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

[aa9511]

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

Oh yesss, I forgot that part of the story - so he's in the bathroom, he takes his shoe(s?) off to rinse his pant leg, then he places his foot on the bathmat, the water drips down and creates a bloody stain, then he puts his shoe back on, then he walks back to the bedroom to take the towels, leaving no prints because of his blood-less shoes, then he steps in blood in the bedroom, then he walks out and leaves bloody footprints.

Do the supporters of her innocence really believe this is at all probable or even possible?

IMO, it is very, extremely far-fetched.

 

[redheadedgal]

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

like the wiki that says something like the sample is presumed to be blood with MK's dna (which can never be dated, like amanda's) ??

 

[redheadedgal]

Do you believe there was some sort of bloody animal sacrifice in the apartment? A huge spill of fruit juice? Beat pulp foot baths? Horseradish pulp foot baths? Onions? metals?

Bleach was positively ruled out as a false positive cause based on the weeks between any possible use and the luminol testing.

i stated earlier i believed it was a cleaning agent of some sort...

Yes, you're right, none of the luminol ones are perfectly shaped. I thought it was the innocence supporters who are always asking why are the footprints not smudged if they were cleaned? You can see from the picture that some part of the footprint is missing! And the blue next to Rudy's perfectly shaped shoeprints definately looked smudged-up to me, not perfectly shaped like Rudy's prints in red are.

there's that too -- thanks for reminding everyone :loveyou:

 

[sherlockh]

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:

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

I don't know all the details of that case, but not taking pictures of the Luminol reaction seems like a huge mistake. The argument was that the Luminol testing could not be accepted as evidence, but it can. I would have agreed to exclude the Luminol reactions if there were just one or two tiny spots in the hallway, but here we have footprints which gives us more information. Anyway, I believe we agree that it is up to the judge?

 

[Linda7NJ]

So who cleaned the hallway?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[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

Attacking the forensics from an optimal scientific viewpoint while disregarding common sense and logic is viewing the evidence and circumstances in a vacuum. It does not alter the results.
IMO

If anything, it furthers my belief that Amanda and RS are liars.
They themselves, with their own words, placed blood evidence in places the scientists on the podcast attempted to dismantle.
Amanda placed her ear blood in that bathroom.
Raff placed Meredith's blood on that knife.

It doesn't answer the question who tried to erase the evidence?

I do not believe the shoes on/shoes off explanation for zero Rudy evidence in that bathroom.
He left the murder room once, to leave. IMO






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

i stated earlier i believed it was a cleaning agent of some sort...



there's that too -- thanks for reminding everyone :loveyou:

A cleaning agent that spilled in footprint looking tracks? What?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[redheadedgal]

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.

"A comparative study of the sensitivity and specifity of luminal and fluorescein on diluted and aged bloodstains and subsequent STRs typing", 2006, illuminates that luminal is not visible on clay @ 1:10,000,000 so i doubt the information otto posted is correct, as least in regard to the cottage floor :twocents:

www.isfg.org/files/d1919173892ac1ef5fc147e2cd0caeff1a5d526f.05015712_123289277700.pdf


and, as a reminder, a study i posted earlier in the week, reported that in the field luminol was good only to 1:10,000.

 

[aa9511]

So who cleaned the hallway?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, they are saying nobody cleaned up anything in the hallway or anywhere. Nothing was cleaned up, in the innocence scenario.

 

[aa9511]

Attacking the forensics from an optimal scientific viewpoint while disregarding common sense and logic is viewing the evidence and circumstances in a vacuum. It does not alter the results.
IMO

If anything, it furthers my belief that Amanda and RS are liars.
They themselves, with their own words, placed blood evidence in places the scientists on the podcast attempted to dismantle.
Amanda placed her ear blood in that bathroom.
Raff placed Meredith's blood on that knife.

It doesn't answer the question who tried to erase the evidence?

I do not believe the shoes on/shoes off explanation for zero Rudy evidence in that bathroom.
He left the murder room once, to leave. IMO






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

:goodpost:

 

[MichaelSmith]

"A comparative study of the sensitivity and specifity of luminal and fluorescein on diluted and aged bloodstains and subsequent STRs typing", 2006, illuminates that luminal is not visible on clay @ 1:10,000,000 so i doubt the information otto posted is correct, as least in regard to the cottage floor :twocents:

www.isfg.org/files/d1919173892ac1ef5fc147e2cd0caeff1a5d526f.05015712_123289277700.pdf


and, as a reminder, a study i posted earlier in the week, reported that in the field luminol was good only to 1:10,000.

Good find. It didn't detect on iron or cotton at 1:1 000 000

L. Garofano a,*, M. Pizzamiglio a, A. Marino a,
A. Brighenti b, F. Romani b
a Raggruppamento Carabinieri Investigazioni Scientifiche, Reparto di Parma, Italy b University of Parma, Italy

 

[aa9511]

Good find. It didn't detect on iron or cotton at 1:1 000 000

L. Garofano a,*, M. Pizzamiglio a, A. Marino a,
A. Brighenti b, F. Romani b
a Raggruppamento Carabinieri Investigazioni Scientifiche, Reparto di Parma, Italy b University of Parma, Italy

It's blood, it's blood, it's blood, it's blood, it's blood, it's blood, it's blood,.......

 

[redheadedgal]

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.

if the US justice system can lack common sense and logic, can not the justice systems in other countries, like say italy, have similar lapses? i find the argument that a murder was committed over poo but one very recent example... and one much more illogical than luminol might not be blood considering the research available.

search for truth & italy are strangers :moo:

 

[redheadedgal]

And it still looks like two overlapping footprints to me. One barefoot one shoe print pointing in different directions.

so it's conceded that whatever that is, it's not one clearly defined footprint that can be or should be linked to a particular individual... ??

 

[aa9511]

IMO the evidence is overwhelming as a whole - what was Hellmann thinking??

 

[Linda7NJ]

if the US justice system can lack common sense and logic, can not the justice systems in other countries, like say italy, have similar lapses? i find the argument that a murder was committed over poo but one very recent example... and one much more illogical than luminol might not be blood considering the research available.

search for truth & italy are strangers :moo:

I don't pretend to know the motive. Motives for murder never make any sense to me.

To claim it's not blood and then to fail to put forth any other reasonable explanation that fits into the known circumstances is illogical & unreasonable to me.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

so it's conceded that whatever that is, it's not one clearly defined footprint that can be or should be linked to a particular individual... ??

The photograph lacks the measuring thingy for perspective.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

IMO the evidence is overwhelming as a whole - what was Hellmann thinking??

The Supreme Court doesn't believe Hellmann put enough thought into it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[aa9511]

I have not read Ron Hendry's book, but have heard much about it. So I was very surprised to find that this is a quote from his book:

'For reasons only Rudy knows, he makes the decision to go to Meredith’s room, neglecting to flush the toilet lest he lose the element of surprise. '

WOW! What insight!

"For reasons only Rudy knows....." - WOW! Ron Hendry, you are so insightful and you have cracked the case!

That's nice that he gets to complete ignore complete sections of how the crime occurred. Too bad in real life, things happen in order and there is no "cut and paste" or "fast-forward, play."

 

[MichaelSmith]

I don't pretend to know the motive. Motives for murder never make any sense to me.

To claim it's not blood and then to fail to put forth any other reasonable explanation that fits into the known circumstances is illogical & unreasonable to me.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The defence doesn't have to say what it was once it's proven not to be blood.

The prosecutions own expert said a TMB negative means it's not blood.

Why is this so hard to understand?