The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 25

[acbytesla]

Part 24 was getting a bit long, so before it started causing problems, I created this thread. As usual, the break is arbitrary and you are free to quote from the previous part as necessary.

Posted By: kmortis

It doesn't clear it up at all. It begs a HUGE question that Marasca/Bruno's panel in March 2015 found as definitive. If it is 'almost certainly blood", why is that foottrack there and only there? The "it's almost certainly blood" assumption is not borne out by any other evidence in the cottage - namely, there are no bloody foottracks in the murderoom itself matchable to either Knox or Sollecito. If it is "almost certainly blood," then like the claim that Knox cleaned blood off of her hands, one needs to default to the final judicial truth of the matter, a judicial truth which resulted in their acquittal.

​

That's the problem with relying on now-annulled, former motivation reports, and also the discredited reports/findings from Patrizia Stefanoni.

Even if what Stefanoni presented was sound, it still proves nothing in relation to AK and RS's alleged involvement in murder. By extension, even if the guilter assumption is true - that it only could have been blood - the only conclusion still to be drawn is:

her contact with the victim’s blood would have occurred after the crime and in another part of the house.​

Unless you want to argue that the "even if" is a typo, or a figure of speech.

It's ridiculous to believe that what a judge declares as factual when actual scientists and experts overwhelmingly disagree. Was it 6 out of 7 or 7 out of 8 experts say that the evidence did not prove their were multiple attackers but Massei agreed with the one? Stefanoni herself said if TMB didn't react to a substance then it is not blood.

Who really gives a damn what the moronic courts concluded at this point?

 

[TruthCalls]

It's ridiculous to believe that what a judge declares as factual when actual scientists and experts overwhelmingly disagree. Was it 6 out of 7 or 7 out of 8 experts say that the evidence did not prove their were multiple attackers but Massei agreed with the one? Stefanoni herself said if TMB didn't react to a substance then it is not blood.

Who really gives a damn what the moronic courts concluded at this point?

From what I was able to find it was 6 of 7. And contrary to what the PGP like to imply, only two of the seven were defense witnesses. Like with so many other issues (e.g., the Luminol traces that were TMB negative, negative for Meredith's DNA but nonetheless still 'judged' to be made with Meredith's blood) these courts had an opinion, evidence and expert witness opinion be damned.

Dr. Lalli (Massei pg 116) wrote:
He excluded, finally, that the biological data alone could indicate the presence and action of several people against the victim.
Dr. Liviero, consultant appointed by the Public Minister (Massei pg 119) wrote:
As for the dynamic of the homicide, with particular reference to whether the action was performed by one or more persons, Dr. Liviero ruled out the existence of scientific elements that would allow us to formulate a response to this question.
Professor Bacci, consultant appointed by the Public Prosecutor (Massei pg 122) wrote:
He indicated that the biological data did not allow for a determination of whether the injuries were caused by one person or by several people, claiming they were compatible with both possibilities
Professor Norelli, consultant for the civil party, (Massei pg 127) wrote:
All this led to the conclusion that one single person could not have carried out all the harmful actions which had occurred in this case.
Professor Introna, consultant for Raffaele Sollecito (Massei pg 137) wrote:
He also stated that the action was that of a single attacker.
Professor Torre, consultant for Amanda Knox (Massei pg 145) wrote:
He maintained that " in any case there is nothing there which could lead me to think that there was more than one attacker"
Prof Cingolani, expert appointed by the judge (GIP) (Massei pg 153) wrote:
He was unable to provide an explanation for such a disproportion, which he held to be compatible with the presence of more than one person, but also with the action of a sole person who acts in a progressive manner

So it's:
4 for "can't say"
2 for "one assailant"
1 for "more than one assailant" (and that one was the "consultant for the civil party")

 

[Vixen]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11793524#post11793524: Truthcalls writes:

So what's your point? When Stefanoni testified she indicated no other tests were performed on the traces. After the court ordered the SALs to be turned over to the defense, it was Dr Gino who discovered that TMB tests were performed and they were negative. It matters not WHO testified to what, what does matter is none of the Luminol traces tested positive for blood, and further, most also tested negative for Meredith's DNA. This is just another effort on your part to obfuscate the facts concerning the Luminol traces.

So again, care to try to explain the three traces from Amanda's room which were negative TMB, negative for Meredith's DNA but positive for Amanda's DNA. HOW are those traces made from Meredith's blood? Hint: "Because there was a lot of Meredith's blood in the room next door and what else could it be" are NOT answers.

No, Stefanoni did not test the samples in question with TMB. She did not report that TMB was negative; what Stacyhs quoted was an exchange between Gino for the defense and Comodi cross-examining her, for the prosecution. Gino was referring to Stefanoni's SAL lab reports which shows 'negative' as a default'. Stefanoni was not called to rebut Gino's misapprehension.

For the avoidance of doubt, the samples DID NOT test negative for blood. Therefore, Massei is right and Hellmann is wrong.

Clear now?

 

[Vixen]

Part 24 was getting a bit long, so before it started causing problems, I created this thread. As usual, the break is arbitrary and you are free to quote from the previous part as necessary.

Posted By: kmortis

It's ridiculous to believe that what a judge declares as factual when actual scientists and experts overwhelmingly disagree. Was it 6 out of 7 or 7 out of 8 experts say that the evidence did not prove their were multiple attackers but Massei agreed with the one? Stefanoni herself said if TMB didn't react to a substance then it is not blood.

Who really gives a damn what the moronic courts concluded at this point?

Those experts you refer to did not say it was 'categorically just one person' (except perhaps one defense expert in their pay); they simply said they could not categorically say there were several.

These experts concentrated on the physical injuries.

The court heard from experts from various other fields to get a bigger picture than just one niche speciality. It looked at logistics, defence wounds (or lack thereof), the fact of two different knives, the DNA on the sweater and bra clasp, witness testimony. At least two witnessed more than one assailant.

Having heard ALL of the evidence from ALL of the myriad witnesses and seeing or examining the exhibits firsthand, and hearing ALL submissions from each party, it came to the verdict of 'GUILTY' , as charged.

Micheli, Galati, Massei, Nencini, and Marasca all confirm in writing in their written reasons that there was more than one perpetrator and further more that Rudy did not wield the fatal blow.

ETA You will recall Introna was the 'expert' who tried to claim that Mez fell exactly onto the glass shard found in the murder room from Filomena's window, and it was this that caused her hand to bleed, and not someone taunting her with knife flicks.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

catalysts versus oxidants in presumptive blood tests.

In brief, luminol gives positive reactions to substances with peroxidase activity (a type of catalytic activity) and oxidants. TMB gives positive reactions to the former class only (peroxidase-like catalysts). Catalysts speed up chemical reactions but are not consumed, as reactants are. Oxidants are chemical species that accept electrons from reductants. Oxidants are reactants. Some oxidants might be much longer-lived than applied bleach. There is an ingredient in some cleansers that have oxidants, but I don't recall seeing anyone test them in a forensic setting.

If TMB were truly inferior to luminol in every way, then why did Stefanoni use it? Doesn't that call into question her competence? Of course, if the TMB were not run, then a positive luminol result would mean nothing more than the possibility of blood. Even a positive TMB result would not show that blood was certainly present. Only a confirmatory test could do so.

 

[TruthCalls]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11793524#post11793524:



No, Stefanoni did not test the samples in question with TMB. She did not report that TMB was negative; what Stacyhs quoted was an exchange between Gino for the defense and Comodi cross-examining her, for the prosecution. Gino was referring to Stefanoni's SAL lab reports which shows 'negative' as a default'. Stefanoni was not called to rebut Gino's misapprehenison.

For the avoidance of doubt, the samples DID NOT test negative for blood. Therefore, Massei is right and Hellmann is wrong.

Clear now?

It has always been clear to me.... that you are either misinformed or you are deliberately lying.

First of all, there is no such thing as a default value for a SAL report. Why do you post such nonsense?

The SAL report was reviewed and Dr Gino testified to the results; negative for blood on all Luminol traces. The prosecution did not dispute this, nor could they as the SAL report was introduced as evidence.

I can't even begin to fathom the point of your "Massei is right and Hellmann is wrong" comment since Massei does not question the fact that TMB was used to test all Luminol samples and acknowledges they were negative.

Finally, I think we are all very much aware that Stefanoni did not report the TMB results but if you were paying attention then you would know this is precisely the issue... as the lead lab technician it was her responsibility to know and report the results. She did not. That either indicates incompetence or a deliberate effort to suppress lab results.

Clear now?

Any chance you're going to take a shot at explaining how a trace that is TMB negative for blood, negative for Meredith's DNA but positive for Amanda's DNA could be made from Meredith's blood?

 

[TruthCalls]

Those experts you refer to did not say it was 'categorically just one person' (except perhaps one defense expert in their pay); they simply said they could not categorically say there were several.

