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

[aa9511]

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.

IDK, I wish they had done that. :banghead::banghead:

 

[Linda7NJ]

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.

If I must twist myself into a pretzel, cut off my arms, and while standing on my head to excuse away Amanda's behavior, lies and the evidence...Huston, we have a problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Amber29]

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

I actually linked a controlled study where a bloody print was placed on multiple surfaces. They were cleaned a few different ways and luminol was applied and tmb. Specifically on the tile the print cleaned with a 10% bleach cleaner on a sponge was tested with tmb first and gave a weak result. Luminol was applied and it was tested 2 more times, once right after the luminol and once after the luminol dried. Both tmb test after the luminol gave a negative result.

 

[aa9511]

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.

I guess the Court did not realize that some people would not take as a given that those prints are made in blood. :facepalm:

If, at least on select parts of the internet, the footprints being from the blood is in question, then the smaller footprint on the pillowcase would leave NO DOUBT that there was at least one (1) other person other than Rudy at the scene.

So let me understand this: So they think that Rudy stepped on it once, but then when he stepped on it again, the fabric was folded and that's why the second print is shorter?

 

[aa9511]

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, I agree. And this thing with the prints on the pillowcase - wow. There is no answer for that, IMO. It proves someone else was there, at least one other person was there at the scene with Rudy. And taken along with all the other forensic and circumstantial evidence on Amanda and RS, it proves they were there, although admittedly Raffaele has a little bit better case than Amanda does. IMO, Amanda's is WAY beyond reaonable doubt, and Raffaele's is also beyond reasonable doubt, but to a little lesser degree than Amanda.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I actually linked a controlled study where a bloody print was placed on multiple surfaces. They were cleaned a few different ways and luminol was applied and tmb. Specifically on the tile the print cleaned with a 10% bleach cleaner on a sponge was tested with tmb first and gave a weak result. Luminol was applied and it was tested 2 more times, once right after the luminol and once after the luminol dried. Both tmb test after the luminol gave a negative result.

But it was still blood.

When a murder with tons of blood is committed in a room and footprints are shown outside of that room with the use of luminol...I'm am not going to jump to the conclusion it must be animal blood, or fruit juice, or the result of a beat pulp foot wrap.

Common sense would dictate it was indeed blood and some effort was made to clean it up!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[aa9511]

If I must twist myself into a pretzel, cut off my arms, and while standing on my head to excuse away Amanda's behavior, lies and the evidence...Huston, we have a problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LOL!!

Yes, I do feel like I am always having to jump through hoops and make leaps and bounds when considering they were not involved, or as Amanda likes to say "were not there."

 

[Linda7NJ]

Yes, I agree. And this thing with the prints on the pillowcase - wow. There is no answer for that, IMO. It proves someone else was there, at least one other person was there at the scene with Rudy. And taken along with all the other forensic and circumstantial evidence on Amanda and RS, it proves they were there, although admittedly Raffaele has a little bit better case than Amanda does. IMO, Amanda's is WAY beyond reaonable doubt, and Raffaele's is also beyond reasonable doubt, but to a little lesser degree than Amanda.

The blood of Meredith in the bathroom and the absence of Rudy's footprints in the bathroom prove to me, beyond ALL doubt, Amanda was involved, the scene staged, and an attempt to remove evidence of her guilt was endeavored.

Rudy leaves Meredith's room goes straight down the hall and out. Period ...end of story.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MichaelSmith]

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.

There's no scientific study that shows that.

I thought this was a good thesis about luminol and all the studies about it if you're interested.

http://www.abacusdiagnostics.com/Illuminating_Latent_Blood.pdf

If you can find any real research or a proper cite then let me know because I've spent quite a bit of time reading about it but relying on some non sourced claim in a pdf from a tiny group operating out of warehouse in Florida is not credible......<modsnip>

 

[Harmony 2]

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.

I have never understood where Amanda's foot print is on the pillow. I am confused as Vinci addressed all the shoe prints. Was she also supposedly wearing Nike Outbreak 2 shoes?

 

[Linda7NJ]

There's no scientific study that shows that.



I thought this was a good thesis about luminol and all the studies about it if you're interested.



http://www.abacusdiagnostics.com/Illuminating_Latent_Blood.pdf



If you can find any real research or a proper cite then let me know because I've spent quite a bit of time reading about it but relying on some non sourced claim in a pdf from a tiny group operating out of warehouse in Florida is not credible......<modsnip>.

Please before I read this, can you put forth a reasonable innocent explanation for the footprints in this case?
Because try as I might...there just isn't one!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Amber29]

I listened to the podcast with Chris Halkides discussing the dna and was surprised to hear about the human blood downstairs (not really surprised) but apparently, Sollecito's attorney brought it up in closing arguments, do you know the context of this? So, what do you think happened in the downstairs apartment?

btw, for anyone who missed it, I highly suggest, explains a lot (the dna/ luminol) Chris, if you're out there, nice job, thanks

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/injust...lyzing-the-dna-evidence#.Utd6gV4dees.facebook

The human blood? I thought the blood in the downstairs apartment was from a cat. This is new to me I think. I don't know how blood in the downstairs apartment matters either way, if it wasn't attributed to RG, MK,AK, or RS. Or was it? Have I missed a key piece of evidence all these years?

 

[Linda7NJ]

The human blood? I thought the blood in the downstairs apartment was from a cat. This is new to me I think. I don't know how blood in the downstairs apartment matters either way, if it wasn't attributed to RG, MK,AK, or RS. Or was it? Have I missed a key piece of evidence all these years?

Seems totally unrelated to me...

Unless Rudy rubbed that dead cat's blood on the soles of a drugged up unconscious Amanda and RS....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Harmony 2]

Please before I read this, can you put forth a reasonable innocent explanation for the footprints in this case?
Because try as I might...there just isn't one!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Please listen to the podcast.. IMO it is excellent and may answer your question.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/injust...lyzing-the-dna-evidence#.Utd6gV4dees.facebook

 

[Linda7NJ]

Please listen to the podcast.. IMO it is excellent and may answer your question.



http://www.blogtalkradio.com/injust...lyzing-the-dna-evidence#.Utd6gV4dees.facebook

Heavy sigh....okay


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[redheadedgal]

Luminol testing is now universally accepted. Objections to accept Luminol testing as evidence (including references to Brenk vs Arkansas, 1993) were rejected in a case in Illinois for example. It is up to the judge and jury to weigh the evidence.

http://www.state.il.us/court/opinions/appellatecourt/2006/2nddistrict/june/html/2031177.htm

sorry, but it is not "universally accepted" if it can be ruled inadmissible, as in the giddings case (2011), where judge howard simms said (12/12/13) that:

it was unknown if any luminol glow there was caused by &#8220;chlorine or Dawn or radishes.&#8221;

http://www.macon.com/2013/12/12/2828837/burglary-evidence-out-in-mcdaniel.html

 

[aa9511]

The blood of Meredith in the bathroom and the absence of Rudy's footprints in the bathroom prove to me, beyond ALL doubt, Amanda was involved, the scene staged, and an attempt to remove evidence of her guilt was endeavored.

Rudy leaves Meredith's room goes straight down the hall and out. Period ...end of story.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, I agree. There is quite an elaborate story made to explain that too - that Rudy somehow didn't have blood on his shoes going to the bathroom, he gets to the bathroom, he washes off his bloody pants leg, the blood drips down onto the bottom of his shoes, thus leaving the blood stain on the bathmat - whewww, breath time - then because he was on the bathmat, the mat absorbed the bloody water, therefore he left no footprints going back to the bedroom, oh I forgot he also got towels from the bathroom - thenwhen he goes back to the bedroom to put the towels on Meredith, he steps in blood, therefore there are now bloody footprints going out of Meredith's room and down the hallway.

No, Amanda and RS are definately guilty (IMO).

 

[TorisMom003]

I have never understood where Amanda's foot print is on the pillow. I am confused as Vinci addressed all the shoe prints. Was she also supposedly wearing Nike Outbreak 2 shoes?

That's the part that makes me scratch my head. All of the footprints on the pillow are made by the same shoe. The treads from the soles of the shoes are all the same. There's only two reasons that could cause this. 1. The pillow was in fact folded over or something when the "smaller" print was made. or 2. Amanda was wearing the exact same style of shoes that Rudy was, only smaller, since the marks are all the same.

moo

 

[aa9511]

The human blood? I thought the blood in the downstairs apartment was from a cat. This is new to me I think. I don't know how blood in the downstairs apartment matters either way, if it wasn't attributed to RG, MK,AK, or RS. Or was it? Have I missed a key piece of evidence all these years?

This is probably another Amanda talking point - it's obvious that she portrays it in her book as a "question" to confuse and distract readers, and never addresses what the blood was actually from.

 

[TorisMom003]

Yes, I agree. There is quite an elaborate story made to explain that too - that Rudy somehow didn't have blood on his shoes going to the bathroom, he gets to the bathroom, he washes off his bloody pants leg, the blood drips down onto the bottom of his shoes, thus leaving the blood stain on the bathmat - whewww, breath time - then because he was on the bathmat, the mat absorbed the bloody water, therefore he left no footprints going back to the bedroom, oh I forgot he also got towels from the bathroom - thenwhen he goes back to the bedroom to put the towels on Meredith, he steps in blood, therefore there are now bloody footprints going out of Meredith's room and down the hallway.

No, Amanda and RS are definately guilty (IMO).

The footprint on the bathmat is not from someone having blood on their shoe. It was a bare foot footprint. So the blood could have been on the pants leg but not the shoe at that time. If Rudy put his shoe back on before going back to Meredith's room there would still be no bloody footprints (from someone wearing shoes) in the hallway.

MOO