Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kauffer]

Yes I know about this problem. This is an argument, however I do not consider it strong compared to the contrary ones. One thing to point out, is that such debate about a second toe was not part of the trial; the argument was never evidence discussed in cross questionings. A question about it was never asked to Rinaldi by the defence; this lack of trial discussion and defence objection is one of the aspects why the argument is lame from the start.

What? It cannot, without any reasonable doubt belong to Ms Knox? What on earth is "lame" about that?

 

[Machiavelli]

Hay Machiavelly, show us your supporting evidence. Have you got a map that shows the positions and orientation of the bloody shoe prints?

Well, yes, there are several maps, pictures and descriptions.

Have you got an explanation for why there are no small Luminol tracts documented similar to what would be produced by Rudy returning to Meredith's room?

Yes, I have an explanation: because Guede did not walk back to Meredith's door.

The luminol even missed the whole bloody shoeprints at both ends of the hall. Why is that?

Luminol did not miss the partly deleted bloody shoeprint near Meredith's door at all. The last print near the exit door instead, was meticulously cleaned by forensics before the application of luminol. All visible blood spots were scraped away before Luminol was applied.

 

[Machiavelli]

When I said the answer would be interesting I was wrong. You appear to have retreated inside an impenetrable wall of verbiage.

Your premise is false. It is not true that the lone perpetrator scenario is more obvious, more coherent or less complicated. Actually it is non-obvious and non-logical, requires assumptions that are not supported nor explained nor logical, it is more complicated and is completely incoherent.

 

[anglolawyer]

Your premise is false. It is not true that the lone perpetrator scenario is more obvious, more coherent or less complicated. Actually it is non-obvious and non-logical, requires assumptions that are not supported nor explained nor logical, it is more complicated and is completely incoherent.

No it isn't.

 

[Machiavelli]

What are you going on about, now? This seems new.

Given that Guede left his footprint in what is almost certainly his own semen, he stepped on the pillowcase just after he had ejaculated over - or worse, given that his DNA was left in her vagina, endeavored to penetrate - Ms. Kercher's dead or dying body. Given the blood droplets present on both her bra and exposed breasts, Guede at least continued his violation of her after he had created the mortal wound, which caused the aspiration of blood.

Next?

I suppose everyone could notice that Meredith's body covered Guede's shoeprints completely. It would have been impossible for Guede to leave five shoeprints on the pillow while the pillow was in that position.

But on the other hand it would also be rather impractical for him to leave those prints before and then be the one who places the pillow under Meredith's body subsequently. Why? Because when one leaves bloody shoeprints on the pillowcase, this means he has a bloody shoe sole, and thus, this implies that if the person remains inside the room and performs further activities, he must also take a number of other steps in the room and thus you would have a number of other prints on the floor. But instead, there is only one more print of Guede on the floor, and he was walking out when he left it.

See how the theory of Guede committing a post-mortem sexual abuse turns out to be inconsistent with physical findings.

 

[Machiavelli]

No it isn't.

Look at the pillowcase shoeprints detail example.

 

[LondonJohn]

I suppose everyone could notice that Meredith's body covered Guede's shoeprints completely. It would have been impossible for Guede to leave five shoeprints on the pillow while the pillow was in that position.

But on the other hand it would also be rather impractical for him to leave those prints before and then be the one who places the pillow under Meredith's body subsequently. Why? Because when one leaves bloody shoeprints on the pillowcase, this means he has a bloody shoe sole, and thus, this implies that if the person remains inside the room and performs further activities, he must also take a number of other steps in the room and thus you would have a number of other prints on the floor. But instead, there is only one more print of Guede on the floor, and he was walking out when he left it.

See how the theory of Guede committing a post-mortem sexual abuse turns out to be inconsistent with physical findings.

Or is it possible that the pillow (or the body) was actually moved by the police prior to the photos being taken? Given the massive number of serious mistakes made by the "crack" investigators in this case, I'd suggest that the possibility of this is pretty high.....

In addition, the Guede shoe prints on the case are all right shoe prints. It's therefore almost certain that these prints were deposited immediately prior to Guede leaving the room and depositing the fading series of right shoe prints leading down the corridor in the direction of (but definitively NOT out of) the front door of the cottage. The single additional right shoe print in Kercher's room only goes to further illustrate just how small the room was - Guede would easily have been able to cover the distance from the pillow to the door using only one right footfall.

And given that the shoe print evidence in the hallway/kitchen strongly suggests that Guede turned round on this occasion and headed back towards Kercher's room (the supposition of many people - including me - is that he did so because he realised he couldn't open the front door of the cottage without a key, and therefore needed to return to Kercher's room to find her key), it's also entirely feasible that Guede himself moved the body and/or the pillow on this final entry into Kercher's room.

 

[Bill Williams]

When I said the answer would be interesting I was wrong. You appear to have retreated inside an impenetrable wall of verbiage.

