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

[Malkmus]

snipped:
So where is Amanda ...

Interesting, IMO, that she is no where to be seen near Raf ...

:moo:

From the book.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

From the book.

The inscription says March 2012 that this photo was taken -- that's 6 months ago ...

:sick:

 

[Malkmus]

The inscription says March 2012 that this photo was taken -- that's 6 months ago ...

Was I wrong in assuming the implication of your statement was that they are distancing themselves from one another? If not, then what is so interesting about her not being at appearances he's making? They do have separate lives from each other, but are obviously friendly.

:sick:

Hey, you asked for it.

 

[Malkmus]

Wow.

Raffaele Sollecito Has Seattle Police Attack KCWM Over Infamous Bleach and Butcher Knife Photo - YouTube

 

[dizzychick]

I tried to follow this case early on it was hard due to the language barrier now that some documents have been translated I found it interesting that there are so many different alibi's the pair gave. Still the info I read was not complete like the surveillance video saw Amanda go into her flat followed by meredith then Rude, what I never found was who else went in and who left when.

RS 1st alibi was Amanda left at 9pm then returned at 1am. IIRC, then the story changed when Amanda said she was with RS all that night. The puter statements and other discrepancies made me think where there is smoke there is fire.

 

[Footwarrior]

I tried to follow this case early on it was hard due to the language barrier now that some documents have been translated I found it interesting that there are so many different alibi's the pair gave. Still the info I read was not complete like the surveillance video saw Amanda go into her flat followed by meredith then Rude, what I never found was who else went in and who left when.

RS 1st alibi was Amanda left at 9pm then returned at 1am. IIRC, then the story changed when Amanda said she was with RS all that night. The puter statements and other discrepancies made me think where there is smoke there is fire.

There is no video showing Amanda going to the cottage on the night of the murder. There is video of a man who may be Rudy at the car park shortly before Meredith came home and Rudy has admitted to being at the cottage before Meredith arrived. There is also video of a figure that is almost undoubtably Meredith arriving just after 9 pm on that fateful night. I posted an image from that video in this thread.

You believe there is smoke because you have been mislead. The Perugia authorities released a slew of rumors about this case we now know to be completely false. Just to name a few, there was no video of Amanda, the washing machine was not running when the police arrived, Amanda and Raffaele did not call the police after they had already arrived, there was no clean up of the murder scene.

 

[dizzychick]

There is no video showing Amanda going to the cottage on the night of the murder. There is video of a man who may be Rudy at the car park shortly before Meredith came home and Rudy has admitted to being at the cottage before Meredith arrived. There is also video of a figure that is almost undoubtably Meredith arriving just after 9 pm on that fateful night. I posted an image from that video in this thread.

You believe there is smoke because you have been mislead. The Perugia authorities released a slew of rumors about this case we now know to be completely false. Just to name a few, there was no video of Amanda, the washing machine was not running when the police arrived, Amanda and Raffaele did not call the police after they had already arrived, there was no clean up of the murder scene.

thank you so much for clearing that up now see that is what ticks me off about all these cases there are so many rumores you have to sift through that cloud that case.

Some of those other rumors I had not even heard. That make sense as to why I couldnt get the answer as to who came out of the flat and when. So what about the inital alibi's? they are trying to say RS and AK told 2 different stories at 1st

 

[Footwarrior]

thank you so much for clearing that up now see that is what ticks me off about all these cases there are so many rumores you have to sift through that cloud that case.

Some of those other rumors I had not even heard. That make sense as to why I couldnt get the answer as to who came out of the flat and when. So what about the inital alibi's? they are trying to say RS and AK told 2 different stories at 1st

Amanda and Raffaele have always said that they spent the night together at Raffaele's apartment with one exception. During an all night interrogation session intended to crack her, Amanda gave a confused account about being at the cottage. But she even said at that time that it didn't seem real.

But in fact there is no evidence placing either of the two at the crime scene on the night of the murder. A witness places them at Raffaele's place shortly before 9 pm. Computer evidence shows a video file being stopped at 9:10 pm and another being started at 9:26 pm. The screensaver log shows the computer was in use with only small gaps until 6:20 am the next morning.

 

[sherlockh]

I tried to follow this case early on it was hard due to the language barrier now that some documents have been translated I found it interesting that there are so many different alibi's the pair gave. Still the info I read was not complete like the surveillance video saw Amanda go into her flat followed by meredith then Rude, what I never found was who else went in and who left when.

RS 1st alibi was Amanda left at 9pm then returned at 1am. IIRC, then the story changed when Amanda said she was with RS all that night. The puter statements and other discrepancies made me think where there is smoke there is fire.

The CCTV images of Amanda arriving at the cottage at about 9pm are still available on youtube:
Amanda Knox: The missing Video Original - YouTube

You see there is no way to indentify this person just by these images, but it can be deducted from the timing, direction and color of clothes that it is most likely Amanda. It is definitely not Meredith since she was not wearing any white clothes and came from a different direction. She came from across the street and would not have been walking that far on that site of the street. Amanda we see her wearing white clothes the next day, and she admitted after just a few hours of questioning that she did arrive at the cottage at the exact timing of the CCTV images and that she came from that direction.

As for their many different and contradicting alibis I would just advice to make up your own mind by reading the court documents, and transcripts of what they have written themselves. Both Amanda and Rafaelle made up several different alibis. Not only switching where they were, but also what they were doing. All of their stories have been proven to be false. The last alibi of Rafaelle is (from his book) that he doesn't really remember because of a joint he smoked earlier that afternoon, but somehow he would remember Amanda ringing the doorbell. It is laughable.

Their ever changing stories drove their own lawyers crazy. Rafaelle's lawyer quickly shut him up. After admitting that Amanda had left his flat from 9pm till 1am, Rafaelle never talked again. So much for 'honor bound'. Amanda's lawyer talks of 3 different versions:

A lawyer for Knox, Luciano Ghirga, told reporters Friday that his client had given "three versions and ... it is difficult to evaluate which one is true."

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004005696_italy10m.html

Rafaelle's father is a bit more explicit in a recorded jail conversation with his son:

She will know something ... precisely ... especially considering all the versions that she has given, maybe she has not told the right one because she was worried about what this character the little negro [i.e. Patrick Lumumba] has managed to do, something like that ... do you understand what I mean? ... But you have nothing to do with [rude in Italian] ... and they understood ... now this morning or Monday there will be also the checking of your computer ... they have already cloned the hard disk ..

If Amanda was home ... if she was out, wtf were you doing? ... were you at the computer? ...... We cannot understand, this [=AK] within three days, when she went to the questura ... she has four to five different versions ... she has pulled in the little negro a@@hole ... Is a strange personality this girl, isn’t it?.

http://perugianotizie.blogspot.com/2008/07/raffaele-contro-amanda.html

 

[Malkmus]

thank you so much for clearing that up now see that is what ticks me off about all these cases there are so many rumores you have to sift through that cloud that case.

Some of those other rumors I had not even heard. That make sense as to why I couldnt get the answer as to who came out of the flat and when. So what about the inital alibi's? they are trying to say RS and AK told 2 different stories at 1st

Yes, it can be very confusing, especially with this particular case. This popping up of the CCTV footage is a perfect example of how both sides (those who think the pair are guilty and those who do not) present the evidence.

Let’s not wonder why the police were leaking said footage to the press at the very beginning of an investigation with the certainty that the figure was Knox when it’s nearly impossible to make any clear identification. Let’s also forget that the press also misreported the figure as wearing a white skirt, when one can look at the footage themselves and see it’s just a light-colored blob probably reflecting light from the street lamps. And let's not get bogged down that the co-defendant Raffaele is mysteriously missing from the footage.

The main problem here is discerning between tabloid fiction/dirty police tactics, and what was actually said in court. By the time the CCTV footage was presented in court, the police themselves were telling a very different story than the tabloid headlines.

Inspector Mauro Barbadori told the court that the footage had been recovered in the hope that it would provide key information.
He said: ”From the time on the film and the fact it is a female figure - the belief is that it is Meredith but it is very poor quality and we cannot say for definite.
”Hypothetically speaking it is very possible that the figure seen is Meredith returning home after spending the evening at a friend’s house.”

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2318079/Merediths-final-walk-is-shown.html#ixzz28r0pYNWH

My question to Sherlock, is why post rumors and hearsay, when the police during the trial said it was most likely Meredith?

 

[Malkmus]

The CCTV images of Amanda arriving at the cottage at about 9pm are still available on youtube:
Amanda Knox: The missing Video Original - YouTube

You see there is no way to indentify this person just by these images, but it can be deducted from the timing, direction and color of clothes that it is most likely Amanda. It is definitely not Meredith since she was not wearing any white clothes and came from a different direction. She came from across the street and would not have been walking that far on that site of the street. Amanda we see her wearing white clothes the next day, and she admitted after just a few hours of questioning that she did arrive at the cottage at the exact timing of the CCTV images and that she came from that direction.

Assuming for a moment that it's Amanda because the figure is wearing "white clothes" and the day after the murder Amanda was wearing a white skirt, this supposes that Amanda was wearing the same clothes the night of the murder and the day after. Big problem with this scenario: There would be blood all over her white skirt. I think the argument being made by you and others is an example of one that sounds good on the surface, but falls apart when you actually try to put it into context, that also being a recurring problem throughout discussion of this case for those believing in their guilt.

Anyway, the Italians were reporting the figure wearing a "light colored jacket", not a skirt, so the whole argument is rather moot.

"Afari Italiani --
After a few minutes a new image from passaggio.Sempre, November 1, around 20:41, you can see the image of a person, wearing a light colored jacket, which is rapidly disappearing shortly after. Picture that, according to the reconstruction of accusation, could refer to the return home of Meredith Kercher the night of the crime, although the lack sharpness is not possible to establish with certainty."

(Snipped)All of their stories have been proven to be false.

Another example of something that sounds great on the surface but falls apart when put into context. What exactly was proven to be a lie other than what came out of the unrecorded interrogations of one night? If it had been proven that they were at the cottage that night they'd still be in jail. But as we know, DNA can't be dated, the footprints tested negative for blood, and couldn't be matched to them.

The last alibi of Rafaelle is (from his book) that he doesn't really remember because of a joint he smoked earlier that afternoon, but somehow he would remember Amanda ringing the doorbell. It is laughable.(Snipped)

The term alibi has been thrown around a lot over the course of this discussion. Because they are both suspects, corroborating each other's whereabouts makes no difference. Which is why it was so important for the police to get them to distance themselves from each other the night of the murder. By the way, the doorbell theory doesn't change his story that she wasn't out all night, it simply reinforces it.

 

[sherlockh]

Yes, it can be very confusing, especially with this particular case. This popping up of the CCTV footage is a perfect example of how both sides (those who think the pair are guilty and those who do not) present the evidence.

Let’s not wonder why the police were leaking said footage to the press at the very beginning of an investigation with the certainty that the figure was Knox when it’s nearly impossible to make any clear identification. Let’s also forget that the press also misreported the figure as wearing a white skirt, when one can look at the footage themselves and see it’s just a light-colored blob probably reflecting light from the street lamps. And let's not get bogged down that the co-defendant Raffaele is mysteriously missing from the footage.

The main problem here is discerning between tabloid fiction/dirty police tactics, and what was actually said in court. By the time the CCTV footage was presented in court, the police themselves were telling a very different story than the tabloid headlines.

My question to Sherlock, is why post rumors and hearsay, when the police during the trial said it was most likely Meredith?

I don't post rumors or hearsay. I posted my opinion and gave the reasons for it. My opinion is based on studying the actual CCTV video and comparing the color of the clothes and the actual direction of the person walking. She is walking straight and you can see her taking 4 or 5 straight steps. If that was Meredith then she would have come down from the car park which is right across from the entrance gate to the cottage. You will have to make some kind of detour to the left to make that many steps on that side of the street. That makes no sense. Especially not at such a quiet evening. The police said 2 different things. I don't know why. I agree with their first assumption.

You can't possibly know what clothes Amanda was wearing during the murder. It is possible and likely IMO that she went to the cottage for a reason. A shower and a change of clothes could be one of those reasons. I am sorry but I don't feel like a repetition of the 'fruit juice' footprints discussion yet again. There is no reasonable alternative for blood, and the arguments that the appeal judge made up are seriously lacking so we will see what the SC will say about it.

 

[Malkmus]

I don't post rumors or hearsay. I posted my opinion and gave the reasons for it. My opinion is based on studying the actual CCTV video and comparing the color of the clothes and the actual direction of the person walking. She is walking straight and you can see her taking 4 or 5 straight steps. If that was Meredith then she would have come down from the car park which is right across from the entrance gate to the cottage. You will have to make some kind of detour to the left to make that many steps on that side of the street. That makes no sense. Especially not at such a quiet evening. The police said 2 different things. I don't know why. I agree with their first assumption.

Well, no, the tabloids quoted an anonymous "police source" as saying it was Amanda. The only actual quote we have from the police is at trial, under oath, is that it's most likely Meredith which makes sense because the time was actually a few minutes after nine (the CCTV was determined to have been behind by ten minutes) and there is no Raffaele present. But, you see, this is the problem the undecided poster up-thread is talking about. Why not present the full details of the CCTV footage for him/her? Instead you state "Here is the CCTV of Knox arriving home", along with your theory (which doesn't add up by the way), and don't diclose that the police at trial never said it was Amanda. You also came out of nowhere with more misinformation that the defense somehow had it barred from the trial when the complete opposite happened. This is what muddies the waters, and while I don't completely blame you, I think it's a good example of what happens when you get all your information from a site that is propaganda for the prosecution.

You can't possibly know what clothes Amanda was wearing during the murder.

If she changed then your hypothesis that the two are linked because of "white clothes" is negated. You still can't reconcile your theory with the fact that Raf is missing from the footage if it's her and that Meredith would also be seen arriving shortly after. And what about Rudy?

It is possible and likely IMO that she went to the cottage for a reason. A shower and a change of clothes could be one of those reasons. I am sorry but I don't feel like a repetition of the 'fruit juice' footprints discussion yet again. There is no reasonable alternative for blood, and the arguments that the appeal judge made up are seriously lacking so we will see what the SC will say about it.

<modsnip> the defense argued that the footprints were likely residue from cleaning products containing bleach used in the shower? You also are ignoring the fact, repeated ad nauseam, that the SC will not review or interpret the evidence.

 

[sherlockh]

Well, no, the tabloids quoted an anonymous "police source" as saying it was Amanda. The only actual quote we have from the police is at trial, under oath, is that it's most likely Meredith which makes sense because the time was actually a few minutes after nine (the CCTV was determined to have been behind by ten minutes) and there is no Raffaele present. But, you see, this is the problem the undecided poster up-thread is talking about. Why not present the full details of the CCTV footage for him/her? Instead you state "Here is the CCTV of Knox arriving home", along with your theory (which doesn't add up by the way), and don't diclose that the police at trial never said it was Amanda. You also came out of nowhere with more misinformation that the defense somehow had it barred from the trial when the complete opposite happened. This is what muddies the waters, and while I don't completely blame you, I think it's a good example of what happens when you get all your information from a site that is propaganda for the prosecution.

I already gave the reasons what my personal opinion was based on. That can't be Meredith so it is either Amanda or the milkman. I find the sudden appeal to authority a bit 'strange'.

If she changed then your hypothesis that the two are linked because of "white clothes" is negated. You still can't reconcile your theory with the fact that Raf is missing from the footage if it's her and that Meredith would also be seen arriving shortly after. And what about Rudy?

Amanda herself said that she arrived at that time at the cottage and came from that direction. She never said she arrived with Raffaele or Rudy. She does imply however that they both had arrived before the murder took place. He just lives a few minutes away anyway. Why the need for them to arrive together? I don't think it is difficult to imagine that she changed her clothes again after the murder.

<modsnip>the defense argued that the footprints were likely residue from cleaning products containing bleach used in the shower? You also are ignoring the fact, repeated ad nauseam, that the SC will not review or interpret the evidence.

Please post the evidence that there were cleaning products containing bleach. The other girls who lived there testified that they never used any of these kind of products. Bleach does not contain DNA, and does not react exactly the same way to Luminol as blood does (which was recognized by the DNA expert). The appeal judge ignored these testimonies, and was not able to proof anything about any alternative for the luminol reaction. The SC will not decide on the evidence of the footprints itself, but they will judge if this kind of reasoning and ignoring of other evidence by the appeal judge is acceptable.

It is part of the Galati appeal. BBM.

As for the other bare footprints, revealed by Luminol along the hallway of the murder house, the forcing and, therefore, the illogicality, of the Appeal Court&#8217;s reasoning is evident in holding that the prints (considered by the Scientific Police as compatible with those of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito), could have been the same as those left there on earlier occasions, when it is a given of common experience that Luminol principally reveals traces of blood and, without giving the least evidence that other material, equally copious and equally sensitive to Luminol, had been poured out onto the floor, it is beyond logic to hypothesise that Ms Knox and Raffaele could have had bloodstained feet on a prior occasion and different from the murder. But here also the Court has limited itself to adhering to the undemonstrated theses of the defence.

 

[Malkmus]

I already gave the reasons what my personal opinion was based on. That can't be Meredith so it is either Amanda or the milkman. I find the sudden appeal to authority a bit 'strange'.

Personally, I don't think there's a way to determine if it's either girl. However, the timing and lack of other people connected to the prosecution's theory does make it more likely to be Meredith. I'll have to see on a map what you're talking about in regards to it being impossible to be Meredith.
It's not really an appeal to authority when both sides of the trial agreed it was most likely Meredith.

Amanda herself said that she arrived at that time at the cottage and came from that direction. She never said she arrived with Raffaele or Rudy. She does imply however that they both had arrived before the murder took place. He just lives a few minutes away anyway. Why the need for them to arrive together? I don't think it is difficult to imagine that she changed her clothes again after the murder.

If you're referring to what's written in the statements there's only a mention of meeting Patrick around 9, and given what we know about the veracity of those statements, how they were obtained and how nothing in them was true it's hardly an accurate way to measure anything.

Please post the evidence that there were cleaning products containing bleach. The other girls who lived there testified that they never used any of these kind of products.

Outside of PMF/TJMK repeating this, I have never seen any documented source that the girls never used products containing bleach, and I think it's very likely that they have confused Raffaele's cleaning lady with this notion. Also, it is at odds with the Massei report in which he theorizes about the use of such cleaning products, never doubting it was a possibility.

Bleach does not contain DNA, and does not react exactly the same way to Luminol as blood does (which was recognized by the DNA expert). The appeal judge ignored these testimonies, and was not able to proof anything about any alternative for the luminol reaction.

Amanda's DNA was found where her footprints were, not Meredith's. So your conclusion that it was blood and not bleach because of the DNA is illogical.

The SC will not decide on the evidence of the footprints itself, but they will judge if this kind of reasoning and ignoring of other evidence by the appeal judge is acceptable.

No they won't. Both are examples of interpreting the evidence.

It is part of the Galati appeal. BBM.

Which is why Galati is wasting his time.

 

[sherlockh]

Right. So there is no evidence of any bleach there. No, bare footprints don't just drop live DNA cells on a flat floor surface. That is a myth. This was all explained during the trials. It was most likely Amanda's own blood that she had on her foot, as it just so happened that her blood was found in the bathroom. That is also why the mixed DNA found in another girl's room was most likely Amanda's blood mixed with Meredith's blood.

The appeal judge told a story without any proof whatsoever that both Meredith and Amanda had been walking barefooted in the other girl's room, and somehow dropped their DNA in the exact same spot that way. In other words, he made himself an expert and overruled the DNA expert all by himself and made up a fictional story without even asking the girl who lived in that room. Of course, the SC will rule on the lack of reasoning of the appeal judge. You can't just leave out half of the evidence without explaining why. It is the basic theme of the Galati appeal. He is an ex-member of the SC himself, so to say he is wasting his time is a bit silly. JMO.

And here is the good news. It has already begun. Amanda's first case that she won (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/AmandaKnox/small-victory-amanda-knox/story?id=10169888) was just annulled by the SC and it was because of a lack of reasoning. The SC did not agree with the previous judges ruling. It was send back for a re-trial. You won't see the US media reporting on this news so it is only available in Italian media.

The decision condemning RCS to pay 40 thousands euros damage to the American student Amanda Knox - who was acquitted on appeal of the charge of murdering the young English woman Meredith Kercher - for having published information about her sexual life in the book Amanda e gli altri. Vite perdute intorno al delitto di Perugia written by journalist Fiorenza Sarzanini and published by Bompiani, has been nullified by the Cassazione, with remanding to a new trial.

http://www.imgpress.it/notizia.asp?idnotizia=70829&idsezione=3

 

[Malkmus]

Right. So there is no evidence of any bleach there. No, bare footprints don't just drop live DNA cells on a flat floor surface. That is a myth. This was all explained during the trials. It was most likely Amanda's own blood that she had on her foot, as it just so happened that her blood was found in the bathroom. That is also why the mixed DNA found in another girl's room was most likely Amanda's blood mixed with Meredith's blood.

About ninety percent now of what you have said in your last couple of posts is unattributed to anything said at trial. I just hope anyone taking your posts seriously is aware that you are unable to back any of it up with quotes or citations. So I won't ask you to cite any information from the trial claiming the bloody footprints were made in Amanda's own blood (not sure you realize how profusely Amanda would have had to bleed to do this), so I will just say to anyone reading your theories that they should know that no one during the trial ever argued that the bloody footprints were made in Amanda's blood.

The appeal judge told a story without any proof whatsoever that both Meredith and Amanda had been walking barefooted in the other girl's room, and somehow dropped their DNA in the exact same spot that way. In other words, he made himself an expert and overruled the DNA expert all by himself and made up a fictional story without even asking the girl who lived in that room.

Hellman simply pointed out the basic principle that your own DNA will be found in your own house. Hard to argue that. If a forensic team were to swab any room in your home, Sherlockh, you shouldn't be surprised that DNA would turn up in any location you've been in. And let's not forget the other unattributed DNA profiles and how they didn't take refernce samples of the other house-mates living there.

Of course, the SC will rule on the lack of reasoning of the appeal judge. You can't just leave out half of the evidence without explaining why. It is the basic theme of the Galati appeal. He is an ex-member of the SC himself, so to say he is wasting his time is a bit silly. JMO.

Then it should be a home run for Galati.

And here is the good news. It has already begun. Amanda's first case that she won (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/AmandaKnox/small-victory-amanda-knox/story?id=10169888) was just annulled by the SC and it was because of a lack of reasoning. The SC did not agree with the previous judges ruling. It was send back for a re-trial. You won't see the US media reporting on this news so it is only available in Italian media.


http://www.imgpress.it/notizia.asp?idnotizia=70829&idsezione=3

Very difficult to wade through the Google translation, but it seems that the Milan court now has to provide more information and that the fault lies with Knox's lawyers failed to indicate which statements printed in the press were the ones violating her privacy. In other words, lack of evidence. Like what happened in the criminal trial, so i think this actually shows promise that the SC realizes the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the other way around.

 

[sherlockh]

About ninety percent now of what you have said in your last couple of posts is unattributed to anything said at trial. I just hope anyone taking your posts seriously is aware that you are unable to back any of it up with quotes or citations. So I won't ask you to cite any information from the trial claiming the bloody footprints were made in Amanda's own blood (not sure you realize how profusely Amanda would have had to bleed to do this), so I will just say to anyone reading your theories that they should know that no one during the trial ever argued that the bloody footprints were made in Amanda's blood.

I regularly provide quotes and links. I never said the footprints were made in Amanda's blood. I am still waiting for the evidence for the statement that they found bleach containing cleaning products at the cottage.

Laura, the other Italian flatmate, testified that she and Filomena did almost all the cleaning of the flat and that they never used bleach.

Murder of Meredith Kercher - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hellman simply pointed out the basic principle that your own DNA will be found in your own house. Hard to argue that. If a forensic team were to swab any room in your home, Sherlockh, you shouldn't be surprised that DNA would turn up in any location you've been in. And let's not forget the other unattributed DNA profiles and how they didn't take refernce samples of the other house-mates living there.

It is not a basic principle that there would be DNA wherever you go. Certainly not on a flat surface. My house is not covered for 99% with my DNA. If they find DNA on a flat surface then it must have a very specific reason. Unless Amanda had the habit to spit on the floor then her DNA most likely came from her blood.

No reference samples is just another red herring. It was Amanda's and Meredith's DNA found mixed in another girls room. I do not walk around barefooted in any room in my house, and neither would that be a logical explanation for the presence of the DNA. The appeal judge didn't even investigate if such an event ever happened in that room. How easy it would have been to ask the girl that lived in that room. Instead he just starts speculating. 'Who knows...' he says.

Besides that, the spot was luminol positive, and so again without any evidence the appeal judge starts speculating about bleach (ignoring the testimony of the girls) or fruit juice.

From the Hellmann report:

With a little common sense it is useful, on the other hand, to remember that the girls lived together in that house, that they were all friends, and who knows how many times they went up and down barefoot in the various rooms, as often young people do, leaving their traces here and there, even superimposing them by chance, possibly on bleach, but without excluding some other possibilities, such as a stain of fruit juice or of vegetable
stock.

The chance of the 2 girls for no specific reason leaving DNA in the exact same small spot in the middle of the floor in another girls room is already astronomically small and now he just adds that in exactly that spot there was some bleach or fruit juice as well. I am not so sure if the SC will agree that this is 'a little common sense'. The 'funny' thing is that Raffaele in his book describes how Amanda always stayed at his place since they got together.

Very difficult to wade through the Google translation, but it seems that the Milan court now has to provide more information and that the fault lies with Knox's lawyers failed to indicate which statements printed in the press were the ones violating her privacy. In other words, lack of evidence. Like what happened in the criminal trial, so i think this actually shows promise that the SC realizes the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the other way around.

I don't think the annulment is good news for Amanda and her lawyers.

 

[Malkmus]

I regularly provide quotes and links. I never said the footprints were made in Amanda's blood. I am still waiting for the evidence for the statement that they found bleach containing cleaning products at the cottage.

You just said: "It was most likely Amanda's own blood that she had on her foot". So which is it?

Murder of Meredith Kercher - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Filomena recalling they didn't use bleach is very different from any of the girls spraying a cleaning product that contained some bleach in it to clean the bathtub. Neither judges requested a list of cleaning products used so we don't know which products may or may not have had bleach. If someone asks me if I use bleach at my home I would say "no", never thinking to mention there might be some in my bathroom cleaning sprays. And the bleach question was posed in relation to the notion that Amanda and Raf cleaned the blood up with bleach bottles and had nothing to do with the luminol prints.

It is not a basic principle that there would be DNA wherever you go. Certainly not on a flat surface. My house is not covered for 99% with my DNA. If they find DNA on a flat surface then it must have a very specific reason. Unless Amanda had the habit to spit on the floor then her DNA most likely came from her blood.

Exfoliated skin cells. The presence of other DNA profiles. The lack of control samples. The lack of reference samples for the housemates. If the forensic team hadn't goofed so badly we'd know how unlikely or not Amanda's DNA there is.

No reference samples is just another red herring. It was Amanda's and Meredith's DNA found mixed in another girls room. I do not walk around barefooted in any room in my house, and neither would that be a logical explanation for the presence of the DNA. The appeal judge didn't even investigate if such an event ever happened in that room. How easy it would have been to ask the girl that lived in that room. Instead he just starts speculating. 'Who knows...' he says.

You seem to be stating two things that are at odds with each other. That Amanda couldn't leave her DNA behind just by walking on the floor but that she somehow left her DNA on the floor because Meredith's (or her own) blood was on it. Either way this is DNA being left on the floor by walking on it.

Besides that, the spot was luminol positive, and so again without any evidence the appeal judge starts speculating about bleach (ignoring the testimony of the girls) or fruit juice.

See above.

From the Hellmann report:
The chance of the 2 girls for no specific reason leaving DNA in the exact same small spot in the middle of the floor in another girls room is already astronomically small and now he just adds that in exactly that spot there was some bleach or fruit juice as well. I am not so sure if the SC will agree that this is 'a little common sense'. The 'funny' thing is that Raffaele in his book describes how Amanda always stayed at his place since they got together.

He doesn't say bleach was spilled there. I don't know how many times I can repeat this. It's alleged, since the prints tested negative for blood (ALL the prints by the way), that they were made after Amanda stepped in residue from the cleaning products when in the shower.

I don't think the annulment is good news for Amanda and her lawyers.

Ok.

 

[sherlockh]

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.

The housecleaning was almost always done by the two Italians, she said in response to questioning, and they used a mop and aromatic floor detergents, but never bleach.

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.

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.