Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #18

[RoseMontague]

Could...mighta......Doesn't cut it really. When there's been a murder, blood is all over the the place and you and your friend have your bare footprints in the victim's blood and you gave no alibi, you've got some explaining to do and the line 'they could have happened anytime' just doesn't wash...excuse the pun.

A TMB test does not eliminate the presence of blood. It is a presumptive blood test and as such cannot be used to eliminate the presence of blood. Only a confirmatory test can do that.

I'm not even going to attempt to discuss the 'too luminous' argument, it's one of the most ridiculous arguments I've heard so far. Incidentally, I recall you tried throwing that one at me before on another site...and I dealt with it there and then. Just because we are posting on a different site, I don't see that I should have to endlessly repeat myself with what I have already responded to you with elsewhere.

'Who's' protocols were breached? There is no such thing as universally agreed protocols.

Actually just the standard ones are fine, the completely obvious ones. Oggi has a series of videos we went through at JREF, everybody has their favorite from the dropping of a swab on the floor that they were taking of a stain on the wall, picking it up and continuing to swab the wall, to the mop thing, to the guy handling and touching just about every square inch of the bloody sweatshirt then laying it in the hamper and walking over to the bed to hunt for more clues without changing gloves. I'm told Oggi has an article up today about that one. LOL.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Cite please regarding AK providing the pornographic theory

Here you go:

AMANDA KNOX'S STATEMENTS FROM NIGHT OF 5 NOV, 2007


Are there any other elementary common knowledge case facts you would like cites for?

 

[Fulcanelli]

None of that happened, Fulcanelli, and there's no wild sex game four-way going on there either. It just places Amanda at the scene of the crime while one person kills her. Nothing kinky, nothing crazy, just a murder that started with consensual sex.

I refer you to the link I posted above.

She claimed she took Patrick to the cottage so they could have some fun with her.

Who ever claimed or used the word 'kinky'? The police never have. The prosecution never have. I never have. You're changing your words, you used the word 'pornographic' before. It's now morphed into 'kinky'. You don't think rape and murder is 'crazy'?

Where did you get the 'consential sex' from? Where in Amanda's statements, can you deduce any form of 'consent' on Meredith's part?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Fulcanelli, how many times have I posted on comments sections, blogs and websites that Amanda is an innocent cherub being abused by dastardly beings? How come you don't believe that too! I posted it! It was reported! You can even e-mail me and I'll tell you the same thing in even more detail!

See how that works, call it fast track innocentisti!

Because it's not supported by the 'evidence', whereas the contrary is.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I attached the full transcript in Italian for that day's testimony. Massei does not relate everything she says and in my opinion is guilty of cherry picking things that support his opinion.

As pointed out in the C&V report Stefanoni did not make an attempt to determine exactly what the sample was comprised of. We do know it is not blood. If she had done the tests that C&V did she may have concluded her sample was not human cells/tissue at all.

It's in the Massei Report.

Why should Dr Stefanoni have performed examinations to determine what the substance was? It was human cells/tissue and we know it was human cells/tissue because it contained DNA, Dr Stefanoni extracted that DNA and it was Meredith's DNA. Everything else therefore, is rather redundant.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I posted the picture earlier of the high resolution photo showing the luminol reaction on the tech's boot. Must have spilt some turnip juice on hisself, I guess.

Perhaps then, you missed my previous post where I pointed out it was simply reflected blue light from the luminol reaction on the white boot surface.

 

[Sonata]

Because it's not supported by the 'evidence', whereas the contrary is.

So, are you saying that anyone who believes that AK and RS are innocent are basically ignorant?

That seems to be the implication from what you say. If the evidence in no way supports their innocence then there must be a LOT of stupid people around. It is not uncommon to believe that they are innocent as you can see from this thread.

See, I can understand why some people believe in their guilt. I am not holding on to one side of the argument as paragon. It is clearly a complex case, and I accept that. But I still believe that the vast majority of evidence supports innocence.

 

[Fulcanelli]

That's what I said, I just used more words!



