Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#13

[otto]

What I am saying, is that because Meredith's blood was found OUTSIDE the bedroom, on the hall floor and bath mat, we cannot KNOW that the footprints were caused by someone stepping in blood in the bedroom.

It is not enough to say that there must have been matching footprints in the bedroom because not only were none found, they weren't even looked for.

BMM

Let's assume that source of blood for Sollecito's bloody print on the bathmat is not the pool of blood in the bedroom. What is the source of the blood? Should we simply conclude that because the print represents only 3/4 of the foot, we can't know the source of the blood?

 

[aa9511]

I think RS said it best. He said she doesn't live in reality and lives for pleasure.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Since I am a late-comer to the case, I have not really gotten that picture of her so much. Because in recent interviews, etc., she comes off as really mature and poised, plus she did the stuff with her book, her blog, two Facebooks, etc.. But I guess all of that could still be possible while continuing to avoid reality, in fact in the guilty scenario I guess it kind of requires that, now that I think about it!! Hello, Earth to aa9511! Clonk, clonk.

I guess what I'm saying is that I have always heard of the childish Amanda, but not really seen it "first-hand." I didn't see her in the courtroom, I have heard of her smiling and laughing and wearing strange shirts, etc..

From reading part of her book, though, I can see it was there. For example, she herself confirms that when the investigators took her back for a walk-through of the downstairs apartment, she put her booties on that went "Ta-DA!" and did a sweeping motion with her hands.

Also the gymnastics/stretching at the station, and there were other things in the book which she freely admitted to. That is all child-like behavior, IMO, and not congruent with the situation she was in. That would definately signal a lack of attachment with reality.

From reading her own descritions of herself in HER OWN WORDS IN HER OWN BOOK, I can definately see how she used her antics to avoid the reality.

I will say, that in this case, I think the overall purpose of her antics wasn't to avoid the reality - the overall purpose was to MAKE HERSELF APPEAR CHILD-LIKE AND THUS INCAPABLE OF THE MURDER. I think she knew what was going on every second of every minute. She was following along verrrryyy closely. She just played dumb. That is the crux of the matter - she played dumb. IMO.

 

[otto]

By someone stepping on the bloody bath mat and or Rudy's shoe prints with wet feet and picking up only enough residual heme (?) to leave traces on the floor detectable only with Luminol.

The print on the bathmat is a very, clear, complete print with so much blood that it seems impossible that it is a result of secondary transfer after stepping on a faint shoeprint in the hallway. That is, the amount of blood in the source of the blood has to be greater than the amount of blood that is left in the form of a print. Other than the blood pool, what is another source of blood that is greater than the blood on the mat?

 

[aa9511]

The print on the bathmat is a very, clear, complete print with so much blood that it seems impossible that it is a result of secondary transfer after stepping on a faint shoeprint in the hallway. That is, the amount of blood in the source of the blood has to be greater than the amount of blood that is left in the form of a print. Other than the blood pool, what is another source of blood that is greater than the blood on the mat?

No, I think Q is saying that the footprints in the hallway are a result of stepping on the "blood" on the bathmat. So for example, Amanda takes shower, steps on the bathmat, and then walks down the hallway, or I guess Q changed it the other day to stepping with one foot off the bathmat while shuffling down the hallway.

That scenario is completely improbable to me. JMO.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Since I am a late-comer to the case, I have not really gotten that picture of her so much. Because in recent interviews, etc., she comes off as really mature and poised, plus she did the stuff with her book, her blog, two Facebooks, etc.. But I guess all of that could still be possible while continuing to avoid reality, in fact in the guilty scenario I guess it kind of requires that, now that I think about it!! Hello, Earth to aa9511! Clonk, clonk.



I guess what I'm saying is that I have always heard of the childish Amanda, but not really seen it "first-hand." I didn't see her in the courtroom, I have heard of her smiling and laughing and wearing strange shirts, etc..



From reading part of her book, though, I can see it was there. For example, she herself confirms that when the investigators took her back for a walk-through of the downstairs apartment, she put her booties on that went "Ta-DA!" and did a sweeping motion with her hands.



Also the gymnastics/stretching at the station, and there were other things in the book which she freely admitted to. That is all child-like behavior, IMO, and not congruent with the situation she was in. That would definately signal a lack of attachment with reality.



From reading her own descritions of herself in HER OWN WORDS IN HER OWN BOOK, I can definately see how she used her antics to avoid the reality.



I will say, that in this case, I think the overall purpose of her antics wasn't to avoid the reality - the overall purpose was to MAKE HERSELF APPEAR CHILD-LIKE AND THUS INCAPABLE OF THE MURDER. I think she knew what was going on every second of every minute. She was following along verrrryyy closely. She just played dumb. That is the crux of the matter - she played dumb. IMO.

I could be persuaded of that.

IMO she was a complete and total spoiled narcissist (I'm being kind because I think she's really a psychopath) that was completely unaware of how her actions were/are perceived by others.
Like most narcissists, she overestimated her powers of persuasion and her intelligence. She's so detached from normal human emotions she wasn't capable of expressing shock or horror she simply learned to mimic better as she's aged.
I watched a interview she did for her book.
One thing specifically stuck out to me... She talked about being scared at the time as it could have happened to her. Even after all this time...she still made such an inappropriate self centered comment.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[quesarita]

The print on the bathmat is a very, clear, complete print with so much blood that it seems impossible that it is a result of secondary transfer after stepping on a faint shoeprint in the hallway. That is, the amount of blood in the source of the blood has to be greater than the amount of blood that is left in the form of a print. Other than the blood pool, what is another source of blood that is greater than the blood on the mat?

The bath mat print is a relatively clear outline of part of a foot. There are obviously no identifying whorls because of the texture of the mat. I have seen equally convincing analyses matching the outline to both Sollecito's and Guede's.

 

[otto]

No, I think Q is saying that the footprints in the hallway are a result of stepping on the "blood" on the bathmat. So for example, Amanda takes shower, steps on the bathmat, and then walks down the hallway, or I guess Q changed it the other day to stepping with one foot off the bathmat while shuffling down the hallway.

That scenario is completely improbable to me. JMO.

I see ... thanks. So the idea is that Knox stepped on the bloody footprint on the bathmat several times with a wet foot, and then she tracked blood throughout the cottage? If we look at the huge pool of blood in the bedroom, and how quickly Guede's prints faded, I think it's unlikely that Knox stepped on the bathmat blood with a wet foot and then made so many prints. Guede's prints required a huge pool of blood, and Knox's prints only required stepping on a bloody print to create pretty much the same number of prints?

 

[Linda7NJ]

I see ... thanks. So the idea is that Knox stepped on the bloody footprint on the bathmat several times with a wet foot, and then she tracked blood throughout the cottage? If we look at the huge pool of blood in the bedroom, and how quickly Guede's prints faded, I think it's unlikely that Knox stepped on the bathmat blood with a wet foot and then made so many prints. Guede's prints required a huge pool of blood, and Knox's prints only required stepping on a bloody print to create pretty much the same number of prints?

I know there is a graphic somewhere that shows Rudy's footprints in red and the all the others in blue. ...I'm gonna look for it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[otto]

The bath mat print is a relatively clear outline of part of a foot. There are obviously no identifying whorls because of the texture of the mat. I have seen equally convincing analyses matching the outline to both Sollecito's and Guede's.

The arguments connecting the print to Sollecito were more convincing, and the trial conclusion is that the print belongs to Sollecito.

 

[Linda7NJ]

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Luminol_Traces

Link has excellent description as well as graphics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bill C]

What I am saying, is that because Meredith's blood was found OUTSIDE the bedroom, on the hall floor and bath mat, we cannot KNOW that the footprints were caused by someone stepping in blood in the bedroom.

It is not enough to say that there must have been matching footprints in the bedroom because not only were none found, they weren't even looked for.

That's what I thought you meant. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[otto]

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Luminol_Traces

Link has excellent description as well as graphics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks. Based on this illustration

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/images/1/19/Luminolandmixeddna.jpg

I very much doubt that Knox's prints were a result of stepping on the bathmat.

 

[Bill C]

No, I think Q is saying that the footprints in the hallway are a result of stepping on the "blood" on the bathmat. So for example, Amanda takes shower, steps on the bathmat, and then walks down the hallway, or I guess Q changed it the other day to stepping with one foot off the bathmat while shuffling down the hallway.

That scenario is completely improbable to me. JMO.

How are we sure that those are BLOODY footprints, because they tested + with luminol and -with TMB? That's a stretch and faulty scientific reasoning. As I've said before, additional test should have been performed before making that claim or am I missing something here?

 

[otto]

How are we sure that those are BLOODY footprints, because they tested + with luminol and -with TMB? That's a stretch and faulty scientific reasoning. As I've said before, additional test should have been performed before making that claim or am I missing something here?

Luminol degrades the sample, so if TMB was applied to the same sample where luminol was applied, it is expected that it would not give a positive result.

 

[Linda7NJ]

How are we sure that those are BLOODY footprints, because they tested + with luminol and -with TMB? That's a stretch and faulty scientific reasoning. As I've said before, additional test should have been performed before making that claim or am I missing something here?

Read the link please. It explains in detail the ridiculousness of that argument.

* I'm not calling you or your opinion ridiculous. Ridiculous is actually used at the link to describe the likelihood Knox had soaked her feet in beat pulp, grape juice or crushed horseradish


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

Here is another excellent source for the DNA findings.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Other_DNA_Evidence

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[quesarita]

I see ... thanks. So the idea is that Knox stepped on the bloody footprint on the bathmat several times with a wet foot, and then she tracked blood throughout the cottage? If we look at the huge pool of blood in the bedroom, and how quickly Guede's prints faded, I think it's unlikely that Knox stepped on the bathmat blood with a wet foot and then made so many prints. Guede's prints required a huge pool of blood, and Knox's prints only required stepping on a bloody print to create pretty much the same number of prints?

That's actually my point. Guede's prints were visible from within the bedroom almost all the way to the front door. The bare footprints were only visible to the luminol, not even deep enough to test positive with tmb.

 

[otto]

That's actually my point. Guede's prints were visible from within the bedroom almost all the way to the front door. The bare footprints were only visible to the luminol, not even deep enough to test positive with tmb.

The more I read about this, the more it seems clear that TMB was applied to the sample after luminol was applied to the sample. The sample tested positive for blood, but was too degraded or diluted when TMB was applied. That seems fairly easy to understand, so I'm a bit confused why there is so much confusion surrounding the fact that TMB was not useful when applied to the luminol degraded sample. What is the purpose of ignoring TMB's known limitations?

I think I missed the point ... sorry about that. I don't see any difference in the number of prints that were left by Knox in various places around the cottage. Did she carry the bath mat with her and repeatedly wet the sample, put her foot on the mat and then step on the floor again.

 

[Linda7NJ]

That's actually my point. Guede's prints were visible from within the bedroom almost all the way to the front door. The bare footprints were only visible to the luminol, not even deep enough to test positive with tmb.

I'm confused. It's my belief the hallway was cleaned ...all footprints were made visible with luminol.

Are you thinking Amanda missed visible bloody footprints leading from Meredith's door to the exit?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk