Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#12

[TorisMom003]

What was that red substance and why is it used?

Apparently it is phenolphthalein that turns pink when it reacts to a base. It is used to determine if blood is present. Or at least that is what I have been able to find out by looking it up.

 

[otto]

Apparently it is phenolphthalein that turns pink when it reacts to a base. It is used to determine if blood is present. Or at least that is what I have been able to find out by looking it up.

That's what I thought as well. It's unfortunate that it's red and people were unable to tell the difference between powder and blood, but I don't understand why that would be a criticism of investigators. Wouldn't that be a simple reflection of people's stupidity that they can't distinguish between crime scene powder and blood?

I have mentioned that investigators in NC returned to the crime scene two years after the murder of Michelle Young to collect additional evidence. It seemed unusual, but I don't recall any heavy criticism of investigators. In that case, the scene was unsecure. At least in the Perugia case the crime scene was still taped off when additional evidence was collected.

Why shouldn't investigators return to a crime scene to collect more evidence?

 

[TorisMom003]

That's what I thought as well. It's unfortunate that it's red and people were unable to tell the difference between powder and blood, but I don't understand why that would be a criticism of investigators. Wouldn't that be a simple reflection of people's stupidity that they can't distinguish between crime scene powder and blood?

I have mentioned that investigators in NC returned to the crime scene two years after the murder of Michelle Young to collect additional evidence. It seemed unusual, but I don't recall any heavy criticism of investigators. In that case, the scene was unsecure. At least in the Perugia case the crime scene was still taped off when additional evidence was collected.

Why shouldn't investigators return to a crime scene to collect more evidence?

Of course investigators can return to a crime scene to collect more evidence if they need to. However, shouldn't they take items that clearly have blood on them the first time? After all, some of that blood could be from the killer which could lead to the killers capture earlier rather than later. The bra clasp was clearly noticed the first time as well, yet it was left on the floor instead of being collected. It is another item that would have helped police determine who the killer was.

Concerning the photo that was splashed in the media, it's difficult to expect people to realize what they are looking at if the caption of the photo (or title of the article) states something about Amanda taking a shower in a bathroom covered in blood.

MOO

 

[otto]

Of course investigators can return to a crime scene to collect more evidence if they need to. However, shouldn't they take items that clearly have blood on them the first time? After all, some of that blood could be from the killer which could lead to the killers capture earlier rather than later. The bra clasp was clearly noticed the first time as well, yet it was left on the floor instead of being collected. It is another item that would have helped police determine who the killer was.

Concerning the photo that was splashed in the media, it's difficult to expect people to realize what they are looking at if the caption of the photo (or title of the article) states something about Amanda taking a shower in a bathroom covered in blood.

MOO

It's obvious that an awful lot of evidence was collected the first time around. I don't see any reason to be overly concerned that investigators returned to a taped off crime scene to collect more evidence. It's unfortunate for Sollecito that the evidence collected on Dec 18 included the bra clasp - which appears to be the primary source of concern for returning to collect more evidence. Meredith's sweatshirt also had blood on it, and it was also collected on Dec 18. Obviously, not everything that had blood on it was collected in the beginning.

Knox did take a shower in a bathroom where there was a clear bloody footprint on the bath mat and blood on the sink. After finding the front door wide open and no one at home, that is a very strange thing to do. Media sensationalism is nothing new, and certainly not the fault of the investigators. Take a look at Nancy Grace to see murder exaggeration and sensationalism at it's best.

 

[sherlockh]

I don't think there was anything violence or sexual act planned for that night. I think they planned a bad prank, yes. involving real knives, that is not very smart, but they never actually planned on using the knives. Just scaring her with them.

I no longer think it was an escalation of anything.

I do not think they were crazed on drugs.

The plan was for Rudy to go in first and grab her. He was holding her. THen Amanda and RS go in after him. She accidentally gets stuck with the knife. Rudy drops her. That is why there is only Rudy DNA on her clothes. Then they do the overkill, after panicking and deciding that was their only choice.

There were only a few stab wounds. Few minor wounds caused by a small knife on one side, and just one major wound caused by a bigger knife on the other side. The wound was 8cm deep, and the knife blade was 16cm IIRC. A witness heard a scream shortly followed by multiple people running. After the major wound, screaming would not have been physically possible so this must have happened right after the scream.

If you follow the prank idea then I don't really see how they go from that to taking a decision to commit murder. The one major wound must have come at the end, and the smaller wounds and bruises were not a reason to decide to commit murder IMO.

The prank was just way too violent from the start IMO. That is why often some drug use is being speculated. I think there was a loud scream, an attempt to silence her by covering her mouth, a short struggle because Meredith can't breath and where Sollecito and Knox loose control with their knives. After that there was panic and they all ran. So I do think the 'prank' escalated and there might have been drug use involved, but I agree that the murder was not planned. JMO.

 

[MichaelSmith]

It's obvious that an awful lot of evidence was collected the first time around. I don't see any reason to be overly concerned that investigators returned to a taped off crime scene to collect more evidence. It's unfortunate for Sollecito that the evidence collected on Dec 18 included the bra clasp - which appears to be the primary source of concern for returning to collect more evidence. Meredith's sweatshirt also had blood on it, and it was also collected on Dec 18. Obviously, not everything that had blood on it was collected in the beginning.

Knox did take a shower in a bathroom where there was a clear bloody footprint on the bath mat and blood on the sink. After finding the front door wide open and no one at home, that is a very strange thing to do. Media sensationalism is nothing new, and certainly not the fault of the investigators. Take a look at Nancy Grace to see murder exaggeration and sensationalism at it's best.

Amanda Knox - Bathroom Fallacy - What Amanda Really Saw - YouTube

 

[sherlockh]

If the floor was wiped clean there would be signs of it in the luminol. When a clean up of blood has occured, there are clear signs that a clean up was done. And if no chemical was used to clean up the blood in the bathroom, only water, then the luminol would still react with whatever trace amounts of blood were left there.

They did clean the floor. Regularly. So any rusty water or fruit pulp does not leave signs but blood does? Or maybe the usual Luminol picture of a pool of blood with a sponge streak through it is not very applicable to this case where we have minimal amounts of blood. The TMB test was negative after all. Even for one bloody shoe print of Guede.

There are clear cleaning signs anyway. The footprints were invisible, unclear, blurry, blood got stuck in the grout, blood cleaned from bathroom door, blood cleaned from sink and bidet, blood spots cleaned in Filomena's room, and of course the bathroom floor where amazingly there is not a single drop of blood and half a footprint disappeared. So the cleanup is a given. Guede had no reason to cleanup, and did not spend more than a few minutes in the house after the deadly wound was caused. Sollecito and Knox ran off as well but returned after having waited at the basketball court for the broken down car to leave. The evidence all fits together and explains most of what happened. JMO.

 

[Harmony 2]

http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/TheMasseiReport.pdf

Page 194

She then explained the results obtained from the Luminol tests, stating that "this test was performed during the second search, at the end of all the other activities, on the floor of the following areas: Filomena Romanelli's room, Amanda Knox's room, the corridor, the living room-kitchen corner and the larger bathroom" (p. 83 of the transcripts). She pointed out that on the basis of this test, she could not say with certainty that blood was present, since other substances as well may cause Luminol to glow.

During the second search, the December 18, 2007 one, this small piece of bra with hooks was found in another area of the room, near the desk, under a little rug, and around one metre or one and a half meters from where it had been seen during the first search. She wasn’t able to tell the reason or the manner in which it had been moved.

Page 201

She wasn’t able to specify how many people had entered the house at Via della Pergola 7, between the first search and the December 18 one, nor the number of ingresses made.

The shoe covers were changed only when leaving the house and not when a person walked in the hallway, and would go into Meredith’s room and leave (the room).

 

[redheadedgal]

They did clean the floor. Regularly. So any rusty water or fruit pulp does not leave signs but blood does? Or maybe the usual Luminol picture of a pool of blood with a sponge streak through it is not very applicable to this case where we have minimal amounts of blood. The TMB test was negative after all. Even for one bloody shoe print of Guede.

There are clear cleaning signs anyway. The footprints were invisible, unclear, blurry, blood got stuck in the grout, blood cleaned from bathroom door, blood cleaned from sink and bidet, blood spots cleaned in Filomena's room, and of course the bathroom floor where amazingly there is not a single drop of blood and half a footprint disappeared. So the cleanup is a given. Guede had no reason to cleanup, and did not spend more than a few minutes in the house after the deadly wound was caused. Sollecito and Knox ran off as well but returned after having waited at the basketball court for the broken down car to leave. The evidence all fits together and explains most of what happened. JMO.

1st bold: can you please cite where anything credible says one bloody shoeprint tested negative for TMB? thanks.

2nd bold: can we not exaggerate, please. if one looks at any graphic of the prints, only a portion of the heel area is missing (maybe 1/5 to 1/4 of the entire foot length):

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/images/footprints_compared.jpg

 

[sherlockh]

1st bold: can you please cite where anything credible says one bloody shoeprint tested negative for TMB? thanks.

2nd bold: can we not exaggerate, please. if one looks at any graphic of the prints, only a portion of the heel area is missing (maybe 1/5 to 1/4 of the entire foot length):

Massei report

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 [200] the entrance, gave a negative result, probably, according to Dr. Stefanoni, because the quantity was too small.

You are right that it doesn't say TMB. So I am not sure about that, but the point is the same. A negative test doesn't necessarily mean that it wasn't blood.

Thanks for the footprint pics. It makes it clear that the print continues to the edge of the math, which makes it rather unlikely that the heel did not leave any mark on the floor.

 

[sherlockh]

I agree there would be more prints if it was from something in the water.

Amanda Knox felt the need to explain the luminol evidence with her bathmat boogie story. IMO she knows the source behind the prints. I've said this before but these 2 don't know when to keep their mouths shut. AK and RSs biggest problem is talking too much.

Not only that, but what can possibly have been in the water that reacts to Luminol and not to TMB?

INTERFERING SUBSTANCES
Iron, copper and bleach contamination will turn the TMB solution blue. Thimerosal reacts with TMB inhibiting the reaction and sunlight rapidly oxidizes TMB.

http://www.europa-bioproducts.com/Catalogue/dataSheets/MO701B_data.pdf

 

[MichaelSmith]

Massei report

You are right that it doesn't say TMB. So I am not sure about that, but the point is the same. A negative test doesn't necessarily mean that it wasn't blood.
Thanks for the footprint pics. It makes it clear that the print continues to the edge of the math, which makes it rather unlikely that the heel did not leave any mark on the floor.

Yet Steffi said a negative result gives certainty it's not blood. We have the testimony of her saying it.

 

[SMK]

New article posted this morning, from UK's Express media - did not know all of this had been decided behind the scenes, apparently:

Amanda Knox's fears over Italian retrial:

AMANDA KNOX could become a “virtual prisoner” in her own country if an Italian court upholds her original conviction for the murder of British student Meredith Kercher.

Her lawyer yesterday said that Knox, 26, would be unable to travel to any country that has an extradition treaty with Italy because she could be arrested.

She could then be returned to Italy and thrown in jail.

US authorities have made it clear they would not extradite Knox under any circumstances.


.....................

Behind the scenes, America’s State Department has assigned a lawyer, Ted Simon, to Knox’s case and said the US will not extradite her even if the Italians uphold her original conviction.

Under America’s Constitution, she cannot be tried twice for the same offence as part of the so-called “double jeopardy” clause of the Fifth Amendment.

............

A source close to the student said yesterday: “Even though she will never be behind bars again, she is dreading the court upholding the original finding.

“She doesn’t want the stigma of for ever being branded a killer. And although she won’t say it publicly, a lot of her supporters believe this latest hearing is an act of pure malice on the part of the Italian authorities.”

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/454726/Amanda-Knox-s-fears-over-Italian-retrial

 

[sherlockh]

Yet Steffi said a negative result gives certainty it's not blood. We have the testimony of her saying it.

Yes, a negative Luminol test.

 

[SMK]

I wonder , though, about some of the info in the above-posted article. Have not heard Secretary of State John Kerry quoted, and Simon , I thought, had been Knox's US attorney for years.

I also have not heard any US officials comment on this case or the pending verdict at all.

 

[MichaelSmith]

Yes, a negative Luminol test.

No, a negative TMB test.

 

[otto]

I wonder , though, about some of the info in the above-posted article. Have not heard Secretary of State John Kerry quoted, and Simon , I thought, had been Knox's US attorney for years.

I also have not heard any US officials comment on this case or the pending verdict at all.

I think the article might be an inspiration from the PR Firm. If there had been a decision that the US would not respect extradition treaties when the requesting country held that a prosecutor can appeal a verdict, I think every country that signed the treaties with the US would have something to say about it ... since most countries hold that a prosecutor can appeal a verdict.

The double jeopardy argument seems to be based on the refusal to accept that both a guilty and not guilty verdict can be overturned. Many countries allow for the verdict to be appealed by the accused and the prosecutor, and this was well known prior to signing the treaties. Why would Knox's situation be an exception?

 

[SMK]

I think the article might be an inspiration from the PR Firm. If there had been a decision that the US would not respect extradition treaties when the requesting country held that a prosecutor can appeal a verdict, I think every country that signed the treaties with the US would have something to say about it ... since most countries hold that a prosecutor can appeal a verdict.

The double jeopardy argument seems to be based on the refusal to accept that both a guilty and not guilty verdict can be overturned. Many countries allow for the verdict to be appealed by the accused and the prosecutor, and this was well known prior to signing the treaties. Why would Knox's situation be an exception?

Thanks.

You're right: Why would her case be an exception? It is not a political case, but a criminal one.

And I really cannot imagine that the State Department would make a decision and not publish it. And the Hellmann appeal was an overturning of Massei, yet no one in the US considered this to violate "double jeopardy".

 

[SMK]

I think what irks me about the articles I have been reading saying that Secretary of State John Kerry might deny extradition due to his being a former prosecutor (on the "double jeopardy" issue) is that this is not rooted in fact or reality.

The US knew the Italian system before it signed on to an International Extradition Treaty.

I mean, if Knox is innocent and had been railroaded, of course she should not be extradited. And if she is being prosecuted under false information, then yes, she should get the State Department's help.

But has this really been proven? And if she is culpable, it would seem unfair for her to remain a free citizen in the US, if she took part in a killing in Perugia.

 

[otto]

Thanks.

You're right: Why would her case be an exception? It is not a political case, but a criminal one.

And I really cannot imagine that the State Department would make a decision and not publish it. And the Hellmann appeal was an overturning of Massei, yet no one in the US considered this to violate "double jeopardy".

Knox doesn't like the fact that the prosecutor was allowed to appeal the appeal decision. We know that this is not allowed in the US. I don't know of any other country that does not allow the prosecutor to appeal a verdict. If a mistake is made, there should be a mechanism in place to make a correction.

Essentially, what Knox will have to argue is that all countries where the prosecutor can appeal a decision are doing it wrong because she perceives that law as equivalent to "double jeopardy". It appears to be an absurd argument, but perhaps Ted Simon can argue that US law should be upheld internationally, regardless of treaties.