Continuation Part Nine: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

The bloody shoe prints had to be made within minutes of the attack, or else the blood would be too dry. The partial shoe print found with the Crimescope is the same tread pattern and it is found on the pillowcase as well. The substance detected by the Crimescope was once a liquid or gel (whatever its chemical nature) but then also dried. That is how the partial print can be dated.

I agree with you Chris, although I'd have preferred if Vinci was more definitive about the track on the pillowcase. The track is found with the Crimescope suggesting that some material (like semen) that can be seen with that wavelength light. The two other drops that also light up are highly suggestive of semen given the way they dried. That is not easily seen with the nike print though.

From my perspective, both the drops and the track should be tested for DNA and if both belong to the same male person, then the conclusion is relatively easy. Also, can the stains be identified outside of the visual clues to be semen today?

 

[Vibio]

How many times did you imply that this was the conclusion

Vinci says: "therefore in conclusion" and states that the stain cannot be dated. Not Vibio. It's Vinci's report. It's what he says. He doesn't say "penultimate conclusion".

I'm also aware of the following 4 pages. Acbytesla's explanation for those 4 pages might be an accurate explanation. And an answer to my question. But Vinci, as it is written, does not come out and explicitly say that. And I don't understand why not. If it is so, then the stain could be dated to that evening.

If that is the case, and we are so sure that it's Guede (a slam dunk)... then it makes no sense to me that the defense did not request to have the stain tested until the evidence was closed. Nor does it make sense that Hellman would refuse to have the sperm tested. For what reason?

If you notice at the opening of the discussion about this I mentioned I knew little about the stain issue. I've asked questions to gather information. As it stands now, for me it's still a big question mark.

 

[acbytesla]

Could the "semen" stain instead be urine? It is my understanding that when a person dies, the muscles relax and body fluids drain out. It is yellow and in the right place. No?

I suppose we'll never know if they don't *test it*.

Vinci is very convincing why he believes that it is semen. I don't believe that urine would look the same under a crimescope. I don't believe it would light up under the UV light. According to the procedure for using the crimescope, it does not mention urine.

5.6 Guide used for body fluid detection.
5.6.1 Body fluids that may be detected are semen, saliva, sweat, vaginal fluids and feces
http://www.ncdoj.gov/getdoc/f05a175...3cd/Mini-crimescope-procedure-12-18-2013.aspx

 

[Anode]

Vinci is very convincing why he believes that it is semen. I don't believe that urine would look the same under a crimescope. I don't believe it would light up under the UV light. According to the procedure for using the crimescope, it does not mention urine.

Okay, thanks. I thought it did. Cat pee glows under black light.

 

[acbytesla]

Vinci says: "therefore in conclusion" and states that the stain cannot be dated. Not Vibio. It's Vinci's report. It's what he says. He doesn't say "penultimate conclusion".

I'm also aware of the following 4 pages. Acbytesla's explanation for those 4 pages might be an accurate explanation. And an answer to my question. But Vinci, as it is written, does not come out and explicitly say that. And I don't understand why not. If it is so, then the stain could be dated to that evening.

If that is the case, and we are so sure that it's Guede (a slam dunk)... then it makes no sense to me that the defense did not request to have the stain tested until the evidence was closed. Nor does it make sense that Hellman would refuse to have the sperm tested. For what reason? If you notice at the opening of the discussion about this I mentioned I knew little about the stain issue. I've asked questions to gather information. As it stands now, for me it's still a big question mark.

There are two issues here, so let me address them separately.

It is a mistake to come to the conclusion that just because the defense didn't pick up on this earlier that it doesn't have probative value and therefore testing shouldn't have proceeded. That is a red herring. There are and were many facts that should provide enough reasonable doubt that catching every single exculpatory bit of evidence should be irrelevant.

I think Hellmann saw it that way, with the caveat associated with the DNA evidence. I think Hellman came to the conclusion, that the DNA evidence already provides should provide the jury with enough information to make a decision. Which his jury did.

Still I think the judges flat out made a mistake in not ordering the testing. If it is Raffaele's, than its over. But no one thinks it belongs to Raffaele, or otherwise, why would they want it tested.

