1564 users online (296 members and 1268 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 2 of 71 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 52 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 1063
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Myvice View Post
    Could you please repost the link you cited showing Otto and Sherlock's cite were a con? I must have missed it when the new thread was created. I'm sure everyone will want to see it.

    Thank you kindly.
    Nothing was shown to be a con site. Any site that is linked that disproves an argument for innocence is deemed unworthy. Though IIP is constantly linked and were to believe everything posted there as fact, even though it is in fact an opinion site and forums.

    What is fact is that a negative tmb test does NOT prove it isn't blood and luminol is the more sensitive test of the two.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    26,973
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelSmith View Post
    Now we've gotten to the bottom of Otto and Sherlocks cite re luminol is a con, there's a post I would have really liked to reply to but didn't have time.

    aa9951, correct me if I'm wrong but on the previous thread, didn't you say Amanda & Raffaele probably planted Guede's DNA in Meredith's vagina.

    Can you expand on that. Thanks
    Did I miss the post where you clarified what the sensitivity ratios are for luminol? It doesn't make much sense to, for example, say that 2+2 is not equal to 4, and then offer nothing about what it is equal to.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    631
    Quote Originally Posted by Amber29 View Post
    Nothing was shown to be a con site. Any site that is linked that disproves an argument for innocence is deemed unworthy. Though IIP is constantly linked and were to believe everything posted there as fact, even though it is in fact an opinion site and forums.

    What is fact is that a negative tmb test does NOT prove it isn't blood and luminol is the more sensitive test of the two.
    Yet according to Steffi: (cite previously posted)

    JUDGE: However where the result is negative I’m given to understand that it’s almost certain that it is not [blood]?

    ANSWER: Yes, it’s not blood, it is not, yes.
    Judge: "I see. And what evidence leads you to make these claims?"
    Prosecutor: "I didn't say we had evidence. I said we believe."
    Judge: "Molta buona. Proceed."

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    1,073
    Quote Originally Posted by Amber29 View Post
    Nothing was shown to be a con site. Any site that is linked that disproves an argument for innocence is deemed unworthy. Though IIP is constantly linked and were to believe everything posted there as fact, even though it is in fact an opinion site and forums.

    What is fact is that a negative tmb test does NOT prove it isn't blood and luminol is the more sensitive test of the two.
    Falsified transcript with made up sentences quoted, falsified phone calls timeline.

    Why would the anti Knox PR campaign resort to lies if they had a strong case to present?

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Katody View Post
    Falsified transcript with made up sentences quoted, falsified phone calls timeline.

    Why would the anti Knox PR campaign resort to lies if they had a strong case to present?
    I'm not going to get into an argument about the two sites. I don't understand the total bashing from one side that is constantly done here. I never see the same said even though I guarantee some of us feel that way. Can we not have a discussion with out derogatory names being used in reference to sites we disagree with? (I understand that it wasn't done in this particular post but it's been done constantly)

    Anyways I don't see any falsified transcript, the discussion was over trial testimony that was put into an easy to read format. There weren't made up sentences the discussion was over a conversation that has been translated repeatedly from English to Italian to English and so on. Who even knows what was actually said.

    While we're on the discussion of lies, did you ever come up with a logical reason for RS to exaggerate the arrival time at the police station by some 5 hours?

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    80
    I find the whole argument about the relative sensitivities of luminol and TMB interesting but really not very relavant to the trial itself. Let me explain. I hope we can ALL agree that luminol tests can yield false positive results and TMB can yields false negative results. Coming down hard that a sample, in this case the footprints, contains blood if a luminol test is positive and no other test is performed, seems scientifically foolhearty. If both luminol and TMB tests are positive, most reasonable people would assume that the sample contains blood. Would the 2 tests being positive mean the sample contains blood with 100%]certainty? No, but the chances that it does contain blood are very very high. When a sample tests positive with luminol and negative with TMB one would be scientifically VERY foolhearty to claim the sample contained blood with any degree of certainty. Could it contain blood? Yes but the chances that it does contain blood are significantly less than 50% and if you or someone you loved were on trial for murder my bet is that you would not want the jury to consider the results as presumptive evidence of blood. If I were the judge or the jury in this case, in honestly would consider the claim that the footprints contained blood UNPROVEN.

    What should have been done is that Steffanoni should have conducted a set of different tests to clarify the presence or absence of blood. These tests were not done. Why? And, why did Steffanoni, in court try and hide the fact that the TMB tests were even performed?

    I will admit the what I am going to say next is biased by my complete disrespect for Steffanoni as a capable scientist and my suspicion that she conducted her work with a prosecution bias. It is pure conjecture, but it seems logical to me. I suspect that after the luminol tests came back positive, Steffanoni was convinced that the footprints contained blood and only did the TMB tests as icing on the cake. When they came back negative, she was probably surprised and afraid to give the prosecution evidence that might not fit their explanation of the case. Additional testing might or might not confirm the presence of blood but she could not risk an overall negative result so she did not do the additional tests. She probalby felt she could bluff her way through the trial by failing to reveal the negative TMB tests but unfortunately for her, the bluff failed and she and her work were exposed.
    [/B][/B][/B]

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    80
    Sorry for the bolding in the above post. I only wanted to bold "100%".

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    6,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Katody View Post
    There is no evidence any part of the rape was staged. It all looks like actual rape.
    "No evidence" - yes, that's Amanda's line also - after she tampered with the evidence and manipulated the evidence.
    Now my philosophy is that it's never okay to kill someone. -- Convicted Murderer Jodi Arias

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    1,073
    Quote Originally Posted by Amber29 View Post
    I'm not going to get into an argument about the two sites. I don't understand the total bashing from one side that is constantly done here. I never see the same said even though I guarantee some of us feel that way. Can we not have a discussion with out derogatory names being used in reference to sites we disagree with? (I understand that it wasn't done in this particular post but it's been done constantly)

    Anyways I don't see any falsified transcript, the discussion was over trial testimony that was put into an easy to read format. There weren't made up sentences the discussion was over a conversation that has been translated repeatedly from English to Italian to English and so on. Who even knows what was actually said.

    While we're on the discussion of lies, did you ever come up with a logical reason for RS to exaggerate the arrival time at the police station by some 5 hours?
    The falsified transcript was discussed here a couple of threads ago. It came from the fake wiki, along with the falsified timeline Sherlock reposted that had phone calls reshuffled to "prove" the postals arrived before calling the Carabinieri.

    I have no idea what lies do you refer to. You need to be more specific, with quotes. If it's part of the evidence I'd be happy to discuss it.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    477
    Quote Originally Posted by Amber29 View Post
    I'm not going to get into an argument about the two sites. I don't understand the total bashing from one side that is constantly done here. I never see the same said even though I guarantee some of us feel that way. Can we not have a discussion with out derogatory names being used in reference to sites we disagree with? (I understand that it wasn't done in this particular post but it's been done constantly)

    Anyways I don't see any falsified transcript, the discussion was over trial testimony that was put into an easy to read format. There weren't made up sentences the discussion was over a conversation that has been translated repeatedly from English to Italian to English and so on. Who even knows what was actually said.
    IMO the hallmarks of this case are misleading statements and mistranslations, both accidental and deliberate. IMO there's no point in talking about a "paid for" PR machine in favor of Amanda Knox when the police and prosecution deliberately and with malice leaked damaging partial information about her and the evidence to the press, before they had completed enough of their investigation to know that Rudy G was present.

    We here can only work with what's available and make up our own minds as to the veracity of the different sites.


  11. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    1,073
    Quote Originally Posted by aa9511 View Post
    "No evidence" - yes, that's Amanda's line also - after she tampered with the evidence and manipulated the evidence.
    OK, she did it so well that there is no evidence of tampering or manipulating. How unfortunate for your theory

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    6,639
    Quote Originally Posted by quesarita View Post
    IMO you hit the nail right on the head there. It would be nice to live in a world like yours, where women were NOT raped at a frequency of one every two minutes (237,868 reported rapes in the US in 2006)

    http://www.rainn.org/get-information...sexual-assault

    mostly by a single man acting alone.
    Does it by any chance tell what percentage of those are from strangers and what are from people the victim knew?

    Anyway, yes I see that many fall back to posting random statistics when they don't agree with something.

    I would also ask the supporters of her innocence - would anything change in your view if there was no rape involved in this case, and it was a burglar who came in, yet the strange thing is, wow this burglar did not actually steal hardly anything. And then the burglar brutally stabs this woman Meredith completely contained to the woman's bedroom. ?
    Now my philosophy is that it's never okay to kill someone. -- Convicted Murderer Jodi Arias

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    477
    Quote Originally Posted by aa9511 View Post
    Does it by any chance tell what percentage of those are from strangers and what are from people the victim knew?

    Anyway, yes I see that many fall back to posting random statistics when they don't agree with something.

    I would also ask the supporters of her innocence - would anything change in your view if there was no rape involved in this case, and it was a burglar who came in, yet the strange thing is, wow this burglar did not actually steal hardly anything. And then the burglar brutally stabs this woman Meredith completely contained to the woman's bedroom. ?
    It would not change my view that surprising an intruder in your home can be a very dangerous thing. By breaking in they have already broken the law, and standards of proper behavior; there is little at that point to keep them from going further.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    477
    Quote Originally Posted by aa9511 View Post
    Does it by any chance tell what percentage of those are from strangers and what are from people the victim knew?
    No, and it also leaves out the unknown number of "unreported" rapes, so my guess is this number contains a relatively high percentage of "stranger" rapes.

    Don't forget, Meredith was not unknown to Rudy, whether or not she would have considered him a friend, acquaintance of her friend downstairs or total stranger.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    26,973
    Interview with Sollecito's former girlfriend

    http://radaronline.com/exclusives/20...edith-kercher/

Page 2 of 71 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 52 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 943
    Last Post: 01-31-2014, 10:01 AM
  2. Replies: 1026
    Last Post: 01-12-2014, 08:07 AM
  3. Replies: 1064
    Last Post: 01-05-2014, 12:29 AM
  4. Replies: 1013
    Last Post: 12-19-2013, 05:30 AM
  5. Replies: 1011
    Last Post: 11-12-2013, 12:34 AM

Tags for this Thread