Chris, it's worth mentioning that some people reading here will not realise the spot was very small, but often included in photographs showing the reflection of the blood coloured ceiling on the faucet. Until DanO pointed this out I was fooled. The bathroom could be clean and blood free to any eyes even with that speck. The faucet photo was like the pink bathroom photo in it's ability and (intention) to deceive.
Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito
- Thread starter LondonJohn
- Start date
- Status
Yes, there was a small drop of Amanda's blood on the faucet, and there is no way of knowing when it was deposited. When Amanda testified that the bathroom had been clean when she left the day of the murder, she didn't mean totally without any drops of any kind. A drop of a person's blood in a bathroom they use every day is not evidence of anything, unless you have a lot more to back it up (which they don't).
Desert Fox
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 6,147
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,572
carbonjam72
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,324
I guess I should really go to www.murderofmerdithkercher.com and try to fish out the actual DNA result (unless someone has it handy).
But the question is, how do we know it's Amanda's DNA? And, is there anyone else's profile in that specific sample?
If it's only Amanda's DNA, then does that mean we can assume the DNA most likely comes from the blood spot, and therefore a result of ONLY Amanda, would mean the blood is Amanda.
Or, if there is another DNA profile in that sample, then could the blood conceivably be contributed by that other person (such as Meredith or Guede who were both bleeding), while Amanda's contribution COULD have been environmental.
I'm asking here, I just wanted to be good and sure I understood the crime scene, in so far as the bathroom goes.
As long as we're talking about the bathroom, as someone mentioned pretty recently, the fact that Rudy admitted he went into the bathroom to get towels, makes it somewhat idiotic to speculate the half bare footprint is anyone else but Rudy.
And despite Rudy's story about getting towels to staunch the blood flow from Meredith's mortal neck wound, I think Raf's lawyer argued he was as likely getting the towel to throttle her with it as ease her suffering. But Italian judges are capable of finding anything to be true, when they want it badly enough.
carbonjam72
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,324
Hey Chris thanks again for the further clarifications.
As you probably know, the link is to the www.TheMurderofMeredithKercher.com, i.e., the hate site.
Here is an exerpt from the same page on the blue bathmat and the half bare foot track -
Notice how they definitively attribute the half foottrack on the bath mat to Guede.
So if you're a hate troll that doesn't trust non hate sites, and you read that on the site, wouldn't one feel justified in asking how Raf's bare half foot track got on the bath mat if he wasn't somehow stepping in Meredith's wet blood?
The reinforcement of guilt bias is palpable.
The faucet blood spot was Amanda's blood only. Sorry, I don't have a link to the testing, but I am sure about that detail. It's been discussed for years, and is not a point of contention. No Meredith DNA from that location.
Re: the bathmat print. I've seen lots of argument about who the print is more similar to, Rudy or Raffaele. Most rational observers come to the conclusion it cannot be definitively matched to anyone. The bathmat print was made in diluted blood, on a think, uneven surface that also absorbed the diluted blood, causing some change to the shape of the print, in unpredictable ways. It's not a precise print. I've seen some pretty good analysis saying it cannot possibly be Raff's print, but regardless, it is not an accurate enough print to conclude it belongs to anyone, really.
Re: Rudy saying he went into the bathroom for towels: I don't think we can use Rudy's statements as truth of anything, as he was obviously involved in the murder and is telling the story the best way he can to make himself look less guilty. What seems to make sense is that, knowing the towels were in the bedroom with Meredith's blood on them, and that they would probably have both his blood and DNA, he admitted to going to get them, using the pretext of trying to save her. He admits to things he knows they can prove, and tries to work it into an "innocent" narrative.
However, since it seems pretty clear, based on what I just said above, that Rudy did go into the bathroom (why would he admit it if he didn't?), it does seem a bit more likely the bathmat print is his. I still say the print is not clear enough to match to his foot, and so it's not proven. I hesitate to apply the "since he said X, then it is probable that Y happened" line of thinking, because it too closely resembles the whole case against Amanda and Raff. There is plenty of reliable evidence against Rudy.
carbonjam72
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,324
Yes, and absolutely no reliable evidence against anyone else. The absence of evidence of anyone else, in that small blood soaked room, strongly suggests no one but Rudy was there.
So I don't think the question as to who made the half print on the bath mat is legitimately asked from a point of zero information, but rather from the understanding that there is evidence that affirmatively points to Rudy doing the deed alone.
But thanks for you insight and knowledge on this point.
Desert Fox
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 6,147
That picture was taken with a flash. . . . .I wonder how visible that blood would be in natural light.
I also noted that (assuming there is a mirror over it) that it would be natural place for blood to drip from an ear if you were looking in your ear maybe while tugging on it.
AmyStrange
Philosopher
-
How come the publisher wasn't also included in this suit?
Also, you would think those who run this PR campaign (Marriott, for example) would also be included in some kind of defamation lawsuit. Maybe the reason that hasn't happened is because there is no PR campaign and it's all just a conspiracy theory cooked up by some of the probably guilty crowd to make fun of the probably innocent crowd's alleged conspiracy theory about the Italian judiciary, but that's just my opinion,
d
-
-
How come the publisher wasn't also included in this suit?
Also, you would think those who run this PR campaign (Marriott, for example) would also be included in some kind of defamation lawsuit. Maybe the reason that hasn't happened is because there is no PR campaign and it's all just a conspiracy theory cooked up by some of the probably guilty crowd to make fun of the probably innocent crowd's alleged conspiracy theory about the Italian judiciary, but that's just my opinion,
d
-
Last edited:
DF the photograph is used as a fabrication. The photo DanO posted shows a tiny dark speck within the reflection (that looks like a smear or stain but is a reflection of the ceiling on the curved upper portion of the faucet. The fake wiki photo Chris pointed to of course is a deliberate lie. Machiavelli knows this, and might correct the fake wiki for the Kerchers to make it less fake.
Text from the wiki
Rep. 24 is a sample taken from the tap on the basin, where there are visible smears of blood. This sample tested positive for human blood and matched the DNA profile of Knox. There are no DNA peaks attributable to Meredith, so there is no doubt that the smears on the tap are Knox's blood.[7]
There are no smears of blood. Amanda did not shower in a bathroom with a smear of blood on the faucet
Last edited:
Desert Fox
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 6,147
I kind of would like to see DanO's picture then?
I'll try later.
The Italian Law the Police and Prosecutor Violated
There's been discussion from time-to-time about the Italian laws violated by the Italian authorities in this case.
Sometimes when this is discussed, reference is made to the Italian Constitutional provisions or the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP; Italian CPP) articles violated. These violations of law are serious, but may not lead to criminal penalties imposed on the offenders. That is, a violation by the authorities may mean, for example, dismissal of a criminal case against an accused but not necessarily a new criminal case against the authorities for their misconduct.
There is another compilation of Italian law called the Criminal Code (CC; Italian CP) that specifies crimes and punishments (prison terms and/or fines) for those convicted of the crimes. It's been pointed out to me that (in number sequence not far from the description of "calunnia") there is the description of the crime committed by police when they force someone, by violence or threats, to make a false statement to judicial authorities. The punishment for someone convicted of this crime is imprisonment for from 2 to 6 years. This may explain why the police and prosecutor continued the case against Amanda and Raffaele after they absolutely knew they (AK & RS) were innocent, that is, after Guede was arrested and his DNA matched that found in Meredith's rape kit.
This law is CP 377-bis {bis = second part}, and below its text is given in the original Italian and in English (by Google Translate). The term "autorità giudiziaria" (my emphasis below) is translated by Google as "court" but more literally is translated "judicial authority" and would include any magistrate or prosecutor (Public Minister).
Source: http://www.altalex.com/index.php?idnot=36764
Art. 377-bis.
Induzione a non rendere dichiarazioni o a rendere dichiarazioni mendaci all'autorità giudiziaria. (1)
Salvo che il fatto costituisca più grave reato, chiunque, con violenza o minaccia, o con offerta o promessa di denaro o di altra utilità, induce a non rendere dichiarazioni o a rendere dichiarazioni mendaci la persona chiamata a rendere davanti alla autorità giudiziaria dichiarazioni utilizzabili in un procedimento penale, quando questa ha la facoltà di non rispondere, è punito con la reclusione da due a sei anni.
(1) Articolo inserito dall’art. 20 della L. 1 marzo 2001, n. 63
Art. 377-bis.
Induction to not make statements or to make false statements to the court {judicial authority}. (1)
Unless the act constitutes a more serious offense, anyone with violence or threats, or offers or promises of money or other benefits, leads to not make statements or to make false statements to the person called to testify before the court {judicial authority} evidence in the criminal proceedings, when it has the right to remain silent, is punished with imprisonment from two to six years.
