Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #18

[Fulcanelli]

No but Raffaele had reason to be there as he was the boyfriend of a resident. As far as we know, Rudy had never been permitted by residents to enter.

Knox's DNA being present or footprints being present do not hold the water that Guede's do as she lived there. Sorry, but that is true.

The point is that the DNA collection at the scene was clearly carried out in a negligent manner, so DNA found at the scene does not seem totally reliable. The evidence against AK and RS is largely DNA found at the scene.

In which case, Rudy's DNA should also be rejected, right?

 

[Sonata]

He had reason to have his DNA on on Meredith's bra clasp and his bare bloody footprints in Meredith's blood because he was Knox's boyfriend?

Could it also be that he murdered Meredith with Amanda, because he was Knox's boyfriend?

Could be. Only he, Knox and Rudy know. I don't pretend to be omniscient. However, I do not think it is particularly likely.

And, LOL, your first point is obviously rhetorical.

 

[Sonata]

In which case, Rudy's DNA should also be rejected, right?

No, as I explained, his DNA was found in the postmortem. A totally different process which did not involve crime scene evidence collection.

 

[Fulcanelli]

:floorlaugh:

Never shared a shower with your lover? I lived with girls for years and yes they brought boyfriends home and shared baths and showers with them. Pretty normal. Knox stated that they shared showers when she said about Raffaelle cleaning her ears.

As I said before and you are clearly tactically ignoring, I am hypothesising on the cleaning product. And it is rather bold of you to accuse me of clutching at straws, not particularly good forum etiquette there my friend.

So, we don't need evidence they both showered at the cottage, we don't need their housemates or friends to say they did, we don't need their lawyers to say they did, we don't even need them to say they did, not even Knox's parents claim they did, we just assume they did and carve it in stone? A but like you assume nobody ever let Rudy into the cottage and carved that in stone? It's a very convenient way of writing the facts of the case.

You need more then a hypothesis to dismiss evidence.

 

[Fulcanelli]

No, as I explained, his DNA was found in the postmortem. A totally different process which did not involve crime scene evidence collection.

But the DNA was tested by the same people.

So, the argument is...'those' Italians are incompetent because that's convenient to say so we can then dismiss all their work, but we can arbitrarily label 'this' Italian as fully competent and so the evidence collected by him is all good, because that's convenient as we want the evidence he found. Nice set of arbitrary rules there.

 

[Sonata]

So, we don't need evidence they both showered at the cottage, we don't need their housemates or friends to say they did, we don't need their lawyers to say they did, we don't even need them to say they did, not even Knox's parents claim they did, we just assume they did and carve it in stone? A but like you assume nobody ever let Rudy into the cottage and carved that in stone? It's a very convenient way of writing the facts of the case.

You need more then a hypothesis to dismiss evidence.

I didn't dismiss evidence. I hypothesised. As I have stated on many occasions. Since I am hypothesising, then, no, I do not require hard evidence as this is purely a forum discussion and not a courtroom one.

 

[Sonata]

But the DNA was tested by the same people.

So, the argument is...'those' Italians are incompetent because that's convenient to say so we can then dismiss all their work, but we can arbitrarily label 'this' Italian as fully competent and so the evidence collected by him is all good, because that's convenient as we want the evidence he found. Nice set of arbitrary rules there.

There is nothing arbitrary about seeing on film the evidence collection being poorly performed and having no reports of problems in the post-mortem examination. It is actually quite rational.

 

[Kaosium]

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, they couldn't be from Raffaele and Amanda unless they were wearing Rudy's shoes. Not even Massei bought the smeared print being Amanda's and he was looking for ways to put them in there.

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.

*sigh*

One more time before I have to go, using real words this time. Blood has cute little things in it that react to these tests. All these tests are used because they will find those cute little things and celebrate with them, by lighting up, turning colors, get fuzzy, crystallize--lots of ways to party! There's no point to having a blood test that doesn't find the cute little things and party with them--think about it! If they don't party, they're not cute--uncool you might say. You know to stay away.

However, some of these tests are kinda...non particular....about who they party with. A little promiscuous you might say. They'll party with cute little things in other substances besides blood. That doesn't help. Luminol allows you cover the whole room, but is kinda...easy...I suppose that makes sense as much as it gets around, it parties with a lot of cute things from all over that aren't blood. Thus a lot of institutions, like ILE and the FBI, will use TMB to double check before they take them home, they don't want mom to get the wrong idea I suppose. So they give TMB a try, and if it finds cute things to party with you know that you probably have blood. Still you have to bring it home and see if mom confirms. Mom always knows it's blood, she just doesn't leave the house and go out looking for cute things, you can guess why.

Get that? You get a positive with Luminol and a positive with TMB and odds are it's worth confirming. If you get a negative with either it's not blood, there's nothing 'cute' about it no matter what you thought at first--uncool to the max. That negative test on either eliminates that it has the properties of blood, whichever one the test you employ is using to look, something blood always has so you know it when you find it, unfortunately other things will have it too. The confirming test is only for human blood, and usually requires lab conditions.

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

They weren't blood, that's why they didn't confirm them, they just tried to think up excuses why they might be. They didn't find DNA either, at least for the vast majority, which means the one they did find DNA in was highly likely not inherent to the splotch, but the floor, or what the splotch attracted, being as it might well have been a sticky spill or somesuch.

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.

Maybe it was mercy, Fulcanelli. I'm right about this, think about it.

 

[RoseMontague]

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?

Oh I am sure that Rudy's lawyers will be doing something after the appeal court rules not guilty and releases Raffaele and the Knox girl.

The bathmat footprint is much more like Rudy's in my opinion. Rinaldi is a joke and Massei is simply biased. Kaosium is correct.

The fact is there has been no proof shown who made those blobs, when they were made, or with what they were made from. Great proof, indeed.

You still cling to Curatolo? The heroin addicted, drug dealing, homeless park bench bum who was asked the day after the murder and said he saw nothing.
Great proof, also indeed. He was laughed out of the appeal court and there is no way the court gives him one ounce of credibility.

Nara is simply dazed and confused, heard an accident or maybe an argument and immediately heard people with shoes on running down the steps. She shows confusion on the sequence of events and times. She made no mention of this terrible scream to her daughter at the time.

The other scream lady heard a couple arguing in Italian. Perhaps the cops should have investigated that one to find out who it was.

The DNA evidence was the only thing holding this extremely weak case together and in my opinion the court will decide that is worthless as well.

 

[Monzoo]

'What' mythical cleaning product? The defence couldn't find it. And please, explain it's selective and highly incriminating appearance. You are clutching at straws with that. Nobody can reasonably conclude that it was an unknown cleaning product that does not exist and appears only in a way that incriminates the defendants.

Do have a documented record of Raffaele showering at Amanda's? Why would Raffaele shower at a house full of girls? Why would he shower there when he had his own shower a 4 minute walk away? Why would he shower there when it was Amanda staying round his place with him, not him staying round her place with her? Have Amanda and Raffaele (or their lawyers) ever claimed that he ever showered at the cottage? Answer: No. If they ever do claim it, come back to me with it and I'll consider it again then.

This sounds like a reversal of the burden of proof to me. The fact is, AK and RS (and their defense teams) do not have access to the crime scene. They CANNOT investigate thngs in order to prove innocence. To expect them to do so is unrealistic, IMHO.

There are spots outside of Meredith's room that were found with luminol, but none of these spots were confirmed to be blood. In fact, they failed the confirmatory test. To continue to assume that they are blood because it fits with what you want to believe is nothing more than confirmation bias and wishful thinking.

I suppose we'll see who Hellmann agrees with in a couple of weeks, though.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I didn't dismiss evidence. I hypothesised. As I have stated on many occasions. Since I am hypothesising, then, no, I do not require hard evidence as this is purely a forum discussion and not a courtroom one.

Oh. I thought it was supposed to be an argument for why I and others, should dismiss the luminol footprints as being in Meredith's blood. If it isn't that, we can move on then

 

[Fulcanelli]

This sounds like a reversal of the burden of proof to me. The fact is, AK and RS (and their defense teams) do not have access to the crime scene. They CANNOT investigate thngs in order to prove innocence. To expect them to do so is unrealistic, IMHO.

There are spots outside of Meredith's room that were found with luminol, but none of these spots were confirmed to be blood. In fact, they failed the confirmatory test. To continue to assume that they are blood because it fits with what you want to believe is nothing more than confirmation bias and wishful thinking.

I suppose we'll see who Hellmann agrees with in a couple of weeks, though.

In which case, any defendant in the world can get off the charge simply by claiming Bigfoot did it, and not requiring any evidence to show Bigfoot did do it...can sit back and wait for the prosecution to fail proving Bigfoot didn't do it and walk free.

Toy can't throw any defence argument at something, it has to have some founding in evidence or clear logic.


And yes, they did have access to the crime scene. They observed the crime scene evidence collection when it was done (the second examination), they also were permitted to visit the cottage and examine it with their own experts and did so. They also have access to inventories and everything else from the cottage. They found no substance that explains the luminol prints.

 

[RoseMontague]

In which case, any defendant in the world can get off the charge simply by claiming Bigfoot did it, and not requiring any evidence to show Bigfoot did do it...can sit back and wait for the prosecution to fail proving Bigfoot didn't do it and walk free.

Toy can't throw any defence argument at something, it has to have some founding in evidence or clear logic.


And yes, they did have access to the crime scene. They observed the crime scene evidence collection when it was done (the second examination), they also were permitted to visit the cottage and examine it with their own experts and did so. They also have access to inventories and everything else from the cottage. They found no substance that explains the luminol prints.

I have asked you for a cite on this inventory list many times and you have failed to provide it. From the court testimony I have reviewed there are clear indications that no such inventory of the household cleaning products exists.

 

[Sonata]

Oh. I thought it was supposed to be an argument for why I and others, should dismiss the luminol footprints as being in Meredith's blood. If it isn't that, we can move on then

Well you were greatly mistaken.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Oh I am sure that Rudy's lawyers will be doing something after the appeal court rules not guilty and releases Raffaele and the Knox girl.

The bathmat footprint is much more like Rudy's in my opinion. Rinaldi is a joke and Massei is simply biased. Kaosium is correct.

The fact is there has been no proof shown who made those blobs, when they were made, or with what they were made from. Great proof, indeed.

You still cling to Curatolo? The heroin addicted, drug dealing, homeless park bench bum who was asked the day after the murder and said he saw nothing.
Great proof, also indeed. He was laughed out of the appeal court and there is no way the court gives him one ounce of credibility.

Nara is simply dazed and confused, heard an accident or maybe an argument and immediately heard people with shoes on running down the steps. She shows confusion on the sequence of events and times. She made no mention of this terrible scream to her daughter at the time.

The other scream lady heard a couple arguing in Italian. Perhaps the cops should have investigated that one to find out who it was.

The DNA evidence was the only thing holding this extremely weak case together and in my opinion the court will decide that is worthless as well.

Don't blame Massei, Rinaldi convinced all eight judges, Maresca and journalists in the gallery. I also agree with the findings. I'm sorry you don't agree with his findings, but then, you wouldn't.

The evidence for the bloody footprints is more than sufficient.

I've already explained why I find Curatolo credible and why I don't see him as discredited. I don't see what else there is to discuss on that, unless you have something new to offer. It's just repetition otherwise. All I will say is, when police spoke to him the following day, as far as he was concerned, he had seen nothing. All he'd seen was two people sitting on a bench. Why would he imagine two people sitting on a bench was connected with the murder? It was only later he would realise its significance.

Nara is dazed and confused? What's your evidence for that? Because you say so? The police didn't think she was dazed and confused. The prosecutor didn't think she was dazed and confused. The court didn't think she was dazed and confused. She didn't sound dazed and confused in her television interviews. Even Frank Sfarzo didn't think she was dazed and confused. In addition, her testimony was supported by other witnesses. I don't think she was dazed and confused at all.

I do notice however, you seem to have a need to pile lots of insult and vitriol on the witnesses. Meanwhile, Amanda and Raffaele are sweetness and light and the epitomy of honesty. Mamma mia.

You're forgetting the staged break-in and phony alibis that don't match. Or, ignoring them.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I have asked you for a cite on this inventory list many times and you have failed to provide it. From the court testimony I have reviewed there are clear indications that no such inventory of the household cleaning products exists.

What, are you claiming the defence don't have one? You don't believe they have a list of items from the crime scene? There's a list from Raffaele's flat (you see part of it in the video). But, when it comes to the primary crime scene, they what...just didn't bother? Or they do have it?

If they don't, they must be one of the most incompetent defences ever not to be demanding one or making a fuss about it. Which is it?

