Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
shared laundry facility

halides1 said:
loverofzion,

When you raised this point before, I rebutted it in comment 23656 a week ago, as well as several time before that. With which parts of my answer did you not agree?
Click to expand...

loverofzion,

Fulcanelli was a major proponent of the shared laundry facility argument to explain how unidentified DNA came to be in the clasp. Do you think his argument was ignorant?
 
quadraginta said:
I'm more than familiar with the 911 calls., and with Anthony's other transgressions. Your use of the qualifier "virtually" is all that makes your assertion of "everybody" utterly mistaken. It isn't difficult to find statements by friends of Casey who were stunned that she would be believed to be capable of such a crime.

That is moot though, because all I addressed was her parents' statements about her behavior as a mother. If you dig some more, though, you will actually find that even those are somewhat dubious, since there is reason to believe that at one time her mother had contemplated taking legal action to get custody of Caylee. But that is an entirely different story.





I know what the stats are. I've discussed this subject in these threads in the past. That is the reason I pointed out earlier in this exchange that LE has an entirely different expectation about filicide than the general public. I'm surprised that this escaped you.

This has a certain relevance to the Knox case. Unlike the perceptions of the general public, when LE is confronted with a home attack their first instincts are not to suspect a stranger, because the culprit is most often ... by a huge margin ... someone who is close to the victim. Apparent evidence of a break-in does not override this instinct. Attempts to shift suspicion are also far from uncommon. If those attempts are not persuasive then they properly return to the procedures that experience has shown to be most successful.

We frequently read in these threads about Knox advocates' puzzlement that Knox would be in the sights of the ILE at all, much less at the onset. We need look no further than this for an explanation. Any competent investigator would first be looking carefully at her, the other roommates, and Meredith's close friends.
Click to expand...

Let's not forget that amanda and raf were sitting there at the cottage mid day, with a mop and pail, wen the Postal Police arrived.
 
loverofzion said:
Maybe they threw out the blood stained clothes they wore that night.
Click to expand...

I wonder where they threw them?

I saw on the news the other day that the police in Bristol are searching through some 100 tons of rubbish (garbage) in an attempt to find a missing pizza (and its packaging) which they think may be linked to the murder of Joanna Yeates, together with any other potential evidence linked to the crime.

I wonder how many tons of waste (from skips, city rubbish bins or municipal dumps/landfills the Perugia police searched through in November 2007 in an attempt to find blood-stained clothing that might have been worn that night, or for the knives or keys? I've got a funny feeling that I know the answer to this question already.
 
quadraginta said:
I'm more than familiar with the 911 calls., and with Anthony's other transgressions. Your use of the qualifier "virtually" is all that makes your assertion of "everybody" utterly mistaken. It isn't difficult to find statements by friends of Casey who were stunned that she would be believed to be capable of such a crime.

That is moot though, because all I addressed was her parents' statements about her behavior as a mother. If you dig some more, though, you will actually find that even those are somewhat dubious, since there is reason to believe that at one time her mother had contemplated taking legal action to get custody of Caylee. But that is an entirely different story.





I know what the stats are. I've discussed this subject in these threads in the past. That is the reason I pointed out earlier in this exchange that LE has an entirely different expectation about filicide than the general public. I'm surprised that this escaped you.

This has a certain relevance to the Knox case. Unlike the perceptions of the general public, when LE is confronted with a home attack their first instincts are not to suspect a stranger, because the culprit is most often ... by a huge margin ... someone who is close to the victim. Apparent evidence of a break-in does not override this instinct. Attempts to shift suspicion are also far from uncommon. If those attempts are not persuasive then they properly return to the procedures that experience has shown to be most successful.

We frequently read in these threads about Knox advocates' puzzlement that Knox would be in the sights of the ILE at all, much less at the onset. We need look no further than this for an explanation. Any competent investigator would first be looking carefully at her, the other roommates, and Meredith's close friends.
Click to expand...

Let's not forget that amanda and raf were sitting there at the cottage mid day, with a mop and pail, when the Postal Police arrived.
 
