Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[moodstream]

No. My understanding is the visible footprints were cleaned and scrubbed by the police immediately after photo's and testing so as not to drag blood into other areas of the flat. This was done prior to luminol testing. They could have prevented this in other ways, obviously. I don't know if this procedure is common with other law enforcement procedures.

So it is possible to clean up blood from the floor in a way that would not leave a detectable trace. I wonder what they used? Just ordinary soap and water?

 

[RoseMontague]

So it is possible to clean up blood from the floor in a way that would not leave a detectable trace. I wonder what they used? Just ordinary soap and water?

My research indicates that CocaCola works best at cleaning up those tough blood stains without causing a luminol reaction.

ETA: I don't know what they used.

 

[RWVBWL]

Hi all,
After reading this by Machiavelli,

<SNIP>
By the way, in city of Perugia, at least two other cases of murder with a staged burglary occurred during the last four years.

I asked this:

Hi Machiavelli in Italy!
After Rudy Guede was arrested,
do you know if there have been any more break-ins and/or burglaries on the 2nd floor of any building or apartments in Perugia, Italy?

He wrote this:

I don't know how many. I know in the Province of Perugia, in the years 2005-2009 there has been an average high number of thefts in homes, between 590 and 1084 thefts per year.
Anyway I don't think any datum on this matter could have implications, in either way or another.

I answered:

Hi Machiavelli!
I Thank You for that info.

But it didn't really answer my question:
Have there have been any further break-ins and burglaries from 2nd story buildings and/or apartments in Perugia, Italy
since the murder of Meredith Kercher and the arrest of Rudy Guede.

As far as any datum on this matter not having any implications,
I disagree, for we are debating on a forum, not in a court of law.
And I am simply curious...

Anyone else from Italy or elsewhere want to chime in?
Thanks, RWVBWL

Not getting an answer, I next went over to Perugia Shock, and asked this of Frank Sfarzo, whom I believe is a resident of Perugia, Italy.

"After Meredith Kercher was found brutally murdered on the 2nd floor of her apartment building and Rudy Guede arrested and imprisoned,
do you know if there been any further break-ins and burglaries from the 2nd floor of any
-(ADD-in: I should have wrote other, but I believe that FS figured out what I meant)
buildings or apartments in Perugia, Italy?"

He kindly responded with "No"
I asked him to further clarify his response:
"'No' meaning that I don't know. But if something like that had happened I would probably know."

If there have been NO further break-ins of other 2nd floor apartments +/or buildings in Perugia, Italy,
1 might believe that the Italian police probably "caught their man"...
Hmmm, I wonder...
RWVBWL

PS-I am sure that you are aware,
-(as Frank Sfarzo obviously is too, for I learned of this on Perugia Shock),
that afterwards there were a couple of other break-ins to the upstairs apartment where the murder of Meredith Kercher took place.
I believe that someone even stole Meredith Kercher's matress.
Who did this? Was there any investigation? If so, what results?

If anyone else wishes to chime-in with any further information, please do...
Peace,
RW

 

[Kaosium]

Yeah, I don't get that either. My understanding is that there were three unknown DNA profiles on the bra clasp and that was the only unknown DNA found in Meredith's bedroom.

I'd think there could be more than that. The boyfriend, postal police, certain members of the scientific police, as well as perhaps some of the girls.

However, I doubt much of that would be evidence of murder. That is, in or around the body and the area of the struggle where it could convincingly be argued that it proved that person was involved in the assault. If there's any of that sort of evidence that went unreported, then we might have to cue that X-Files theme of yours.

Finding a few specks of someone in the corner would be more or less worthless as evidence of murder.

 

[billyryan]

How right you are Justinian2 "while man can't create heaven,he sure can create hell"
With less than twelve hours to go to the start of the appeal,everybody seems to have gone silent.

Any of you guilters ever allow yourselves to think what a wonderful emotional moment it would be to see Amanda walk out the front door of the court between Edda and Deanna instead of the guards pulling at her arms as they put her into a prison van

Do any of you guilters remember the first moment you realised you can get such pleasure out of someone else's misfortune.Do ye ever think about getting treatment for yere saddism

 

[Katody Matrass]

Hi, Alt+F4!
Have you overlooked my recent post to you? I'd love to know what you think.

 

[Alt+F4]

Hi, Alt+F4!
Have you overlooked my recent post to you? I'd love to know what you think.

I did. I'll address it in my next post.

 

[Alt+F4]

It doesn't look very probable reason for interrupting a romantic evening, considering that such preparations can always be put off until later, especially that Amanda would want to use her bathroom and her cosmetics in the morning anyway.

Well it doesn't seem like it was a very romantic evening considering how often RS went on the computer, from what I'm being told. A sexy woman in your bed and you want to watch teenage Japanese animation?

As for her bathroom, Amanda had no problem using Raffaele's shower and as for her cosmetics, yes, they went to her apartment to get them and her clothes for the next mornings trip.

But let it be, we need them to leave the flat to go on with our "reconstruction". What time do you think it was? After watching Amelie? Or Naruto around 21:30? Do you consider Curatolo credible?

The Naruto watching is something only mentioned in the appeal. Why wasn't it brought up in the trial? Why wasn't Amanda ever asked about Naruto (ok, maybe she wouldn't have known the name of the cartoon, but she definitely would have recognized animation).

We know that neither of them admitted to that acquaintance. And Raffaele directly stated he doesn't know Rudy. It means either they were risking that someone who knows that they know each other will out them, or that it was a secret relationship, unknown to anyone. But they had no phone numbers of each other, were no facebook "friends" etc. There is no trace of any contact between them. And no credible witness of their friendship emerged.

That's the thing about drug users/addicts/sellers....they don't usually make that information and their activities public.

They also come from quite different social circles. One of them attended classical concerts and studied while the other one "hanged around".

What is your point here?

I also don't think we have evidence Rudy used "street drugs". He maybe used marijuana, grown by the guys downstairs and drank alcohol.

Do you believe that he committed multiple burglaries in Perugia? If so, what was his motive for these burglaries?

Do you mean Meredith let him in, or that he broke in?

Personally, I think Meredith let him in. She had seen him with the men downstairs. There was no reason why she would fear him if he knocked on the door and said he desperately needed to use the bathroom as his friends downstairs were not home. While in the bathroom he realized that the other roommates were not home and here was his opportunity to make his move. She resists as the other two morons come home, high as kites.

Amanda finds it funny and Raffaele participates as to do anything to please her. Things get out of control and Raffaele and Rudy murder Meredith. Amanda does what she told the police, she was in the other room, covering her ears.

 

[Amazer]

Any of you guilters ever allow yourselves to think what a wonderful emotional moment it would be to see Amanda walk out the front door of the court between Edda and Deanna instead of the guards pulling at her arms as they put her into a prison van

I've certainly considered it.

Do any of you guilters remember the first moment you realised you can get such pleasure out of someone else's misfortune.

I can't say that I derive pleasure out of someone elses misfortune.

Do ye ever think about getting treatment for yere saddism

No, mostly because I don't suffer from that afflication.

P.S. Perhaps you should try to moderate the tone of your posts a little. It's not very conductive to a lively, yet polite debate.

 

[Chris C]

Amanda finds it funny and Raffaele participates as to do anything to please her. Things get out of control and Raffaele and Rudy murder Meredith. Amanda does what she told the police, she was in the other room, covering her ears.

What time do you feel this high as a kite show took place?

 

[Chris C]

PS-I am sure that you are aware,
-(as Frank Sfarzo obviously is too, for I learned of this on Perugia Shock),
that afterwards there were a couple of other break-ins to the upstairs apartment where the murder of Meredith Kercher took place.
I believe that someone even stole Meredith Kercher's matress.
Who did this? Was there any investigation? If so, what results?

The later break ins where from a different level that could be accessed without climbing.

 

[katy_did]

When someone's best talking point about a given issue is just to make up a silly name for it, it's a good bet that it's a point of serious weakness in their position.

The "bathmat boogie" is a real problem for people who want to believe in Amanda's guilt because it's almost a blank cheque to explain any amount of smearing, wiping or foot-print leaving anywhere between her room and the bathroom. That spoils any amount of pro-guilt fun that could otherwise be had.

I think that's why they made up the term to ridicule a perfectly normal means of getting around without leaving a mess when one has forgotten one's towel, and also why I distinctly recall them arguing vociferously that the mat probably had rubber backing and so Amanda's story had to be false.

Once you've made up a silly name for it you can dismiss it, once you've dismissed it you can argue that every smear or footprint is evidence of guilt, and as a bonus you can even say the story in itself is evidence that Amanda cleaned up the scene and then lied about it.

It's amazing how much guiltier you can make someone look if you're allowed to arbitrarily decide that chunks of their story are ridiculous.

Very well-put. The problem with Amanda's account of this from a pro-guilt perspective is that it provides a plausible innocent explanation not only for the existence of the footprints themselves, but for any possible wiping of visible bloody prints in the short distance between the bathroom and Meredith's door. The bigger problem is that she mentioned it before the luminol tests were performed, on 17 December at the latest and quite likely earlier (no reason to think this was the first time she talked about it). So any pro-guilt argument has to employ a sort of retrocausality (she knew in advance that the invisible prints would be found) and when that turns out to be a bit implausible, to give the whole thing a silly name and hope that's enough to discredit it.

If there's a plausible innocent explanation for a piece of evidence, that's reasonable doubt right there. The prosecution knew this too, which is why they argued so hard that one of the prints was Raffaele's. They had no choice but to argue that, because if they didn't, they knew the prints had an innocent explanation and the jury would dismiss them.

 

[katy_did]

Interesting (if cryptic) new blog entry from Frank...

(well, from Monday, but don't think it's been mentioned)

 

[Justinian2]

I've certainly considered it.

I can't say that I derive pleasure out of someone elses misfortune.

P.S. Perhaps you should try to moderate the tone of your posts a little. It's not very conductive to a lively, yet polite debate.

The quilters have never lead by example, that I have noticed. OK, a few times, but I can count the times on my fingers.

Originally Posted by Machiavelli
I don't know how many. I know in the Province of Perugia, in the years 2005-2009 there has been an average high number of thefts in homes, between 590 and 1084thefts per year.

Bars on the windows don't seem to help.

With that many break-ins, why does a break - in need to be staged? If one was staged, why on the 2nd floor?

 

[Dan O.]

So it is possible to clean up blood from the floor in a way that would not leave a detectable trace. I wonder what they used? Just ordinary soap and water?

Yes it is. When diluted significantly more than 1,000,000 to one with water it becomes difficult to detect the luminol emission against the background. This can be done by blotting the stain with water and solvents like soap. The problem becomes, since the stain is invisible to the naked eye long before it is undetectable with luminol, how do you know that you have effectively cleaned up the stain. And if it gets into the grout between the tiles, it becomes extremely problematic to get it out.

Given that there is some splotchy luminol reactions outside the area of the footprints, it appears that ILE was not attempting to document the entire extent of the luminol traces but only recording the larger contiguous patches that might represent footprints. Did they follow the proper procedure of marking the sites where reactions occured, setup the camera and reapply the luminol for the photo? Or, given the shakeyness of many of the images, did they quickly slap the tripod down when they saw the light? Do we know that they produces every photo that was taken or did the cherypick the evidence they wanted before sharing it with the defense?

 

[Alt+F4]

Interesting (if cryptic) new blog entry from Frank...

Several different things I didn't understand from that post:

1. Why is a drawing Amanda did in prison labeled as "Exhibit no 2", Frank is making it seem like this drawing was presented as evidence.

2. Why is he saying that the search for truth in a criminal case is a philosophical problem?

3. Frank states that, "Patrizia Stefanoni, scientific icon of the case, became the most hated figure for all Amanda’s supporters". Where has anyone ever said she was "hated"? Those who think Amanda is innocent have said that she is wrong, but hated? No, that's just a lie.

4. What does this mean?

Oh, the old tradition, the very first thought they have as soon as they step into a case: solving it their way. Placing the envelop in the right place, dropping the sock with the right blood stains... Is it that the dear old tradition that has made its way into Italy, too?

Is Frank saying he has proof that evidence was planted?

 

[Kaosium]

Several different things I didn't understand from that post:

1. Why is a drawing Amanda did in prison labeled as "Exhibit no 2", Frank is making it seem like this drawing was presented as evidence.

2. Why is he saying that the search for truth in a criminal case is a philosophical problem?

3. Frank states that, "Patrizia Stefanoni, scientific icon of the case, became the most hated figure for all Amanda’s supporters". Where has anyone ever said she was "hated"? Those who think Amanda is innocent have said that she is wrong, but hated? No, that's just a lie.

Frank is an artist. He makes for fun reading but it can be tough to interpret his style sometimes.
For example, on the last he may be exaggerating for effect to point out that perhaps Stefanoni has taken too much grief for what might be the responsibility of others.

4. What does this mean?
Is Frank saying he has proof that evidence was planted?

Frank lives there, he is not as convinced of the probity of the Perugian police as so many who do not...

 

[Chris C]

Yes it is. When diluted significantly more than 1,000,000 to one with water it becomes difficult to detect the luminol emission against the background. This can be done by blotting the stain with water and solvents like soap. The problem becomes, since the stain is invisible to the naked eye long before it is undetectable with luminol, how do you know that you have effectively cleaned up the stain. And if it gets into the grout between the tiles, it becomes extremely problematic to get it out.

Given that there is some splotchy luminol reactions outside the area of the footprints, it appears that ILE was not attempting to document the entire extent of the luminol traces but only recording the larger contiguous patches that might represent footprints. Did they follow the proper procedure of marking the sites where reactions occured, setup the camera and reapply the luminol for the photo? Or, given the shakeyness of many of the images, did they quickly slap the tripod down when they saw the light? Do we know that they produces every photo that was taken or did the cherypick the evidence they wanted before sharing it with the defense?

Thats a good point. Since we know the floor wasn't cleaned with bleach, then why didn't they pull up the tiles and check the grout. If they would have cleaned the floor there should be traces of blood in the grout. Then again, the luminol should react with blood in those cracks (especially considering it reacted with those footprints that apparently didn't have enough trace left to prove it was blood) without the need for pulling it up. So if there is no blood in the cracks then where is the cleanup?

Of course they could have cleaned the cracks with bleach and a toothbrush and leave the footprints to be found. After all, according to the guilters knox likes the public spotlight and would have wanted her footprints photographed.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes it is. When diluted significantly more than 1,000,000 to one with water it becomes difficult to detect the luminol emission against the background. This can be done by blotting the stain with water and solvents like soap. The problem becomes, since the stain is invisible to the naked eye long before it is undetectable with luminol, how do you know that you have effectively cleaned up the stain. And if it gets into the grout between the tiles, it becomes extremely problematic to get it out.

Given that there is some splotchy luminol reactions outside the area of the footprints, it appears that ILE was not attempting to document the entire extent of the luminol traces but only recording the larger contiguous patches that might represent footprints. Did they follow the proper procedure of marking the sites where reactions occured, setup the camera and reapply the luminol for the photo? Or, given the shakeyness of many of the images, did they quickly slap the tripod down when they saw the light? Do we know that they produces every photo that was taken or did the cherypick the evidence they wanted before sharing it with the defense?

I agree. This is why luminol testing can be extremely useful in detecting crime-scene clean-ups. Even if blood is wiped up (assuming that no bleach is used), very dilute blood will almost always still be left. This blood is invisible to the naked eye, but shows up under luminol. Had there been a clean-up of the hallway, Meredith's room or the small bathroom, one would not expect to see identifiable footprints with luminol; instead one would expect to see wiping/smearing patterns - invisible to the naked eye - caused by the removal of visible blood with a mop or rag. In the case of a tiled floor, one would also expect luminol to expose dilute blood in the grouting between the tiles.

The apparent fact that none of the expected signs of a clean-up were revealed by the luminol testing in the girls' house isn't of course conclusive evidence that a clean-up didn't happen. But at the very least, it suggests that the clean up was extraordinarily thorough in those areas of the floor where it took place. And this is totally at odds with the general condition of the floor, the discovery of uncleaned footprints with luminol, and the bloody partial print apparently left on the bathmat. For those reasons, I think one can reasonably suppose that no clean-up of the crime scene took place in that house.

 

[billyryan]

What is Frank saying

I have little if any doubt that once the police decided that Amanda and Raffaele were involved in this crime,they dedicated all of their efforts to finding evidence of their involvement,but search as they did all they could come up with was proof of their absence,and in order to get around that trickey little problem

THEY PLANTED SOME

Problem with planting evidence even if you are highly expierenced at it,as was probally the case in this circumstance,the slightest mistake and the whole world can come down around you,despite the postal police computer tecnician's best efforts to destroy raffaele alibi there is reason to be confident he missed something and there is proof that raffaele was at home in his own apartment that night.

The focus of Frank's blog today was on the lcn dna on the knife,great minds have being focused on it for the last twelve months and mignini might not be near as smart as he thinks he is,after all he was caught fixing up the evidence before