Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #16

[Nova]

BBM

I have always been of the opinion that this had indeed been tested just never been presented. The plot thickens

Do you have any thoughts as to what results would cause ILE to conceal the testing?

 

[Nova]

That is just your opinion. Makes zero sense to me. You can bleed from your nose or AK's own explanation was that she bled from her ear. The DNA expert did show it was her blood and even if it was 'just' her DNA it does not belong mixed with MK's blood. It does not belong in the middle of the floor in a footprint, it does not belong in a blood stain on a q-tip box and certainly does not belong in the middle of the floor of another roommate. There is zero chance of any innocent explanation for that. Only if you really want to you start making up excuses as we see continuously in this thread. Just take a step back and ask yourself if there is really nothing 'hinky' about all those 'coincidences' people are so desperately trying to explain away here? This is websleuths after all. That is all I got to say and it is just my opinion

"Mixed with" does not mean "deposited at the same time." There is nothing remarkable about AK's DNA being found in AK's house.

 

[sherlockh]

It's not my opinion at all. It's a fact. Amanda's blood was not in the footprints.

Yes her DNA was, and you have a point about that. But just be aware that you undermine that point by insisting the falsity that Amanda's blood was there.

I think you have merged the fact of a drop of Amanda's blood on the sink tap into all of the rest of the evidence. That was the only place where there was blood from Amanda.

It is also a fact that you cannot tell at what time DNA was deposited so we have no way of knowing when Amanda's DNA got on those objects.

The real argument here is not what you just stated, it is this: How can we explain that someone went into the bathroom and cleaned off Meredith's blood and the only DNA we find in those areas is from Meredith and Amanda. If the killer cleaned off in there, where is his DNA?

And that's a good question.

No fact at all. During the trials the DNA expert pointed out that several mixed DNA spots consisted of both MK and AK's blood. I don't exactly which spots, and if it was the one in the footprint or not, but it certainly was discussed during the trials.

<modnsip>. Sure AK's smear (not drop) of blood right on top of the water tap, in plain sight, can not be dated. <modsnip>, if that is not suspicious then nothing is. JMO.

 

[sherlockh]

"Mixed with" does not mean "deposited at the same time." There is nothing remarkable about AK's DNA being found in AK's house.

Not unless she did cartwheels in the hallway and her roommate's room. Maybe the defense forgot to mention this? DNA does not just fall off you when you walk around. This again has been explained during trials by the DNA expert. You really need to touch something and rub your fingers with it which is for example what RG's DNA traces show. All touch DNA. Mixed DNA in the middle of the floor indicates deposited at the same time. Zero doubt whatsoever. Guilty!

 

[Malkmus]

Not unless she did cartwheels in the hallway and her roommate's room. Maybe the defense forgot to mention this? DNA does not just fall off you when you walk around. This again has been explained during trials by the DNA expert. You really need to touch something and rub your fingers with it which is for example what RG's DNA traces show. All touch DNA. Mixed DNA in the middle of the floor indicates deposited at the same time. Zero doubt whatsoever. Guilty!

Actually it does. Your skin is constantly exfoliating and your skin cells are probably all over your bed and in dust on the floor. I'm more interested in knowing who the unknown DNA profiles belong to. Do you have any idea?

 

[emyr]

No fact at all. During the trials the DNA expert pointed out that several mixed DNA spots consisted of both MK and AK's blood. I don't exactly which spots, and if it was the one in the footprint or not, but it certainly was discussed during the trials.

<modsnip>. Sure AK's smear (not drop) of blood right on top of the water tap, in plain sight, can not be dated. <modsnip>, if that is not suspicious then nothing is. JMO.

I don't see how you can look at what I typed and think I am trying to explain away the obvious. I, in fact, came up with a stronger reason to assume Amanda's guilt.

Let's try it with your facts: Amanda killed Meredith, and then had a spontaneous nosebleed, or rubbed her hand in her own menstrual blood and then picked up a box of cotton buds. Or, Amanda went to wash off Meredith's blood in the bidet, and spontaneously had a nose bleed that transferred Amanda's blood to her foot during this process... OR Amanda was menstruating while cleaning off her foot, therefore transferring both their blood to her foot.

That is quite a hinky smoking gun you have there.

Remember, Amanda was arrested and searched for cuts all over her body, including in her mouth. So it has to be a nosebleed or menstrual blood or a ton of blood to come from her ear so that it would transfer down to her foot.

However, none of the footprints tested positive for blood. The luminol indicated they MIGHT have been made from HIGHLY DILUTED blood (since the blood test was negative with TMB), perhaps from washing ones foot off in the bidet. They did not do a confirmatory test for blood, so we'll never know with certainty.

As for the blood marks in the bathroom. One would presume this blood is Meredith's since she was murdered. These blood marks were tested and confirmed as blood. Then they were tested to see whose profiles were there, and the result was Amanda and Meredith's DNA. (And the Massai reports states that the tests were positive for a DNA mix of Amanda and Meredith, NOT that Amanda's blood was mixed with Meredith's. In fact, he states that Amanda's profile comes from the shedding of her skin cells from vigorous rubbing of her foot... that's his opinion of how her profile showed up)

SO

1) Meredith's blood
2) Amanda's DNA present.


The strength of the evidence is that Meredith's blood is present in the bathroom and the DNA that is present in those watery smears of blood is also Amanda's. This implies AMANDA is washing off Meredith's blood from her skin. So you would EXPECT to find Amanda's DNA (Absolutely not her blood) if she was the murderer.

What is so damaging about this evidence is the samples provided DNA evidence but NOT Rudy's DNA evidence. If he is the only murderer, you would think it was him washing off in that bathroom. Why didn't they find his DNA in there? Bathrooms are notoriously bad places for DNA. YET Amanda and Meredith's DNA was found in the bathroom. One would expect if you could find their DNA you would be able to find someone elses if they were there. Seems reasonable.

In fact, the most damaging piece of this evidence is the cotton bud box. So Rudy, covered in blood, went into the bathroom and washed off, and he went so far as to use cotton buds? That's pretty weird. Actually, now that I think of it in this manner, that's really weird and I think it's really hinky.

But your point about Amanda's blood being on the tap does not seem hinky at all to me. Since if there is a smear of Amanda's blood on the tap then it has to come from her nose or from menstruation. And I don't see how that makes Amanda a murderer or ties her to the murder. Really, I don't.

 

[Malkmus]

My tests are real &#8211;Stefanoni writes to Perugia Shock&#8211; the results don&#8217;t come from mistakes. I will defend them for the sake of justice.

http://perugiashock.com/2011/07/23/the-war-over-dna/

Interesting, Stefanoni reads PS...

 

[SMK]

Amanda Knox appeal: DNA evidence to be rejected

By Nick Squires, Rome5:10PM BST 24 Jul 2011

Critical DNA evidence used to convict Amanda Knox of the murder of her British flatmate, Meredith Kercher will be rejected by two forensic scientists as the American's appeal against her conviction reaches a key phase.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/8658035/Amanda-Knox-appeal-DNA-evidence-to-be-rejected.html

 

[Malkmus]

Barbie Nadeau will be tweeting tomorrow updates on the trial live:

http://twitter.com/#!/BLNadeau

 

[SMK]

I realized just now from reading the Appeal Court Dates page for Knox/Sollecito, that there are court dates tomorrow Monday, and also Friday and possibly Saturday:

July 25 - Independent Experts - First day of hearings in which the independent experts will present their findings

July 29 - Independent Expert Report - This will likely be further discussion about the independent expert report by defense and prosecution experts.

July 30 - Independent Expert Report - If needed for further discussion on report.

Sept - Verdict ?

 

[RayStar]

The court is wasting its time and money trying to free this killer. She has been convicted. I believe Amanda and her boyfriend know they are the reason for this young woman's death.
I hope she stays where she is at!

 

[SMK]

The court is wasting its time and money trying to free this killer. She has been convicted. I believe Amanda and her boyfriend know they are the reason for this young woman's death.
I hope she stays where she is at!

Appeal is standard practice in Italian jurisprudence. It is the law. The court is not trying to "free a killer" : It is doing a mandatory review. <modsnip>.

 

[wasnt_me]

There is no reason why people who think she is guilty would have an agenda or want her guilty no matter what, but there are plenty of reasons why people who think she is innocent want her innocent no matter what. Just look at their family and the media campaign they setup. There is a big difference between the 2 sites. I can criticize the prosecution and the investigation and still think she is guilty. The innocent site has to attack every single investigator and piece of evidence up to a point where it does not make sense anymore. Anyway, like I said. It is just my opinion.

It's ur opinion, but what's your point as it relates to evidence and outcomes in this case? Debating the motives of people's beliefs of innocence or guilt is in no way advancing this conversation, and I hope this site doesn't devolve into attacking people's motives, as the other sites have.

 

[sherlockh]

Actually it does. Your skin is constantly exfoliating and your skin cells are probably all over your bed and in dust on the floor. I'm more interested in knowing who the unknown DNA profiles belong to. Do you have any idea?

I was just stating what was said during the trials. Skin that just falls off does not contain any DNA, but I understand you don't believe a word that DNA expert says

 

[wasnt_me]

Not unless she did cartwheels in the hallway and her roommate's room. Maybe the defense forgot to mention this? DNA does not just fall off you when you walk around. This again has been explained during trials by the DNA expert. You really need to touch something and rub your fingers with it which is for example what RG's DNA traces show. All touch DNA. Mixed DNA in the middle of the floor indicates deposited at the same time. Zero doubt whatsoever. Guilty!

I concede to this post, I would have to trust the DNA results in this case. As I have already stated, I barely even trust that the "expert" found MK's DNA on MK's bra; so due to what "independent experts" have deemed about the investigative techniques, and by what I saw with my own eyes of Stephanoni wiping several spots with one swab and since I saw with my own eyes how they went room to room without changing their footies, I'm unable to even say with fact and certainty that anything they found wasn't really there until they dragged it there. Or that it was actually there to begin with, as we already see MK's dna was not on the knife.

