The shoe prints in the middle of the room were on the pillow case that was placed under Meredith. We don't know where that pillow was when he put his bloody shoe on it, but certainly not under Meredith. Since some of those shoe prints were half, where are the other halves? Could it be the partial shoe prints by the bed?
Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#7
- Thread starter Harmony 2
- Start date
Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
- Status
It couldn't be the duvet, as that was added after the staging, perhaps at the same time that Knox's lamp was moved into Meredith's bedroom. Whatever it was, it definitly caught some blood spatter and left a silhouette when it was moved. It could be one object, or it could be a book and something else. If I had to guess, I would say that the dictionary was flipped over and perhaps something was removed.
I quoted the transcript from Galati's appeal document. It is completely different.
The version on the <modsnip>site is falsified. I guess that site is the original source of many falsehoods in circulation, like the lie about the washing machine that Otto mentioned yesterday.
I can't make any sense out of the footprints without knowning what the bottom of Guede's shoe looked like.
Bloody footprints are on the pillow case, and the pillow is found underneath Meredith. Where was the pillow at the beginning of the murder? Did Meredith ever put the pillow on her chair? Would she instinctively grab the pillow as part of her karate training? Did the pillow case have any cuts?
I missed that link and have never actually read the Galati Appeal Document. Could you please link?
If we're going to get to the bottom of the wiretap evidence of Edda talking with her daughter in prison on November 10, and what is quoted is alleged to be incorrect, wouldn't it make sense to post the correct wiretap evidence?
DerKritiker2011
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2013
- Messages
- 53
- Reaction score
- 0
I don't see any smear which can caused by a cleaning.
Here's the real quote:
"A): It was strange. I mean, its even difficult for me to remember exactly when... everything happened in the house... because I was shocked. I remember having called Filomena. I dont remember that I called you, I dont remember.
M): Oh, oh, really?
A): No, I dont remember in fact having called you.
M): Well, I... youd called me three times.
A): Oh, I dont remember this.
M): OK, youd called me once telling me...
A): Honestly, maybe I was shocked.
M): Yes, but this happened before anything had really happened, besides the house...
A): I know that I was calling, but I remember that I was calling Filomena; I dont remember having called anyone else, and so the whole thing of having called you... I dont remember.
M): Mhmm... why? Do you think? Stress?"
M): Oh, oh, really?
A): No, I dont remember in fact having called you.
M): Well, I... youd called me three times.
A): Oh, I dont remember this.
M): OK, youd called me once telling me...
A): Honestly, maybe I was shocked.
M): Yes, but this happened before anything had really happened, besides the house...
A): I know that I was calling, but I remember that I was calling Filomena; I dont remember having called anyone else, and so the whole thing of having called you... I dont remember.
M): Mhmm... why? Do you think? Stress?"
Original document, page 82:
http://galatiappeal.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/ric-cass-p-g.pdf
Translation I used, page 71:
http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/download/file.php?id=6852
Here's the falsified version <modsnip>, bolding mine:
Edda (surprised): But you called me three times.
Amanda: Oh, I dont remember that.
Edda: Okay, you called me first to tell me about some things that had shocked you. But this happened before anything really happened in the house.
Amanda: I know I was making calls. I remember calling Filomena, but I really dont remember calling anyone else. I just dont remember having called you.
Edda: Why would that be? Stress, you think?
Amanda: Maybe because so many things were happening at once.
Edda: Okay, right.
Amanda: Oh, I dont remember that.
Edda: Okay, you called me first to tell me about some things that had shocked you. But this happened before anything really happened in the house.
Amanda: I know I was making calls. I remember calling Filomena, but I really dont remember calling anyone else. I just dont remember having called you.
Edda: Why would that be? Stress, you think?
Amanda: Maybe because so many things were happening at once.
Edda: Okay, right.
Now let's see the source document of the <modsnip> version.
You could download the report of the defense expert Vinci.
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Vinci.pdf
*Snipped*. It is sourced. That is how Francesco Maresca summarized it during the trial.
Chris_Halkides
Member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2011
- Messages
- 608
- Reaction score
- 12
I have seen egrams of some of the evidence, but I have never seen egrams of the negative controls. No one has ever reported seeing the data in its most useful form, as electronic data files, otherwise known as raw data. Carlo Dalla Vedova made this point specifically in 2011, in an interview. So much for the principle of discovery being honored in this case.
Could you post the relevant trial transcript?
Chris_Halkides
Member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2011
- Messages
- 608
- Reaction score
- 12
Attending the testing is an extremely poor substitute for having the electronic data files. Professor Dan Krane stated, Having the electronic data for review is enormously important. Having the opportunity to witness the testing of samples is of marginal utility at best." Professor Balding stated that he had not seen the electronic data files or negative controls. Carlo Dalla Vedova said The experts asked the forensic police to hand over information essential to their report on the DNA. They still haven't received it and will therefore request a 40 days extension. He added, It's not the first time we've asked for the police to hand over this information, He also said, But they need the raw data they have asked for from the police to do so. We first asked for it in 2009 and it's still not been handed over. Professor Hampikian noted the lack of discovery with respect to protocols in a couple of interviews in 2010. Therefore, the courts failed to adhere to the principle of discovery over a long period and in a significant way.
Chris_Halkides
Member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2011
- Messages
- 608
- Reaction score
- 12
Suzanna Ryan wrote, "An example of how secondary transfer could conceivably affect the interpretation of a case was illustrated by Sarah Jones and Kirsty Scott of the SPSA Forensic Services (Aberdeen) during the Body Fluids Conference jointly hosted by the Forensic Science Society & the Centre for Forensic Investigation, University of Teesside and reported in Science and Justice 50 (2010). Jones and Scott performed experiments to determine if non-intimate contact could result in the transfer of DNA to a male volunteer’s underwear and penis. Of three scenarios reported, one resulted in the transfer of the female volunteers’ DNA to both the underwear (33% of the samples) and penis (67% of the samples) of the male volunteers even though no direct contact from the female to the male had occurred. The scenario involved 1 minute of face-touching, 3 minutes of handholding and immediate urination by the male. However, when a 15 minute period was introduced between the non-intimate contact and urination, no female DNA was detected on either the underwear or penis of the male volunteers."
However, these sorts of scenarios do not explain Guede's DNA on Meredith's clothing or on her body. He did not have a date; he did not live at the house. That is one of several reasons to trust the DNA evidence against him more than against Ms. Knox. However (as I have said previously), we can toss 100% of the DNA evidence against him if we don't trust any of the DNA forensics, and he is still guilty BARD twice over. I would convict him on the bloody handprint alone.
EDT
It is extremely unlikely that Guede's DNA came to be where it was other than by intimate contact, the tampon conjecture to the contrary notwithstanding. Of course one obvious way to settle the matter is to test the putative semen stain twice, once to determine whether or not it is semen and once for DNA.
However, these sorts of scenarios do not explain Guede's DNA on Meredith's clothing or on her body. He did not have a date; he did not live at the house. That is one of several reasons to trust the DNA evidence against him more than against Ms. Knox. However (as I have said previously), we can toss 100% of the DNA evidence against him if we don't trust any of the DNA forensics, and he is still guilty BARD twice over. I would convict him on the bloody handprint alone.
EDT
It is extremely unlikely that Guede's DNA came to be where it was other than by intimate contact, the tampon conjecture to the contrary notwithstanding. Of course one obvious way to settle the matter is to test the putative semen stain twice, once to determine whether or not it is semen and once for DNA.
Chris_Halkides
Member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2011
- Messages
- 608
- Reaction score
- 12
No negative controls have ever been given to the defense. No raw data was ever given to the defense, despite multiple requests, as I discussed earlier today.
But they were offered access to it. So all this complaining just about not been given a floppy (ok... cd/usb)? Seriously?
So someone translated, "besides the house" to "in the house" [before anything had happened] - I don't speak or translate Italian, so have to take you at your word.
Chris_Halkides
Member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2011
- Messages
- 608
- Reaction score
- 12
Bongiorno complained about the lack of discovery in a 2009 address to the court (link provided some time ago). Dalla Vedova (see quote I provided today) said that they still did not have the raw data as of 2011. Raw data does not mean an electronic copy of a egram; it means the data that are used to make the egrams. The lack of discovery goes beyond the lack of electronic data files and negative controls, however. In an interview Greg Hampikian said, "It’s fairly routine in the US that I send a request and get what I want. But in the Knox case I haven’t been able to get a copy of the standard operating procedures of the lab and without that, it’s hard to see if they even followed their own guidelines." (the original link to this article is dead, but it is quotes elsewhere)
EDT
Either the tweet posted at TJfMK is wrong, or Galati is wrong.
Yes of course. They are not going to get the data themselves and make copies. They rather not go and keep complaining about not being 'given' the data. That is defense tactics. Funny you mention Hampikian who is hiding behind Idahoan trade secrets.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-26/nestle-gilead-frack-starbucks-intellectual-property.html
That's interesting. But what would he say....that he was sleeping and Amanda did all of that and brought the knife back, cleaned it off, and put in back in the drawer, and he didn't see all of this because he was "sleeping?"
I just don't see how he could spin that one.
- Status