Justinian2 said:
That's not the way it works in the scientific community. All you have to do is prove that an exception is possible and the side supporting the supposition (the Bra Sting Theory) is then required to provide the explaination if they want their theory to be considered valid.

It is not necessary to show that there are MANY plausible ways that the prosecution's theory is potentially invalid. The prosecution needs more proof if they want their theory to be considered valid.

Brainwashing is the alternative to science and seems to have be the focus of the prosecution's case.
Click to expand...

The prosecution needs no more proof if the laboratory was a legitimate, approved one which subscribed to the scientific standards.

You don't sem to understand at all how things work in the scientific community. Assuming an exception is possible does not require either side to provide further explanation.
 
Kaosium said:
She was introduced at a party, she spent her time with Meredith, a spinello was smoked at the party. Maybe she saw him at Le Chic once, no contact implied.

'Barely knew' suffices for me.



Yes, now we're waiting. ;)

Your contention was they'd been bong buddies on numerous occasions, was it not? Your claim crashed and burned with its evidence.
Click to expand...

What is your point? It has been established that amanda was acquainted with Rudy, had smoked with him on at least one occasion , met him at the pub and most likely saw him on the basketball court on her way to school regularly.

What exactly is your point?
 
Justinian2 said:
Originally Posted by Justinian2
Women share clothes. Why not share a bra? (Raffaele's DNA would be expected on Amanda's bra or a bra that Amanda once borrowed from Meredith)

The prosecution didn't provide evidence that the bra was never borrowed. Absence of evidence is...​



No, but I also don't share my perfume, fashion magazines, or shoes. I also don't go to the bathroom all the time with them.

Ever hear the expression "Something old, something new, something borrowed and something blue"?
Click to expand...

The expression refers to what a woman wears on her wedding day.

You are really making quite a stretch here. Perfume and shoes do not equal underwear shared.
 
loverofzion said:
Maybe they threw out the blood stained clothes they wore that night.
Click to expand...

Another theory! The prosecution needs more than theories! They are the ones that have to have a theory that can't be shaken. The game isn't to shake the theory that shakes the theory!

The prosecution has a theory that relies on a chain of events. If the defense breaks any link in that theory, the prosecution's case is smashed.

When would Amanda and Raffaele have time to stage and clean up everything without being observed?

You and I could be suspects too, but for absence of evidence - like the absence of airline tickets to Perugia.
 
treehorn said:
I guess you missed this part of my post:


...regardless of whether the passage is referring to Marco or his friend Giorgio, ONE of them testified in open court that he saw Rudy socializing with Amanda "...two or three times..."
Click to expand...

Treehorn, you must have missed what I posted on this earlier; there's an error in the translation you're citing. Here's the sentence:

Frequentando la casa di Via della Pergola 7 vi aveva visto Rudi due o tre volte e in una di queste occasioni c'erano anche Amanda e Meredith...

Visiting the house on Via della Pergola 7, [Giorgio] had seen Rudy there two or three times, and on one of these occasions Amanda and Meredith were also there...
Click to expand...

The bolded phrase means 'on one of these occasions', not 'on these occasions' (that would be 'in queste occasioni', as when Massei writes a few pages earlier, "In queste occasioni ricordava che erano state presenti tutte e quattro le ragazze" / "On these occasions he remembered that all four girls were present").

Giorgio saw Rudy at the house two or three times, and on only one of these occasions were Amanda and Meredith there too. No one "testified in open court" that Amanda, Meredith and Rudy hung out at the house smoking pot together two or three times, no matter how many times you say that was the case.
 
Last edited:
Justinian2 said:
Women don't wear underwear or T-shirts. They wear panties and bras.

Women borrow stuff.

College men steal panties and bras from dorm rooms.

Things get mixed up in the laundry.

There are all types of ways the bras could have been mixed up.

The myth that the bra clasp DNA was put there by Raffaele while he was helping Guede kill Meredith is busted until the prosecution can answer every challenge to their theory.
Click to expand...


It's no myth, and it isn't busted.
 
halides1 said:
colonelhall,

Does Italy classify marijuana as a narcotic or is it some other nation, such as the United States, that does so? I suggest we stick to the medical definition of the word narcotic or to the Italian legal definition. If marijuana does not fit under either category, then using "narcotic" in reference to marijuana is inappropriate.
Click to expand...

This has been discussed fully. I followed the discussion and agreed with the original poster, who explained his use of the word quite clearly. Other arguments held no weight, as far as i was concerned.
 
Dan O. said:
Apparently some people aren't as squeamish as yourself.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...father-passionate-attack-cult-Foxy-Knoxy.html



We've seen that large suitcase being stuffed with Meredith's clothes. How many of Meredith's bras and undies do we see being stuffed in there?


I don't claim to be a woman so I really have no basis to judge if a woman would be willing to wear a bra that another woman had previously worn. But I do know one non-subjective way to find out. I will stop at a second hand store and see if they sell used bras.
Click to expand...

And if that second hand store does sell used bras, what would you then reason about amanda's habits?
 
LondonJohn said:
Very misleading. I think you'll find that if you were to look at the breakdown of murders, it's incredibly rare for friends to murder friends. When statistics refer to "people who know each other", it's almost always partners, ex-partners, or jealous lovers (or jealous people who had fantasised about being the victim's lover, and who might perhaps have been spurned by the victim).

In a far smaller amount of "known to the victim" cases, the perpetrator is a family member (mothers or fathers killing children, adult children killing parents, sibling murder over jealousy or inheritance). And an even smaller bracket would include an acquaintance of the same sex killing someone over rivalry towards the same third person (e.g. love triangles, or one person's jealousy over another person's partner). Lastly, of course, people acquainted with each other can kill each other over significant matters of money or status - the classic example of which might be the right to "own" a patch of turf for drug-dealing, or - amongst young males in particular - for leadership of the gang or group.

But I'd suggest that it's only in a vanishingly small number of murder cases that friends kill friends without one of these factors being present. In the Kercher case, Knox and Meredith were unrelated, had known each other for all of six weeks, and were not known to be competing for the same male. Similarly, Sollecito barely knew Meredith, had just started what appeared to be a fulfilling and exciting relationship with Knox, and had exhibited no prior history of having a sexual interest in Meredith. Guede, on the other hand, was not in a relationship with a woman, by all accounts had difficulty in forming relationships with women, and had (by all accounts) a reputation for hassling women in an inappropriate and sexually-suggestive manner.
Click to expand...

Even IF your reasoning is true, and that it's only "a vanishingly small number of murder cases that friends kill friends", that still says nothing about the fa ts of this case.
Plus it has been established that there WAS a jealousy factor; Meredith was simply speaking, better liked and a more serious, self respecting student than amanda ever was.
 
Justinian2 said:
Originally Posted by Justinian2
Women don't wear underwear or T-shirts. They wear panties and bras.

Women borrow stuff.

College men steal panties and bras from dorm rooms.

Things get mixed up in the laundry.

There are all types of ways the bras could have been mixed up.

The myth that the bra clasp DNA was put there by Raffaele while he was helping Guede kill Meredith is busted until the prosecution can answer every challenge to their theory.​


Any women on this thread ever borrow a bra, have one borrowed or know someone who did?

Any woman on this thread ever mix up sox or other garmets in the wash?
Click to expand...


No. As a woman I can say with absolute certainty that I have never borrfowed a bra, not even from sisters.
Your understanding of forensics seems quite fairy tale-like; put out some unlikely circumstnaces and hoopla- you have undermined all the experts.
 
katy_did said:
Treehorn, you must have missed what I posted on this earlier; there's an error in the translation you're citing. Here's the sentence:



The bolded phrase means 'on one of these occasions', not 'on these occasions' (that would be 'in queste occasioni', as when Massei writes a few pages earlier, "In queste occasioni ricordava che erano state presenti tutte e quattro le ragazze" / "On these occasions he remembered that all four girls were present").

Giorgio saw Rudy at the house two or three times, and on only one of these occasions were Amanda and Meredith there too. No one "testified in open court" that Amanda, Meredith and Rudy hung out at the house smoking pot together two or three times, no matter how many times you say that was the case.
Click to expand...

