Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #16

[SkewedView]

This is so stupid.

You find luminol spots at a murderers house so full bare luminol footprints at a very bloody crime scene are not important? Yeah right.

It would have surely helped if the defense had proved them. They also could have easily figured out who that guy was that walked barefoot in the girls house if it wasn't RS. They didn't do these things for a very obvious reason.

Luminol is a presumptive test (presumptive is essentially tentative, unconfirmed) because Luminol gets false positives from numerous substances, many of them quite common. A luminol reaction is never a true positive match until it has been confirmed in the lab because of how common of an occurance this is. Steffanoni neglected to do the confirming tests after a second type of presumptive test came up negative, but lied about all of it and said that the luminol hits had to be blood. Not surprising, given her less than ethical track record.

Here's some reading material to back up my statements.

http://www.bookrags.com/research/luminol-chmc/

http://www.imprimus.net/PDF Files/D...ood - Interference and Effect on Analysis.pdf

http://www.cbdiai.org/Articles/grispino_8-91.pdf

http://www.ehow.com/about_7221411_forensic-serology-testing.html

http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/blood.html

I have other ones that I posted earlier this thread or last, with lots of good quotes - if you insist, I'll go look it up when I have time and link to that too.

 

[Nova]

I suppose Knox was crying in between sticking her tongue out at Sollecito at the police station, and telling Meredith's friends that she "f-ing bled to death" ... or were her tears running in every direction as she flipped cartwheels in the lobby at the police station?

The fact that Knox did not appear upset about the brutal murder, did not attend the memorial and had sexy lingerie on her mind as soon as the police were finished with their initial round of questions speaks to state of mind. This is circumstantial evidence in a murder investigation.

Knox and Sollecito were responsible for the fact that they had to return to the police station to answer more questions. If they had told the truth in the first place, they would have been free to carry on as they pleased. Well ... not exactly ... if they had told the truth in the first place they many never have left the police station after the first interview.

AK and RS did tell the truth "in the first place." It took ILE four days or more to coerce false statements from them.

The tabloid rubbish that you claim speaks to "state of mind" is highly subjective and impossible to verify. At worst, AK is guilty of not acting sad enough. So what?

 

[SkewedView]

Yep ... luminol means nothing in the murder investigation of Meredith Kercher ... but oddly, it is widely accepted in courtrooms around the world. Weird huh.

It is accepted when it has been confirmed in the lab - Luminol is a presumptive test only, not intended to be the final say, ever, because of its limitations and flaws.

Steffanoni neglected to do the confirming tests after a second type of presumptive test came up negative. She then lied about it, and unethically claimed that the luminol hits had to be blood.

 

[Nova]

Before you go calling people stupid, it might help to do a little research before making statements and insinuations....

In fairness to sherlockh, I think he called my argument "stupid" in response to my calling his argument "insane."

I started that one; he was merely parodying my remark.

But thank you for all the info on luminol.

 

[Nova]

If Filomina's DNA had been mixed with Meredith's blood in her bedroom, perhaps we would be looking at Filomina ... but it was Knox DNA mixed with Meredith's blood in Filomina's bedroom. It was someone that lived at the cottage that staged the break in. Filomina had one solid unwaivering alibi, but the pair lied about their activities, and those lies were revealed when police looked for independent corboration.

Knox and Sollecito should have told the truth about being awake a 6 AM instead of pretending they slept until 10. They should have told the truth about eating dinner prior to Knox's work schedule, but instead they claimed dinner was as late as 10 or 11 PM. Those lies are why they had to return to answer more questions.

So now Knox' DNA in a room in her own house is proof she staged a break in.

And not remembering when you ate dinner five days ago makes you a murderer.

No wonder the prosecution's case is in trouble.

 

[SkewedView]

If Filomina's DNA had been mixed with Meredith's blood in her bedroom, perhaps we would be looking at Filomina ... but it was Knox DNA mixed with Meredith's blood in Filomina's bedroom. It was someone that lived at the cottage that staged the break in. Filomina had one solid unwaivering alibi, but the pair lied about their activities, and those lies were revealed when police looked for independent corboration.

Knox and Sollecito should have told the truth about being awake a 6 AM instead of pretending they slept until 10. They should have told the truth about eating dinner prior to Knox's work schedule, but instead they claimed dinner was as late as 10 or 11 PM. Those lies are why they had to return to answer more questions.

Well, gee, we don't know if FR's DNA was mixed anywhere, because the Perugian Flying Circus never took samples from her - or the other roomy, boyfriends, the boys downstairs etc etc...and the on scene investigators (by admission of both Mignini and Steffanoni) only checked in a small number of locations. Apparently they were in a hurry, can't have a murder investigation interfering with dinner times or anything.

We don't know whether FR had 'one unwavering solid alibi' or whether PLE didn't feel like messing with her lawyer. Seriously, there is zero public info available on this, so your statement is speculative only.

Once more, those 'lies' are common inconsistencies etc during extended interviews. Sure, they are good reason to do more, but most LEOs trained in interrogations know that these types of flawed statements usually mean nothing. If you wish me to find you reference material on the flaws of modern 'interview' techniques and how terribly they can go wrong, I'll endeavor to do so as time permits - it's fascinating, albeit horrifying reading.

You again managed to avoid the true thrust of my post - the analysis of AK's behavior (notice it's always her, never RS? Must be those evil hips of hers distracting us) by the tabloids and Mignini in the first trial are inherently flawed and pointless, due to the fact that human idiosyncrasies make all of us seem to behave suspiciously when we are already under close scrutiny. A first year psych student could tell you that.

Example from a recent news peice:

A woman who is on the lookout for pervs while she is at the park with her kids sees an older, 'suspicious' looking guy taking pics of a little kid. She tells the police later (after she called them) that she confronted him and he ran. Police use up time and money looking for dude, put out a public alert. He calls them (with witness backup) - turns out, he was the kid's grandpa, and he left the park (at a walk) because the woman who was flipping out in his face freaked him out and was upsetting the kids. Oh, and on top of that, it's always legal (in the US, where this takes place) to take pictures of anyone in public, barring upskirts. The police issued a retraction and apologised to the guy. Oops.

Bottom line, when an observer is specifically looking for behavior to be suspicious of, they'll find it, even if it's all in their head.

 

[SkewedView]

In fairness to sherlockh, I think he called my argument "stupid" in response to my calling his argument "insane."

I started that one; he was merely parodying my remark.

But thank you for all the info on luminol.

Ah, sorry about that, I'll do an edit - I didn't see the insane bit...


ETA: Yeah, I had better links last time, too tired right now to dig for the good stuff.

 

[otto]

AK and RS did tell the truth "in the first place." It took ILE four days or more to coerce false statements from them.

The tabloid rubbish that you claim speaks to "state of mind" is highly subjective and impossible to verify. At worst, AK is guilty of not acting sad enough. So what?

State of mind during a murder is not "tabloid rubbish".

Knox and Sollecito readily offered lies during their first round of questioning. This is where they told the first round of lies about the time they had dinner, the time they woke up and their activities on the night of the murder.

 

[otto]

It is accepted when it has been confirmed in the lab - Luminol is a presumptive test only, not intended to be the final say, ever, because of its limitations and flaws.

Steffanoni neglected to do the confirming tests after a second type of presumptive test came up negative. She then lied about it, and unethically claimed that the luminol hits had to be blood.

She lied huh. I haven't seen anything about that.

 

[otto]

So now Knox' DNA in a room in her own house is proof she staged a break in.

And not remembering when you ate dinner five days ago makes you a murderer.

No wonder the prosecution's case is in trouble.

The party line is that there is not a spec of DNA from Knox anywhere at the crime scene, but we know that isn't true. Knox's DNA is in Filomina's bedroom mixed with Meredith's blood.

The day the murder was discovered is the day that Knox and Sollecito started lying about their activities on the night of the murder. What lie are you referring to on day 5 after the murder?