Maybe it's Stephanoni's bloody footprint on the bathmat, since she or one of her investigators was stepping in blood in MK's room.

Did you know they dragged her blue jacket across the bloody floor, making new blood streaks and then set it over on the hamper, and then did not collect it until Dec 18th?

Did you know that they did NOT do luminol testing until Dec 18th also? And we saw from the Nov 2 videos all the walking around they were doing without changing their footies. So it's very, very possible they tracked Ak's and MK's DNA into RF's room.

Right now, I wouldn't trust their results that it was RG's crap in the toilet, except for that fact that RG admitted it already.

 

[sherlockh]

I don't see how you can look at what I typed and think I am trying to explain away the obvious. I, in fact, came up with a stronger reason to assume Amanda's guilt.

Let's try it with your facts: Amanda killed Meredith, and then had a spontaneous nosebleed, or rubbed her hand in her own menstrual blood and then picked up a box of cotton buds. Or, Amanda went to wash off Meredith's blood in the bidet, and spontaneously had a nose bleed that transferred Amanda's blood to her foot during this process... OR Amanda was menstruating while cleaning off her foot, therefore transferring both their blood to her foot.

That is quite a hinky smoking gun you have there.

Remember, Amanda was arrested and searched for cuts all over her body, including in her mouth. So it has to be a nosebleed or menstrual blood or a ton of blood to come from her ear so that it would transfer down to her foot.

However, none of the footprints tested positive for blood. The luminol indicated they MIGHT have been made from HIGHLY DILUTED blood (since the blood test was negative with TMB), perhaps from washing ones foot off in the bidet. They did not do a confirmatory test for blood, so we'll never know with certainty.

As for the blood marks in the bathroom. One would presume this blood is Meredith's since she was murdered. These blood marks were tested and confirmed as blood. Then they were tested to see whose profiles were there, and the result was Amanda and Meredith's DNA. (And the Massai reports states that the tests were positive for a DNA mix of Amanda and Meredith, NOT that Amanda's blood was mixed with Meredith's. In fact, he states that Amanda's profile comes from the shedding of her skin cells from vigorous rubbing of her foot... that's his opinion of how her profile showed up)

SO

1) Meredith's blood
2) Amanda's DNA present.


The strength of the evidence is that Meredith's blood is present in the bathroom and the DNA that is present in those watery smears of blood is also Amanda's. This implies AMANDA is washing off Meredith's blood from her skin. So you would EXPECT to find Amanda's DNA (Absolutely not her blood) if she was the murderer.

What is so damaging about this evidence is the samples provided DNA evidence but NOT Rudy's DNA evidence. If he is the only murderer, you would think it was him washing off in that bathroom. Why didn't they find his DNA in there? Bathrooms are notoriously bad places for DNA. YET Amanda and Meredith's DNA was found in the bathroom. One would expect if you could find their DNA you would be able to find someone elses if they were there. Seems reasonable.

In fact, the most damaging piece of this evidence is the cotton bud box. So Rudy, covered in blood, went into the bathroom and washed off, and he went so far as to use cotton buds? That's pretty weird. Actually, now that I think of it in this manner, that's really weird and I think it's really hinky.

But your point about Amanda's blood being on the tap does not seem hinky at all to me. Since if there is a smear of Amanda's blood on the tap then it has to come from her nose or from menstruation. And I don't see how that makes Amanda a murderer or ties her to the murder. Really, I don't.

Yes, of course it came from her nose. The water tap is right under your nose if you are washing your hands. So what do you do to stop the nosebleed? You grab a q-tip. The prosecutions theory fits perfectly together, even to the smallest details.

The blood on the water tap is strong supporting evidence and points directly at AK being the murderer. Maybe you know many people with blood on the tap but I certainly don't. And now there is blood and a bloody murder. Really what are the chances? I am not sure what is your point. Maybe we are agreeing after all

 

[Sonata]

Are you suggesting that AK got her nose bashed in the attack?

Because if so isn't it extraordinary that in the photos/body exam afterwards she clearly has no sign of bruising or swelling to the nose?

 

[OldSteve]

Yes, of course it came from her nose. The water tap is right under your nose if you are washing your hands. So what do you do to stop the nosebleed? You grab a q-tip. The prosecutions theory fits perfectly together, even to the smallest details.

The blood on the water tap is strong supporting evidence and points directly at AK being the murderer. Maybe you know many people with blood on the tap but I certainly don't. And now there is blood and a bloody murder. Really what are the chances? I am not sure what is your point. Maybe we are agreeing after all

But why no AK blood in MK's room? One drop of blood on a water tap doesn't mean much to me - could have come from other parts of her body under any number of circumstances.
Also no bruises were found on AK after the murder...

 

[Nova]

I was just stating what was said during the trials. Skin that just falls off does not contain any DNA, but I understand you don't believe a word that DNA expert says

I don't understand how skin cells with DNA are liable to be found in a hat or bandanna...

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/bc000657.pdf


(last page)


...but not on a floor where a bare foot has stepped (per sherlockh).

 

[OldSteve]

Regarding skin cell DNA


https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/bc000657.pdf