Your premise is false. It is not true that the lone perpetrator scenario is more obvious, more coherent or less complicated. Actually it is non-obvious and non-logical, requires assumptions that are not supported nor explained nor logical, it is more complicated and is completely incoherent.

Strange - at the Massei court, 8 of the nine experts who gave an opinion said the lone attacker scenario was completely consistent with the evidence and logical.

No matter. You simply declared an opinion with no supporting evidence at all. You just assert it. Ok - I'm convinced.

You also say that anglolawyer's "premise is false". What premise? Do you pick your pithy responses randomly out of a hat? Is your purpose here to make "convincing-like" responses which actually have nothing to do with what was presented to you?

IMO you have proven his point, retreating into unproven verbiage, this time in the form of unsubstantiated assertions. Assertions that even convicting courts did not hear.

Why do you think the convicting courts need help? Why don't you just quote from Massei or Nencini?

Oh wait, they are nonsensical too. No wonder you need to go way way past what they wrote. You believe they need help.

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli - who was it at Knox's Nov 5/6 interrogation who first made reference to the, "See you later," SMS message from Lumumba?

I'm bumping this up, because in the fray of stuff aimed at Machiavelli, this seems to have been lost.

Machiavelli - care to give it a go?

 

[anglolawyer]

Look at the pillowcase shoeprints detail example.

I see LJ has offered a stab at this. I confess I had not thought about it before and it is an interesting puzzle but I don't see the multi-player solution as more compelling than the solo version.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I see. Thanks. The answer will be interesting.

Machiavelli has them running straight out after the killing so as to allow Nara's evidence to mean something. Therefore, they must have been wearing shoes because she heard running footsteps. That must mean Guede's shoeprints were made when running out but that Amanda and Raffaele luckily acquired no blood on their feet during the assault. When they went back to do the clean up and fake the burglary they must have got seriously imbued with her blood for some reason. I suppose that happened when they moved the body and staged a sexual assault. This type of crime theory is familiar from other cases in which what really happened really did happen but the cops obsess with the idea that something more complicated happened and the perps just made it look like the obvious happened. Darlie Routier (awaiting the death penalty) is one and then there's the guy (he has been exonerated, name escapes me Edit: Morton?) who came home to find his wife beaten to death in front of her kids and the cops pinned it on him, explaining everything at the scene to fit their theory. David Camm is also of this genre. I am with you on Mach. He is obviously an intelligent person but to buy obvious crap like this suggests something amiss.

Oh no! You are baiting me for a derail, but without meaning to do so.

Let's just say I would not include Darlie Routier in the same bucket as Michael Morton or David Camm. I'd group her with Diane Downs, Jeffrey MacDonald or (in a more recent case worth examining by those who think Routier just isn't the type) Suzanna Simpson.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I suppose everyone could notice that Meredith's body covered Guede's shoeprints completely. It would have been impossible for Guede to leave five shoeprints on the pillow while the pillow was in that position.

But on the other hand it would also be rather impractical for him to leave those prints before and then be the one who places the pillow under Meredith's body subsequently. Why? Because when one leaves bloody shoeprints on the pillowcase, this means he has a bloody shoe sole, and thus, this implies that if the person remains inside the room and performs further activities, he must also take a number of other steps in the room and thus you would have a number of other prints on the floor. But instead, there is only one more print of Guede on the floor, and he was walking out when he left it.

Good grief.

No, Machiavelli. There were several shoe prints in the room, positioned in such a way as to suggest Guede was doing something with the body, or perhaps lofting the quilt over the body. They were plainly visible in the same general area as the jeans that were not turned inside-out.

Have you ever looked at the crime scene photos, in all these years that you have been prattling on with your made-up facts and your made-up forensic science?

 

[Dougm]

Good grief.

No, Machiavelli. There were several shoe prints in the room, positioned in such a way as to suggest Guede was doing something with the body, or perhaps lofting the quilt over the body. They were plainly visible in the same general area as the jeans that were not turned inside-out.

Have you ever looked at the crime scene photos, in all these years that you have been prattling on with your made-up facts and your made-up forensic science?

Don't forget the "brown" panties.

 

[Machiavelli]

Good grief.

No, Machiavelli. There were several shoe prints in the room, positioned in such a way as to suggest Guede was doing something with the body, or perhaps lofting the quilt over the body. They were plainly visible in the same general area as the jeans that were not turned inside-out.

Have you ever looked at the crime scene photos, in all these years that you have been prattling on with your made-up facts and your made-up forensic science?

There were several shoe prints, they were all documented, but none of them is attributable to a Nike shoe like Guede's shoe. In fact several of them do not even have a male size.

Let's also point out that only a small part of the jeans was visible in the photos, just to be precise.

 

[anglolawyer]

There were several shoe prints, they were all documented, but none of them is attributable to a Nike shoe like Guede's shoe. In fact several of them do not even have a male size.

Let's also point out that only a small part of the jeans was visible in the photos, just to be precise.

I say you lie. If there were bloody shoe prints that were provably not made by Guede Mignini would have shouted them from the rooftops. Where is this in Massei?

 

[Planigale]

Of course ... everything runs as softly as olive oil.... I suppose you don't see contradictions not even in what Knox tells then...



Actually she received her fatal stab in a spot left from the closet. But your second statement is just false, and anyway, unreasonable.
Bruises indicate normal blood pressure. Especially superficial bruises like those ones, that even have a reddish or lively pink colour. It is an elementary fact.
A person who is dying of a fatal blood loss is in a state of hypovolemic shock, that means foremost a dead fall of peripheral blood pressure. If the central pressure drops quickly, the body reacts by dramatically cutting off the peripheral blood circulation. Then if the person starts to suffer a hypoxia, as unfortunate Meredith had, blood in vessels won't be of bright red colour any longer and any possible bruises would look violet, especially if in superficial areas (where you would also detect cianosis). But anyway, after the fatal stabbing there wouldn't be enough time for Guede to wash his hands (and feet, or trousers) accurately (he had bloody hands, but left no hand print on the body) and then come back into the room, grab her with clean hands without leaving any prints on her body, undress her, place the pillow beneath her: you need minutes to do that, and this Meredith still having a blood pressure with a blood loss of that magnitude?
All this is improbable and concocted by definition.



Actually, I am based on the evidence. Not on prejudicial assumptions.

This is rubbish. The colour of bruising is not determined by the oxygen saturation of haemoglobin. Haemoglobin will rapidly desaturate when extravasated. The colour change is determined by the chemical breakdown of haemoglobin, and the overlying skin colour. Bruising can still emerge after death, particularly deep bruising. Bruising arises from damage to low pressure vessels, particularly capillaries. Bruising is often found at post mortem from (failed) CPR, persons who by definition have no blood pressure when the CPR is attempted!

Mach I have told you before when you try and get technical you lose it. Remember how DNA was a protein? Remember how you alleged that the DNA concentration of muscle or cartilage was greater than that of blood? Just leave the science to those who know about it and stick the legal stuff where you win hands down.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

There were several shoe prints, they were all documented, but none of them is attributable to a Nike shoe like Guede's shoe. In fact several of them do not even have a male size.

Let's also point out that only a small part of the jeans was visible in the photos, just to be precise.

No. A group of three bloody shoe prints on the floor of the murder room, near the foot of Meredith's bed, were unmistakably made with Guede's Nike Outbreak 2 sneakers. The pattern is shown in dsc_0125. Photo dsc_0243 shows both the shoe prints and the jeans laid out on the floor, with only a small portion of the jeans covered by a corner of the quilt. These photos have been available online ever since I uploaded them to the FOA server in 2010.

 

[Bill Williams]

Good grief.

No, Machiavelli. There were several shoe prints in the room, positioned in such a way as to suggest Guede was doing something with the body, or perhaps lofting the quilt over the body. They were plainly visible in the same general area as the jeans that were not turned inside-out.

Have you ever looked at the crime scene photos, in all these years that you have been prattling on with your made-up facts and your made-up forensic science?

There were several shoe prints, they were all documented, but none of them is attributable to a Nike shoe like Guede's shoe. In fact several of them do not even have a male size.

Let's also point out that only a small part of the jeans was visible in the photos, just to be precise.

I say you lie. If there were bloody shoe prints that were provably not made by Guede Mignini would have shouted them from the rooftops. Where is this in Massei?

Machiavelli has not responded to the larger issue here: why is it that Machiavelli thinks that courts like Massei's and Nencini's, the convicting courts, need help with these additional factoids?

It's not just whether or not Machiavelli is inventing them out of thin air.... why isn't Machiavelli simply making reference to the cases for guilt which are supposed to be so convincing in those motivations reports?

Why does Machiavelli think they need this kind of help?

 

[Kauffer]

There were several shoe prints, they were all documented, but none of them is attributable to a Nike shoe like Guede's shoe. In fact several of them do not even have a male size.

Let's also point out that only a small part of the jeans was visible in the photos, just to be precise.

This is breathtakingly deceitful. The shoe prints are Guede's. The identification is clear. To whom were you going to suggest they belonged?

 

[Planigale]

As a consequence of the conservation in a chemical liquid, the anatomical part (skin piece) was discoloured and thus it was no longer possible to see the exact location of the small bruises.



Note: a red cell is almost 8 micron wide.

Aprile's conclusion: bruises are visible in the photography, but she couldn't detect them by histological analysis. She concludes that maybe her samples only located the perihperal areas of the ecchymosis, or failed to locate the ecchymosis (the ecchymosys was not in that location).


The relevant snippet is the following:

The 4 microns is the slice thickness of the slides examined microscopically; you would see RBC. The relevant dimension is that they are 2 microns thick. If there are no extravasated RBC you have no bruising. It is very difficult to distinguish between post mortem livido and bruising without histology. As has been said it is also very difficult to make any distinction between consensual and forced sex on the basis of vaginal trauma. Any honest expert gives clear caveats to their findings. e.g. they can only comment on what they examined.