-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case
- Thread starter Kevin_Lowe
- Start date
- Status
Mary_H
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2010
- Messages
- 5,253
Here is a llink to a picture of it, posted earlier today by RWVBWL:
No one in his right mind would think of Vaseline when looking at that picture.
Bruce Fischer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2010
- Messages
- 1,584
That's why we want it tested. The court blocked the test. Why?
BobTheDonkey
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2009
- Messages
- 4,501
You say "we" as though you're a part of the Defense team... Are you certain the Defense wanted it tested? Because, if you are, and they did, then why did they wait so long to request the test? And have they since pushed for it to be tested in the interim between the conviction and beginning of the appeal?
Amazer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2008
- Messages
- 1,711
Judges usually give proper motivations why they deny certain requests. I'm fairly certain this will not be the exception. Maybe if you reed the judges report you can find out?
BobTheDonkey
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2009
- Messages
- 4,501
Look, Bruce has already stated, quite clearly, that he doesn't need to read the report as he already knows he disagrees with it.
Last edited:
Bruce Fischer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2010
- Messages
- 1,584
The reasoning was because Meredith had an active sex life. It shows complete incompetence not to test a possible semen stain at the scene of a murder of this nature.
Bruce Fischer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2010
- Messages
- 1,584
I said "we" in regard to the group of people on JREF that are arguing that a test should be conducted. You know this of course. You just like to play games.
BobTheDonkey
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2009
- Messages
- 4,501
You did not differentiate between yourselves and the Defense, in fact, it leads one to believe that you are, somehow, a part of the Defense - that what the collective you wants somehow matters to the Court.
The collective you should be asking the Defense why they waited so long to request to have the stain tested - but you're not. Instead, you're attacking the Prosecution, Police, Judges, et al - everyone but those on the Defense - because it wasn't tested.
Amazer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2008
- Messages
- 1,711
If you know the answer... why do you keep asking the question?
Perhaps, it doesn't explain though why the defense waited till the trial almost reached it's conclusion before bringing this issue up.
___________________-
Thanks Bruce for creating and posting the video. But big problem. The photo of the bloody shoeprint shows a RIGHT shoeprint, as a simple inspection reveals. (NOTE: the bloody shoeprint is always the mirror image of the pattern on the sole of the shoe.) So......have you inadvertently posted the wrong bloody shoeprint photo???
Click on Bruce's link folks and have a look.
///
Last edited:
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,455
Firstly, if we're shoehorning each other into "groups" in this matter, then I state that I belong to the collective who can't understand why the pillowcase stains were not tested, and who would like to see them tested. In my view, if they come back positive for Raffaele's semen DNA, then this alone would be enough to certify his conviction (and very possibly that of AK too - if not for murder then for being an accessory etc). If they come back as Guede's semen, then nothing really changes in my view - and likewise if they come back as Meredith's bf's semen, or if they come back as some substance other than semen. But if they come back as another man's semen DNA, then further questions need to be asked about the police theory (and I don't think one can dismiss this by saying things like "Oh well, in that case we can just add another man into the sexual assault/murder scene - the prosecution case is still fine").
Secondly, I am not merely blaming the police investigators and the prosecutors for this - although I do believe that they had (and still have) a primary responsibility to test EVERYTHING that might be relevant to a crime. And I find it impossible to figure out quite how spots/stains of an identified substance that might well be semen, which are on a pillowcase that's underneath a woman who's been sexually assaulted and murdered, could NOT be highly relevant to this crime. I do blame the defence team too, but to a lesser degree.
Thirdly, it's perfectly possible (in my view) to interpret the defence's actions in this instance as a mistake and/or incompetence. Of course, it's also POSSIBLE to interpret their late request for testing of the stains as an elaborate game - one in which they wanted the court to note their desire for a test, but where they didn't actually WANT the test to happen since they thought the stain might be Raffaele's semen. But that way of thinking not only a) ascribes levels of cunning and sophistication to the defence team that we have never seen anywhere else, but also b) would be an EXTREMELY risky strategy for the defence to embark upon. After all, it would have only taken a quick judge's ruling to get the stain tested.
SURELY (in my opinion), if the defence HAD believed that there was even a chance that Raffaele's semen DNA was on that pillowcase, they'd have wanted to stay as far away from it as possible throughout the whole legal process - and they'd have also been thanking their lucky stars that the police hadn't bothered to investigate it either.
