Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#9

[aa9511]

I agree. It is ironic that many of the negative character traits attributed to Amanda are actually more evident in those who attack her.

In my post, I was specifically talking about Amanda. I did not speak negatively of any of the posters on here. However, if someone wants to turn my words around to make an excuse for themselves to negatively attack other members on this forum, that's fine. That is not what I did. It must feel good to have a made-up excuse though.

 

[otto]

there are many comments under her blog that support/encourage her decision to "stand her ground" w/ regard to her blog. why delete a few and not all? why delete comments made by your friend and wife of one of your biggest supporters (steve moore)?

we have been repeatedly asked to link to facts. this "fact" cannot be linked.

Until Knox can use her own good judgement, she may well do more to damage her own reputation at the urging of strangers on the internet.

 

[quesarita]

I quoted an FBI profiler and, per TOS, provided a link.

Is there still confusion?

I'm confused as to why you posted this on an Amanda Knox thread and not on a Scott Peterson thread.

 

[Katody]

I already explained my theory for why half of the blood left no imprint in my last response to you.

So I already explained that.

Maybe you misunderstood. Your idea that only half of the blade entered victim's neck doesn't explain why there is no blood on the other half or anywhere else on the kitchen knife.

It's reasonable and factual that there was a spray of blood while Guede stabbed and sawed victim's throat.

Can you explain what prevented the blood from getting onto the blade?

 

[otto]

I'm confused as to why you posted this on an Amanda Knox thread and not on a Scott Peterson thread.

What is the objection to quoting an FBI profiler regarding a personality type? Did the link confuse everyone because the profiler was talking about personality types rather than Knox?

 

[otto]

Maybe you misunderstood. Your idea that only half of the blade entered victim's neck doesn't explain why there is no blood on the other half or anywhere else on the kitchen knife.

It's reasonable and factual that there was a spray of blood while Guede stabbed and sawed victim's throat.

Can you explain what prevented the blood from getting onto the blade?

Why is it assumed that a knife used in a stabbing is blood soaked from tip to tip?

 

[Katody]

Why is it assumed that a knife used in a stabbing is blood soaked from tip to tip?

So you do have an explanation? Please share!

And, since we're talking again, do you happen to have the 7 November memorandum you mentioned before?

 

[otto]

So you do have an explanation? Please share!

An explanation for the question of why it is assumed that a knife used in a stabbing is blood soaked from tip to tip?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Then I hear things from people with far more expertise than I - I have none - who say the luminol traces are not evidence, because they may have been reacting to cleaning agents or fruit juice and the prints and traces may be from prior times. That the crime scene was not staged. That blood droplets in the small bath were probably menstrual, and from prior times.

Luminol reacts with many things besides fruit juice, such as rust and other metal ions. It also reacts with animal blood. Sara Gino testified (p. 258, Massei Report) that about 50% of the luminol-positive areas were negative by TMB in her experience. It is highly doubtful that this is only because of the supposedly lower limit of detection of luminol over TMB. Using literature references, I compiled a list of these limits of detection on my blog, and the difference between the two chemicals is small, relative to the large range where both are positive. Of perhaps greater importance is the fact that modern confirmatory tests for blood also have a very low limit of detection, at least equal to that of luminol. Confirmatory tests can distinguish between blood versus chemicals that can produce false positives, and they can also distinguish between primate and non-primate blood.

There are some jurisdictions (including Arkansas and Connecticut) which have decided that a positive luminol result by itself has no probative value. Other jurisdictions (Texas and Kansas) allow the evidence, but the fact that it is only presumptive affects its weight. Neither of these two positions resembles Comodi's viewpoint, as reported via Andrea Vogt. "[Comodi] defended the work of police biologist Patrizia Stefanoni and other police forensic investigators and appealed to jurors to use common sense when considering the reliability of defense consultants' testimony.

'At the scene of the crime there is a footprint made in blood on the bathmat and Knox and Sollecito's footprints made in blood on the floor,' Comodi said. 'and these were supposedly made at some different time because they stepped in bleach or rust or fruit juice? It's up to you to decide.'" My common sense tells me to run a confirmatory test; these kinds of situations are why people invested the time to improve them.

 

[otto]

So you do have an explanation? Please share!

And, since we're talking again, do you happen to have the 7 November memorandum you mentioned before?

Michael Smith has the complete document and posted it at my request some time ago. I am sure that he will be able to help you with that request.

 

[quesarita]

What is the objection to quoting an FBI profiler regarding a personality type? Did the link confuse everyone because the profiler was talking about personality types rather than Knox?

There was no connection to this case or Amanda Knox in the citations. If you were drawing a conclusion please state it.

 

[otto]

Luminol reacts with many things besides fruit juice, such as rust and other metal ions. It also reacts with animal blood. Sara Gino testified (p. 258, Massei Report) that about 50% of the luminol-positive areas were negative by TMB in her experience. It is highly doubtful that this is only because of the supposedly lower limit of detection of luminol over TMB. Using literature references, I compiled a list of these limits of detection on my blog, and the difference between the two chemicals is small, relative to the large range where both are positive. Of perhaps greater importance is the fact that modern confirmatory tests for blood also have a very low limit of detection, at least equal to that of luminol. Confirmatory tests can distinguish between blood versus chemicals that can produce false positives, and they can also distinguish between primate and non-primate blood.

There are some jurisdictions (including Arkansas and Connecticut) which have decided that a positive luminol result by itself has no probative value. Other jurisdictions (Texas and Kansas) allow the evidence, but the fact that it is only presumptive affects its weight. Neither of these two positions resembles Comodi's viewpoint, as reported via Andrea Vogt. "[Comodi] defended the work of police biologist Patrizia Stefanoni and other police forensic investigators and appealed to jurors to use common sense when considering the reliability of defense consultants' testimony.

'At the scene of the crime there is a footprint made in blood on the bathmat and Knox and Sollecito's footprints made in blood on the floor,' Comodi said. 'and these were supposedly made at some different time because they stepped in bleach or rust or fruit juice? It's up to you to decide.'" My common sense tells me to run a confirmatory test; these kinds of situations are why people invested the time to improve them.

Isn't the reference to rust related to water with high iron content?
Was that an issue at the cottage?

Animal blood? So maybe when Sollecito made fish dinner for Knox on Nov 1 they got fish blood on their bare feet? Didn't Knox say something about there being so much blood from the fish?

During the appeal, we heard that Sollecito's DNA does not fly, and neither does he, so how did half of a bloody footprint land on the mat and no where else?

 

[Cappuccino]

I quoted an FBI profiler and, per TOS, provided a link.

Is there still confusion?

You quoted an FBI profiler talking about Scott Peterson in a thread about Amanda Knox, and failed to make it clear in your text that said FBI profiler was speaking about a completely different person in a completely different case.

However, you clarified several posts back that you had no intention of misleading the reader into thinking that the FBI profiler in question lent any credibility to your own, purely personal, opinion of Amanda Knox so that's the end of that, and thank you for clarifying.

 

[Katody]

An explanation for the question of why it is assumed that a knife used in a stabbing is blood soaked from tip to tip?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

I guess you haven't followed the discussion carefully. You can reread my post that you answered. The question is there.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Isn't the reference to rust related to water with high iron content?
Was that an issue at the cottage?

Animal blood? So maybe when Sollecito made fish dinner for Knox on Nov 1 they got fish blood on their bare feet? Didn't Knox say something about there being so much blood from the fish?

During the appeal, we heard that Sollecito's DNA does not fly, and neither does he, so how did half of a bloody footprint land on the mat and no where else?

A commenter at another site made reference to one or more photos that show rust stains at the cottage, but I don't have a link handy. Perhaps someone else does. The onus is on the prosecution to prove that a substance is blood, and they failed miserably to do so. If anything, their own tests (negative TMB, negative DNA) suggest that that the luminol prints in the hallway were not blood. Any argument to the effect, "Well, what else could it be?" shifts the burden of proof away from the prosecution, and wrongly so IMO.

I am not following you with respect to the footprint. My position is that I would not take it as evidence against either Sollecito or Guede. It may have been made when the murderer was cleaning up and stepped on the mat, allowing bloody water to make the print. I have even heard one hypothesis that there was a towel in between his foot and the mat.

 

[otto]

You quoted an FBI profiler talking about Scott Peterson in a thread about Amanda Knox, and failed to make it clear in your text that said FBI profiler was speaking about a completely different person in a completely different case.

However, you clarified several posts back that you had no intention of misleading the reader into thinking that the FBI profiler in question lent any credibility to your own, purely personal, opinion of Amanda Knox so that's the end of that, and thank you for clarifying.

Again, I apologize if there was a misunderstanding. I quoted an FBI profiler that was discussing a personality type because I wanted to make a point about that personality type. While discussing that personality type, the FBI profiler referenced the murder of Laci Peterson. I wanted to quote the personality type description provided by the FBI profiler, and that was the easiest reference to find.

 

[sherlockh]

That is a good point. That would kind of lead to someone putting down the knife, and then handling Meredith, thus getting the blood on the palm.

Or, it could have been that the bloody palmprint was from the other hand, which was holding on to some part of Meredith's body, and which got bloody from the blood coming out of her.

Too complicated. It proves that Guede did not handle that knife. JMO.

 

[quesarita]

Too complicated. It proves that Guede did not handle that knife. JMO.

You mean the kitchen knife? I agree with you! I don't think that knife was ever at the scene of the crime, except and unless the incestigators brought it there.

 

[otto]

A commenter at another site made reference to one or more photos that show rust stains at the cottage, but I don't have a link handy. Perhaps someone else does. The onus is on the prosecution to prove that a substance is blood, and they failed miserably to do so. If anything, their own tests (negative TMB, negative DNA) suggest that that the luminol prints in the hallway were not blood. Any argument to the effect, "Well, what else could it be?" shifts the burden of proof away from the prosecution, and wrongly so IMO.

I am not following you with respect to the footprint. My position is that I would not take it as evidence against either Sollecito or Guede. It may have been made when the murderer was cleaning up and stepped on the mat, allowing bloody water to make the print. I have even heard one hypothesis that there was a towel in between his foot and the mat.

It's a very old building. I think it's a couple of hundred years old and was originally an orchard ... something like that. There was an addition put onto the back of the house. That's where Meredith and Knox's bedrooms were located. Perhaps the location of the new bedrooms was originally terrace. The ceilings were wood. It was new construction. Why would there be rust stains? Unless there was high iron content in the water (not according to what I could find), there should not be rust stains in the top floor of the cottage.

Doesn't it seem odd that water would drip into the shape of half a footprint. It's not like it's difficult to identify as a footprint. A towel is possible. If someone in Meredith's bedroom threw a towel on the floor (this requires the belief that Meredith's towels were in her bedroom, same as Knox), then it's possible to get from her bedroom to the bathroom and leave few footprints. That would also explain the half print on the edge of the bath mat.

Still, the only mixed samples are Knox and Meredith. Guede hasn't been placed in the bathroom.

 

[Cappuccino]

Too complicated. It proves that Guede did not handle that knife. JMO.

Of course he didn't handle that knife. Why on earth would Rudy Guede be handling a random kitchen knife belonging to Raffaele Sollecito? Those two men didn't even know each other.