Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

There can't be an author that doesn't join one camp or the other? Nina, Graham and Dempsey clearly joined the FOA/IIP camp with Dempsey being all in. Nina demonstrated this by telling Tesla that it must be a guilter questioning the Diaz info. Dempsey participated in Knox forums and rallies etc. and clearly from very early on was an advocate.
As the NY Times story states there is a line that when crossed diminishes the value of the writing. When one of these writers using a form that allows for "creative" dialog etc. it is improper to use details unverified to make a case, IMO. I don't think Rudi was on a crime spree. I read his interviews etc. and it seems clear he was working a variety of jobs until just before the murder.

I think you are going a little bit too far in describing my interaction with Nina. I think she was concerned with who I was. It was pretty clear she was wary of me and my motives for asking for certain info. I don't know if she actually thought I was a guilter or not.

But given some of the actions of some of the guilters ie: what went on with Steve Moore, John Douglas, Greg Hampikian and others, should we blame her?

 

[Kauffer]

Here's the report from ABC/AP:

QUOTE:
"American Amanda Knox Faces Trial in Italy for Slander
MILAN — Jun 10, 2015, 2:42 PM ET

American Amanda Knox, who was exonerated by Italy's highest court of her roommate's brutal murder after multiple trials, is facing a new trial in Italy on a charge of slandering police.

Knox is charged with slander for testifying that her false accusation that a Congolese bar owner murdered her roommate was coerced. The false accusation led to Knox's conviction of slander of the Congolese man in the main murder trial, the only charge that stuck.

The police slander trial opened Tuesday. Knox is not expected to attend, but prosecution witnesses will be heard in September when the trial resumes.

Knox' defense lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova said Wednesday he is "not worried" about the case, noting that the statute of limitations runs out in October 2016, requiring exhaustion of all appeals."

From Carlo Dalla Vedova's statement, it appears this case is a slam dunk to be dismissed due to statute of limitations.

What I want to know, is why Knox can't press charges against Mignini in a US court, for the abuse she has received in Italy? At a minimum, request that charges be pressed against Mignini in Italy?

I'm sick of Amanda and Raf playing defense against the mad Mignini. I want that lying maniac in court as a defendant, where he belongs.


You got to be kidding me, Ninja'd by Vixen?

("Teenage Ninja Mutant Vixens", please, nobody steal that).

How do you see a U.S. court having jurisdiction over such a matter?

However, the question of abuse of office or prosecutorial misconduct with regard to Mignini in Italy is an interesting one and is in part relevant to the June 18th London lecture. Many of us rail against Mignini for his outrageous conduct in this case, but what exactly can we say about this conduct that would or should be interpreted according to Italian law as criminal? Indeed, even if something could be done, it is probably too late, since the statute of limitations would intervene to save him.

 

[Bill Williams]

(ANSA) - FLORENCE, JUNE 10 - Initiate a process to Amanda Knox for slander: in most sentences, even in the first trial for the murder of Meredith Kercher, said to have been 'forced' by the police and an interpreter to say that it was the murder house with Patrick Lumumba and to have suffered ill-treatment by agents even. Circumstances considered slander by the prosecutor of Perugia, who opened a file then finished in Florence because of the injured parties would the prosecutor Giuliano Mignini from Perugia.
http://www.gazzettadiparma.it/news/italia-mondo/279734/Meredith--iniziato-processo-per-calunnia.html

Started before the court of Florence a libel trial Amanda Knox that in most statements, even in the first trial for the murder of Meredith Kercher, said to have been 'forced' by police investigators and an interpreter to say that was in the house of the crime along with Patrick Lumumba, who was involved in the investigation precisely because of the phrases of the American and then recognized as foreign to each other.
Always Knox, she said to have suffered from the elements, in the days following the murder, strong pressure culminated, he said, even in abuse, so did some statements. For these circumstances related to her, which were classified as slander, the prosecutor in Perugia opened a file. Later before the single judge of Perugia was highlighted that, eventually, between the offended people from slander, there was also the prosecutor Giuliano Mignini as holder of the survey. At this point, being involved a magistrate of Perugia, to the competence dossier was transferred to the court of Florence. After the first hearing of sorting, the next was set at 3 September 2015.
http://www.ansa.it/toscana/notizie/...nze_8a3a9e89-29d2-4db0-9390-5e7e42171993.html

You're welcome.

Thank you for this.

IMO it is clear this will die/lapse, or whatever it is called in Italy. With the exonerations in March, no one would risk being cross-examined on their claim Knox simply accused them falsely.

IMO no one in Perugia wants the interrogation of Nov 5/6 dissected in court, where PM Mignini does not control the process.

 

[sept79]

Thank you for this.

IMO it is clear this will die/lapse, or whatever it is called in Italy. With the exonerations in March, no one would risk being cross-examined on their claim Knox simply accused them falsely.

IMO no one in Perugia wants the (Knox) interrogation of Nov 5/6 dissected in court, where PM Mignini does not control the process.

Bingo!

 

[carbonjam72]

How do you see a U.S. court having jurisdiction over such a matter?
However, the question of abuse of office or prosecutorial misconduct with regard to Mignini in Italy is an interesting one and is in part relevant to the June 18th London lecture. Many of us rail against Mignini for his outrageous conduct in this case, but what exactly can we say about this conduct that would or should be interpreted according to Italian law as criminal? Indeed, even if something could be done, it is probably too late, since the statute of limitations would intervene to save him.

Well, I'll take a shot at it.

Amanda Knox, as an exchange student is not simply a common variety tourist.

Rather she is affiliated with a publicly funded (likely both state and federal funding) institution. There may even be treaty or international agreements with respect to mutually accepting students for study abroad programs.

In addition, Mignini's actions in regard to the interrogations, and the fraudulent vilification in the press, are something extraordinary.

The requirement under Italian law, to provide legal assistance and record interviews are not just a violation of Italian law, but I would argue mad could be construed as a national obligation from Italy to the US viz-viz the exchange students we send over in good faith.
At some point, Mignini's behavior's are recognizably criminal, in both the US and in Italy. But Italy has failed to investigate or prosecute.

In the US, Mignini's fraud could be false arrest, kidnapping or assault committed "under the color of law".

I know jurisdiction is a defense that would be raised. But the laws are flexible when the prosecutor wants them to be. Seems to me Mignini hasn't yet experienced the legal consequences for his actions.

I find it ironic that Amanda Knox is being tried for 'continuing calunnia', for statements made at trial and in her book, whereas Mignini has been spouting his lies continuously for nearly eight years, including as recently as in December of 2015.

For Mignini criminal liability in Italy, I guess I'd need to know more about how the statute of limitations functions. If Mignini's crimes are committed in November of 2007, and the ISC motivation doesn't come out until June of 2015, and say there is a statute of limitations of 6 years? How could anyone ever be prosecuted?

I don't think we're correctly understanding "statute of limitations" as it is applied in use. (In the US, the statute of limitations period is "tolled" - meaning suspended - once a case is bought into court. However, if a case is dismissed and has to be refiled, the statue of limitations still runs from the original incident. It may work differently in Italy).

OTOH, much as we might like to see Mignini in a US court, I doubt the Knox's want to waste another moment on that lying maniac Mignini. Who would?

ETA: Meant to say, "Teenage Mutant Ninja Vixens", again, please nobody steal this).

 

[davefoc]

[see above]

Nice post Ken Dine. Interesting information about Peter Gill appearing on Italian television.

 

[Kauffer]

Well, I'll take a shot at it.

Amanda Knox, as an exchange student is not simply a common variety tourist.

Rather she is affiliated with a publicly funded (likely both state and federal funding) institution. There may even be treaty or international agreements with respect to mutually accepting students for study abroad programs.

In addition, Mignini's actions in regard to the interrogations, and the fraudulent vilification in the press, are something extraordinary.

The requirement under Italian law, to provide legal assistance and record interviews are not just a violation of Italian law, but I would argue mad could be construed as a national obligation from Italy to the US viz-viz the exchange students we send over in good faith.
At some point, Mignini's behavior's are recognizably criminal, in both the US and in Italy. But Italy has failed to investigate or prosecute.

In the US, Mignini's fraud could be false arrest, kidnapping or assault committed "under the color of law".

I know jurisdiction is a defense that would be raised. But the laws are flexible when the prosecutor wants them to be. Seems to me Mignini hasn't yet experienced the legal consequences for his actions.

I find it ironic that Amanda Knox is being tried for 'continuing calunnia', for statements made at trial and in her book, whereas Mignini has been spouting his lies continuously for nearly eight years, including as recently as in December of 2015.

For Mignini criminal liability in Italy, I guess I'd need to know more about how the statute of limitations functions. If Mignini's crimes are committed in November of 2007, and the ISC motivation doesn't come out until June of 2015, and say there is a statute of limitations of 6 years? How could anyone ever be prosecuted?

I don't think we're correctly understanding "statute of limitations" as it is applied in use. (In the US, the statute of limitations period is "tolled" - meaning suspended - once a case is bought into court. However, if a case is dismissed and has to be refiled, the statue of limitations still runs from the original incident. It may work differently in Italy).

OTOH, much as we might like to see Mignini in a US court, I doubt the Knox's want to waste another moment on that lying maniac Mignini. Who would?

ETA: Meant to say, "Teenage Mutant Ninja Vixens", again, please nobody steal this).

It is intensely difficult to put a prosecutor on trial in the U.S. for a misconduct in office related offence. There is so much immunity. How many instances in the last 10 years can you cite? How about 20 years? There is no jurisdiction for this in the U.S. in this matter and that's even supposing you can find an offence. I really don't see where he has behaved in a "recognizably criminal" manner. Not false arrest, certainly not kidnapping and definitely not assault. Indeed, judges signed off on everything he did.

If you can find anything Mignini did that rises to the level of criminality in this case with reference to Italian law I would be delighted. What did he do that hasn't been done before by prosecutors in other jurisdictions, including the U.S.?

 

[Bill Williams]

Thank you for this.

IMO it is clear this will die/lapse, or whatever it is called in Italy. With the exonerations in March, no one would risk being cross-examined on their claim Knox simply accused them falsely.

IMO no one in Perugia wants the (Knox) interrogation of Nov 5/6 dissected in court, where PM Mignini does not control the process.

Bingo!

I have no idea how it works in Italy..... given Stefanoni's apparently successful attempt to keep the raw data files out of the defence hands, it's hard to tell how the following would go.

But here, any competent lawyer for someone like Knox would first try to have the audio/videotapes of the interrogation(s) subpoenaed. What? There are none? The dog ate them? Budget problems? Ok, let's subpoena your 2007 budget.... After 10,000 hours of audio/videotaping/transcribing everything including Edda and Amanda's reaction to the horror of Italian TV playing, uneditted, the scene with Meredith in her room..... I mean everything.....

There's nothing to subpoena? In a fair process, with an unbiased court, it's safe to say no one in Perugia wants to go there. Not Donnino, not Mignini, not Napoleoni. Probably not even Chiacchiera.... except Chiacchiera will be saying, "I told them to release Knox, Sollecito and Lumumba, and save us this mess....."

I wonder if on cross-examination they can get Chiacchiera to say that? Hell, Bongiorno got Stefanoni to admit she had no idea if she'd touched the bra-hasps with obviously dirty gloves, like the video-recording suggested!

This will never see a courtroom. If it does, then there just may be a 23rd Continuation here on ISF.

 

[carbonjam72]

It is intensely difficult to put a prosecutor on trial in the U.S. for a misconduct in office related offence. There is so much immunity. How many instances in the last 10 years can you cite? How about 20 years? There is no jurisdiction for this in the U.S. in this matter and that's even supposing you can find an offence. I really don't see where he has behaved in a "recognizably criminal" manner. Not false arrest, certainly not kidnapping and definitely not assault. Indeed, judges signed off on everything he did.

If you can find anything Mignini did that rises to the level of criminality in this case with reference to Italian law I would be delighted. What did he do that hasn't been done before by prosecutors in other jurisdictions, including the U.S.?

I agree the misdeeds in this case, in terms of police physical abuse, denial of attorney, hiding or destroying recordings of the interrogation, coercing false statements and then using those statements against the defendant, and so on, are probably quite common in Italy.

Also common is the destruction of exculpatory evidence apparently (hiding DNA profiles, destroying computers, hiding camera, fraudulently manufacturing DNA results, bogus tramp senile serial witnesses, vilification in the media, and so on).

It's hard to imagine there isn't some course of action. I don't think the simple issue of an act occurring outside the physical US territory is necessarily the end of the jurisdiction question. I think it depends on the specific criminal theory, and the jurisdictional definitions relevant to that law.

I saw an article in the NY Times recently about how the US is increasingly trying defendants for crimes committed around the world, with tenuous connection to the US. Terrorism laws in particular have a far reach, although I'm not suggesting this is a terrorism case.

Were the Iran hostages able to sue Iran in US court?

Italy should have removed Mignini from office years ago. They knew they had a madman on their hands and allowed him to remain in office, tormenting still more innocent people. The fact that Italy allowed Mignini to persecute innocent Italians, is a separate issue from any US laws he might have broken.

Can US civil rights be violated in a foreign country? Could a person be "sold into slavery" in a foreign country, and have no recourse in a US court?

I just wouldn't be so fast to toss the idea. I'll bet you different attorneys will have different opinions, as would different judges. The law is more flexible, and less exact than we like to think, imo.

Out of my depth here, I must confess.

 

[Dougm]

One thing I see ignored pretty consistently by people commenting that Amanda and/or Raffaele should be filing all sorts of charges against their accusers, Mignini, Italy, etc.

Not sure about Raffaele, but based on what I know about Amanda, I think the prospect of spending a single minute more than she has to in any courtroom is something she wants no part of. Certainly she will defend herself when she has to, but paying lawyers to file more charges, to spend even more years in court that she has already had to do? Highly unlikely.

What she wants is to be left alone. She is a normal person who was made famous for something she had nothing to do with, and still suffers from repeated emotional trauma from her trials and incarceration. What she wants is a normal life, as much as that is still possible. I don't see her spending the part of her young adult life that has not already been damaged to spend it chasing people she wants nothing to do with, ever again.

 

[carbonjam72]

One thing I see ignored pretty consistently by people commenting that Amanda and/or Raffaele should be filing all sorts of charges against their accusers, Mignini, Italy, etc.

Not sure about Raffaele, but based on what I know about Amanda, I think the prospect of spending a single minute more than she has to in any courtroom is something she wants no part of. Certainly she will defend herself when she has to, but paying lawyers to file more charges, to spend even more years in court that she has already had to do? Highly unlikely.

What she wants is to be left alone. She is a normal person who was made famous for something she had nothing to do with, and still suffers from repeated emotional trauma from her trials and incarceration. What she wants is a normal life, as much as that is still possible. I don't see her spending the part of her young adult life that has not already been damaged to spend it chasing people she wants nothing to do with, ever again.

Maybe you missed this part of my post on the subject:

"OTOH, much as we might like to see Mignini in a US court, I doubt the Knox's want to waste another moment on that lying maniac Mignini. Who would?"
I do tend to agree with you. However, Italy prosecuting Mignini doesn't cost anything. I agree though, that money is just part of it. Being left alone is probably the priority for the Knoxes and Sollecitos.

 

[Dougm]

Maybe you missed this part of my post on the subject:

"OTOH, much as we might like to see Mignini in a US court, I doubt the Knox's want to waste another moment on that lying maniac Mignini. Who would?"
I do tend to agree with you. However, Italy prosecuting Mignini doesn't cost anything. I agree though, that money is just part of it. Being left alone is probably the priority for the Knoxes and Sollecitos.

I purposely did not single anyone out. Just noticed this point is often missed. As you noted, you did mention the same point I had.

 

[Vixen]

Didn't they actually say this at their "case closed" conference? I thought Mignini was on record talking about bleach receipts?

Here's IIP take:

The information below is from truejustice.org. The website that you openly promote. Without any proof whatsoever, bleach receipts are suggested on the site. The site even tries to guess what Raffaele may have been searching for online. No proof was ever offered of any bleach receipts or of Raffale's Google search history. These are lies. This was written so the rumor would continue to be spread about mop buckets and clean up efforts. Of course we all know that never happened.

So do we all agree the police never officially declared they had bleach receipts?

One would think that IIP would mention the "case closed" presser if they had said it then.

Do you have a source for the police declaring they had "receipts"

Btw, after the cross the cop said he may only have smelled "clean". Ridiculous to say they bleached for days but didn't damage the knife DNA and left no traces of bleaching.

According to Gary C King (dreadful book btw) p 31 police purportedly found a receipt from Quintavalle's shop at [Raf's] his flat. They did not say what the receipt was for, but having preceded their statement remarking on the smell of bleach, the implication is clear.

We know the ACE bleach bottles under Raf's sink was considered suspicious by the police. We know Quintavalle only sold the ACE brand. We also know cop Oresto Volturno (_sp?) testified he tried very hard to discover where the ACE had been purchased, to no avail.

Bleach figures prominently - or other cleaning fluids - as a footprint in Amanda's room, some in the hallway and in the bathroom, only showed up under luminol, the iron traces from the haemoglobin glowing momentarily in the dark. As they couldn't be seen with the naked eye, obviously, someone had tried to clean up.

Was this someone Rudy, do you think?

 

[Vixen]

Well, I'll take a shot at it.

Amanda Knox, as an exchange student is not simply a common variety tourist.

Rather she is affiliated with a publicly funded (likely both state and federal funding) institution. There may even be treaty or international agreements with respect to mutually accepting students for study abroad programs.

In addition, Mignini's actions in regard to the interrogations, and the fraudulent vilification in the press, are something extraordinary.

The requirement under Italian law, to provide legal assistance and record interviews are not just a violation of Italian law, but I would argue mad could be construed as a national obligation from Italy to the US viz-viz the exchange students we send over in good faith.
At some point, Mignini's behavior's are recognizably criminal, in both the US and in Italy. But Italy has failed to investigate or prosecute.

In the US, Mignini's fraud could be false arrest, kidnapping or assault committed "under the color of law".

I know jurisdiction is a defense that would be raised. But the laws are flexible when the prosecutor wants them to be. Seems to me Mignini hasn't yet experienced the legal consequences for his actions.

I find it ironic that Amanda Knox is being tried for 'continuing calunnia', for statements made at trial and in her book, whereas Mignini has been spouting his lies continuously for nearly eight years, including as recently as in December of 2015.

For Mignini criminal liability in Italy, I guess I'd need to know more about how the statute of limitations functions. If Mignini's crimes are committed in November of 2007, and the ISC motivation doesn't come out until June of 2015, and say there is a statute of limitations of 6 years? How could anyone ever be prosecuted?

I don't think we're correctly understanding "statute of limitations" as it is applied in use. (In the US, the statute of limitations period is "tolled" - meaning suspended - once a case is bought into court. However, if a case is dismissed and has to be refiled, the statue of limitations still runs from the original incident. It may work differently in Italy).

OTOH, much as we might like to see Mignini in a US court, I doubt the Knox's want to waste another moment on that lying maniac Mignini. Who would?

ETA: Meant to say, "Teenage Mutant Ninja Vixens", again, please nobody steal this).

Firstly, Amanda was not an exchange student, she was independent.

Secondly, is there any evidence at all Mignini acted improperly, bearing in mind he was the public prosecutor for Perugia? That's what prosecutors do.

In addition, "being nice" is not part of a cop's job description.

 

[LondonJohn]

According to Gary C King (dreadful book btw) p 31 police purportedly found a receipt from Quintavalle's shop at [Raf's] his flat. They did not say what the receipt was for, but having preceded their statement remarking on the smell of bleach, the implication is clear.

We know the ACE bleach bottles under Raf's sink was considered suspicious by the police. We know Quintavalle only sold the ACE brand. We also know cop Oresto Volturno (_sp?) testified he tried very hard to discover where the ACE had been purchased, to no avail.

Bleach figures prominently - or other cleaning fluids - as a footprint in Amanda's room, some in the hallway and in the bathroom, only showed up under luminol, the iron traces from the haemoglobin glowing momentarily in the dark. As they couldn't be seen with the naked eye, obviously, someone had tried to clean up.

Was this someone Rudy, do you think?

There was no clean-up in the hallway or on the bathroom floor. From reading your post, I don't think you understand a) what Luminol does, and what it reacts with, or b) what would necessarily have been found using Luminol if a clean-up had taken place in those areas.

The first part is easy to research. In respect of the second part: if a floor (for example) is cleaned up with a cloth or mop, one would expect to find no visible traces of blood (since that's what the clean-up would be aiming to achieve), but under Luminol one would necessarily expect to find wide smears with no discernible shape, which are the result of the cloth or mop wiping over the surface.

What one categorically would not find would be footprint-shaped or shoeprint-shaped reactions to Luminol. Think about it for a minute. It's physically impossible for someone to wipe away a bloody shoeprint or footprint from a non-porous surface*, and yet still leave the shape of the imprint in situ ready to be discovered with Luminol. Pour some ketchup onto a tiled floor or a worktop and then wipe it up with a damp cloth. There will be no trace whatsoever left of the initial shape of the blobs of ketchup on the surface. What there will be is very dilute ketchup smeared all over the area that you wiped over.


* And even on semi-porous surfaces, any small seepage of blood into the material would be equally matched by that of the cleaning medium (water, bleach, etc), so at the very most one might sometimes find that what was originally a (for example) sharp shoe print in blood might have left a much larger, amorphous blob in the same area, caused by blood from the shoe print seeping into the material, followed by the cleaning mdeium also seeping in and expanding through the medium (much like dabbing ink with blotting paper). There is still no way whatsoever you would see recognisable shoe prints after a clean-up of a semi-porous surface using something such as water (with or without bleach).

 

[Grinder]

According to Gary C King (dreadful book btw) p 31 police purportedly found a receipt from Quintavalle's shop at [Raf's] his flat. They did not say what the receipt was for, but having preceded their statement remarking on the smell of bleach, the implication is clear.

Thanks but I was looking for a police statement that the police had found bleach receipts. I don't believe the smell of bleach story surfaced until later but certainly not the first week.

We know the ACE bleach bottles under Raf's sink was considered suspicious by the police. We know Quintavalle only sold the ACE brand. We also know cop Oresto Volturno (_sp?) testified he tried very hard to discover where the ACE had been purchased, to no avail.

He interviewed Q among others and Q, when shown pictures of AK (improper procedure), said he hadn't seen either she nor Raf.

Bleach figures prominently - or other cleaning fluids - as a footprint in Amanda's room, some in the hallway and in the bathroom, only showed up under luminol, the iron traces from the haemoglobin glowing momentarily in the dark. As they couldn't be seen with the naked eye, obviously, someone had tried to clean up.

No one of all the characters reported the smell of bleach or any cleaning product. There is no reason the footprints needed to be visible at any point. As has been pointed out many times to you there is no signs of a clean up. No signs when Luminol was applied. No signs in the mop or bucket.

Given that the area was very small - maybe 50 square feet in the hallway- the whole area where foot smudges were found could have been mopped up in just a few minutes. Of course all this ignores that visible blood that could have wiped in seconds was knowingly left on the faucet and sink.

Was this someone Rudy, do you think?

No cleanup was performed beyond what Rudi describes he did and maybe a wipe of a door or light switch.

 

[davefoc]

According to Gary C King (dreadful book btw) p 31 police purportedly found a receipt from Quintavalle's shop at [Raf's] his flat. They did not say what the receipt was for, but having preceded their statement remarking on the smell of bleach, the implication is clear.

We know the ACE bleach bottles under Raf's sink was considered suspicious by the police. We know Quintavalle only sold the ACE brand. We also know cop Oresto Volturno (_sp?) testified he tried very hard to discover where the ACE had been purchased, to no avail.

Bleach figures prominently - or other cleaning fluids - as a footprint in Amanda's room, some in the hallway and in the bathroom, only showed up under luminol, the iron traces from the haemoglobin glowing momentarily in the dark. As they couldn't be seen with the naked eye, obviously, someone had tried to clean up.

Was this someone Rudy, do you think?

What implication is "clear"? Categorical evidence has been put forth that there were no receipts for bleach in Sollecito's apartment. Are you now claiming that there were receipts for bleach in Sollecito's apartment?

If this is the implication that you are implying, would you look back in this thread at the detailed evidence that was put forth that there were no receipts for bleach discovered in Sollecito's apartment and attempt to refute that evidence or at least state why you think that the evidence is not categorical.

If you now agree that there were no receipts for bleach in Sollecito's apartment would you please explain what the implication was that was "clear"?

 

[Grinder]

I think you are going a little bit too far in describing my interaction with Nina. I think she was concerned with who I was. It was pretty clear she was wary of me and my motives for asking for certain info. I don't know if she actually thought I was a guilter or not.

I didn't say she thought you were a guilter but that theb person asking you was one. I interpreted "crazies" as guilters. Apparently she considers the NY Times writer a crazy.

From you post this is her email you published.

I find it outrageous that people think i would "embellish" and invent stories like this. I am a professional journalist, have been for 30 years, and - as much as the interested crazies insist - I have no dog in this hunt.
I could have cared less who committed the crime and when I got there, I assumed Amanda Knox was guilty. My research, diligent, thorough and professional as per my years of training, turned up a very different set of facts.

Self appeal to own authority
I thought it was no dog in this fight but she clearly did irregardless (I know some dictionaries don't recognize this word but it is as popular as "anyways") of her protestations.

 

[Vixen]

There was no clean-up in the hallway or on the bathroom floor. From reading your post, I don't think you understand a) what Luminol does, and what it reacts with, or b) what would necessarily have been found using Luminol if a clean-up had taken place in those areas.

The first part is easy to research. In respect of the second part: if a floor (for example) is cleaned up with a cloth or mop, one would expect to find no visible traces of blood (since that's what the clean-up would be aiming to achieve), but under Luminol one would necessarily expect to find wide smears with no discernible shape, which are the result of the cloth or mop wiping over the surface.

What one categorically would not find would be footprint-shaped or shoeprint-shaped reactions to Luminol. Think about it for a minute. It's physically impossible for someone to wipe away a bloody shoeprint or footprint from a non-porous surface*, and yet still leave the shape of the imprint in situ ready to be discovered with Luminol. Pour some ketchup onto a tiled floor or a worktop and then wipe it up with a damp cloth. There will be no trace whatsoever left of the initial shape of the blobs of ketchup on the surface. What there will be is very dilute ketchup smeared all over the area that you wiped over.


* And even on semi-porous surfaces, any small seepage of blood into the material would be equally matched by that of the cleaning medium (water, bleach, etc), so at the very most one might sometimes find that what was originally a (for example) sharp shoe print in blood might have left a much larger, amorphous blob in the same area, caused by blood from the shoe print seeping into the material, followed by the cleaning mdeium also seeping in and expanding through the medium (much like dabbing ink with blotting paper). There is still no way whatsoever you would see recognisable shoe prints after a clean-up of a semi-porous surface using something such as water (with or without bleach).

There are some substances that stain more than others. For example, blood is notoriously difficult to remove from cloth when dry. Tomatoes, which get their red colour from lypocene (_?) is another. Curry stains on a white shirt or table cloth are a nightmare. So, a dried footprint in blood, would not necessarily be an amorphous blob when clean. The edges, in fact, are quite likely to be well defined as the haemoglobin dilutes from the middle outwards.

Forensic police do indeed use luminol to highlight blood traces.

ETA It identifies haematic substances by the reaction of the ferrous (iron) element, which makes the red blood cell red on reacting to oxygen.

 

[Vixen]

What implication is "clear"? Categorical evidence has been put forth that there were no receipts for bleach in Sollecito's apartment. Are you now claiming that there were receipts for bleach in Sollecito's apartment?

If this is the implication that you are implying, would you look back in this thread at the detailed evidence that was put forth that there were no receipts for bleach discovered in Sollecito's apartment and attempt to refute that evidence or at least state why you think that the evidence is not categorical.

If you now agree that there were no receipts for bleach in Sollecito's apartment would you please explain what the implication was that was "clear"?

Well, daveoc, whether or not a specific receipt for bleach was ever found, and the police say, not, it does not diminish the fact Raf had two huge bottles of ACE under his sink, both brand spanking new, and one almost empty IIRC. From the condensation around the bottom of the labels, we can surmise (1) it had recently been used, (2) it had been placed on a wet surface.

ETA What was "clear", is that at the time police were confident the ACE was newly purchased, and were hopeful Quintavalle's till roll would provide the confirmation.