Is that not some retired hack who's been paid by Knox's team? I think the Harvard professor wins over that fraud.

LOL, guilter wiki as primary source. There was no mixed blood in this case and anyone who looks into the evidence will quickly understand that the "mixed DNA" would be expected and means nothing in this case. Especially the sink samples given how they were collected, one would be surprised if there was *not* mixed DNA.

There's really no other explanation. He routinely describes the DNA knife as "the murder weapon" even though not only was that knife not compatible with all of the wounds, there is no credible reason why it would ever be at Amanda's cottage. Not to mention there is an imprint of a knife at the crime scene that is compatible with all of the wounds and it's not that knife.

To say with a straight face that the evidence showed Amanda's DNA on the murder weapon when discussing the evidence in the case is simply stupid and that's without getting into the DNA result on the blade.

I'd say John Douglas beats out Dershowitz, especially considering Dershowitz apparent lack of depth of understanding of the evidence. All Dershowitz is really saying is that if the prosecution was right then the courts are right. But the prosecution wasn't right.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/JohnDouglas.html

I'm not really deferring to experts in my argument. I'm taking facts agreed upon by both sides and extrapolating from them. The people that believe they are guilty acknowledge that the only pieces of physical evidence are two microscopic traces of DNA, one on a bra, one on a knife. My argument is it is physically impossible that they could have committed the crime and only left these two pieces of evidence. That's it.

I don't really know what motivates me. I guess I hope people will take my posts and learn to think more logically and rationally. Maybe writing this stuff out helps to keep my brain sharp, like playing dominoes. And I have empathy, like most people, it's painful to see two innocent people put through what these two were/are. It's painful to see injustice in the world - maybe writing out my thoughts makes me feel like I'm doing some small part to reduce injustice. Who knows?

LOL at thinking Steve Moore is any kind of expert here, other than an expert BS machine... Your expert is a complete hack:

http://seamusoriley.blogspot.com/201...anda-knox.html

And, I don't claim to know what happened to MK nor do I know enough to conclude whether AK/Rag are guilty or not. I think many of the "guilters" feel the same way, where we are merely pointing out misleading posts and persuasion tactics. Let's have a mock conversation to save a few posts, you said:

But there was physical evidence, so your premise is wrong here. Your whole premise is based on an faulty assumption and hence is meaningless.

Does this sound like very discussion here:

Your side: Here is X, it shows unequivocally shows she's innocent.
My side: But X is not true, so it shows nothing.
Your side: Well explain Y then, you guilter.
My side: X and Y are not related, but Y is not true either.
Your side: You only think she's guilty because of some guilter site.
My side: I don't think she's guilty, I think you're insane.
Your side: Here is X, it shows unequivocally shows she's innocent.
..

This is brilliant. Has to be a Henry gimmick

I'm granting you all your so-called physical evidence. It's all true - Sollecito's DNA on the bra, the victim's DNA on a knife that wasn't the murder weapon, Knox's DNA in the bathroom, whatever else. I admit it's all true.

The probability of their innocence is still 100%. They couldn't have committed the crime and left only this amount of evidence. It's a violation of the laws of physics.

That's a biased website. And I'll repeat John Douglas is a retired hack.

Maybe it is, however it was impossible for the forensics team to collect up all the microscopic evidence in the room. Just isnt possible.

btw did you know that Filomena's DNA wasnt found in her room? That's a violation of physics too, what's up there, eh? The world has gone mad. Or maybe you are just a fruit loop.

Evolution is false because Charles Darwin was a racist. All science books ever written are biased against Jesus Christ.

Can you please point out specifically what about the page I posted is biased? We will wait.

It's my understanding the police didn't even take reference samples from Filomena or Laura so even if they had profiles that were theirs they wouldn't have known.

Note - I don't mean to offend any Christians who may read this thread. I'm attacking an irrational mindset of thinking that is propounded by some people in this thread, and also by some Christian groups.

I'm not religious myself but I have many friends who are, and I have the deepest respect for them and their beliefs.

What's up with extradition proceedings? Is Italy going to get the murderer back or will they go for that final highest court trial possible first?

Steve Moore - retired hack: http://seamusoriley.blogspot.co.uk/2...anda-knox.html

What self respecting website would associate itself with him?

Probably wont start until the final ruling in the Italian courts. There will probably be defence appeals in the USA as well before she is finally extradited.

Hey that's cool, it must be "make a statement and back it up by says its true because of the laws of physics" day. Any other theories you want to back up with your method? So how much evidence are you supposed to find and does this amount vary with what their participation level was in the crime/cleanup? I think this is covered in chapter 4 in an intro physics book:

Chapter 1: Force
Chapter 2: Newton's laws
Chapter 3: Work and energy
Chapter 4: Applying "because of the laws of physics" as evidence

This is more of the same amazing. It doesn't top "it was in a diary therefore must be true" for that special blend of crazy and stupid, but still, some pretty good stuff.

Without commenting on Steve Moore's competence (about which I don't know enough to comment), I can say as a clinical psychologist with some expertise in forensic assessment that Statement Analysis is junk science, and that Peter Hyatt's analysis of Moore's comments are worthless.

Again, while there could be valid reasons to criticize Moore, the provided Statement Analysis on the website mentioned above should not be considered one of them.

No, surprisingly enough, it is you who is being dishonest.

The kitchen knife was accepted as the murder weapon by Massei. Therefore, it can be called "the murder weapon".

Yes, the defence obviously argued that it was not compatible with the larger wound, but this was countered by the various other independent expert witnesses who all agreed it was compatible. It was not compatible with the smaller wound and this is another reason to believe that there was more than one person involved and harms your version. You have had trouble before understanding the difference between a defence argument and a "fact" in the legal sense.

It was at the cottage because either Knox or Sollecito took it there.

The imprint would be compatible with the knife that made the smaller wound.

From the Massei translation PDF:

Dr. Lalli discussed a single- bladed cutting tool with a point, and assumed that those injuries were consistent with a virtually infinite number of instruments provided they had a blade with only one cutting margin, provided that the blade was not serrated. Page 113

She [Dr. Liviero] also argued that the knife seized and shown as Exhibit 36 "brought by the personnel from forensics" was to be considered "clearly compatible" with the deepest wound inflicted on the victim. Page 118

This knife was a kitchen knife with a very voluminous blade. In relation to the biggest wound the compatibility was deemed to exist. [ ] On this specific point, he [Prof. Bacci] concluded substantial compatibility. Page 121

He [Bacci] ruled out that the knife (Exhibit 36) could have caused the wound on the opposite side (still inflicted on the neck but on the right side) because of the size of the wound (1 cm and a half with a depth of 4 cm) and the fact that at 4 cm from the tip the width of the blade of the knife is about 3 cm and therefore much larger than the width of the wound (as indicated, 1.5cm). Page 121

239, Knox's blood was found mixed with Meredith's in Filomena's room. That is a fact. If it's not then please tell me why it's not true.

I'm talking about the specific page on the website that I linked to. What about this specific page is biased. We will wait.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/JohnDouglas.html

I said "something written in a diary cannot be a lie." This is a semantic argument based on the definitions of the words "diary" and "lie."

A "lie" is a communication intended to make someone else believe something that the person communicating knows to be untrue.

A "diary" is something a person writes to record their own thoughts. It's not intended to communicate any information (true or false) to anyone else. It can't be a lie by definition, because it is not made with the intention of making someone believe anything. In can contain statements that may be true or false, but it cannot contain lies.

It's like saying "you lied when you said 'hello' to me this morning." Or "Jimi Hendrix was lying when he sang 'All Along the Watchtower.'" They are all completely incoherent statements.

Anyway, it has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of the accused. Regardless of anything they wrote or didn't write in their diaries, the physical evidence proves their innocence beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Not it was just a stupid thing to say. Get over yourself.