Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

Another way of judging the weight of the negative TMB results is to remember that Stefanoni suppressed them.

My information is she was the one who gave them to the defence.

 

[Machiavelli]

Yet again, you do not get it. Over the course of thousands of posts here and elsewhere which resort to bafflingly nonsensical rhetoric - boasting internally contradictory logic, charges of racism, and insults to posters like Halkides whose knowledge and expertise exceeds your own in every respect but sophistry, & etc. - you have made your own absurd and obtuse approach to this case the topic of any attempted discussion with you. It is nothing more or less than a waste of brain cells to read what you write.

Especially if you have no counter arguments.

 

[Machiavelli]

Mach

Her testimony is the basis of your case on luminol. If citing her isn't enough then it's not me who is being irrational. (...)

Citing Stefanoni, obviously does not make an argumant, certainly not a scientific or rational argument, and so yes you are irrational. You bring no argument to the point. There is little I can do to help that.

TMB is far less sensitive, and it is less specific than luminol. Moreover it reacts to the same substances and is indirect. You have evidence of no substance on the scne that reacts with luminol and not with TMB. You are unable to imagine a single substance that is known having that property, existing on the Earth (and you would ned a common substance).

These are the facts. That's what you should address (not Stefanoni's phrase).
And we have still haven't talked about the other physical information from the luminol footprints.

 

[anglolawyer]

I became 100% sure she was a murderer in summer 2009, after I listened to Knox's court testimony. At that point (after hearing her testimony) I looked back at other evidence, I read her hand written memory and I read her mop-shower story and reads parts of the papers of her Dec. 17. interrogation, and I started to look at the luminol footprints. Then I looked at the autopsy report findings and physical details of the scene.
I already believed there was very strong circumstantial evidence, but didn't know if she had a full role in the murder or maybe just a minor involvement of some kind.
But it was based on a) the autopsy, and on b) her testimony + her mop-shower story + Dec. 17. interrogation, and c) luminol prints, that I became 100% sure that she was fully involved in the murder. I have reached this complete certainty short after hearing court testimony.

a) the autopsy that most experts agree did not suggest multiple attackers
b) if she were guilty she would not have the story she told and there would be clear evidence that falsified it, not frauds like Curatolo and Quintavalle, but CCTV in Corso Garibaldi or a slip in one of the telephone intercepts
c) about which you are demonstrably wrong

You are an enigma, Mach.

 

[MDDVS]

Citing her obviously does not make an argumant, certianly not a scientific or rational argument, and so yes you are irrational. You bring no argument to the point. There is little I can do to help that.

It is not rational or scientific to claim that the luminol stains were made in blood.

 

[carbonjam72]

What to expect? WHo knows....

While we're rejecting things in advance based on known modus operandi, I wish to state that I know that the Italian supreme court is going to issue a foolish, embarrassing, illegal and generally retarded opinion next year.

Not so fast DioC. What counts is that there must not be a contradiction between what is happening in the courts, and what the public believes to be true.

Mignini's Narducci trail investigations have been dead-ended, for good, only this summer. Mignini has been promoted out of his ability to initiate any more of those crazy cases, so as it now stands, Mignini's theory of satanic sex cult murder, however gauzily related to the Kercher murder, is over, and its not coming back.

When Micheli's rejection of Mignini's claims in the 'Florence 20' case, was overturned by the ISC in March of 2013, the Narducci claims were sent back to trial, although rigged for acquittal - which happened.

Also in March of 2013, when the Hellman acquittal was overturned by ISC, it was sent down for retrial, but rigged for conviction.

Both cases went in the same direction: preserving the fiction that Mignini's satanic murder fairy tales might be true.
It's not at all clear Nencini didn't deliberately torpedo his own convicting motivation report with so many logical stink bombs solely to facilite a reversal yet again at the ISC.

Think about it this way, the ISC now has everything it wanted. Meredith's virtue has been restored from a sex game gone wrong, to a girl of 'almost puritanical morality'. The satanic angle is long removed, even earlier by Micheli, apparently acting as Mignini's baby sitter in both the pre-trial Kercher and the pre-trial 'Florence 20' cases.

The only question left is does the ISC really want innocent people to languish in prison, when the whole most of the world, the rational world, knows they are innocent.

There's no longer any contradiction in the courts, its been resolved by the end of the Narducci claims, and by Mignini's removal from prosecutorial discretion. There's no longer any judicial necessity for holding onto a flawed conviction against Amanda and Raf.

So our expectation that a result will be rational or irrational, is to concede the point that the trials, convictions, and judicial reasoning were even honest, and not just amateur theater to suit the Italian political and cultural necessities of the moment.

