Amanda Knox New Motivation Report RE: Meredith Kercher Murder #1 *new trial ordered*

[Malkmus]

No evidence of any bleach containing cleaners so we just start to make stuff up. How is that supposed to convince the SC? Why does the appeal judge not simply ask the roommate and make sure of it. Based on the full quote below I can not understand how the judge can allege any bleach use.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Knox-s-roommate-neighbors-take-the-stand-1300223.php

IMO Amanda had wet feet that contained microscopic amounts of Meredith's blood and her own blood. That is how she left the luminol positive footprints, that is why the far less sensitive blood tests were negative, that is how her and Meredith's DNA got mixed, and that is how she left her and Meredith's DNA. Her own blood in the bathroom proves she was bleeding. That walking around barefooted does not just leave DNA was also proven by the male footprints that did not contain any of his DNA.

I feel like I am just repeating myself and being put words in my mouth. I am the only one providing links and quotes and yet that doesn't matter because we will just allege something else. Time to move on. Agree to disagree and all that.

Thanks to Raffaele for the admission that they just made up some version of events. The real truth will come out eventually. BBM.

The bottom line: Every single one of the footprints tested negative for blood. Luminol reacts to many other things, including cleaning products containing bleach. If the SC really does want to investigate the validity of this notion they can request a list of all the cleaning products that were in the cottage. I don't think they will.

None of the links you provide will ever confirm that anyone thought that was Amanda entering the cottage on the CCTV footage. If anyone seriously thought that it would have been the ace in the hole for the prosecution. None of the links will say the prosecution or judge argued that the footprints were made in any amount of Amanda's blood. It is well known that Amanda was examined for injuries and nothing was found.
The prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof to overcome reasonable doubt and that's about it. The main problem with the arguments being put forth by those who think their guilty is the inability to put together even one cohesive narrative of what happened that night that makes sense within the context of the evidence. Rudy Guede broke in, as he did at the lawyer's office and the nursery two weeks prior. He was caught by Meredith whom he sexually assaulted and he took her life. He is paying for that crime. Unfortunately, not long enough. The evidence does back that scenario up. Thongs, cartwheels, kisses and a coerced confession won't make a dent in that.

Sure, we can agree to disagree. <modsnip>.

 

[sherlockh]

The bottom line: Every single one of the footprints tested negative for blood. Luminol reacts to many other things, including cleaning products containing bleach. If the SC really does want to investigate the validity of this notion they can request a list of all the cleaning products that were in the cottage. I don't think they will.

None of the links you provide will ever confirm that anyone thought that was Amanda entering the cottage on the CCTV footage. If anyone seriously thought that it would have been the ace in the hole for the prosecution. None of the links will say the prosecution or judge argued that the footprints were made in any amount of Amanda's blood. It is well known that Amanda was examined for injuries and nothing was found.
The prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof to overcome reasonable doubt and that's about it. The main problem with the arguments being put forth by those who think their guilty is the inability to put together even one cohesive narrative of what happened that night that makes sense within the context of the evidence. Rudy Guede broke in, as he did at the lawyer's office and the nursery two weeks prior. He was caught by Meredith whom he sexually assaulted and he took her life. He is paying for that crime. Unfortunately, not long enough. The evidence does back that scenario up. Thongs, cartwheels, kisses and a coerced confession won't make a dent in that.

Sure, we can agree to disagree. <modsnip>.

Everything I posted came from the trials or information available on the internet. When something is JMO then I clearly state that. <modsnip>.

Thanks for admitting the presence of bleach was simply alleged. The same goes for Rudy the burglar. Again the appeal judge alleges he had a break-in history. It was never proven he broke in anywhere. He had a stolen laptop in his backpack and then it was alleged that he was the thief instead of getting it some other way. Stolen stuff gets sold. You can't just assume that anyone with stolen things in his possession is a burglar. Things like that need to be proven not just alleged. The appeal judge even speculates that Rudy staged his own burglary, and then goes on to conclude that there was no staging. How is that logic?

Luminol reacts to many things but only very few react to luminol like blood does. A good DNA expert can even recognize the typical luminol reaction to blood and this is what was testified at the trial. The appeal judge simply ignored this testimony and goes on to:
- allege the presence of bleach containing cleaning products
- allege Amanda (who was staying at her bf's apartment) cleaned the bathroom with it and nowhere else otherwise there would have been many more reactions
- allege that without any testimony there was a guy with her wearing no shoes and socks
- allege that they both got the bleach on their feet and jumped from the bathroom all the way to where the footprints were found or that the cleaners suddenly switched to a non-bleach containing product and wiped out the missing footprints
- allege for some reason that this special bleach does not vaporize and still would cause a luminol reaction after 2 months (when the tests were done)
- allege that the DNA expert was not able to recognize the reaction as coming from this magical bleach product
- allege that Meredith never got this bleach product on her feet but just so happened to drop off her DNA in several of the exact same spots that reacted to it

Amanda did have a scratch on her throat although personally I think her blood came from a nosebleed.

It is a fact that her blood was found in the bathroom anyway. This case is very simple if you have any feeling for math and (im)probabilities. To conclude that they are innocent you have to wade through an endless series of improbabilities. Or as the appeal judge did..allege..allege..allege..

 

[Malkmus]

Everything I posted came from the trials or information available on the internet. When something is JMO then I clearly state that. <modsnip>.

First, I implore you to point out where I have repeated anything said by either the defense, police, prosecution, or judges where I have been unable to provide links. <modsnip>. Can you provide a link where any stated that Amanda&#8217;s blood is what lit up the Luminol or was the reason for he DNA being found in the footprints? You didn&#8217;t preface it is being your opinion, you stated it as something that was apparently established. <modsnip>

Thanks for admitting the presence of bleach was simply alleged.

The jury wasn&#8217;t fooled by the Luminol prints the second time because this time they were informed they all tested negative for blood. They knew better than to put someone behind bars on such wishy-washy evidence.

The same goes for Rudy the burglar. Again the appeal judge alleges he had a break-in history. It was never proven he broke in anywhere. He had a stolen laptop in his backpack and then it was alleged that he was the thief instead of getting it some other way. Stolen stuff gets sold. You can't just assume that anyone with stolen things in his possession is a burglar. Things like that need to be proven not just alleged. The appeal judge even speculates that Rudy staged his own burglary, and then goes on to conclude that there was no staging. How is that logic?

Never proven Rudy broke in anywhere? Again, false information. He broke into the nursery in Milan, where he not only stole money and a large knife, but was also caught with a women&#8217;s gold watch that matches the description of the watch stolen from his neighbor&#8217;s apartment beforehand. Coincidence? Maybe. But then the break-in with a rock on the second floor window of the law office is almost identical in M.O. to the one at the cottage. But sure, he just happened to be in Milan buying the laptop there when it was stolen from a law office just down the street from him. But that isn&#8217;t the end of coincidences with Rudy and these break-ins. Cristian Tramontano identifies Rudy to police as the guy who broke into his home and tried to steal his credit cards and threatened him with a knife. The judge threw out the testimony because it was too similar to the cottage break-in! I doubt most people would find these to be just unlucky coincidences.

Luminol reacts to many things but only very few react to luminol like blood does. A good DNA expert can even recognize the typical luminol reaction to blood and this is what was testified at the trial. The appeal judge simply ignored this testimony and goes on to:
- allege the presence of bleach containing cleaning products
- allege Amanda (who was staying at her bf's apartment) cleaned the bathroom with it and nowhere else otherwise there would have been many more reactions
- allege that without any testimony there was a guy with her wearing no shoes and socks
- allege that they both got the bleach on their feet and jumped from the bathroom all the way to where the footprints were found or that the cleaners suddenly switched to a non-bleach containing product and wiped out the missing footprints
- allege for some reason that this special bleach does not vaporize and still would cause a luminol reaction after 2 months (when the tests were done)
- allege that the DNA expert was not able to recognize the reaction as coming from this magical bleach product
- allege that Meredith never got this bleach product on her feet but just so happened to drop off her DNA in several of the exact same spots that reacted to it

If the Luminol tested positive for blood we wouldn&#8217;t be having this conversation. But it didn&#8217;t and there are other explanations. That&#8217;s why it&#8217;s presumptive and not confirmative.

Amanda did have a scratch on her throat although personally I think her blood came from a nosebleed.

It is a fact that her blood was found in the bathroom anyway. This case is very simple if you have any feeling for math and (im)probabilities. To conclude that they are innocent you have to wade through an endless series of improbabilities. Or as the appeal judge did..allege..allege..allege..

Ah, the hickey picture again. From Massei report:
&#8220;Amanda was not wounded; in the days following no one spoke of wounds that she might have had; the examination which was carried out on her when measures restricting her personal freedom were taken ruled out the presence of wounds.&#8221;

Obviously you and I are decided on this case. But it is disingenuous to provide only part of the details for others who may be reading this.

So let&#8217;s make a list of the last few talking points thus far:

-You say Amanda can be seen on CCTV walking to the cottage that night, but the police CCTV expert said it was most likely Meredith.
-You say the Luminol prints were made in blood, but the TMB test came up negative for blood, which the forensic expert did not disclose to the first trial jury.
- You say Amanda was injured during the murder, but the police determined during a physical that she had no injuries, even after photographing a close-up of what is alleged by Amanda to be a hickey.
- You say Rudy has never broken in anywhere, but he was arrested (and subsequently released) for breaking into and stealing from a nursery in Milan.

 

[sherlockh]

So let&#8217;s make a list of the last few talking points thus far:

-You say Amanda can be seen on CCTV walking to the cottage that night, but the police CCTV expert said it was most likely Meredith.
-You say the Luminol prints were made in blood, but the TMB test came up negative for blood, which the forensic expert did not disclose to the first trial jury.
- You say Amanda was injured during the murder, but the police determined during a physical that she had no injuries, even after photographing a close-up of what is alleged by Amanda to be a hickey.
- You say Rudy has never broken in anywhere, but he was arrested (and subsequently released) for breaking into and stealing from a nursery in Milan.

I am tired of being accused of spreading false information. Just say you don't agree so we can move on.

- There was one CCTV witness who wasn't exactly sure. He said 'hypothetically speaking it could be Meredith'. It is not clear what he based that on. If he just based that on the timing then I agree with him, but there are other things to consider which I explained 3 times by now. The problem for the police was that Amanda's admission that she arrived there at that time (plus her boyfriend admitted she left his apartment at that time) was not allowed to be used against her as evidence.

- Again TMB negative does not mean it is not blood. The forensic expert not disclosing the information on purpose is a myth. She explained this during the appeal trials. The very few alternatives for the luminol reactions are simply alleged as previously discussed and make no sense whatsoever.

- I don't think that is a hickey. My opinion is that her blood came from a nosebleed anyway. According to Amanda herself the blood came from her ear. I guess that doesn't count as an 'injury' either.

- There was no sign of any break in at the nursery. He probably came in through an open window or door and spent the night there. The appeal judge does not explain why he accepted the testimony of Tramontano where in the first trial it was not established that he definitely saw Rudy or someone else. The lack of reasoning by the appeal judge is a major part of the upcoming appeal.

As far as the mixed blood evidence goes, there has been plenty of discussions on that. It is the appeal judge himself who states the DNA in the other girls room came from feet, it is the opinion of the first court that the mixture probably came from Amanda washing herself with Meredith's blood on her. It is my opinion, that it is more likely that the mixed DNA came from blood only and not skin cells because I don't believe it was a coincidence that Amanda's blood was in the bathroom and that feet just drop off DNA while walking around on a flat surface. Therefore Amanda must have had a (very diluted) mixture of blood of herself and Meredith on her feet. I hope that clears up the confusion.

 

[Malkmus]

I am tired of being accused of spreading false information. Just say you don't agree so we can move on.

- There was one CCTV witness who wasn't exactly sure. He said 'hypothetically speaking it could be Meredith'. It is not clear what he based that on. If he just based that on the timing then I agree with him, but there are other things to consider which I explained 3 times by now. The problem for the police was that Amanda's admission that she arrived there at that time (plus her boyfriend admitted she left his apartment at that time) was not allowed to be used against her as evidence.

The excuse that the police couldn't say it was Amanda because the statement from her was ruled inadmissible simply makes no sense. By that logic they couldn't argue that she was at the cottage at all that night then. In other words, since the prosecution was already arguing that she went to the cottage around 9 they were free to make whatever claim they wanted about the CCTV footage. Look, it's really simple. A blob of a person, indistinguishable because of the dark, is seen crossing a parking garage. No one can determine who it was. That you can somehow assess who it was is really quite astonishing. My whole reason for taking you to task on this was when you originally brought it up you stated it as fact that it was Amanda without providing the police's actual statements on the matter. Now that you have clearly made it your personal opinion I'm happy to let it drop.

- Again TMB negative does not mean it is not blood. The forensic expert not disclosing the information on purpose is a myth. She explained this during the appeal trials.

Did I ever say she didn't disclose it during the appeal? No.

The very few alternatives for the luminol reactions are simply alleged as previously discussed and make no sense whatsoever.

I realize that your dismissal of the false positive comes from incredulity that such things are nearly impossible. But there's a reason it's not used to confirm the presence of blood.

Some metals, plants, paints, cleaning materials, and other substances may act as catalysts for the reaction between luminol and hydrogen peroxide and give a false positive test. For this reason, positive tests obtained by the luminol reagent are always subjected to further tests to confirm the results.

http://www.bookrags.com/research/luminol-chmc/

This isn't science fiction, this is the reality of using Luminol. But putting that aside, there are more problems to consider even if it were her footprints made in blood:
- One must explain how/why they cleaned up only their prints when a clean-up means cleaning up everything, not the very risky selective clean-up which one is to believe happened if the prints are blood.
The leaving-evidence-of-just-Rudy scenario doesn't fly or Amanda
(a) would have indicated him by name at the station instead of giving a physical description.
(b) would have named him instead of Patrick.

- One must explainwhy no footprints were detected in the room where the murder took place. Since they are coming out of the bathroom this favors heavily that they came from cleaning agents in the bathroom.

- One must explain why an isolated female footprint has a second toe that is shorter than Amanda's long one.

- One must explain why the crevices surrounding the tiles were illuminated. Either the whole hallway was covered in blood or it was just bloody footprints. Can't be both.

- One must explainwhy some of the forensics experts booties were glowing as well.

You see, there are many more problems than just the negative blood test.

- I don't think that is a hickey. My opinion is that her blood came from a nosebleed anyway. According to Amanda herself the blood came from her ear. I guess that doesn't count as an 'injury' either.

It's undisputed that she had a recent piercing. Piercings aren't injuries. To have no sign the next morning of a nose that was punched so hard it bled strains credibility. The physical inspection is an official "no" on any signs of injury. There's really no buts about it.

- There was no sign of any break in at the nursery. He probably came in through an open window or door and spent the night there. The appeal judge does not explain why he accepted the testimony of Tramontano where in the first trial it was not established that he definitely saw Rudy or someone else. The lack of reasoning by the appeal judge is a major part of the upcoming appeal.

To state that Rudy didn't break-in somewhere simply because there was no "broken" windows or locks is really reaching. If I found a guy in my home who had stolen money and goods from it, and he had gained entry by either pick-locking or finding an open window NO ONE would argue with me that someone had broken into my home. Should we say Rudy made an "Illegal entry"? Does that make it any better?

Here's a very quick example:

The father knew it was his house from pictures of his kids on the refrigerator, and he recognized the students in the picture as friends of his children&#8217;s. The partygoers broke into the house through an unlocked window.

http://www.dailydot.com/news/father-burglary-house-party-facebook-photos/

As far as the mixed blood evidence goes, there has been plenty of discussions on that. It is the appeal judge himself who states the DNA in the other girls room came from feet, it is the opinion of the first court that the mixture probably came from Amanda washing herself with Meredith's blood on her. It is my opinion, that it is more likely that the mixed DNA came from blood only and not skin cells because I don't believe it was a coincidence that Amanda's blood was in the bathroom and that feet just drop off DNA while walking around on a flat surface. Therefore Amanda must have had a (very diluted) mixture of blood of herself and Meredith on her feet. I hope that clears up the confusion.

