Thanks.....:waitasec:...........It's a picture of the "blonde hair" collected from Meredith's body. Massei explains this in his report:
Thanks.....:waitasec:...........It's a picture of the "blonde hair" collected from Meredith's body. Massei explains this in his report:
Can someone answer me if there is CCTV footage released of all footage between the time Rudy Guede was last seen and 12 the next day? Does one have to go by that camera to get to the house?
Can someone tell me if it was an apple or a mushroom found in Meredith's esophagus. And was it for sure her esophagus? As in she had just eaten it the moment she was attacked? When I heard it was a mushroom my first thought was that it was a shroom mushroom. Then I thought surely they would mention that. What exactly was it?
Also, can someone list the reasons why the broken window was determined to be staged? Are all the reasons:
1) b/c Filomena said the exterior shutters were closed
2) b/c it seems a less likely window to use to break in
3) b/c there was no visual evidence of someone walking through the grass below the window, and no evidence on the wall as well.
4) b/c the pattern of the glass inside the room indicated a rock being thrown from the inside and bouncing off the exterior shutters and back into the room. (I'm unclear on the glass pattern stuff).
Is that, from the forensics, about right?
As far as the mushroom/apple: Originally I had read it was a piece of mushroom, eaten at home. But this was changed to a piece of apple, from an apple cobbler dessert. I believe it was in fact the esophagus, and sometimes particles of food might be lodged in there until broken down by acids. I read somewhere else, though, that it was the deudonum, which is below, and not above, the stomach. ETA: I had seen footage which was supposedly Rudy walking past the car park and toward the cottage, but not sure if it was him or not.Can someone answer me if there is CCTV footage released of all footage between the time Rudy Guede was last seen and 12 the next day? Does one have to go by that camera to get to the house?
Can someone tell me if it was an apple or a mushroom found in Meredith's esophagus. And was it for sure her esophagus? As in she had just eaten it the moment she was attacked? When I heard it was a mushroom my first thought was that it was a shroom mushroom. Then I thought surely they would mention that. What exactly was it?
Also, can someone list the reasons why the broken window was determined to be staged? Are all the reasons:
1) b/c Filomena said the exterior shutters were closed
2) b/c it seems a less likely window to use to break in
3) b/c there was no visual evidence of someone walking through the grass below the window, and no evidence on the wall as well.
4) b/c the pattern of the glass inside the room indicated a rock being thrown from the inside and bouncing off the exterior shutters and back into the room. (I'm unclear on the glass pattern stuff).
Is that, from the forensics, about right?
Here's an article worth reading! It says that LNC DNA was used in 2005 to exonerate Tim Masters. So LNC DNA is fine with the Innocence project when it works to free someone, but not good enough when it's used to convict?
"Eikelenboom testified about "low copy number" DNA, by which small samples of DNA are amplified and copied in an effort to obtain a full profile."
"Eikelenboom told jurors he previously worked on the Tim Masters case in Colorado. Masters was convicted in 1999 of a 1987 murder, but was freed in 2008 after Eikelenboom and his wife discovered new DNA evidence."
http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/06/21/florida.casey.anthony.trial/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Eikelenboom testified about "low copy number" DNA, by which small samples of DNA are amplified and copied in an effort to obtain a full profile.
He said that when tape is used to cover a person's mouth, it is possible the sticky side of the tape could contain skin cells from the face as well as DNA from the mouth. However, he told Assistant State Attorney Jeff Ashton, factors such as heat and water have "a very detrimental effect" on DNA and it would be difficult to determine a profile from tape that, in this case, had been exposed to the elements for as long as six months.
An FBI examiner previously testified that DNA testing on the tape was inconclusive, but a possible indication of DNA there did not appear to match Caylee, Casey Anthony or George Anthony.
Eikelenboom told jurors he previously worked on the Tim Masters case in Colorado. Masters was convicted in 1999 of a 1987 murder, but was freed in 2008 after Eikelenboom and his wife discovered new DNA evidence.
Eikelenboom said that the forensics company his wife founded, which he joined in 2005, received international attention after his work in the Masters case.
"Touch DNA" a relatively new analysis - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_9833167#ixzz1PxP5LpOjThe name "touch DNA" reflects that investigators extract samples from only a few cells left behind by a person who briefly touched an object, such as clothing.
http://www.realitychatter.com/t2788-richard-and-selma-eikelenboomRichard and his wife, Selma, are Dutch forensic scientists who started their own business, Independent Forensic Sciences, a few years back in the Netherlands. They specialize in several areas of forensics including trace evidence, bloodstain analysis, and DNA testing. The type of testing that Casey’s team wants performed by Eikelenboom is referred to as “touch DNA”, or “contact DNA” testing.
Here's an article worth reading! It says that LNC DNA was used in 2005 to exonerate Tim Masters. So LNC DNA is fine with the Innocence project when it works to free someone, but not good enough when it's used to convict?
"Eikelenboom testified about "low copy number" DNA, by which small samples of DNA are amplified and copied in an effort to obtain a full profile."
"Eikelenboom told jurors he previously worked on the Tim Masters case in Colorado. Masters was convicted in 1999 of a 1987 murder, but was freed in 2008 after Eikelenboom and his wife discovered new DNA evidence."
http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/06/21/florida.casey.anthony.trial/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
I agree about the knife. But this "touch DNA analysis" - which I had not heard of before - worries me a bit about the bra clasp.No, the issues surrounding the knife analysis is and has always been the lab lacking certification for LCN testing, the lack of full disclosure re the .fsa files, and Stefanoni's dubious testing methods - the "too low" results for example. That's not to mention the ridiculous scenario needed to get the knife from Rafaelle's over to the cottage.
If the independent experts verify her results it will much harder to criticize them, but full disclosure is mainly what everyone's been after and what's been lacking until now.
wasnt me,
I also think the mop thing was weird. Also, when I read the Massei report, I thought it stated that Amanda used the bathmat to slide down the hallway into her room. But then I read that she used it as a shield to cover herself? Honestly, if she used the bathmat to slide down the hallway, I would find this so suspicious. Who does that?
Well you never apologized for acting that way in the first place, which was uncalled for IMO.
I did not reply to the bucket baiting question, because there was no evidence that I know of concerning that mop or the mop in the closet.
That's why I guess they are mentioned by both accused for the water 'spill'.
I have no problem with giving credit to valid points as long as I find them so.
Yes, he seems to be asking AK about blood stains in general, not just the couple of drops she shed herself. I think you are right that he is merely establishing that MK hadn't been murdered when AK left the house on the afternoon of Nov. 1.
I don't know why this matters. I've forgotten.
My point was merely that since there is no indication that AK was looking for blood drops, she can only testify that she doesn't remember seeing any. That isn't the same thing as saying with certainty that none existed.
I was objecting to twisting AK's testimony into something she could not have known.
I agree about the knife. But this "touch DNA analysis" - which I had not heard of before - worries me a bit about the bra clasp.
your request for an apology when someone asks you for proof is uncalled for, and of course the question wasn't baiting. back to square one, I guess.
It's just a plastic bucket.
Full of water, it might be too heavy to carry and AK would probably wheel it.
But empty, it might be carried very easily, even for 10 minutes.
The "mop" in question is so short, it's practically just a "brush." Also easily carried.
I suppose it's possible that AK and RS drove over to get the mop and bucket after dinner on the night of the murder. I suppose it's possible they both lied because they were afraid to put themselves anywhere near the scene of the crime.
But I think it's odd that RS was sober enough to drive, but so stoned he and AK decided to leave a burglary unreported for more than 12 hours.
I agree about the knife. But this "touch DNA analysis" - which I had not heard of before - worries me a bit about the bra clasp.
I think he's saying RG doesn't dare say anything other than what he said when he appeared before for fear of being charged with perjury.
And I'm sure he's right. Mignini & Co. have shown an fondness for vindictive prosecution. I don't doubt they will go after RG with knives out if RG dares to stray from the prosecution script.
So anyone hoping that RG--his sentence for murder now set--will suddenly tell the truth is dreaming.
IMO, obviously.
Can someone answer me if there is CCTV footage released of all footage between the time Rudy Guede was last seen and 12 the next day? Does one have to go by that camera to get to the house?
Can someone tell me if it was an apple or a mushroom found in Meredith's esophagus. And was it for sure her esophagus? As in she had just eaten it the moment she was attacked? When I heard it was a mushroom my first thought was that it was a shroom mushroom. Then I thought surely they would mention that. What exactly was it?
Also, can someone list the reasons why the broken window was determined to be staged? Are all the reasons:
1) b/c Filomena said the exterior shutters were closed
2) b/c it seems a less likely window to use to break in
3) b/c there was no visual evidence of someone walking through the grass below the window, and no evidence on the wall as well.
4) b/c the pattern of the glass inside the room indicated a rock being thrown from the inside and bouncing off the exterior shutters and back into the room. (I'm unclear on the glass pattern stuff).
Is that, from the forensics, about right?
Yes, it seems he is a global consultant , and worked for the Forensic Institute in the Netherlands, and also has an institute in the U.S. I guess he was not consulted for this case, though....Too bad they didn't get Eiklenbloom to do the test in the first place. imo
Wow. You guys are friendly.Thanks for the welcome.
I'm coming into this very late, so this is what I've gathered and tell me what I'm getting wrong:
Amanda and Raf were supposed to go Gubbio on November 2nd for a trip.
at 8:35 pm Nov 1st Amanda texted goodnight to Lumamba knowing she did not have to go to work. And turned off her phone. At the time she is supposed to be watching Amelie with Raf, and there is a movie playing on his laptop.
At 8:43pm a person wearing light colored clothing exits a white car and heads towards the cottage. (Is the time stamp wrong? Is this actually 9 pm?)
At 9pm, Meredith arrives home wearing dark clothing (Did the CCTV not register her? Is there no one else seen on CCTV between the hours of 8am to noon the next day? One would think the CCTV would see Knox arriving at the cottage the next day. Also walking around with a mop.)
At 9:10 pm the movie ends.
Sometime between 9pm and midnight, Meredith is murdered (Is the time narrower than this?)
10:00 pm Mrs.Lana told not to use her toilet b/c there is a bomb. she calls the police who come to investigate. (Who made this phone call incidentally?)
10pm: Meredith's phone rings her bank
10:13 pm, Meredith's phone does something.
10:30pm: CCTV cameras pick up someone leaving the cottage? (I've seen this a few places... is this true? seems like it would have been in the trial if it was.)
12:10 am, Meredith's father tries to call. Her phone is now in the garden.
5:32am Raffaele plays music on his computer at his place.
12:08 pm: Amanda notifies Filomena that there has been a break in. She is at Raffaelle's house.
12:35 pm : Amanda and Raffaelle are at the cottage.
12:51 pm: Raf calls carabineri
12:54 pm: Raf calls emergency number again.
12:55-1pm: Postal police arrive (via time stamp on CCTV which was proven to be roughly 20 minutes off? Or is the time stamp correct?)
1:50 pm: Amanda calls US (I assume to convey to someone there what just happened)
I don't know if it was lost in translation, but my understanding is that she said there were no towels in the bathroom after her shower. So she used the bathmat like a towel to shield her naked body on her way to her room. It's my understanding that she did this because she'd left the cottage door either open or unlocked, so whomever she thought was home, but just outside, could get back into the house.
As I've stated, I think that when she returned the mat to its spot, she put it down backward, so that the footprint appeared to be entering the room, instead of exiting the shower. That's just what I think, of course no proof.