jun 10, 2013 12:59 pm

Comprehension of how two young people skilled in the use of phones, and particularly aware of television shows, did not follow the script as to their method of disposal slowly dawns when one realises that a certain amount of brain-addlement, caused by (admitted) over-indulgence in the self-appliction of weed common to their social situation and/or perhaps the exhaustion of a late night (with even a usually early riser sleeping in, if that is to be believed), enters the picture. Not to mention supercilious arrogance displayed towards the authorities.
User avatar
Catnip
 
Posts: 6320
Images: 81
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am
Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby Catnip » Mon Jun 10, 2013 1:31 pm

Budowle gets a mention in an Australian case:

"In the first place a period of 13½ years is not, in DNA terms a long time. Good results have been obtained 20 or 30 years after the event and Dr Budowle even gave the example of DNA extracted from bones 60,000 years old. If the substance containing it is dry and out of sunlight it will not degrade for many years."

R v Butler,
Supreme Court of Queensland - Court of Appeal (01 May 2009),
[2009] QCA 111,
per Keane JA, citing the previous appeal in 2001, at [31].



Quick! Don’t tell the Groupies™! They’ll wax vexatious that the 40-something day limit doesn’t count for Raffaele. Did he climb in the window? Or did he take Amanda's keys while she was sleeping?
User avatar
Catnip
 
Posts: 6320
Images: 81
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am
Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby Hammerite » Mon Jun 10, 2013 1:58 pm

stilicho wrote:
Hammerite wrote:
bucketoftea wrote:....lol

Vanity conferencing for a few continuing education points and a tax-deductible Fourth of July vaycay. Not to mention Pharmacy break-outs! Genius.


Funny but I would have thought that the “11th Armenian Medical World Congress” would be held in …well…Armenia. There must be something I am missing here. LA, USA? Huh!

Wanders off scratching head, mumbling gibberish. “maybe the British one will be held in Iceland this year so!!!


There are about 3 million ethnic Armenians living in Armenia and anywhere from 200,000 to half a million in Greater Los Angeles.


Thanks stillicho, I was only messing. Just a bit giddy I suppose because there isn’t much new to discuss until the release of the SC report.

I became aware as a freshman at college in Massachusetts many years ago that there was the USA-World and the other World-World.

It took me by surprise that the World Series in baseball comprised of teams from one country only in north America while the soccer World Cup comprised of teams from 207 countries worldwide (FIFA no's now). Been on board with the USA=World perception ever since.

H
User avatar
Hammerite
 
Posts: 883
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby Anthony » Mon Jun 10, 2013 3:05 pm

Hammerite wrote:
stilicho wrote:
Hammerite wrote:
bucketoftea wrote:....lol

Vanity conferencing for a few continuing education points and a tax-deductible Fourth of July vaycay. Not to mention Pharmacy break-outs! Genius.


Funny but I would have thought that the “11th Armenian Medical World Congress” would be held in …well…Armenia. There must be something I am missing here. LA, USA? Huh!

Wanders off scratching head, mumbling gibberish. “maybe the British one will be held in Iceland this year so!!!


There are about 3 million ethnic Armenians living in Armenia and anywhere from 200,000 to half a million in Greater Los Angeles.


Thanks stillicho, I was only messing. Just a bit giddy I suppose because there isn’t much new to discuss until the release of the SC report.

I became aware as a freshman at college in Massachusetts many years ago that there was the USA-World and the other World-World.

It took me by surprise that the World Series in baseball comprised of teams from one country only in north America while the soccer World Cup comprised of teams from 207 countries worldwide (FIFA no's now). Been on board with the USA=World perception ever since.

H


If I recall correctly the World Series was originally named with the expectation the eventually there would be competitors from across the globe as the football world cup succeeded in doing. I used to have a laugh with my co-workers over the use of the term football in the states for a game where throwing catching and carrying of the ball predominates most foot to ball contact, jokingly using the terms girls rugby, netball and rounders for their favorite sports were clearly mistakes as was admitting to having followed the Patriots since 1981 while working in Denver.
Anthony
 
Posts: 686
Joined: Thu May 02, 2013 11:47 pm

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby jar » Mon Jun 10, 2013 3:08 pm

Catnip wrote:Budowle sounds very much a rule-follower, rather than a rule-understander or even a rule-evaluator.

"We cannot, however, accept his evidence that a properly qualified expert cannot evaluate the enumerated possibilities of the circumstance of transfer. We reject it primarily because it does not stand the test of analysis as set out in our conclusion at paragraphs 120* and following. It is significant to note that he accepted that an expert could in other circumstances give evaluative evidence. When he declined to evaluate the possibilities that had been enumerated in this case, he claimed he did not have sufficient information or that there were other possibilities. He never identified those other possibilities. Nor could he explain why he could not do so, save to say that a DNA scientist should not do so, as the scientist did not have the requisite knowledge and that the possibilities should be evaluated by others by reference to other evidence."

R v Reed and Reed, R v Garmson,
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) (21 Dec 2009),
[2009] EWCA Crim 2698, per Thomas LJ, for the Court, at [102].


A side remark, at paragraph 75, indicates that, if the expertise level were to be kept constant, things could have been done a bit better in terms of explanation and presentation, or alternatively, perhaps, that the expertise had lapsed slightly: “We have also considered his comments about the protocols and guidelines for the interpretation of LCN DNA with which he had been provided, but the materials before us did not support the observations he made.”

* The appeal was partly about whether an expert witness could talk about possible ways transfer of DNA might have occurred at the scene of crime. Paragraph 120:

It is also, in our view, clear that, as a witness can express an opinion on the possibilities with suitable caveats, then logic dictates that it will not only be possible to give some evaluation of each of the possibilities of the circumstances of transfer, but essential to do so when there is sufficient undisputed other evidence that enables this to be done. It seems to us that it is not logical, as was the essence of the evidence of Professor Jamieson and Dr Budowle, to say that an expert could never give such evidence, once it is accepted that the possibilities can be enumerated. Indeed, as we have mentioned, Dr Budowle accepted that a forensic scientist could do this in relation to other areas of science. His reservation concerned unidentified cellular material, whatever the quantity.


Thanks, Jackie, for that very interesting link. In addition to the comments referred to above there was also the following about Budowle, which I think is also applicable to Conti and Vecchiotti.

We have also taken into account the fact that his experience is of a different jurisdiction where the scientist who gives evidence may have a narrower type of expertise and the scope of evidence an expert can give may not be the same as the scope in this jurisdiction. It is also important to note that his experience was not based on the work of a forensic scientist in this jurisdiction who attends both the scene of the crime and supervises the laboratory work. As he made clear, his experience was limited to the examination of DNA both in the laboratory and from case work. His expertise did not extend to examining the scene of a crime and relating that examination to the evaluation of the circumstances of transfer of unidentified cellular material.


In fact, reading through R v Reed & Reed, it is apparent that nothing like the safeguards available in law and enunciated during that appeal were applied by C&V to themselves, or by Hellmann to them. But then C&V were, by virtue of being both academics and delegates of judicial authority, a rare and unusual species of Supreme Being to whom such mundane precautions did not apply.
jar
 
Posts: 1132
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 4:31 pm

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby hugo » Mon Jun 10, 2013 3:48 pm

Allan Jamieson is a real professor, insofar as he's a visiting professor at the Faculties of Law and Life Sciences at Edinburgh Napier University. (That's not Edinburgh University, it's the former Napier College of Commerce and Technology, later Napier Polytechnic.)

From 1995 to 2002 he was head of the Lothian & Borders Police Forensic Science Laboratory. He was sacked and reinstated after one year in the job, as a result of a criminal conviction for 'causing fear and alarm' to a female motorist. He flashed his lights and made her pull over, showed his police ID and gave her a lecture on her driving. He had no authority to do this and was fined £300. (He was lucky he wasn't done for impersonating a police officer, which can get you sent down.) His dismissal, however, was changed to a letter of reprimand.

Some years later he was on the board of the national Forensic Science Service, but was thrown off after a vote of no confidence. In 2002 he quit government work to set up his Forensic Institute, first in Glasgow, now in Edinburgh, which is just an 'expert witness service' for defence lawyers. He has never actually worked with DNA in the lab.

I think you'll often find that, if you did but know it, innocence freaks like this have had some sort of problem with authority, with the law or with their former employers. Jamieson is of course most notorious for getting one of the Omagh bombers off when, as the Appeal Court later found in other cases, he was not qualified to give the evidence he gave.
hugo
 
Posts: 2397
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 9:01 pm

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby stilicho » Mon Jun 10, 2013 4:46 pm

hugo wrote:Allan Jamieson is a real professor, insofar as he's a visiting professor at the Faculties of Law and Life Sciences at Edinburgh Napier University. (That's not Edinburgh University, it's the former Napier College of Commerce and Technology, later Napier Polytechnic.)

From 1995 to 2002 he was head of the Lothian & Borders Police Forensic Science Laboratory. He was sacked and reinstated after one year in the job, as a result of a criminal conviction for 'causing fear and alarm' to a female motorist. He flashed his lights and made her pull over, showed his police ID and gave her a lecture on her driving. He had no authority to do this and was fined £300. (He was lucky he wasn't done for impersonating a police officer, which can get you sent down.) His dismissal, however, was changed to a letter of reprimand.

Some years later he was on the board of the national Forensic Science Service, but was thrown off after a vote of no confidence. In 2002 he quit government work to set up his Forensic Institute, first in Glasgow, now in Edinburgh, which is just an 'expert witness service' for defence lawyers. He has never actually worked with DNA in the lab.

I think you'll often find that, if you did but know it, innocence freaks like this have had some sort of problem with authority, with the law or with their former employers. Jamieson is of course most notorious for getting one of the Omagh bombers off when, as the Appeal Court later found in other cases, he was not qualified to give the evidence he gave.


He apparently didn't use sufficient citations from the Missouri State Highway Patrol training manual.
“I’m a girl. I never thought girls get arrested for murder. It’s not very ladylike.”
--Kelly Ellard, murderer.
User avatar
stilicho
 
Posts: 9426
Images: 3
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Location: Western Canada

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby GMCrocks » Mon Jun 10, 2013 6:13 pm

Something that I have been thinking about. Rudy H. Guede went to Germany. Why Germany? Why not Switzerland who never extradites anybody (ask Roman Polanski)? I understand that Knox attempted to get out of Italy and go to Germany. Although, I understand that she has an aunt who lives there, I am just wondering if there may have been some kind of planned rendevous between Knox and Guede in Germany. Thoughts anyone?
GMCrocks
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2013 3:01 am

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby TruthNotLies » Mon Jun 10, 2013 7:32 pm

Jackie wrote:
stilicho wrote:There are about 3 million ethnic Armenians living in Armenia and anywhere from 200,000 to half a million in Greater Los Angeles.



How many of those are Kardashians?



PS Love those Hellmann quotes!

[One] cannot comprehend how two young people, certainly skilled with cell phones ... did not think of removing the SIM cards and the batteries ... before throwing them away, so as to make it practically impossible to recover them.


Let's apply that "reasoning" to Jodi Arias:

'One cannot comprehend how a young photographer, certainly skilled with digital cameras...did not think of removing the Memory Card ... before throwing it away, along with the gun, so as to make it practically impossible to recover the incriminating photos it contained.'


OOOOPS!


How skilled was Knox with a cellphone? IIRC she didn't even know how to delete text messages. SIM cards and batteries would just be too much for her. Besides, she was on Super Doper cannabis which erases your memory so she probably forgot how to remove the SIM cards and batteries. Hellmann must have overlooked the fact she was whacked out on some miracle joint smoked earlier in the day.
"A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth has got its boots on." Winston Churchill

“Without truth there can be no forgiveness, it is difficult to even talk about forgiveness when there is no truth.” Stephanie Kercher
User avatar
TruthNotLies
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby The Machine » Mon Jun 10, 2013 7:49 pm

GMCrocks wrote:Something that I have been thinking about. Rudy H. Guede went to Germany. Why Germany? Why not Switzerland who never extradites anybody (ask Roman Polanski)? I understand that Knox attempted to get out of Italy and go to Germany. Although, I understand that she has an aunt who lives there, I am just wondering if there may have been some kind of planned rendevous between Knox and Guede in Germany. Thoughts anyone?


None of us are mind readers. We can't possibly know why Guede chose Germany. We can only make educated guesses.

Knox didn't attempt to get out of Italy. She was told that she had to stay.

Nara Capezzali claims that she heard a number people running away from the cottage shortly after Meredith screamed. There is no evidence that Knox and Guede had any contact after the murder. It seems highly unlikely that the two of them planned to meet up in Germany, especially when you consider the evidence that implicated Guede e.g. his bloody footprints and the toilet paper which contained his DNA was not cleaned up or removed.
Steve Moore's media career 2010-2014 rip-)
The Machine
 
Posts: 5130
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby stilicho » Mon Jun 10, 2013 7:53 pm

GMCrocks wrote:Something that I have been thinking about. Rudy H. Guede went to Germany. Why Germany? Why not Switzerland who never extradites anybody (ask Roman Polanski)? I understand that Knox attempted to get out of Italy and go to Germany. Although, I understand that she has an aunt who lives there, I am just wondering if there may have been some kind of planned rendevous between Knox and Guede in Germany. Thoughts anyone?


Here's a summary of EU extradition treaties among member states:

http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Tr ... ml/024.htm

I don't see anything in there that would prevent Switzerland, Germany, or any other EU member state from returning Guede to Italy. Guede told his friend that he wanted to return to Italy anyhow, partly because Italian jails are preferrable to German ones.

Why would Knox agree to meet Guede in Germany? I have seen no indication at all in anything she wrote or said before his capture. For his part, Guede practically places Knox at the crimescene in his voluntary statements but attributes much of the staging to the "unknown Italian". There is a very good collection of his writing and statements in the "In Their Own Words" section.
“I’m a girl. I never thought girls get arrested for murder. It’s not very ladylike.”
--Kelly Ellard, murderer.
User avatar
stilicho
 
Posts: 9426
Images: 3
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Location: Western Canada

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby Underhill » Mon Jun 10, 2013 9:27 pm

stilicho wrote:
GMCrocks wrote:Something that I have been thinking about. Rudy H. Guede went to Germany. Why Germany? Why not Switzerland who never extradites anybody (ask Roman Polanski)? I understand that Knox attempted to get out of Italy and go to Germany. Although, I understand that she has an aunt who lives there, I am just wondering if there may have been some kind of planned rendevous between Knox and Guede in Germany. Thoughts anyone?


Here's a summary of EU extradition treaties among member states:

http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Tr ... ml/024.htm

I don't see anything in there that would prevent Switzerland, Germany, or any other EU member state from returning Guede to Italy. Guede told his friend that he wanted to return to Italy anyhow, partly because Italian jails are preferrable to German ones.

Why would Knox agree to meet Guede in Germany? I have seen no indication at all in anything she wrote or said before his capture. For his part, Guede practically places Knox at the crimescene in his voluntary statements but attributes much of the staging to the "unknown Italian". There is a very good collection of his writing and statements in the "In Their Own Words" section.


Switzerland isn't actually in the EU, but I'm sure you're right that there would be no reason for not returning a murder suspect to an EU country.
Underhill
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:56 pm
Location: Suffolk, UK

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby hugo » Mon Jun 10, 2013 9:28 pm

stilicho wrote:
GMCrocks wrote:Something that I have been thinking about. Rudy H. Guede went to Germany. Why Germany? Why not Switzerland who never extradites anybody (ask Roman Polanski)? I understand that Knox attempted to get out of Italy and go to Germany. Although, I understand that she has an aunt who lives there, I am just wondering if there may have been some kind of planned rendevous between Knox and Guede in Germany. Thoughts anyone?


Here's a summary of EU extradition treaties among member states:

http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Tr ... ml/024.htm

I don't see anything in there that would prevent Switzerland, Germany, or any other EU member state from returning Guede to Italy. Guede told his friend that he wanted to return to Italy anyhow, partly because Italian jails are preferrable to German ones.

Why would Knox agree to meet Guede in Germany? I have seen no indication at all in anything she wrote or said before his capture. For his part, Guede practically places Knox at the crimescene in his voluntary statements but attributes much of the staging to the "unknown Italian". There is a very good collection of his writing and statements in the "In Their Own Words" section.


Switzerland is not a member of the EU, but they have plenty of extradition treaties. Residence in Switzerland will not help Sollecito much, for instance, if he is convicted of murder in Italy. Polanski is a peculiar case. (He's a French citizen, the crime was nearly 40 years ago and the lady doesn't want him pursued.) I doubt Guede went to Germany for any particular reason -- he's just the kind of person who 'does a runner' (or as AA call it, a 'geographical') whenever he's in a spot.
hugo
 
Posts: 2397
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 9:01 pm

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby DLW » Mon Jun 10, 2013 9:50 pm

'Truth or Management', by Alice Kaplan (The American Scholar)

‘So there remains a nagging doubt at the end of this memoir and after its attendant publicity—a doubt about whether the young woman behind the curtain bears much resemblance to the narrator of her memoir. It’s a doubt already planted in the public mind by television dramas like Scandal, which tell us that our heroes and heroines are only as convincing as the spin artists who manage them. But being shallow or clichéd, inappropriate and disconnected from reality, or young and naive are not capital crimes. And just because she had a writing coach and a media handler doesn’t mean that Amanda Knox isn’t innocent.’

Lot’s of extra verbiage in this review. Maybe not for a professor of romance studies.
DLW
 
Posts: 1229
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby The Machine » Mon Jun 10, 2013 10:16 pm

DLW wrote:'Truth or Management', by Alice Kaplan (The American Scholar)

‘So there remains a nagging doubt at the end of this memoir and after its attendant publicity—a doubt about whether the young woman behind the curtain bears much resemblance to the narrator of her memoir. It’s a doubt already planted in the public mind by television dramas like Scandal, which tell us that our heroes and heroines are only as convincing as the spin artists who manage them. But being shallow or clichéd, inappropriate and disconnected from reality, or young and naive are not capital crimes. And just because she had a writing coach and a media handler doesn’t mean that Amanda Knox isn’t innocent.’

Lot’s of extra verbiage in this review. Maybe not for a professor of romance studies.


Small-time drug dealer. Check. Drifter. Check. DNA and fingerprints all over the crime scene and the body. Check.

"Eventually, a small-time drug dealer and drifter named Rudy Guede was convicted of the rape and murder of Kercher in a 2008 trial: his DNA and fingerprints were all over the crime scene, and the body."
Steve Moore's media career 2010-2014 rip-)
The Machine
 
Posts: 5130
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby GMCrocks » Mon Jun 10, 2013 10:21 pm

stilicho wrote:
GMCrocks wrote:Something that I have been thinking about. Rudy H. Guede went to Germany. Why Germany? Why not Switzerland who never extradites anybody (ask Roman Polanski)? I understand that Knox attempted to get out of Italy and go to Germany. Although, I understand that she has an aunt who lives there, I am just wondering if there may have been some kind of planned rendevous between Knox and Guede in Germany. Thoughts anyone?


Here's a summary of EU extradition treaties among member states:

http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Tr ... ml/024.htm

I don't see anything in there that would prevent Switzerland, Germany, or any other EU member state from returning Guede to Italy. Guede told his friend that he wanted to return to Italy anyhow, partly because Italian jails are preferrable to German ones.

Why would Knox agree to meet Guede in Germany? I have seen no indication at all in anything she wrote or said before his capture. For his part, Guede practically places Knox at the crimescene in his voluntary statements but attributes much of the staging to the "unknown Italian". There is a very good collection of his writing and statements in the "In Their Own Words" section.



I didn't know about the Swiss extradition treaty. Thank you for clearing that up.
GMCrocks
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2013 3:01 am

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby penelope » Mon Jun 10, 2013 10:31 pm

The Machine wrote:
DLW wrote:'Truth or Management', by Alice Kaplan (The American Scholar)

‘So there remains a nagging doubt at the end of this memoir and after its attendant publicity—a doubt about whether the young woman behind the curtain bears much resemblance to the narrator of her memoir. It’s a doubt already planted in the public mind by television dramas like Scandal, which tell us that our heroes and heroines are only as convincing as the spin artists who manage them. But being shallow or clichéd, inappropriate and disconnected from reality, or young and naive are not capital crimes. And just because she had a writing coach and a media handler doesn’t mean that Amanda Knox isn’t innocent.’

Lot’s of extra verbiage in this review. Maybe not for a professor of romance studies.


Small-time drug dealer. Check. Drifter. Check. DNA and fingerprints all over the crime scene and the body. Check.

"Eventually, a small-time drug dealer and drifter named Rudy Guede was convicted of the rape and murder of Kercher in a 2008 trial: his DNA and fingerprints were all over the crime scene, and the body."


Ummm...eventually Knox and Sollecito were convicted, as well. And it still stands, last I checked. Why does everyone keep ignoring that?
This bald assertion with no factual basis should not even have been entertained as plausible --JUDGEMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CASSATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF ITALY
User avatar
penelope
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 12:52 am

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby Skeptical Bystander » Mon Jun 10, 2013 10:39 pm

DLW wrote:'Truth or Management', by Alice Kaplan (The American Scholar)

‘So there remains a nagging doubt at the end of this memoir and after its attendant publicity—a doubt about whether the young woman behind the curtain bears much resemblance to the narrator of her memoir. It’s a doubt already planted in the public mind by television dramas like Scandal, which tell us that our heroes and heroines are only as convincing as the spin artists who manage them. But being shallow or clichéd, inappropriate and disconnected from reality, or young and naive are not capital crimes. And just because she had a writing coach and a media handler doesn’t mean that Amanda Knox isn’t innocent.’

Lot’s of extra verbiage in this review. Maybe not for a professor of romance studies.



I recently saw Alice Kaplan deliver a lecture at the University of Washington, where she was invited to speak by the French department. Actually, she was plugging her latest book, about how spending a year abroad was transformative for Jackie Bouvier Kennedy Onassis, Angela Davis and Susan Sontag (one white, one black, one gay). The book is pretty lightweight but that's what Kaplan does best. She said during the talk, to an audience of mostly grad students in French and faculty, that one could not really learn French properly without taking a lover. Many of the people in attendance actually winced. I suppose Kaplan feels compelled to weigh in because of her insistence on the importance of the junior year abroad as a sort of finishing school for young adults of a certain background. She fears this important rite of passage is threatened, or so she told us. I guess she would feel that the stigma attached to being convicted of murdering your roommate while abroad seriously threatens this important life experience.
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
User avatar
Skeptical Bystander
******
******
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby The Machine » Mon Jun 10, 2013 10:42 pm

Skeptical Bystander wrote:I suppose Kaplan feels compelled to weigh in because of her insistence on the importance of the junior year abroad as a sort of finishing school for young adults of a certain background. She fears this important rite of passage is threatened, or so she told us. I guess she would feel that the stigma attached to being convicted of murdering your roommate while abroad seriously threatens this important life experience.


:D :D :D
Steve Moore's media career 2010-2014 rip-)
The Machine
 
Posts: 5130
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby Skeptical Bystander » Mon Jun 10, 2013 10:44 pm

I was told the other day that Bruce had yet another meltdown in his secret cave because I noted that WTBH was displayed near the checkout counter at my local Barnes & Noble on a small table with books of local interest. I was there again today, so I took a photo. Apparently, he demanded a photo. So here it is. As you can see, the books on the table are assembled under the theme "Explore Washington".
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post. Please register or log in.
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
User avatar
Skeptical Bystander
******
******
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby Skeptical Bystander » Mon Jun 10, 2013 11:05 pm

DLW wrote:'Truth or Management', by Alice Kaplan (The American Scholar)

‘So there remains a nagging doubt at the end of this memoir and after its attendant publicity—a doubt about whether the young woman behind the curtain bears much resemblance to the narrator of her memoir. It’s a doubt already planted in the public mind by television dramas like Scandal, which tell us that our heroes and heroines are only as convincing as the spin artists who manage them. But being shallow or clichéd, inappropriate and disconnected from reality, or young and naive are not capital crimes. And just because she had a writing coach and a media handler doesn’t mean that Amanda Knox isn’t innocent.’

Lot’s of extra verbiage in this review. Maybe not for a professor of romance studies.


Maybe Alice Kaplan wrote this review as a favor to someone. I wonder if she actually made it through the book. Perhaps she read the first hundred pages and then skimmed. I say this because it looks as if she wants to push a point and unfortunately she doesn't push it hard or far enough. She is correct in stating that being shallow, clichéd and inappropriate are not capital crimes. And she is also correct in stating that having a writing coach and a media handler doesn't mean AK is "not innocent" as she rather oddly phrases it. Kaplan should have also pointed out that neither do these things mean AK is "not guilty".

There is no problem with using the services of a "writing coach" (or co-writer or professional writer or whatever you want to call this person). It is hard to say how WTBH would have turned out had the co-writer not imposed order on it or edited heavily or suggested rewrites or imposed them -- who knows who is responsible for what in the result? The fact is that the result is substandard quite apart from whether or not Knox is guilty or innocent. It is, as reviewers have noted, long-winded. Long-winded is a polite term for "not riveting". It could and should have been half as long. It is also filled with inconsistencies, as those who actually followed the trial and are familiar with the evidence have pointed out. It contains no real insights and, no matter how hard AK and her co-writer try, they are unable to make prison into the "shocking" experience the publisher promised. Indeed, the fundamental problem is that the book does not live up to the hype and that's why it is not flying off the shelves. As for working with a media handler, you have to wonder how AK would have performed without one. She might even have fared better. A couple of nights ago, I had a conversation with two UW students, one about to graduate and the other with one year to go. They watched the Cuomo interview. Their assessment? They said it removed all doubts they might have had as to her guilt. She was definitely involved in the murder, one said. She was evasive and narcissistic, said the other.


Incidentally, Kaplan's book on three American women who spent a year abroad in Paris while in college and then later became famous did not get stellar reviews from serious critics. It isn't really a scholarly work, either (Kaplan heads the French department at Yale). It is more like her memoir, French lessons, wherein she discovers pillow talk in French.

Here's how the NY Times review begins:

Alice Kaplan’s “Dreaming in French” is an easy book to admire but a hard one to muster much enthusiasm for. It makes a half bang, like a wet firework that flickers colorfully but never rises from the ground.


Kaplan's book French Lessons is actually a well-written memoir. I enjoyed reading it.
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
User avatar
Skeptical Bystander
******
******
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby Jackie » Mon Jun 10, 2013 11:27 pm

Catnip wrote:Budowle gets a mention in an Australian case:

"In the first place a period of 13½ years is not, in DNA terms a long time. Good results have been obtained 20 or 30 years after the event and Dr Budowle even gave the example of DNA extracted from bones 60,000 years old. If the substance containing it is dry and out of sunlight it will not degrade for many years."

R v Butler,
Supreme Court of Queensland - Court of Appeal (01 May 2009),
[2009] QCA 111,
per Keane JA, citing the previous appeal in 2001, at [31].



Quick! Don’t tell the Groupies™! They’ll wax vexatious that the 40-something day limit doesn’t count for Raffaele. Did he climb in the window? Or did he take Amanda's keys while she was sleeping?


Do you hear that sound, Cat?

It's the sound that testimony makes when it whooshes right over the heads of a bastion of bloated and/or brain dead hairdressers*, autobody shop workers, furriers, undereducated 'law enthusiasts' and semi-senile swillers of screech.


* "Starch DNA" has to be my all time favorite, as if starch is not a carbohydrate but a life form composed of DNA containing cells... :music: beauty school drop out, go back to high school :music:
User avatar
Jackie
 
Posts: 1207
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby stilicho » Tue Jun 11, 2013 1:55 am

Skeptical Bystander wrote:I was told the other day that Bruce had yet another meltdown in his secret cave because I noted that WTBH was displayed near the checkout counter at my local Barnes & Noble on a small table with books of local interest. I was there again today, so I took a photo. Apparently, he demanded a photo. So here it is. As you can see, the books on the table are assembled under the theme "Explore Washington".


I bet he thinks you re-arranged the display to make it look that way, Skep. Everyone knows that Waiting To Be Herbert is breaking new sales records on a daily basis--perhaps even a global standard for sales by the second!

