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

[quesarita]

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

Everyone's entitled to their opinion. I found them at least equally convincing. Trial conclusions are just that - conclusions. If they were always right there would be no wrongful convictions around the world.

I still absolutely do not understand why the bedroom wasn't tested for foot prints after some were found in the hall way.

 

[Harmony 2]

The moving of Meredith's body proves to me at least it couldn't have been Rudy alone, as he left rather swiftly...straight out the door. He would have no reason to move her. He didn't go wash up in the bathroom first. But IMO Amanda sure did.she used that bathroom to clean up herself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe Rudy placed the pillow on the floor then dragged and moved Meredith's body onto the pillow to position her hips higher so that he could sexually assault her. His footprint smeared the wet spermatozoa on the pillow. Vinci found the smeared footprint using Crimescope and it is part of Rafaelle's appeal.

page 19 Vinci report

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Vinci.pdf

 

[redheadedgal]

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.

this reasoning makes no sense to me... if luminol degrades blood, why ever do a TMB test on any "evidence" revealed by luminol?

(since performing a TMB follow up test seems standard after a +luminol finding...)

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

so US courts are "ridiculous"?

Brenk vs. State, 1993, Arkansas:

The Brenk case confronted the issue of whether evidence of luminol testing should be allowed in light of the fact that luminol does not distinguish between certain metals, vegetable matter, human blood, or animal blood. This Court held that evidence about the use of luminol would not be admissible unless additional tests showed that the substance tested was human blood related to the alleged crime.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ar-supreme-court/1130394.html

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?

this is not correct. luminol reveals substances other than blood*.

*see Brenk 1993, above

 

[quesarita]

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.

I'll try again to explain my thinking, and my question, because this really started as a question.

The bare footprints are very faint. If someone stepped on the bloody bath mat and/or Rudy's bloody shoe prints, would they have picked up enough blood from that contact on the soles of their feet to leave further traces on the floor, detectable only by luminol?

There is a spot where the luminol footprint and Rudy's shoe print are overlaid, mixed together. IMO that makes it highly unlikely that the bare prints ever existed as deeper darker prints that were washed away somehow. IE; IMO the bare prints were MADE as very faint prints as they showed with luminol.

Also, it is still an important fact to me that no testing for footprints or cleaning was done on Meredith's bedroom. It makes no sense at all, less so after prints were found outside the bedroom, and even one matching bare print in the bedroom would have placed Amanda in there.

 

[redheadedgal]

I'm coming out of lurking to give my opinion about this text message since there seems to be a bit of a disagreement about its meaning. To me, it's pretty clear that RS is talking about someone wanting to date him AFTER he became "famous" (and therefore after the murder) because she wanted to gain fame from being with him. She was apparently mentally unstable (in his opinion at least) and just wanted to be able to say she was with him for the attention it would bring to her. I do not think he's referring to AK at all. In order for the text to be about AK, are you thinking that she murdered MK simply because she wanted to become famous? It makes no sense to me how the message could be construed to be about AK, even if you believe she is guilty. JMO

The way I read his text is that the woman wanted to date him because he was famous, and she wanted to experience the fame of being with him. To me, that description doesn't fit AK at all. Their relationship started before either of them became famous. And AK got way more fame out of the trial than RS did, so she didn't need to keep dating him in order to experience any fame. She was already involved in the murder trial. She didn't need him for fame. The woman he's referring to wasn't famous and only wanted to be with him because of his famous status related to the murder trial. So there is no way it could be AK that he's talking about, IMO.

exactly. thank you!

and, :welcome6: !!!

 

[redheadedgal]

I'll try again to explain my thinking, and my question, because this really started as a question.

The bare footprints are very faint. If someone stepped on the bloody bath mat and/or Rudy's bloody shoe prints, would they have picked up enough blood from that contact on the soles of their feet to leave further traces on the floor, detectable only by luminol?

wouldn't the shape of the bloody footprint been deformed/ruined if it had been stepped on?

i still believe a cleaning product caused the +luminol reaction. i believe i already know the answer to this question but, is there any evidence that the forensics team attempted to experiment with the cleaning products found in the cottage to see if any caused the +luminol reaction? if this wasn't done, especially after the -TMB tests, :banghead:

 

[otto]

Everyone's entitled to their opinion. I found them at least equally convincing. Trial conclusions are just that - conclusions. If they were always right there would be no wrongful convictions around the world.

I still absolutely do not understand why the bedroom wasn't tested for foot prints after some were found in the hall way.

I'm assuming that luminol was not needed in the bedroom to see the bloody mess, since it was visible without luminol, and it would not be useful in terms of understanding the crime reconstruction of who did what after leaving the bedroom.

 

[Harmony 2]

I love the emoticon with the pink bows....Harmony, I'm seeing it in the Quote as a photobucket - does that mean it's not in the site Emoticon list?

OT
I have a huge file on my personal photobucket for forum smilies. I collect smilies.

You can right click and save it to your photos on your computer.

 

[otto]

this reasoning makes no sense to me... if luminol degrades blood, why ever do a TMB test on any "evidence" revealed by luminol?

(since performing a TMB follow up test seems standard after a +luminol finding...)

It's a known fact that luminol degrades the quality of the sample, making TMB less useful with samples revealed with luminol. TMB is intended for use with a blood sample that is visible, luminol is intended for use with samples that are not visible. TMB is used to confirm that blood is blood, luminol is used to understand crime scene reconstruction. They are not two different tests to do the same thing.

 

[Harmony 2]

It's a known fact that luminol degrades the quality of the sample, making TMB less useful with samples revealed with luminol. TMB is intended for use with a blood sample that is visible, luminol is intended for use with samples that are not visible. TMB is used to confirm that blood is blood, luminol is used to understand crime scene reconstruction. They are not two different tests to do the same thing.

Please provide a link for luminol degrading TMB...
Not doubting you just would like to read it. tia
The rest of your post I agree with..

 

[quesarita]

I'm assuming that luminol was not needed in the bedroom to see the bloody mess, since it was visible without luminol, and it would not be useful in terms of understanding the crime reconstruction of who did what after leaving the bedroom.

It would have been extremely useful for reconstructing the theoretical "clean-up", no?

 

[Linda7NJ]

I believe Rudy placed the pillow on the floor then dragged and moved Meredith's body onto the pillow to position her hips higher so that he could sexually assault her. His footprint smeared the wet spermatozoa on the pillow. Vinci found the smeared footprint using Crimescope and it is part of Rafaelle's appeal.



page 19 Vinci report



http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Vinci.pdf

After she was dead?

IED the scream was followed almost immediately by the sound of footsteps running by ear wtiness.

After a scream so loud a
neighbor heard, Meredith is laying there bleeding out, Rudy waited around a bit....then moved her to sexually assault her?

IMO the scream occurred, the knife to silence her, followed almost immediately by running out the door makes more sense to me. It lines up better with everything else.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[otto]

Please provide a link for luminol degrading TMB...
Not doubting you just would like to read it. tia
The rest of your post I agree with..

This is where I found a clear, concise explanation about the different uses, sensitivities and limitations of Luminol and TMB. I have collected information from various parts of the report and summarized it below.

Luminol Accuracy

Sensitivity
− 10‐6 to 10‐8: most sensitive presumptive test (10 to the power of -6, or -8)

Specificity
− Many false positives: bleach, metals, chemical oxidants, vegetable peroxidases
− Will not detect differences in animal or human blood

http://projects.nfstc.org/bsw/presen...10_CBS_JMS.pdf page 41

Luminol –Limitations

Stability
− Very unstable
− About eight hour limit

Mostly used at crime scene
− Can dilute out stain (possibly too much for DNA analysis)
− Used more for blood spatter, crime scene reconstruction
same link; page 42

TMB Sensitivity

Sensitivity
− 1:10,000 on dried stains

Specificity
− Not as specific as KM test
− False Positive to vegetable peroxidases, bleach, otassium permanganate
− Will not detect differences in animal of human blood

Kastle‐Meyer Test –Limitations
Kastle‐Meyer (Phenolphthalein)
TMB is not as specific as KM test

Sensitivity
− 1 in 1000 on dried stains

Specificity
− Can weed out false positives between steps 2 and 3
− Chemical oxidants, vegetable peroxidases
− Will not detect differences in animal or human blood

Stability
− Relatively stable if the reagents are stored separately and refrigerated


http://projects.nfstc.org/bsw/presentations/02_BioScreening_Blood_012010_CBS_JMS.pdf

http://projects.nfstc.org/bsw/

10-6 would be 10 to the power of negative 6, which is 1:1,000,000 or 0.000010

10-8 would be 10 to the power of negative 8, which is 1:100,000,000 or 0.00000010

 

[Linda7NJ]

this reasoning makes no sense to me... if luminol degrades blood, why ever do a TMB test on any "evidence" revealed by luminol?

(since performing a TMB follow up test seems standard after a +luminol finding...)





so US courts are "ridiculous"?



http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ar-supreme-court/1130394.html





this is not correct. luminol reveals substances other than blood*.

*see Brenk 1993, above

Yes, I do believe the US courts are often beyond ridiculous.

Considering the ridiculous likelihood that it was animal blood or any of the other reactionary substances....the results should stand on common sense alone.

The problem I have with the US system is that it is far more about winning, muddying the waters, smoke, mirrors and confusion than it is using common sense and logic to ferret out the truth of the matter.
Defense lawyers have a long history of manipulating jurors with the "CSI effect"




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[quesarita]

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.

That's the same illustration I was looking at.

 

[Amber29]

Yes, I do believe the US courts are often beyond ridiculous.

Considering the ridiculous likelihood that it was animal blood or any of the other reactionary substances....the results should stand on common sense alone.

The problem I have with the US system is that it is far more about winning, muddying the waters, smoke, mirrors and confusion than it is using common sense and logic to ferret out the truth of the matter.
Defense lawyers have a long history of manipulating jurors with the "CSI effect"




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ITA with this post. Sometimes the things said in court just leave you shaking your head in disbelief.

 

[Amber29]

That's the same illustration I was looking at.

Quesarita I just have to say I think have understood your question this whole time, I just don't have an answer.

Would AK stepping on the bloody bathmat leave enough trace amounts on her foot that luminol would detect her prints from stepping off the mat while scooting to her room?

I just don't know because IMO it would take her stepping exactly over the footprint on the mat to cover most of her foot.

 

[quesarita]

Quesarita I just have to say I think have understood your question this whole time, I just don't have an answer.

Would AK stepping on the bloody bathmat leave enough trace amounts on her foot that luminol would detect her prints from stepping off the mat while scooting to her room?

I just don't know because IMO it would take her stepping exactly over the footprint on the mat to cover most of her foot.

Fair enough. I suppose I can try to write to somebody with that kind of expertise. The other part of that question was whether there could have been enough residue left on the floor of the tub where she took her shower, but then it seems more likely there would be both left and right prints.

Does anyone have an idea how there could be smudged luminol prints in and around one of Rudy's visible prints if the bare prints were washed away somehow?

 

[Linda7NJ]

Fair enough. I suppose I can try to write to somebody with that kind of expertise. The other part of that question was whether there could have been enough residue left on the floor of the tub where she took her shower, but then it seems more likely there would be both left and right prints.



Does anyone have an idea how there could be smudged luminol prints in and around one of Rudy's visible prints if the bare prints were washed away somehow?

IMO she first washed her feet in the bidet


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[quesarita]

IMO she first washed her feet in the bidet


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All the more reason then IMO to test for prints made in Meredith's bedroom before she had a chance to dilute them.