Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #18

[RoseMontague]

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.

Beats me. You are the one that has been stating this inventory list as a fact for over a year now. My opinion is stated as such. That was my point, btw.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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.

What if Hellman upholds the conviction?

It isn't only the rulings of the judges I rely on, but the evidence they cite and the steps of logic they make from it. And before you go there, it doesn't mean I agree with every single word they say, or every single last conclusion.

Cold hard logic is the only thing I do.

 

[RoseMontague]

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

Not sure which one he is referring to as there are a few references on this. This chart makes it pretty obvious.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Beats me. You are the one that has been stating this inventory list as a fact for over a year now. My opinion is stated as such. That was my point, btw.

Not going to answer my questions then?

 

[sherlockh]

Not sure which one he is referring to as there are a few references on this. This chart makes it pretty obvious.

Cool. So how intense exactly did she claim the reaction was?

 

[Allusonz]

But only the knife/bra clasp DNA and the testimony of Curatolo has been examined...and will be. So, what about all the rest?

You of course must realize that this is a de novo review in which they can decide to agree or disagree with the reasoning of the trial of the first instance without calling additional witnesses? They also consider the arguments in the appeal and are not required to call additional witnesses

 

[Allusonz]

Could be from a product used in the shower for example. Most people use different products for different areas of the house and usually the stronger ones would be used in the bathroom.

It could also be as simple as iron in the soil

 

[Allusonz]

I did explain it actually. But for those who didn't understand it I will explain further:

The evidence against Rudy includes

- fingerprints (which can forensically be matched beyond any doubt as opposed to footprints which cannot be)
- shoeprints (again, these can be matched)
- faeces in the toilet which he ADMITS belong to him
- DNA inside of the victim (The DNA collected at the scene of the crime is in question, the postmortem has not been questioned)

In addition, any traces of Rudy found at the cottage cannot be explained by him living there as they can with AK.

Plus the fact he admitted to being there. I will state for the record though that the DNA evidence could conceibably be tossed but this could be true for a number of cases in Italy as this is the first time this lab has ever had an independent review

 

[Fulcanelli]

You of course must realize that this is a de novo review in which they can decide to agree or disagree with the reasoning of the trial of the first instance without calling additional witnesses? They also consider the arguments in the appeal and are not required to call additional witnesses

As far as I've seen, they are only going to re-examine the bra clasp, knife and Curatolo.

If the defence are relying in the judges reading of their written appeal they're in trouble, since nearly all of that is simply repeating the same arguments they made in the trial and that failed.

 

[Fulcanelli]

It could also be as simple as iron in the soil

So why isn't it all over the apartment? The same apartment has stood there in the same soil for hundreds of years. If it's the soil, then it should be everywhere.

 

[Allusonz]

As far as I've seen, they are only going to re-examine the bra clasp, knife and Curatolo.

If the defence are relying in the judges reading of their written appeal they're in trouble, since nearly all of that is simply repeating the same arguments they made in the trial and that failed.

With respect to how they will rule we don't know thus we wait. The information in the appeal is considered and they do not have to call additional witnesses though in order to make a ruling on an individual item

 

[Allusonz]

So why isn't it all over the apartment? The same apartment has stood there in the same soil for hundreds of years. If it's the soil, then it should be everywhere.

Soil (with iron) is one of 250+ items that react thus it would be very difficult to determine

ETA CH has provided a number of links for you which deal specifically with this.....

 

[Fulcanelli]

Plus the fact he admitted to being there. I will state for the record though that the DNA evidence could conceibably be tossed but this could be true for a number of cases in Italy as this is the first time this lab has ever had an independent review

Yes, that's what it ALL comes down to and that's the ONLY difference between them. Not the strength of evidence, not the validity of their respective stories...the case is just as strong against each of the three. The only REAL difference, is that Guede admits to being at the cottage while Knox and Sollecito deny it. And all the time they are in denial, so can all their supporters be.

C & V didn't review the lab, they reviewed only the DNA data, knife and crime scene video.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Soil (with iron) is one of 250+ items that react thus it would be very difficult to determine

ETA CH has provided a number of links for you which deal specifically with this.....

I'll ask again. Why then, is this soil iron not all over the cottage? Why is it limited to a mere 3 footprints in the hallway, a blob in Filomena's room and some footprints in Amanda's room? Why is there not more then that and why is it not anywhere else is the cottage? Are Knox and Sollecito the only ones who have stepped in that soil (barefoot apparently) that has been there for hundreds of years and if so, why? Why are there not tracks of them treading said soil into the house via the front door? How did it get there? Why does this iron from soil suddenly only appear in the depths of the house? What are the defence not trying to argue it was soil? Why did Rudy leave none of his prints from this soil, despite supposedly walking around the property in it on a damp night in order to climb up to the window?

 

[Monzoo]

What if Hellman upholds the conviction?

It isn't only the rulings of the judges I rely on, but the evidence they cite and the steps of logic they make from it. And before you go there, it doesn't mean I agree with every single word they say, or every single last conclusion.

Cold hard logic is the only thing I do.

If Hellmann upholds the conviction, then in my opinion he ruled incorrectly.

By your second paragraph, you seem to be saying that the judges' opinions should be used as proof of guilt, but if they happen to disagree with your opinion you reserve the right to disgard their opinion. How is that logical?

 

[Ratunta]

As far as I've seen, they are only going to re-examine the bra clasp, knife and Curatolo.

If the defence are relying in the judges reading of their written appeal they're in trouble, since nearly all of that is simply repeating the same arguments they made in the trial and that failed.

Yup, but they will RECONSIDER all the rest of evidence which was entered into the first trial also. And this time they will be viewing all that evidence through the prism of knowledge of the colossal <modsnip> that the evidence collection was and they now (hopefully) realise the appalling error in judgement shown in the original trial for taking Curatolo's word about ANYTHING.

 

[Fulcanelli]

If Hellmann upholds the conviction, then in my opinion he ruled incorrectly.

By your second paragraph, you seem to be saying that the judges' opinions should be used as proof of guilt, but if they happen to disagree with your opinion you reserve the right to disgard their opinion. How is that logical?

Perhaps you need to read my post again? My point is, the judgment is in my view solid, despite my not agreeing with every single last argument or deduction contained therein. For example...Judge Massei theorises that Knox probably had the kitchen knife in her bag as self-protection at Sollecito's suggestion as a 'reason' for why it was brought to the cottage. I don't agree with that theory. However, that takes nothing away from the soundness of the rest of the judgement as that conclusion is not essential to it. I see it as mere detail. Only the key elements have to be proven and I feel the report fulfills that and more.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Yup, but they will RECONSIDER all the rest of evidence which was entered into the first trial also. And this time they will be viewing all that evidence through the prism of knowledge of the colossal clusterf___ that the evidence collection was and they now (hopefully) realise the appalling error in judgement shown in the original trial for taking Curatolo's word about ANYTHING.

But, there are no more re-examinations. You seem to believe that the court will agree with the opinions of C & V. It should be pointed out at this juncture, the crime scene video was also shown in the Massei trial. I should also point out, the case does not stand or fall on the back of Curatolo (or the knife, or the clasp). The staged break-in and the lying alibis are the most critical evidence of all. The defence have hardly touched those things.

 

[emyr]

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?

I don't believe they did in the first trial because they were not told about the TMB test. Hence, why I was talking about failure to provide evidence. I think they learned of the negative TMB test during trial and thought they then had a simple explanation of why the evidence should be thrown out.

You had asked someone else earlier if they thought the defense was incompetent. I do think the defense team is incompetent.

The shower typically would only show evidence of blood within the drain since the shower surface is non-porous (this according to my CSI evidence collection friend). Typically a bloody footprint trail on a porous floor would dilute in strength as the residue is transferred from the foot to the floor. The prints would gradually dim as more residue is transferred, which was not shown by the photographs or claimed by the testers. Instead, the footprints retain cohesion, implying a high amount of substance on the foot. Yet there can't be a high amount of blood because the TMB test was negative.

The science isn't fitting with the theory of blood.

Now, if the prints had been wiped up, that would be something, but there are no smear marks, which means they weren't wiped up.

As for why there was no other evidence of anyone else, the roommates claimed the entire flat had been cleaned less than a week prior, that side of the house was used primarly by Amanda and Meredith, and so you should only see evidence of activity after that cleaning.

However, I do think that the footprint on the bathmat was a bloody footprint (though I don't think you can claim certainty as to who it is, especially if you are saying stomach content science is soft... footprint science is even softer) , and the only flourescing footprints I know of are Amanda's. I am not providing excuses for Sollecito's footprint showing up anywhere.

 

[Footwarrior]

But nobody ever found Rudy's shoes.

The empty box from a pair of Nike Outbreak 2 shoes was found in Rudy's apartment. The sole pattern of that model shoe in the size printed on that box matches precisely the prints in blood found in the murder room. Rudy admits to wearing those shoes on the night of the murder and disposing of them while he was in Germany.