• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

Status
Not open for further replies.
The wiki article quotes Stefano Bonassi as saying that he didn't "know how to explain the traces of blood on my duvet given that my door was locked with a key as well as the window." and indicates that "Item No. 28 is a lightswitch on the wall of the downstairs apartment. The lightswitch samples are the only blood samples from inside of the downstairs apartment that are not identified as cat’s blood." If the blood on the switch wasn't cat-blood what was it? Now we are stuck with a cat that can apparently open locked doors? We also have dripped diluted traces on the steps on way down to the downstairs flat, two of which were confirmed as blood. I agree that the cat may have been bleeding; however, there is no significant pooling of blood as there would be if a cat was settling or sleeping as you suggest, instead there are sporadic blood drops indicating that the source was in motion. There's no doubt in my mind that Rudy was downstairs at some point, if only briefly.

Hoots

Giobbi testified that the window in the bathroom was open. Giobbi's testimony about the downstairs blood :

GB [Bongiorno] But I wanted to understand, other than this ...

EG:
No, there were other [blood]stains even. I, the ones that I remember, see, there were a pair over the light switch, I don’t know if you can remember what the apartment below was like? Going in, instead of on the right, on the left as you go in – you enter, there’s the kitchen, going to the left, then, at the back on the left, there’s a sort of long rectangular room, that then leads to a bathroom, a bathroom where there’s a shower without the shower-tray. At the beginning of this room, at the level of the light switch, and this aggravated even further my initial conditions [sic], above there were some blood stains.
GB:
But a what height/

EG:
Over the light switch, the standard position of switches for turning on the light of the room, over that switch it seems to me it was, but they were small stains, I mean to say, small, visible to the naked eye, but small. Carrying on, and going then into the bathroom, it seems to me there were [blood]stains on the flooring in the area of the shower, that the window of the bathroom, which is a small window, and that it was open. It was open.

>snipped for irrelevancy<

GB:
This quantity of blood, was it a quantity of blood compatible with the blood coming from the ear of a cat?

EG:
On the moment, look, I could think of anything except that. I immediately though, I tell you the truth, but I had to check it whether it was the victim’s blood. Naturally I thought that, because I mean to say, there was so much.

GB:
So much. Do you mean to say that one could actually see large patches? EG:
There were big patches on the [bed]cover.
GB:
Afterwards, on all these patches of blood, according to you, do you know what type of checks were carried out?

EG:
I immediately asked Dr Stefanoni to bring forward the checks on the blood from downstairs, because obviously it changed the whole aspect of my approach to the case if, as I said to you earlier, if I had had, that is to say, I had to wait for confirmations on the blood group of the blood, or at least on the compatibility of the blood group with that of the victim. Because if the criminal action, that is the action of the murder, had taken place downstairs, in short, it changed several things for me. And I remember that then later, hearing the young men, I said: “look, there’s blood down there”, I was told about the cat, that had a wounded ear.

GB:
Just to understand: a wound on the ear?

EG:
What I remember was said to me was that for many days there had been this cat that usually visited the house, and that they even left the window of the small bathroom open on purpose to allow it to enter, that it had a wound on its ear that was being treated and it seems to me that I remember that Meredith’s boyfriend at the time also said to me that he had given Meredith the task of treating that wound during the day when he was not there. Now, objectively, I said to myself, “but how could it lose all that blood”.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Edgardo_Giobbi's_Testimony_(English)

Bonassi also said that the cat would eat in the bathroom and had left blood there from shaking it's head:

“We have two cats. One is more savage and stays outside. The black one stays inside.The black one had hurt himself on Friday, October 26, and had a wound behind his right ear. He lost a lot of blood while he was eating and shaking his head.”
Burleigh, Nina. The Fatal Gift of Beauty: The Trials of Amanda Knox (p. 179).

A. We have two cats. We keep the black one in the house; the other is more of a stray one and stays outside. The black cat fell ill on Tuesday, October 26, I think; its right ear was injured. However I remember that it was eating; under the small sink in the small bathroom it lost a lot of blood because it was shaking its head. Those days, Meredith had the keys from from my place
(Bonassi Deposition, Nov. 3, 2007)

Regarding the "diluted traces on the steps": there is no evidence that blood was diluted. That is conjecture from this:

Item Nos. 8, 9 and 10 form a path of 10 apparent freshblood drops leading down the steps to the entry door to the downstairs apartment. The number and placement of drops appears too profuse to be from a cat. In addition, the drops are wide and diffuse, suggesting that they might not represent drops of pure blood, but rather, blood thinned with water.
(Amandaknox.com The Secret Downstairs Crime Scene)

This is pure conjecture not based on logic or science; it's conspiracy theory nonsense. The forensics did not suggest nor state any of this. Suggesting because drops of blood are wide does not mean they are watered down. It's due to the amount of blood that has dripped.
 
