Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
:snooty:Nah! I hate to disagree with you, but they're both acquitted murderesses! I can't wait until charges are re-instated against Amanda, there was more than enough evidence to convict her even without the screw-up in the lab! I won't be buying this book!
(29) There are luminol positive spots in Filomena's room. If no confirmatory test was done on them, then calling them blood is an overreach. Some or all of the luminol positive spots were checked with TMB, which showed no reaction. The fact that Amanda's DNA has an innocent explanation for being in the flat has to be considered. In addition, there is a good chance that the police themselves mixed the DNA in the way that they collected DNA around the sink and bidet. The Hellmann report has a section on this.I will debate the entire list with you anytime, in fact I would enjoy it... fire away!
As far as I am concerned, it is over. No debating needed. But carry on.
(29) There are luminol positive spots in Filomena's room. If no confirmatory test was done on them, then calling them blood is an overreach. Some or all of the luminol positive spots were checked with TMB, which showed no reaction. The fact that Amanda's DNA has an innocent explanation for being in the flat has to be considered. In addition, there is a good chance that the police themselves mixed the DNA in the way that they collected DNA around the sink and bidet. The Hellmann report has a section on this.
(1) This relies upon the analysis of "experts" within ILE. They are the ones responsible for damaging three hard drives. The police are also responsible for the loss of meta-data such as the last access time of the Stardust file. Their views on what activity did or did not take place should be judged in light of these circumstances. Moreover, the claim of no activity is disputed in Raffaele's appeal, among other places, which discusses the screensaver log files. If time permits, I may return to this subject later.
Sorry.
29. There was a definate 'spot' of blood in Filomena's room. Interesting the staging was there, and no other cottage mate's dna was mixed with it... but AK's was :waitasec: . So it was considered... but not believed that her living there is the ONLY reason. Just like the hallway... the 'fruit juice spill' theory just doesn't seem likely.
1. Please do return to the subject. They might have damaged three hard drives... but not that one. There was no human interaction (tho no doubt RS's appeal would wish it were so) which would/might prove he/somebody was there during the questionable time. The screensaver is one that is not human interaction IMO.
Are you claiming that your version of "common sense" should be allowed to run roughshod over generally accepted forensic chemistry principles? I would like to know the limits of your position. I would also be interested in your response to what Dr. Virkler and Professor Lednev said specifically about the luminol-positive, DNA-negative, TMB-negative pieces of evidence in this case (the footprints in the hall): So, there was either no blood and the luminol was wrong, or there was blood and the TMB had interference and the luminol damaged the DNA. We think it is more likely that there was no blood, and that the luminol was reacting with something else, possibly plant matter from the bottom of the shoes causing the footprints (the intensity of the luminol reaction might give some more insight). The prosecution should have used much more convincing evidence to prove the presence of blood. With respect to Filomena's room, there was DNA. However, all of the luminol reactions were done on December 18th, and a great deal of foot traffic had occurred in the intervening time period.Thanks for your points and suggestions... but common sense works just fine.
Sorry.
29. There was a definate 'spot' of blood in Filomena's room. Interesting the staging was there, and no other cottage mate's dna was mixed with it... but AK's was :waitasec: . So it was considered... but not believed that her living there is the ONLY reason. Just like the hallway... the 'fruit juice spill' theory just doesn't seem likely.
dgfred,So first the problem was it wasn't even blood, now it is the extra alleles?
Dang, TWO excuses for one spot of blood with AK's dna mixed in. Same old same old.
dgfred,Maybe you could look at 'it' from a different perspective instead of muddying the waters with technical jargon and deflecting.
dgfred,Fair enough.
I will even admit there could possibly be 'extra-dna' in the sample from Filomena's room. A couple of things would be certain from that too... that I would hope you can admit.
1- AK's dna was in the sample.
2- RG's dna was not in the sample.
3- The sample was Meredith's blood.
What were your specific questions? I do have a hard time catching them when at the end or middle of a bunch of other stuff I am not interested in.
dgfred,Who would need to make it look like a thief broke into Filomena's room and not someone that was let into the cottage by someone with a key?
If someone did stage Filomena's room... could their dna possibly be mixed with the victim's blood? Why wouldn't it be RG's?
Who would need a mop for a small water spill from the NIGHT BEFORE? Really?
Who would lie about what time they ate supper? Why???
Who would turn off their phone, for the first time on the night her cottage mate just happened to be murdered? Why???
Rep.198 – Hair formation found between the lower cornice of the left window shutter having the broken glass, indicated in the evidence photographs with the letter “R”, (report of the evidence described carried out by the Gabinetto Provinciale of Forensic Police of Perugia) – page 172 A.F./239 R.;
Rep.199 – Sample of presumed blood substance taken of the portion of the wood of the window having the broken glass, indicated in the evidence photographs by the letter “S”,
(report of the evidence described carried out by the Gabinetto Provinciale of the Forensic Police of Perugia) – page 172 A.F./239 R.;