Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Dan O.]

You misunderstand what i was trying to say, and I can understand it from the way I worded it. I worded it poorly.

So I will try and explain what I meant. If you have a positive result with luminol and you then test what the luminol reacted with using LCN testing. You will then know if its possible what it reacted to is blood. Not because LCN can tell the difference between blood, but because in this instance there was No DNA. As so many guilters go to great lengths to point out. You only need 1 cell of dna. If there is that much blood evidence using luminol how is there no DNA. Anything that would destroy evidence of dna would destroy the evidence of blood. If there is blood, there must be dna. Since there is no dna, its not blood. Thus the dna testing can prove its not blood, since there is no DNA. Red blood cells are not the only thing in blood. However, in the instance of the footprints, TMB and Dna tests where performed. TMB didn't react to any blood and the dna tests didn't find any dna. It talks in that very article about how luminol doesn't effect dna tests.

Yes, stated that way you ar correct. A negative DNA test would show that the substance the Luminal reacted to could not be human blood.

Conversly though, a positive result for DNA (especially at the LCN level) does not prove that the substance is blood because the DNA could be coming from another source such as shed skin cells that are expected to be found.


You are also quite right about the quantity verses concentration issue that seems to confuse many on the guilty side. Luminal is a catalytic reaction that requires a minimum concentration of the catalyst (iron as found in blood) to maintain a visible reaction. Whereas DNA tests separate the DNA from the sample and after PCR amplification give a reading that is relative to the number of segments of DNA that had been in the sample regardless of the concentration.

 

[Dan O.]

I think the key to the break-in is the concrete planter adjacent to the window. Someone standing on it could reach the overhanging roof and swing across to the window ledge, and not have to crawl over broken glass.

As for the "why" of Rudy's actions, if you're going to ask that, you might also ask why Amanda and Raffaele would get involved in a murder for which they had no motive, and which could only cause them problems even if they never became suspects. And once they were under suspicion, why didn't they implicate Rudy, who left bloody shoe prints, a bloody hand print, and DNA inside the victim's body?

Not unless Rudy was Super Rubber Man. See Thoughtful's recent photo of the wall, window and planter at the cottage on PMF. It's clear you can't reach the window from the planter.

Just how much of a stretch is it to reach the window?

Based on the dimensions of the broken window pane and a 3D model of the window, I calculate that the exterior shutters are .78m wide (.39m each). Using this measure to scale the model of the exterior wall I find that the window is only 1.1m from the front corner of the building.

It is not a difficult stretch at all to step from the edge of the porch to the grating on the lower window (which is centered under the right edge of the upper window) and reach the center of the exterior shutter (that cannot be latched) and pull it open.

Standing on the top bar, it is a bit of a stretch to reach in through the broken window and up to the latch mechanism. If it were out of reach, there is still another step up to the top of the casement of the lower window which puts the latch within very easy reach.


Now, why would we need to look at thoughtfull's pictures when the investigators would have clearly documented the wall with measurements in order to show it was an impossible entry?

 

[Justinian2]

Page 365 of the Massei translation

Amanda and Raffaele, having arrived at the house slightly after 23.00 pm, it should It should be considered that they went into Amanda’s room with the intention of being together, in intimacy. Amanda moreover had reported that that evening they had they had “made love”, although in Raffaele’s house, after having consumed drugs (hashish) prepared by Raffaele Sollecito. Besides, as Laura Mezzetti had testified, …

Note that the Massei report virtually admits that AK and RS could not have arrived before 23:00. The rest appears to be mere conjecture, if not prosecutorial libel with million dollar damages.

Page 368

The consultants and forensic scientists have asserted that from the point of view of forensic science, it cannot be ruled out that the author of the injuries could have been a single attacker, because the bruises and the wounds from a pointed and cutting weapon are not in themselves incompatible with the action of a single person. With regard to this, it is nevertheless observed that the contribution of each

Note the words “cannot be ruled out”. I cannot find any evidence throughout the Massei report that MK was held down or restrained by others during her murder. (I searched on the word held)

Page 368

A motive, therefore, of an erotic, sexually violent nature which, arising from the choice of evil made by Rudy, found active collaboration from Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

Again, the collaboration is speculation at the very least since the Massei report itself does not mention (let alone prove) collaboration before the concluding remarks. (I searched for the word collaboration)

Page 368

That such participation, active and violent, also involved the current defendants in combination with Rudy can be derived from what has been observed in earlier discussion of the wounds suffered by Meredith, of the outcome of the genetic investigations, [and] of the bare footprints found in various parts of the house.

This is a lie based on the preponderance of evidence in the Massie report that points to the wounds being inflicted by a single attacker plus the fact that the male footprints were proven belonged only to Guede.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

unfinished business

The constantly changing stories alone would be sufficient to secure a conviction. These details made an indelible impression on the court in their first trial and will continue to do so as the process continues and they finally have to accept their long prison terms are not going to go away.

Stilicho,

So you return in order to state false things about their alibis and to reverse the burden of proof? Based on prior comments, that is to be expected, but as long as you are here, how about answering my questions to you:
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
and here

Surely a science buff such as yourself will have no trouble discussing the prosecution’s understanding, or lack thereof, of luminol as a presumptive test as long as you are here.

 

[LondonJohn]

Page 365 of the Massei translation


Quote:
Amanda and Raffaele, having arrived at the house slightly after 23.00 pm, it should It should be considered that they went into Amanda’s room with the intention of being together, in intimacy. Amanda moreover had reported that that evening they had they had “made love”, although in Raffaele’s house, after having consumed drugs (hashish) prepared by Raffaele Sollecito. Besides, as Laura Mezzetti had testified, …


Note that the Massei report virtually admits that AK and RS could not have arrived before 23:00. The rest appears to be mere conjecture, if not prosecutorial libel with million dollar damages.

Not only that, but Massei here rides roughshod over the credible evidence of the people whose car broke down opposite the girls' cottage, and was there between 10.30pm and 11.30-11.40pm. These witnesses were sitting there waiting for a tow truck to arrive on a quiet night right outside the cottage; they stated pretty categorically that there was no activity within the cottage while their car was there, and neither did anyone enter or leave via the clearly-visible front door.

But yet Massei has Knox and Sollecito (and presumably Guede) all arriving via the front door "slightly after 23.00pm". I'm struggling to see how he could come to that conclusion. Anyone?

 

[JREF2010]

Yes and Rudy has Amanda leaving the driveway, as he looks out Filomenas window.
Rudy told Matteini he left the cottage around 10-10:30.

9 to 11, it'd be interesting to see a collage of all the time events in one list, Curatolo, Tow Truck drivers, Nara, Rudy, Amanda and Raffaele, Alessandra Formica, cell calls etc..

 

[Pardalis]

I'm guessing it's a bit late to ask who this Amanda Knox person is, right?

But judging from other 100 pages threads, it must be quite irrelevant.

 

[Justinian2]

I'm guessing it's a bit late to ask who this Amanda Knox person is, right?

But judging from other 100 pages threads, it must be quite irrelevant.

From Wikipedia:

Amanda Marie Knox, from Seattle, Washington, was, at the time of Kercher's murder, a 20-year-old University of Washington language student. She was in Perugia attending the University for Foreigners for one year, studying Italian, German and creative writing. In Perugia she lived in the same shared flat as Kercher. Knox had met Raffaele Sollecito at a classical music concert and had become his girlfriend.

She's another Christian thrown to the wolves in a country best known for spawning tyrants and an infamous prosecutor.

Amanda is in jail for 26 years for a murder she obviously didn't commit.

 

[Dan O.]

9 to 11, it'd be interesting to see a collage of all the time events in one list, Curatolo, Tow Truck drivers, Nara, Rudy, Amanda and Raffaele, Alessandra Formica, cell calls etc..

You mean like this.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

When you are a student in a foreign country

I'm guessing it's a bit late to ask who this Amanda Knox person is, right?

But judging from other 100 pages threads, it must be quite irrelevant.

Let's put it this way. I had an academic advisee see me this past week about studying in Spain. I told him not to talk to the police without a lawyer under any circumstances. A few minutes later I said that if he had any doubts that I was joking earlier, I would put them to rest.

 

[quadraginta]

Let's put it this way. I had an academic advisee see me this past week about studying in Spain. I told him not to talk to the police without a lawyer under any circumstances. A few minutes later I said that if he had any doubts that I was joking earlier, I would put them to rest.

Funny thing. Lawyers in the U.S. are prone to give the exact same advice to anyone in the U.S. who might be subject to being interviewed by the police about a serious crime.

Not that it gets taken all that often, or even asked for, but the sentiments are pretty much identical.

ETA: ... and the reasoning behind them.

 

[RoseMontague]

Stilicho,

So you return in order to state false things about their alibis and to reverse the burden of proof? Based on prior comments, that is to be expected, but as long as you are here, how about answering my questions to you:
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
and here

Surely a science buff such as yourself will have no trouble discussing the prosecution’s understanding, or lack thereof, of luminol as a presumptive test as long as you are here.

I think the 5th or maybe the 8th question (hard to remember which) you probably said this the best.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

She's another Christian thrown to the wolves in a country best known for spawning tyrants and an infamous prosecutor.

It's up to you whether you choose to engage in Italy-bashing, although if you do so hopefully you are from a country that has never seen a corrupt cop or a runaway prosecution.

However you're not representing my views if you do so.

 

[quadraginta]

It's up to you whether you choose to engage in Italy-bashing, although if you do so hopefully you are from a country that has never seen a corrupt cop or a runaway prosecution.

However you're not representing my views if you do so.

Good for you, Kevin. That earns you an 'Attaboy' from me.

(Whether it matters to you or not. )

 

[RoseMontague]

I'm guessing it's a bit late to ask who this Amanda Knox person is, right?

But judging from other 100 pages threads, it must be quite irrelevant.

It would be easier for you to change the reality of this rather than your point of view. Have faith in that change despite it being unreasonable, close your eyes and click your heels and you will receive an epiphany, more knowledge than any of us.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Just how much of a stretch is it to reach the window?

Based on the dimensions of the broken window pane and a 3D model of the window, I calculate that the exterior shutters are .78m wide (.39m each). Using this measure to scale the model of the exterior wall I find that the window is only 1.1m from the front corner of the building.

It is not a difficult stretch at all to step from the edge of the porch to the grating on the lower window (which is centered under the right edge of the upper window) and reach the center of the exterior shutter (that cannot be latched) and pull it open.

Standing on the top bar, it is a bit of a stretch to reach in through the broken window and up to the latch mechanism. If it were out of reach, there is still another step up to the top of the casement of the lower window which puts the latch within very easy reach.

Now, why would we need to look at thoughtfull's pictures when the investigators would have clearly documented the wall with measurements in order to show it was an impossible entry?

It verges on being an interesting optical illusion. From photos taken at the right angles it certainly looks hard to get to the window, from below or above, but once you look at the actual measurements or see a human standing on the bars below you realise it's actually trivial for anyone who can do a chin-up or step across a 1.1m gap.

I suspect that those of us who are used to windows being bigger unconsciously assume that the windows are half again to twice the size they actually are, and that the rest of the house is in proportion, unless we have a human or something similar in the shot to provide scale.

That said, I can't find any way to excuse investigators who had access to the scene and claimed that it was impossible to climb in that window. They weren't trying to form judgments based on carefully chosen photos, so it would have been immediately obvious to them that the window was accessible from two directions.

 

[RoseMontague]

Just how much of a stretch is it to reach the window?

Based on the dimensions of the broken window pane and a 3D model of the window, I calculate that the exterior shutters are .78m wide (.39m each). Using this measure to scale the model of the exterior wall I find that the window is only 1.1m from the front corner of the building.

It is not a difficult stretch at all to step from the edge of the porch to the grating on the lower window (which is centered under the right edge of the upper window) and reach the center of the exterior shutter (that cannot be latched) and pull it open.

Standing on the top bar, it is a bit of a stretch to reach in through the broken window and up to the latch mechanism. If it were out of reach, there is still another step up to the top of the casement of the lower window which puts the latch within very easy reach.


Now, why would we need to look at thoughtfull's pictures when the investigators would have clearly documented the wall with measurements in order to show it was an impossible entry?

Using a standard brick size, how far would it be?

 

[katy_did]

This is the extended quote on time of death from Matteini's ruling, part of which was posted by Rose earlier:

From the first medical assessments carried out on the body, the Coroner of the P.M., Dr. Luca Lalli, noted that the death could be placed at 23.00 with a minimum and maximum margin of about 1 hour, with the consequence that the temporal arc to be taken into consideration must be indicated as between the hours of 22.00 and 24.00 on 1 November 2007. In reality, from the documents it appears that this hour can definitely be placed earlier in that, according to what was reported by Sophie Purton on 2.11.2007, at 21.00 the meal had already finished as she and Meredith were already on the street and returning to their respective homes.

This fact is not of minor importance in that it allows us to move back the hour of death at least to 22.00, with the indication, therefore, of a temporal arc of between 21.00 and 23.00. [i.e. 22.00 with a margin of error of an hour either side]
[...]
From the reading of a first detailed summary written by Dr. Lalli and deposited with the Prosecutor on 8.11.2007, the subject of which is the autopsy findings on the body of Meredith Kercher, it emerges that the injuries did not affect the carotid artery, meaning death would have been preceded by quite a long agony. This is a fact which allows us to place the criminal acts further back in time to between the hours of 21.30 and 23.30 of 1 November 2007, a time span which can be moved back to between 20.30 and 22.30, if one takes account of the consumption of the meal at an hour earlier than 21.00.

What's most striking is how much importance Matteini places on the stomach contents as a means of estimating time of death, moving it back an hour based on the fact the meal was over before 9. Lalli's first estimate of 23:00 was obviously based heavily on the stomach contents too, since at the time he believed the meal started at 21:00.

I think the length of time between the injuries being made and death occurring was revised during the trial to 10-15 minutes, where Matteini estimates 30 minutes in moving the estimated time of the attack back to about 21:30. 10-15 minutes would still lead to an estimated time for the fatal wounds being made of about 21:45, though, +/- an hour.

 

[katy_did]

It's up to you whether you choose to engage in Italy-bashing, although if you do so hopefully you are from a country that has never seen a corrupt cop or a runaway prosecution.

However you're not representing my views if you do so.

Agreed.

 

[katy_did]

I think the 5th or maybe the 8th question (hard to remember which) you probably said this the best.

I dunno, I kind of thought question 2 had a certain panache to it.