So here you have a piece of evidence that should have been tested long before the trial. For the life of me, I don't understand why it wasn't tested. A judge or the PM shouldn't have to order this. But here we are after three trials where every single review has tilted toward Amanda and Raffaele. Conti and Vechiotti, the RIS ruled that the 36I did not show any of Meredith's DNA in a test that the SC ruled should be be conclusive.

They should test the droplets and the nike prints for the presence of semen and DNA, if they all match, well then, there is your killer.

 

[acbytesla]

Okay, thanks. I thought it did. Cat pee glows under black light.

My mistake, I said UV light earlier. I should have said Crimescope.

The crimescope is not a black light or UV light. It is a laser that can be tuned to specific multiple frequencies such as 465nm, 532,nm and 635nm. A black light or UV light includes a much broader spectrum all at once.

 

[Anode]

My mistake, I said UV light earlier. I should have said Crimescope.

The crimescope is not a black light or UV light. It is a laser that can be tuned to specific multiple frequencies such as 465nm, 532,nm and 635nm. A black light or UV light includes a much broader spectrum all at once.

No problem. I understand now. The light is adjustable to different EM wavelengths (listed above) to produce frequencies that cause select substances to fluoresce providing CSI folks with a view of the crime scene not available under normal lighting conditions.

So let me sum up: We have the victim's blood with shoe prints. We have several spots of an unknown non-blood substance, one of which also has a matching shoe print. This unknown substance was not tested because the court/police maintain that it has no probative value to the case.

You see, it's things like this that cause me to question this whole guilty verdict thing.

 

[kwill]

The Karl Rove Club



This is a tactic of the PGP. Repeat something that isn't true enough and it starts to feel true. And then because it feels true it must be true.

Or at least something close to it must be true. AK was jealous of Meredith, for example. Or RS is going to withdraw her alibi. Or AK used cocaine. Or RS was into violent porn. Or there's a PR machine.

Not one of those things has any relationship to reality, and yet they're items of faith for certain people. It's not that different from the rationale to invade Iraq that was presented to Americans in 2002/3.

There were definitely WMD. There was definitely a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Saddam was definitely close to getting a nuke. And so on. All repeated publicly for months . . . there are still citizens who can't believe it was all a lie.

 

[acbytesla]

No problem. I understand now. The light is adjustable to different EM wavelengths (listed above) to produce frequencies that cause select substances to fluoresce providing CSI folks with a view of the crime scene not available under normal lighting conditions.

Essentially. Although, I don't think flouresce is the proper term. Basically the Crimescope is designed to provide narrow bands of light that allow us to see what we wouldn't be able to see under normal white light because the other frequencies blind us from seeing the UV light spectrum. A UV light or black light are constructed in the same fashion as normal fluorescent lights, except they use a phosphor on the inner tube surface, which emits UVA light instead of visible white light

The crime scope takes that one step further by selecting a specific frequency, thus allowing us allowing us a finer degree of "specific vision".

 

[platonov]

How would the issue of a groundhog/goldfish tryst fare in a memory test.

View attachment 31377

This is a tactic of the PGP. Repeat something that isn't true enough and it starts to feel true. And then because it feels true it must be true.

Or at least something close to it must be true. AK was jealous of Meredith, for example. Or RS is going to withdraw her alibi. Or AK used cocaine. Or RS was into violent porn. Or there's a PR machine.

Not one of those things has any relationship to reality, and yet they're items of faith for certain people. It's not that different from the rationale to invade Iraq that was presented to Americans in 2002/3.

There were definitely WMD. There was definitely a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Saddam was definitely close to getting a nuke. And so on. All repeated publicly for months . . . there are still citizens who can't believe it was all a lie.

What alibi is that ? Has the mystery man been identified

Whats he called when he's at home [ or out, as the case may be ] ?

 

[acbytesla]

What alibi is that ? Has the mystery man been identified

There is no mystery, but we'll repeat for you since, you are feigning ignorance. Amanda was with Raffaele at the time of the murder.

Unless you are suggesting that Meredith was murdered before she walked home with Sophie Purton around 9 PM.

 

[Desert Fox]

What alibi is that ? Has the mystery man been identified

Whats he called when he's at home [ or out, as the case may be ] ?

I have noticed something . . . .

Most of the pro guilt side will not come out and actually argue a position and will not argue the evidence. Instead, they play word games and use innuendo.

I do not know if there is a specific term for this but it is dishonest debating tactics.

 

[Bill Williams]

View attachment 31377

This is a tactic of the PGP. Repeat something that isn't true enough and it starts to feel true. And then because it feels true it must be true.

Or at least something close to it must be true. AK was jealous of Meredith, for example. Or RS is going to withdraw her alibi. Or AK used cocaine. Or RS was into violent porn. Or there's a PR machine.

Not one of those things has any relationship to reality, and yet they're items of faith for certain people. It's not that different from the rationale to invade Iraq that was presented to Americans in 2002/3.

There were definitely WMD. There was definitely a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Saddam was definitely close to getting a nuke. And so on. All repeated publicly for months . . . there are still citizens who can't believe it was all a lie.

Someone could perhaps make a list of all the things which have been promised as "explosive facts", which will finally sink the PR Supertanker.... each one possessing that quality of "truthiness" which increases with usage....

truthiness - the quality of seeming to be true according to one's intuition, opinion, or perception without regard to logic, factual evidence, or the like​

Wasn't there a claim a while ago that Amanda had been spotted in the car-parkade at the wrong time headed to/away from the cottage when she should have been at Raffaeles? If so, why the need to invent a sex-for-cocaine factoid?

Wasn't there a claim a while ago that Amanda participated in an April Fools' prank that involved a simulated break-in, and that this factoid was going to eventually collapse the defence around her? If so, why the need to invent the car-park video factoid?

Wasn't there a claim a while ago that Amanda was going to rat out Raffaele in a preemptive rat-out-strike? If so, why the need for an April Fools' prank factoid?

Wasn't there a claim a while ago that Raffaele was pulling his alibi for Amanda for after 9 pm on Nov 1, 2007? If so, why the need for the Amanda-rat's-out Raffaele factoid?

Wasn't there a claim a while ago, that Raffaele was purposely publishing his book ahead of Amanda's to both destroy the claims she was going to put in hers, as well as to destroy sales of Amanda's book? If so, why the need for the Raffaele-is-pulling-his alibi-for-her factoid?

Wasn't there a claim a while ago that Amanda's book was going to be a disaster for her, so much so that Harper-Collins was going to pull the plug on her? If so, why the need for the Raffaele's-book-is-going-to-sink-Amanda's book factoid?

Wasn't there a claim a while ago that Amanda had purposely dressed up as a cat-burglar on the first Hallowe'en after her release to mock the Kerchers and Meredith (even though Hallowe'en is not an anniversary of the murder, and Manda was dressed as Seattle Sounder soccer player Roger Levesque? If so, why the need to claim that Amanda's book was going to be a disaster?

Amongst other things, have you ever seen such a dedicated PR effort to spread lies about people (Raffaele and Amanda and anyone who supports them)? If so, why the need to claim that the only reason why the two are (currently) free is because of some imagined reciprocal PR campaign which gags the North American media?

Can you add more factoids which give off great heat when set off, but are virtually forgotten the next day.....

..... all except for the lingering "truthiness" that buttresses the next factoid?

 

[platonov]

But Raffy isnt so sure anymore - if he ever was.

There is no mystery, but we'll repeat for you since, you are feigning ignorance. Amanda was with Raffaele at the time of the murder.
Unless you are suggesting that Meredith was murdered before she walked home with Sophie Purton around 9 PM.

It appears you and I are (for once) in agreement.
More to the point the Italian courts and the one person [RG] who everyone agrees was on the scene at the time also concur on this.

Finally.

 

[Bill Williams]

I have noticed something . . . .

Most of the pro guilt side will not come out and actually argue a position and will not argue the evidence. Instead, they play word games and use innuendo.

I do not know if there is a specific term for this but it is dishonest debating tactics.

To be fair, the intent is not debate. The intent is to highlight in yellow one item in the post, and then make a smart remark about it.....

It's the highlighting in yellow which gives it away....

 

[Dan O.]

Essentially. Although, I don't think flouresce is the proper term. Basically the Crimescope is designed to provide narrow bands of light that allow us to see what we wouldn't be able to see under normal white light because the other frequencies blind us from seeing the UV light spectrum. A UV light or black light are constructed in the same fashion as normal fluorescent lights, except they use a phosphor on the inner tube surface, which emits UVA light instead of visible white light

The crime scope takes that one step further by selecting a specific frequency, thus allowing us allowing us a finer degree of "specific vision".

That's better but not complete.

Basically the problem is that our eyes only have receptors for 3 colors and these each respond to a broad spectrum of light. Further processing within the retina and optical cortex renders our perception of color. But any composite color spectrum that triggers the same response in those three receptors will be perceived as the same color.

Any girl with a makeup mirror will know about the change in color perception under different lighting conditions. The crimescope takes this effect to an extreme by producing narrowly filtered light so that different substances that may appear identical under natural light can be differentiated by their absorption or reflection of the chosen wavelength. Most of the light produced by the CrimeScope is in the visible spectrum.

Florescence occurs when a substance absorbs energy at one wavelength and subsequently emits the energy at another (usually lower) wavelength. Florescence is most easily seen when the substance is absorbing energy outside of our visual range and emitting energy within the visible spectrum. This is why UV light is typically used as a source for viewing florescence. In addition to the many visible spectra, the CrimeScope has a UV setting for viewing florescence in some biological substances.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Forensic light source (FLS)

"FLS is a term used commonly to refer to an illumination system adapted in forensic application, such as laser and high-intensity filtered lamps [2]. A non-laser FLS is sometimes referred as an alternative light source (ALS) [2]. FLS can either make the evidence fluorescence or enhance the contrast of the evidence against the background [3]."Link.

 

[platonov]

What on earth ...

I have noticed something . . . .

Most of the pro guilt side will not come out and actually argue a position and will not argue the evidence. Instead, they play word games and use innuendo.

I do not know if there is a specific term for this but it is dishonest debating tactics.

...led you to believe we were 'debating' ?

 

[acbytesla]

It appears you and I are (for once) in agreement.
More to the point the Italian courts and the one person [RG] who everyone agrees was on the scene at the time also concur on this.

Finally.

Actually, Rudy doesn't say this platanov. In fact, we aren't sure what Rudy says. Since he never really testified to what happened during the murder at trial. He testified to what he wrote in a letter as opposed to testify as to what happened to avoid cross examination. Clever, don't you think?

And even though Rudy admitted being at the cottage when Meredith was murdered, he originally said that Amanda wasn't there. He also has always maintained that Meredith was murdered between 9:20 and 9:30. A time that is consistent with the state of Meredith's digestion and a time where it would be physically impossible for Raffaele and Amanda to be because at that time Raffaele was downloading Naruto.

Why play these games Platanov? How did Amanda and Rudy hook up for this murder? Totally by chance? Why isn't there a single call, text or email between them?

Do you honestly believe that Rudy and Amanda and Raffaele got together at 9:50 killed Meredith at 10:30 and then Rudy splits and Amanda and Raffaele hang out and just clean up their own footprints and DNA leaving only Rudy's? And if so, why would Amanda point out Rudy to the police during questioning?

And then how is possible that Curatolo saw Amanda and Raffaele multiple times between 9:30 and 11:30?

You might get one piece to fit somewhat Platanov, but the majority of the pieces just don't go together.

 

[acbytesla]

That's better but not complete.

Basically the problem is that our eyes only have receptors for 3 colors and these each respond to a broad spectrum of light. Further processing within the retina and optical cortex renders our perception of color. But any composite color spectrum that triggers the same response in those three receptors will be perceived as the same color.

Any girl with a makeup mirror will know about the change in color perception under different lighting conditions. The crimescope takes this effect to an extreme by producing narrowly filtered light so that different substances that may appear identical under natural light can be differentiated by their absorption or reflection of the chosen wavelength. Most of the light produced by the CrimeScope is in the visible spectrum.

Florescence occurs when a substance absorbs energy at one wavelength and subsequently emits the energy at another (usually lower) wavelength. Florescence is most easily seen when the substance is absorbing energy outside of our visual range and emitting energy within the visible spectrum. This is why UV light is typically used as a source for viewing florescence. In addition to the many visible spectra, the CrimeScope has a UV setting for viewing florescence in some biological substances.

Thanks Dan, I understand the concepts involved, but describing it was a challenge. Maybe I shouldn't have tried.

I play around with animation, video and image editing programs and lighting makes a huge difference. I feel like I've barely scratched the surface of understanding its role.