These experts concentrated on the physical injuries.

The court heard from experts from various other fields to get a bigger picture than just one niche speciality. It looked at logistics, defence wounds (or lack thereof), the fact of two different knives, the DNA on the sweater and bra clasp, witness testimony. At least two witnessed more than one assailant.

Having heard ALL of the evidence from ALL of the myriad witnesses and seeing or examining the exhibits firsthand, and hearing ALL submissions from each party, it came to the verdict of 'GUILTY' , as charged.

Micheli, Galati, Massei, Nencini, and Marasca all confirm in writing in their written reasons that there was more than one perpetrator and further more that Rudy did not wield the fatal blow.

ETA You will recall Introna was the 'expert' who tried to claim that Mez fell exactly onto the glass shard found in the murder room from Filomena's window, and it was this that caused her hand to bleed, and not someone taunting her with knife flicks.

This could be the first time I've ever heard a pathologist being described as a "niche specialty". That's actually more outrageous than suggesting there is a "negative default value" on a SAL report. You're on a roll... keep it up, it's most entertaining!

Defensive wounds ARE physical injuries and were considered by these seven experts. There is no evidence to support the claim of two knives and all of the wounds were consistent with a single, smaller knife. There was no forensic trace of either Amanda or Raffaele in Meredith's room and that is a major piece of evidence in support of a lone attacker. Witness testimony? Are you referring to the seven expert witnesses already discussed, of which only ONE insisted more than one attacker.

What evidence do you think exists that would prove Guede did not inflict the fatal blow?

You continue to cite the speculation and assumptions by the lower courts (which were overturned by the Supreme Court, btw) without ever being able to cite a shred of evidence to support any of it. Like the "at the cottage at the time of the murder", "washed blood from her hands", etc., all of these conclusions by those courts can either be proven wrong by the evidence or can be shown to not be supported by any evidence.

The wounds on Meredith's hands are classic defensive wounds. To suggest they are the result of "someone taunting her with knife flicks" is just as baseless as suggesting they are the result of falling on glass.

Oh, and BTW, the verdict is NOT GUILTY. You seem to continue to be a bit confused on this. I can send you a copy of the Marasca report if that would help clear things up for you.

 

[Vixen]

Bill Williams writes:

So......

A poster here posts a pic of the window below Filomena's to show that it did not have bars on it, except that the pic showed that there were.....

The same poster here posted what she claimed was an observation by Postal Police Battistelli about Knox's demeanor at the scene, and then even that poster backtracked admitting (implying) she (the poster) had just made the whole thing up.....

And now that same poster has provided an Italian language of testimony that few of us here can read (probably even her!) that makes absolutely no point, with regard to the issue at hand....

...... and further claims that Numbers had essentially posted the same erroneous conclusion, but accused Numbers of not having the courtesy to inform the thread.....

Then we find out that this is yet another in a long, long, long series of "so what" responses she has made to this thread to extend meaningless claims unduly.

This describes the behaviour of the poster.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11793547#post11793547

<yawn> A poster here has made numerous errors yet were one to continuously list them you would not want to have me as a spouse or a parent. Imagine every time you broke a cup, a whole list of your misdemeanours from Year Dot would be set out in front of one.

Re the Italian manuscript between Comodi (counsel for the prosecutor) and Gino (defence), here is an English translation:

PRESIDENT - There are other questions for cross-examination only of course on this last point because it had already been exhausted.
PROSECUTOR DR COMFORTABLE - Yes, yes, but I'll be very brief.
PRESIDENT - Please prosecutor.
PROSECUTOR DOTT.SSA COMODI - About the latter argument is ... quell'accertamento result is negative if it is blood or other material that reacts to that test, however, to TMB but appears to have been found Amanda DNA of those tracks we're talking about?
CONSULTANT - Then aspects that I go to my slide because that memory could say things that are not correct, then we have found for example, 178 tells us that from that material was extracted a Knox profile, 179 idem, 180 idem.
PROSECUTOR DR COMFORTABLE - Here, then maybe we can not say for sure whether it's human blood or other material could however rule out the possibility of an animal as there is human DNA?
CONSULTANT - Well then back again on the human DNA that could result, not of blood, but as we said last time could come ...
PROSECUTOR DR COMFORTABLE - From biological material.
CONSULTANT - From saliva, flaking cells.
PROSECUTOR DR COMFORTABLE - Yeah sure.
CONSULTANT - That's right.
PROSECUTOR DR COMFORTABLE - Yes of course, but I say there is a given ... on the one hand there is a negative to that ...
CONSULTANT - At tetramethylbenzidine, yes to the TMB.
PROSECUTOR DR COMFORTABLE - See, in that exam there to where you could not determine what it was that material fact that has been analyzed, right?
CONSULTANT - Yes.

