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.
I said the opposite to what's stated here.
I didn't say Hellman had naturally sided with the prosecution. I said the footprint is obviously Rudy's based on external evidence (Which doesn't include fake-prosecution-manufactured-and-manipulated type evidence)
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.
What seems truer is that Massei ruled against the defence on anything he could (well everything really) to help out his runty old mate, and Hellman seems to be processing virtually all the evidence with the opposite point of view.
He has a lot of cleaning up to deal with of dodgy evidence examination (and opinion) from Massei's court farce.
These footprints are still very curious. Why are they there and with what were they made? The clearest one, the front half of the footprint attributed to Amanda, #144, looks as if someone stepped in something then laid the foot down as opposed to something being on the floor already and the foot then came down and left an impression in it. And what is directly in front of it, more toe prints? Or what?
I can also see how it looked as if the prints were somewhat wiped, all except #144, that is, although I can only really see footprints in a couple of the photos. It seems easy to see how ILE made that judgement, especially given the amount of blood available at the crime scene.
One curious thing though, why are there dots of luminescence on the ruler and the booties in #146? Seems odd. Obviously the luminol is picking up something.
I also don't believe it was Amanda's foot that made the print attributed to her, thanks to eagle eye Rose pointing out the discrepancy with the second toes. This also pretty much leaves it wide open as to what substance was stepped in and/or the reliability of luminol in the first place.
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.
(if I'd done those replies to WantsJustice's stupid post on the Perugian Murderer's Friends website I would have been banned for the term of my natural life.........again
Reincarnation seems to be a necessary and natural process of evolution in forum posting in this forum debate...)
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!
Guilters are missing the point that dreadful deceptions are taking place with evidence manipulation to deceive the courts and public.
The prosecution's been caught by the independent review.
The braclasp and knife are illegally bad.
And there's every other bit of prosecution slime too...
Thank you for listing what you consider evidence supporting the conviction of Raffaele and Amanda. Most of your list has been gone over again and again as you state, however I do have some honest questions about some of it, just to clarify.
"Where were you when Meredith was murdered?".
The, by my latest count, *Nine (9) varying, contradicting, throwing each other and Mr Lumumba under the bus 'answers' from the pair to the 'where' question did indeed impress me.
*(Three (3) Sollecito, and six (6) Knox)
She says 'I was there' but she says (and the courts agreed) that meant Raffaele's which one ought to be able to divine due to the following 'I mean, I can’t lie on this, there is no reason to do it' which would be awfully strange if she meant the cottage, because she would have every reason to 'lie' about that, in fact you assume she's 'lying' about it to this day, right?
6. That she was with Raffaele, which she said the whole time except those hours in the middle of the night when she signed statements saying she 'vaguely and confusedly remembered' being elsewhere.
Do I have that right? Is this how you constructed the six for Amanda? I'm simply curious and wish correction if I have it wrong.
Raffaele:
1. With Amanda at his place
Wait a minute, how does this one work? The Matteini Report said when he was stoned he told the cops he split up at the town square ~9PM, but he went home. That means his was the same through any possible murder time.
2. The only other thing I can think of is the Kate Mansey article, where she reported he said he and Amanda went out, is that what you're referring to?
3. With Amanda at his place, what he said before Matteini?
I suspect this doesn't work the way you think it does. If Stefanoni actually said the mixed DNA was actually Meredith and Amanda's blood mixed together, that's bad news for Stefanoni, as even Massei knew better than that, and it's just another indication of how dishonest Stefanoni was. Many have assumed that because Massei himself didn't accept that argument, in fact even 'cherry picked' statements she made to pretend the opposite, that the press reports were mistaken and in fact Stefanoni never said 'mixed blood.' However, a couple of months back, the Machine thoughtfully collected (most of--there were more) those press reports which is one reason why Dr. Ominousness is one of 'Knox and Sollecito's' most effective defenders for so tirelessly exposing all the worst arguments the prosecution made. If this was actually said in court, it's downright 'ominous for Biondi and Stefanoni.'
Let me show you why. Here's the picture of the sink:
Can't see a damn thing, right? That's 'cuz the blood is just tiny little droplets. Perhaps you can see them better in the crime scene video. At any rate when you're done viewing that and getting a guided tour of the bidet and the toilet as well, go watch the video of how they collected the samples:
Crumbs, it might not play embedded, if not, here it is.
If you play that while you read this, you'll see they weren't exactly precise in their swabbing of the sink, the sink in Amanda's bathroom where Amanda brushed her teeth, washed her face and hands and whatever other mysterious things females do in the bathrooms with their sinks that takes so damn long. Now you should be able to see those tiny bits of blood on the swabs as they come up, odds are extreme that the way they 'collected' those they pretty much ensured Amanda's DNA was going to be on those swabs, now mixed with Meredith's blood since Rudy washed himself off there. As Massei admits when he tries to attribute the bathmat stain to Raffaele, just because someone washes up once does not guarantee a trace will be left. Just substitute 'Rudy' for 'Raffaele' in the following passage:
Massei PMF 379 said:
That there then were no biological traces found in this bathroom also attributable to Raffaele Sollecito as there were biological traces attributable to Meredith and to Amanda, does not diminish the validity of what has been said. Raffaele Sollecito could have washed himself in the shower stall, in a different way and with an abundance of water, so that, either for one reason (no rubbing action, or not effected in the same way), or for another reason (use of water in large quantities), he did not leave his own biological traces while he [408] was washing himself, or rather, he could have washed himself before Amanda, so that the water used by her immediately afterwards could have carried away the preceding possible traces.
However, the claim that the mixed DNA traces were actually mixed blood is very dubious which Massei himself points out:
Massei PMF 278-279 said:
It is true that, according to what was asserted and explained, it is not possible with a mixed trace specimen that tested positive for human blood to determine which of the trace’s contributors the blood belongs to.
In other words it's impossible to prove, and he picks a quote from Stefanoni to make that case:
Massei PMF 279 said:
While it is not possible to use the genetic scientific data (Dr. Stefanoni explained the impossibility of determining the date, the succession or the simultaneity in the depositing of the components of the mixed trace specimen and the impossibility of attributing the haematological component to one or the other of the contributors), the information previously put forward provides answers which are entirely consistent with the circumstantial evidence that has emerged and which the Court considers convincing.
Amanda was not wounded; in the days following no one spoke of wounds that she might have had; the examination which was carried out on her when measures restricting her personal freedom were taken ruled out the presence of wounds.
Where did the 'blood' from Amanda come from? Even if you pretend it came from the mouth or nose and they didn't notice the bruising or cuts that might have caused, how did it so perfectly 'mix' in those tiny little droplets? Think about that for a minute. That's in part why Massei would have no part of it, and if indeed Stefanoni tried to pretend they were 'mixed blood' in Massei's court, she sure as hell better not even attempt it in Daddy Hellmann's or she might just get clapped in irons and frogmarched to the brig!
I think you just got mixed up here. There's no traces of Meredith's blood anywhere in Amanda's room.
A query for you, as I know you won't bother to acknowledge anything I wrote regardless, one thing I'm most curious about however, perhaps in the spirit of noblesse oblige you'll deign to enlighten this benighted 'groupie' with the answer to a couple simple questions:
What do you think are the odds are that Raffaele and Amanda will be found guilty again?
What will be your explanation if they are not found guilty?
I admit some confusion on exactly which sample in Charlie's pictures is the sample found in Amanda's room. Is the Sample L3 the same as Rep 5? Is that the one with the toe problem? Maybe somebody who can read this better than me can help me out with this.
It's confusing because some of the samples have different codes for different purposes. Here's a summary of what the luminol photos show, as best I can make out:
144 - footprint in Amanda's room
145 - two right footprints in corridor outside Amanda's room
146 - same as 145
147 - same as 145
149 - shoe print in corridor
150 - footprint outside Meredith's room
151 - not sure
Here's a composite photo that clarifies some of these results:
I personally think the bathmat footprint is hopelessly inconclusive and may as well be totally ignored.
Why not focus entirely on all the clues Rudy left and the illegalities of the prosecution.
And let's not forget Masse'i's personal attempt at a court
Plus the fact there's no real evidence (or motives) for the other two. And don't forget the all important, 'it's completely impossible to construct a legitimate story for a murder involving Rudy + the other two.'
Sheesh theRealBob! I wasn't even talking about the bathmat footprint. I was describing the luminol print 144 and comparing it with the official footprints. Why not discuss mypost instead of going off on a tangent asking me to focus on all the clues pointing to Rudy and reminding of Massei's court. Really!
Your type of response is exactly why people can't have a legitimate conversation on this forum. I'm not even a guilter yet as soon as something doesn't toe the party line it's jumped on with all the usual distractions thrown in.
It's confusing because some of the samples have different codes for different purposes. Here's a summary of what the luminol photos show, as best I can make out:
144 - footprint in Amanda's room
145 - two right footprints in corridor outside Amanda's room
146 - same as 145
147 - same as 145
149 - shoe print in corridor
150 - footprint outside Meredith's room
151 - not sure
Here's a composite photo that clarifies some of these results:
Sheesh theRealBob! I wasn't even talking about the bathmat footprint. I was describing the luminol print 144 and comparing it with the official footprints. Why not discuss mypost instead of going off on a tangent asking me to focus on all the clues pointing to Rudy and reminding of Massei's court. Really!
Your type of response is exactly why people can't have a legitimate conversation on this forum. I'm not even a guilter yet as soon as something doesn't toe the party line it's jumped on with all the usual distractions thrown in.
It's confusing because some of the samples have different codes for different purposes. Here's a summary of what the luminol photos show, as best I can make out:
144 - footprint in Amanda's room
145 - two right footprints in corridor outside Amanda's room
146 - same as 145
147 - same as 145
149 - shoe print in corridor
150 - footprint outside Meredith's room
151 - not sure
Here's a composite photo that clarifies some of these results:
There weren't any luminol reactions outside Filomena's room, but there were two reactions inside her room. They were large, shapeless blobs and apparently were not photographed. Stefanoni, however, identified the location of these reactions in her presentation during the trial:
I don't know. I have never been able to find any documentation describing the process they used, or the brand and preparation they used. People who are familiar with luminol say it is important to know this when evaluating results.
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.)
Is this linear? In other words with roughly three times the exposure, (I get how you calculated that) would that translate into the pictures appearing roughly three times as bright?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