 

[otto]

Well, gee, we don't know if FR's DNA was mixed anywhere, because the Perugian Flying Circus never took samples from her - or the other roomy, boyfriends, the boys downstairs etc etc...and the on scene investigators (by admission of both Mignini and Steffanoni) only checked in a small number of locations. Apparently they were in a hurry, can't have a murder investigation interfering with dinner times or anything.

We don't know whether FR had 'one unwavering solid alibi' or whether PLE didn't feel like messing with her lawyer. Seriously, there is zero public info available on this, so your statement is speculative only.

Once more, those 'lies' are common inconsistencies etc during extended interviews. Sure, they are good reason to do more, but most LEOs trained in interrogations know that these types of flawed statements usually mean nothing. If you wish me to find you reference material on the flaws of modern 'interview' techniques and how terribly they can go wrong, I'll endeavor to do so as time permits - it's fascinating, albeit horrifying reading.

You again managed to avoid the true thrust of my post - the analysis of AK's behavior (notice it's always her, never RS? Must be those evil hips of hers distracting us) by the tabloids and Mignini in the first trial are inherently flawed and pointless, due to the fact that human idiosyncrasies make all of us seem to behave suspiciously when we are already under close scrutiny. A first year psych student could tell you that.

Example from a recent news peice:

A woman who is on the lookout for pervs while she is at the park with her kids sees an older, 'suspicious' looking guy taking pics of a little kid. She tells the police later (after she called them) that she confronted him and he ran. Police use up time and money looking for dude, put out a public alert. He calls them (with witness backup) - turns out, he was the kid's grandpa, and he left the park (at a walk) because the woman who was flipping out in his face freaked him out and was upsetting the kids. Oh, and on top of that, it's always legal (in the US, where this takes place) to take pictures of anyone in public, barring upskirts. The police issued a retraction and apologised to the guy. Oops.

Bottom line, when an observer is specifically looking for behavior to be suspicious of, they'll find it, even if it's all in their head.

So you're expecting investigators to publish, in English, an explanation about who was investigated and how that played out for all the witnesses ... and barring that, you think the pair must be innocent even though they were found guilty?

 

[SkewedView]

She lied huh. I haven't seen anything about that.

Um, during the first trial, she only testified about the Luminol tests, said no other tests had been done, until she was confronted by the second set of test results (negative), and never bothered to inform the court that a luminol hit means nothing if not confirmed by tests in the lab, tests that she didn't do and then 'neglected' to mention. All of this has been covered numerous times over the past billion threads. If you wish, I can find links over the weekend (not sure when, my daughter is going to horse riding camp next week, lots of preperations to do), or perhaps one of the other posters has something on hand.

So, yeah, she lied. Just like all the other times that were proven on that cute DVD presentation the other day. But we're supposed to trust this woman?:waitasec:

 

[SkewedView]

So you're expecting investigators to publish, in English, an explanation about who was investigated and how that played out for all the witnesses ... and barring that, you think the pair must be innocent even though they were found guilty?

Um, no. I merely pointed out that you stated speculation as if it were fact. Please stop twisting my words to play gotcha games.


ETA: I notice again that you avoid the meat of my response in favor of accusation.

 

[otto]

Um, during the first trial, she only testified about the Luminol tests, said no other tests had been done, until she was confronted by the second set of test results (negative), and never bothered to inform the court that a luminol hit means nothing if not confirmed by tests in the lab, tests that she didn't do and then 'neglected' to mention. All of this has been covered numerous times over the past billion threads. If you wish, I can find links over the weekend (not sure when, my daughter is going to horse riding camp next week, lots of preperations to do), or perhaps one of the other posters has something on hand.

So, yeah, she lied. Just like all the other times that were proven on that cute DVD presentation the other day. But we're supposed to trust this woman?:waitasec:

According to someone well informed of the case ... The footprints did not test negative for blood. No confirmatory blood test was performed. Only presumptive tests were performed. Presumptive tests on their own cannot be used to either confirm or exclude the presence of blood. The footprints were accepted as being in blood by the court by the combination of a positive presumptive blood test (luminol) and the contextual evidence at the crime scene which served to overrule the negative presumptive blood test (TMB). The court concluded, rightly, that it was unreasonable to conclude that the footprints were in anything other than blood, the victim's blood.

 

[otto]

Um, no. I merely pointed out that you stated speculation as if it were fact. Please stop twisting my words to play gotcha games.

So what are you saying? That because you are not informed about the alibis provided by other witnesses ... then what?

 

[SkewedView]

So what are you saying? That because you are not informed about the alibis provided by other witnesses ... then what?

You said that FR had 'a rock solid confirmed alibi' or somsuch - I merely pointed out that this is only speculation, as we have no info one way or another on that. You then turned it into a word game to ascribe some sort of twisted motive to me. You are still doing so. STOP.

 

[otto]

You said that FR had 'a rock solid confirmed alibi' or somsuch - I merely pointed out that this is only speculation, as we have no info one way or another on that. You then turned it into a word game to ascribe some sort of twisted motive to me. You are still doing so. STOP.

I know that Filomina was a witness because Knox called her to the scene before she called police. Actually, Knox never did call police. It's rather obvious that Filomina's alibi panned out because her status was never changed from witness to suspect. Not so for Knox and Sollecito. I think it's weird that discussion about Filomina is raised in connection with the successful conviction of the Guede, Knox and Sollecito in the murder of Meredith Kercher. Laura, the boys that lived downstairs ... all witnesses. Why not attack them instead?

Don't know what you mean about twisting ... unless you're referring to the links to Dempsey.

 

[SkewedView]

According to someone well informed of the case ... The footprints did not test negative for blood. No confirmatory blood test was performed. Only presumptive tests were performed. Presumptive tests on their own cannot be used to either confirm or exclude the presence of blood. The footprints were accepted as being in blood by the court by the combination of a positive presumptive blood test (luminol) and the contextual evidence at the crime scene which served to overrule the negative presumptive blood test (TMB). The court concluded, rightly, that it was unreasonable to conclude that the footprints were in anything other than blood, the victim's blood.

The court was not informed by Steffanoni that presumptive tests, especially contradictory ones like she (when forced, after lying and withholding evidence) admitted to having, are not considered reliable evidence without a confirmatory test, which she neglected to do (even though it's standard procedure:waitasec: ). The court's conclusion was unethical, as it was based purely on a chain of speculative statements. You do not use science as a justification for a verdict without respecting the tenets of science. The original court failed to do so on numerous occasions, including this one.

 

[SkewedView]

I know that Filomina was a witness because Knox called her to the scene before she called police. Actually, Knox never did call police. It's rather obvious that Filomina's alibi panned out because her status was never changed from witness to suspect. Not so for Knox and Sollecito. I think it's weird that discussion about Filomina is raised in connection with the successful conviction of the Guede, Knox and Sollecito in the murder of Meredith Kercher. Laura, the boys that lived downstairs ... all witnesses. Why not attack them instead?

Don't know what you mean about twisting ... unless you're referring to the links to Dempsey.

No, it is obvious that her alibi was accepted by PLE, for whatever reason that we aren't aware of. You mischaracterized that situation, I called you on it, you then responded with off the wall suggestions as to what I want or think. This post continues to mischaracterize what I said. Either you are not actually reading the posts you are responding to, or you are playing word games.

As I posted right from the start, I was not accusing FR of ANYTHING - I was just making an example of how easy it is to turn anyone's activities into something 'suspicious'. It's right there, plain as day - no freakin attack.

 

[otto]

No, it is obvious that her alibi was accepted by PLE, for whatever reason that we aren't aware of. You mischaracterized that situation, I called you on it, you then responded with off the wall suggestions as to what I want or think. This post continues to mischaracterize what I said. Either you are not actually reading the posts you are responding to, or you are playing word games.

As I posted right from the start, I was not accusing FR of ANYTHING - I was just making an example of how easy it is to turn anyone's activities into something 'suspicious'. It's right there, plain as day - no freakin attack.

I must have misunderstood ... I thought you suggested she lied about the shutters and tampered with a crime scene.