A quick Google search will show that we shed DNA all the time. Again, incredulity isn't a very good argument. Some info on "touch DNA":

Dubbed 'touch DNA', the technique represents the way in which police remove samples from only a mere few cells that remain after a person has touched something such as clothing. As humans, we shed enormous numbers of skin cells each day and these cells are transferred to clothing and other objects...

A challenge is that skin cells from a number of innocent people will still remain at the crime scene so the real test is for an investigator or forensics expert to decide where a sample is best collected.

http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/small-dna-samples-for-criminal-forensics.html

 

[Malkmus]

Oh, by the way. In reference to this claim about the negative blood test:

(snipped)
- Again TMB negative does not mean it is not blood.

Stefanoni said this:

Dr. Stefanoni herself, moreover, clarified (preliminary hearing of October 4 2008) that, while a positive test result could be deceptive due to reactivity of the chemical [evidenziatore] with other substances, a negative result gives certainty that no blood is present.

-The Hellman Report

 

[sherlockh]

Nice twist on the CCTV images. The problem was exactly that nobody was seen crossing from the parking on those images. That is why it wasn't Meredith. Of course, it is just my opinion. It is not even part of the trial.

In a perfect world, you need to double test the luminol to confirm it is blood. This is a scientific statement. In the real world, in the context of a murder, investigators can conclude there are no alternatives and therefore it must have been blood. It is that simple. To keep up the fantasy about cleaning products is silly since there were 2 bathrooms and the other was completely luminol negative. Besides there are no footprints in front of the bathroom so a fruit juice alternative would even make more sense. Amanda herself explains how it was possible that there were only a few prints (bathmat surfing).

Throwing up more red herrings about tiles, boots or even another female just shows the desperation to distract from the real issue that there are recent luminol positive footprints right in front of the murder room and in Amanda's room for which there are no alternatives other then that they were made in blood.

I never said she was punched in the nose. The stress of murdering her roommate could by itself very well cause a nosebleed.

Yes, we can only proof Rudy made one 'illegal entry' without any rock throwing or breaking anything so that must then be his MO according to the defenses 'logic'. That the appeal judge states it as a fact that Rudy broke in elsewhere is illegal. You need to proof that first.

Thanks for the quotes on touch DNA. They show exactly what I had stated about how unlikely it is that there was DNA and even mixed DNA in the middle of a flat floor. For example, in the murder room they found Rudy's and Rafaelle's DNA and all of these were touch DNA. There was no DNA of anybody just sitting, standing or walking there. It doesn't work like that. This was also explained by the DNA expert during the trials. You need to touch and rub something.

 

[Cappuccino]

I don't know enough about this case to get into the middle of this whole thing, but this particular statement is completely inaccurate...

In a perfect world, you need to double test the luminol to confirm it is blood. This is a scientific statement. In the real world, in the context of a murder, investigators can conclude there are no alternatives and therefore it must have been blood.

No they absolutely cannot. With all due respect, that is absolutely incorrect. Luminol reacts to everything with either copper or iron in its make up, and therefore a positive luminol reaction needs to be confirmed with either a further test using a blood specific chemical, or other supporting evidence.

In the real world, you absolutely cannot conclude that a luminol reaction must be blood just because the investigators cannot find evidence for an alternative. That's back to front. You need evidence to support the luminol, not evidence to support the theoretical alternative.

Its a presumptive test, similar to a sniffer dog. If a sniffer dog reacts to you, and the police search you and find no drugs, they let you go. They don't arrest you on the grounds that they can't think of any alternative explanation for the dog barking.

 

[sherlockh]

Repeating the same old arguments over and over is boring so lets see what would have happened if this murder had occurred in the US. This is a very similar case with exactly the same arguments. It shows that it is not at all normal that DNA skin cells are found on a flat surface.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_19284873

Among the items she tested were three of Veil's credit cards, Walker said. She said the cards were "swabbed" for potential DNA, but that usable, live skin cells are more commonly found on rougher objects.

Of course the defense will try the usual arguments about the alternatives for luminol. Even the arguments about contamination and that the investigation was influenced by rumors and gossip are similar. These are all common defense tactics that for some reason in the Meredith Kercher case are accepted as gospel by a small group of supporters.

Under cross-examination by defense attorney Tom Wallraff, Walker agreed that rust, horseradish and other substances can falsely test positive for blood in the level of analysis she performed. Yet earlier she said the testing she employed is also "very sensitive" and can detect blood so diluted in water that the liquid appears clear.

Wallraff has questioned whether sheriff's investigators tracked vegetation into the truck, or "cross-contaminated" it. He also argues the investigation has been influenced by rumors and gossip and a faulty, exclusive focus on his client.

What does the murderer say?

"I am not, nor was I ever, the 'monster' many now believe me to be," said McClish in a letter to the Sentinel in late January.

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_19995659

Sounds familiar? Amanda rambles on and on about how she is somebody else in her appeal statement.

I am not the person that the prosecution says I am, not at all.

http://🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬.blogspot.com/2012/09/amanda-knox-appeal-statement.html

The result? Life in jail without possibility of parole.
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking...-ben-lomond-man-gets-life-without-possibility

 

[sherlockh]

I don't know enough about this case to get into the middle of this whole thing, but this particular statement is completely inaccurate...

No they absolutely cannot. With all due respect, that is absolutely incorrect. Luminol reacts to everything with either copper or iron in its make up, and therefore a positive luminol reaction needs to be confirmed with either a further test using a blood specific chemical, or other supporting evidence.

In the real world, you absolutely cannot conclude that a luminol reaction must be blood just because the investigators cannot find evidence for an alternative. That's back to front. You need evidence to support the luminol, not evidence to support the theoretical alternative.

Its a presumptive test, similar to a sniffer dog. If a sniffer dog reacts to you, and the police search you and find no drugs, they let you go. They don't arrest you on the grounds that they can't think of any alternative explanation for the dog barking.

No, it is absolutely correct. If there has been a murder and I can proof that nobody in the world could have possibly committed that murder except for one person, then I have just proven that that person was the murderer. The same goes for the luminol.

 

[sherlockh]

Oh, by the way. In reference to this claim about the negative blood test:
Stefanoni said this:

Dr. Stefanoni herself, moreover, clarified (preliminary hearing of October 4 2008) that, while a positive test result could be deceptive due to reactivity of the chemical [evidenziatore] with other substances, a negative result gives certainty that no blood is present.

-The Hellman Report

Don't let Hellman fool you. That quote was about Luminol. Not about TMB.

 

[Cappuccino]

No, it is absolutely correct. If there has been a murder and I can proof that nobody in the world could have possibly committed that murder except for one person, then I have just proven that that person was the murderer. The same goes for the luminol.

No, it doesn't. Luminol reacts to everything with iron or copper in its make up, it does not establish the presence of blood. You need either follow up tests with blood specific chemicals, or other supporting evidence.

Luminol reacts with urine, saliva, faeces, vomit, plant enzymes, rust, potassium permanganate, bleach, other detergents, horseradish, and a whole host of animal proteins. Luminol is the bark of a sniffer dog at a customs point. If there's no supporting evidence, it is worthless.

And by the way, proof is for alcohol. When you're dealing with a murder case, you need evidence. Luminol is merely a presumptive test and it is inadmissable in any respectable court without solid supporting evidence.

 

[sherlockh]

No, it doesn't. Luminol reacts to everything with iron or copper in its make up, it does not establish the presence of blood. You need either follow up tests with blood specific chemicals, or other supporting evidence.

Luminol reacts with urine, saliva, faeces, vomit, plant enzymes, rust, potassium permanganate, bleach, other detergents, horseradish, and a whole host of animal proteins. Luminol is the bark of a sniffer dog at a customs point. If there's no supporting evidence, it is worthless.

And by the way, proof is for alcohol. When you're dealing with a murder case, you need evidence. Luminol is merely a presumptive test and it is inadmissable in any respectable court without solid supporting evidence.

I understand your opinion but it is not a fact. There is no law that says you can't use luminol positives as evidence without any further positive tests. If common sense (and the DNA expert) tells us that it is blood then it can be presented in court with that argument. The same goes for sniffer dog alerts. It all depends on the context.

 

[Cappuccino]

I understand your opinion but it is not a fact. There is no law that says you can't use luminol positives as evidence without any further positive tests. If common sense (and the DNA expert) tells us that it is blood then it can be presented in court with that argument. The same goes for sniffer dog alerts. It all depends on the context.

BBM.

I don't know if that's true in Italian courts, (although I have far too much respect for the Italian criminal justice system to believe it), but it is certainly not true of any court in my country, and any other respectable criminal justice system I know of.

You simply cannot present luminol as evidence of blood, unless you have corroborative evidence, either from confirmative scientific tests or other strong circumstantial evidence that stands alone. Only with that corroboration can a luminol reaction be placed into the context of all the other evidence presented by the case for the prosecution.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Thanks to Raffaele for the admission that they just made up some version of events. The real truth will come out eventually. BBM.


Meanwhile, we had to worry about Amanda taking the stand. Her lawyers decided that the best way to refute the stories about her wayward personality was to have the court take a good, hard look at her up close. But my lawyers were deeply concerned she would put her foot in her mouth, in ways that might prove enduringly harmful to both of us. If she deviated even one iota from the version of events we now broadly agreed on, it could mean a life sentence for both of us.

:seeya: I am so glad you provided this quote, which clearly PROVES that both Amanda and Rafaelle LIED about their whereabouts and involvement IMO on the night of Meredith's murder ...

In other words, the TRUTH NEVER CHANGES ... so IF -- IF both Amanda and Raf were telling the "truth", then why is Raf now stating that they agreed to a "version of events" ?

This clearly -- in Rafaelle's own words -- is telling !

MOO ...

 

[SweetT]

:seeya: I am so glad you provided this quote, which clearly PROVES that both Amanda and Rafaelle LIED about their whereabouts and involvement IMO on the night of Meredith's murder ...

In other words, the TRUTH NEVER CHANGES ... so IF -- IF both Amanda and Raf were telling the "truth", then why is Raf now stating that they agreed to a "version of events" ?

This clearly -- in Rafaelle's own words -- is telling !

MOO ...

Yea that makes me really wonder also. Seems incriminating to me.

 

[sherlockh]

BBM.

I don't know if that's true in Italian courts, (although I have far too much respect for the Italian criminal justice system to believe it), but it is certainly not true of any court in my country, and any other respectable criminal justice system I know of.

You simply cannot present luminol as evidence of blood, unless you have corroborative evidence, either from confirmative scientific tests or other strong circumstantial evidence that stands alone. Only with that corroboration can a luminol reaction be placed into the context of all the other evidence presented by the case for the prosecution.

If it was illegal the evidence would not have been part of the case. I think you mean it would be illegal to definitely state that the footprints were made in blood based on the Luminol test. This is true and that is not what they did. It is a 'most likely blood' argument based on the context, the interpretation of the DNA expert and the luminol test. I would even agree that legally it weakens the argument that there is no positive follow-up test.

I do not agree that it can not be placed into context. Context is always important. For example from the report of the initial court:

Still in the living room-kitchen corner, five samples of haematological substances were taken from the floor, belonging to the shoeprints which became progressively weaker as they went towards the main door and exited the flat. The result showed them to be human blood belonging to the victim. The last of these samples, taken from a print right next to the entrance, gave a negative result, probably, according to Dr. Stefanoni, because the quantity was too small.

There is a trail of shoe prints and only the last one can not be confirmed with a blood test, therefore it was not blood? Did the blood suddenly turn into dust? Taken the context I would say it was 'most likely' blood also.

 

[sherlockh]

:seeya: I am so glad you provided this quote, which clearly PROVES that both Amanda and Rafaelle LIED about their whereabouts and involvement IMO on the night of Meredith's murder ...

In other words, the TRUTH NEVER CHANGES ... so IF -- IF both Amanda and Raf were telling the "truth", then why is Raf now stating that they agreed to a "version of events" ?

This clearly -- in Rafaelle's own words -- is telling !

MOO ...

Rafaelle likes to turn things upside down. Their different stories actually mean that they are innocent :waitasec:

Had we any prior knowledge of the murder, I imagine we would have had our stories straight and practices responses at the ready.

There are many of these quotes that make me wonder why he even wrote this book.
http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmksollecitosbook

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Rafaelle likes to turn things upside down. Their different stories actually mean that they are innocent :waitasec:


There are many of these quotes that make me wonder why he even wrote this book.
http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmksollecitosbook

:seeya:

RBBM: I am wondering also WHY he wrote this book, -- especially since Raf's, and Amanda's, "legal problems" are far from over ...

:waitasec: Actually, their legal problems will be starting all over again come March of next year ... JMO, but I think the Supreme Court is going to overturn Hellman's "non-sense" !

In the Supreme Court's ruling regarding Rudy Guede, the court clearly stated that there was more than 1 person involved in Meredith's murder : and ALL the evidence clearly points to those individuals, Amanda and Raf ...

MOO ...

 

[Malkmus]

Nice twist on the CCTV images. The problem was exactly that nobody was seen crossing from the parking on those images. That is why it wasn't Meredith. Of course, it is just my opinion. It is not even part of the trial.

What exactly was the twist, other than it being presented as evidence by you and only you that it was Amanda?

In a perfect world, you need to double test the luminol to confirm it is blood. This is a scientific statement. In the real world, in the context of a murder, investigators can conclude there are no alternatives and therefore it must have been blood. It is that simple. To keep up the fantasy about cleaning products is silly since there were 2 bathrooms and the other was completely luminol negative. Besides there are no footprints in front of the bathroom so a fruit juice alternative would even make more sense. Amanda herself explains how it was possible that there were only a few prints (bathmat surfing).

Cappucino has made an excellent point about the presumptive nature of the Luminol. The drug-sniffing dog is a perfect analogy.

Throwing up more red herrings about tiles, boots or even another female just shows the desperation to distract from the real issue that there are recent luminol positive footprints right in front of the murder room and in Amanda's room for which there are no alternatives other then that they were made in blood.

Red herrings or facts that you are unable to reconcile with your inaccurate belief that the Luminol would only be reacting to blood? So what was it that lit up on the shoes of the CSI member? Fresh blood?

I never said she was punched in the nose. The stress of murdering her roommate could by itself very well cause a nosebleed.

The ear piercing is a real reason to account for the blood drop. Why the need to speculate about spontaneous nose bleeds of which there is no evidence? Even if it was a spontaneous nose bleed, why is murder the only reason behind it? All of this goes back to starting with the premise that she is guilty and working backwards from that.

Yes, we can only proof Rudy made one 'illegal entry' without any rock throwing or breaking anything so that must then be his MO according to the defenses 'logic'. That the appeal judge states it as a fact that Rudy broke in elsewhere is illegal. You need to proof that first.

I'll be making another post on Rudy's actions during the preceding weeks before the murder. I find the pattern very compelling.

Thanks for the quotes on touch DNA. They show exactly what I had stated about how unlikely it is that there was DNA and even mixed DNA in the middle of a flat floor. For example, in the murder room they found Rudy's and Rafaelle's DNA and all of these were touch DNA. There was no DNA of anybody just sitting, standing or walking there. It doesn't work like that. This was also explained by the DNA expert during the trials. You need to touch and rub something.

When you walk across the surface of a floor you are indeed "touching" it. Despite multiple citations from the scientific community that we "shed DNA" anywhere apparently your personal opinion overrides that. You're entitled to that, but it doesn't make for a very convincing argument.