Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
RoseMontague said:
Here is an interesting analysis on the Luminol prints I would like to address:



Maybe some claim this but the vast majority of posters, including so-called FOA members simply state that a Luminol test that was positive does not prove that it was blood. That would require a specific test for blood, which for some very strange reason was not done.
The fact that a TMB test was negative along with the fact that the majority of these footprints did not contain the victim's DNA that this presumed blood came from is a further indication of doubt, in my opinion.



I recently had this discussion with a poster named Fulcanelli at Websleuths. The bolded statement is not proven. There are many other things that can cause a Luminol reaction. The big study of a whopping 250 items is vastly over-rated. A look at the items tested does not show many common cleaning products. I have an entire isle of these things at my grocery store. Limiting these to just the few that can cause a strong reaction to Luminol is also an argument not supported by the facts. Looking at the high resolution photo's Charlie linked to, it can be concluded that the Luminol was over-applied. The fact that a negative TMB test was obtained is also an indication that the reaction would not normally have been a strong reaction it the substance was in fact, blood.



I would love to see a cite for the bolded statement in this part. I don't think they do a DNA test simply because they don't think the reaction is caused by blood at all. That is my opinion, if someone has better information please provide it, otherwise I am going with the FBI guy's statements as to why the FBI does or doesn't do certain things.

On the highlighted part, I would love to see a cite where Italy is an expert at LCN DNA. I don't believe it for one minute after watching their top people preform on this case.
Click to expand...

_________________

Rose,

Well, if it's gotta be blood that the bare footprints are set in, let it be blood. Then how do we explain that bloody female-size bare footprint found in Amanda's bedroom? As you illustrated, upstream, it definitely wasn't created by Amanda's foot (contrary to Rinaldi's crackpot "study"). But it was set in blood. So, did Sophie Purton follow Meredith home and during that sex orgy gone wrong---terribly wrong--- help the lovebirds murder Meredith? Further reason to suspect Sophie......she, like the lovebirds, had NO MOTIVE WHATSOEVER.

///
 
Last edited:
Fine said:
_________________

Rose,

Well, if it's gotta be blood that the bare footprints are set in, let it be blood. Then how do we explain that bloody female-size bare footprint found in Amanda's bedroom? As you illustrated, upstream, it definitely wasn't created by Amanda's foot (contrary to Rinaldi's crackpot "study"). But it was set in blood. So, did Sophie Purton follow Meredith home and during that sex orgy gone wrong---terribly wrong--- help the lovebirds murder Meredith? Further reason to suspect Sophie......she, like the lovebirds, had NO MOTIVE WHATSOEVER.

///
Click to expand...

I don't have a clue who made the prints, what they were made of, or when they were made. It does seem pretty obvious that we can exclude Amanda from having made this one, which is the only decent print in the lot that I think is worthy of even making a tentative conclusion of compatibility or not to somebody you might just happen to have a reference print of.

The science behind footprint analysis is not generally accepted as being very reliable, much less so than shoe-print identification.
 
snook1 said:
I've read one of the many reports after Saturday's closing arguments and there was this quote :



Is this a possible scenario or just Daily Mail's fantasy?
Click to expand...
I would think from what we know of US, European, and Italian law and jurisprudence, that such a scenario is possible.

It would indeed be a face-saving answer for Hellman: He could publicly admit that he found some cause to believe they were involved, but no definitive proof as to in what manner and to what extent. Time served would allow them to be freed, appeasing those who believe they were convicted notwithstanding sufficient reasonable doubt, and therefore wrongfully imprisoned.
 
Last edited:
smkovalinksy said:
I would think from what we know of US, European, and Italian law and jurisprudence, that such a scenario is possible. It would indeed be a face-saving answer for Hellman: He could publicly admit that he found some cause to believe they were involved, but no definitive proof as to in what manner and to what extent. Time served would allow them to be freed, appeasing those who believe they were wrongfully jailed.
Click to expand...

And to be honest, I wouldn't mind it. I just want them go home. Sure, it would be great if Hellmann decides they're innocent(which they clearly are), but if there's a possibility that he finds them guilty, but cannot say how much they were involved, time served playing role here and they're released, then it's fine by me.

Then, they could appeal to The Supreme Court...Just let them out.
 
snook1 said:
And to be honest, I wouldn't mind it. I just want them go home. Sure, it would be great if Hellmann decides they're innocent(which they clearly are), but if there's a possibility that he finds them guilty, but cannot say how much they were involved, time served playing role here and they're released, then it's fine by me.

Then, they could appeal to The Supreme Court...Just let them out.
Click to expand...

The false accusation could easily be affirmed.
 
Grinder said:
It seems a possible out for the court to keep the simulated burglary and false accusation (not on your table) but find her not guilty of the murder. Time served and the Italians wouldn't have to pay her a fortune.
Click to expand...

... except that there is zero evidence of the "simulated" burglary, and the "evidence" of the false accusation consists of the unsupported word of police, who were legally obligated to make a video/audio recording of the interview in which she allegedly made the accusation.
 