That Alice Kaplan review is long and boring, like Knox's book, but qualifies as a fact-free zone. She claims, not once but twice, that Knox arrived home in the morning and discovered Meredith's body. That might be news to Knox and certainly to anyone with the slightest familiarity with the case. There is no mention of the locked door that Knox curiously discovered but did not associate with the blood-spattered bathroom in which she allegedly showered.

We've already been through the rest of the vapid claims and Kaplan naturally misses easy ones including Knox's admission that she already knew, on the 3rd of November, that the police were "treating me like a criminal" and "asking the same questions over and over, like I’m not telling the truth".

I find it particularly irksome that academics accept uncritically that Knox delved into Dostoevsky and Solzhenitsyn while in jail. Was there a hand-tracing version of The Gulag Archipelago I missed somewhere along the line? Did Dostoevsky score music videos glorifying violence against women?
“I’m a girl. I never thought girls get arrested for murder. It’s not very ladylike.”
--Kelly Ellard, murderer.
User avatar
stilicho
 
Posts: 9426
Images: 3
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Location: Western Canada

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby Fly by Night » Tue Jun 11, 2013 3:46 am

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
DLW wrote:'Truth or Management', by Alice Kaplan (The American Scholar)

‘So there remains a nagging doubt at the end of this memoir and after its attendant publicity—a doubt about whether the young woman behind the curtain bears much resemblance to the narrator of her memoir. It’s a doubt already planted in the public mind by television dramas like Scandal, which tell us that our heroes and heroines are only as convincing as the spin artists who manage them. But being shallow or clichéd, inappropriate and disconnected from reality, or young and naive are not capital crimes. And just because she had a writing coach and a media handler doesn’t mean that Amanda Knox isn’t innocent.’

Lot’s of extra verbiage in this review. Maybe not for a professor of romance studies.



I recently saw Alice Kaplan deliver a lecture at the University of Washington, where she was invited to speak by the French department. Actually, she was plugging her latest book, about how spending a year abroad was transformative for Jackie Bouvier Kennedy Onassis, Angela Davis and Susan Sontag (one white, one black, one gay). The book is pretty lightweight but that's what Kaplan does best. She said during the talk, to an audience of mostly grad students in French and faculty, that one could not really learn French properly without taking a lover. Many of the people in attendance actually winced. I suppose Kaplan feels compelled to weigh in because of her insistence on the importance of the junior year abroad as a sort of finishing school for young adults of a certain background. She fears this important rite of passage is threatened, or so she told us. I guess she would feel that the stigma attached to being convicted of murdering your roommate while abroad seriously threatens this important life experience.


That's pretty funny. I'd wager that spending just the summer abroad at age 14 might be twice as transformative. I had a girlfriend in Locarno, Ticino one such summer and when I returned nobody knew me - and neither one of us had to kill anyone to pull it off. :giggle:
User avatar
Fly by Night
******
******
 
Posts: 2848
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby AfraidofAmanda » Tue Jun 11, 2013 4:02 am

New poster, like your site, only recently digging into the case. I've actually read Knox's book and combed through a lot of the PMJ/TJ materials, but I'm still putting some facts together and I wanted to ask a question. I'm well beyond wondering if Knox is guilty so my question is about scenario and motive.

Has anyone ever floated the idea that Knox and Sollecito went to the cottage that night with the intention of scaring Kercher before it got out of hand? And in that scenario, they wore masks like they were "intruders", Knox brought the knife from Sollecito's, and they terrorized her with the thought they wouldn't be discovered?

Admittedly, I have no idea how Guede gets involved in this scenario. And I have yet to find a reason beyond "drug deal" that gets Guede to the scene in any scenario.

But it was the night after Halloween. Sollecito wore his surgeon costume with mask (am I right about this?) the night before. So is it possible that Knox and Sollecito actually set out to "prank" Meredith, involved Guede, and then somehow got discovered in the act which led to Knox killing her?
AfraidofAmanda
 
Posts: 165
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 3:30 am

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby Skeptical Bystander » Tue Jun 11, 2013 4:42 am

stilicho wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:I was told the other day that Bruce had yet another meltdown in his secret cave because I noted that WTBH was displayed near the checkout counter at my local Barnes & Noble on a small table with books of local interest. I was there again today, so I took a photo. Apparently, he demanded a photo. So here it is. As you can see, the books on the table are assembled under the theme "Explore Washington".


I bet he thinks you re-arranged the display to make it look that way, Skep. Everyone knows that Waiting To Be Herbert is breaking new sales records on a daily basis--perhaps even a global standard for sales by the second!

That Alice Kaplan review is long and boring, like Knox's book, but qualifies as a fact-free zone. She claims, not once but twice, that Knox arrived home in the morning and discovered Meredith's body. That might be news to Knox and certainly to anyone with the slightest familiarity with the case. There is no mention of the locked door that Knox curiously discovered but did not associate with the blood-spattered bathroom in which she allegedly showered.

We've already been through the rest of the vapid claims and Kaplan naturally misses easy ones including Knox's admission that she already knew, on the 3rd of November, that the police were "treating me like a criminal" and "asking the same questions over and over, like I’m not telling the truth".

I find it particularly irksome that academics accept uncritically that Knox delved into Dostoevsky and Solzhenitsyn while in jail. Was there a hand-tracing version of The Gulag Archipelago I missed somewhere along the line? Did Dostoevsky score music videos glorifying violence against women?



Stilicho, you are one step ahead of BF! It would never occur to me to do any such thing, but he could always float that one to see if it flies.
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
User avatar
Skeptical Bystander
******
******
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby Jackie » Tue Jun 11, 2013 8:53 am

stilicho wrote:...I find it particularly irksome that academics accept uncritically that Knox delved into Dostoevsky and Solzhenitsyn while in jail...


The Italian prison system appears to entail educational programs of heretofore unheard of transformative power: She went in unable to spell the word "murderer" and came out with a deep and nuanced understanding of "Crime and Punishment"!!! Well done, Italy!!! :rolleyes:

If AK's time behind bars is any indication, that twisted **** Guede will come out with at least two PhDs in Russian Lit.

Alas, what's wrong with your JLOL pal "Grinder"? Until today, he/she struck me as one of the...shall we say, less, er ... 'challenged' members of the JLOL thread (not that I endorse all of his/her assumptions, premises and conclusions, but he/she does, at the very least, seem to be able to draw the distinction between an unreliable advocate and a professional journalist).

Then I saw this:
Image
Click on image to enlarge.

