Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #18

[RoseMontague]

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?

There is no inventory list of the cleaning products at the flat, in my opinion. This is the rather obvious conclusion I get by reading much of the actual court testimony. Still waiting for your cite that there is one. It's been over a year I am waiting for your cite.

 

[emyr]

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.

We've been over this point repeatedly. There is a narrow band where blood would flouresce with luminol and not with TMB. That means the blood has to be highly diluted. A foot completely covered with blood, yet also diluted blood, must therefore have occurred by placing the foot in an area with water that has highly diluted blood in it.

If it was blood, this could be easily explained by bathing in the bathroom were diluted blood could have been present.

The scientists doing the test said the luminol flouresced strongly, indicating a foot that was bloody. However, it would only strongly flouresce in the presence of non-diluted blood. But the blood has to be diluted because the TMB did not find it. So either it is not blood or the scientist's observation of the test was false. If the scientist's observation was false, or if he lied about what he saw, then we have a problem of the test-taker's credibility. Stefanoni also did not reveal that she performed the TMB test and it came up negative, as was required to do. Now we have an example of obstruction of justice, and not a minor one at that.

In order to believe that the footprints were made in blood, we must believe that the original scientist wasn't doing their job very well (the luminol actually flouresced weakly and his observation was false) or he had an agenda to find Amanda guilty. But if we believe that, then that creates doubt about the evidence anyway. It also raises a large red flag on the reasons why no confirmatory test was done.

The fact that we now have proof that the scientist's booties were flourescing brings additional problems to the test.

 

[Fulcanelli]

There is no inventory list of the cleaning products at the flat, in my opinion. This is the rather obvious conclusion I get by reading much of the actual court testimony. Still waiting for your cite that there is one. It's been over a year I am waiting for your cite.

Ahhh...just your opinion then.

Alternatively, you could provide a cite to show there isn't one. If it's absent, it should be recorded or mentioned somewhere, surely?

In your opinion, are the defence incompetent?

 

[Monzoo]

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?

I have never accepted that the opinion of the judges in this case consititues proof, so no. I believe that Massei's court was wrong to convict, because the prosecution did not meet their burden of proof. If Hellmann's court convicts, they will also have done so wrongly, IMHO.

You are the one that asserts that the opinon of judges should be used as proof. If the current judge diagrees with your current opinion then you should logically change your opinion.

 

[RoseMontague]

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?

Outside, yes. They were allowed to observe the video of the inside collection from the van.

 

[Allusonz]

It's never possible to absolutely 100% rule out one attacker or multiple attackers simply from injuries left on a body. But, the coroner testified that in his considered opinion the injuries are consistent with an attack by multiple assailants rather then a single assailant.

The other evidence at the crime scene supports multiple assailants and rules out a single attacker.

You omitted the testimony of Dr. Lalli from the defense where he could not rule out a single attacker theory

 

[Fulcanelli]

We've been over this point repeatedly. There is a narrow band where blood would flouresce with luminol and not with TMB. That means the blood has to be highly diluted. A foot completely covered with blood, yet also diluted blood, must therefore have occurred by placing the foot in an area with water that has highly diluted blood in it.

If it was blood, this could be easily explained by bathing in the bathroom were diluted blood could have been present.

The scientists doing the test said the luminol flouresced strongly, indicating a foot that was bloody. However, it would only strongly flouresce in the presence of non-diluted blood. But the blood has to be diluted because the TMB did not find it. So either it is not blood or the scientist's observation of the test was false. If the scientist's observation was false, or if he lied about what he saw, then we have a problem of the test-taker's credibility. Stefanoni also did not reveal that she performed the TMB test and it came up negative, as was required to do. Now we have an example of obstruction of justice, and not a minor one at that.

In order to believe that the footprints were made in blood, we must believe that the original scientist wasn't doing their job very well or had an agenda to find Amanda guilty. But if we believe that, then that creates doubt about the evidence anyway. It also raises a large red flag on the reasons why no confirmatory test was done.

The fact that we now have proof that the scientist's booties were flourescing brings additional problems to the test.

Most people bath in the shower or bath. Blood wasn't found in the shower. She didn't walk on the bathroom (or corridor) floor either. She did the 'bath mat boogie', remember?

The samples were tiny...hence why no DNA could be extracted from some and only LCN values from the others.

Did any of the defence experts or lawyers make the argument you are making?

 

[Fulcanelli]

You omitted the testimony of Dr. Lalli from the defense where he could not rule out a single attacker theory

I've already addressed that in a previous post. You need to read back.

 

[Fulcanelli]

This is your idea of a *advertiser censored* theory? I believe again the limits are being stretched to the boundaries

You don't think rape and murder is pornographic?

 

[Allusonz]

I've already addressed that in a previous post. You need to read back.

I did

 

[Fulcanelli]

My request again do you have a MSM cite?

What is MSM?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Outside, yes. They were allowed to observe the video of the inside collection from the van.

Yes, and they also went to the site to perform their own observations and measurements.

 

[RoseMontague]

Ahhh...just your opinion then.

Alternatively, you could provide a cite to show there isn't one. If it's absent, it should be recorded or mentioned somewhere, surely?

In your opinion, are the defence incompetent?

Ahhhh...just your opinion then that there is an inventory list. Perhaps you should indicate that when you make this claim in the future.

My conclusion is based on the court testimony discussing the possible alternatives to blood that caused the luminol reaction. They don't discuss anything like "from this list of cleaning products in the flat, is there something on it that would cause such a reaction?" It is discussed in length on several occasions including discussion of soaps, detergents, shower gels, cleaners, juices and bleaches and it is not mentioned from the testimony I have reviewed.

Here is the 6 July one that has quite a lot of discussion regarding the Luminol issue (Google translation).

 

[Fulcanelli]

I have never accepted that the opinion of the judges in this case consititues proof, so no. I believe that Massei's court was wrong to convict, because the prosecution did not meet their burden of proof. If Hellmann's court convicts, they will also have done so wrongly, IMHO.

You are the one that asserts that the opinon of judges should be used as proof. If the current judge diagrees with your current opinion then you should logically change your opinion.

I see, I asked because you don't agree with the rulings of the nearly 30 other judges who have ruled on this case, so I was wondering why the ruling of this one would be considered to be any more reliable. I suppose it comes down to whether he gives the ruling you want?

They did a good job at meeting the burden of proof as far as I could see. I've seen people convicted in other cases on a fraction of the evidence that was presented against Knox and Sollecito.

I don't assert judges opinions should in and of themselves should be regarded as proof, but it does tend to put the burden of proof in the park of the opposing party. And we are not talking simply about one judge, but many...it's been completely unanimous so far. And that said, I found the report by the judges robust and convincing.

 

[Allusonz]

Ahhhh...just your opinion then that there is an inventory list. Perhaps you should indicate that when you make this claim in the future.

My conclusion is based on the court testimony discussing the possible alternatives to blood that caused the luminol reaction. They don't discuss anything like "from this list of cleaning products in the flat, is there something on it that would cause such a reaction?" It is discussed in length on several occasions including discussion of soaps, detergents, shower gels, cleaners, juices and bleaches and it is not mentioned from the testimony I have reviewed.

Here is the 6 July one that has quite a lot of discussion regarding the Luminol issue (Google translation).

It appears that opinon inventory list is growing long quickly

 

[Allusonz]

What is MSM?

Main Stream Media

 

[Fulcanelli]

Ahhhh...just your opinion then that there is an inventory list. Perhaps you should indicate that when you make this claim in the future.

My conclusion is based on the court testimony discussing the possible alternatives to blood that caused the luminol reaction. They don't discuss anything like "from this list of cleaning products in the flat, is there something on it that would cause such a reaction?" It is discussed in length on several occasions including discussion of soaps, detergents, shower gels, cleaners, juices and bleaches and it is not mentioned from the testimony I have reviewed.

Here is the 6 July one that has quite a lot of discussion regarding the Luminol issue (Google translation).

And just your opinion there isn't. So, the defence are incompetent? They don't know their own job? They don't have a clue what they're doing? Which is it? Why have the Knox family not demanded one if their defence doesn't have one? I seem to answer all your questions, but you never seem to answer mine. Perhaps you should indicate this in the future when you claim the defence can't possibly be expected to demonstrate that the luminol reactions was caused by some other substance in the cottage because they don't have access to records of what was there. You see, it's a two way street.

Why didn't they find it when they went to make their own examination of the cottage?

They didn't find anything. That's why in court they just threw 'general' suggestions out there and that's why it didn't cut any ice with the court. The luminol prints are good.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Main Stream Media

Why does it have to be 'main stream' media? And what sort of main stream media...like tabloids?

 

[sherlockh]

We've been over this point repeatedly. There is a narrow band where blood would flouresce with luminol and not with TMB. That means the blood has to be highly diluted. A foot completely covered with blood, yet also diluted blood, must therefore have occurred by placing the foot in an area with water that has highly diluted blood in it.

If it was blood, this could be easily explained by bathing in the bathroom were diluted blood could have been present.

The scientists doing the test said the luminol flouresced strongly, indicating a foot that was bloody. However, it would only strongly flouresce in the presence of non-diluted blood. But the blood has to be diluted because the TMB did not find it. So either it is not blood or the scientist's observation of the test was false. If the scientist's observation was false, or if he lied about what he saw, then we have a problem of the test-taker's credibility. Stefanoni also did not reveal that she performed the TMB test and it came up negative, as was required to do. Now we have an example of obstruction of justice, and not a minor one at that.

In order to believe that the footprints were made in blood, we must believe that the original scientist wasn't doing their job very well (the luminol actually flouresced weakly and his observation was false) or he had an agenda to find Amanda guilty. But if we believe that, then that creates doubt about the evidence anyway. It also raises a large red flag on the reasons why no confirmatory test was done.

The fact that we now have proof that the scientist's booties were flourescing brings additional problems to the test.

BBM. Where did you find that information? Do you have a link?

 

[Monzoo]

I see, I asked because you don't agree with the rulings of the nearly 30 other judges who have ruled on this case, so I was wondering why the ruling of this one would be considered to be any more reliable. I suppose it comes down to whether he gives the ruling you want?

They did a good job at meeting the burden of proof as far as I could see. I've seen people convicted in other cases on a fraction of the evidence that was presented against Knox and Sollecito.

I don't assert judges opinions should in and of themselves should be regarded as proof, but it does tend to put the burden of proof in the park of the opposing party. And we are not talking simply about one judge, but many...it's been completely unanimous so far. And that said, I found the report by the judges robust and convincing.

My opinion is not in any way based on the opinions of the judges. If Hellmann acquits, I will judge that he ruled correctly.

Logically, if you are using the fact that judges in the past ruled the way you want as proof that you are right, then you are obligated to change your opinion if the latest judge -- who is using all the latest information -- rules differently. If you do not use the rulings of the judges to prop up your opinion, then you do not need to change your opinion. Of course, if you are ilogical, you need not bother.