Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#4

[Amber29]

I do not take RG as the pillar of truth, I understand he has lied in this case. This is just for all those that say RG has never named AK and RS.

This is the transcript from the hearing on Alessi:

Quote:CDV:
The question is: which is the truth seeing that you have reported it now, in this letter, and seems to be a new truth.
RG:
Absolutely no is not a new truth.
CDV:
Because?
RG:
Is not a new truth because, as I said before one I’m not here to answer on a different criminal proceedings but on this one criminal proceedings, that letter was, a reaction to the statements I heard, to the absurd declarations of a certain person and, as I said before, I have not said anything new in this letter by me, I simply written down everything that I always told to investigators, to Judges and my lawyers.
CDV:
And so, Mr. Guede, when you textually write that it was “a horrible murder of a splendid beautiful girl that was Meredith by Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox” what do you mean to say exactly? Did you say this before?
RG:
Right, this part, explicitly in this manner I’ve never said it however I always believe it.
CDV:
So why did you write it?
RG:
I wrote it because it is a thought that is always been inside me.
CDV:
But then it is not true.
RG:
No it’s very true.
CDV:
And so can you elaborate better? What you mean?
RG:
It’s very true.
CDV:
Do you confirm this fact? The by?
RG:
Okay, I in the… right, like I said before, this is a thought which is always been in my mind, is a thought that in the end although I’ve decided to put it down in writing upon hearing certain absurdities, according to me and I assume all responsibility, after hearing a puppet manipulated by certain people, that’s all. So, if I wrote those words is because they are and always have had them in my mind. It is not up to me to decide who is the one who killed Meredith, in my statements that I made in my trial I always said who had been in that house on that cursed night, therefore I am not saying anything new. I simply put down in writing my thoughts and I conveyed them in concrete terms, all here. So I can’t see what other question I should answer."

 

[sherlockh]

Just trying to get a few things straight in my mind.....Trying to piece things together, and then a few out-of-place things break down a theory/argument. So any input would be greatly appreciated:

In the initial investigation and trial, Mignini had stated that Ms. Kercher's body had to have been covered with the duvet (and the door locked) long after her death, as there was no blood transfer to the duvet (the blood having dried). (this of course points away from Guede as lone wolf killing and fleeing, and points directly toward someone returning in the early morning hours to alter things.)

Then Fischer in his Injustice in Perugia points out that Mignini was speaking falsely, as crime scene photos clearly show significant blood transfer to the duvet. This is worrisome, as why would Mignini have stated this?

Pics of blood transfer on duvet from police video, and posted on IIP: (SORRY about victim's blood in photos; no disrespect intended )

The issue is mentioned in the Micheli report. The information came from the coroner. There was some blood that was not transferred to the duvet which indicated that this blood was already dried by the time the duvet was laid over the body. The large pool of blood from the neck wound obviously transferred since that would take longer to dry. I found one forum post discussing this, but couldn't find any quotes from Mignini.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/mb...btag=amandaknox1&ctx=&cacheTag=57-38&msg=17.2

 

[SMK]

The issue is mentioned in the Micheli report. The information came from the coroner. There was some blood that was not transferred to the duvet which indicated that this blood was already dried by the time the duvet was laid over the body. The large pool of blood from the neck wound obviously transferred since that would take longer to dry. I found one forum post discussing this, but couldn't find any quotes from Mignini.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/mb...btag=amandaknox1&ctx=&cacheTag=57-38&msg=17.2

Thank you for this clarification. I had also done some reading and found it can take many hours for blood which has pooled to dry. Thank you also for that linked material.

 

[dgfred]

you forgot to mention the lies put out there by PLE and the prosecution... see back a few pages re: the bloody bathroom as just one example.

"unreasonable doubt about the evidence we do have"? you mean the evidence collected with dirty gloves, the evidence passed around with those dirty gloves, the evidence collected on pads scrubbed over multiple areas of a sink/fawcett, the dna amplified beyond normal range, the dna tested with no second control test as mandated, the TMB tests on the knife/footprints which were negative for blood... that evidence?

So LE releases a photo of the bathroom after chemicals are applied to the entire room. The press releases the photo WITH THEIR OWN caption.

How is this LE 'lying' by LE in this scenario? I for one saw the pic for what it was. Any other examples?

*I would also like to see proof of the prosecutor 'lying' if you have it. Or a link.

Here in the U.S. the detectives lie all the time... and it works. Some even say they have witnesses who saw the person committing the crime- they don't.
Some say they have video of the suspect in the location of the crime- they don't. It works great sometimes.

It seems that view is to find anything possible that will excuse someone of murder. Might be a defense attorney's job... but for me personally I don't feel like it is the correct way to look at the evidence.

Was the dna accepted by the Italian courts?

No control as 'mandated' by who?

TMB is more accurate than Luminol? Not according to what I have read.

If your child was killed and the killer's bare footprint was found and verified in luminol... but the TMB test was negative- Would you feel the same?

 

[otto]

:seeya:

BBM: Odd, isn't it, that Knox did NOT flush the toilet ? And that's because she KNEW it was Guede's "mess" and that the investigators would eventually figure it out ...


:scared: Now me, I would have flushed ... and flushed again ... and then I would have sprayed Lysol ... and sprayed Febreeze ...

:scared: And then I would have wiped everything down with antibacterial wipes and cleaner ...

:seeya:

That's right. Knox, knowing that her roommates would be away for the holiday weekend, decided that the kindest, most considerate choice was to leave the dirty toilet for Laura and Filomina to discover three days later. Either that, or she knew that investigators would discover it that afternoon.

 

[redheadedgal]

So LE releases a photo of the bathroom after chemicals are applied to the entire room. The press releases the photo WITH THEIR OWN caption.

How is this LE 'lying' by LE in this scenario? I for one saw the pic for what it was. Any other examples?

*I would also like to see proof of the prosecutor 'lying' if you have it. Or a link.

Here in the U.S. the detectives lie all the time... and it works. Some even say they have witnesses who saw the person committing the crime- they don't.
Some say they have video of the suspect in the location of the crime- they don't. It works great sometimes.

It seems that view is to find anything possible that will excuse someone of murder. Might be a defense attorney's job... but for me personally I don't feel like it is the correct way to look at the evidence.

Was the dna accepted by the Italian courts?

No control as 'mandated' by who?

TMB is more accurate than Luminol? Not according to what I have read.

If your child was killed and the killer's bare footprint was found and verified in luminol... but the TMB test was negative- Would you feel the same?

i stand by everything i said in my post. links can be found in this thread and previous ones that answer your questions.

if you were accused of a crime and saw that evidence collection video used against you, you wouldn't be concerned? i'm sure your lawyer would be...

here in canada, evidence collected like that would not be admissible:

Justice James Adams excluded DNA and other evidence found in Ray Newman’s home and car because of "egregious" violations of his rights by police.

Adams decided the Crown had not proved that the stain was blood... or that the DNA came from the victim. He concluded that the "prejudicial effect" of this evidence outweighed its probative value.

"It must be recalled that this was the matrimonial home of the deceased and the applicant when they were living together so it would not be unusual to find the DNA of both in the house," the judge wrote.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfo...d-dna-other-evidence-in-newman-case-1.1150584

 

[aa9511]

There was alot of talk about how RG's shoeprints go directly out the cottage front door... not turning around to shut/lock the door. No luminol prints of shoes outside the door but there were bare prints there.

I wonder if that is why AK/RS say he attempted to bust in the door... that would take care of any fingerprints of his on the door. Not to mention that his karate lessons seemed not to help and another guy was able to bust it after a few kicks.

The informed speculation of what really happened is the facinating part to me.

bbm

Oh good point! You are probably very right about why they mentioned trying to frantically open the door. Also IIRC, Amanda mentioned a crack in the door. Seemed to me like that was a defensive move for something, too.

 

[Amber29]

i stand by everything i said in my post. links can be found in this thread and previous ones that answer your questions.

if you were accused of a crime and saw that evidence collection video used against you, you wouldn't be concerned? i'm sure your lawyer would be...

here in canada, evidence collected like that would not be admissible:



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfo...d-dna-other-evidence-in-newman-case-1.1150584

The case you link is nothing like this case. Most of the evidence is thrown out because the violation of the rights of the defendant. Which had to do with the search warrant and the initial police interrogation.

"Other evidence uncovered through search warrants was also excluded, largely because the warrants flowed from that initial improper encounter with police."

So yes the police should've followed the law because its likely a murderer is out now on a technicality.

 

[aa9511]

Well, you have the defense arguing that it was her blood but from her ear possibly. That should tell you the defense thought it was blood mixed... just that IIP did not.

I'm gonna have to read through this part carefully in the reports. My question is, then why wouldn't Amanda just have rinsed the blood off of the faucet handle when they were "cleaning up." I mean, did she just miss it and not see it? B/c it's in a kind of obvious place, and I'm assuming they would have had to use the sink to wash their hands off after moving the body, etc.. Of course, it could just be an error on her part, they must have been extremely frazzled at that point. Any ideas?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Tmb tests don't always test positive for blood on a trace found with luminol, considering luminol is a lot higher sensitivity to blood. Considering we also have a source (Meredith's blood) for the luminol positive spots. I don't find it to be a coincidence that amanda and Raffaeles footprints are revealed with luminol in a hallway outside a room where a girl had bled to death. Sorry I'm not going to discount that evidence that easily. It's just more evidence that has to be explained away. We could do that with everything couldn't we?

I surveyed the literature with respect to the reported lower limits of detection for luminol and TMB. The ranges are broad, and they overlap quite a bit, actually. Even if there luminol has a slightly lower limit of detection, it seems quite a coincidence that all of the luminol-positive spots would fall into this narrow window. There are other reasons to question whether such a difference is responsible for the negative results with TMB in this case:

Luminol gave a reaction with someone's boots and a ruler, as seen in photos. This points out that luminol can produce false positives that are unrelated to bleach, for example. The technical bulletin for Luminol Lightning noted that, “Luminol can give a low grade reaction with some carpet materials.” This same bulletin noted, “Also, tracking through an area that has been sprayed with Luminol will produce brighter shoe tracks. These tracks can be transferred to other parts of a crime scene. Care should be taken not misinterpret these reactions.” The luminol footprints in the hall were negative for DNA, which his difficult to explain if one believes this were also made from Meredith's blood.

At least one forensic textbook recommends following up a luminol or fluorescein test with a colorimetric test, such as TMB. As summarized in Massei, Sarah Gino testified about the use of TMB: “She added that, in her own experience, analyses performed with TMB on traces revealed by Luminol give about even results: 50% negative, 50% positive…” There would be no reason to do so, if the only explanation for a positive luminol/negative TMB result was that luminol has a lower limit of detection.

Beyond these problems, one elephant in the room is the lack of a confirmatory test. These tests now have lower limits of detection that rival those of luminol and TMB. Without such tests one should not conclude that a luminol-positive substance is even blood, let alone human blood. The other elephant in the room is that there was a great deal of foot traffic in the cottage on the morning and early afternoon of 2 November. This was unfortunate, but of course no one knew about Meredith's murder at that point. Yet the police also might have tracked Meredith's or Amanda's biological matter around with them through late collection and poor forensic technique. Evidence is supposed to be collected in a timely manner, and your post does not address the problems generated when it is not.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

If your child was killed and the killer's bare footprint was found and verified in luminol... but the TMB test was negative- Would you feel the same?

Have you looked at the luminol footprints? They lack detail, and the liquid from the test looks to be pooled in some places (Even Garofano thought that the luminol had been overapplied). I wouldn't say that they matched anyone under those circumstances. Rep. 180 does not even look like Amanda's reference print. The lack of reference prints from the other flatmates is one more example of forensics being led by the investigation, rather than the other way around. It is a good example of the tunnel-vision that has marred this case.

 

[aa9511]

One more thing regarding:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/storyid=7656872

So perhaps she really did NOT take a shower, and simply said she did, creating a story to fit with the bolded above scenario?

The link isn't working for me.

But, Yes, I have always believed that the shower story was made-up. Also the story about going to the other bathroom, that was just to put her in the bathroom to spot the feces so she could then later tell Raffaelo about it. I guess she thought if she just said she didn't see it, no one would believe her. Sometimes these murderers try a little too hard to convince, and end up digging themselves in deeper. Also, could've been that she had already said she saw the feces, and so had to quickly come up with a story of why she went to that bathroom.

I would like to know more about the logistics of all the clean-up/staging. For example, do they think they washed their feet off in the shower? Or were they perhaps wearing socks or some kind of foot cover-ups? Did they walk out of the house backwards, pushing a mop in front of them to make sure they didn't leave behind any footprints (even thought they still did)? Socks or cover-ups would have required a bag to dispose of them in. But they could have done the clean-up earlier in the morning and disposed of things before the Policia got there.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image_page.php?album_id=49&image_id=3813

Does that inside window sill looked like somebody crawled thru there? Not to me.

It does to me. Exactly how do you think that the window was broken?

 

[aa9511]

Watch out SMK... you are stepping in deep water now.

Mop = flood story and travel with mop
Break down door = prints on door or damage to it
Shower = bathmat boogie, poo and bleeding ears
hugs and kisses = distraught about murder of flatmate
unlocked front door = thief came in thru window tho

pricked Meredith story = worry over her dna on knife
worry what RG might say = worry he might rat you out

There are alot of those it seems.

Oh whoa - yes!! Yes to all of the above!

I'm starting to see that it's pretty easy to deciper Amanda-code, she is really not as smart as she thinks she is. Whatever she thought would come back to her or RS, she made a mention of (excuse for) starting from very early on. To decipher Amanda-code, all we need to do is be able to tell what is a lie....which Amanda-speak for lie is a ridiculous story, so pretty easy to pick those out. Then we just go over the lie and see why she was lying about it and.....Ta-da.....we have our answer!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

There was alot of talk about how RG's shoeprints go directly out the cottage front door...

Except that they don't.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Well, you have the defense arguing that it was her blood but from her ear possibly. That should tell you the defense thought it was blood mixed... just that IIP did not.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. The blood on the faucet has only Amanda's DNA. One can find a photo of Amanda's pillow which also has a small stain, consistent with a bleeding ear. BTW, one has to look at the photo of the faucet carefully to distinguish what is actually blood from the reflection of the brown ceiling. This biological matter may be unrelated to any other in the bathroom.

The mixed DNA from the shared bathroom comes from the bidet, among other places. Even Colonel Garofano was unimpressed with the sampling technique used (they sampled all the way down to the drain plug--for Pete's sake). If you introduce blood onto biological matter that is deposited into sinks, bidets, or bathtubs, you will produce mixed DNA. If Guede had cleaned up in Laura and Filomena's bathroom, it is very likely that one would observed mixed samples from Meredith and one or both of them (of course the police would have to take their reference profiles first).

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Oh I see....so in that case we should also throw out all DNA evidence of Rudy G, shouldn't we? OH WAIT...................

One, not all DNA is low template DNA. Two, it is a near universal norm that electronic data files are given to the defense (and the negative controls are part of the EDFs), but they were not released to the defense in this case. Given one and two, skepticism about the DNA evidence is entirely warranted. Finally, you could throw out 100% of the DNA evidence against Guede, and there is still enough evidence left to convict him BARD twice over. So if we are all agreed that the DNA evidence was poorly collected and even more poorly documents and should be thrown out, I am OK with that.

 

[Amber29]

I surveyed the literature with respect to the reported lower limits of detection for luminol and TMB. The ranges are broad, and they overlap quite a bit, actually. Even if there luminol has a slightly lower limit of detection, it seems quite a coincidence that all of the luminol-positive spots would fall into this narrow window. There are other reasons to question whether such a difference is responsible for the negative results with TMB in this case:

Luminol gave a reaction with someone's boots and a ruler, as seen in photos. This points out that luminol can produce false positives that are unrelated to bleach, for example. The technical bulletin for Luminol Lightning noted that, “Luminol can give a low grade reaction with some carpet materials.” This same bulletin noted, “Also, tracking through an area that has been sprayed with Luminol will produce brighter shoe tracks. These tracks can be transferred to other parts of a crime scene. Care should be taken not misinterpret these reactions.” The luminol footprints in the hall were negative for DNA, which his difficult to explain if one believes this were also made from Meredith's blood.

At least one forensic textbook recommends following up a luminol or fluorescein test with a colorimetric test, such as TMB. As summarized in Massei, Sarah Gino testified about the use of TMB: “She added that, in her own experience, analyses performed with TMB on traces revealed by Luminol give about even results: 50% negative, 50% positive…” There would be no reason to do so, if the only explanation for a positive luminol/negative TMB result was that luminol has a lower limit of detection.

Beyond these problems, one elephant in the room is the lack of a confirmatory test. These tests now have lower limits of detection that rival those of luminol and TMB. Without such tests one should not conclude that a luminol-positive substance is even blood, let alone human blood. The other elephant in the room is that there was a great deal of foot traffic in the cottage on the morning and early afternoon of 2 November. This was unfortunate, but of course no one knew about Meredith's murder at that point. Yet the police also might have tracked Meredith's or Amanda's biological matter around with them through late collection and poor forensic technique. Evidence is supposed to be collected in a timely manner, and your post does not address the problems generated when it is not.

I would maybe believe this explanation if we were talking about one footprint.

I honestly don't look at any 1 piece of evidence in this case to assume their guilt. It is everything as a whole, circumstantial as well that convince me of their guilt.

 

[sherlockh]

One, not all DNA is low template DNA. Two, it is a near universal norm that electronic data files are given to the defense (and the negative controls are part of the EDFs), but they were not released to the defense in this case. Given one and two, skepticism about the DNA evidence is entirely warranted. Finally, you could throw out 100% of the DNA evidence against Guede, and there is still enough evidence left to convict him BARD twice over. So if we are all agreed that the DNA evidence was poorly collected and even more poorly documents and should be thrown out, I am OK with that.

Which evidence proves conclusively that Guede was involved in the murder, and did not come into the murder room right after the murder as he claimed?

 

[sherlockh]

Of course, there is an obvious source for the Luminol footprints with a visible bloody footprint nearby. There isn't even any carpet...let alone carpet cleaner. And why would somebody put carpet cleaner on their feet in front of Meredith's room? I wouldn't even accept that half a Luminol footprint was not blood without a reasonable explanation. This is an obvious problem for the defense. Therefore all that is left is trying to point out 'errors' in procedures. If that is legally a problem then so be it, but above all I like to know who are responsible for this horrible murder. JMO.