Since we're in a bit of a lull as we await the SC ruling and the new trial, I hope others won't mind if I take the liberty of responding here:

Dear, Sweet Brother/Sister "Grinder",

1) there ARE, in fact, many Knox supporters who have argued that (as you put it) "the DNA on the clasp went bad in 47 days" - I'm not sure when or where you first entered the online debates, Grinder, but I am certain that I am not alone in having witnessed many examples of this form of abject ignorance polluting comment sections and discussion boards over the past 5 years (for my money, it's right up there with Team Knox's talkng point about "starch DNA" for comedic value);

2) Before going to law school, I earned a BSc, replete with upper year courses in Genetics (I wonder if the vertical gardener can say the same...) and, as a result, can well appreciate the arguments (good, bad and ugly) being made in respect of LCN DNA;

3) I like the way you considered RG's shoe prints, hand prints and statements/ admissions in addition to the inculpatory DNA evidence - this is what one must do when contemplating the totality of the evidence in respect of a defendant. It's a pity that so many refuse to do the same for the privileged white "kids" with PR firms on retainer; &

4) Consider me "dumb" if you wish but the only "cause" I am part of is the one that wants to see Justice done, whatever that may entail. FWIW, it's become increasingly clear to me that, trapped as I am in the court of public opinion rather than the court of law, I'll probably never be able to reach 'moral certainty' in this maelstrom of lies, contradictions, inconsistencies, dueling translations and PR pros, but I'll tell you this: It's awfully hard to keep an open mind when Team Knox keeps rolling out garbage like Ciolino's 48 Hours rant, Moore's KIRO radio interview, Halkides' appeals to the "work" of Jamieson and interviews with Hampikian conducted by a "friend of the family"/ advocate/ citizen journalist* that likes to publish wild claims about 'starch DNA'.


* I'm told she's now claiming (from behind the Fur Curtain, or is it an autobody shop now?) that RS's collection of images from titles like 'MPD Psycho' (among others) is nothing but an expression of his appreciation for "art" LOL
Last edited by Jackie on Tue Jun 11, 2013 11:38 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Jackie
 
Posts: 1207
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby hugo » Tue Jun 11, 2013 9:25 am

Also, Grinder appears to think the bra clasp DNA attributed to Sollecito at an unmistakable 17 loci is LCN. It isn't. Grinder also thinks that touch DNA is the same thing as LCN. It isn't. Hellmann said that this copious DNA could have arrived 'on a gust of air'. It couldn't. Airborne DNA in household dust is not readable. No plausible vector of contamination has ever been suggested. As for Guede admitting he was at the scene, so did Knox. (And there were no '12 cops' in the room at the time. There were two, plus the interpreter.) And, like Guede, Knox changes her story whenever it suits her. She is still doing it in her 'book', where, for instance, she suddenly remembers the call to her mother which she told the court she had no memory of, and she places it an hour before the phone records show it actually happened, and she places it in a context (walking back from the house after the 'shower' visit) which the actual timing renders impossible. It would also be impossible to be honestly mistaken about this. She can only be lying, as she demonstrably lies all the time about everything.
hugo
 
Posts: 2397
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 9:01 pm

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby hugo » Tue Jun 11, 2013 9:44 am

AfraidofAmanda wrote:New poster, like your site, only recently digging into the case. I've actually read Knox's book and combed through a lot of the PMJ/TJ materials, but I'm still putting some facts together and I wanted to ask a question. I'm well beyond wondering if Knox is guilty so my question is about scenario and motive.

Has anyone ever floated the idea that Knox and Sollecito went to the cottage that night with the intention of scaring Kercher before it got out of hand? And in that scenario, they wore masks like they were "intruders", Knox brought the knife from Sollecito's, and they terrorized her with the thought they wouldn't be discovered?

Admittedly, I have no idea how Guede gets involved in this scenario. And I have yet to find a reason beyond "drug deal" that gets Guede to the scene in any scenario.

But it was the night after Halloween. Sollecito wore his surgeon costume with mask (am I right about this?) the night before. So is it possible that Knox and Sollecito actually set out to "prank" Meredith, involved Guede, and then somehow got discovered in the act which led to Knox killing her?


This is known as the 'prank / hazing theory' and has its adherents. But why they went to the cottage in the first place, and what Guede was doing there, are among the 'known unknowns'. (Hang on, I'll just make out this royalty cheque to Donald Rumsfeld...) What is known is how it ended. And whatever they kidded themselves that their intentions were -- because people are often dishonest with themselves about their own motives and intents -- and despite Massei's absurd and legalistic mitigatory finding of 'no animosity or spite', there must have been considerable existing malice and callousness in the room for things to end as they did. And arming yourself with a lethal weapon is premeditation.

I don't think Sollecito's 'surgeon costume' photo dates from the previous evening. And I tend to think it's a CSI costume, because it's hooded, which a surgeon's garb is not. It suggests Sollecito had thought about how to commit a murder and avoid leaving traces. He doesn't seem to have bought any CSI paper suits, but he may have been wearing a swim cap to avoid shedding hair. As he's an idiot, he left his DNA and a damn great bloody footprint anyway. Guede, happening to be available, might have been brought along as part of the 'hazing' plan and / or as a patsy -- preferably not to get caught, as he could incriminate the others, but to leave prints and traces that would suggest a false scenario. (The actual extent of those traces, including his celebrated and massive dump, would be fortuitous.) And he might have known where to get 'new' drugs the others wanted to try.
hugo
 
Posts: 2397
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 9:01 pm

Why?

Postby norbertc » Tue Jun 11, 2013 9:45 am

AfraidofAmanda wrote:New poster, like your site, only recently digging into the case. I've actually read Knox's book and combed through a lot of the PMJ/TJ materials, but I'm still putting some facts together and I wanted to ask a question. I'm well beyond wondering if Knox is guilty so my question is about scenario and motive.

Has anyone ever floated the idea that Knox and Sollecito went to the cottage that night with the intention of scaring Kercher before it got out of hand? And in that scenario, they wore masks like they were "intruders", Knox brought the knife from Sollecito's, and they terrorized her with the thought they wouldn't be discovered?

Admittedly, I have no idea how Guede gets involved in this scenario. And I have yet to find a reason beyond "drug deal" that gets Guede to the scene in any scenario.

But it was the night after Halloween. Sollecito wore his surgeon costume with mask (am I right about this?) the night before. So is it possible that Knox and Sollecito actually set out to "prank" Meredith, involved Guede, and then somehow got discovered in the act which led to Knox killing her?


Hello and welcome!

Yes, this is a theory that has been discussed at some length; and there's an unconfirmed precedent in Seattle, where Amanda had evidently organized a ski-mask rape "prank" on her roommates.

I personally like the theory because it helps explain the transport of the kitchen knife to the cottage. It provides a reasonable mechanism whereby three virtual strangers might team up to seriously frighten Meredith. I can imagine Rudy getting invited to join the "party" ... and can also imagine the use of heavy drugs. We also know that Meredith was forcibly restrained by multiple individuals. However, there's no proof that this is what happened. We can speculate about underlying anger and intent to harm Meredith on the part of Knox. Meredith resists the vicious "prank" that may have involved pricking her with a sharp knife. Things degrade from there.

A second theory simply involves an argument breaking out regarding the rent money or about Amanda's behavior at the cottage.

A third theory suggests an actual premeditated, planned murder. However, I don't see how Rudy fits in.

There are others. It's challenging to read the entire posting history to find these discussions, but others may be able to point you in the right direction.

Norbert
User avatar
norbertc
 
Posts: 833
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 1:16 am
Location: Latitude 38

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby jar » Tue Jun 11, 2013 10:33 am

hugo wrote:
AfraidofAmanda wrote:New poster, like your site, only recently digging into the case. I've actually read Knox's book and combed through a lot of the PMJ/TJ materials, but I'm still putting some facts together and I wanted to ask a question. I'm well beyond wondering if Knox is guilty so my question is about scenario and motive.

Has anyone ever floated the idea that Knox and Sollecito went to the cottage that night with the intention of scaring Kercher before it got out of hand? And in that scenario, they wore masks like they were "intruders", Knox brought the knife from Sollecito's, and they terrorized her with the thought they wouldn't be discovered?

Admittedly, I have no idea how Guede gets involved in this scenario. And I have yet to find a reason beyond "drug deal" that gets Guede to the scene in any scenario.

But it was the night after Halloween. Sollecito wore his surgeon costume with mask (am I right about this?) the night before. So is it possible that Knox and Sollecito actually set out to "prank" Meredith, involved Guede, and then somehow got discovered in the act which led to Knox killing her?


This is known as the 'prank / hazing theory' and has its adherents. But why they went to the cottage in the first place, and what Guede was doing there, are among the 'known unknowns'. (Hang on, I'll just make out this royalty cheque to Donald Rumsfeld...) What is known is how it ended. And whatever they kidded themselves that their intentions were -- because people are often dishonest with themselves about their own motives and intents -- and despite Massei's absurd and legalistic mitigatory finding of 'no animosity or spite', there must have been considerable existing malice and callousness in the room for things to end as they did. And arming yourself with a lethal weapon is premeditation.

I don't think Sollecito's 'surgeon costume' photo dates from the previous evening. And I tend to think it's a CSI costume, because it's hooded, which a surgeon's garb is not. It suggests Sollecito had thought about how to commit a murder and avoid leaving traces. He doesn't seem to have bought any CSI paper suits, but he may have been wearing a swim cap to avoid shedding hair. As he's an idiot, he left his DNA and a damn great bloody footprint anyway. Guede, happening to be available, might have been brought along as part of the 'hazing' plan and / or as a patsy -- preferably not to get caught, as he could incriminate the others, but to leave prints and traces that would suggest a false scenario. (The actual extent of those traces, including his celebrated and massive dump, would be fortuitous.) And he might have known where to get 'new' drugs the others wanted to try.


The Perfect Murder? Ah, that's a new concept that's not been discussed before. Like in The Rope starring James Stewart? Except that rather than the perps being two college students who have been discussing the intellectual concepts of Nietzsche's Ubermenschen with their University mentor, we have two drug addled drop outs reading Harry Potter and giving a passable imitation of Laurel and Hardy.
jar
 
Posts: 1132
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 4:31 pm

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby TruthNotLies » Tue Jun 11, 2013 10:37 am

The Supreme Court ruled on March 26th 2013 that the appeal courts decision was annulled, with exception to the Calunnia charge which was upheld. If the Supreme Court has to produce a motivations report within 90 days, as per previous Court decisions, that would mean that the motivations report is due on or before Tuesday 17th June.

Is this correct?
"A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth has got its boots on." Winston Churchill

“Without truth there can be no forgiveness, it is difficult to even talk about forgiveness when there is no truth.” Stephanie Kercher
User avatar
TruthNotLies
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby jar » Tue Jun 11, 2013 10:46 am

How do we know for a fact that the kids were watching Amelie? We only have their word for it, surely.
jar
 
Posts: 1132
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 4:31 pm

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby bucketoftea » Tue Jun 11, 2013 10:57 am

jar wrote:How do we know for a fact that the kids were watching Amelie? We only have their word for it, surely.


You're right. There is evidence it was played, but, of course, who knows if they were paying any attention to it?
"There is no evidence and what there is is unreliable" Ted Simon
User avatar
bucketoftea
 
Posts: 2415
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby bucketoftea » Tue Jun 11, 2013 11:03 am

TruthNotLies wrote:The Supreme Court ruled on March 26th 2013 that the appeal courts decision was annulled, with exception to the Calunnia charge which was upheld. If the Supreme Court has to produce a motivations report within 90 days, as per previous Court decisions, that would mean that the motivations report is due on or before Tuesday 17th June.

Is this correct?


That's my understanding.
"There is no evidence and what there is is unreliable" Ted Simon
User avatar
bucketoftea
 
Posts: 2415
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Re: Why?

Postby Jackie » Tue Jun 11, 2013 12:18 pm

norbertc wrote:
AfraidofAmanda wrote:New poster, like your site, only recently digging into the case. I've actually read Knox's book and combed through a lot of the PMJ/TJ materials, but I'm still putting some facts together and I wanted to ask a question. I'm well beyond wondering if Knox is guilty so my question is about scenario and motive.

Has anyone ever floated the idea that Knox and Sollecito went to the cottage that night with the intention of scaring Kercher before it got out of hand? And in that scenario, they wore masks like they were "intruders", Knox brought the knife from Sollecito's, and they terrorized her with the thought they wouldn't be discovered?

Admittedly, I have no idea how Guede gets involved in this scenario. And I have yet to find a reason beyond "drug deal" that gets Guede to the scene in any scenario.

But it was the night after Halloween. Sollecito wore his surgeon costume with mask (am I right about this?) the night before. So is it possible that Knox and Sollecito actually set out to "prank" Meredith, involved Guede, and then somehow got discovered in the act which led to Knox killing her?


Hello and welcome!

Yes, this is a theory that has been discussed at some length; and there's an unconfirmed precedent in Seattle, where Amanda had evidently organized a ski-mask rape "prank" on her roommates.

I personally like the theory because it helps explain the transport of the kitchen knife to the cottage. It provides a reasonable mechanism whereby three virtual strangers might team up to seriously frighten Meredith. I can imagine Rudy getting invited to join the "party" ... and can also imagine the use of heavy drugs. We also know that Meredith was forcibly restrained by multiple individuals. However, there's no proof that this is what happened. We can speculate about underlying anger and intent to harm Meredith on the part of Knox. Meredith resists the vicious "prank" that may have involved pricking her with a sharp knife. Things degrade from there.

A second theory simply involves an argument breaking out regarding the rent money or about Amanda's behavior at the cottage.

A third theory suggests an actual premeditated, planned murder. However, I don't see how Rudy fits in.

There are others. It's challenging to read the entire posting history to find these discussions, but others may be able to point you in the right direction.

Norbert


People seem to forget that the murder occurred on the Halloween long weekend - a weekend that included All Souls Day/ Day of the Dead: A time for mischief/ pranks/ hazing.

They also seem to forget what's now known about the interests and low maturity levels of the 3 accused at that time (knives, manga, pranks, costumes for Halloween, RS's photo of himself in "Dexter" garb, replete with a meat cleaver in one hand and a bottle of bleach in the other, RG's BIZARRE vampire video, public expressions of a commitment to thrill seeking, indulging in street drugs of unknown composition/ purity, etc., etc. - I'm tired of reading posts from the Over 50 Set referencing 'cuddles by a warm fire on a cold night' as if these 2 were a committed/ loving but tired/ old married couple about to celebrate their 30th anniversary with bad backs and sore knees before turning in early for a good, long sleep.)

They also forget - or willfully ignore - that (per Follain) the murder occurred just days after Meredith (allegedly) sent an electronic message to her sister, Stephanie, indicating that she'd "quarreled" with Knox.

And then there are the missing diary pages, per Follain, and "Joh's" post, in 2007.

I don't want to upset anybody, but I've often found myself leaning toward Norbert's theory (which, IIRC, I first saw advanced by Michael many years ago).

Alas, there are many combinations and permutations consistent with the evidence and argument advanced by the prosecution and, as I've noted before, in common law jurisdictions, the triers of fact need not agree on each and every finding of fact - they need only agree on their conclusion in respect of the fundamental question.
User avatar
Jackie
 
Posts: 1207
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby stilicho » Tue Jun 11, 2013 1:11 pm

Jackie wrote:
stilicho wrote:...I find it particularly irksome that academics accept uncritically that Knox delved into Dostoevsky and Solzhenitsyn while in jail...


The Italian prison system appears to entail educational programs of heretofore unheard of transformative power: She went in unable to spell the word "murderer" and came out with a deep and nuanced understanding of "Crime and Punishment"!!! Well done, Italy!!! :rolleyes:

If AK's time behind bars is any indication, that twisted **** Guede will come out with at least two PhDs in Russian Lit.

Alas, what's wrong with your JLOL pal "Grinder"? Until today, he/she struck me as one of the...shall we say, less, er ... 'challenged' members of the JLOL thread (not that I endorse all of his/her assumptions, premises and conclusions, but he/she does, at the very least, seem to be able to draw the distinction between an unreliable advocate and a professional journalist).

Then I saw this:
Image
Click on image to enlarge.

Since we're in a bit of a lull as we await the SC ruling and the new trial, I hope others won't mind if I take the liberty of responding here:

Dear, Sweet Brother/Sister "Grinder",

1) there ARE, in fact, many Knox supporters who have argued that (as you put it) "the DNA on the clasp went bad in 47 days" - I'm not sure when or where you first entered the online debates, Grinder, but I am certain that I am not alone in having witnessed many examples of this form of abject ignorance polluting comment sections and discussion boards over the past 5 years (for my money, it's right up there with Team Knox's talkng point about "starch DNA" for comedic value);

2) Before going to law school, I earned a BSc, replete with upper year courses in Genetics (I wonder if the vertical gardener can say the same...) and, as a result, can well appreciate the arguments (good, bad and ugly) being made in respect of LCN DNA;

3) I like the way you considered RG's shoe prints, hand prints and statements/ admissions in addition to the inculpatory DNA evidence - this is what one must do when contemplating the totality of the evidence in respect of a defendant. It's a pity that so many refuse to do the same for the privileged white "kids" with PR firms on retainer; &

4) Consider me "dumb" if you wish but the only "cause" I am part of is the one that wants to see Justice done, whatever that may entail. FWIW, it's become increasingly clear to me that, trapped as I am in the court of public opinion rather than the court of law, I'll probably never be able to reach 'moral certainty' in this maelstrom of lies, contradictions, inconsistencies, dueling translations and PR pros, but I'll tell you this: It's awfully hard to keep an open mind when Team Knox keeps rolling out garbage like Ciolino's 48 Hours rant, Moore's KIRO radio interview, Halkides' appeals to the "work" of Jamieson and interviews with Hampikian conducted by a "friend of the family"/ advocate/ citizen journalist* that likes to publish wild claims about 'starch DNA'.


* I'm told she's now claiming (from behind the Fur Curtain, or is it an autobody shop now?) that RS's collection of images from titles like 'MPD Psycho' (among others) is nothing but an expression of his appreciation for "art" LOL


Welcome to the weird and wonderful world of the JLOL, where ad hominem attacks are grounds for banning unless you're a former member in good standing and then it's just fine. Where's that "cuckoo" smiley when you need it? Ahhh...

:tease:

The weight of the DNA evidence against Knox was not "touch" DNA and, even if it had been, there was more than one location where her DNA was mingled with that of the victim and located in a bare footprint only revealed by Luminol. I mean--what are the chances?

Even Knox, in her book, is flabbergasted at the dag-nammed bad luck of it all:

The forensic team used luminol, a chemical that glows blue when sprayed on even trace amounts of hemoglobin. It revealed two footprints in the hallway outside the bathroom and one in my bedroom.

“How can they say I had Meredith’s blood on the bottoms of my feet?” I asked.


Later on she helpfully adds another hypothesis I hadn't heard of until now: Knox posits that human waste likewise glows under Luminol analysis. What kind of cleaning schedule did they have at the cottage if that's how she figured Meredith's DNA wound up in her footprint in her room?

The quality and quantity of the mixed DNA samples was not LCN unless I am missing something. In fact, the Groupie™ reconstructions typically avoid any of the samples resulting in positive identification of Meredith's DNA outside the locked door as though it were a magical barrier. They ignore even the possibility, let alone the likelihood, that Knox and her victim were bleeding at the same time. They ignore Knox's own explanations about tromping through Meredith's blood (albeit during the bathmat boogie) and depositing it elsewhere in the cottage and her own attribution of the mixed DNA in the small bathroom to an ear piercing mixed with menstrual blood.

It's certainly intellectually dishonest to rule out the most likely reasoning for those mixed DNA samples and to substitute them, in their entirety, with fantasies about barefoot horseradish fights and nonsense about thin films of DNA coating everything. No genuine scientist would ever do such a thing.
“I’m a girl. I never thought girls get arrested for murder. It’s not very ladylike.”
--Kelly Ellard, murderer.
User avatar
stilicho
 
Posts: 9426
Images: 3
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Location: Western Canada

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby Catnip » Tue Jun 11, 2013 1:38 pm

Raffaele says he went out as an “abstract figure” for Halloween and he says Amanda’s face was painted like a cat (which she also did in Seattle afterwards, so she must like the costume).

Coincidentally, La Stampa newspaper showed an abstract figure ([here]), 29 October 2007, from Tokyo Halloween, and Heidi Klum at her Hollywood Halloween party made a cute cat ([here]).
User avatar
Catnip
 
Posts: 6320
Images: 81
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am
Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby HerbertB » Tue Jun 11, 2013 1:56 pm

But why would two well educated middle-class kids from family’s with respectable background, who knew each other only for a few days, kill Meredith?

Because Meredith criticized Amanda for not cleaning the toilet and left her vibrator out for everybody to see?

That is not a reason to kill someone... There is no reason, and no motive.

Best regards, Herbert
HerbertB
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2013 8:35 pm

Re: XXXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 25, 2013 -

Postby Catnip » Tue Jun 11, 2013 2:14 pm

Art:
1-63.jpg


Groupie DNA science logic goes to court = their whole world is overturned:
Cassation is out of their realm
1-64.jpg



It is a consolation (not that there can ever be such a thing, truly) that the torture and final attack was not extended over a longer period of time. Things could have gone much worse. Meredith’s scream put the frighteners on them and they ran away for fear of getting caught. Without the blitzkrieg at the start, there’s a chance that things could have turned out quite differently.
d28.jpg


A coordinated attack speaks to intention (and legal premeditation).
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post. Please register or log in.
User avatar
Catnip
 
Posts: 6320
Images: 81
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am
Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PreviousNext

Return to The Murder of Meredith Kercher



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], CommonCrawl [Bot], jar, JohnQ, NorrisC, PHP [Toolkit] and 19 guests