Granted, they (ISC) may be that dumb. Bu they may not.

Just saying I'm not so sure, and I wouldn't be either if I were you.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

I became 100% sure she was a murderer in summer 2009, after I listened to Knox's court testimony. At that point (after hearing her testimony) I looked back at other evidence, I read her hand written memory and I read her mop-shower story and reads parts of the papers of her Dec. 17. interrogation, and I started to look at the luminol footprints. Then I looked at the autopsy report findings and physical details of the scene.

I already believed there was very strong circumstantial evidence, but didn't know if she had a full role in the murder or maybe just a minor involvement of some kind.

But it was based on a) the autopsy, and on b) her testimony + her mop-shower story + Dec. 17. interrogation, and c) luminol prints, that I became 100% sure that she was fully involved in the murder. I have reached this complete certainty short after hearing court testimony.

-

I would never say 100%, unless I was there, but I appreciate your honesty.

My biggest problem (from the beginning, and still is) was the way she acted after they found Meredith's body. It was very very odd and not like most people would act after their roommate had been killed, but then again I have no idea how I would act in such a circumstance, but I would be dishonest if I said that it's not probable that I would have acted any differently. I'm a very odd person myself.

Plus, and as a purely psychologically experiment, I have studied how different people react and act at funerals and wakes, and some people act just like Amanda did. And at some of those funerals or wakes, some people who were the deceased best friend and/ or boy/ girlfriend, never even showed up at either.

Some people just don't act or speak well or coherently under pressure, especially in a courtroom setting, so unless she stood up in court and declared she killed Meredith right then and there, I take any of the testimony said in court with a big glass of salt water.

Some of the problems I myself have with Raffaele and Amanda's guilt I've already discussed HERE, so I won't go over them again, but I think it's possible she may have gone back to her apartment later and discovered the body, or heard strange scary sounds coming from behind Meredith's locked door, and decided not to say anything for some reason (but I wouldn't send her away for 26 years for that), but I find it highly improbable they or she killed her.

But, that's all just my opinion.

One thing that would definitely sway me, would be if they actually opened the knife they say was used to kill Meredith (actually any knife they found in Raffaele's apartment) and found an abundant amount of both Meredith's blood and DNA under there, that would do it.

But I wouldn't want Dr. S to do it. She's just too controversial, in my opinion. I would want someone appointed by the ISC to do it, and then have their work video taped, checked and double checked, including having all the data (electronic or otherwise) available for public review,

d

-

 

[carbonjam72]

-


-

Mach, when exactly did you decide Raffaele and Amanda were guilty?

I myself thought they were guilty from the very beginning, but now after looking at all the evidence, I find it highly improbable. If you want to believe that they are absolutely and definitely guilty without any doubt what so ever, that's your privilege, but what that says to me is that you are operating from confirmation bias and not because you have critically thought this through.

I myself have some doubt as to whether Rudy is absolutely and definitely guilty, but there is definitely more evidence that he was there when Meredith died than there is that Raffaele and Amanda were there.

The only people who know absolutely and definitely for sure who is guilty are Rudy, Raffaele, Amanda, and Meredith. Anyone else who says anything different is merely speculating, and that includes me, in my opinion,

d

-

I mostly agree with you, but I'd like to clarify one point.

Amanda and Raf weren't there. They don't know anything about who is guilty. They only know they are innocent.
Rudy Guede was there. He certainly knows who is guilty, and has refused to be made available for cross examination at trial. It is also a scientific certainty that no one else but Guede was there in the room when Meredith was killed.

Meredith knows, or would know, only what happened to her. But even then she might not have seen everything, or know everything.

Fortunately though, the crime scene evidence tells us everything, with certianty. Rudy Guede killed Meredith Kercher all by himself. We know that from the evidence, not from what anyone says.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

I mostly agree with you, but I'd like to clarify one point.

Amanda and Raf weren't there. They don't know anything about who is guilty. They only know they are innocent.
Rudy Guede was there. He certainly knows who is guilty, and has refused to be made available for cross examination at trial. It is also a scientific certainty that no one else but Guede was there in the room when Meredith was killed.

Meredith knows, or would know, only what happened to her. But even then she might not have seen everything, or know everything.

Fortunately though, the crime scene evidence tells us everything, with certianty. Rudy Guede killed Meredith Kercher all by himself. We know that from the evidence, not from what anyone says.

-

Thank you cj. I appreciate your clarifying the hilited part. It's what I meant also.

As far as what poor Merdith knew or didn't know. She knows a lot more than anyone else who say's one way or the other what happened, especially if she was killed because of a dirty toilet or because she accused Amanda of theft or because she refused to take part in a four-way,

d

-

 

[AmyStrange]

-

I mostly agree with you, but I'd like to clarify one point.

Amanda and Raf weren't there. They don't know anything about who is guilty. They only know they are innocent.

Rudy Guede was there. He certainly knows who is guilty, and has refused to be made available for cross examination at trial. It is also a scientific certainty that no one else but Guede was there in the room when Meredith was killed.

Meredith knows, or would know, only what happened to her. But even then she might not have seen everything, or know everything.

Fortunately though, the crime scene evidence tells us everything, with certianty. Rudy Guede killed Meredith Kercher all by himself. We know that from the evidence, not from what anyone says.

-

All that hilited part really proves absolutely and definitely is that he was there when (or shortly after) she was killed and nothing else. I'm not saying you have to believe this, because it's just what I believe, and that's only my opinion and my opinion is not a fact.

If I had been in charge of the investigation, I would have made sure all the evidence pointing to a staged break-in was video-taped, photographed, bagged, tagged and taken to the lab for testing. Inside the room, outside the window, and I would have also videotaped someone (or maybe a couple, two, three someones) trying to climb up there, of course, after all the evidence was gathered.

And I would have also done the same thing for Meredith's whole room and the downstairs, and made sure that it (Meredith's room at least) was swabbed for DNA and dusted for prints from top to bottom, and also that the body temp was taken immediately, and the semen stain tested, and everything in that room video-taped, photographed, bagged, tagged and also taken to the lab for more testing, and also made sure everything was done to the strictest of protocols, and fired anyone on the spot who didn't follow them, but then I probably would have put ILE over budget after the very first murder of which I was put in charge.

Plus, I would have tested all the knives there and also at Raffaele's place and opened up each one of them and done the same thing.

That's what I would have done, but that's me,

d

-

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the lack of Meredith's DNA is another serious problem

It is not rational or scientific to claim that the luminol stains were made in blood.

I agree wholeheartedly. The lack of Meredith's DNA in the majority of laminal-positive areas (recall the Gregory Taylor case), the lack of reaction with TMB, and the absence of a confirmatory test simply do not allow such a claim to stand up. Nencini's argument, which is just recycled Massei, cannot be found in any forensic textbook or article that I have ever read. Having Nencini pass judgment on the likelihood of contamination, the identity of stains, or any other forensic issue, is little better than asking a blind man to be a baseball umpire and to call balls and strikes.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

I agree wholeheartedly. The lack of Meredith's DNA in the majority of laminal-positive areas (recall the Gregory Taylor case), the lack of reaction with TMB, and the absence of a confirmatory test simply do not allow such a claim to stand up. Nencini's argument, which is just recycled Massei, cannot be found in any forensic textbook or article that I have ever read. Having Nencini pass judgment on the likelihood of contamination, the identity of stains, or any other forensic issue, is little better than asking a blind man to be a baseball umpire and to call balls and strikes.

-

Ok, I know you're not going to like this Chris, but even a blind umpire would be right at least half the time,

d

-

 

[Wattson]

-


-

All that hilited part really proves absolutely and definitely is that he was there when (or shortly after) she was killed and nothing else. I'm not saying you have to believe this, because it's just what I believe, and that's only my opinion and my opinion is not a fact.

If I had been in charge of the investigation, I would have made sure all the evidence pointing to a staged break-in was video-taped, photographed, bagged, tagged and taken to the lab for testing. Inside the room, outside the window, and I would have also videotaped someone (or maybe a couple, two, three someones) trying to climb up there, of course, after all the evidence was gathered.

And I would have also done the same thing for Meredith's whole room and the downstairs, and made sure that it (Meredith's room at least) was swabbed for DNA and dusted for prints from top to bottom, and also that the body temp was taken immediately, and the semen stain tested, and everything in that room video-taped, photographed, bagged, tagged and also taken to the lab for more testing, and also made sure everything was done to the strictest of protocols, and fired anyone on the spot who didn't follow them, but then I probably would have put ILE over budget after the very first murder of which I was put in charge.

Plus, I would have tested all the knives there and also at Raffaele's place and opened up each one of them and done the same thing.

That's what I would have done, but that's me,

d

-

How do you explain Rudy's palm print on the pillow? Was he propping up her butt to comfort her? The evidence shows that Rudy was more than just at the scene.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

How do you explain Rudy's palm print on the pillow? Was he propping up her butt to comfort her? The evidence shows that Rudy was more than just at the scene.

-

It doesn't prove he killed her, in my opinion, only that he was there.

It makes it more probable that he was the killer than that Raffaele and Amanda were the killers, but it still doesn't prove it absolutely and definitely.