PROSECUTOR DR COMFORTABLE - At least it was not possible to establish that it was blood, however, say that confirmation was found Knox's DNA?
CONSULTANT - Of course, the genetic profile of Knox was found.
PROSECUTOR DOTT.SSA COMODI - Okay and about always of this TMB, this analysis at the level percentage according to his experience, this analysis made on tracks with enhanced luminol are more cases in which the analysis is negative, this type of ... it is negative or the TMB are more cases in which it is positive?
CONSULTANT - So, I guess we can say is 50 percent because sometimes luminol gives positive traces that in reality the TMB are negative and sometimes ... I would say a 50 and 50 I can neither say yes or say no on one side or the other.
PRESIDENT - I'm sorry, maybe TMB if you can give us an explanation?
CONSULTANT - E 'tetramethylbenzidine TMB, is an acronym that is ...
PROSECUTOR DR COMFORTABLE - It 'basically a reaction, what a reaction?
CONSULTANT - Yes, yes it is a clorimetrica reaction that occurs in the presence of tetramethylbenzidine, once used benzidine then they saw that as a carcinogen was better to take it off the market and therefore is used ... but it's exactly the same principle if you have present the sticks that are used to verify the presence, for example, blood in urine works in exactly the same way so we have a clorimetrica reaction.
PROSECUTOR DR COMFORTABLE - Okay, another question but maybe she has already implicitly answered because going back to S.A.L. cards It should be 'apart from his first ... his first date questions to writing ...
CONSULTANT - So it's the first slide I showed on this thing here.
PROSECUTOR DR COMFORTABLE - Data writing June 12, 2008.
CONSULTANT - Yes.
PROSECUTOR DR COMFORTABLE - The data show that brings the report of Stefanoni filed ...
CONSULTANT - If it makes me demand will be 12 ... so yeah I guess ... then connected to this point, it was ... I put what it means because it was my ... I had not realized then that's fine.
PROSECUTOR DR COMFORTABLE - And the results if there is one ... the result when did the forensic team was announced the enrollment of the suspects?
CONSULTANT - No, I do not know, at this point I guess is 12/11/2007, I guessed right?
PROSECUTOR DR COMFORTABLE - Why has a different date depending on whether the proceedings are still against persons unknown and then you do the draws against unknown persons and then ...

CONSULTANT - I noted I just could not understand this discrepancy between the two dates, now I have the answer that's great.
PROSECUTOR DOTT.SSA COMODI - then the beginning of the operations in the proceedings against it has become known.
CONSULTANT - Against known, all right.
PROSECUTOR DR COMFORTABLE - The fact that ... well about the dates in general, date missing some dates ...
CONSULTANT - Yes for example here ...
PROSECUTOR DR COMFORTABLE - Related ...
CONSULTANT - Refers to this, amplification ...
PROSECUTOR DR COMFORTABLE - Here, it should be 'well that we were correct its relief although I am told that certain operations are not exactly been made over the first, but in fact that we were correct its importance for the outcome final that miss in the SAL some shows what's involved?
CONSULTANT - But I ...
PROSECUTOR DR COMFORTABLE - That is precisely the purpose of the final result from the technical and scientific point of view because the formal aspect, administrative, legal, bureaucratic organization like saying so I mean it's something that does not pertain to its specific expertise.
CONSULTANT - Certainly not. Then we say that the relevance that I had done the lack of date regarding the quantification and capillary electrophoresis I resolved alone in that are missing here, however, we find them elsewhere and therefore are indications that we have and that we are useful examination of the documentation, examination of the inquiries that have been made, however what it lacks precisely that is that there is nowhere in all the documents that we have had access to this date is the amplifications, I now I do the example of the lab where I work, for example, we had to create a tab in the registers where, however, indicate the exact date of when it was made because the amplification so we see them also samples of different cases are amplified together just to do this check also on the possible contamination that exist in the laboratory, then to me as part of the consultant knowing or not knowing if that day were amplified ten samples that contained the DNA of the victim and this sample 36 B understands that perhaps I may be of interest, however, because as we said at the quantification Exhibit 36 ​​B gives too low then the indication of this uncertainty in the amount of DNA which could be equal to zero understands that I doubt that there has been a contamination in subsequent operations of amplification, however, I can not verify it until I do not know which samples were amplified together.
PROSECUTOR DOTT.SSA COMODI - Okay, then these data would be served in the good substance does not in order to appreciate the goodness of the findings but in order to verify the possibility of contamination.
CONSULTANT - One and two to see if it really is none of the samples that was delivered was not amplified, for example, twice, three times because it can happen, it can happen that perhaps a reaction amplification, but I say this from personal experience is bad because maybe in that moment you are distracted, you forgot to add something, or is bad because you miscalculated, it is true that you have, however, quantify the amount of DNA is not that so ideally you choose to later boost for course always get the best result you can get is obvious that ... to know if a track is amplified many times gives me the information over and above all for those tracks that we were told of a ... contained a smaller amount of DNA to 200 picograms we said last time to be the limit for considering a low copy number trace, and then whether to ese mpio were performed ... do not speak only of the track 36 B I speak in general of all those tracks that gave results below the quantification of 200 picograms, if for example also for the amplification or not was repeated.
PROSECUTOR DR COMFORTABLE - In the papers she could look after the deposit of the end of July there are ... there is a list of metrics?
CONSULTANT - There is a list of ...
PROSECUTOR DR COMFORTABLE - Samples quantified?
CONSULTANT - Yes there is a list of quantified samples fact regarding the quantification I know exactly when they were quantified. "