(1) Article inserted by art. L. 20 of March 1, 2001, n. 63
{Copy of my post on IIP/IAF)
There's been discussion from time-to-time about the Italian laws violated by the Italian authorities in this case.
Sometimes when this is discussed, reference is made to the Italian Constitutional provisions or the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP; Italian CPP) articles violated. These violations of law are serious, but may not lead to criminal penalties imposed on the offenders. That is, a violation by the authorities may mean, for example, dismissal of a criminal case against an accused but not necessarily a new criminal case against the authorities for their misconduct.
There is another compilation of Italian law called the Criminal Code (CC; Italian CP) that specifies crimes and punishments (prison terms and/or fines) for those convicted of the crimes. It's been pointed out to me that (in number sequence not far from the description of "calunnia") there is the description of the crime committed by police when they force someone, by violence or threats, to make a false statement to judicial authorities. The punishment for someone convicted of this crime is imprisonment for from 2 to 6 years. This may explain why the police and prosecutor continued the case against Amanda and Raffaele after they absolutely knew they (AK & RS) were innocent, that is, after Guede was arrested and his DNA matched that found in Meredith's rape kit.
This law is CP 377-bis {bis = second part}, and below its text is given in the original Italian and in English (by Google Translate). The term "autorità giudiziaria" (my emphasis below) is translated by Google as "court" but more literally is translated "judicial authority" and would include any magistrate or prosecutor (Public Minister).
Source: http://www.altalex.com/index.php?idnot=36764
Art. 377-bis.
Induzione a non rendere dichiarazioni o a rendere dichiarazioni mendaci all'autorità giudiziaria. (1)
Salvo che il fatto costituisca più grave reato, chiunque, con violenza o minaccia, o con offerta o promessa di denaro o di altra utilità, induce a non rendere dichiarazioni o a rendere dichiarazioni mendaci la persona chiamata a rendere davanti alla autorità giudiziaria dichiarazioni utilizzabili in un procedimento penale, quando questa ha la facoltà di non rispondere, è punito con la reclusione da due a sei anni.
(1) Articolo inserito dall’art. 20 della L. 1 marzo 2001, n. 63
Art. 377-bis.
Induction to not make statements or to make false statements to the court {judicial authority}. (1)
Unless the act constitutes a more serious offense, anyone with violence or threats, or offers or promises of money or other benefits, leads to not make statements or to make false statements to the person called to testify before the court {judicial authority} evidence in the criminal proceedings, when it has the right to remain silent, is punished with imprisonment from two to six years.
(1) Article inserted by art. L. 20 of March 1, 2001, n. 63
{Copy of my post on IIP/IAF)
Last edited:
codyjuneau
Muse
.
I have been meaning to post on this subject for a while. Briefly, the brownish reflection on the faucet is from the underside of the shelf directly above the sink. If you look closely you can even see some writing on the underside of the shelf. The fact that the reflection comes from the shelf and not from the ceiling is significant, in my opinion, because a person using the sink would almost always encounter its reflection, which disguises and camouflages the small blood spot. Consequently the small blood spot could conceivably go unnoticed between regular cleanings.
If I get time I will try to find and post the picture that shows this.
Cody
.
Desert Fox
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 6,147
Even if the picture had been real, it would be far from damning.
In low light, I doubt that would be all that noticeable in actuality.
codyjuneau
Muse
.
I found the picture but I do not have time to post right now. My memory was a bit off, the writing is on the faucet handle rather than a reflection from the bottom of the shelf.
Regardless, the faucet handle reflects the same brown as the faucet does, and the reflection very clearly shows the shelf above including the left bracket holding the shelf up.
The photo is dsc_0215.jpg. I will try to post it tomorrow.
Cody
.
"What we've got here is failure to communicate"
This is a smoking gun that destroys Machiavelli, McCall and the Kercher family's wiki.
It is egregiously wrong to continually point to all the other evidence, when item by item it is demolished in the same way as the lie that can not be corrected here is easily demolished.
McCall, did Raffaele call the carabinire after the postal police had arrived?
Machiavelli, I ask you the same question, but Leila Schnepps has answered in the negative, if that is any help.
MichaelB
Muse
- Joined
- May 27, 2013
- Messages
- 555
- Status