I don't believe in using one set of criteria for one defendant and another set for the other defendants. That also includes all the evidence against Rudy, but that is just my opinion,

d

-
ETA: Hell, for all we know, Rudy might have broken in and found Meredith dying or already dead and decided to try and save her, or decided to have some fun, Rudy style. And double hell, for all we know, while Meredith was opening the door, someone came from behind her and put a knife to her throat and forced her to let him/ her in and up the stairs. Later after Rudy broke in... Or even that she got home, got Giacomo's key went downstairs to water the plants before she called her mother and someone down there, put a knife to her throat and forced her upstairs to her room... even I don't believe any of that, but it's possible, just not very probable, although that last scenario might explain the blood found downstairs. It also may explain why Rudy (or someone else) may have staged the upstairs break-in to divert attention from what went on downstairs, but all that is just pure speculation on my part.

-

 

[Chris_Halkides]

blood calculations

I used the volume of a red blood cell to be 9 x 10^-8 µL and that 40% of whole blood is RBCs (erythrocytes) in these calculations. Now assume that some blood containing a small number of cells is dissolved in 1 µL of liquid.

Number Volume Volume of blood Dilution factor
5 RBC 4.5 x 10-7 µL 1.1 x 10-6 µL 910,000
25 RBC 2.3 x 10-6 µL 5.6 x 10-6 µL 180,000

Earlier today I provided some links which discuss TMB in terms of the number of cells that can be detected. From one link: "The practical detection limit of this test is approximately 5 to l0 erythrocytes per microliter of urine."

I think that 5 cells is optimistic, but it is not unrealistic. I have previously reported the lower limits of detection of TMB and luminol that were given in the literature, and I have seen 1,000,000-fold as the largest dilution factor quoted for a positive TMB test. 25 cells is within what is reported, and 50 cells is even more clearly within range. I agree with Planigale.

From the Conti-Vecchiotti Report, p. 42 of the pdf file: "Recently, reagent strips (Combur Test) were introduced into laboratory practice: [the strips are] impregnated with organic hydroperoxide and tetramethylbenzidine as a colourmetric indicator; if haemoglobin is present, causing oxidation, [the strips] turn from yellow to green-blue. The test is quick and easy to carry out, and the sensitivity varies, according to the Authors, from 1:300,000 to 1:500,000."

 

[acbytesla]

Hm. I find Florence stunningly beautiful, and love its food, as well. Of course, presumably as an adjunct to its poor economy, all of Italy seems to be riddled with graffiti at the moment, which does no aesthetic favors to any of its great cities.

The food is fantastic...but as you said, when all the great classic buildings are covered in graffiti. Really sad. Brunelleschi's Dome is incredible. An incredible feat of engineering.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

it is long past time to show your cards

Because the scientific literature, that I had quoted already, more than once in the past, says so.

You have not quoted it in the last day or two here.

 

[Desert Fox]

ETA: Hell, for all we know, Rudy might have broken in and found Meredith dying or already dead and decided to try and save her, or decided to have some fun, Rudy style. And double hell, for all we know, while Meredith was opening the door, someone came from behind her and put a knife to her throat and forced her to let him/ her in and up the stairs. Later after Rudy broke in... even I don't believe that, but it's possible, just not very probable.

I think I can say that while it is vaguely possible that Guede did not murder Meredeth, I would argue in a jury room that it is still beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty.

 

[Desert Fox]

You have not quoted it in the last day or two here.

I have seen people in debates on other issues always claim they posted something but they never actually did. . . .I think they believe that if they say that, they will not be challenged.

 

[Wattson]

-


-

It doesn't prove he killed her, in my opinion, only that he was there.

It makes it more probable that he was the killer than that Raffaele and Amanda were the killers, but it still doesn't prove it absolutely and definitely.

I don't believe in using one set of criteria for one defendant and another set for the other defendants. That also includes all the evidence against Rudy, but that is just my opinion,

d

-
ETA: Hell, for all we know, Rudy might have broken in and found Meredith dying or already dead and decided to try and save her, or decided to have some fun, Rudy style. And double hell, for all we know, while Meredith was opening the door, someone came from behind her and put a knife to her throat and forced her to let him/ her in and up the stairs. Later after Rudy broke in... Or even that she got home, got Giacomo's key went downstairs to water the plants before she called her mother and someone down there, put a knife to her throat and forced her upstairs to her room... even I don't believe any of that, but it's possible, just not very probable.

-

No, the evidence tells us that Rudy was there when the stabbing occurred. Not just his bloody palm print but also his bloody footprint on the smudged semen stain.