Fine said:
_________________

Rose,

Well, if it's gotta be blood that the bare footprints are set in, let it be blood. Then how do we explain that bloody female-size bare footprint found in Amanda's bedroom? As you illustrated, upstream, it definitely wasn't created by Amanda's foot (contrary to Rinaldi's crackpot "study"). But it was set in blood. So, did Sophie Purton follow Meredith home and during that sex orgy gone wrong---terribly wrong--- help the lovebirds murder Meredith? Further reason to suspect Sophie......she, like the lovebirds, had NO MOTIVE WHATSOEVER.

///
Click to expand...

When this evidence first came out my thought was that if it were actually blood, Amanda could have picked it up from the mat. It struck me that she described the bath mat shuffle immediately and the invisible prints didn't show up under luminol for six weeks. She either knew she had left bloody prints and thought it would be clever to leave them just like the faucet and sink blood or she had no idea and just lucked into having an account of events that fit the prints later or they mean nothing. they mean nothing.

ETA: Can anyone explain why stepping on the bath mat with hot wet feet wouldn't transfer blood to them?
 
Last edited:
Antony said:
... except that there is zero evidence of the "simulated" burglary, and the "evidence" of the false accusation consists of the unsupported word of police, who were legally obligated to make a video/audio recording of the interview in which she allegedly made the accusation.
Click to expand...

So you see that as a problem for them? :rolleyes:

You think they would have a problem convicting without evidence this time.

Seriously, the staged crime would be harder but the accusation was false and she has no proof that he was coerced. I think she was coerced but where's the proof?
 
But if the court decides Amanda is guilty of staging a crime scene, then what would be the purpouse? Why and when did she do that? There's no evidence whatsoever suggesting she did that. Not to mention Raffaele.

False accusation can stand, as far as I'm concerned. We all know why she said what she said, but Hellmann could easily go with it and find her guilty on this charge.

BTW, some people are saying that it would be a face saver for them if Hellmann finds them guilty on lesser charges and release them beacuse of time served. However, I think that the only true face saver here is to find them not guilty on all charges.
 
snook1 said:
And to be honest, I wouldn't mind it. I just want them go home. Sure, it would be great if Hellmann decides they're innocent(which they clearly are), but if there's a possibility that he finds them guilty, but cannot say how much they were involved, time served playing role here and they're released, then it's fine by me.

Then, they could appeal to The Supreme Court...Just let them out.
Click to expand...
I agree. I am sure Knox and Sollecito and their families would simply want them free at this point. As you say, plenty of time later on to try and clear their names. Sometimes just getting far away from the evil doers is enough. I agree 100%.
 
Michael brings up a good point about Meresca and the Kerchers. Will they instruct Maresca to support the prosecution call for life sentences? Tomorrow should be interesting. I expect to hear better arguments from Maresca than the rants we got from Comodi and the slime we got from Mignono.
 
RoseMontague said:
Michael brings up a good point about Meresca and the Kerchers. Will they instruct Maresca to support the prosecution call for life sentences? Tomorrow should be interesting. I expect to hear better arguments from Maresca than the rants we got from Comodi and the slime we got from Mignono.
Click to expand...

I'm more than sure that Maresca will do a better job than the two clowns from the prosecution. Not that there's much to do with this "no case", but still, Maresca will fight till the end. Not sure what is his motive here(obviously, I'm not talking about motive of killing, since we know there is no motive at all), but he will do anything and everything just to make sure Knox is a sex deviant and Sollecito a violent - manga - comics crazed young man.

I'm, actually, much more worried about tomorrow than I was on Saturday. The prosecutors did a bad job. Nothing that they've said, proves AK and RS's involvement in the murder of Meredith Kercher. Wonder what will Maresca say.
 
Last edited:
RoseMontague said:
Michael brings up a good point about Meresca and the Kerchers. Will they instruct Maresca to support the prosecution call for life sentences? Tomorrow should be interesting. I expect to hear better arguments from Maresca than the rants we got from Comodi and the slime we got from Mignono.
Click to expand...
_______________________

Rose,

Has there ever been an instance in which Maresca's position has not coincided with the prosecution? He'll ask for life sentences, too. That way---he'll remind us---Meredith will not have "died in vain."

///
 
Grinder said:
So you see that as a problem for them? :rolleyes:

You think they would have a problem convicting without evidence this time.

Seriously, the staged crime would be harder but the accusation was false and she has no proof that (s)he was coerced. I think she was coerced but where's the proof?
Click to expand...

The false confession could stand, but at this point isn't most of the evidence pointing towards it only part of the civil case?

The evidence proving coercion (mostly circumstantial I admit but still evidence none the less) is the case closed press conference statement the next day where it is admitted that they kept at her until she admitted to what they already knew.

You can argue that this is possibly misleading, but how does that explain the fact that after the statements, they immediately went out and arrested Patrick without any investigation, on her word alone?

Of course, they did bring the three into court in order to legally allow the prosecution to hold them for a year and there was evidence presented to accomplish this. Now the question I have about this is when did they get this evidence and if it was before they arrested Patrick and if that's true, then they didn't need Amanda's statements at all. Her two statements were really irrelevant, especially when you read them. It is just plain weird in its congruent inconsistency,

But this is just my opinion,

Dave
 
Fine said:
_______________________

Rose,

Has there ever been an instance in which Maresca's position has not coincided with the prosecution? He'll ask for life sentences, too. That way---he'll remind us---Meredith will not have "died in vain."

///
Click to expand...

Of course you are correct. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Kercher's will change their position and/or strategy at this point.
 
Some like 'em younger...

RoseMontague said:
Ahhhh. The first Mignini sleeping reference I have seen.
Click to expand...
I had wondered why Mignini fell asleep...

But then I remembered from reading in Nina Burleigh's book Fatal Gift of Beauty that Prosecutor Mignini, (who, IIRC, was cheatin' on her when he had moved to Germany), came back home to Italy and then did marry his old girlfriend, a woman 15, yes, that is not a typo, 15 years younger than he is! Yikes, what an age difference! Thank goodness for Viagra, and Levitra. And don't forget Cialis, heck, an old geezer has gotsa luv the weekend warrior! :D

I recall reading of PMF.org's member H9 calling Chris, Amanda's step dad, this: "Foxy Knoxy Mom's Boy Toy".

With that in mind, some of my surfer bros who dig younger gals might imagine Mignini saying this during an intimate encounter: "Who's your Daddy"!
Hahaha :D

Sorry for the black humor, as AmyStrange calls it, but, ah, the pro-guilt folks have ben pickin' on Chris Mellas age difference for so long that when I found out Mignini also has a much younger spouse, well...

See ya, :)
RW
 
Last edited:
Fine said:
_____________________

Grinder,

Hmmm. How the heck did Massei know it was the lovebirds---instead of Rudy---who stole Meredith's cell phones? Does Massei have psychic abilities? Okay, maybe he does, but all charges must be proved, and proved beyond reasonable doubt. I'm not aware of any evidence presented in court---or in the Massei Report---showing that the lovebirds stole the phones.

Or was it just plain obvious to a brilliant judge like Massei that only a criminal mastermind like Amanda would be thinking so far in advance, to avoid cell phone ringing behind a locked door.........while Rudy was too damn simple-minded?

///
Click to expand...



This is just one small sample of the blunders Massei is responsible for. No facts...no proof...NOTHING! He assumes they took the phones. He even uses these words in his repot...assume, imagine, in theory... I have read this massei report and I kept notes of "incredible mistakes" I found in it. In all 400 and something odd pages I came up with 75 pages of notes about crazy assertions made without evidence or any other findings of fact. In other words...75 pages of crazy stuff...just like this one about how Massei knows they stole the phones but not the money or credit cards...Its just too insane to even think about.
 
snook1 said:
But if the court decides Amanda is guilty of staging a crime scene, then what would be the purpouse? Why and when did she do that? There's no evidence whatsoever suggesting she did that. Not to mention Raffaele.

False accusation can stand, as far as I'm concerned. We all know why she said what she said, but Hellmann could easily go with it and find her guilty on this charge.

BTW, some people are saying that it would be a face saver for them if Hellmann finds them guilty on lesser charges and release them beacuse of time served. However, I think that the only true face saver here is to find them not guilty on all charges.
Click to expand...
-

I agree with your earlier reluctant admission Snook1,

(paraphrasing) that right now it's just important that they are set free.

The "accusation" is real and provable and although there is evidence she was coerced, she still should not have signed it, but like a lot of other people here, I understand why she signed it and don't really blame her for it, but it is still just so frustrating when you see people do it regardless.

My frustration is based on all the research I have done concerning false confessions (or any confession for that matter). It's powerful evidence and virtually impossible to disprove or set aside. It's as powerful as video evidence and (most times) the only direct evidence the prosecution has. Just about every false confession case I have ever studied about (here in the US anyway), jurors usually point to the confession as the deal breaker, EVEN when there is substantial evidence proving a high probability of reasonable doubt.

And this has almost always also happened even during the appeal process and/ or any resulting retrial.

I personally believe ALL witness (whether they are suspects or not) interrogations should be video recorded from beginning to end. And if they are not, then confessions (spontaneous statements, accusations or anything otherwise and anything relating to the confession etc. such as a recant or jailhouse snitch testimony or slander charges in Italy) should not be allowed in court or released to the press or anything else. They should be burned or ground up and added to pulp paper stock used to make money.

Also, false confession studies should be required curriculum in grammar schools and high schools all over the world.

But this is just my opinion and the chances of this ever happening in my lifetime are the same as everyone spontaneously believing (all at the same time or ever) that Amanda and Raffaele are 100% innocent,

Dave
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom