Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32

[TruthCalls]

I did try to explain that luminol is set up to identify iron in the form Fe2. When bleach is applied to the haemoglobin in red blood cells, which is of the form Fe2, the reaction with the oxygenisation agent in household bleach, such as ACE, turns the Fe2 into Fe3 and can even break down the hema rings completely. The luminol caused various areas of the cottage to light up under chemiluminescence. This not only happens for iron in the form Fe2 but also when bleach has been applied to a crime scene. Here is what Stefanoni testified at the Massei court:

Referring to the traces revealed by Luminol, Dr. Stefanoni testified that these traces were absolutely invisible to the naked eye and [were] meagre/scanty/slight (page 60 of the minutes of the preliminary hearing). Such a test, it was shown, is performed in order to check for the presence of traces of blood, since this substance - Luminol - reveals blood by fluorescence. It also, however, reveals other substances, as Dr. Sarah Gino, in particular, had emphasised, according to what has already been stated (rust, fruit juice, bleach, various vegetables [vegetable matter] and some enamels used for tiles). Moreover, the circumstance under which DNA is found necessarily indicates the presence of biological material in the trace revealed by Luminol.

The traces revealed by Luminol are those labelled 176 to 184 (traces already indicated by the letter L, numbered 1 to 9).

Accordingly, Dr. Stefanoni stated that traces 176 and 177 (L1 and L2) found in the room of Filomena Romanelli had yielded, respectively, the following results: a specimen from Meredith and a mixed specimen from Meredith and Amanda; the traces 178, 179, 180 (L3, L4, L5) all found in Amanda's room had shown Amanda's biological profile; trace 184 (L9), found in the corridor, almost in front of the wall separating Amanda's and Meredith's rooms, had shown a mixed genetic profile attributable to both Meredith and Amanda.

What forensic technicians Boemia and Rinaldi ascertained re the footprint on the bathmat:

With regard to the point of departure of the investigation, the fundamental parameter which, according to technicians Rinaldi and Boemia, distinguishes Sollecito’s right foot from Guede’s, is determined by the width of the big toe and the shape of the metatarsus, to which are added further differences found in the plantar arch, in the f the heel, in the left-side outline of the foot (in table 29, for example, it is shown that, once the left-hand outline of the print on the mat has been traced, when this outline is overlaid on those of the sole-prints of Guede and of Sollecito respectively, an outcome is obtained in which, for Guede’s foot, the left-hand outline drawn overlaps one part of the phalanges of the big toe; in the case of Raffaele Sollecito, on the contrary, this does not occur, and in fact the outlines of the two prints match perfectly) and finally, with regard to the measurement of the bumps (12mm Guede; 8mm Sollecito), as demonstrated by tables 27 and 28 of the report.

The above-mentioned differences led the technicians to conclude that there was compatibility of imprint “A” on the mat with regard to the general characteristics of shape and size with Raffaele Sollecito’s right foot, and this outcome allowed them to express of an opinion of probable identity; at the same time they arrived at a finding of non[366] compatibility of print ‚A‛ with Rudy Hermann Guede’s right foot (page 44 transcripts).

Re the luminol observations:

The presence of the traces revealed by Luminol, whose presence in several points in various rooms of the house [306] cannot be explained by reference to fruit juice, bleach, various vegetables, rust, etc., appear, on the contrary, to be explained if one holds that the Luminol gave off fluorescence because of the presence of blood. In this regard, one cannot simply disregard the fact of the bloodstains that were undeniably abundantly present in Meredith's room, from which easily, or indeed inevitably, they must have been exported to other parts of the house by anyone who, coming out of Meredith's room, went into these other parts. This was seen for the footwear belonging to Rudy Guede which marked their owner’s footsteps along the corridor towards the exit from the house; it was seen for the traces found in the bathroom; it should be considered that also happened for the traces found in Romanelli's room, in Knox's room, in the corridor, and it should be pointed out that two of these traces give a mixed biological profile of Amanda and Meredith, and the others the biological profile of Amanda alone. She, it must therefore be held, with her bare feet washed of Meredith’s blood, but on the soles of which some residue of blood must have remained, went into her own room, into Romanelli's room and passed through the corridor, and in several points in the room where she had passed, she left the traces which were discovered.

Re Amanda Knox: Massei's concluding comments:




Sollecito admitted to police he had major 'flooding' in his apartment, when initially, he claimed it was a minor leak (first police statement). He also claimed the u-bend under his sink somehow fell off of its own accord. More likely he dismantled it to remove the accumulated debris from his cleaning up operation. Police found a bucket of used latex gloves in his apartment. As well as there being a strong smell of bleach when they arrived. In addition, Sollecito's father made a sworn statement to the police that his son told him per telephone conversation at 8:40pm that they had had dinner and washed up by then. (The time of his conversation.) Knox put back the time of the meal (in which she wrote Sollecito had blood on his hand ['from fish'] to after 10:00 or 11:00 when there was a spontaneous flooding of the apartment. Next morning she claims she went to fetch the mop from the cottage to mop up water on Sollecito's floor. Massei leaned over and said, WAIT! Didn't RS get a delivery of a daily newspaper? Why not just put down the newspaper?! So yes, massive clean up with attempts to conceal its magnitude, time and reason for its occurrence. All on the night Mez was murdered.

I really have no idea why you feel the need to repeat that which we know. We all know how Luminol works, and what it indicates. We also know whose DNA was found in each of the samples, and when none was found at all. All samples in the cottage tested negative for blood using TMB, and all but three of them did not contain Meredith's DNA. Not blood, not Meredith's DNA... forensically speaking, they are not samples of Meredith's blood. Pretty darn basic stuff there.

We all also know what Boemia and Rinaldi concIuded regarding the print on the bath mat. I won't waste the bandwidth posting Vinci's report, or his conclusions, but I think we all know his conclusion contradicted Boemia and Rinaldi. Given conflicting conclusions re; exclusion, but with agreement that the print can't be identified, I call this irrelevant, although I do normally note that while Vinci worked directly with the bathmat, Boemia and Rinaldi worked off of photographs that needed to be resized to correct for perspective. I know which one I would take if I had to pick one.

I'm thoroughly unimpressed with Massei's seriously flawed conclusions regarding the Luminol results. Massei concludes it must be Meredith's blood because of the "undeniably abundantly" blood in Meredith's bedroom. However, he completely ignores all nine samples testing negative using TMB, and six of the nine samples being negative for Meredith's DNA. Besides, Massei was overturned and he clearly had a great many things wrong.

His "concluding comments" is equally flawed. Not only does he contradict the science (negative TMB, no DNA) but he fails to acknowledge there is no trace of Amanda or Raffaele's bare feet imprinted in blood in Meredith's bedroom. He concludes she stepped in blood and tracked it around... sorry, but the evidence says otherwise.

No, he said his sink leaked again and flooded the kitchen. As it's indisputable the sink had previously leaked and that a plumber had worked on it just days prior, and given it was wet under the sink, I find nothing inconsistent with the account. You opining that it's more likely he dismantled it is unbecoming of someone who is impartial, neutral and entirely objective. We've already covered the bogus claim of a strong smell of bleach. And Raffaele's father testified that Raffaele said he was washing dishes, he never said they had eaten already. Amanda, under the stress of her friend's murder, and being questions by police, can't accurately recall what time she ate dinner. Stop the presses... that's a clear indication she's a murderer. I don't know about you, but I find newspapers are not particularly absorbant, and generally speaking, when I get one it's because I want to read it, not turn it into an inefficient mop. Besides which, I don't believe Massei ever made that comment. So no, ZERO evidence of a clean-up. And besides, as I asked, and as you ONCE AGAIN, IGNORED, where and what did they clean up? Not the hallway, as there were the bloody shoe prints as well as the non-blood barefoot prints. Not the small bathroom, as it was forensically filthy. Clearly not Amanda's room, as her non-blood prints were there. No streaks or swirl patterns which are typical when a bloody crime scene has been cleaned. So where was the clean-up, and what is your evidence one took place?

 

[Vixen]

I really have no idea why you feel the need to repeat that which we know. We all know how Luminol works, and what it indicates. We also know whose DNA was found in each of the samples, and when none was found at all. All samples in the cottage tested negative for blood using TMB, and all but three of them did not contain Meredith's DNA. Not blood, not Meredith's DNA... forensically speaking, they are not samples of Meredith's blood. Pretty darn basic stuff there.

We all also know what Boemia and Rinaldi concIuded regarding the print on the bath mat. I won't waste the bandwidth posting Vinci's report, or his conclusions, but I think we all know his conclusion contradicted Boemia and Rinaldi. Given conflicting conclusions re; exclusion, but with agreement that the print can't be identified, I call this irrelevant, although I do normally note that while Vinci worked directly with the bathmat, Boemia and Rinaldi worked off of photographs that needed to be resized to correct for perspective. I know which one I would take if I had to pick one.

I'm thoroughly unimpressed with Massei's seriously flawed conclusions regarding the Luminol results. Massei concludes it must be Meredith's blood because of the "undeniably abundantly" blood in Meredith's bedroom. However, he completely ignores all nine samples testing negative using TMB, and six of the nine samples being negative for Meredith's DNA. Besides, Massei was overturned and he clearly had a great many things wrong.

His "concluding comments" is equally flawed. Not only does he contradict the science (negative TMB, no DNA) but he fails to acknowledge there is no trace of Amanda or Raffaele's bare feet imprinted in blood in Meredith's bedroom. He concludes she stepped in blood and tracked it around... sorry, but the evidence says otherwise.

No, he said his sink leaked again and flooded the kitchen. As it's indisputable the sink had previously leaked and that a plumber had worked on it just days prior, and given it was wet under the sink, I find nothing inconsistent with the account. You opining that it's more likely he dismantled it is unbecoming of someone who is impartial, neutral and entirely objective. We've already covered the bogus claim of a strong smell of bleach. And Raffaele's father testified that Raffaele said he was washing dishes, he never said they had eaten already. Amanda, under the stress of her friend's murder, and being questions by police, can't accurately recall what time she ate dinner. Stop the presses... that's a clear indication she's a murderer. I don't know about you, but I find newspapers are not particularly absorbant, and generally speaking, when I get one it's because I want to read it, not turn it into an inefficient mop. Besides which, I don't believe Massei ever made that comment. So no, ZERO evidence of a clean-up. And besides, as I asked, and as you ONCE AGAIN, IGNORED, where and what did they clean up? Not the hallway, as there were the bloody shoe prints as well as the non-blood barefoot prints. Not the small bathroom, as it was forensically filthy. Clearly not Amanda's room, as her non-blood prints were there. No streaks or swirl patterns which are typical when a bloody crime scene has been cleaned. So where was the clean-up, and what is your evidence one took place?

Vinci for the defence was reprimanded for using Photoshop to try to make RS' footprint look like RG's. After a lengthy and fair trial, the judges and jury preferred the prosecution experts. The defence tried to put up feeble 'alternative scanarios'. Boemia and Rinaldi were impartial, objective and neutral, worked for the Rome Forensic Police, had no stake in the outcome of the trial, unlike Vinci for the defence and Gino, who represented the defence at Nencini's court.

 

[AmyStrange]

I'm still waiting for the "objective" comments, but all we're getting is this biased crap.


-

 

[Numbers]

Calm down. It was an attempt at humour. <fx gets coat, slinks out>

It seemed to have the same level of validity as any of your other posts.

 

[TruthCalls]

Vinci for the defence was reprimanded for using Photoshop to try to make RS' footprint look like RG's. After a lengthy and fair trial, the judges and jury preferred the prosecution experts. The defence tried to put up feeble 'alternative scanarios'. Boemia and Rinaldi were impartial, objective and neutral, worked for the Rome Forensic Police, had no stake in the outcome of the trial, unlike Vinci for the defence and Gino, who represented the defence at Nencini's court.

AFAIK, Vinci was never reprimanded for using Photoshop, but I welcome you to provide evidence to support this claim.

Wrong, Massei and Nencini sided with the prosecution, Hellmann sided with the defense, and Marasca had problems with the entire case. No one cares what you consider feeble. They came to different conclusions and both only presented opinion, not proof. Boemia, Rinaldi and Vinci ALL get paid for their services, and there is nothing that indicates Boemia and Rinaldi were "impartial, objective and neutral" or that Vinci wasn't. What we do know is you agree with the former two, disagree with the later, and as we also know, everyone you disagree with is bent and corrupt. And BTW, Vinci and Gino had no more at stake in the outcome than Boemia and Rinaldi, and I'm sure if Boemia and Rinaldi weren't telling the prosecution what they wanted to hear, they'd have been replaced by someone who would.

And how about that... you didn't address the question of WHAT and WHERE did they clean, just as you never addressed the list of eight blunders dealing with the clasp. This is definitely a pattern with you, ignoring everything that contradicts your belief, and boy, have you ignored a lot. Dishonesty is such a bad look, don't you think?

 

[Stacyhs]

What a load of crap.


-

I took a break from the computer yesterday only to come back today and find Vixen, yet again, repeating long ago debunked nonsense woven into the typical attempted camouflage of even more rubbish.

 

[Stacyhs]

He's an egoist. and they very rarely ever admit when they're wrong.

Some will even go so far as to make stupid statements that are not based on facts.


-

She, not he.

What's your evidence for this? And even if he was, what do you think it proves? Exactly how big is this conspiracy of yours to subvert forensic science for the benefit of Amanda and Raffaele?

We can add one more respected forensic expert who is 'bent' to Vixen's ever-expanding list. What's next? He's a member of the Alketbi crime family and attended Rocco Sollecito's memorial?

 

[Stacyhs]

I failed to address this earlier, but it has to be pointed out.

When you mop blood, even dried blood, the blood rehydrates and gets smeared around. It will also get on the fibers of the mop, which further spreads things around. If sufficient bleach is used, all traces can be removed. In that case, Luminol will not light. So if there is enough for Luminol to react to, then it will show up in the streaks and swirls that were created as the blood was being mopped.

I can't believe you don't understand this. What did Bill used to say... wow, just wow!

There's a PGP poster in another forum who handwaves away all the negative TMB tests just as Vixen does. He claims that all nine luminol-revealed prints tested blood negative because they were just so diluted TMB couldn't detect the blood. He is unable, or more likely, unwilling, to understand that diluting blood to the point that TMB can no longer detect it would NOT leave the bloody footprints or shoeprints INTACT. The simple fact that blood is not like a permanent marker and is soluble seems too complicated for him. Interestingly, he also has a penchant for claiming any experts who don't back the prosecution experts are corrupt. A few days ago it was Vinci who he claimed was paid off.

 

[Stacyhs]

Calm down. It was an attempt at humour. <fx gets coat, slinks out>

"It was a joke." Sounds like Trump or his sycophants every time he gets called out for lying or saying something incredibly stupid.

 

[Stacyhs]

I'm still waiting for proof this even happened.

She's also claimed previously that Hellmann was seen driving an expensive car.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Calm down. It was an attempt at humour. <fx gets coat, slinks out>

I don't believe you. I suspect that in your frantic Googling to try to find some dirt on Prof. Alketbi, you confused him with a racecar driver of the same name who drives in a league that races, among other sportscars, Lamborghinis (although I believe the driver Alketbi races for team Porsche). In any case, now that you can't substantiate the accusation, you're trying to weasel out, as usual, by the lame expedient of claiming that you were just joking. Shame on you.

 

[Vixen]

I really have no idea why you feel the need to repeat that which we know. We all know how Luminol works, and what it indicates. We also know whose DNA was found in each of the samples, and when none was found at all. All samples in the cottage tested negative for blood using TMB, and all but three of them did not contain Meredith's DNA. Not blood, not Meredith's DNA... forensically speaking, they are not samples of Meredith's blood. Pretty darn basic stuff there.

We all also know what Boemia and Rinaldi concIuded regarding the print on the bath mat. I won't waste the bandwidth posting Vinci's report, or his conclusions, but I think we all know his conclusion contradicted Boemia and Rinaldi. Given conflicting conclusions re; exclusion, but with agreement that the print can't be identified, I call this irrelevant, although I do normally note that while Vinci worked directly with the bathmat, Boemia and Rinaldi worked off of photographs that needed to be resized to correct for perspective. I know which one I would take if I had to pick one.

I'm thoroughly unimpressed with Massei's seriously flawed conclusions regarding the Luminol results. Massei concludes it must be Meredith's blood because of the "undeniably abundantly" blood in Meredith's bedroom. However, he completely ignores all nine samples testing negative using TMB, and six of the nine samples being negative for Meredith's DNA. Besides, Massei was overturned and he clearly had a great many things wrong.

His "concluding comments" is equally flawed. Not only does he contradict the science (negative TMB, no DNA) but he fails to acknowledge there is no trace of Amanda or Raffaele's bare feet imprinted in blood in Meredith's bedroom. He concludes she stepped in blood and tracked it around... sorry, but the evidence says otherwise.

No, he said his sink leaked again and flooded the kitchen. As it's indisputable the sink had previously leaked and that a plumber had worked on it just days prior, and given it was wet under the sink, I find nothing inconsistent with the account. You opining that it's more likely he dismantled it is unbecoming of someone who is impartial, neutral and entirely objective. We've already covered the bogus claim of a strong smell of bleach. And Raffaele's father testified that Raffaele said he was washing dishes, he never said they had eaten already. Amanda, under the stress of her friend's murder, and being questions by police, can't accurately recall what time she ate dinner. Stop the presses... that's a clear indication she's a murderer. I don't know about you, but I find newspapers are not particularly absorbant, and generally speaking, when I get one it's because I want to read it, not turn it into an inefficient mop. Besides which, I don't believe Massei ever made that comment. So no, ZERO evidence of a clean-up. And besides, as I asked, and as you ONCE AGAIN, IGNORED, where and what did they clean up? Not the hallway, as there were the bloody shoe prints as well as the non-blood barefoot prints. Not the small bathroom, as it was forensically filthy. Clearly not Amanda's room, as her non-blood prints were there. No streaks or swirl patterns which are typical when a bloody crime scene has been cleaned. So where was the clean-up, and what is your evidence one took place?

The reason I keep explaining how luminol works is because you keep asking how come it highlighted footprints but tested negative for blood or DNA in some cases. Massei, unlike you or I, sat through the entire trial. The case was thoroughly reviewed by ten different judges before it came to trial so your firm belief that it was 'all fixed by Mignini' is delusional.

 

[Vixen]

AFAIK, Vinci was never reprimanded for using Photoshop, but I welcome you to provide evidence to support this claim.

Wrong, Massei and Nencini sided with the prosecution, Hellmann sided with the defense, and Marasca had problems with the entire case. No one cares what you consider feeble. They came to different conclusions and both only presented opinion, not proof. Boemia, Rinaldi and Vinci ALL get paid for their services, and there is nothing that indicates Boemia and Rinaldi were "impartial, objective and neutral" or that Vinci wasn't. What we do know is you agree with the former two, disagree with the later, and as we also know, everyone you disagree with is bent and corrupt. And BTW, Vinci and Gino had no more at stake in the outcome than Boemia and Rinaldi, and I'm sure if Boemia and Rinaldi weren't telling the prosecution what they wanted to hear, they'd have been replaced by someone who would.

And how about that... you didn't address the question of WHAT and WHERE did they clean, just as you never addressed the list of eight blunders dealing with the clasp. This is definitely a pattern with you, ignoring everything that contradicts your belief, and boy, have you ignored a lot. Dishonesty is such a bad look, don't you think?

That is not correct. Vinci was hired by the defence to help get the pair off. Boemia and Rinaldi were objective scientists who had no qualms or issues in identifying which shoeprints/footprints were RG's and which RS' and which were AK's. Your belief they fiddled the results 'to keep Mignini happy' is delusional. The print on the bathmat does show a hammer toe and Sollecito has a hammer toe at that very point. In addition, it is a foot size 42. Compatible with RS' size. Guede's foot is completely different and three sizes larger. This can be seen with the naked eye.

 

[Vixen]

She's also claimed previously that Hellmann was seen driving an expensive car.

Keep going. You have almost got the joke.

 

[Vixen]

I don't believe you. I suspect that in your frantic Googling to try to find some dirt on Prof. Alketbi, you confused him with a racecar driver of the same name who drives in a league that races, among other sportscars, Lamborghinis (although I believe the driver Alketbi races for team Porsche). In any case, now that you can't substantiate the accusation, you're trying to weasel out, as usual, by the lame expedient of claiming that you were just joking. Shame on you.

I had never heard of Alketbi before Stacyhs' mention.

 

[Stacyhs]

Vinci for the defence was reprimanded for using Photoshop to try to make RS' footprint look like RG's.

You can quote and cite this, right? If not:

After a lengthy and fair trial,

The above phrase is used whenever you try to bolster the credibility of a convicting court.

the judges and jury preferred the prosecution experts.

Hellmann and Marasca didn't.

The defence tried to put up feeble 'alternative scanarios'. Boemia and Rinaldi were impartial, objective and neutral, worked for the Rome Forensic Police, had no stake in the outcome of the trial, unlike Vinci for the defence and Gino, who represented the defence at Nencini's court.

What 'stake' did Vinci and Gino have in the outcome that Boemia and Rinaldi didn't have? They were both HIRED and paid for their expertise. B & R were no more "impartial, objective and neutral" than Vinci or Gino.

Funny how all defense experts were bent, paid off, or incompetent while the prosecution experts were "impartial, objective and neutral".

 

[Vixen]

AFAIK, Vinci was never reprimanded for using Photoshop, but I welcome you to provide evidence to support this claim.

Wrong, Massei and Nencini sided with the prosecution, Hellmann sided with the defense, and Marasca had problems with the entire case. No one cares what you consider feeble. They came to different conclusions and both only presented opinion, not proof. Boemia, Rinaldi and Vinci ALL get paid for their services, and there is nothing that indicates Boemia and Rinaldi were "impartial, objective and neutral" or that Vinci wasn't. What we do know is you agree with the former two, disagree with the later, and as we also know, everyone you disagree with is bent and corrupt. And BTW, Vinci and Gino had no more at stake in the outcome than Boemia and Rinaldi, and I'm sure if Boemia and Rinaldi weren't telling the prosecution what they wanted to hear, they'd have been replaced by someone who would.

And how about that... you didn't address the question of WHAT and WHERE did they clean, just as you never addressed the list of eight blunders dealing with the clasp. This is definitely a pattern with you, ignoring everything that contradicts your belief, and boy, have you ignored a lot. Dishonesty is such a bad look, don't you think?

It is all in the court transcripts. It was widely reported by various pundits. I keep explaining what was revealed by the luminol but when I do you respond you already know, so why keep asking for an explanation of how the courts had objective, scientific verifiable results as to the pattern of footprints pertaining to the murder. You just can't accept reality. You want an alternative universe in which Guede is hopping around pretending to be RS and somehow squeezing his size 45 feet into Ladies size 37 ACIS trainers.

 

[Stacyhs]

Keep going. You have almost got the joke.

Stop trying to convince us it was a joke. We aren't falling for that commonplace 'go to' excuse.

 

[Stacyhs]

I had never heard of Alketbi before Stacyhs' mention.

The first mention of Alketbi was by Numbers.

 

[Vixen]

You can quote and cite this, right? If not:
View attachment 62278



The above phrase is used whenever you try to bolster the credibility of a convicting court.

Hellmann and Marasca didn't.

What 'stake' did Vinci and Gino have in the outcome that Boemia and Rinaldi didn't have? They were both HIRED and paid for their expertise. B & R were no more "impartial, objective and neutral" than Vinci or Gino.

Funny how all defense experts were bent, paid off, or incompetent while the prosecution experts were "impartial, objective and neutral".

This is how it works. Perugia police asked Rome forensic guys to analyse Ilpotili [_sp] luminol results (this was not Stefanoni this time). Boemia and Rinaldi AIUI are engineering guys with measuring and technical drawing skills, who specialise in analysing shoe and footprints. The idea they were somehow biased in favour of Guede and against AK and RS is so laughable and frankly insulting to their vow of ethics and integrity as forensic scientists. They had to do a presentation of their results in court and be cross-examined. It is crazy to claim they 'did it all for Mignini'.