Any questions?

 

[Vixen]

In brief, luminol gives positive reactions to substances with peroxidase activity (a type of catalytic activity) and oxidants. TMB gives positive reactions to the former class only (peroxidase-like catalysts). Catalysts speed up chemical reactions but are not consumed, as reactants are. Oxidants are chemical species that accept electrons from reductants. Oxidants are reactants. Some oxidants might be much longer-lived than applied bleach. There is an ingredient in some cleansers that have oxidants, but I don't recall seeing anyone test them in a forensic setting.

If TMB were truly inferior to luminol in every way, then why did Stefanoni use it? Doesn't that call into question her competence? Of course, if the TMB were not run, then a positive luminol result would mean nothing more than the possibility of blood. Even a positive TMB result would not show that blood was certainly present. Only a confirmatory test could do so.

An outline of a footprint which was found to be COMPATIBLE with Amanda and INCOMPATIBLE with Raff or Rudy, was highlighted by Luminol which is used by Forensic Police to highlight hidden blood, was found to contain within it the DNA of Amanda Knox.

As Gino, for the defence confirms:

PROSECUTOR DOTT.SSA COMODI - About the latter argument is ... quell'accertamento result is negative if it is blood or other material that reacts to that test, however, to TMB but appears to have been found Amanda DNA of those tracks [=footprints highlighted by luminol ~ Vixen] we're talking about?
CONSULTANT - Then aspects that I go to my slide because that memory could say things that are not correct, then we have found for example, 178 tells us that from that material was extracted a Knox profile, 179 idem, 180 idem.

 

[Vixen]

This could be the first time I've ever heard a pathologist being described as a "niche specialty". That's actually more outrageous than suggesting there is a "negative default value" on a SAL report. You're on a roll... keep it up, it's most entertaining!

Defensive wounds ARE physical injuries and were considered by these seven experts. There is no evidence to support the claim of two knives and all of the wounds were consistent with a single, smaller knife. There was no forensic trace of either Amanda or Raffaele in Meredith's room and that is a major piece of evidence in support of a lone attacker. Witness testimony? Are you referring to the seven expert witnesses already discussed, of which only ONE insisted more than one attacker.

What evidence do you think exists that would prove Guede did not inflict the fatal blow?

You continue to cite the speculation and assumptions by the lower courts (which were overturned by the Supreme Court, btw) without ever being able to cite a shred of evidence to support any of it. Like the "at the cottage at the time of the murder", "washed blood from her hands", etc., all of these conclusions by those courts can either be proven wrong by the evidence or can be shown to not be supported by any evidence.

The wounds on Meredith's hands are classic defensive wounds. To suggest they are the result of "someone taunting her with knife flicks" is just as baseless as suggesting they are the result of falling on glass.

Oh, and BTW, the verdict is NOT GUILTY. You seem to continue to be a bit confused on this. I can send you a copy of the Marasca report if that would help clear things up for you.

Three of the ones on her fingers are indeed classic defence wounds -
caused by the victim trying to grab the blade of the knife. However, there are up to 23 knife flicks on Mez' hands, forearm, cheek and chin.

Pathologists will have dealt with the issue of defence wounds. However, pathologists and all expert witnesses focus strictly on their specialist skill. Thus a pathologist will not be an expert in blood spatter or knife trajectories, except with further specialist training in that field.

There is zero proof or evidence, 'it was just one perp and that perp was Rudy'.

None of the courts had any fondness for Rudy. Indeed he was branded a liar, and a sex offender. He was placed in a cage during his trial (unlike the kids).

Yet not one single court said 'Rudy was the lone perp'.

 

[Stacyhs]

An outline of a footprint which was found to be COMPATIBLE with Amanda and INCOMPATIBLE with Raff or Rudy, was highlighted by Luminol which is used by Forensic Police to highlight hidden blood, was found to contain within it the DNA of Amanda Knox.

As Gino, for the defence confirms:

Quote:

PROSECUTOR DOTT.SSA COMODI - About the latter argument is ... quell'accertamento result is negative if it is blood or other material that reacts to that test, however, to TMB but appears to have been found Amanda DNA of those tracks [=footprints highlighted by luminol ~ Vixen] we're talking about?
CONSULTANT - Then aspects that I go to my slide because that memory could say things that are not correct, then we have found for example, 178 tells us that from that material was extracted a Knox profile, 179 idem, 180 idem.

"Compatible" does not identify the footprint source. None of the footprints were ever compared to Filomena, Laura, or Meredith's footprints...all of whom would have walked around the cottage barefoot. The luminol, as has been said repeatedly, highlights would COULD be blood. But, once again, you reject the fact that all these luminol revealed prints tested negative for blood. No, it was not a "default" setting. If this were true, why did the prosecution fail to bring up this (alternative) fact at trial? Why have you not provided any evidence that such a "default" setting exists? I think we know why.

As has also been previously pointed out, samples 178 and 179 were not footprints. They were amorphous blobs with no clear outlines of a foot. As long as the tests for blood were negative, they mean nothing in regards to the murder. The DNA could have been left there at any time quite innocently.

To insist that several TMB tests, both in the cottage and at Raff's apartment, were incorrectly negative because there just wasn't enough blood for the "inferior" TMB to react to is based on nothing but the need to believe it.
If TMB were that "inferior" to luminol, any luminol revealed sample that then tested TMB negative would still have to be considered as potential blood. Negative results would lose any evidentiary value. Odd how that is not the actual case as they are accepted in courts of law as evidence no blood is present.

 

[Bill Williams]

An outline of a footprint which was found to be COMPATIBLE with Amanda and INCOMPATIBLE with Raff or Rudy, was highlighted by Luminol which is used by Forensic Police to highlight hidden blood, was found to contain within it the DNA of Amanda Knox.

Why just those three? When Meredith was alive in her room after returning the evening of Nov 1, did someone forensically-sterilize the premises so that any "compatibility" must have been one of the three accused, one definitively convicted?

This is the very definition of a suspect-centred investigation, if this is what you believe.

From a study on such things......

Literature Review
Criminal Investigation And Factors Affecting Its Outcome

Although criminal investigation is an important law enforcement activity, it is one of the
least studied police functions. Generally, criminal investigation is viewed as a ‘truth finding’ process at the end of which the crime is solved, and offenders are caught (Maguire, 2003).
This is evident in the most common definitions of criminal investigation. For example, in the
Department of Justice’s “Managing Criminal Investigations Manual,” criminal investigation
is defined as: “The total police effort to: 1) collect facts leading to the identification,
apprehension, and arrest of an offender, and 2) organize these facts to present the evidence of
guilt in such a way that successful prosecution may occur” (Cawley et al., 1977, p. 1).

However, the truth-finding view of criminal investigation is criticized for being
unrealistic. Empirical studies of criminal investigation showed that instead of trying to uncover ‘truth’ by focusing on the crime scene of each offense, detectives usually pursue a suspect-centered approach in which they try to construct a case against the suspects known by the police. According to this view, criminal investigation is not a truth-finding process, but an
interpretive activity in which police try to construct the truth by continuously collecting and
analyzing available information (Maguire, 2003; Tong & Bowling, 2006).​

 

[bagels]

IIRC Amanda Knox was acquitted and set free in 2011 and the acquittal was confirmed by the highest court in 2015.

Did the PGP dig up evidence that these acquittals were the result of corruption?

Did the PGP dig up evidence that neutral well qualified legal and forensic experts found the evidence more than sufficient to convict beyond a reasonable doubt, and an acquittal could only be explained by factors not relating to the strength or lack thereof of the evidence?

In other words, have the PGP supported their own position yet or are they just rambling about nonsensical self created beliefs that no standing official court recognizes and nobody in the world but themselves support?

Just curios about that, 25 continuations in. TY.

 

[Welshman]

Vixen claims that various pieces of evidence existed against Amanda and Raffaele. Vixen claims that Amanda and Raffaele left bloody footprints and the luminal prints were conclusive evidence of this. Claims that solid evidence existed against Amanda and Raffaele face two major hurdles. Firstly, the methods the prosecution had to resort to and secondly PGP having to resort to lying to their case. If there was conclusive evidence Amanda and Raffaele left bloody footprints, this would be damming slam dunk evidence and this evidence would be enough on its own to convict Amanda and Raffaele. If the luminal footprints provided cast iron evidence Amanda and Raffaele had left bloody footprints, why did the prosecution have to resort to the tactics below if they had solid evidence at their disposal :-

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contamination-labwork-coverup/

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredith-kercher-perjury-corruption/

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/evidence-destroyed/

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/milani-report/

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10793345

https://knoxsollecito.wordpress.com...old-about-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito/

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html

Vixen often uses falsehoods in her posts. The posts below are just a small example of these falsehoods. If there was solid evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, why do PGP need to resort to countless lies to argue their case?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11430102#post11430102

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11598412#post11598412

 

[Stacyhs]

Vixen wrote:

I didn't mention bleach as it only picks up bleach within at the very outside 72 hours after application (although usually much less than this). TMB reacts to a minute trace of blood. However, it was more important to identify whose blood it was from the DNA, which can only be found from the white blood cells, which are outnumbered by red by 700 to 1000, depending on individual variation.

In photos of the luminol reaction, you can see the top of the ruler the police used is also reacting to the luminol. Was there blood on it, too?

Stefanoni also stated in her testimony of May 22, 2009 (page 52) that

there’s also been grass, so also plant chlorophyll gives positive [reaction] to Luminol.

and

or else there was something else that was not blood, there was maybe grass, grass residues that were trampled on.

and

This is why it is easy to have false positives, because rust also has iron, also chlorophyll does not have iron, but it has a molecule that is very similar to haemoglobin that contains iron, and anyway there is another atom that, let’s say, replaces the iron in effecting this type of reaction, and this [atom] is magnesium. So in effect, iron can be shall we say, indeed, indicative of the presence of haemoglobin, but iron is not the only [atom] that reacts with Luminol: other chemical elements also react, also other metals, and then iron is not the sole constituent … that is, it is not contained in a specific manner in haemoglobin, but it is an atom [which is] contained in a great many molecules, both organic and inorganic.

Once again, the only sample for which Stefanoni had to choose between blood and DNA testing was on the knife. All of the other samples, including the luminol revealed ones, had enough to test for both.

As common sense tells you the footprint outlines were in Mez' blood and not turnip juice, then getting the ID was of essence. Knowing it is blood is meaningless, as it is obvious whose blood.

__________________

As the TMB results tell you, the footprint outlines were not in anyone's blood. No one has ever said they were in turnip juice, but that doesn't stop it from being trotted out time and again. It is not known what the luminol reacted to, but what was proven is that it wasn't blood.

 

[Welshman]

The arguments used by PGP regarding the luminol prints don't add up. PGP like to argue that TMB can often give false negatives. If this was true, what use is TMB to determine if blood has been left at a crime scene. If positive luminol and negative TMB does not disprove the presence of blood, why did the prosecution never argue this.

 

[TruthCalls]

Three of the ones on her fingers are indeed classic defence wounds -
caused by the victim trying to grab the blade of the knife. However, there are up to 23 knife flicks on Mez' hands, forearm, cheek and chin.

There is nothing about the wounds that prove anything other than the result of a violent and chaotic assault.

Pathologists will have dealt with the issue of defence wounds. However, pathologists and all expert witnesses focus strictly on their specialist skill. Thus a pathologist will not be an expert in blood spatter or knife trajectories, except with further specialist training in that field.

You referred to the pathologists as a "niche specialty" in an attempt to minimize their testimony. A forensic pathologist is responsible for determining the cause of death and 6 of 7 concluded the injuries were consistent or compatible with a lone attacker. There were no other "specialists" that aided in determining the number of attackers. Massei's primary reason for assuming multiple attackers was because he reasoned Meredith, having taken a few karate lessons and being physically healthy could have fended off a single attacker. This presumption is baseless as history is littered with female victims far more capable to defend themselves than Meredith being killed by single male attackers.

There is zero proof or evidence, 'it was just one perp and that perp was Rudy'.

No one ever said there was proof of just one perp. However, there is no evidence of more than one perp and there was an abundance of physical evidence of Guede being the perp. To assume Amanda and Raffaele were in that small room along with Meredith and Guede and participated in a violent, bloody murder and yet managed to leave not a single trace of themselves is illogical.

None of the courts had any fondness for Rudy. Indeed he was branded a liar, and a sex offender. He was placed in a cage during his trial (unlike the kids).

Yet not one single court said 'Rudy was the lone perp'.

Again, you need to go back and assess the logic used by the courts in coming to the conclusion of multiple attackers. The courts ignored the pathologists who overwhelmingly testified the wounds didn't prove more than one attacker. The courts ignored the fact that there was no physical evidence of more than one attacker in the room - no prints, no fibers, no hair.. nothing. The whole of the physical evidence points to only one attacker.

 

[Bill Williams]

Again, you need to go back and assess the logic used by the courts in coming to the conclusion of multiple attackers. The courts ignored the pathologists who overwhelmingly testified the wounds didn't prove more than one attacker. The courts ignored the fact that there was no physical evidence of more than one attacker in the room - no prints, no fibers, no hair.. nothing. The whole of the physical evidence points to only one attacker.

Vixen is not quite right that "no court" found against multiple attackers.

The Hellmann court said it was not its job to comment - that court only ruled for if RS and/or AK had been involved, which it said they were not.

That sidestepped the "judicial truth" as found at Rudy Guede's trial(s).

 

[TruthCalls]

Vixen is not quite right that "no court" found against multiple attackers.

The Hellmann court said it was not its job to comment - that court only ruled for if RS and/or AK had been involved, which it said they were not.

That sidestepped the "judicial truth" as found at Rudy Guede's trial(s).

Agreed. When you go back and review what each of the courts had to say about multiple attackers you either find a rationale based on assumption and speculation, with a healthy dose of disregarding physical evidence, or the court merely defers to the prior court findings.

It is my greatest frustration with Vixen that she refuses to engage in discussion where physical evidence is evaluated. For her to suggest it's relevant that some of the courts ruled multiple assailants without actually reviewing what the basis for that ruling was is tantamount to putting your head in the sand. When Massei isn't mentioning Meredith being healthy or having taken some karate lessons he's 'finding it hard to imagine....'. I guess physical evidence and expert witness testimony isn't what it used to be.

 

[Bill Williams]

Agreed. When you go back and review what each of the courts had to say about multiple attackers you either find a rationale based on assumption and speculation, with a healthy dose of disregarding physical evidence, or the court merely defers to the prior court findings.

It is my greatest frustration with Vixen that she refuses to engage in discussion where physical evidence is evaluated. For her to suggest it's relevant that some of the courts ruled multiple assailants without actually reviewing what the basis for that ruling was is tantamount to putting your head in the sand. When Massei isn't mentioning Meredith being healthy or having taken some karate lessons he's 'finding it hard to imagine....'. I guess physical evidence and expert witness testimony isn't what it used to be.

It certainly seems that when someone keeps falling back on, "The court found them guilty!", or "The court said there was multiple attackers," that is also shorthand for, "I haven't a clue how they arrived at that conclusion, but you're stuck with it."

This forum has lots of time, and obviously lots of continuations to come. You'd think that in at least one post in all of what the host-hard-drive will hold would actually deal with the evidence.

Vixen repeats and repeats, "Marasca found that Amanda sloughed off blood from her hands." Yet not once does she deal with the forensics of that claim, regardless of whether or not Marasca had prefaced it with, "even if".

That's a double hurdle. No wonder it's avoided like the plague. As M/B concluded (in acquitting the pair) even if all that is true it still does not ....

9.4. However, a matter of undoubted significance in favour of the appellants, in
the sense that it excludes their material participation in the murder, even if it is
hypothesised that they were present in the house on via della Pergola, consists of the absolute lack of biological traces attributable to them (except the clasp which will be dealt with further on) in the murder room or on the victim’s body, where instead numerous traces attributable to Guede were found.​