Why nitpick?
amanda herself offered freely that she had smoked with him on at least one occasion, had met him at the pub and in all probablility had seen him on the basketball court where he was a regular fixture- on a daily basis.
That establishes their prior acquaintanceship.
Whether they smoked together once, twice or three times is not the point here.
 
RoseMontague said:
Actually they put the mop up when they arrived at the cottage, well before the arrival of the police.
Click to expand...

Put the mop up where?
Fact remains they were there, sitting with the mop and pail when the postal police arived.
Suspicious in a house where one's roommate lay dead behind a door that had never been closed the whole time she was in Italy, no?
 
Justinian2 said:
Another theory! The prosecution needs more than theories! They are the ones that have to have a theory that can't be shaken. The game isn't to shake the theory that shakes the theory!

The prosecution has a theory that relies on a chain of events. If the defense breaks any link in that theory, the prosecution's case is smashed.

When would Amanda and Raffaele have time to stage and clean up everything without being observed?

You and I could be suspects too, but for absence of evidence - like the absence of airline tickets to Perugia.
Click to expand...

Amanda and raf had the entire night and inot the next day at mid day to do the cleaning up.
Lack of time was never a factor there.
No one was home remember? The boys downstairs and the two Italian roommates were gone that night.
Plenty of time to stage and clean up unobserved.
 
Italian laws on marijuana

treehorn said:
I'm using the word, "narcotic" in its legal rather than medical sense.

Nothing to be afraid of.

Have a look at the criminal code in your jurisdiction. It will all become clear to you.
Click to expand...

treehorn and colonelhall,

We are talking about a case in Italy, not in my jurisdiction.

Italy

"Drug legislation in Italy makes a distinction between hard and soft drugs. Drug use is not an offense, but acquisition and possession of drugs are offenses. The law bases maximum limits for possession on a reference dose calculated from the user's average daily intake of the drug.

Cannabis and cannabis products are classified as a Schedule II drug under Italian law. Following the established maximum limits for possession, possession of 1.5 grams of cannabis leaf or .5 grams of resin may result in simply a warning or administrative penalty (suspension of drivers license for example). Possessing larger amounts than the established daily dose or repeat offenses are penalized with a progressive scale of sanctions. Obtaining a drug for personal use is distinct from acquisition for a third party. The former (provided the amount is consistent with the indicated reference dose) may be only a minor offense, while the latter could be interpreted as trafficking and subject to more severe penalties. The penalty for trafficking in cannabis and other soft drugs is up to six years imprisonment and a fine of Lit 10 million-150 million."

From the Times online

Nearly 10 per cent of Italians smoke cannabis regularly, according to a recent survey. A third of Italian teenagers between the ages of 15 and 19 say they have smoked it at least once.
 
halides1 said:
Does Italy classify marijuana as a narcotic or is it some other nation, such as the United States, that does so? I suggest we stick to the medical definition of the word narcotic or to the Italian legal definition. If marijuana does not fit under either category, then using "narcotic" in reference to marijuana is inappropriate.
Click to expand...

From what I can gather in a quick search Italy has changed it's laws on this several times in the last 5 years or so. Based on what I read, a small amount for personal use and not in public is allowed. Some reports indicate as many as 1 in 10 Italians smoke pot and as many as 1 in 3 teens in Italy have at least tried it.
 
Justinian2 said:
Another theory! The prosecution needs more than theories! They are the ones that have to have a theory that can't be shaken. The game isn't to shake the theory that shakes the theory!

The prosecution has a theory that relies on a chain of events. If the defense breaks any link in that theory, the prosecution's case is smashed.

When would Amanda and Raffaele have time to stage and clean up everything without being observed?

You and I could be suspects too, but for absence of evidence - like the absence of airline tickets to Perugia.
Click to expand...

Amanda and raf had the entire night and into the next day at mid day to do the cleaning up.
Lack of time was never a factor there.
No one was home remember? The boys downstairs and the two Italian roommates were gone that night.
Plenty of time to stage and clean up unobserved.

So far the prosecution has a very, very strong case.
 
LondonJohn said:
I wonder where they threw them?

I saw on the news the other day that the police in Bristol are searching through some 100 tons of rubbish (garbage) in an attempt to find a missing pizza (and its packaging) which they think may be linked to the murder of Joanna Yeates, together with any other potential evidence linked to the crime.

I wonder how many tons of waste (from skips, city rubbish bins or municipal dumps/landfills the Perugia police searched through in November 2007 in an attempt to find blood-stained clothing that might have been worn that night, or for the knives or keys? I've got a funny feeling that I know the answer to this question already.
Click to expand...

You just answered your own question.
Threw them into the bins of course!
 
that dog won't hunt

colonelhall said:
This has been discussed fully. I followed the discussion and agreed with the original poster, who explained his use of the word quite clearly. Other arguments held no weight, as far as i was concerned.
Click to expand...

Your contention is false, twice over. Treehorn only said he used the legal definition; he did not specify a country. Even if Italy were to class marijuana as a narcotic legally, the question would remain, "Why use the legal, not the medical, definition?"
 
halides1 said:
Your contention is false, twice over. Treehorn only said he used the legal definition; he did not specify a country. Even if Italy were to class marijuana as a narcotic legally, the question would remain, "Why use the legal, not the medical, definition?"
Click to expand...


Because this is a matter of law.
How would it be classified in a medical definition?
 
halides1 said:
loverofzion,

Fulcanelli was a major proponent of the shared laundry facility argument to explain how unidentified DNA came to be in the clasp. Do you think his argument was ignorant?
Click to expand...


I would answer if I saw his argument and didn't only hear it from you.
 
documentation and controls

loverofzion said:
The prosecution needs no more proof if the laboratory was a legitimate, approved one which subscribed to the scientific standards.

You don't sem to understand at all how things work in the scientific community. Assuming an exception is possible does not require either side to provide further explanation.
Click to expand...

loverofzion,

The laboratory failed to document any controls that they might or might not have done. These include negative controls that test for contamination. They also failed to turn over critical documentation to the defense, which runs contrary to international norms, as noted by Professor Dan Krane. You must have also missed the discussion of laboratory standards last month.
 
loverofzion said:
Why nitpick?
amanda herself offered freely that she had smoked with him on at least one occasion, had met him at the pub and in all probablility had seen him on the basketball court where he was a regular fixture- on a daily basis.
That establishes their prior acquaintanceship.
Whether they smoked together once, twice or three times is not the point here.
Click to expand...

I'm not nitpicking, only clarifying. However, personally I think there is a bit of a difference between on the one hand Amanda recognizing Rudy by sight and exchanging a few words with him, and on the other Meredith, Rudy and Amanda all hanging out together on several occasions at the boys' house to smoke pot.
 
shuttlt said:
Do I really need to argue for the existence of beliefs and thoughts that we post-hoc put rationalized stories around and are really not the result of logical processes of deduction?
Click to expand...

Inference -- including judgements under uncertainty -- is governed by strict mathematical rules, whether you're intuitively aware of it or not. You can call this "logical processes of deduction" if you like, because Bayes' theorem is as "logical" as any other mathematical result.

You do not need to argue for the existence of beliefs that are generated by processes that don't tend to produce accurate beliefs; what you do need to argue is that any of Kevin's or my beliefs about this case actually fall into that category.

I am saying that mindset and preconceptions are inevitable parts of our thinking... I further haven't said that one persons instinct, preconceptions, or whatever are as good as anothers.
Click to expand...

You are clearly trying to imply that (e.g.) Kevin's beliefs are overconfident; you don't think that Kevin and other strong innocence believers have adequate justification for their (our) level of confidence. That's what it comes down to. Yet, the only arguments that you've provided for this conclusion are that (1) a bunch of other people believe differently, and (2) there aren't scientific studies specifically covering the exact situations involved in the case. Both of these arguments are irrelevant: (1) is irrelevant because we don't think guilters' opinions are worth much as evidence, for reasons that we could go into but should frankly be obvious from their posts; and (2) is irrelevant because we are able to offer specific arguments both for our conclusions and for our level of confidence in our conclusions, and hence if you want to object you have to object to our arguments, rather than demanding a specific kind of support (scientific studies on whatever narrow situation we're talking about) that we don't believe is necessary in the first place.

I don't have sufficient knowledge to provide such a list. To restrict the question further, I'm not sure that I would trust myself to commit to a range of two orders of magnitude on the odds of the bra clasp/Raffaele's DNA thing being down to contamination. 90%-0.9% is insufficient to cover my level of intellectual uncertainty. If I was pushed, I would say that I don't think it is down to contamination. I see no way that isn't based on what I happen to find plausible for being more certain on this.
Click to expand...

Then you should be explaining what you find plausible and why.

And yes, you do indeed have sufficient knowledge to provide such a list. If you have an opinion on the case (which, by the way, includes things like "0.1% probability of guilt is too low"), then you have reasons for that opinion. I'd like to know what those reasons are.
 
Last edited:
loverofzion said:
Put the mop up where?
Fact remains they were there, sitting with the mop and pail when the postal police arived.
Suspicious in a house where one's roommate lay dead behind a door that had never been closed the whole time she was in Italy, no?
Click to expand...

No, they were not sitting there with the mop and pail in hand when the police arrived.
 
LondonJohn said:
Quite. And just to be clear, I think it's entirely proper that the police took a look at Meredith's entire circle of friends and acquaintances, and that they took an especially close look at her housemates. And if they'd found that one of Meredith's housemates was demonstrably jealous of Meredith's new relationship with her Italian boyfriend (especially if that housemate were single and had little success with men herself), or even if they'd perhaps found that one of the housemates had been involved in a heated argument with Meredith - maybe in the course of which Meredith might have inflicted some sort of perceived humiliation upon the housemate - then these would have served as clear pointers towards that particular housemate.

Instead, they found clear evidence of four housemates who got on perfectly fine - with the very limited caveat of the niggling annoyances that are almost always present when four strangers live together in a small house. All four were in seemingly happy and contented (and, by all accounts, sexually-fulfilling) relationships, with no signs or indicators of jealousy or heightened sexual tension.
Click to expand...


Well not quite that sunny with the 4 girls.
Meredith's friends all testified that Meredith and they found amanda to be irritating, bringing home strange men to the cottage, not cleaning her share, etc etc. It is known that Merdith chose not to respond to amanda's invite to spend Halloween night together.
 
shuttlt said:
There really was a mop moving between the apartments? I had thought that that was a myth.
Click to expand...

Check out how much emphasis was put on that mop in amanda's storytelling.
It obviously had some strong component in the case; it has been theorized that amanda bought or switched mop heads after they pair had cleaned up the murder scene.
 
another strikeout

loverofzion said:
Well not quite that sunny with the 4 girls.
Meredith's friends all testified that Meredith and they found amanda to be irritating, bringing home strange men to the cottage, not cleaning her share, etc etc. It is known that Merdith chose not to respond to amanda's invite to spend Halloween night together.
Click to expand...

loverofzion,

False. Meredith thought one man that Amanda invited over was strange, but both Amanda and the man (his nickname was shaky, IIRC) are clear that he was a friend, not a boyfriend. I hope your batting average improves.
 
loverofzion said:
You just answered your own question.
Threw them into the bins of course!
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, if the Perugia police didn't bother to search thoroughly enough for evidence such as blood-stained clothing, knives or keys, then that doesn't give them (or you) a free pass to suggest that Knox and Sollecito dumped some or all of these items in city refuse. This would indeed be a whole new paradigm: "Absence of evidence is evidence of presence of evidence" :D
 
Justinian2 said:
The "Bra string theory" that the prosecution sold as "fact" has several plausible breaks in addition to what I have just posted. The gloves or test vessels in the lab could have been contaminated. This DNA test showed LCN DNA so there are many ways that contamination could have happened. The "evidence" was on the floor of the bedroom for weeks and perhaps swept across the floor a time or two. An employee, under pressure from a senior, could have contributed a molecule of Raffaele's DNA.

Perhaps Raffaele was behind Meredith and sneezed or patted her on the back or put his hand on her back to gently motion her to one side or say 'hello'.

The proscecution needs to prove that this key evidence is solid, otherwise nobody should believe them.
Click to expand...

Patted her on the back or put his hand on her back to gently motion her??!
Are you for real.
He would have had to put his hand on her BRA in order for his DNA to stick.
That, at leat has never been presented as plausible by any of the defense team.
 
definition of a naracotic

loverofzion said:
Because this is a matter of law.
How would it be classified in a medical definition?
Click to expand...

loverofzion,

It is a matter of Italian law. Here is a medical definition.

narcotic (narc)
[narkot′ik]
Etymology: Gk, narkotikos, benumbing
1 adj, pertaining to a substance that produces insensibility or stupor.
2 n, a narcotic drug. Narcotic analgesics, derived from opium or produced synthetically, alter perception of pain; induce euphoria, mood changes, mental clouding, and deep sleep; depress respiration and the cough reflex; constrict the pupils and cause smooth muscle spasm, decreased peristalsis, emesis, and nausea. Repeated use of narcotics may result in physical and psychologic dependence. Among the narcotic drugs administered clinically for relief of pain are butorphanol tartrate, hydromorphone hydrochloride, morphine sulfate, pentazocine lactate, and meperidine hydrochloride. These drugs act by binding to opiate receptors in the central nervous system; narcotic antagonists such as naloxone hydrochloride, which is used in treating narcotic overdosage, apparently displace opiates from receptor sites. The term is now often used to refer to any illicit drug, and its use is therefore discouraged in medical settings. Opioid is now the preferred term.
Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition. © 2009, Elsevier.
 
Justinian2 said:
The "Bra string theory" that the prosecution sold as "fact" has several plausible breaks in addition to what I have just posted. The gloves or test vessels in the lab could have been contaminated. This DNA test showed LCN DNA so there are many ways that contamination could have happened. The "evidence" was on the floor of the bedroom for weeks and perhaps swept across the floor a time or two. An employee, under pressure from a senior, could have contributed a molecule of Raffaele's DNA.

Perhaps Raffaele was behind Meredith and sneezed or patted her on the back or put his hand on her back to gently motion her to one side or say 'hello'.

The proscecution needs to prove that this key evidence is solid, otherwise nobody should believe them.
Click to expand...

Patted her on the back or put his hand on her back to gently motion her??!
Are you for real.
He would have had to put his hand on her BRA in order for his DNA to stick.
That, at least has never been presented as plausible by any of the defense team.
 
loverofzion said:
Check out how much emphasis was put on that mop in amanda's storytelling.
It obviously had some strong component in the case; it has been theorized that amanda bought or switched mop heads after they pair had cleaned up the murder scene.
Click to expand...

Aren't you kinda starting out with the presumption of guilt, there, and then using that presumption as evidence of guilt? If they're not guilty, Amanda is probably just telling the truth about the mop (what she says is supported by the leak in the pipes at Raffaele's place, after all). It certainly makes little sense in a pro-guilt narrative, which is why implausible mop-switching theories have to be invented to explain it.
 
halides1 said:
loverofzion,

It is a matter of Italian law. Here is a medical definition.

narcotic (narc)
[narkot′ik]
Etymology: Gk, narkotikos, benumbing
1 adj, pertaining to a substance that produces insensibility or stupor.
2 n, a narcotic drug. Narcotic analgesics, derived from opium or produced synthetically, alter perception of pain; induce euphoria, mood changes, mental clouding, and deep sleep; depress respiration and the cough reflex; constrict the pupils and cause smooth muscle spasm, decreased peristalsis, emesis, and nausea. Repeated use of narcotics may result in physical and psychologic dependence. Among the narcotic drugs administered clinically for relief of pain are butorphanol tartrate, hydromorphone hydrochloride, morphine sulfate, pentazocine lactate, and meperidine hydrochloride. These drugs act by binding to opiate receptors in the central nervous system; narcotic antagonists such as naloxone hydrochloride, which is used in treating narcotic overdosage, apparently displace opiates from receptor sites. The term is now often used to refer to any illicit drug, and its use is therefore discouraged in medical settings. Opioid is now the preferred term.
Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition. © 2009, Elsevier.
Click to expand...

And this medical definition helps amanda- how?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom