Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[bagels]

It was you, bagels, who pointed us all to the fact Rudy left "footprints in blood" as would have been highlighted by luminol. If it applies to Rudy, it applies to the kids.

Do you follow the logic?

His footprints were literally in blood. There are pictures of them. It's a reddish substance that darkens to rust-brown as the oxidation process in the air completes.

This is different from invisible undated unmatched luminol prints that tested negative for blood with the highly specific TMB test which the lead forensic scientist working for the police and prosecution assures us means "you can be sure it's not blood."

 

[Vixen]

In the police image there's an arbitrary sharp corner there for no reason. I've illustrated this with a red line where the tread pattern ends next to the corner in the black and white prosecution image, and added the defense analysis for comparison:

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/HcHd4Yz.jpg[/qimg]

The sharp corner perfectly patches Rudy's Nike's shoe tread pattern.

The defense analysis found two shoeprints there, on top of each other, but angled in slightly different directions. It looks like the prosecution "expert" took the features from both to get his measurements of a single ladies size shoeprint.

Of course maybe Amanda, just like Rudy, got blood on her left shoe only. And happened to be wearing a pair of shoes that would leave a remarkably similar tread pattern that nobody ever saw her wearing, in the midst of Rudy's other shoe prints, in the same spot, that could be measured as part of two of Rudy's left bloody shoe prints. So score another one for the miracle girl. She got away with it again!

I don't speak Italian, but perhaps you do, and you might want to read Rinaldi's criticisms of Vinci here:

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.c...s-Rinaldi-Boemia-comments-on-Vinci-report.pdf

 

[Vixen]

His footprints were literally in blood. There are pictures of them. It's a reddish substance that darkens to rust-brown as the oxidation process in the air completes.

This is different from invisible undated unmatched luminol prints that tested negative for blood with the highly specific TMB test which the lead forensic scientist working for the police and prosecution assures us means "you can be sure it's not blood."

Red herring. Please do not try to claim Raff and Amanda dipped their feet in parsnip juice, or similar paradoxidised (sp_?) vegetable juice to produce said stains on the night in the shape of their bare feet, whilst "Rudy's must be blood".

ETA: and of course, Amanda & Raff took care not to clean up Rudy's footprints, but seem to have accidentally washed off one side of them, giving a one-sided hopping effect.

----quote:

Negative TMB Test
A final objection to the footprints that were revealed being blood is based on the negative results of TMB tests on the same surface, an event which happens on valid blood Luminol hits about half the time, according to Stefanoni[27]. Tetramethylbenzidine (TMB) is another presumptive test for the presence of blood. The problem with this argument is that TMB is only able to detect blood to a sensitivity of 1 in 10,000 parts.[28] Luminol on the other hand is extremely sensitive and is capable of detecting blood to a sensitivity of 1 in 1,000,000 parts on the low end and 1 in 100,000,000 parts on the high end.[29] That means that luminol is at a minimum 100 times the sensitivity of TMB and can be as high as 10,000 times the sensitivity. Attempting to compare the sensitivity of these two tests it is clear that luminol is by far the more sensitive test. Using a considerably less sensitive test to argue that the positive result of the test with a much greater sensitivity is a false positive is illogical and incorrect. [30]
Conclusion

The luminol traces are very strong evidence of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito's involvement in the murder of Meredith Kercher. The footprints establish that someone other than Rudy Guede was present and that these individuals had feet that are compatible with Knox and Sollecito. Attempts to explain the evidence by making reference to DNA in dust and to luminol false positives are at best misinformed and most likely intentionally deceptive. The argument that because TMB was used and the result was negative we should exclude the luminol results is wrong. The footprints are made in blood, they belong to Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, and they establish without a doubt that the couple was involved with the murder.
--------Ends
Source: http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Luminol_Traces#Finding_7_.2F_L9_.2F_Rep._184

Testimony of Bongiorno cross-examining Boemia:

-------quote:
Sollecito Defence - Bongiorno
GB:
You still consider it to be three people because you take into consideration the bathmat print which though you don’t know the length of?
PB:
Yes.
GB:
Not knowing the length, you can rule out that the person who left the print on the bathmat could in reality be one of the persons, maybe the one who left the shoe print on the pillow slip?
PB:
Look, to identify a print it isn’t necessary to have the complete entire print, just as to identify a person it’s not necessary to have all ten fingers like someone was saying for a long time; and to identify a person it’s not necessary that the finger be classifiable or something, I need only a portion of a print for identification, [253] speaking of fingerprints; and the same thing for shoe prints, for foot prints; therefore there’s no difference.
GB:
The person who left the print on the bathmat, do you know if they were male or female?
PB:
Certainly, unless they were a giant, in short.
GB:
Why, of what dimensions is this print?
PB:
It’s of 10 centimetres in width.
GB:
And the length?
PB:
Counsel, how can I tell you the length, I’ve been saying to you that I need only a few elements to identify a person, you’re returning me back again to the question…?
MC:
Pardon me, but these aren’t questions flowing from the President’s question, it seems to me, because if we don’t return to…
GB:
To the number of persons.
GCM:
On the number of persons, only on this, independently of the attribution.
GB:
Independently of the attribution, how can you definitely rule out that that print does not belong to someone else?
[254]
GCM:
That is to someone else who left other bloodstained prints.
GB:
Right.
PB:
Seeing that in any case there were the shoe prints there on the thing, one referable to the right shoe revealed on the pillow slip and one referable to the left shoe, left on almost every surface of the apartment, I presume that in any case that one was wearing shoes and then after the one who left the print on the bathmat wasn’t.
GB:
Therefore there are two of them.
PB:
I presume there are two of them.
GB:
Two.
PB:
And the third is the woman’s shoe print on the pillow slip.
-----------Ends
Source: http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Pietro_Boemia's_Testimony_(English)#Women.27s_Shoeprint

 

[Vixen]

I had a strange thought - lets pretend that Amanda and Raff actually were guilty. Would they even deserve the hatred they get? The guilt side treats them as if they are worse than the Green River Killer.

Amanda and Raff are almost certainly guilty of the actual fact of murder. Do they deserve the adulation they get from murder groupies who aren't bothered by this fact?

 

[dropzone]

I had a strange thought - lets pretend that Amanda and Raff actually were guilty. Would they even deserve the hatred they get? The guilt side treats them as if they are worse than the Green River Killer.

Well, she is pretty, an American, and it's been a slow news decade in Italy, so yeah, I think so.

 

[Vixen]

Well, she is pretty, an American, and it's been a slow news decade in Italy, so yeah, I think so.

Meredith was beautiful, English, funny and smart.

 

[Desert Fox]

Amanda and Raff are almost certainly guilty of the actual fact of murder. Do they deserve the adulation they get from murder groupies who aren't bothered by this fact?

If you are serious and not trolling, there appear to be a sick hatred inside you.

 

[Vixen]

If you are serious and not trolling, there appear to be a sick hatred inside you.

Logical fallacy #100 when all else fails: ad hominem.

 

[acbytesla]

Amanda and Raff are almost certainly guilty of the actual fact of murder. Do they deserve the adulation they get from murder groupies who aren't bothered by this fact?

Only in the minds of the logically impaired. People like you that make up and distort the facts. There is a reason they were acquitted and that is the total absence of credible evidence.

I respect both Raffaele and Amanda (particularly Raffaele) because of the integrity and class that they have demonstrated under highly difficult circumstances. They are not perfect, but human. Is that adulation? I don't think so.

The good news for them, is not only were they acquitted by the Italian Supreme Court. But by time. Only a few crazies left arguing against them. A number that is decreasing steadily.

I wonder Vixen, will you still be arguing this case next year or the year after? You do know that you aren't persuading anyone. Haven't you noticed that no one joins you on your side in this forum?

 

[Vixen]

Only in the minds of the logically impaired. People like you that make up and distort the facts. There is a reason they were acquitted and that is the total absence of credible evidence.

I respect both Raffaele and Amanda (particularly Raffaele) because of the integrity and class that they have demonstrated under highly difficult circumstances. They are not perfect, but human. Is that adulation? I don't think so.

The good news for them, is not only were they acquitted by the Italian Supreme Court. But by time. Only a few crazies left arguing against them. A number that is decreasing steadily.

I wonder Vixen, will you still be arguing this case next year or the year after? You do know that you aren't persuading anyone. Haven't you noticed that no one joins you on your side in this forum?

Logical fallacy #3: appeal to the crowd. Given that many of the posters here are part of a homogenous innocence project group, that is hardly surprising.

Any strong credible evidence I present you, you glibly brush away, which tells me deep in your heart you do not really believe the kids are innocent, it is just a sound bite you are expected to come out with.

If it wasn't for the fact there is a real victim here, and her family, then it probably wouldn't be too much of a moral issue, as most people do get their "opinions"from the mass media, without any real critical thought.

I do not aim to persuade anyone. I simply correct incorrect assertions.

 

[bagels]

I don't speak Italian, but perhaps you do, and you might want to read Rinaldi's criticisms of Vinci here:

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.c...s-Rinaldi-Boemia-comments-on-Vinci-report.pdf

I don't speak Italian but I speak google translate. He appears to be nitpicking various details with a mismatched arrow and whatnot. At one point he says it's impossible for Rudy's Nike to have made the print because Vinci has measured a certain part of the circle at 2 mm and using Photoshop he's measured it at 1mm. As if it's impossible Rinaldi mis-used the software, or the worn blood soaked crunched cloth could have strecthed or shrunk 1mm.

He doesn't seem to address the main argument, which is that the tread pattern in blood and on Rudy's shoes bear a remarkable resemblance.

Here's a quick overlay I made:

Now forget worrying about if my bad tracing counts as a forensic match for a moment and focus on the broader point. The blood pattern has a sharp corner, and as we move up from this corner, the angles of the tread lines get aggressively more pronounced.

On Rudy's Nikes, starting at the corner, the angles of the tread lines get aggressively more pronounced in exactly the same proportion.

So once again, if this print is supposed to be some shoe Amanda had, the miracle girl has hit yet another hole in one, getting blood on the same left shoe, with the same tread pattern, in the same proportion, in the same area where Rudy was stepping, wearing a shoe nobody ever saw her wearing.

Then we have to believe that Amanda bloodied her shoe but left only one print, cleaning every remaining bloody shoeprint belonging to her in the area, while leaving all of Rudy's prints, which included 7 prints in the bedroom, and 8 additional prints in the hallway and out to the front door. Despite the fact that they obviously looked very similar, and the partial prints would be very difficult to distinguish, and there are no luminol traces of these other prints, despite the fact that it is alleged the bare footprints in luminol were cleaned with the same process.

You don't actually believe in a theory, because there isn't one. You have a jumble of suspicions and assertions, backed up by yes-men prosecution appeasers, that don't establish any particular fact.

Either accept Amanda is the luckiest murderer of all time, or accept that she's innocent. But please don't pretend like there was ever a case against her.

 

[acbytesla]

Logical fallacy #3: appeal to the crowd. Given that many of the posters here are part of a homogenous innocence project group, that is hardly surprising.

Any strong credible evidence I present you, you glibly brush away, which tells me deep in your heart you do not really believe the kids are innocent, it is just a sound bite you are expected to come out with.

If it wasn't for the fact there is a real victim here, and her family, then it probably wouldn't be too much of a moral issue, as most people do get their "opinions"from the mass media, without any real critical thought.

I do not aim to persuade anyone. I simply correct incorrect assertions.

There was a time when guilters outnumbered those arguing for innocence. But over time the guilters disappeared as their arguments like yours didn't stand up to the intense scrutiny that one has to face on this forum.

You don't EVER present credible evidence. That's because there is none.

You cite reporters as references despite the contradictions in actual court testimony. And half the time that is a lie like your recent claim that Amanda couldn't have showered because she smelled like B.O. You cited not a page from the book quoting a specific person but the book Descending Darkness as a whole.

That was a lie. PERIOD. And it was proven since some of the people here know all this far better than you could dream to.

I feel sorry for you. You are incapable of looking at the facts objectivly because that would mean that your own behavior has been despicable. Amanda and Raffaele have bee acauitted. Now run along and torment someone else.

 

[bagels]

Red herring. Please do not try to claim Raff and Amanda dipped their feet in parsnip juice, or similar paradoxidised (sp_?) vegetable juice to produce said stains on the night in the shape of their bare feet, whilst "Rudy's must be blood".

Rudy's mustn't be blood. They simply are blood. This was confirmed by the forensic team that tested them. The blood was discovered to belong to Meredith Kercher. Trying to conflate these prints is either delusion or sophistry.

 

[acbytesla]

I don't speak Italian but I speak google translate. He appears to be nitpicking various details with a mismatched arrow and whatnot. At one point he says it's impossible for Rudy's Nike to have made the print because Vinci has measured a certain part of the circle at 2 mm and using Photoshop he's measured it at 1mm. As if it's impossible Rinaldi mis-used the software, or the worn blood soaked crunched cloth could have strecthed or shrunk 1mm.

He doesn't seem to address the main argument, which is that the tread pattern in blood and on Rudy's shoes bear a remarkable resemblance.

Here's a quick overlay I made:

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/cpycqQa.jpg[/qimg]

Now forget worrying about if my bad tracing counts as a forensic match for a moment and focus on the broader point. The blood pattern has a sharp corner, and as we move up from this corner, the angles of the tread lines get aggressively more pronounced.

On Rudy's Nikes, starting at the corner, the angles of the tread lines get aggressively more pronounced in exactly the same proportion.

So once again, if this print is supposed to be some shoe Amanda had, the miracle girl has hit yet another hole in one, getting blood on the same left shoe, with the same tread pattern, in the same proportion, in the same area where Rudy was stepping, wearing a shoe nobody ever saw her wearing.

Then we have to believe that Amanda bloodied her shoe but left only one print, cleaning every remaining bloody shoeprint belonging to her in the area, while leaving all of Rudy's prints, which included 7 prints in the bedroom, and 8 additional prints in the hallway and out to the front door. Despite the fact that they obviously looked very similar, and the partial prints would be very difficult to distinguish, and there are no luminol traces of these other prints, despite the fact that it is alleged the bare footprints in luminol were cleaned with the same process.

You don't actually believe in a theory, because there isn't one. You have a jumble of suspicions and assertions, backed up by yes-men prosecution appeasers, that don't establish any particular fact.

Either accept Amanda is the luckiest murderer of all time, or accept that she's innocent. But please don't pretend like there was ever a case against her.

Excellent post Bagels. It is the tread match that is convincing, not Vinci's testimony. This is what Vixen doesn't get. I can see for myself as can anyone, that it is the same tread pattern found on the other bloody shoe prints throughout the cottage.Nike Outbreak 2.

 

[Bill Williams]

Logical fallacy #3: appeal to the crowd. Given that many of the posters here are part of a homogenous innocence project group, that is hardly surprising.

Any strong credible evidence I present you, you glibly brush away, which tells me deep in your heart you do not really believe the kids are innocent, it is just a sound bite you are expected to come out with.

If it wasn't for the fact there is a real victim here, and her family, then it probably wouldn't be too much of a moral issue, as most people do get their "opinions"from the mass media, without any real critical thought.

I do not aim to persuade anyone. I simply correct incorrect assertions.

You haven't presented ANY strong, credible evidence. You've posted pics which actually refute your claims, like the pic of the barred lower window which you said did not have bars. You cited Darkness Descending about body odor, and there turned out to be nothing in it. You've slow-flooded this thread with long-since disproven claims - many of which either never made it to court or were never eve claimed by the nuttiest of prosecutors.

No one has glibly dismissed anything you have posted here.

 

[Bill Williams]

Wow. You even accuse the convicting judges of misconduct. If it's not apparent to you that you have, there's no point pointing it out.

Don't put words in my mouth. Judges have wide-ranging powers on how they interpret facts found at trial. As I say, Massei bent over backwards for Papa Raff in respect of the trainer prints, as police identified them as Raff's.

Massei also gave Rudy lead role. That's his prerogative. That is hardly "misconduct".

LOL! Your words were that Massei "bent over backwards" to help the kids; even in convicting them.

You have just accused the judge of misconduct. His job is only to judge the facts fairly, and not bend over backwards for either of the sides. You repeated the allegation of misconduct, saying, in effect, he did a favour for "Papa Raff" in respect to the trainers.

It is very hard to take any of your posts seriously.

 

[LondonJohn]

Meredith was beautiful, English, funny and smart.

How do you know those last two attributes? Did you know Kercher personally?

(Hint: I would suggest it's unreliable (to put it kindly) to accept the reminiscences of Kercher's family and close friends at face value, given the situation and the circumstances of her death. Even you will understand that every time there's a news report of someone being murdered - especially someone young - it's invariably accompanied by family reports that so-and-so was the kindest, funniest, most warm-hearted, brightest person you're ever likely to meet......)

 

[Grinder]

Meredith was beautiful, English, funny and smart.

If she were average, German, boring and had 100 IQ would the murder in some way be less tragic?

Why do PGP put this sort of characterization forward? They clearly are begging for either criticism of Meredith, which they would say isn't proper or a favorable comparison to Amanda, to which they would make some crude remarks about groupies and having desire for her.

In my opinion they were similar, pretty average college students.

 

[acbytesla]

How do you know those last two attributes? Did you know Kercher personally?

(Hint: I would suggest it's unreliable (to put it kindly) to accept the reminiscences of Kercher's family and close friends at face value, given the situation and the circumstances of her death. Even you will understand that every time there's a news report of someone being murdered - especially someone young - it's invariably accompanied by family reports that so-and-so was the kindest, funniest, most warm-hearted, brightest person you're ever likely to meet......)

In all fairness LJ Amanda described Meredith thar way. Still Meredth's "catty behavior" with the prudish British virgins hardly sounded sweet. It sounded more like something from Mean Girls. That in itself doesn't bother me. It's that description as some kind of reason to get Amanda that is bothersome. No matter how good Meredith was it hardly justifies convicting possibly and in this case definitely innocent defendants .

 

[christianahannah]

How do you know those last two attributes? Did you know Kercher personally?

(Hint: I would suggest it's unreliable (to put it kindly) to accept the reminiscences of Kercher's family and close friends at face value, given the situation and the circumstances of her death. Even you will understand that every time there's a news report of someone being murdered - especially someone young - it's invariably accompanied by family reports that so-and-so was the kindest, funniest, most warm-hearted, brightest person you're ever likely to meet......)

I think that Amanda used these very characteristics in her email and prison diary about Meredith.

I do not think it horrible Meredith would be described in the above terms by any and all nor do I think it horrible Amanda would have nice things said about her by any and all.

eta: I see acbytesla said the same about the descriptions.