Last edited:
He himself said he was downstairs, standing on a chair in the boys' bathroom to see who was pulling up in the car park outside. Silenzi said he had tidied his room as he always did before departing on his skiing trip, yet when he returned, it was in chaos.

Once again, you fail to present the requested citation for a claim. I guess we'll just have to add this to the dung heap of other false claims you've made. You'd think you'd learn...
 
Stefanoni a biologist knows more about TMB v Luminol than you do. Luminol is the number one crime tool of choice in the USA for unveiling invisible blood.

It is several thousand times more sensitive than TMB.

You got one thing right; Stefanoni does know more about TMB vs. Luminol than I do...or you. Stefanoni agrees that a negative TMB test means no blood is present:


Dr. Stefanoni herself, moreover, clarified (preliminary hearing of October 4 2008) that, while a positive test result could be deceptive due to reactivity of the chemical [evidenziatore] with other substances, a negative result gives certainty that no blood is present.”
(Hellman MR)

Your cognitive dissonance must be almost painful.
 
...Or Raff and Amanda, bearing in mind Amanda knew where Mez got the key from, which was hanging inside the front door. As you may recall, Mez was tasked with feeding the cat and watering the plants whilst the boys were away.

If anyone had the key to downstairs, it was KNox, not Rudy. He had only visited on three known occasions, mainly to watch sporting events on TV: Rugby World Cup and Formula 1 racing. I doubt the boys would have given him a key.

Of course they didn't. No one went downstairs that night, including Guede.
 
Regarding the theory that Guede went downstairs the night of the murder: Guede concocted a story to explain almost every piece of evidence he knew existed/could exist in the upstairs apartment. From explaining the feces in the bathroom, to the towels in the bedroom, to his DNA on Meredith, to his fingerprints, to his bloody shoe prints, to the smear on the wall, to drinking out of the juice bottle, etc...he thought he covered it all. But he never mentioned going downstairs. Where, if you believe he did, he left blood...possibly his from his cut hand... all over. Why did he fail to make up a story to cover any of this?
 
....

Regarding the "diluted traces on the steps": there is no evidence that blood was diluted. That is conjecture from this:

Item Nos. 8, 9 and 10 form a path of 10 apparent freshblood drops leading down the steps to the entry door to the downstairs apartment. The number and placement of drops appears too profuse to be from a cat. In addition, the drops are wide and diffuse, suggesting that they might not represent drops of pure blood, but rather, blood thinned with water.
(Amandaknox.com The Secret Downstairs Crime Scene)

This is pure conjecture not based on logic or science; it's conspiracy theory nonsense. The forensics did not suggest nor state any of this. Suggesting because drops of blood are wide does not mean they are watered down. It's due to the amount of blood that has dripped.

Your highlighted statement does not appear to consider all the possible information which may underlie the quote.

Blood is a complex liquid-solid mixture which has, as do all liquids, a surface tension and drops of blood form contact angles with surfaces dependent primarily on the chemical and physical nature of the surface and the surface tension of the blood. The surface tension of a blood drop is likely to change if the blood is diluted with water, in a manner dependent on the amount of dilution (the concentration of water in the diluted blood droplet). So the contact angle and degree of spread of a blood droplet on a surface will change with dilution of the blood by water. However, as you indicate, a larger volume droplet of blood may be expected to have a larger surface contact area than a smaller volume droplet of blood.

Thus, there is nothing on its face that makes the statement you quote "pure conjecture not based on logic or science". Furthermore, you seem to miss that critically important scientific caveat in the quote: "suggesting". "Suggesting" in a scientific statement is not an absolute claim that something is true, but rather a claim that something is possibly true.

I am not maintaining that the suggestion in the quote you criticize is indeed accurate with respect to the blood traces in question. But the words of your criticism seem to reflect your own ignorance about the complexity of liquid droplet - surface interactions, especially for a complex and active (naturally coagulating, solids containing) substance such as blood, as well as a failure to comprehend the meaning of "suggesting" in what appears to be an initial attempt at a forming a scientific hypothesis.
 
Regarding the theory that Guede went downstairs the night of the murder: Guede concocted a story to explain almost every piece of evidence he knew existed/could exist in the upstairs apartment. From explaining the feces in the bathroom, to the towels in the bedroom, to his DNA on Meredith, to his fingerprints, to his bloody shoe prints, to the smear on the wall, to drinking out of the juice bottle, etc...he thought he covered it all. But he never mentioned going downstairs. Where, if you believe he did, he left blood...possibly his from his cut hand... all over. Why did he fail to make up a story to cover any of this?

Stacyhs, he did. I quoted his statement to Mignini that he had heard loud noises from the downstairs flat. I will repeat the quote I found in the source:

"Guede: When Meredith was no longer… at a certain point she… like, I don’t know how to define it, she had like… at a certain point it’s like she slipped away and in that moment I didn’t know what to do, so many thoughts came to mind, I didn’t know whether to go into the street and shout that something had happened, at a certain point I panicked and I said to myself “here no one will believe me” because I repeat, I had blood on my hands, I went down on my knee… when I placed the cushion, I had this left part of my foot, of the left knee anyway that had become drenched because I placed myself next to her trying to help her… I had so many thoughts come to my mind until at a certain point the thing which frightened me the most is that I heard from the floor below, or rather below the house, below as if someone was moving a table, a chair, that classic noise that you hear, and there I became frightened that I wouldn’t be believed about what had happened.
Mignini: Then there was someone else that had gone below?
Guede: I heard a noise as if someone had gone below. Attorney: Who was going towards… Mignini: The apartment of the guys. Guede: Yes. Attorney: Towards the apartment of the guys or towards the road? Guede: No, towards the apartment of the guys was my perception… It was as if someone was moving… Mignini: Yes, then you left.
*Notice Mignini gives him the answer instead of asking if it was him who entered the apartment."

Source: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/blood-evidence-downstairs-apartment/
 
These records show that Stefanoni claimed to have conducted antibody tests specific for human, cat, and dog on some of the blood samples.

Is there any documentation in the records to show her materials and methods for these tests?
[...]
Perhaps Stefanoni had such non-human blood antibody tests available. Do her records indicate the specifics of her materials and methods?
In contrast to her records for the DNA testing, which show the materials and methods to some extent - at least she listed the equipment used, for example, in some cases, extraction by "BioRobot "EZ1" (QIAGEN)" and quantification by "7700 Sequence Detector ABI Prism" from "Applied Biosystems", there is no identification of the source for the human, cat, or dog blood antibodies allegedly used. In forensics, the failure to show the source of materials not commonly available (such as cat or dog blood antibody) must lead to questions about the credibility and reliability of the alleged testing.

No, As far as I can tell, there is no documentation in the records to show her materials and methods for these tests. (There is of couse the possibility that I just wasn't able to find it ;) )

In her SAL report, traces 00 - 10 only have "Gatto" listed under "Specie Animale"...

And so far I have found "Gatto" (counting in "Gatti" and "Gattino") mentioned only four times in her testimony (page 12):
la tipologia di traccia, quindi se abbiamo una traccia di tipo salivare, di sangue, di liquido seminale ed anche la natura di questa traccia, riguardo il sangue le formazioni pilifere che sono condivise anche dagli animali, quindi possiamo avere anche delle tracce di sangue animale, succede, ma abbastanza... diciamo frequentemente, ed anche formazioni pilifere, perché cani e gatti sono i più... diciamo quei fornitori più normali di reperti di natura biologica che essendo degli animali che convivono con l’uomo, comunque in un appartamento, in una macchina si rinvengono delle formazioni pilifere che ad occhio non è possibile stabilire preliminarmente se sono umane o animali quindi si analizzano...
DOMANDA – È successo proprio anche in questa indagine?
RISPOSTA – È successo purtroppo anche in questo caso che un gattino ci ha fatto impazzire perché inizialmente nel sopralluogo, il sopralluogo nella casa di via della Pergola, quindi la casa dove è stato ritrovato il cadavere purtroppo siamo stati pesantemente fuorviati, quasi presi in giro dal fatto che un gatto, evidentemente ferito, si era introdotto nell’appartamento diciamo al piano sottostante a quello della vittima, evidentemente c’erano dei vetri a terra, rotti insomma che erano stati prodotti per entrare nell’appartamento, perché non si trovavano le chiavi so, e quindi questo gattino purtroppo si è ferito ed ha lasciato sangue ovunque, ovviamo facendoci fare un lavoro pazzesco di campionatura perché pensavamo che qualcuno avesse evidentemente... insomma non lo so, collegato al delitto e quindi avesse perso del sangue, invece poi era un gatto appunto.

Looks like neither prosecution or defence questioned or better even asked about her "methods" when it came to "the cat's blood downstairs"...
 
HemaTrace and RSID tests

A good source of information is a 2009 article in Forensic Science International by Virkler and Lednev. IIRC they classify HemaTrace as presumptive. IMO it is confirmatory that the substance is hemoglobin but not that it is human. I do not recall when the RSID test for glycophorin A was first introduced, but I am pretty sure that it was before 2016.
 
No, As far as I can tell, there is no documentation in the records to show her materials and methods for these tests. (There is of couse the possibility that I just wasn't able to find it ;) )

In her SAL report, traces 00 - 10 only have "Gatto" listed under "Specie Animale"...

And so far I have found "Gatto" (counting in "Gatti" and "Gattino") mentioned only four times in her testimony (page 12):


Looks like neither prosecution or defence questioned or better even asked about her "methods" when it came to "the cat's blood downstairs"...

Pursing this issue a bit absurdly, the question occurs: when did Stefanoni do the alleged antibody testing for human, cat, and dog blood? We know that the machine records indicate that she began testing for the DNA profiles of the downstairs blood traces as of Nov. 5 and apparently completed or interrupted them to do the reference tests on the "prime suspects" Lumumba, Sollecito, and Knox beginning on Nov. 6.

I wonder if the alleged blood antibody tests were done (assuming they were done) after the DNA tests on the downstairs blood traces. If the blood antibody tests had been before the DNA testing, and those antibody tests showed that the blood was "cat" (or otherwise non-human), why would a rational (reasonable) lab go ahead and do the absolutely human-specific DNA testing on cat blood or other non-human samples?

And if the alleged blood antibody tests were done after the DNA profiling, would that have been done to provide an seeming reasonable justification for not turning over those DNA profiles of the downstairs blood traces - which would have been of one or more humans - to the defense?
 
Your highlighted statement does not appear to consider all the possible information which may underlie the quote.

Blood is a complex liquid-solid mixture which has, as do all liquids, a surface tension and drops of blood form contact angles with surfaces dependent primarily on the chemical and physical nature of the surface and the surface tension of the blood. The surface tension of a blood drop is likely to change if the blood is diluted with water, in a manner dependent on the amount of dilution (the concentration of water in the diluted blood droplet). So the contact angle and degree of spread of a blood droplet on a surface will change with dilution of the blood by water. However, as you indicate, a larger volume droplet of blood may be expected to have a larger surface contact area than a smaller volume droplet of blood.

But exactly WHAT is that statement ( suggesting diluted blood) based upon? I can find no evidence anywhere or comments by the forensic team that suggested anything that you discuss above. Can you provide a photo of these blood droplets on the stairs? I can find none. Can you provide any documented analysis of the angle and spread of the blood that indicates it suggests possible dilution? I don't think so.

Thus, there is nothing on its face that makes the statement you quote "pure conjecture not based on logic or science". Furthermore, you seem to miss that critically important scientific caveat in the quote: "suggesting". "Suggesting" in a scientific statement is not an absolute claim that something is true, but rather a claim that something is possibly true.

I disagree completely. "The number and placement of drops appears too profuse to be from a cat," is pure conjecture. On exactly what scientific...or even logical... evidence did the author conclude a bleeding cat cannot leave such profuse blood and in that placement? It's based on nothing but the desire to negate it was from a cat.

"...the drops are wide and diffuse, suggesting that they might not represent drops of pure blood, but rather, blood thinned with water," is yet another attempt, based on no evidence whatsoever, to negate it was cat blood. Its intention is to imply it's blood left by Guede after rinsing his hands/ foot/pant leg in water. Nowhere in the evidence is this even suggested by the forensic police. Come on...


I am not maintaining that the suggestion in the quote you criticize is indeed accurate with respect to the blood traces in question. But the words of your criticism seem to reflect your own ignorance about the complexity of liquid droplet - surface interactions, especially for a complex and active (naturally coagulating, solids containing) substance such as blood, as well as a failure to comprehend the meaning of "suggesting" in what appears to be an initial attempt at a forming a scientific hypothesis.

No, it's not my 'ignorance about the complexity of liquid droplet" that is in play here; it's the need for some to find evidence of a theory that simply doesn't exist. Not a single thing said in that quote from amandaknox.com is based on any evidence. "The number and placement of the drops" suggest it can't be from a cat? Really?
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs, he did. I quoted his statement to Mignini that he had heard loud noises from the downstairs flat. I will repeat the quote I found in the source:

"Guede: When Meredith was no longer… at a certain point she… like, I don’t know how to define it, she had like… at a certain point it’s like she slipped away and in that moment I didn’t know what to do, so many thoughts came to mind, I didn’t know whether to go into the street and shout that something had happened, at a certain point I panicked and I said to myself “here no one will believe me” because I repeat, I had blood on my hands, I went down on my knee… when I placed the cushion, I had this left part of my foot, of the left knee anyway that had become drenched because I placed myself next to her trying to help her… I had so many thoughts come to my mind until at a certain point the thing which frightened me the most is that I heard from the floor below, or rather below the house, below as if someone was moving a table, a chair, that classic noise that you hear, and there I became frightened that I wouldn’t be believed about what had happened.
Mignini: Then there was someone else that had gone below?
Guede: I heard a noise as if someone had gone below. Attorney: Who was going towards… Mignini: The apartment of the guys. Guede: Yes. Attorney: Towards the apartment of the guys or towards the road? Guede: No, towards the apartment of the guys was my perception… It was as if someone was moving… Mignini: Yes, then you left.
*Notice Mignini gives him the answer instead of asking if it was him who entered the apartment."

Source: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/blood-evidence-downstairs-apartment/

Nope. He is not trying to explain away why HIS or Kercher's blood, his fingerprints or DNA might be found downstairs. He does not place himself there as he did in Kercher's bedroom and bathroom. By his trying to explain all those in his story about the murder, it indicates that he knows about identifying DNA, fingerprints, blood, etc.
 
Pursing this issue a bit absurdly, the question occurs: when did Stefanoni do the alleged antibody testing for human, cat, and dog blood? We know that the machine records indicate that she began testing for the DNA profiles of the downstairs blood traces as of Nov. 5 and apparently completed or interrupted them to do the reference tests on the "prime suspects" Lumumba, Sollecito, and Knox beginning on Nov. 6.

I wonder if the alleged blood antibody tests were done (assuming they were done) after the DNA tests on the downstairs blood traces. If the blood antibody tests had been before the DNA testing, and those antibody tests showed that the blood was "cat" (or otherwise non-human), why would a rational (reasonable) lab go ahead and do the absolutely human-specific DNA testing on cat blood or other non-human samples?

And if the alleged blood antibody tests were done after the DNA profiling, would that have been done to provide an seeming reasonable justification for not turning over those DNA profiles of the downstairs blood traces - which would have been of one or more humans - to the defense?

I don't know; and apparently the defence failed to ask those questions, so I guess, we'll never know. :(
 
But exactly WHAT is that statement ( suggesting diluted blood) based upon? I can find no evidence anywhere or comments by the forensic team that suggested anything that you discuss above. Can you provide a photo of these blood droplets on the stairs? I can find none. Can you provide any documented analysis of the angle and spread of the blood that indicates it suggests possible dilution? I don't think so.



I disagree completely. "The number and placement of drops appears too profuse to be from a cat," is pure conjecture. On exactly what scientific...or even logical... evidence did the author conclude a bleeding cat cannot leave such profuse blood and in that placement? It's based on nothing but the desire to negate it was from a cat.

"...the drops are wide and diffuse, suggesting that they might not represent drops of pure blood, but rather, blood thinned with water," is yet another attempt, based on no evidence whatsoever, to negate it was cat blood. Its intention is to imply it's blood left by Guede after rinsing his hands/ foot/pant leg in water. Nowhere in the evidence is this even suggested by the forensic police. Come on...




No, it's not my 'ignorance about the complexity of liquid droplet" that is in play here; it's the need for some to find evidence of a theory that simply doesn't exist. Not a single thing said in that quote from amandaknox.com is based on any evidence. "The number and placement of the drops" suggest it can't be from a cat? Really?



I'm broadly in agreement with you: I simply don't think the evidence is sufficiently supportive of the idea that ANYONE went into the boys' lower cottage on the evening/night of the murder. And I also think that what there is of the credible, reliable evidence set is compatible with blood left by the cat (and with the boys in that cottage being less than assiduous in cleaning up).

But in any case, I really don't think the lower-cottage issue is all that important to any discussion/debate about the nuts and bolts of this crime. Whether Guede* went in there after the murder (or whether, as some pro-guilt commentators might attest, Knox and/or Sollecito went in there after the murder) really isn't germane to figuring out what went on in the premises that really mattered - the girls' upstairs cottage in general, and Kercher's room and the small bathroom in particular.

Furthermore, the only two reasonable rationales I can see for anyone who'd just murdered Kercher to go into the boys' cottage would have been either a) to steal goods from there, or b) to obtain replacement male clothing in order to be able to remove blood-stained/soaked male clothing. As far as we know, neither of those two things took place.

I concede that it's of (minor) interest in trying to establish an absolutely complete narrative of what happened that evening/night. But at this point I'd say that:

1) it's now impossible to know with the required degree of certainty one way or the other, in any case;

2) as far as we know, no physical evidence of anyone other than the male residents was discovered in that cottage, so even if it could be proven that SOMEONE did indeed enter the cottage on the evening/night of the murder, one would never be able to ascertain who that might have been; and

3) even if one knew that a human had entered the boys' cottage that evening/night, and if this human could be proven to be Guede, it would in effect make no material difference to any explanation of the crime itself - it would ONLY be if it could be proven to be anyone other than Guede that this matter would obviously immediately become far, far more significant.


* I also agree with you that HAD Guede gone into the boys' cottage after the murder (or even before, for that matter), I think it's reasonable to believe that he would have placed himself in there within his (bogus) "explanation" narrative. As you (and I, previously) point out, Guede was cunning enough to try to provide innocent explanations for any and all evidence that he thought might be verifiable through forensic examination or witness testimony - yet he never attempted an innocent explanation for having gone into the boys' cottage. Now obviously this is not by any means conclusive evidence, but nevertheless I think it's a significant pointer.
 
But exactly WHAT is that statement ( suggesting diluted blood) based upon? I can find no evidence anywhere or comments by the forensic team that suggested anything that you discuss above. Can you provide a photo of these blood droplets on the stairs? I can find none. Can you provide any documented analysis of the angle and spread of the blood that indicates it suggests possible dilution? I don't think so.



I disagree completely. "The number and placement of drops appears too profuse to be from a cat," is pure conjecture. On exactly what scientific...or even logical... evidence did the author conclude a bleeding cat cannot leave such profuse blood and in that placement? It's based on nothing but the desire to negate it was from a cat.

"...the drops are wide and diffuse, suggesting that they might not represent drops of pure blood, but rather, blood thinned with water," is yet another attempt, based on no evidence whatsoever, to negate it was cat blood. Its intention is to imply it's blood left by Guede after rinsing his hands/ foot/pant leg in water. Nowhere in the evidence is this even suggested by the forensic police. Come on...




No, it's not my 'ignorance about the complexity of liquid droplet" that is in play here; it's the need for some to find evidence of a theory that simply doesn't exist. Not a single thing said in that quote from amandaknox.com is based on any evidence. "The number and placement of the drops" suggest it can't be from a cat? Really?

Again, you are mistaking hypothesis (a suggestion) for a claim.

I don't know what the author of the quote means relating to the number and placement of the drops, therefore I have withheld judgment on that. I suspect the amount of blood a cat is likely to shed, and the placement of the drops, will depend on the type and extent of the wound or injury and the cat's blood coagulation rate as well its pace in going up or down steps (if that is the site of the droplet traces).

It is important to understand that the actual evidence is not observable to us at our distance from the subject. We only have the online copies of photo images as provided by the police.

For example, it has been claimed that some of the boundaries of some of the drop edges have been mistakenly interpreted by online analysts (mistaking those edges to be of larger diameter than they actually are) because the police marked the boundaries of the droplet traces with red marker.

That does not change the fact that someone proposing reasonable and potentially testable "suggestions" or hypotheses is not engaging in a conspiracy theory.

A claim without evidence, absolutely denying that a suggestion or hypothesis that blood droplet spread and contact angle could be measurably affected by dilution with water, appears to show an anti-scientific bias.

In fact, such a suggestion or hypothesis of the effect of water dilution of blood is testable. It is a reasonable hypothesis. Those not familiar with some of the concepts can find some information on the significance of droplet contact angles and surface tension online. Whether or not the hypothesis (which is not one I formulated) truly has bearing on the specific blood trace evidence in this case may require detailed image evidence not available online.

The fact that Stefanoni's lab, or any other lab, clearly committed misconduct in their DNA testing and reporting leaves them open to suspicion that the lab committed other misconduct. That is not to say that it is certain that other misconduct occurred. The analogy is that when it is found in the US that a police officer committed perjury in a case, other cases in which he testified may be re-examined by prosecutors or conviction integrity units. That does not mean those prosecutors or CIUs are engaging in a conspiracy theory.
 
Last edited:
Again, you are mistaking hypothesis (a suggestion) for a claim.

No, I'm not. "The number and placement of drops appears too profuse to be from a cat" is not a hypothesis. "...the drops are wide and diffuse, suggesting that they might not represent drops of pure blood, but rather, blood thinned with water," is a blatant attempt to imply the blood was from Guede's wet trousers or rinsed off hands. Call a spade a spade.

I don't know what the author of the quote means relating to the number and placement of the drops, therefore I have withheld judgment on that. I suspect the amount of blood a cat is likely to shed, and the placement of the drops, will depend on the type and extent of the wound or injury and the cat's blood coagulation rate as well its pace in going up or down steps (if that is the site of the droplet traces).

It's clearly an attempt to promote the "it wasn't really cat blood" idea.

It is important to understand that the actual evidence is not observable to us at our distance from the subject. We only have the online copies of photo images as provided by the police.

I can't find a single photo of the blood droplets on the stairs. Can you?


For example, it has been claimed that some of the boundaries of some of the drop edges have been mistakenly interpreted by online analysts (mistaking those edges to be of larger diameter than they actually are) because the police marked the boundaries of the droplet traces with red marker.

Can you provide a source for this?

That does not change the fact that someone proposing reasonable and potentially testable "suggestions" or hypotheses is not engaging in a conspiracy theory.

Oh, come on, Numbers. All this boils down to one thing: some people are suggesting that there was a cover up regarding the source of the blood downstairs.

A claim without evidence, absolutely denying that a suggestion or hypothesis that blood droplet spread and contact angle could be measurably affected by dilution with water, appears to show an anti-scientific bias.

I never made any such denial. I said no evidence of any such analysis has been provided.

In fact, such a suggestion or hypothesis of the effect of water dilution of blood is testable. It is a reasonable hypothesis. Those not familiar with some of the concepts can find some information on the significance of droplet contact angles and surface tension online. Whether or not the hypothesis (which is not one I formulated) truly has bearing on the specific blood trace evidence in this case may require detailed image evidence not available online.

It's a reasonable hypothesis IF any evidence whatsoever was presented that the blood drops pattern was, indeed, 'wide and diffuse in such a way as to suggest dilution. No such evidence was provided.

The fact that Stefanoni's lab, or any other lab, clearly committed misconduct in their DNA testing and reporting leaves them open to suspicion that the lab committed other misconduct. That is not to say that it is certain that other misconduct occurred. The analogy is that when it is found in the US that a police officer committed perjury in a case, other cases in which he testified may be re-examined by prosecutors or conviction integrity units. That does not mean those prosecutors or CIUs are engaging in a conspiracy theory.

If that were the case here, then I'd expect the defense would have gone after the discrepancies full on. Just as they did with the negative TMB results.

ETA: I think we've beaten this topic into a bloody pulp. Let's get off the merry go round.
 
Last edited:
Sorry? Now you're claiming that MIGNINI is the reliable source for this claim?! And that Mignini "has first hand knowledge" of the cost of any PR services the Knox family might or might not have used??!

IT'S A LIE, VIXEN. You told a lie - firstly about the "fact" itself, and then about your so-called "evidence" underpinning the lie. Admit it. Then we can move on.

Two hopes of such an admission. Bob Hope and no hope.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom