Amanda Knox New Motivation Report RE: Meredith Kercher Murder #1 *new trial ordered*

[Malkmus]

Repeating the same old arguments over and over is boring so lets see what would have happened if this murder had occurred in the US. This is a very similar case with exactly the same arguments. It shows that it is not at all normal that DNA skin cells are found on a flat surface.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_19284873


Of course the defense will try the usual arguments about the alternatives for luminol. Even the arguments about contamination and that the investigation was influenced by rumors and gossip are similar. These are all common defense tactics that for some reason in the Meredith Kercher case are accepted as gospel by a small group of supporters.


What does the murderer say?

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_19995659

Sounds familiar? Amanda rambles on and on about how she is somebody else in her appeal statement.

http://.blogspot.com/2012/09/amanda-knox-appeal-statement.html

The result? Life in jail without possibility of parole.
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking...-ben-lomond-man-gets-life-without-possibility

I would avoid the accusation of making the same argument over and over. Both sides are guilty of that and it isn't necessarily the fault of the person making it.

Okay, so you think the DNA could only come from rubbing, not walking. So was Amanda rubbing her hands on the floor? I'm honestly asking how you think it got there.

I feel like there is a basic misunderstanding of the use of DNA evidence, and that is a failure to understand that:

A) It can't be dated.
B) It is useful for placing someone where they don't belong

Therefore, finding it on top of someone else's DNA or inside someone's own home or linking it specifically to the night when a murder occurred is not something I've seen before. But perhaps you can find a crime that shows why I'm wrong?

As far as you linking to another story where Luminol was argued to be inaccurate.. so what? Without looking into this case in depth whose to say it was or wasn't blood. As I've said before, this case has taught me not to take everything I read at face value and juries unfortunately are not infallible.

 

[Malkmus]

:seeya: I am so glad you provided this quote, which clearly PROVES that both Amanda and Rafaelle LIED about their whereabouts and involvement IMO on the night of Meredith's murder ...

In other words, the TRUTH NEVER CHANGES ... so IF -- IF both Amanda and Raf were telling the "truth", then why is Raf now stating that they agreed to a "version of events" ?

This clearly -- in Rafaelle's own words -- is telling !

MOO ...

I'd like to hear your opinion on the prosecution's changing version of events then: Why the shop owner originally said Amanda had not been in his store the morning after the murder but then changed that a year later to say she was, and why Curatolo originally said he saw them out in public watching the cottage from a very narrow time frame of 9:30 to 10:00 then changed that to a broader 9:30 to shortly before midnight in order to account for the prosecution's late time of death theory.

 

[Malkmus]

Yea that makes me really wonder also. Seems incriminating to me.

It boils down to whether you believe the police coerced them into changing their story in order to break their alibis on November 5th (of which there is PLENTY of reason to suspect the police of this) or whether they willfully changed their story in order to implicate themselves. That Raf was relieved that she would continue to agree on what they originally stated, that they were together all night, is not surprising.

 

[Malkmus]

:seeya:

RBBM: I am wondering also WHY he wrote this book, -- especially since Raf's, and Amanda's, "legal problems" are far from over ...

:waitasec: Actually, their legal problems will be starting all over again come March of next year ... JMO, but I think the Supreme Court is going to overturn Hellman's "non-sense" !

In the Supreme Court's ruling regarding Rudy Guede, the court clearly stated that there was more than 1 person involved in Meredith's murder : and ALL the evidence clearly points to those individuals, Amanda and Raf ...

MOO ...

The SC upheld the court's ruling that Rudy killed Meredith. But that inclusion of multiple assailants is a formality of the ruling, not an interpretation of the evidence. As a result they do not name AK and RS. Personally, I think granting Rudy a separate trial created a mess. I think it's erroneous of some people (not you) to infer that because the SC upheld Rudy's conviction that they also have to reverse the acquittal of RS and AK.

 

[Malkmus]

So, I think it’s important to fully understand the circumstances of a string of break-ins linking Rudy Guede in the month leading up to the night he murdered Meredith. The following information is taken from the Massei report, Nina Burleigh’s interviews with a friend of Rudy as well as the victims of these break-ins and police statements.

September 27 – Cristian Tramontano’s house is broken in to by an intruder, later identified by him as Rudy Guede. CT reported the burglary that night, though he didn’t know Rudy by name at that point. Shortly after the break-in and before the murder of Meredith, CT was at a local club when he spotted Rudy again and had him kicked out by the owner. This story is corroborated by an interview with a former friend of Rudy’s who was with him when Rudy was kicked out. When he saw Rudy ‘s picture in the press in January he went to the police to tell them he was the man who had also tried to rob him. In his statement to police he told them the man had tried to steal his credit cards and threatened him with a pocketknife. There is little reason to believe this was not Rudy who broke in to Tramontano’s house. The judges in the first trial did not find him credible for arbitrary reasons.

October 7 – A nursery in Milan is broken into. The assailant was not caught, but he stole 2000 euros and had been squatting there. He had made himself food and had slept there in one of the cots. The kitchen was a mess. This is the same nursery Rudy would be caught at two weekends later. This is the weakest break-in he can be tied to, but if it wasn’t him it’s a very strange coincidence that he happened to break into it such a short time later, making himself at home the same as the previous time.

October 13 – A law office in Perugia is broke into. The burglar breaks in through a second floor window after throwing “a rather large rock” (Massei) through it. He made himself at home, eating from the fridge and arranging utensils on a briefcase. Rudy is caught later during another break-in with these items in his bag. He steals a laptop, cell phone and printer.

October 23 – Rudy’s neighbor, Mara Diaz, has her house broken into while she is away. The house was found on fire after the burglar had thrown a scarf onto a lamp. He had made himself at home, cooking food and leaving the kitchen a mess. The stove was left on and the fridge door left open. Her jewelry was stolen, including a gold women’s watch. After Rudy’s arrest for the murder and mentions of other break-ins she wondered if it was he who had done this to her.

October 27 – The Milan nursery is broken into again, and Rudy is caught this time. He was, again, making himself at home, sitting at a desk where he was hooking up the laptop. In his backpack, along with the items stolen from the law office, an emergency hammer usually found on buses for breaking windows was found along with a large knife stolen from the kitchen and a gold women’s watch. Rudy was questioned, but he refused to answer anything, and was released by the Milan police.

October 29 – Rudy returns to Perugia and apologizes to the lawyer whose items had been stolen, saying he purchased them innocently in Milan. The lawyer apparently knew who Rudy was from beforehand.

November 1 – Meredith and Amanda’s cottage has a large rock thrown through the second floor window (like at the law office). Items stolen include credit cards (like at Tramontano’s), and phones (like at the law office). He attacks Meredith with a knife (he had threatened Tramontano with a knife and was caught stealing the large kitchen knife at the nursery – though that was confiscated he was prone to arming himself with a knife). He also made himself at home, and left a mess, using the bathroom without flushing and taking juice from the fridge before attacking Meredith.

Rudy breaking into the cottage on November 1st fits with the previous pattern of break-ins roughly a week apart each. It is very difficult to argue these as coincidences as they have striking similarities linking him.

 

[sherlockh]

What exactly was the twist, other than it being presented as evidence by you and only you that it was Amanda?

The twist that somebody was crossing the street. Nobody was crossing the street. Meredith would have been crossing the street so it is not Meredith. Yes, it is my opinion. So what?

Cappucino has made an excellent point about the presumptive nature of the Luminol. The drug-sniffing dog is a perfect analogy.

In a perfect world every piece of evidence would be 100% absolute proof. It doesn't work that way. The luminol evidence was not 100% because of no positive blood test but that doesn't mean it is not blood, and it doesn't mean it can't be used as circumstantial evidence. There were specific reasons for why the blood test was negative and the luminol positive. There are plenty of discussions on this board about the importance of sniffer dog alerts. It is also evidence and important when put into context. See the Bianca Jones case for example.

Red herrings or facts that you are unable to reconcile with your inaccurate belief that the Luminol would only be reacting to blood? So what was it that lit up on the shoes of the CSI member? Fresh blood?

Putting words in my mouth again. Luminol reacts to a few hundred substances but only very few react like blood does, so you can tell the difference. The DNA expert did like any other DNA expert would be able to. I don't know about their shoes. I doubt it was the police that painted the bare footprints in front of the murder room.

The ear piercing is a real reason to account for the blood drop. Why the need to speculate about spontaneous nose bleeds of which there is no evidence? Even if it was a spontaneous nose bleed, why is murder the only reason behind it? All of this goes back to starting with the premise that she is guilty and working backwards from that.

I thought she wasn't injured? Amanda herself indicated that her blood wasn't there before the murder happened. Her boyfriend just wrote a book stating that she stayed with him 24/7 the week before the murder. This is a perfect example how everything that implicates Amanda is simply brushed aside as being 'normal'.

I'll be making another post on Rudy's actions during the preceding weeks before the murder. I find the pattern very compelling.

You could probably add a few hundred more break-ins to that if you find that compelling. The fact is he has no conviction for any burglary and yet the appeal judge stated it as fact that Rudy did these break-ins. You can say it is suspicious but without any conviction you can't state it as fact. So it is illegal what the appeal judge did. Another reason for a re-trial.

When you walk across the surface of a floor you are indeed "touching" it. Despite multiple citations from the scientific community that we "shed DNA" anywhere apparently your personal opinion overrides that. You're entitled to that, but it doesn't make for a very convincing argument.

It is not just my opinion as I showed an example of another case where it was stated that DNA on a flat surface is not normal. The DNA expert in this trial stated that it is not normal that the skin cells we shed contain live DNA. Besides if it is so normal then where is the DNA in the male footprints? So as usual it is only 'normal' when it comes to the evidence implicating Amanda. For anybody else there are different rules.

 

[Malkmus]

The twist that somebody was crossing the street. Nobody was crossing the street. Meredith would have been crossing the street so it is not Meredith. Yes, it is my opinion. So what?

So this is about me saying "crossing the street" instead of "crossing the parking garage"? I still think this impossibility that it was Meredith needs to be explained better cause I ain't gettin' it.

In a perfect world every piece of evidence would be 100% absolute proof. It doesn't work that way. The luminol evidence was not 100% because of no positive blood test but that doesn't mean it is not blood, and it doesn't mean it can't be used as circumstantial evidence. There were specific reasons for why the blood test was negative and the luminol positive. There are plenty of discussions on this board about the importance of sniffer dog alerts. It is also evidence and important when put into context. See the Bianca Jones case for example.

The Luminol wasn't just short of being "100%", it was a big, fat 0%. Had just one of the eight footprints tested positive for blood that percentage would have increased to a higher likelihood.

Let's apply the sniffer dog scenario here. This would be like bringing a cadaver dog to the crime scene and having it bark at not only the footprints but also the CSI team members.

I looked at the Bianca Jones case and interestingly this came up about the dog handler in that case from when he was involved in the Madeline Mccann case:

When researching sniffer-dog evidence later, Gerry would discover false alerts can be attributable to the conscious or unconscious signals of the handler. We would later learn that in his written report, the handler emphasized such alerts cannot be relied upon without corroborating evidence.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...mashed-bed-in-rage-at-cops.html#ixzz2AjiCiupe

Putting words in my mouth again. Luminol reacts to a few hundred substances but only very few react like blood does, so you can tell the difference. The DNA expert did like any other DNA expert would be able to. I don't know about their shoes. I doubt it was the police that painted the bare footprints in front of the murder room.

I didn't say you've never agreed that Luminol reacts to other things. I was saying that in this case you think the luminol only reacted to blood.

Here are two photos of the same area. The Luminol was applied and not only is it lighting up the footprints, it is also lighting up the boots of the investigator and the ruler. The large splotches on the floor and crevices surrounding the tiles are also problematic because it would mean that large amounts of blood were spilled there when we know Meredith was attacked in her room.

I thought she wasn't injured?

Correct. I think most of the members here would agree that an ear piercing is not considered an injury.

Amanda herself indicated that her blood wasn't there before the murder happened.

I don't believe she was specifically questioned about the presence of her own blood on the faucet (an amount so small it was nearly invisible), but that she was questioned about all the blood in the sink and on the mat, of which there was a more visible amount of Meredith's.

Her boyfriend just wrote a book stating that she stayed with him 24/7 the week before the murder. This is a perfect example how everything that implicates Amanda is simply brushed aside as being 'normal'.

I'm sorry, but I'm not getting your point here. Raf says they were together 24/7 and this is an example of brushing everything aside as normal? Could you elaborate? What's the "abnormal" part? Is this like the thong argument again?

You could probably add a few hundred more break-ins to that if you find that compelling. The fact is he has no conviction for any burglary and yet the appeal judge stated it as fact that Rudy did these break-ins. You can say it is suspicious but without any conviction you can't state it as fact. So it is illegal what the appeal judge did. Another reason for a re-trial.

Well, actually, no I couldn't add a few more hundred burglaries that occurred where Rudy Guede was either caught red-handed or linked via stolen goods found on him. He was quickly becoming a cat burglar with a propensity for making himself at home, and had he been prosecuted in Milan then Meredith would still be alive.

It is not just my opinion as I showed an example of another case where it was stated that DNA on a flat surface is not normal.

I don't think that the word used was "normal" but rather that live DNA is more commonly found on rough surfaces. I'm not disagreeing with that.
But since Amanda's DNA was found where her footprint was then either it got there by walking there or she rubbed her hands on the bare floor. If she simply picked it up on the bottom of her feet by walking on it in the bathroom then there's a number of explanations for that too. But since she was ruled out of having any injuries the idea of her bleeding and stepping on her own blood is also ruled out.

The DNA expert in this trial stated that it is not normal that the skin cells we shed contain live DNA. Besides if it is so normal then where is the DNA in the male footprints?

Good question, because as we know the prosecution alleges the footprints were made in Meredith's blood, yet aside from all of them testing negative for blood, neither did any of them contain Meredith's DNA. How does one even continue to argue it's the victim's blood after that point?
As for Raffaele's DNA not being found in the footprint... First, I have serious doubts about the CSI team's ability to match the footprints to anyone specifically, and second, he didn't live there so I wouldn't expect his DNA to be everywhere. The girls, yes.

So as usual it is only 'normal' when it comes to the evidence implicating Amanda. For anybody else there are different rules.

The forensics tests ALL FAILED under scrutiny in court. That's why the evidence didn't hold any water. I'd like to hear from one expert outside of the prosecution who thinks it held up. Even the authors of the books who paint the two in a guilty light (Angel Face and Darkness Descending) admit the forensics were shoddy.

 

[sherlockh]

So this is about me saying "crossing the street" instead of "crossing the parking garage"? I still think this impossibility that it was Meredith needs to be explained better cause I ain't gettin' it.

That is ok

The Luminol wasn't just short of being "100%", it was a big, fat 0%. Had just one of the eight footprints tested positive for blood that percentage would have increased to a higher likelihood.

Let's apply the sniffer dog scenario here. This would be like bringing a cadaver dog to the crime scene and having it bark at not only the footprints but also the CSI team members.

I looked at the Bianca Jones case and interestingly this came up about the dog handler in that case from when he was involved in the Madeline Mccann case:

When researching sniffer-dog evidence later, Gerry would discover false alerts can be attributable to the conscious or unconscious signals of the handler. We would later learn that in his written report, the handler emphasized such alerts cannot be relied upon without corroborating evidence.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...mashed-bed-in-rage-at-cops.html#ixzz2AjiCiupe

No corroborating evidence in the Bianca Jones case. Still the dog alerts were accepted and a guilty verdict. It is very strange that the father of a missing girl tries to discredit dog alerts that could help him find his daughter. There is more going on in that case. See the Madeleine McCann thread.

I didn't say you've never agreed that Luminol reacts to other things. I was saying that in this case you think the luminol only reacted to blood.

Here are two photos of the same area. The Luminol was applied and not only is it lighting up the footprints, it is also lighting up the boots of the investigator and the ruler. The large splotches on the floor and crevices surrounding the tiles are also problematic because it would mean that large amounts of blood were spilled there when we know Meredith was attacked in her room.

You don't need large amounts of blood for a positive Luminol test. If the first footstep doesn't have enough blood in it for a positive test then it is likely that the rest doesn't either. Again, it is about the footsteps. Not about the boots or ruler or whatever reflections you see in those pics. I would agree they were a bit sloppy with the Luminol sometimes. That is what diluted the blood even further, which is another reason why the blood test was negative.

Correct. I think most of the members here would agree that an ear piercing is not considered an injury.

Good, so we have concluded no 'injury' is needed for Amanda to have been bleeding during/after she killed Meredith.

I don't believe she was specifically questioned about the presence of her own blood on the faucet (an amount so small it was nearly invisible), but that she was questioned about all the blood in the sink and on the mat, of which there was a more visible amount of Meredith's.

She was asked about the blood traces in the bathroom. The blood is right on top of the water tap. I think it is impossible not to notice when it would have been there during normal use (brushing teeth, doing make up, etc).

I'm sorry, but I'm not getting your point here. Raf says they were together 24/7 and this is an example of brushing everything aside as normal? Could you elaborate? What's the "abnormal" part? Is this like the thong argument again?

He said they were always staying at his apartment. So she didn't really live at the cottage all that much. Another reason for why it would not be normal that her DNA would be flying all over the house.

Well, actually, no I couldn't add a few more hundred burglaries that occurred where Rudy Guede was either caught red-handed or linked via stolen goods found on him. He was quickly becoming a cat burglar with a propensity for making himself at home, and had he been prosecuted in Milan then Meredith would still be alive.

Suspicions and rumors are fine but don't say it is a fact like the appeal judge did. You would need a real conviction for that.

I don't think that the word used was "normal" but rather that live DNA is more commonly found on rough surfaces. I'm not disagreeing with that.
But since Amanda's DNA was found where her footprint was then either it got there by walking there or she rubbed her hands on the bare floor. If she simply picked it up on the bottom of her feet by walking on it in the bathroom then there's a number of explanations for that too. But since she was ruled out of having any injuries the idea of her bleeding and stepping on her own blood is also ruled out.

Where is the logic in that? Her blood was found in the bathroom so nothing can be ruled out.

Good question, because as we know the prosecution alleges the footprints were made in Meredith's blood, yet aside from all of them testing negative for blood, neither did any of them contain Meredith's DNA. How does one even continue to argue it's the victim's blood after that point?
As for Raffaele's DNA not being found in the footprint... First, I have serious doubts about the CSI team's ability to match the footprints to anyone specifically, and second, he didn't live there so I wouldn't expect his DNA to be everywhere. The girls, yes.

Even the appeal judge admits it could have been blood when he speculates a footprint was contaminated by a bloody shoe print. The negative blood tests indicate that there wasn't very much blood. So it is not surprising there weren't huge amounts of DNA either. There simply was very little blood to begin with. A few prints however did contain both Amanda's and Meredith's DNA.

What does it matter if Rafaelle lived there or not? His footprints show that it is not all that common that bare feet just leave DNA from skin cells. There is no DNA in his footprints. Not from himself nor from any of the other girls.

The forensics tests ALL FAILED under scrutiny in court. That's why the evidence didn't hold any water. I'd like to hear from one expert outside of the prosecution who thinks it held up. Even the authors of the books who paint the two in a guilty light (Angel Face and Darkness Descending) admit the forensics were shoddy.

I doubt it would have mattered much if the forensics would have been a 100% perfect. The new expert witnesses were unnecessary and their primary point was that contamination is theoretically always possible. The appeal judge was very willing to follow that theory without much argumentation. The lack of argumentation is a major part of the Galati appeal. It remains to be seen what the SC will say. JMO.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

I'd like to hear your opinion on the prosecution's changing version of events then: Why the shop owner originally said Amanda had not been in his store the morning after the murder but then changed that a year later to say she was, and why Curatolo originally said he saw them out in public watching the cottage from a very narrow time frame of 9:30 to 10:00 then changed that to a broader 9:30 to shortly before midnight in order to account for the prosecution's late time of death theory.

Respectfully, the prosecution did not change the version of events regarding the shopowner :

The shopowner said he saw Amanda in his store on the morning of November 2, BUT, he does not know IF she purchased anything ... IIRC, the shopowner told someone else that Amanda was hanging around the store, but did not go to LE with until this info until later when he realized the "significance" of what he had seen that morning.

JMO ... but this is one reason why "eyewitness testimony" can be a problem -- in any case -- for either side ...

:moo::moo::moo:

 

[Footwarrior]

Respectfully, the prosecution did not change the version of events regarding the shopowner :

The shopowner said he saw Amanda in his store on the morning of November 2, BUT, he does not know IF she purchased anything ... IIRC, the shopowner told someone else that Amanda was hanging around the store, but did not go to LE with until this info until later when he realized the "significance" of what he had seen that morning.

JMO ... but this is one reason why "eyewitness testimony" can be a problem -- in any case -- for either side ...

:moo::moo::moo:

The real problem with the shopkeepers testimony is that shortly after the murder he told a far different story. A police officer showed him photos of Raffaele and Amanda. The shopkeeper said that Raffaele was a regular customer and that he had seen Amanda in the shop with him a couple of times, but the last time he had seen either of them was before the murder. The officer's testimony was backed up by the notes he made at that time.

The shopkeeper started telling the story of Amanda waiting outside the shop almost a year after the murder.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

The SC upheld the court's ruling that Rudy killed Meredith. But that inclusion of multiple assailants is a formality of the ruling, not an interpretation of the evidence. As a result they do not name AK and RS. Personally, I think granting Rudy a separate trial created a mess. I think it's erroneous of some people (not you) to infer that because the SC upheld Rudy's conviction that they also have to reverse the acquittal of RS and AK.

BBM: The Supreme Court's reference to multiple assailants in Rudy's case is NOT a "formality" that would be put into their ruling : the Supreme Court could NOT have made this up "out of the clear blue" ... they had to have some sort of basis to include this in a ruling, and that basis was the testimony of Rudy, as well as the evidence ...

See, here's the thing about the Hellman Report and the MISinformation about the DNA evidence :

Why do the Friends of Amanda and Rafaelle say that the CSI Team contaminated the evidence regarding Amanda and Rafaelle, but did NOT contaminate the evidence with respect to Rudy Guede ?

The same CSI Team collected and processed the evidence in Meredith's room with respect to Amanda, Raf and Rudy.

You canNOT pick and choose WHICH evidence you want to say WAS contaminated and WHICH evidence was NOT contaminated ...

You just canNOT have it both ways ...

:moo:

 

[dog.gone.cute]

The real problem with the shopkeepers testimony is that shortly after the murder he told a far different story. A police officer showed him photos of Raffaele and Amanda. The shopkeeper said that Raffaele was a regular customer and that he had seen Amanda in the shop with him a couple of times, but the last time he had seen either of them was before the murder. The officer's testimony was backed up by the notes he made at that time.

The shopkeeper started telling the story of Amanda waiting outside the shop almost a year after the murder.

The shopkeeper only went to LE because he had told other individuals that he saw Amanda at his store on November 2, and the people he told told this to encouraged him to go to LE and report what he had seen that particular morning ...

This is just MOO ... but many people are very reluctant to get involved ...

:moo:

 

[Footwarrior]

The shopkeeper only went to LE because he had told other individuals that he saw Amanda at his store on November 2, and the people he told told this to encouraged him to go to LE and report what he had seen that particular morning ...

This is just MOO ... but many people are very reluctant to get involved ...

:moo:

Inspector Orestes Volturno interviewed shopkeeper Marco Quintavalle and two of his employees on November 19, 2007. Quintavalle came forward with his story about Amanda waiting outside his shop almost a year later.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Tomorrow, November 1, 2012, will be 5 years that Meredith was murdered

:rose: Rest In Peace, Meredith :rose:

:rose::rose::rose::rose::rose::rose:​

 

[Malkmus]

That is ok

Sherlock, have you checked out PMF recently? They are currently having a rather heated and detailed discussion of this very topic. What's interesting is that for a group of people who believe wholeheartedly that Amanda is guilty the argument is over whether it's Meredith or no one in particular. None of them is saying it's impossible for it to be Meredith and not one is arguing it's Amanda. You might find it interesting.

No corroborating evidence in the Bianca Jones case. Still the dog alerts were accepted and a guilty verdict. It is very strange that the father of a missing girl tries to discredit dog alerts that could help him find his daughter. There is more going on in that case. See the Madeleine McCann thread.

I would hope no one gets convicted over some dog barks. I think cadaver and drug sniffing dogs are great for pointing LE in a certain direction to find someone or search an area, but not much beyond that. Without getting into a debate over the McCann case, the issue over the dogs was not them tracking her down. The dogs were being used to detect whether she had decomposed in her parents apartment. This all detracts from the main argument which is that Luminol and other presumptive tests are just that; presumptive. When secondary tests are used to confirm the presence of something and they test negative it renders the evidence moot.

You don't need large amounts of blood for a positive Luminol test. If the first footstep doesn't have enough blood in it for a positive test then it is likely that the rest doesn't either. Again, it is about the footsteps. Not about the boots or ruler or whatever reflections you see in those pics. I would agree they were a bit sloppy with the Luminol sometimes. That is what diluted the blood even further, which is another reason why the blood test was negative.

Likewise you don't need a lot of blood for a positive TMB test, something in the range of a few blood cells. The photos clearly show that the Luminol is acting up to all sorts of things at the crime scene and highlights the importance of needing a confirmatory test to determine what it is. I think the photos and your lack of an explanation speak for themselves.

Good, so we have concluded no 'injury' is needed for Amanda to have been bleeding during/after she killed Meredith.

Correct. She had an ear piercing and the blood from it isn't dated.

[Massei] Knox's blood was present on the faucet of the sink, and Dr. Stefanoni declared that it was coagulated, not fresh blood, and that it was not possible to specify the moment at which this blood had been deposited on the front part of the faucet.

She was asked about the blood traces in the bathroom. The blood is right on top of the water tap. I think it is impossible not to notice when it would have been there during normal use (brushing teeth, doing make up, etc).

Impossible? No. Subjective? Yes.
What's more unbelievable is allegedly doing a clean-up, then calling the police to tell them there's blood in the bathroom, especially if some of it might be yours and you were trying to get rid of it in the first place.

He said they were always staying at his apartment. So she didn't really live at the cottage all that much. Another reason for why it would not be normal that her DNA would be flying all over the house.

That's a completely different argument than what you originally stated, which was "This is a perfect example how everything that implicates Amanda is simply brushed aside as being 'normal'. I'd like to know what you meant by that. Trying to say her DNA wouldn't be there "all that much" because she spent most nights of one week at her boyfriend's house isn't going to wipe the cottage clean of her DNA. As I've said before DNA is mainly used to place people "where" they don't belong, not "when". Have you found any cases yet to disprove this yet?

Suspicions and rumors are fine but don't say it is a fact like the appeal judge did. You would need a real conviction for that.

I realize Rudy's past as a cat burglar is an inconvenient truth for you, but my summary was all based on facts and I think anyone with a neutral mindset would look at his history of being caught with stolen goods, fingered as the culprit by eyewitnesses, and sometimes simply being caught red-handed, to be difficult to disregard. I understand why, though, as it severely damages the staged break-in theory.

Where is the logic in that? Her blood was found in the bathroom so nothing can be ruled out.

Okay, so her ear or nose possibly bled on the floor and she stepped on it leaving Luminol prints the size and shape of her feet? And it still tested negative for blood? And what does that have to do with Meredith?

Even the appeal judge admits it could have been blood when he speculates a footprint was contaminated by a bloody shoe print. The negative blood tests indicate that there wasn't very much blood. So it is not surprising there weren't huge amounts of DNA either. There simply was very little blood to begin with. A few prints however did contain both Amanda's and Meredith's DNA.

If you're assuming it was blood then there was enough to cover the shape of eight entire footprints. Not partial. Full prints. The DNA sample could be taken from a small portion of any of those prints without compromising the entirety of all eight. Stefanoni also should have run tests to determine what the substance was. Instead she only ran a blood test, which when it came up negative she decided not to disclose to the jury.

What does it matter if Rafaelle lived there or not? His footprints show that it is not all that common that bare feet just leave DNA from skin cells. There is no DNA in his footprints. Not from himself nor from any of the other girls.

It is my thought that the girls who lived there shed DNA all over the place, which is why there are unaccounted for DNA profiles in some of the samples. Could the DNA have ended up there from walking across the floor? Sure. But I think it's more likely that, as I have cited, we shed DNA all the time and that the swabbing of any part of the floor could bring up the profiles of any of the girls who lived there long-term.

I doubt it would have mattered much if the forensics would have been a 100% perfect. The new expert witnesses were unnecessary and their primary point was that contamination is theoretically always possible. The appeal judge was very willing to follow that theory without much argumentation. The lack of argumentation is a major part of the Galati appeal. It remains to be seen what the SC will say. JMO.

The new experts were unnecessary? I seem to remember you being rather supportive of them when they were first announced, certain they would uphold Stefanoni's findings. You weren't critical until they trashed the prosecution's methods and results. Independent scrutiny of the evidence is never a bad thing unless you have something to hide. And the prosecution certainly did.

 

[Malkmus]

BBM: The Supreme Court's reference to multiple assailants in Rudy's case is NOT a "formality" that would be put into their ruling : the Supreme Court could NOT have made this up "out of the clear blue" ... they had to have some sort of basis to include this in a ruling, and that basis was the testimony of Rudy, as well as the evidence ...

See, here's the thing about the Hellman Report and the MISinformation about the DNA evidence :

Why do the Friends of Amanda and Rafaelle say that the CSI Team contaminated the evidence regarding Amanda and Rafaelle, but did NOT contaminate the evidence with respect to Rudy Guede ?

The same CSI Team collected and processed the evidence in Meredith's room with respect to Amanda, Raf and Rudy.

You canNOT pick and choose WHICH evidence you want to say WAS contaminated and WHICH evidence was NOT contaminated ...

You just canNOT have it both ways ...

:moo:

The SC ruling, let me put it this way. Rudy filed an appeal against his guilty verdict. The SC then reviewed his case, found that nothing illegal took place in reaching that verdict and upheld all the findings of that first trial. They didn't evaluate the evidence and say this is all really compelling stuff. They simply didn't invalidate it. Now since their ruling, the first appeal for AK and RS has occurred and under much scrutiny the evidence from the first trial that pointed to multiple people has not survived peer review. I hope that explains it well enough. If not I'm happy to discuss further.

The contamination: Rudy's evidence was very strong and some of it may have been contaminated - there were hundreds of samples taken - but there was no need to contest it because his presence there that night is undisputed, even by him. The evidence against AK and RS was not strong and there were many DNA samples not contested by the defense as being contaminated. The LCN DNA samples found on the knife and bra clasp were contested and each had their own problems outside of just being an extremely low amount susceptible to misinterpretation. You might ask yourself why the prosecution withheld the raw data from the defense which would show how they arrived at their conclusions. The police should have full disclosure if truly seeking the truth.

 

[sherlockh]

I have to snip a bit otherwise I keep repeating myself

I would hope no one gets convicted over some dog barks. I think cadaver and drug sniffing dogs are great for pointing LE in a certain direction to find someone or search an area, but not much beyond that. Without getting into a debate over the McCann case, the issue over the dogs was not them tracking her down. The dogs were being used to detect whether she had decomposed in her parents apartment. This all detracts from the main argument which is that Luminol and other presumptive tests are just that; presumptive. When secondary tests are used to confirm the presence of something and they test negative it renders the evidence moot.

Just some dog barks??? That is why the guy in the Bianca Jones case was guilty. I guess this says it all. You really should read the Madeleine McCann thread. There are dog handlers on this board who can explain the importance of these dogs. It is all evidence. It is up to the investigators to put things into context.

That's a completely different argument than what you originally stated, which was "This is a perfect example how everything that implicates Amanda is simply brushed aside as being 'normal'. I'd like to know what you meant by that. Trying to say her DNA wouldn't be there "all that much" because she spent most nights of one week at her boyfriend's house isn't going to wipe the cottage clean of her DNA. As I've said before DNA is mainly used to place people "where" they don't belong, not "when". Have you found any cases yet to disprove this yet?

It is Meredith's blood which puts a time stamp on it. Nothing is normal. Not the mixed DNA, not the luminol footprints, not the blood on the water tap, and certainly not the crazy stories about noticing the blood, leaving the door open, not noticing a broken window and still take a shower and slide through the hall naked on a bloody bathmat.

I realize Rudy's past as a cat burglar is an inconvenient truth for you, but my summary was all based on facts and I think anyone with a neutral mindset would look at his history of being caught with stolen goods, fingered as the culprit by eyewitnesses, and sometimes simply being caught red-handed, to be difficult to disregard. I understand why, though, as it severely damages the staged break-in theory.

On the one hand, nothing is proof for the couple but on the other hand some stolen goods and a witness who isn't really sure are accepted (without any argumentation) as proof for Rudy being a cat burglar. That is not right. Certainly not legally.

Okay, so her ear or nose possibly bled on the floor and she stepped on it leaving Luminol prints the size and shape of her feet? And it still tested negative for blood? And what does that have to do with Meredith?

Bingo! Mostly water since they were washing themselves. That is how you get a diluted bloody foot print on the bathmat, and that is how you get luminol footprints in the hallway. It is that simple.

The new experts were unnecessary? I seem to remember you being rather supportive of them when they were first announced, certain they would uphold Stefanoni's findings. You weren't critical until they trashed the prosecution's methods and results. Independent scrutiny of the evidence is never a bad thing unless you have something to hide. And the prosecution certainly did.

These accusations were all part of the defense strategy. They couldn't be bothered to look for documents themselves. Eventually everything was found. I never understood why Stefanoni would lie about following standard procedure? It would only make her look bad if she had not followed standard procedure so no reason to lie about it. These accusations never made any sense.

It is part of the SC appeal that the new experts were unnecessary and there is no argumentation for why they were appointed.

 

[sherlockh]

The shopkeeper only went to LE because he had told other individuals that he saw Amanda at his store on November 2, and the people he told told this to encouraged him to go to LE and report what he had seen that particular morning ...

This is just MOO ... but many people are very reluctant to get involved ...

:moo:

I would be reluctant also if you see how the witnesses are attacked in this case. It is true that he did tell his co-worker, Chiriboga right away that he saw Amanda that morning. The appeal court (CAA) does not mention the testimony of the co-worker and gives no explanations for leaving it out. It is part of the SC appeal.

Quintavalle did not take a year to convince himself of the accuracy of his perception: his doubt was in regard to the usefulness of the date – his having seen the girl on the morning of November 2, – and in this regard a reading of the statements of Quintavalle (cf. transcript of the first instance hearing March 21, 2009) contradicts what, in contrast to the truth, was written by the CAA on this point. It should be thus noted that precisely such hesitation (is it useful or not? Am I going to say this or not?) makes it entirely plausible that Quintavalle had not on his own volition communicated to Inspector Volturno his having seen the girl, but limited himself to answering specific questions that, as mentioned, were put to him and which were focusing on the purchase of items and not on people.

Again it should be noted that the opinion of low credibility conflicts with the fact that the statements of Quintavalle have found full corroboration in those of the witness Chiriboga (hearing of June 26, 2009 p. 74) about which the CAA says nothing and does not explain its omission.

 

[otto]

Soooooo ... I guess this is almost the anniversary of the murder of Meredith. I hope all of the guilty parties are soon going to be where they belong.

 

[Malkmus]

I have to snip a bit otherwise I keep repeating myself

Just some dog barks??? That is why the guy in the Bianca Jones case was guilty. I guess this says it all.

Please, the guy failed a polygraph, has a criminal background, was abusive to his daughter and he was with her at the time of her disappearance. The dog barks alone didn't get him convicted and the barking could very well have been inaccurate. The dog barks, like the Luminol, are presumptive, not confirmatory. The TMB tests are not prone to error.

It is Meredith's blood which puts a time stamp on it.

You can't say it was Meredith's blood when it failed a blood test and didn't contain her DNA. The science is against you on this.

Nothing is normal. Not the mixed DNA, not the luminol footprints, not the blood on the water tap, and certainly not the crazy stories about noticing the blood, leaving the door open, not noticing a broken window and still take a shower and slide through the hall naked on a bloody bathmat.

That's a lot more normal than what they could have done which is just go to Gubbio for the weekend and leave someone else to find the body.

On the one hand, nothing is proof for the couple but on the other hand some stolen goods and a witness who isn't really sure are accepted (without any argumentation) as proof for Rudy being a cat burglar. That is not right. Certainly not legally.

Uh, yeah, there's direct evidence of Rudy committing those crimes, unlike witness testimony against Amanda that changed over time. Why would she have been in Conad's that morning anyway? Raf had plenty of bleach at his place. And if we're to believe Toto's testimony he gives them an alibi for the time of the murder.

Bingo! Mostly water since they were washing themselves. That is how you get a diluted bloody foot print on the bathmat, and that is how you get luminol footprints in the hallway. It is that simple.

If you're saying she was washing blood from her imaginary nosebleed in the shower then I default to my previous answer which is that she was inspected for injuries and zero found, not to mention the copious amounts of blood that would be needed from said nosebleed to leave those prints behind. Let's also not forget that the bathmat print was not compatible with Sollecito's foot, the big toe being a different shape completely and his second toe not touching the ground. And just where are these bloodstained cleaning products since the postal police showing up announced would have busted them in the act?

These accusations were all part of the defense strategy. They couldn't be bothered to look for documents themselves. Eventually everything was found. I never understood why Stefanoni would lie about following standard procedure? It would only make her look bad if she had not followed standard procedure so no reason to lie about it. These accusations never made any sense.

Conversely, it would be silly of the independent experts to accuse her of not following procedure if she in fact did. Their report is quite detailed in what was wrong with everything.

It is part of the SC appeal that the new experts were unnecessary and there is no argumentation for why they were appointed.

According to you they were appointed to simply confirm the original findings. Not that that didn't happen there's a problem with them.