• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
43degreesNorth said:
As far as shoes/feet go, that is a big difference. Size 42 to 46
Click to expand...

Are you mistaking centimetres for millimetres? According to the foot size/shoe size table on the TJMK powerpoints, size 42 equals a foot size of 26cm, while size 46 is a foot size of 28.4cm. That's a 2.4cm difference while there were only 3mm between Rudy and Raffaele's footprints.

Of course, these are footprints rather than foot sizes, so that's different again.
 
katy_did said:
Except all this is pure speculation, isn't it? Since you have no evidence of a clean-up, and the prosecution didn't provide any.
Click to expand...

I guess you didn't read that section of the report I posted then, since in that Massei states 'some' of the evidence for it. Who said the prosecution didn't provide any evidence of a clean-up? Have you read the case file? The prosecution have maintained almost from the very beginning of this case that there was a clean-up.

Katy_did said:
But they would have noticed the plug and cable, surely? Wondered what it was connected to, worried they might damage it by breaking down the door (since at that stage, they didn't know about the murder). It would have been a topic of conversation. Unless it wasn't there, that is.
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. If they had, why would it have been significant for them to comment on it? Why would they have thought it important? Why would they be concerned about breaking something? They were breaking in the door...I think there was very little concern about breaking things.
 
Last edited:
Fulcanelli said:
I guess you didn't read that section of the report I posted then, since in that Massei states 'some' of the evidence for it. Who said the prosecution didn't provide any evidence of a clean-up? Have you read the case file? The prosecution have maintained almost from the very beginning of this case that there was a clean-up.
Click to expand...
Massei just speculates that a trail of footprints may have been cleaned, but provides no evidence for it, and the prosecution didn't either. They implied there was a clean-up (to explain lack of evidence) but there was nothing to show it happened. The only 'evidence' provided is really Quintavalle's dubious claim that Amanda hung around in the cleaning products aisle that morning.

Maybe, maybe not. If they had, why would it have been significant for them to comment on it? Why would they have thought it important? Why would they be concerned about breaking something? They breaking in the door...I think there was very little concern about breaking things.
Click to expand...
Yeah...they would have noticed it, if it had been there. Mignini didn't even question Amanda about this cable supposedly leading into the corridor. I don't think it was there before the door was broken down.
 
Fulcanelli said:
That's one, so where's the rest?
Click to expand...

There's one right outside Meredith's door, which is also just outside the bathroom door. The next one is a few feet down the hall. In this picture, the lines leading off to the right point to the places where the shoe prints were found:

luminol_print_locations.jpg


I think they may have missed one at the doorway to the corridor, right next to a shopping bag.

unmarked_shoe_print.jpg


There are six of them in the kitchen area, which suggests he may have paused there and adjusted his stance while zipping his coat, putting things in his pocket, etc.
 
stilicho said:
LashL is an attorney. She is not very well acquainted with this case, though, and did not know that the body was locked inside the victim's room in a rental accommodation.
Click to expand...


I am reasonably well acquainted with this case, and I did, in fact, know that Ms. Kercher's body was locked inside her room in a rental accommodation. I don't know ever gave you any impression to the contrary.

And my point still stands - which is that the Perugia police ought to have requested voluntary DNA samples from all of the tenants of the cottage, and from all known visitors. That they deliberately chose not to do so is, in my view, a very poor reflection on them and their investigation.


stilicho said:
Her example was that of a manhunt for a child rapist/murderer. I take it easy on people who aren't acquainted with the distinctions between this garden-variety murder by three young bored adults and the dragnet for a child murderer.
Click to expand...


Oh, spare me the condensension and the strawman-building, will you?

I told you that it is commonplace for police investigators to ask for voluntary DNA samples from people in the course of their investigations, and I told you that the compliance rate is generally quite high. I specfically said that generally, such requests are made on a relatively small scale (e.g. tenants and known visitors) when the crime scene is known and limited (such as in the case under discussion here), and added for your edification regarding the use of this investigative technique in Canada, that sometimes requests are expanded beyond the immediate if the case warrants it, and cited an example of such an expansion.

That you read my prior post and somehow turned it into what you wrote above is really quite astounding.
 
Fulcanelli said:
Which makes it the wrong size. And while the bath mat print is missing the heel, the achilles heel in your claim is that the luminol twin of the bath mat print has its heel intact...and it's too small to be Rudy's.
Click to expand...
So again, this is the "identical" set of footprints I posted earlier, yes? The prints which really aren't identical at all?
 
katy did said:
Massei just speculates that a trail of footprints may have been cleaned, but provides no evidence for it, and the prosecution didn't either. They implied there was a clean-up (to explain lack of evidence) but there was nothing to show it happened. The only 'evidence' provided is really Quintavalle's dubious claim that Amanda hung around in the cleaning products aisle that morning.
Click to expand...

He doesn't 'speculate', he provides hard evidence for the clean-up, evidence IN the cottage. You can't just label it 'speculation' simply because you don't like the evidence, so that you can just hand wave it awau like you do with all the evidence you find inconvenient. And Quintavalle isn't dubious at all. Elsewhere in the report Massei cites very good reasons why Quintavalle is reliable.


katy did said:
Yeah...they would have noticed it, if it had been there. Mignini didn't even question Amanda about this cable supposedly leading into the corridor. I don't think it was there before the door was broken down.
Click to expand...

But if they noticed it, why would they 'care'? Why is it important (to their perspective or that of the prosecution? Mignini questioned Amanda about the lamp. I don't understand why he needed to question her about the cable.
 
LashL said:
And my point still stands - which is that the Perugia police ought to have requested voluntary DNA samples from all of the tenants of the cottage, and from all known visitors. That they deliberately chose not to do so is, in my view, a very poor reflection on them and their investigation.
Click to expand...


But why were they needed? They would have only been needed to compare to unknown profiles found in incriminating areas. There were none aside from two partial profiles on the bra clasp...but they were too damaged to match to anyone, even if you had their DNA profile to compare them to. Sure, if they'd found viable unknown samples in incriminating places...I'm sure then they would have requested samples from the others.
 
Fulcanelli said:
He doesn't 'speculate', he provides hard evidence for the clean-up, evidence IN the cottage. You can't just label it 'speculation' simply because you don't like the evidence, so that you can just hand wave it awau like you do with all the evidence you find inconvenient. And Quintavalle isn't dubious at all. Elsewhere in the report Massei cites very good reasons why Quintavalle is reliable.
Click to expand...
What evidence? Absence of footprints isn't evidence they were cleaned, and certainly isn't 'hard evidence'. There isn't any evidence of a clean-up, which is why the prosecution didn't try to claim there was one (though of course, they did imply it).

But if they noticed it, why would they 'care'? Why is it important (to their perspective or that of the prosecution? Mignini questioned Amanda about the lamp. I don't understand why he needed to question her about the cable.
Click to expand...
Presumably for the same reason you suggested earlier: that if it was there, why didn't she notice it? He didn't ask, and no one else mentioned it either. So I can only conclude it wasn't there at the time.

If you look at Charlie's photo above, there are also no plug sockets near enough to Meredith's room for the lamp to be plugged into and still end up well inside the room. There's one the other side of the bathroom door, one the other side of Amanda's door, and presumably one near the light switch in the bathroom. The only reason the lamp would have been plugged into any of those is if it were being used by someone standing outside, shining light into the room.

ETA: Actually I'm not sure about there being one the other side of the bathroom door... Maybe just the other two.
 
Last edited:
katy did said:
What evidence? Absence of footprints isn't evidence they were cleaned, and certainly isn't 'hard evidence'. There isn't any evidence of a clean-up, which is why the prosecution didn't try to claim there was one (though of course, they did imply it).
Click to expand...

Then we must conclude the person who made them flew right? I'll stick with cleaned, that fits the world of reality. There you go again asserting the prosecution never claimed there was a clean-up. How do you know...have you read the case file, did you attend the trial? Do you actually have anything to support this assertion of yours?

katy_did said:
Presumably for the same reason you suggested earlier: that if it was there, why didn't she notice it? He didn't ask, and no one else mentioned it either. So I can only conclude it wasn't there at the time.

If you look at Charlie's photo above, there are also no plug sockets near enough to Meredith's room for the lamp to be plugged into and still end up well inside the room. There's one the other side of the bathroom door, one the other side of Amanda's door, and presumably one near the light switch in the bathroom. The only reason the lamp would have been plugged into any of those is if it were being used by someone standing outside, shining light into the room.
Click to expand...

I keep asking and you keep refusing to answer....why was it important for anyone to mention it? Why would Mignini think it important enough to ask Amanda about it? The only way I see it being remotely important, is that the chord gets in the way of your precious bath mat boogie. But since nobody but you people find the bath mat boogie tale remotely credible in the first place, I can't see why anyone else would care.

By the way...did you notice in Charlie's posted pic...that whacking great drying rack sitting in the corridor? The lamp chord's the least of your problems.
 
Last edited:
katy_did said:
So you're happy to claim the footprints are 'identical' without having a look at them for yourself? OK then...
Click to expand...


I have...a long time ago. Which is exactly why I can't be bothered to go over it all, all over again. Like I said, I'm sure Kermit would go over it with you.
 
LashL said:
I am reasonably well acquainted with this case, and I did, in fact, know that Ms. Kercher's body was locked inside her room in a rental accommodation. I don't know ever gave you any impression to the contrary.

And my point still stands - which is that the Perugia police ought to have requested voluntary DNA samples from all of the tenants of the cottage, and from all known visitors. That they deliberately chose not to do so is, in my view, a very poor reflection on them and their investigation.





Oh, spare me the condensension and the strawman-building, will you?

I told you that it is commonplace for police investigators to ask for voluntary DNA samples from people in the course of their investigations, and I told you that the compliance rate is generally quite high. I specfically said that generally, such requests are made on a relatively small scale (e.g. tenants and known visitors) when the crime scene is known and limited (such as in the case under discussion here), and added for your edification regarding the use of this investigative technique in Canada, that sometimes requests are expanded beyond the immediate if the case warrants it, and cited an example of such an expansion.

That you read my prior post and somehow turned it into what you wrote above is really quite astounding.
Click to expand...
Hi LashL,
Glad you have "joined" us in discussion here!
I'ts been a little nicer since you started dropping by...
RWVBWL
 
Fulcanelli said:
I have...a long time ago. Which is exactly why I can't be bothered to go over it all, all over again. Like I said, I'm sure Kermit would go over it with you.
Click to expand...
This is really pointless. The bathmat footprint and the one Rinaldi claims was Raffaele's (which is not the same one Kermit claimed is Raffaele's, incidentally) are very obviously not 'identical' or 'twins'. You ignore that fact and continue to claim they are. What's the point of discussing anything if you're just going to stick to your ingrained beliefs regardless, and ignore anything which doesn't fit?
 
katy_did said:
This is really pointless. The bathmat footprint and the one Rinaldi claims was Raffaele's (which is not the same one Kermit claimed is Raffaele's, incidentally) are very obviously not 'identical' or 'twins'. You ignore that fact and continue to claim they are. What's the point of discussing anything if you're just going to stick to your ingrained beliefs regardless, and ignore anything which doesn't fit?
Click to expand...

I'm still very interested to see if Rinaldi is the same idiot footprint expert who needed Raffaele's team to help him figure out how to do his job on the footprint originally attributed to him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom