Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[js202]

yo dude you are doing it all wrong. LOL

by the way, the leftwing pretentious fools over at the guilt website lead by the liberal Seattle-based Daily Kos babe are taking shots at me now. Called me abrasive. I told you guys that I was not of the Guilters. I'm my own man, always have been, always will be. I much rather spar with people that disagree with me than do the naval gaze thing that occurs over there daily and the dumb liberal politics that is worse than any Knox fanboyism. at what point do you stop bleating over this Obama guy? It's been 5 years now of a horrible economy and crushing debt and he's using the IRS against political opponents and he clearly lied about Benghazi being about some stupid video nobody saw because he didn't want to just admit it was terrorism b/c he wanted us to think Bin Laden dead = no more terrorism which is REAL dumb.

anda, another thing.

there isn't ever going to be any justice for the victim. her life is over so you trying to feel good about something isn't going to change a thing. that girl is dead forever. "true justice for Meridith" is a croak name b/c it doesn't mean anything to anybody except pretentious fools. I'm sure it comes from a good place but there isn't true justice for this woman and it's silly to act like there can be. Knox in jail needs to happen but there isn't any true justice for the victim.

Abrasive?! Perish the thought. I'm guessing, next you'll argue that your expostulations go down like small batch Kentucky bourbon.

You have a sense of humor, dude, I'll grant you that.

 

[DrTesla]

Abrasive?! Perish the thought. I'm guessing, next you'll argue that your expostulations go down like small batch Kentucky bourbon.

You have a sense of humor, dude, I'll grant you that.

I'll take abrasive over pretentious and boring.

 

[js202]

I'll take abrasive over pretentious and boring.

Yeah. But of course the worst thing is when somebody scores the trifecta and brings all of 'em.

 

[DrTesla]

Yeah. But of course the worst thing is when somebody scores the trifecta and brings all of 'em.

Well if a person are rooting for this bimbo Knox despite her obvious guilt and the fact she doesn't seem likeable at all, god knows you are probably all 3 of them.

there's probably some nice girl out there who really is innocent and nobody is talking about her wrongful conviction b/c all the white knights got hooked on Foxy Knoxy. You got victim DNA on a knife and Raffe's DNA on the bra clasp, so 2 different locations that are both very incriminating. Unless you want to argue that this Dr Stef babe planted the evidence, there's really not much else to discuss. I have to wonder if the Hellman jury just could not understand the DNA evidence. You'd like to see them put people on the jury with scientific backgrounds, not nececarrisly in biology and DNA stuff, but just in general, so we aren't letting people get away with murder b/c the jury just wasn't able to understand something.

the reason that I like harping on the lamp is because it's so simple and so incriminating at the same time. a what doesn't belong in this picture kind of thing with the bonus being the owner is the accused.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Norfolk Four

Derek Tice has an IQ of at least 140, and yet he gave a false confession in the Norfolk Four case.

 

[Kaosium]

Well if a person are rooting for this bimbo Knox despite her obvious guilt and the fact she doesn't seem likeable at all, god knows you are probably all 3 of them.

there's probably some nice girl out there who really is innocent and nobody is talking about her wrongful conviction b/c all the white knights got hooked on Foxy Knoxy. You got victim DNA on a knife and Raffe's DNA on the bra clasp, so 2 different locations that are both very incriminating. Unless you want to argue that this Dr Stef babe planted the evidence, there's really not much else to discuss. I have to wonder if the Hellman jury just could not understand the DNA evidence. You'd like to see them put people on the jury with scientific backgrounds, not nececarrisly in biology and DNA stuff, but just in general, so we aren't letting people get away with murder b/c the jury just wasn't able to understand something.

The knife and the clasp in a rational world would be evidence against the prosecution, it's blatant.

the reason that I like harping on the lamp is because it's so simple and so incriminating at the same time. a what doesn't belong in this picture kind of thing with the bonus being the owner is the accused.

It wasn't really her lamp and she was staying at Raffaele's and wasn't using it. It was just a household item, like a rug or a chair. It's meaningless.

 

[DrTesla]

Derek Tice has an IQ of at least 140, and yet he gave a false confession in the Norfolk Four case.

the exception to the rule doesn't make the rule.

liberal Democrats use this exception to the rule thing to argue for abortion. they'll say that b/c some women are raped, we must allow all abortions, although vast majority of pregnancies have nothing to do with rape. so they use the exception to the rule to argue the rule.

 

[yimyammer]

this is very interesting for you "science" geeks out there, from http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/index.php?title=Luminol_Traces

Negative TMB Test

A final objection to the footprints that were revealed being blood is based on the negative results of a TMB test on the same surface. Tetramethylbenzidine (TMB) is another presumptive test for the presence of blood. The problem with this argument is that TMB is only able to detect blood to a sensitivity of 1 in 10,000 parts.[20] Luminol on the other hand is extremely sensitive and is capable of detecting blood to a sensitivity of 1 in 1,000,000 parts on the low end and 1 in 100,000,000 parts on the high end.[21] That means that Luminol is at a minimum 100 times the sensitivity of TMB and can be as high as 10,000 times the sensitivity. Attempting to compare the sensitivity of these two tests it is clear that Luminol is by far the more sensitive test. Using a considerably less sensitive test to argue that the positive result of the test with a much greater sensitivity is a false positive is illogical and incorrect.

That strikes me as a fair point, looking forward to seeing the PIP's responses

 

[DrTesla]

I got a crushing headache probably b/c I haven't slept in like 48 hours and i'm starting to get REAL grumpy.

I'm going to try to sleep again but everytime I drift off I have a vision of the Butcher of Perugia Knox with the knife, then later, raffe/knox, nude, by the body. I know the last thing hasn't been proven but for some reason it seems possible given what we know about knox, and raffe seems off in that regard too. I got a real vivid imagination sometimes, almost like hallicinations. I wouldn't wish this on anybody.
it wouldn't be hard to believe Raffe has psychological issues b/c his mom committed suicide and he seems to be in denial over that, choosing to say it was a heart attack instead. I think it's actually Raffe who couldn't stand seeing the body later and put the blanket over the victim.

 

[Grinder]

How about luminol footprints in the room? I assume the prints are supposed to have occurred when she stepped in the blood (there should be one or more negative prints of that) and then walked all around the house making visible bloody footprints. But there are no reports of prints leading from the great smear of blood over to the door. It follows these were cleaned up, perhaps using the lamp and by a means unknown since it is said to be very difficult to erase blood entirely.

What's even cooler is that they were able to leave Rudi's prints in the murder room. It was so smart to make sure his shoe prints remained and then finger Patrick. The genius of leaving one's accomplice's evidence behind never ceases to amaze.

But, they must have achieved that inside the room while outside they were less successful, removing the visible blood but leaving foot-shaped remnants of it. Maybe they used a different method. Steve Moore recently wrote an article explaining that if you erase a bloody footprint you may leave enough blood to yield a luminol reaction but you won't leave a recognisable print. He likened it to blackboard from which the day's class exercise has been wiped. You can still see the remnants of chalk but you can no longer make out e=mc squared.

Moore schmore, I go with Holmes the best ever.

And then, after taking such pains over the bloody footprints, they left the bathmat print. The mind boggles. If that's Raf's where are the rest of his prints? If they were naked, as hypothesised, where are the luminol footprints with his DNA in them?

It was important to leave his print in order to make the investigation more difficult. They also left blood drops so they could control the investigation.

Is there a pro-guilt person out there who can satisfactorily address these questions? Or will silence ensue for the statutory number of pages before someone brings the subject up again as if it's a knock-out point.

Go watch Kermit's PPs and you will see and know the truth.

 

[Kaosium]

That strikes me as a fair point, looking forward to seeing the PIP's responses

You want more? I had thought maybe I typed my last luminol post!

Let's try it this way then:

How could anyone possibly pretend that even if they were blood (low percentage chance) that they are not there because of Rudy Guede or anyone on the day of the discovery which is more than half a dozen people tromping through there right next to Rudy Guede's barely visable footprints, or after any of the booties or shoes of the more than a dozen forensic technicians tracking blood out of the murder room? Have you seen the videos?

They're all walking on top of those which won't be revealed until six weeks later when go back for the bra clasp.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

ranges of sensitivities for luminol and TMB

That strikes me as a fair point, looking forward to seeing the PIP's responses

I have already responded to the issue extensively in two posts upthread. I would add that the citation for the value of luminol's having a sensitivity of 1,000,000 to 100,000,000 million-fold dilution is a powerpoint presentation that does not provide any direct references to the forensic literature. The presentation does appear at a reputable site, however. 5,000,000 is the largest figure I can document for luminol, but I have also seen values for TMB that reach to 1,000,000-fold. For now, suffice it to say that there are ranges of sensitivities reported for both compounds. If the only reason that TMB gave negative results when luminol gave positives were a difference in sensitivity, then there would be exactly zero reasons to use it as a follow-up test; yet it is often used as just that. I may have more to say later.

 

[Kaosium]

You want more? I had thought maybe I typed my last luminol post!

Let's try it this way then:

How could anyone possibly pretend that even if they were blood (low percentage chance) that they are not there because of Rudy Guede or anyone on the day of the discovery which is more than half a dozen people tromping through there right next to Rudy Guede's barely visable footprints, or after any of the booties or shoes of the more than a dozen forensic technicians tracking blood out of the murder room? Have you seen the videos?

They're all walking on top of those which won't be revealed until six weeks later when go back for the bra clasp.

ETA:

You do realize sensitivity merely refers to how diluted the blood is, and not (otherwise) the likelihood of the test succeeding, right? 1:10,000 is like an ounce of blood being diluted in 78 gallons, that's plenty sensitive, and if that condition is met, the mixture automatically turns color.

Hell, if they were blood they could have been there from someone the previous week stepping in pooled water that had a drop of blood from Amanda's earring or someone's menstrual blood in pooled water or a film of it somewhere. There's no reason to think they're all the same thing or happened at the same time, either. This is like looking at someone's carpet stains and saying 'that one looks like blood!' (simulating presumptive luminol test) Then it failing a TMB test and going 'it must be diluted blood!' That despite it not really looking like diluted blood anyway...

So diluted no one would ever think there was blood in there. How is that inherently connected with a murder where Rudy would have pure undiluted blood on him? How does any act directly connected to the murder and not the other possibilities above end up getting blood that diluted on the floor, (where does all the water come from--involved in the murder--and what's the evidence of that?) and if you think of one remember who it was who definitely had blood on him, and his feet....

 

[Grinder]

That strikes me as a fair point, looking forward to seeing the PIP's responses

I'm actually of the mind that the ILE definitely didn't make their case but I'm not absolutely sure what happened, so not PIP/FOA.

I ask you to ask yourself why Stefanoni did the test and then hid the fact that she did it. The test confirms that the substance was blood, not some other substance that reacts with the more sensitive Luminol.

It's like a PSA test for prostrate cancer. When one gets a high PSA the next step is to determine what caused it. Biopsies and other methods are used because PSA reacts to more things than just cancer.

Luminol when applied correctly reacts to many substances not just turnip juice as the PGP like to joke. Look at the booties of the ICSI and answer why their are reactions on them.

 

[Dan O.]

The shoe print I saw in Luminol print 147.jpg (Date Time Digitized: Dec 18, 2007 8:52:28 PM) is the same bloody shoe print in image dec_0096.jpg (Date Time Original: Nov 2, 2007 5:45:20 PM) at marker #2 in the hall.

I believe this is rep 183. The only luminol print in the hall that returned a DNA profile.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

What's your game here? Your theory has them both out and about on nefarious business shortly after Meredith's death. Even if only one was at home your theory is still falsified. You can't get around that with name-calling.

Moreover, if one was at home doing nothing wrong while the other was out covering up a murder, you need some kind of story that makes sense of the fact that the innocent party never told the truth to the police.

This is on top of the fact that your theory requires a time of death based entirely on wishful thinking.

If we move the time of the attack back to the most likely time, 21:05, and then we suppose Amanda was there for some reason to witness the attack, and in defiance of common sense she decided that while a nutcase is stabbing Meredith the best thing she can do is jog to Raffaele's house and see what he thinks about it, that gets her back to his place at 21:10 maybe. So why is he sitting around for a quarter of an hour then watching Naruto? It doesn't fit with the facts at all.

There's no simple fix for your theory. It needs to be junked and replaced with a new one that better fits the known facts.

This is a really good example of what FOAKERs do over and over, if they can not follow the process of events to their liking, they change the story completely to make it sound untrue. I am tired or repeating myself over and over, just go back and reread what I actually said or don't bother replying, I could play the same game and put words on your mouths that you didn't speak either but what would be the point, you guys do this over and over, I fail to see what you gain by this.

 

[Bill Williams]

What's your game here? Your theory has them both out and about on nefarious business shortly after Meredith's death. Even if only one was at home your theory is still falsified. You can't get around that with name-calling.

Moreover, if one was at home doing nothing wrong while the other was out covering up a murder, you need some kind of story that makes sense of the fact that the innocent party never told the truth to the police.

This is on top of the fact that your theory requires a time of death based entirely on wishful thinking.

If we move the time of the attack back to the most likely time, 21:05, and then we suppose Amanda was there for some reason to witness the attack, and in defiance of common sense she decided that while a nutcase is stabbing Meredith the best thing she can do is jog to Raffaele's house and see what he thinks about it, that gets her back to his place at 21:10 maybe. So why is he sitting around for a quarter of an hour then watching Naruto? It doesn't fit with the facts at all.

There's no simple fix for your theory. It needs to be junked and replaced with a new one that better fits the known facts.

This is a really good example of what FOAKERs do over and over, if they can not follow the process of events to their liking, they change the story completely to make it sound untrue. I am tired or repeating myself over and over, just go back and reread what I actually said or don't bother replying, I could play the same game and put words on your mouths that you didn't speak either but what would be the point, you guys do this over and over, I fail to see what you gain by this.

Once again, name-calling enters this. It assumes there is this entity called "FOAKer", when in fact those of us on this side of the fence are all over the map. The difference is that none of us start with one pet anomaly and then try to make all the other evidence fit around it, even if it doesn't fit.

You are entitled to your opinion. You actually do not need to defend it... you just need to assert it. Enough said. Just say that Rudy could not have locked the door with one foot turned 180 degrees from the lock, and that someone else must have locked that door, and that this "someone else" must have been Amanda Knox.

Just assert it. Don't get mad at people who offer counter evidence, or have experiences counter to your, or who offer counter theories by which Rudy could have locked the door either before or after that shoe print was deposited. Heck, my own experience is witnessing someone do exactly what you say is impossible, and then you try to defend your theory by piling other info on - "did that person just murder someone?"

You hadn't said that it was unlikely that someone would lock a door that way after a specific set of circumstances, you've claimed (and you say your experiments showed) that no one locks doors that way. Did they all just murder someone?

But you have an opinion! Great! You don't need to defend it, especially against people who you obviously hold in low regard to begin with. Low enough regard that you'll name-call. It's not so much that you have this opinion, it's that you'll fight or name call someone else who doesn't! What's THAT about!?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

That strikes me as a fair point, looking forward to seeing the PIP's responses

The problem with luminol seems to be that it reacts with everything.

They got a slew of luminol results at Raffaele's apt., more than at the cottage. They didn't mention this in the trial, because they couldn't connect it to the crime.

Presumptive field tests for blood have been used to railroad a lot of people...

http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/08/19/635632/scathing-sbi-audit-says-230-cases.html

Luminol revealed a number of footprints at the cottage. The prosecution focused on the ones in the corridor. But the location of these prints does not fit with any crime scenario. They found one footprint just outside Meredith's door, which they attributed to Amanda. But the toes were facing toward the door. So what did she do? Did she step in Meredith's blood and walk backwards out of the room? Where is the evidence, inside the murder room, that someone with bare feet stepped in blood?

They also found two right footprints just outside Amanda's door, side by side, with the toes directed toward the common area. They attributed one of these to Raffaele. But again, what is the origin of these prints? If they were made by someone tracking blood from the murder room, why don't they form a trail? Did Raffaele hop on his left foot for several feet before planting his right foot?

The identification of these prints is also bogus. They are blurry, like the print on the bathmat. There's no way to accurately match them to a given person.

I have always wondered what caused these footprints. Maybe someone mopped the floor with bare feet. No one will ever know. But common sense should tell anyone they have no connection to the crime. The cops were desperate to come up with something, which is why they dragged the forensic people back to the cottage six weeks after they thought they had finished their investigation.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the lack of reference footprints is unhelpful

The blurriness may be due to the overapplication of luminol, a subject that has been discussed in these threads on a number of occasions. In the photos, the luminol appears to be in puddles. In addition, without reference footprints from the other flatmates, the identification is on shaky grounds IMO. The fact that the luminol work was done after so much activity within the cottage, such as Meredith's mattress being moved, also weakens its evidentiary value IMO.

 

[Dan O.]

We can see what a bloody trail looks like. We have at least 14 steps in this sequence:

5C* 5B* 5A 3 2 (pink) F I Y ? H*

(*'s are multiple impressions)​

There is enough detail to see that these are all part of the same track and we can see how it fades from beginning in Kercher's room to the last spotted mark at H in front of the couch after turning around at the door. If we had a complete high resolution scan of the floor we could probably follow this trace further.

But the luminol prints are isolated. Some are probably bare footprints. Others are just blobs. They don't form any pattern and the creator cannot be identified so they don't tell a story.

And Charlie, that side by side luminol print you talked about (145.jpg), that is the same print as 147.jpg at marker 2 where one of the "prints" is clearly identified as Rudy's shoe and the other is an amorphous blob.

144.jpg might actually be a partial bare foot. But the camera work is atrocious and it didn't show a DNA profile so it too might be an illusion.