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

[otto]

He relies on emotive and inflammatory arguments to make his case. Any student of debate can tell you that you use that strategy when the facts are not on your side.

If you need to use emotion to sway a jury, it is because you know that you cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt, so you try to cloud their minds in other ways.

I'm not sure what to think. Does "he" refer to Meredith's lawyer?

This has the appearance of a slander against the victim, her family and their lawyer. Could you please provide a link to support the "emotive and inflammatory" reference. I'm also curious about the connection between that link and the assertion that Knox is correct in her implication that the family lawyer should not be trusted (e.g.: Knox did state that she wanted to speak with Meredith's family, and not Meredith's lawyer, prior to removing fundraising campaigns using Meredith's name from her blog. Meredith's lawyer is honouring her family's wishes, and far be it from anyone to criticize the victim's family representative: Maresca. He should not be criticized under any circumstances, as he is the lawyer that represents Meredith's interests and her family's wishes in Italy, at Meredith's murder trial.

 

[MichaelSmith]

I'm not sure what to think. Does "he" refer to Meredith's lawyer?

This has the appearance of a slander against the victim, her family and their lawyer. Could you please provide a link to support the "emotive and inflammatory" reference. I'm also curious about the connection between that link and the assertion that Knox is correct in her implication that the family lawyer should not be trusted (e.g.: Knox did state that she wanted to speak with Meredith's family, and not Meredith's lawyer, prior to removing fundraising campaigns using Meredith's name from her blog. Meredith's lawyer is honouring her family's wishes, and far be it from anyone to criticize the victim's family representative: Maresca. He should not be criticized under any circumstances, as he is the lawyer that represents Meredith's interests and her family's wishes in Italy, at Meredith's murder trial.

:facepalm:

You forgot to add that they're grieving.

 

[otto]

:facepalm:

You forgot to add that they're grieving.

Has there ever been any question that the family of a woman brutally murdered in a foreign country, at the age of 21, is grieving?

 

[otto]

http://www.ilmessaggero.it/primopia...llecito_processo_udienza/notizie/462494.shtml

<modsnip>

It sounds like Sollecito is paving the way for staying at home away from home, in the DR, until after the verdict.

 

[sherlockh]

JUDGE - To understand a layman on the generic diagnosis the tetramethylbenzidine, here, to understand this is to?
ANSWER - To highlight possibly blood.
JUDGE - ok! And here there is a degree of sensitivity?
ANSWER - It is very sensitive, now I do not know how to say it to him, however, in common practice ...
JUDGE - There also cites false positives of the series ...
VOICES - (inaudible because overlapping) ...
ANSWER - Yes, in the sense that it does not distinguish whether it is human or animal blood, for example.
JUDGE - But where is negative, I understand that leaves quite convinced that it is not?
ANSWER - Yes, that is not blood, it is not, yes.

It couldn't be more clear she is answering Micheli about TMB but I'm not surprized at all by your reply.

There is a gap in the testimony so how should I know what was said? Either way, it is wrong. TMB is a presumptive test for the presence of blood.

 

[MichaelSmith]

Please cite a family that did not grieve as the result of the violent, prolonged (f-ing bled to death, according to Knox) murder of a 21 year old daughter who had a promising future. What parent does not grieve the loss of a child that was murdered while studying abroad?

ps: this is a victim friendly forum

I haven't seen anyone say anything horrible about Meredith and would speak up if I did.

 

[MichaelSmith]

There is a gap in the testimony so how should I know what was said? Either way, it is wrong. TMB is a presumptive test for the presence of blood.

There was probably some talking over each other but the Q&A is clearly about TMB which is a confirmatory test.

 

[sherlockh]

There was probably some talking over each other but the Q&A is clearly about TMB which is a confirmatory test.

The tetramethylbenzidine (TMB) presumptive test for blood is a catalytic test which is based on the peroxidase-like activity of hemoglobin.

A negative result indicates that either no blood is present or is below the limit of detection of the test.

http://www.nfstc.org/pdi/lab_manual/Linked Documents/Protocols/pdi_lab_pro_2.19.pdf

 

[MichaelSmith]

http://www.nfstc.org/pdi/lab_manual/Linked Documents/Protocols/pdi_lab_pro_2.19.pdf

I think we could go back and forth on this for hours. On it's own it's a presumptive test but it's a confirmatory test for luminol positives. A negative result means move on, it's not blood because it's such a specific test for blood. If you don't believe this then why was she using TMB on everything the luminol reacted to?

 

[sherlockh]

I think we could go back and forth on this for hours. On it's own it's a presumptive test but it's a confirmatory test for luminol positives. A negative result means move on, it's not blood because it's such a specific test for blood. If you don't believe this then why was she using TMB on everything the luminol reacted to?

That doesn't make any sense. It is a presumptive test for blood. How does it suddenly work differently if there was a positive Luminol test? It is not a matter of believing. I just follow what I find in the manual. I think it is standard practice to follow up with TMB which probably excludes some false positives but not all.

 

[sherlockh]

<modsnip>
Crini asked for precautionary measures. Seems like RS has 10 days left to run for it or surrender his passport (or maybe even arrest).

 

[SMK]

Crini asked for precautionary measures. Seems like RS has 10 days left to run for it or surrender his passport (or maybe even arrest).

Yes - Crini has asked the court's clerk to write down the exact terms of the cautionary measures.

 

[SMK]

Anything from him is against Websleuths TOS because he is an anonymous person who posts on a hate site and nothing he tweets is reliable or could be considered accurate.

The Moderators have linked to this site. I am not allowed to link to the site?

 

[MichaelSmith]

The Moderators have linked to this site. I am not allowed to link to the site?

I think they linked to the Massei report on that site not saying check out the tweets from this anonymous nobody tweeting from the courtroom.

 

[Harmony 2]

Reminder: The only tweets allowed are from MSM (mainstream media).

Also, please remember to add links to the tweets or the post will be removed.

 

[Bill C]

It is either Meredith's DNA match or it's not, is that not right? How can it be "in the middle"? Or "almost," but not quite?

My argument here is that it could easily be contamination from the forensic lab. Remember large quantities (unlike the low quantity DNA found on the knife) of MK's DNA were run thru that same lab only 6 days earlier. The controls for contamination unfortunately are nowhere to be found. We are expected to take Steffanoni's word for the fact that they were done and were negative. How can you or anyone else trust her after in court she initially failed to disclose the TMB- results from the luminol+ footprints and only did so when confronted with the results on cross-examination. She then insisted that, despite the TMB- tests and her failure to do other confirmatory tests on the samples, the footprints definitely contained blood.

 

[Bill C]

A second thought here. If the DNA analysis was optimally performed one would logically try to perform the analysis on the knife and all other evidence available at the time BEFORE running the known samples of DNA from the victim and the suspects. Doing it in that order would have eliminated any possibility of lab contamination. I know this is monday morning quarterbacking but apparently this never crossed Steffanoni's mind although it probably should have.

 

[Amber29]

We have no way of knowing if they're grieving or not because we don't know them. The "grieving Kerchers" comes from journalists just like "dignified silence" even though they've given interviews, held press conferences, written nicely timed articles and a book.

I'm not sure I understand the obvious contempt for the "grieving Kerchers". Are you insinuating that they aren't grieving for their brutally murdered daughter because they've given a few interviews and written a book? The Kerchers have done nothing wrong. It seems some want them seen in a negative light because they continue to fight for justice for their loved one. It doesn't matter which side you fall on, the Kerchers should be respected. They are having to put their faith in this justice system that's all they've got.

This being a victim friendly forum, the Kerchers should be included in that they are victims too.

 

[SMK]

Reminder: The only tweets allowed are from MSM (mainstream media).

Also, please remember to add links to the tweets or the post will be removed.

Is Andrea Vogt's twitter allowed?

 

[sherlockh]

My argument here is that it could easily be contamination from the forensic lab. Remember large quantities (unlike the low quantity DNA found on the knife) of MK's DNA were run thru that same lab only 6 days earlier. The controls for contamination unfortunately are nowhere to be found. We are expected to take Steffanoni's word for the fact that they were done and were negative. How can you or anyone else trust her after in court she initially failed to disclose the TMB- results from the luminol+ footprints and only did so when confronted with the results on cross-examination. She then insisted that, despite the TMB- tests and her failure to do other confirmatory tests on the samples, the footprints definitely contained blood.

The Hellmann report has been cancelled. All those old arguments turned out to be false.

SC Report (BBM)

The vehicle of contamination would have had to be identified in order to be used to weaken the facts offered by the technical consultant; it was not sufficient to make a hypothesis about insufficient professionalism of the technicians [69] involved in the sampling, above all in a situation in which any laboratory contamination &#8211; i.e. the type of contamination which is easier to demonstrate and more common &#8208; was mathematically excluded, since all the negative controls to exclude it had been done by Dr Stefanoni, controls which the court&#8208;appointed experts, a bit too superficially, considered to be lacking, simply because they were not attached to the consultancy report.

There is no failure. There is simply no point to do less sensitive confirmatory testing after a negative TMB test. Stefanoni didn't insist they contained blood. She explained that Luminol is a presumptive blood test, and therefore you can't say with certainty that it is blood.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Patrizia_Stefanoni's_Testimony_(English)