I've gotten wildly different figures from a variety of sources, ironically the highest was Machiavelli's! I would love to see a reliable cite for that, whatever the figure, 11% is awfully high, and when you take the Bayesian considerations of the independent court-appointed experts who flung the DNA evidence in the Tiber and exposed the crime-scene tapes as the black comedy they were, as well as left the prosecutor sputtering with rage giving interviews from the barroom which ought to get her charged, I'd say that number is high enough to basically ensure an acquittal.

Can you cite another case in Italy where the prosecution has been so thoroughly humiliated in court on the appeal? Whose last best hope appeared to be the entertainment provided by Alessi's fantasy life?

11% is not particularly high. Especially when you factor in the fact that the Italian system allows ALL convicted accused two automatic appeals including one that revises all the evidence, unlike many other legal systems.

In response to that, can you cite other Italian trials where there has been so much incompetence and corruption as you allege is in this one?

Umm....Alessi was a defence witness, not a prosecution witness. The clown circus was all down to the defence.

 

[Fulcanelli]

How come those pictures were so chemiluminescent if the blood was so diluted that a TMB test failed? Explain how that one works. Use words like reagent, oxidize, catalyze and pseudoperoxidase and hemoglobin.



Why would they even check there? If they were checking there, what would that imply about the integrity of their investigation that having to rush out to the crime scene to manufacture evidence on camera after having their pants pulled down and wedgied on TV by the Sollecitos didn't do?




Oh, come on! I see a mermaid! I'm sure you see Atlanteans. The only one that is actually crystal clear requires the Great Toe Stretching conspiracy, otherwise it isn't Amanda's. It's also nowhere any murder scene, that's the one in Amanda's bedroom, isn't it? Hell, it could have been the girl who lived there previous, in fact it probably was.



Compatible means possible in Italian legal parlance. They are also probably 'compatible' with half of Asia, including the panda bears. Do you really want me to break out the pictures and show the nice people what kind of prints you're pretending were 'attributed' to human beings?

Because luminol is many times more sensitive then TMB. End of.

Yeah...also could have been space aliens. I've also got a bridge I'd like to sell you.

 

[Fulcanelli]

So, are you saying that anyone who believes that AK and RS are innocent are basically ignorant?

That seems to be the implication from what you say. If the evidence in no way supports their innocence then there must be a LOT of stupid people around. It is not uncommon to believe that they are innocent as you can see from this thread.

See, I can understand why some people believe in their guilt. I am not holding on to one side of the argument as paragon. It is clearly a complex case, and I accept that. But I still believe that the vast majority of evidence supports innocence.

I'm saying they are wrong. As for how they came to be wrong, they all each have their own reasons for how they came to be wrong.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Actually just the standard ones are fine, the completely obvious ones. Oggi has a series of videos we went through at JREF, everybody has their favorite from the dropping of a swab on the floor that they were taking of a stain on the wall, picking it up and continuing to swab the wall, to the mop thing, to the guy handling and touching just about every square inch of the bloody sweatshirt then laying it in the hamper and walking over to the bed to hunt for more clues without changing gloves. I'm told Oggi has an article up today about that one. LOL.

Does any of that explain how Raffaeles bloody footprint got on the bath mat or in the corridor? Does any of that explain how Amanda's footprints in Meredith's blood got into the corridor or her room? Does any of that explain how Amanda's lamp got in Meredith's room? Does any of that explain how Raffaele's DNA got onto the bra clasp? Does any of that explain how Amanda's DNA got mixed with Meredith's blood in Filomena's room? Does any of that explain how Amanda's blood got on the tap in the bathroom? Does any of that explain the staged break-in? Does any of that explain the panic over Meredith's locked door but failure to break it down or even mention it to the police and others when they arrived? Does any of that explain the alibis that don't match and are lies? Does any of that explain their being witnessed near the cottage that night or witnesses hearing multiple people at the cottage?

And the police dropped a swab and carried a mop and handled a sweatshirt. Because of that, should they release Rudy Guede? If not, why not?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Why would they even check there? If they were checking there, what would that imply about the integrity of their investigation that having to rush out to the crime scene to manufacture evidence on camera after having their pants pulled down and wedgied on TV by the Sollecitos didn't do?

Um...because the 'whole' cottage was a murder/rape crime scene?

 

[Kaosium]

Could...mighta......Doesn't cut it really. When there's been a murder, blood is all over the the place and you and your friend have your bare footprints in the victim's blood and you gave no alibi, you've got some explaining to do and the line 'they could have happened anytime' just doesn't wash...excuse the pun.

Seeing as there's none of these footprints in 'blood' in the murder room, and there's no source for that kind of blood outside it, then the idea they're actually bare footprints in Meredith's blood is marginal to begin with. You'll recall even Massei punted on that one.

A TMB test does not eliminate the presence of blood. It is a presumptive blood test and as such cannot be used to eliminate the presence of blood. Only a confirmatory test can do that.

You've got it backwards. A presumptive test most certainly eliminates the possibility of blood, so much so there's not a whole lot of literature out there on TMB false negatives, being as if they gave them enough to matter, who'd bother with the test? Think about it. What it can do is indicate the probability of blood, which then has to be confirmed. See how that works? Spray the luminol and turn out the lights and look for the pretty colors. If there's any that look like they might be the shape and consistency of blood from the murder, test it with TMB to see if it's positive. If it's not, you're done, No reason to try to confirm a substance that tests negative with TMB, that's it's job, to eliminate blood if it's not positive.

Then you do the confirmation test, which doesn't eliminate everything else, how could that possibly work--scientifically? Think about it. Instead it positively confirms for human blood, the substance having been discovered through the luminol test, then winnowed out on-scene by the easy to use TMB test. That way you don't waste the time of the boffins in the white coats making the big bucks.

You're bright enough to figure this out, and 'there's no reason for me to lie' Fulcanelli.

I'm not even going to attempt to discuss the 'too luminous' argument, it's one of the most ridiculous arguments I've heard so far. Incidentally, I recall you tried throwing that one at me before on another site...and I dealt with it there and then. Just because we are posting on a different site, I don't see that I should have to endlessly repeat myself with what I have already responded to you with elsewhere.

That doesn't work, I'm still going to be right!

If it was one of those Discus sites I hate the format so much I probably gave up on the thread and never saw it, nothing personal. There's no answer for it anyway, it ought to be obvious. With that little hemoglobin to oxidize the reagent, there's no way you can get that amount of chemiluminescence. It's like 90% of the bulbs on your Christmas tree burning out and expecting the same amount of light to be produced.

'Who's' protocols were breached? There is no such thing as universally agreed protocols.

They broke the ones common to everyone, that was the point of all those cites your estranged kittens got xenophobic about.

 

[Sonata]

I'm saying they are wrong. As for how they came to be wrong, they all each have their own reasons for how they came to be wrong.

So you are unequivocally right? You believe beyond any doubt that you have this right? There is no room for you to be wrong at all?

You do realise how that sounds, right?

 

[Sonata]

And the police dropped a swab and carried a mop and handled a sweatshirt. Because of that, should they release Rudy Guede? If not, why not?

Because Rudy's DNA was inside the victim, his fingerprints were found in the victims blood, his faeces in the toilet and he had no reason for any trace of him to be there since he did not live there. These are just a few of the more compelling pieces of evidence against him.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

All the things you list can be completely ruled out.

Cleaning products:

1. Cleaning products that react with luminol do so because they contain bleach. See 'Bleach' above.

Draino:

1. Reacts with luminol because it contains bleach. See 'Bleach' above.

2. Are you seriously suggesting Amanda and Raffaele were padding around the cottage barefoot in corrosive drain cleaner?

Rusty Pipes:

1. If there were rusty pipes, then the whole cottage would be glowing since residue from 'rusty water' would be everywhere. It wasn't, just a small handful of very localised bare footprints and a few spots and smears. Special rusty water?

That leaves turnip juice.


Why all the intellectual gymnastics? Why not just accept the obvious explanation, the footprints were in blood?

The court came to the clear and obvious conclusion, supported by the evidence. Unless and until I hear some opposing evidence or argument worth squat, I'll go with that.

Fulcanelli,

Some cleaning products have other oxidants, such as hydrogen peroxide. Look on their labels. Draino does not have bleach, which might harm the pipes. Three right prints; no clear trail; the luminol looks as if it were poured, not sprayed; boots and ruler are also glowing. Why not accept the obvious, that the prints are essentially meaningless as evidence?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Seeing as there's none of these footprints in 'blood' in the murder room, and there's no source for that kind of blood outside it, then the idea they're actually bare footprints in Meredith's blood is marginal to begin with. You'll recall even Massei punted on that one.



You've got it backwards. A presumptive test most certainly eliminates the possibility of blood, so much so there's not a whole lot of literature out there on TMB false negatives, being as if they gave them enough to matter, who'd bother with the test? Think about it. What it can do is indicate the probability of blood, which then has to be confirmed. See how that works? Spray the luminol and turn out the lights and look for the pretty colors. If there's any that look like they might be the shape and consistency of blood from the murder, test it with TMB to see if it's positive. If it's not, you're done, No reason to try to confirm a substance that tests negative with TMB, that's it's job, to eliminate blood.

Then you do the confirmation test, which doesn't eliminate everything else, how could that possibly work--scientifically? Think about it. Instead it positively confirms for human blood, the substance having been discovered through the luminol test, then winnowed out on-scene by the easy to use TMB test. That way you don't waste the time of the boffins in the white coats making the big bucks.

You're bright enough to figure this out, and 'there's no reason for me to lie' Fulcanelli.



That doesn't work, I'm still going to be right!

If it was one of those Discus sites I hate the format so much I probably gave up on the thread and never saw it, nothing personal. There's no answer for it anyway, it ought to be obvious. With that little hemoglobin to oxidize the reagent, there's no way you can get that amount of chemiluminescence. It's like 90% of the bulbs on your Christmas tree burning out and expecting the same amount of light to be produced.



They broke the ones common to everyone, that was the point of all those cites your estranged kittens got xenophobic about.

Are you sure there aren't any in the murder room? There are quite few prints in the room too partial or/and smeared to match. Any of those could be from Amanda and Raffaele. And also, since it is only the right foot that prints are assigned to, it would appear that each only got one foot covered in blood. I think the simple answer is they hopped to the bathroom to clean up.

No, presumptive blood tests cannot be used to eliminate the presence of blood, only a confirmatory blood test can do that. Obviously though, if no presumptive test detects blood nobody is going to perform a confirmatory test since the presence of blood is not indicated. Presumptive tests are for indication, not elimination. One certainly cannot use a negative TMB test to eliminate a positive luminol test. That is simply because TMB is not as sensitive as luminol and therefore luminol can detect samples that TMB can not.

Confirming the presence of blood was not their priority, extracting DNA profiles was and they needed all the samples for that.

Oh, you saw my reply. Indeed, you replied...but as I recall it, it was to suddenly change the subject and come at me with a different talking point.

 

[Sonata]

Nice new icon, Chris!

 

[Fulcanelli]

Fulcanelli,

Some cleaning products have other oxidants, such as hydrogen peroxide. Look on their labels. Draino does not have bleach, which might harm the pipes. Three right prints; no clear trail; the luminol looks as if it were poured, not sprayed; boots and ruler are also glowing. Why not accept the obvious, that the prints are essentially meaningless as evidence?

If it is a cleaning product, why isn't the whole cottage glowing? Or are you proposing they indulged themselves with a nice Draino foot bath?

As I said regarding the boots (and ruler), reflected light from the glow of the luminol.

 

[Fulcanelli]

They broke the ones common to everyone, that was the point of all those cites your estranged kittens got xenophobic about.

"common to everyone"? Who is 'everyone'?