• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
6th December 2009, 10:44 pm

Huh?

(I mean, I assume that you are referring to the date and time of the announcement of Knox/Sollecito's convictions (although it was actually 4th December 2009), but I'm not getting its relevance here...)
 
Last edited:
Okay here is my quick example of how easy it was would have been for Rudy to lock Meredith's door and exit the cottage. I spent about 5 minutes on the video. All I really wanted to show is how easy it would be for Rudy to put that print on the floor while closing and locking the door. Keep in mind, there was no blood on Rudy's right shoe. All of the prints in the hall are from his left shoe.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/door.html

Thanks, that was entertaining. It proves Rudy didn't lock the door since his prints don't resemble anything like the way or the places you stood.

PS: Maty H will be very upset with you for that. She was adamant that he locked it with his back to the door, rather then facing it.
 
There has been repeated discussion that Rudy would have had to close the door behind his back or would have had to twist in an awkward motion. It is simply not the case.

The door had a very simple lock and key. Why would the type of door affect his foot pattern?

Like I said, the evidence proves it was possible. There is no evidence whatsoever that Amanda or Raffaele locked the door. All of the prints on the floor, set in Meredith's blood belong to Rudy Guede.

Apart from that footprint of Amanda's facing Meredith's door (combined with the fact they were the only ones who had reason to do do).
 
Actually I'm still of the opinion this thread should be named "Discussion of the Meredith Kercher case". The current title puts undue focus on Knox when the case actually is about the murder of M. Kercher.
 
Actually I'm still of the opinion this thread should be named "Discussion of the Meredith Kercher case". The current title puts undue focus on Knox when the case actually is about the murder of M. Kercher.

Moss,

I agree that your idea is best. As a second-best alternative, calling it a discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case would be better than its present title.
 
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.

And still you offer no explanation of :

1) Why the defence didn't test it themselves, rather then demand the court do it

2) Why they made the request at the very last minute in the trial.

Not that you really need to answer the questions, since we already all know the answers.
 
@ Moss and halides1.

I agree as well.

*marks this day in red on her calendar* :)
 
Last edited:
Actually I'm still of the opinion this thread should be named "Discussion of the Meredith Kercher case". The current title puts undue focus on Knox when the case actually is about the murder of M. Kercher.

True up to a point. But the predominant topic of discussion here is not so much the murder itself. Rather, it's to do with the safety of the convictions of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. Some argue that the convictions are safe because Knox and Sollecito "did it", and it was proved beyond reasonable doubt in court that they "did it". Others argue that Knox and Sollecito had nothing to do with the murder - and that therefore they were by definition wrongly convicted. And others (myself included) are less concerned with whether or not Knox/Sollecito "did it", but instead argue that there might not have been enough credible evidence to convict them of the crime.
 
Last edited:
Were this info from a real source, I could actually believe it. But since you've shown time and time again that you're a liar who makes stuff up constantly, I'll wait for someone more credible to confirm. That also goes for someone willing to state a credible reason why the original investigators couldn't have done it themselves. I'm happy to hear an explanation from someone, but not from Fulcnaelli, because he is a liar.

The defence tested the pillow to find the stain in the first place did they not? So then why not test the stain?
 
Actually I'm still of the opinion this thread should be named "Discussion of the Meredith Kercher case". The current title puts undue focus on Knox when the case actually is about the murder of M. Kercher.

For the life of me, I can't fathom why someone named the thread the 'Amanda Knox Case' (and even though it would also be wrong, not the 'Raffaele Sollecito Case' or the 'Rudy Guede Case'). It isn't, it's the Meredith Kercher case.
 
Last edited:
May I humbly suggest the following title:

"The Meredith Kercher case: Were Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito rightly convicted?"
 
The defence tested the pillow to find the stain in the first place did they not? So then why not test the stain?

You don't know the procedure or the protocol it would take to do the definitive test for semen. And if you said you did, you'd probably be making it up, as you often do. Hopefully someone credible will be able to inform us on the matter.
 
You don't know the procedure or the protocol it would take to do the definitive test for semen. And if you said you did, you'd probably be making it up, as you often do. Hopefully someone credible will be able to inform us on the matter.

Neither do you. In any case, the procedure and protocol should not be a problem for a defence that has experts up to its eyeballs and for which money is no barrier. But as it happens, the test for semen is not difficult and is inexpensive and quck...it's fairly simple. You can see semen under a standard microscope.
 
Neither do you. In any case, the procedure and protocol should not be a problem for a defence that has experts up to its eyeballs and for which money is no barrier. But as it happens, the test for semen is not difficult and is inexpensive and quck...it's fairly simple. You can see semen under a standard microscope.

See, this is the part where I would ask, "Do you know what steps the defense must take in order to perform the test themselves, or must they make a motion asking for an independent test or for the police to test it?". But the problem is, you make things up. There are plenty of people I disagree with about this case, Shuttlt, Fiona, etc., who I would believe over you since they aren't dishonest They are also very careful to say where they find things. If they say it I know at least they aren't making it up.
 
Last edited:
Huh?

(I mean, I assume that you are referring to the date and time of the announcement of Knox/Sollecito's convictions (although it was actually 4th December 2009), but I'm not getting its relevance here...)

6th December 2009, 10:44 pm

Hello LondonJohn
I've enjoyed reading your posts.
6th December 2009 is the last time the OP has posted in this thread is all I'm sayin'.
 
See, this is the part where I would ask, "Do you know what steps the defense must take in order to perform the test themselves, or must they make a motion asking for an independent test or for the police to test it?". But the problem is, you make things up. There are plenty of people I disagree with about this case, Shuttlt, Fiona, etc., who I would believe over you since they aren't dishonest They are also very careful to say where they find things. If they say it I know at least they aren't making it up.

They can test it themselves. That's what they have experts FOR. Their expert looked at the pillow and found the stain. There was nothing stopping him from testing it further himself, or having it tested by some other qualified person.

I've never made things up.
 
acid phosphatase

http://projects.nfstc.org/workshops/... Fabrics.pdf

The paper above (Kobus, HJ, et al., J Forensic Sci, July 2002, Vol. 47, No. 4) states, “Over the past few years the “Polilight” has been used routinely in the authors’ laboratory for the detection of dried semen stains in sexual assault cases. The technique is used as a screening method to target suitable areas for acid phosphatase testing and subsequent DNA analysis.”

The paragraph and link above was part of a previous message. Acid phosphatase is an enzyme that converts a phosphomonoester into phosphate and an alcohol. It is a presumptive test for semen. I am not sure whether the test for glycoprotein p30 (below) is suitable in this instance or not.

"The presence of semen can be confirmed by the finding of spermatozoa, which can remain in the vagina for up to 72 hours after intercourse. (1,3) Although acid phosphatase is present in high levels in seminal samples, it is considered only a strong indication of the presence of semen because it can also appear in vaginal secretions; however, seminal plasma glycoprotein p30, an antigen specific to the prostate, is widely regarded as conclusive proof of the presence of semen and indicates ejaculation during the previous 48 hours. Currently, seminal plasma glycoprotein p30 measurements are the standard of care in forensics laboratories. (2)"
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3230/is_6_37/ai_n14696477/

For more on p30 see also:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/312/6/338
 
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