I think it's far more possible to see this as defence incompetence or misjudgement (unfortunately for the defendants...). In this respect, it's not strictly relevant to refer to "multi-million Euro" defence teams, by the way. Lawyers of all prices and experience levels can - and do - make mistakes that harm their clients every day of every week.
Last edited:
Mr.D
Self Assessed Dunning-Kruger Expert
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2007
- Messages
- 1,178
Side note: It's considered polite to hide pictures/movies with gore (even if minimal) behind a NSFW/warning/spoiler tag.
Thank you.
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 4,177
FACT: Defense attorneys for both Amanda and Raffaele have formally petitioned the court to have this testing donei, and the request has been denied. This is a major element of Raffaele's appeal, and defense lawyers are continuing to hope they can get this test done.
A basic, generic understanding of criminal investigations helps here. The police confiscate and log evidence from the crime scene. A discovery process ensures that the defense can learn about and examine this evidence. BUT, if they want to subject evidence to a chemical test that will be destructive, i.e., will change or "use up" the evidence or a portion thereof, they can't just do it on their own initiative, for reasons that should be obvious. Instead, they have to petition the court and explain what they want to do and why. This is what defense attorneys have done in the case of the possible semen stain on the pillow.
As for the technology used to detect the stain, it was a crimescope, which is a specialized tool that can cast light in a number of very precise color bands. Different bands reveal different kinds of stains. This is what Vinci used in his analysis and how he discovered the possible semen stain. If you view his presentation, available at:
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/vinci.pdf
you will see a picture of the crimescope.e The police investigators in this case had and made use of a crimescope. It can be seen in some of the crime scene video.
As for the stain, everyone recognizes that it might not be semen, and if it is semen, it might be from to Meredith's boyfriend. But it's also quite possible that it is Guede's. It is important to test it because it may add to the court's understanding of what happened that night.
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 4,177
The error is the reference photo, which shows a right sole. I think everyone agrees that the shoe prints in the corridor were made with the left shoe
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,455
Sorry to introduce more confusion here, but the reference photo of the Nike Outbreak 2 shoe does actually show a LEFT sole. The sole is being viewed from below in this photo, don't forget....
And the shoe prints in the corridor also appear to me to be compatible with this left sole, contrary to another opinion recently expressed on here.
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 4,177
Shoe and footprint analysis is a bastion of forensic junk science. Google "Louise Robbins shoe print" to see what I mean.
Real experts seem to agree that "pedal evidence" is inherently difficult to analyze because the mechanics of human pedal motion are so complex. In the case of the shoe prints in the corridor, we can safely say they show a single individual with blood on the sole of his left shoe walking from Meredith's room toward the exit. We can establish that the prints could have been made by Rudy's Outbreak 2 Nike's. Beyond that lies the realm of speculation, because the blood only covered one portion of the sole. If Rudy stood on his heel or toe at some point, he might not have left a noticeable print. Likewise if he stood in such a way that his sole was slightly angled or his weight was centered on a clean portion of the sole. We all do this hundreds of times every day.
Real experts seem to agree that "pedal evidence" is inherently difficult to analyze because the mechanics of human pedal motion are so complex. In the case of the shoe prints in the corridor, we can safely say they show a single individual with blood on the sole of his left shoe walking from Meredith's room toward the exit. We can establish that the prints could have been made by Rudy's Outbreak 2 Nike's. Beyond that lies the realm of speculation, because the blood only covered one portion of the sole. If Rudy stood on his heel or toe at some point, he might not have left a noticeable print. Likewise if he stood in such a way that his sole was slightly angled or his weight was centered on a clean portion of the sole. We all do this hundreds of times every day.
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 4,177
Yikes. My mistake. It's a left shoe. But I think both the defense and prosecution agree that the prints in the corridor were made with a left shoe as well.
_____________________
The shoe in the photograph posted by Bruce is a LEFT shoe. Any shoeprint created by this shoe stepping on the floor will be a mirror-image of the design on the sole. The bloody shoeprint is NOT a mirror image of that sole. (It is instead congruent with the design of the sole.) THEREFORE! ....the bloody shoeprint photographed is the print of a RIGHT shoe.
So Bruce has either posted the wrong photograph. (In which case this is not a photograph of the bloody shoeprint outside of Meredith's door.) Or he is just mistaken about the bloody print being a LEFT shoeprint.............in which case he should re-enact the video.
///
Last edited:
______________________________
For your convenience here is Bruce's LINK, in yellow.
///
Last edited:
- Status