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

[aa9511]

The one place I would have liked to see Luminol testing is the outside of the bathroom door. The judge logically concluded (because the door opens inwards, and the blood drip remainder on the side of the door) that the door was pushed open with somebody with blood on their hands and then later cleaned. Why was there no Luminol testing done? I have no idea.

Massei report (BBM)

Hmm...I am just brainstorming here, but it could be because maybe putting the Luminol there would affect the trace for further testing. In other words, if they put the Luminol there, the dribble would deteriorate and be untestable. IDK.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Hmm...I am just brainstorming here, but it could be because maybe putting the Luminol there would affect the trace for further testing. In other words, if they put the Luminol there, the dribble would deteriorate and be untestable. IDK.

And it was visible. No need to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[aa9511]

I'm trying to understand the logic here.
Is someone saying the footprints are not blood???
Is someone claiming false positive luminol footprints were cause by anything other than blood???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

YES Linda, yes. Quite a few people are saying that. This has been an on-going discussion on here for what seems like weeks now.

The proponents of this idea claim that becaues the TMB test came back negative, that means the footprints are not actually blood. And if it's not blood, that means they were made with something else. From there, the hypothesizing is endless. It is either bleach from floor, bleach from the shower, rust from the shower water, some kind of juice, some kind of other cleaning product other than bleach but which still acts like bleach, etc..

 

[MichaelSmith]

Do you have a link stating they were made by anything other than blood?

I have several stating they were a haematic substance and contained Meredith DNA


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The burden is on the prosecution to prove it was blood and they couldn't because it was all TMB negative. It's not for the defence to then also have to prove what caused it because that's not the way it works.

 

[Linda7NJ]

YES Linda, yes. Quite a few people are saying that. This has been an on-going discussion on here for what seems like weeks now.



The proponents of this idea claim that becaues the TMB test came back negative, that means the footprints are not actually blood. And if it's not blood, that means they were made with something else. From there, the hypothesizing is endless. It is either bleach from floor, bleach from the shower, rust from the shower water, some kind of juice, some kind of other cleaning product other than bleach but which still acts like bleach, etc..

THUD!

This illustrates perfectly the problem I have with the US Justice System and the all too common exploitation of the CSI Effect. Common sense and logic just flies out the window. All IMO

I actually prefer the Italian system where the search for the truth using common sense & logic in connection with forensic science. Bravo Italy!
I also love the prosecution can appeal as well.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sherlockh]

Hmm...I am just brainstorming here, but it could be because maybe putting the Luminol there would affect the trace for further testing. In other words, if they put the Luminol there, the dribble would deteriorate and be untestable. IDK.

I don't mean on the side of the door, but on the front of the door. As someone coming in would have pushed the door open. Massei says, Knox put her hand against the door and left a mark. The dribble on the side is only a remainder of that mark. Cleaning the front of the door could have left the unnoticed dribble on the side.

 

[aa9511]

the same "print" is used on TJMK... is that good enough?

scroll down to map: http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C339/


** that the defense is now manufacturing evidence despite all criticism that the prosecution was doing the same astounds me !!

Not the defense, I think she was suggesting the anonymous internet posters who run these sites.

 

[MichaelSmith]

I believe we are waiting for information that contradicts the information that I posted and linked. Is that available?

I don't know where the information comes from other than some PDF which doesn't cite where they got it from.

Where does this claim come from? Which scientific study proved it?

 

[Linda7NJ]

The burden is on the prosecution to prove it was blood and they couldn't because it was all TMB negative. It's not for the defence to then also have to prove what caused it because that's not the way it works.

Maybe here. But common sense is still utilized by the Italian Supreme Court. IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[aa9511]

Yes

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

Oh, that is in Italian, is there an English version somewhere?

Yes, but that is from the defense side, right? Of course they would claim it is Rudy's footprint.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Not the defense, I think she was suggesting the anonymous internet posters who run these sites.

And it still looks like two overlapping footprints to me. One barefoot one shoe print pointing in different directions.
Without size scales ...I'm stuck with my own opinion for now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[aa9511]

Aa9511,
I'm disappointed. I thought you were open-minded. One should be able to read anything critically and in their own mind determine whether the arguments are valid. I personally read both pro-guilt and pro-inocense sites including the wiki site and pick and choose what I believe on the strength of the arguments. I'm willing to have my mind changed if I'm convinced logically. Don't close your mind to potentially new and different ideas that may or may not change your mind. It's not a crime to change your mind.

Yes, you're right, but the only thing is, I don't think I'm not keeping an "open mind" by going to websites where the whole purpose is for the author to skew information in order to present it to you in a certain way for the result to be that you view information a certain way, and the ultimate goal being that you think the way they want you to think.

Does that seem like keeping an open mind to you?

It doesn't to me.

I would rather not let people try to "skew" me over.

 

[otto]

I don't know where the information comes from other than some PDF which doesn't cite where they got it from.

Where does this claim come from? Which scientific study proved it?

Please feel free to research that if it is of particular interest. I don't need to research further, as I trust the source. If the content in the linked source is incorrect, please provide the corrected information.

 

[aa9511]

There are several prints on the pillow case. One is attributed to Knox as it is a size 37-38 print (too small for Guede).

:facepalm: Then if this is the case, what are we all doing here? Then there is no case!

If Rudy's print is on there, and there is another smaller print on there, does that not mean that the smaller print cannot be Rudy's, and thus there was at least one (1) other person there at the scene?

I don't understand.

Are the supporters of innocence saying that he shrunk one foot?

 

[aa9511]

I read anything that's linked.
I am not going to just read a link that isn't used to provide an answer to something specific.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But I believe that, over time of being exposed to it, it can have a subconscious effect without someone even realizing it.

 

[otto]

:facepalm: Then if this is the case, what are we all doing here? Then there is no case!

If Rudy's print is on there, and there is another smaller print on there, does that not mean that the smaller print cannot be Rudy's, and thus there was at least one (1) other person there at the scene?

I don't understand.

Are the supporters of innocence saying that he shrunk one foot?

The story is that the fabric was folded when Knox stepped on the pillow, which supposedly foreshortened Guede's print. The court accepts that the print is contested by the defense and concludes that it does not matter on the basis that Knox's bare foot prints, made with blood, are in the hallway ... and that the only source for the blood is the blood in the bedroom.

 

[aa9511]

The burden is on the prosecution to prove it was blood and they couldn't because it was all TMB negative. It's not for the defence to then also have to prove what caused it because that's not the way it works.

I believe isn't this circumstantial evidence?

For example, the example Juan Martinez uses is you're at the beach, you see no footprints in the sand. You fall asleep. When you wake up, you see footprints in the sand going in one direction. Thus, even though you didn't see anyone walking by, you know someone walked by.

In this case, there is a bloody bedroom. Luminol which shows positive for blood, found footprints around the area around the bedroom. Thus, even though you can't prove it's blood, you know it's blood.

 

[Linda7NJ]

:facepalm: Then if this is the case, what are we all doing here? Then there is no case!



If Rudy's print is on there, and there is another smaller print on there, does that not mean that the smaller print cannot be Rudy's, and thus there was at least one (1) other person there at the scene?



I don't understand.



Are the supporters of innocence saying that he shrunk one foot?

Yes..

And Amanda's ears strategically bleed in precise drops directly on previously left drops of Meredith's blood.

And apparently something on her feet that faithful day left footprints that luminous like blood ...but isn't. Just that day...no other ...and by no one else but her and RS.



I'm still waiting for a link that the footprints were negative for blood....but whatever.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

I believe isn't this circumstantial evidence?



For example, the example Juan Martinez uses is you're at the beach, you see no footprints in the sand. You fall asleep. When you wake up, you see footprints in the sand going in one direction. Thus, even though you didn't see anyone walking by, you know someone walked by.



In this case, there is a bloody bedroom. Luminol which shows positive for blood, found footprints around the area around the bedroom. Thus, even though you can't prove it's blood, you know it's blood.

IMO it's been proven beyond a REASONABLE doubt....way beyond.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[aa9511]

THUD!

This illustrates perfectly the problem I have with the US Justice System and the all too common exploitation of the CSI Effect. Common sense and logic just flies out the window. All IMO

I actually prefer the Italian system where the search for the truth using common sense & logic in connection with forensic science. Bravo Italy!
I also love the prosecution can appeal as well.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe if we gave random people on the street a synopsis of the evidence, and asked them if they think the luminol prints are from blood or not, 99.99999999% would say yes. JMO.