Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[PhantomWolf]

"4. The appeals court carefully considered Dr. Vinci's report, but finds it obvious that the footprint on the bathmat matches Sollecito's foot (not Guede's) and the bloody shoe print in Meredith's room obviously belongs to a woman with Knox's shoe size."

Is it true that Hellman's appeals court has already sided with the prosecution on the bathmat/footprint issue?

No, that was what the poster theRealBob was quoting claimed that they wanted to see. Hopefully Hellmann will use his eyes and see that any claims of being able to determine who's foot made the print are totally bogus, but that of the two options, Rudy's is the closer.

 

[Dan O.]

Fiona? Isn't she Shrek's missus? PhantomWolf is unsure that PhantomWolf can take someone seriously when per haps they don't even know the names of the player, per chance.

Fiona is a well respected former member of this forum who by some strange coincidence had posted quite regularly in all the Amanda Knox threads except for those that you have posted in.

 

[Ammonitida]

"6. The luminol test was performed weeks after the crime, making it unlikely that the substance was bleach, juice or horseradish."

In the youtube video linked below, Steve Moore shows an interesting photograph of a luminol footprint. Skip to 48:42 and you'll see it.

youtube.com/watch?v=hcGYrufLupA

**If** this is the "knox footprint", then certain details may refute the quoted claim. In the photograph, it appears that a substance in the tile grout (?) is also reacting to the luminol -- producing a faint glow in straight lines. It's clearly not blood. Steve thinks it's bleach (perhaps the remains of a tile cleaning) If so, this would indicate that certain bleach products do not evaporate as quickly as some believe.

 

[RandyN]

A poll on this forum shows that? Really? A poll on another forum shows that it's really an image of Jesus on a piece of toast.

Is that hard to accept?

Can you provide a link? Id like to see that Jesus Toast.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Fiona is a well respected former member of this forum who by some strange coincidence had posted quite regularly in all the Amanda Knox threads except for those that you have posted in.

So what was Meredith and Amanda's DNA doing in her room? Is there more to this than we know? Did posters on PMF conspire to murder Meredith and frame Amanda for it? Equiring minds demand to know!

 

[RoseMontague]

"4. The appeals court carefully considered Dr. Vinci's report, but finds it obvious that the footprint on the bathmat matches Sollecito's foot (not Guede's) and the bloody shoe print in Meredith's room obviously belongs to a woman with Knox's shoe size."

Is it true that Hellman's appeals court has already sided with the prosecution on the bathmat/footprint issue?

Nope. That one is just made up. What is true is that the appeals court has ruled against the defense on a very few items. The rest is still on the table.

Requests rejected by the Court of Appeal The Court of Assizes of Perugia has not only accepted the demands made ​​by the defense, has rejected claims made ​​by many other defenses. Starting from when the lawyers of the defendants asked to suspend the provisional calendar for the parties immediately enforceable. Moving on from that with which the defense sought to declare void Knox his statements and his memorials used against her in the proceedings in which she accused of slandering police officers to the Police Headquarters The judges also rejected calls to declare void the decision at first instance made by the defense and to urge both the defense to declare void the request of trial and the order of trial. The court then, given the complexity of the proceeding pending the expiration of the terms in prison custody for the accused.

http://translate.google.com/transla...MQFjAG&usg=AFQjCNFEdZnjELJyoVomzuCMPSUtfxjS3Q

 

[RoseMontague]

So what was Meredith and Amanda's DNA doing in her room? Is there more to this than we know? Did posters on PMF conspire to murder Meredith and frame Amanda for it? Equiring minds demand to know!

LOL. I believe this is referring to the mixed DNA trace in Filomena's room, Rep 177.

 

[Kaosium]

"6. The luminol test was performed weeks after the crime, making it unlikely that the substance was bleach, juice or horseradish."

In the youtube video linked below, Steve Moore shows an interesting photograph of a luminol footprint. Skip to 48:42 and you'll see it.

youtube.com/watch?v=hcGYrufLupA

**If** this is the "knox footprint", then certain details may refute the quoted claim. In the photograph, it appears that a substance in the tile grout (?) is also reacting to the luminol -- producing a faint glow in straight lines. It's clearly not blood. Steve thinks it's bleach (perhaps the remains of a tile cleaning) If so, this would indicate that certain bleach products do not evaporate as quickly as some believe.

Very good point, and as far as I know one that has gone unanswered. Watching that reminded me of something, the argument that 'Stefanoni didn't lie' which is very instructive as to the type of 'logic' displayed by the prosecution and their fuzzy little friends. As Steve Moore notes there, she at first pretended they hadn't done any other blood tests, then a good way through the trial it was revealed they'd indeed done TMB tests and the results were negative. She lied alright, but get a load of what they came up with to pretend she hadn't: since they never did a confirmatory test then that means she didn't lie because that's how you actually prove for blood, the others (luminol and TMB) are just presumptive tests. Thus in wonderland logic it's blood because it tested positive for blood, even though it tested negative for blood and they hid it and said they hadn't, but they didn't lie about that because they didn't actually test for blood!

So that makes more sense, they spray luminol because it's real easy to cover vast areas with it and it will uncover otherwise invisible stains and is highly sensitive. Then they test with TMB because it's easy to use at the site and will eliminate most things that aren't blood. A positive there and it's probably blood so they send the sample back to the lab and do the confirmatory test to ensure it's blood (TMB also gives false positives) and to also be certain it's human blood. In this case there's the bleeding cat downstairs Meredith was taking care of, even if it had tested positive with TMB they had to make sure it was actually human blood and then Meredith's blood, which they couldn't prove anyway being as they didn't find any DNA in the vast majority. Of course they then blamed that on the luminol, their whole reason for even suspecting it could possibly be blood in the first place!

'Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive...'

 

[LondonJohn]

All the photos were taken with digital cameras and the exposure settings are available to anyone that looks for it.

How does 63.5s at f/5 and equivalent iso 1600 sound for an exposure?

It sounds about three times too high. According to this source, the standards recommended exposure for Luminol photos is 90s at f5.6 and ISO 400:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...&resnum=2&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

If the equivalent ISO of the Perugia film was 1600 (4x 400 ISO) and the shutter speed was 63.5s (0.7x 90s), this works out to around three times the exposure. In other words, the Perugia crew clearly pushed the exposure for these photos way higher than standard, in order to make the prints appear brighter on the photos.

(BTW thanks for finding the exposure data for the Perugia Luminol photos: it wasn't that I "couldn't be bothered" to look, but that it was 1am when I posted about this and I was on the verge of going to bed.)

 

[Kaosium]

RoseMontague,

I don't recall ever seeing this comparison before. I am willing to listen to arguments to the effect that the luminol print should not be attributed to anyone (lacking whorls and what not). But I am completely baffled how anyone could attribute it to Amanda with that second toe issue. Another thing with respect to the luminol prints that I have never understood is how one can relate them to the crime when all three are right feet.

You know what these 'footprint comparisons' remind me of? That circle placed inside a square with the same length sides as the diameter of the circle will match with even better than 'millimetre precision across both width and length!'

 

[pilot padron]

Incomplete and accordingly erroneous proclamations

I agree...
The prosecution has been found to be wrong on about every item that's been placed under thoughtful scrutiny this time.

IMHO, the above rather all inclusive, erroneously as well as excessively dogmatic, agenda directed, confirmation biased proclamation you proffer is actually little more than just another "atta boy" add on 'argument' and more significantly, is too glaringly incomplete to pass uncorrected.

To be more correct it should read:
The prosecution has been found to be wrongby the arguments on this Forum. on about every item that's been placed under thoughtful scrutiny this time by those arguing innocence here

And I might add with LOTS of sarcasm that these arguments that emanate profusely from individuals here who, when compared to Prosecutors and ILE...., all here have at least equally qualified backgrounds to include specific academic degrees *in related fields*, accreditation by appropriate professional Associations, and *long* years of related experience *in directly related* criminal forensics.

PLEASE:
1) Spare me the excessively time worn and equally excessively absurd argument endlessly parroted in the hundreds of posts here that Google, You Tube, and Library card proficiency is 'superior' to academic excellence *in related fields* as well as formal recognition by Professional Associations *in related fields*.

2) Spare me also tossing at me yet again the dull rusty bent out of shape 'gauntlet like' challenge to state (again) what time I think Meredith died.
2A) I have previously stated same.
2B) Such silliness as part of any rebuttal argument neither impresses me nor diminishes me and/or my above argument.

 

[snook1]

Give us your version of the murder, then. Please, support it with evidence, explain it, tell us why, how and when what happened. Again, please stick to the evidence.

If you're unable to do so, then please take your time and read more about the case.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

bleach and horsehradish

I too have recently dared venturing over to the Perugian Murderer's Friends website for a peek.

Here's a great post over there by this WantsJustice i****.

I've got my replies to some of it between the italics since I'm not allowed to post there with any alias unless under armed guard.

SNIP

6. The luminol test was performed weeks after the crime, making it unlikely that the substance was bleach, juice or horseradish.

Outisde Steff's lying to the court about the tests for blood, nothing has ever been shown to the court.

TheRealBob,

I disagree with WantsJustice. Bleach decomposes in a process that is kinetically second-order in the concentration of bleach: rate of decomposition = k[bleach]^2. The rate constant k is not terribly large, but I hypothesize that the evaporation of water would speed up the decomposition of bleach by increasing its concentration. There is no reason to think that plant peroxidases (one reason why plant matter gives a reaction to luminol) are particularly prone to decomposition, and it is unlikely that heme (the prosthetic group within peroxidases which is responsible for at least part of the catalysis of the luminol reaction) will break down quickly. Moreover, there are other cleaning products with other oxidizing agents besides bleach, and there is no reason to assume that they have the same rate of decomposition as bleach has. Rust and copper ions also catalyze the luminol reaction.

 

[JREF2010]

IMHO, the above rather all inclusive, erroneously as well as excessively dogmatic, agenda directed, confirmation biased proclamation you proffer is actually little more than just another "atta boy" add on 'argument' and more significantly, is too glaringly incomplete to pass uncorrected.

To be more correct it should read:
The prosecution has been found to be wrongby the arguments on this Forum. on about every item that's been placed under thoughtful scrutiny this time by those arguing innocence here
.

You seem to be in denial. Its not this forum that wrote the C&V report or questioned Curatolo again.

Do you feel this Appeal trial report is in the prosecutions favor?

Do you think Curatolos Appeal trial testimony was a positive for the prosecutions case?

As for all the other previous trials, I guess I wasn't clear in specifically naming the "recent" findings as the current Appeal Trial findings.

You mention other experts, but none of them were allowed to study the evidence, only whether they accepted Stefanoni's presentation, imo.

No one previously has been allowed to physically study the knife and bra clasp, in great depth, as in Judge Hellmans Appeal Trial, the knife and bra clasp.

Up until now no one was allowed to remove the knife from the plastic bag. Unfortunately, the bra clasp was stored improperly, as you know. The police lab experts apparently didnt follow standard procedures on that either.

Who will the Perfect Team blame for the moldy-rotted rusty bra clasp?
(or was it a cover up to ensure no one could retest it and find there was nothing on it?)

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

IMHO, the above rather all inclusive, erroneously as well as excessively dogmatic, agenda directed, confirmation biased proclamation you proffer is actually little more than just another "atta boy" add on 'argument' and more significantly, is too glaringly incomplete to pass uncorrected.

To be more correct it should read:
The prosecution has been found to be wrongby the arguments on this Forum. on about every item that's been placed under thoughtful scrutiny this time by those arguing innocence here

And I might add with LOTS of sarcasm that these arguments that emanate profusely from individuals here who, when compared to Prosecutors and ILE...., all here have at least equally qualified backgrounds to include specific academic degrees *in related fields*, accreditation by appropriate professional Associations, and *long* years of related experience *in directly related* criminal forensics.

PLEASE:
1) Spare me the excessively time worn and equally excessively absurd argument endlessly parroted in the hundreds of posts here that Google, You Tube, and Library card proficiency is 'superior' to academic excellence *in related fields* as well as formal recognition by Professional Associations *in related fields*.

2) Spare me also tossing at me yet again the dull rusty bent out of shape 'gauntlet like' challenge to state (again) what time I think Meredith died.
2A) I have previously stated same.
2B) Such silliness as part of any rebuttal argument neither impresses me nor diminishes me and/or my above argument.

Why ask us to spare you when you can easily spare yourself by not reading any of this?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

It sounds about three times too high. According to this source, the standards recommended exposure for Luminol photos is 90s at f5.6 and ISO 400:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...&resnum=2&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

If the equivalent ISO of the Perugia film was 1600 (4x 400 ISO) and the shutter speed was 63.5s (0.7x 90s), this works out to around three times the exposure. In other words, the Perugia crew clearly pushed the exposure for these photos way higher than standard, in order to make the prints appear brighter on the photos.

(BTW thanks for finding the exposure data for the Perugia Luminol photos: it wasn't that I "couldn't be bothered" to look, but that it was 1am when I posted about this and I was on the verge of going to bed.)

Does everyone have the luminol photos with the original EXIF data? If not I can post them.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

sheer luminosity of the luminol prints

It sounds about three times too high. According to this source, the standards recommended exposure for Luminol photos is 90s at f5.6 and ISO 400:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...&resnum=2&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

If the equivalent ISO of the Perugia film was 1600 (4x 400 ISO) and the shutter speed was 63.5s (0.7x 90s), this works out to around three times the exposure. In other words, the Perugia crew clearly pushed the exposure for these photos way higher than standard, in order to make the prints appear brighter on the photos.

(BTW thanks for finding the exposure data for the Perugia Luminol photos: it wasn't that I "couldn't be bothered" to look, but that it was 1am when I posted about this and I was on the verge of going to bed.)

LondonJohn,

With respect to the footprints Colonel Garofano said "from their sheer luminosity they are blood" on p. 377 in Darkness Descending. I have always disagreed with this, but I have not questioned the notion that they were bright. Now I am not so sure that they are even bright.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Does everyone have the luminol photos with the original EXIF data? If not I can post them.

Please do!

 

[davefoc]

IMHO, the above rather all inclusive, erroneously as well as excessively dogmatic, agenda directed, confirmation biased proclamation you proffer is actually little more than just another "atta boy" add on 'argument' and more significantly, is too glaringly incomplete to pass uncorrected.

To be more correct it should read:
The prosecution has been found to be wrongby the arguments on this Forum. on about every item that's been placed under thoughtful scrutiny this time by those arguing innocence here

And I might add with LOTS of sarcasm that these arguments that emanate profusely from individuals here who, when compared to Prosecutors and ILE...., all here have at least equally qualified backgrounds to include specific academic degrees *in related fields*, accreditation by appropriate professional Associations, and *long* years of related experience *in directly related* criminal forensics.

PLEASE:
1) Spare me the excessively time worn and equally excessively absurd argument endlessly parroted in the hundreds of posts here that Google, You Tube, and Library card proficiency is 'superior' to academic excellence *in related fields* as well as formal recognition by Professional Associations *in related fields*.

2) Spare me also tossing at me yet again the dull rusty bent out of shape 'gauntlet like' challenge to state (again) what time I think Meredith died.
2A) I have previously stated same.
2B) Such silliness as part of any rebuttal argument neither impresses me nor diminishes me and/or my above argument.

pilot padron,
This thread is the main source of information for me about the Knox/Sollecito case. The information provided here obviously favors the theory that Knox and Sollecito are innocent. My view which is strongly affected by the opinions and evidence posted here is that Knox and Sollecito are innocent.

However, I am very open to the idea that various biases, a limited source of information or just a failure to understand the relevant evidence have caused me to have an incorrect view. So what is it in the evidence that has been released to the public that leads you to your views? What are the specifics of the reason that you reject the opinions of most of the people posting in this thread?

The argument that seems to be the most significant driver of your views is that prosecutors, police and forensic examiners usually work for the conviction of people who are guilty and the people convicted by juries are usually guilty. And I agree with you, this is strong evidence that Knox and Sollecito are guilty. However, there are many counter examples where the authorities have worked to convict people that are now known beyond all reasonable doubt to have been innocent. So the fact that Knox and Sollecito were prosecuted and found guilty is clearly not proof that they are guilty or even that the evidence against them meets a beyond a reasonable doubt test.

So what is it beyond your faith in the views of the authorities that Knox and Sollecito are guilty? What do you think of the lead prosecutor? Do you have any qualms about the questionable nature of some of his previous prosecutions, his convictions on witness harassment charges or his reference to graphology in his closing argument? Does this reduce your faith in the prosecution in this particular case at all?

 

[Dan O.]

Does everyone have the luminol photos with the original EXIF data? If not I can post them.

These have been available here but they appear to be missing the frame or image number. I wonder if they actually took more than 4 photos in 45 minutes. Are there other Luminol photos that perhaps show faint traces from Rudy's shoes or did they only record what looked like bare feet because that is what they went there to find?