 

[Monzoo]

In which case, any defendant in the world can get off the charge simply by claiming Bigfoot did it, and not requiring any evidence to show Bigfoot did do it...can sit back and wait for the prosecution to fail proving Bigfoot didn't do it and walk free.

Toy can't throw any defence argument at something, it has to have some founding in evidence or clear logic.


And yes, they did have access to the crime scene. They observed the crime scene evidence collection when it was done (the second examination), they also were permitted to visit the cottage and examine it with their own experts and did so. They also have access to inventories and everything else from the cottage. They found no substance that explains the luminol prints.

I don't agree with your interpretation. IMO, if ILE wants to assert things like a "staged break-in" or "bloody footprints," they must prove them. They prove them through forensic tests, careful investigation (with photographic proof) of the crime scene. The fact that the confirmatory tests are negative means that they have no proof that the footprints are in blood.

The fact that the defense teams were able to visit the crime scene does not mean that they were permitted to investigate. I have never seen inventories of all the cleaning products in the cottage -- do you have a link to these? In any case, they stil don't have to prove what might have caused the reaction. The prosecution still has to prove that they are:

1. Connected to the crime
2. Made in blood
3. Definitively connected to the defendants. (Who else were they compared against? Meredith? The other roomates? Crime scene investigators?)

Assertions not based on evidence are not proof, IMHO. We will see what Hellmann thinks in a couple of weeks. If he acquits, will you change your mind?

 

[Fulcanelli]

No, they couldn't be from Raffaele and Amanda unless they were wearing Rudy's shoes. Not even Massei bought the smeared print being Amanda's and he was looking for ways to put them in there.

But nobody ever found Rudy's shoes.

 

[Fulcanelli]

*sigh*

One more time before I have to go, using real words this time. Blood has cute little things in it that react to these tests. All these tests are used because they will find those cute little things and celebrate with them, by lighting up, turning colors, get fuzzy, crystallize--lots of ways to party! There's no point to having a blood test that doesn't find the cute little things and party with them--think about it! If they don't party, they're not cute--uncool you might say. You know to stay away.

However, some of these tests are kinda...non particular....about who they party with. A little promiscuous you might say. They'll party with cute little things in other substances besides blood. That doesn't help. Luminol allows you cover the whole room, but is kinda...easy...I suppose that makes sense as much as it gets around, it parties with a lot of cute things from all over that aren't blood. Thus a lot of institutions, like ILE and the FBI, will use TMB to double check before they take them home, they don't want mom to get the wrong idea I suppose. So they give TMB a try, and if it finds cute things to party with you know that you probably have blood. Still you have to bring it home and see if mom confirms. Mom always knows it's blood, she just doesn't leave the house and go out looking for cute things, you can guess why.

Get that? You get a positive with Luminol and a positive with TMB and odds are it's worth confirming. If you get a negative with either it's not blood, there's nothing 'cute' about it no matter what you thought at first--uncool to the max. That negative test on either eliminates that it has the properties of blood, whichever one the test you employ is using to look, something blood always has so you know it when you find it, unfortunately other things will have it too. The confirming test is only for human blood, and usually requires lab conditions.

*sigh*

And I refer you back to what I have said on the subject previously, as that is all that needs to be said.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I don't agree with your interpretation. IMO, if ILE wants to assert things like a "staged break-in" or "bloody footprints," they must prove them. They prove them through forensic tests, careful investigation (with photographic proof) of the crime scene. The fact that the confirmatory tests are negative means that they have no proof that the footprints are in blood.

The fact that the defense teams were able to visit the crime scene does not mean that they were permitted to investigate. I have never seen inventories of all the cleaning products in the cottage -- do you have a link to these? In any case, they stil don't have to prove what might have caused the reaction. The prosecution still has to prove that they are:

1. Connected to the crime
2. Made in blood
3. Definitively connected to the defendants. (Who else were they compared against? Meredith? The other roomates? Crime scene investigators?)

Assertions not based on evidence are not proof, IMHO. We will see what Hellmann thinks in a couple of weeks. If he acquits, will you change your mind?

Well, the prosecution have fulfilled the burden of proof and proven all those things and what's more, they've proved it in a court of law.

The defence visited the crime scene to perform investigations and take measurements. It was the day they took the shot of one of Raffaele's lawyers trying to climb up to Meredith's room.

When we see what Hellman thinks, will you accept it?