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

[aa9511]

I think I'll stick to what the scientific research says, what the experts at the trial testified and what people at the FBI serology unit have written about luminol and TMB.

I have no idea what the rest of your post is about, sorry.

Ok. Let me ask you this then, simply: Isn't it easier to just say those are not Amanda's footprints?

 

[aa9511]

it's not that hard to figure out.

or maybe someone walked in a copper-rich soil...

www.agriculturejournals.cz/publicFiles/04098.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16566172

http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0718-95162010000100005




first validity was questioned, now a "measuring thingy" is required?

Copper-rich soil?!!

 

[MichaelSmith]

I think he did the best he could, but a defense expert would never say that for example the bathmat print belongs to his client or else they will find somebody else. However, he did help convince the judges that the bathmat footprint belonged to Sollecito (by using the Crimescope). He simply couldn't do the impossible IMO.

Massei report

Why do you think Hellmann is wrong vs Massei about this?

http://hellmannreport.wordpress.com/contents/reasons-for-the-decision/print-on-the-mat/

What do you mean using 'the crime scope' re the bathmat print?

 

[aa9511]

every piece of evidence in this case can be logically and reasonably contested (as evidenced by the threads here alone)... we're far from BARD imo.

I disagree.

 

[otto]

I think he did the best he could, but a defense expert would never say that for example the bathmat print belongs to his client or else they will find somebody else. However, he did help convince the judges that the bathmat footprint belonged to Sollecito (by using the Crimescope). He simply couldn't do the impossible IMO.

Massei report

Massei Report, pg 354

Re: Vinci Report
"However, the Court cannot agree with one poinrt of departure, which is the operation that consists of detaching the small mark from the big toe print, since this results in a clearly visible resizing of the big toe."

"In brief, the suggestion that the extension of the big toe trace be scarificed, interpreting it instead as the print of the second toe, appears far from realistic."

 

[aa9511]

Awww yes, poor stupid kids beaten and brutalized and duped into mutable versions. Of course. That must be it.
And the FOG we mustn't forget that "fog"
Fogs and hazes seem to occur an awful lot with murder suspects. Must be a genetic condition linked directly to lips that can't control themselves and lie.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And what about lies told on the stand and lies told in their books? Those were after those terrorist-style interrogation they were under.

 

[otto]

Copper-rich soil?!!

What is all this about copper in the soil? What does dirt have to do with luminol revealed prints in the cottage? Is someone trying to say that the luminol revealed prints were caused by copper rich soil that leaked into the water system?

If there was something in the water that would result in footprints being revealed by luminol after 46 days, then the footprints of all four occupants of the cottage would be visible. Why is it that only Knox's prints were visible because of dirt, but no one else's prints were visible because of the same dirt?

... or am I completely misunderstanding the new, novel excuse?

 

[aa9511]

That's correct. There are a few prints from Guede on the pillow that are the correct length for Guede's foot, and one print that is the correct length for Knox's foot. In order to eliminate evidence implicating Knox, the story is that the pillow case became folded for one of Guede's prints and that's why it is the correct length for Knox's foot.

But if that were the case, then there would be a thin white line in the middle of the footprint after the fabric was "unfolded." It would have been clear, then, that the fabric had been folded and this is the reason for the smaller footprint.

I do have question though, as Harmony pointed out yesterday that the smaller footprint was made in same treads as Rudy's footprints. So wouldn't Amanda's shoeprint be clearly different from Rudy's?

 

[aa9511]

She was wearing Adidas shoes. Vinci is a defense witness, so his job is to provide an alternate explanation to the shoe print that is compatible with Knox's shoe size.

Yes, this was my question. I'm assuming Amanda threw away those shoes or they were never found? But could they not find an Adidas shoe like that somewhere to compare the treads with (I mean, get the shoe from a store and compare it). It's just that I think two different shoeprints would be obvious to tell that they are from two different people, if that is the case.

 

[otto]

But if that were the case, then there would be a thin white line in the middle of the footprint after the fabric was "unfolded." It would have been clear, then, that the fabric had been folded and this is the reason for the smaller footprint.

I do have question though, as Harmony pointed out yesterday that the smaller footprint was made in same treads as Rudy's footprints. So wouldn't Amanda's shoeprint be clearly different from Rudy's?

The soles of the shoes have some similarities, but are not identical. Guede is connected with the Nike shoe, Knox is connected with the Adidas shoe. The details of the soles of the shoes are of different sizes.

 

[otto]

Yes, this was my question. I'm assuming Amanda threw away those shoes or they were never found? But could they not find an Adidas shoe like that somewhere to compare the treads with (I mean, get the shoe from a store and compare it). It's just that I think two different shoeprints would be obvious to tell that they are from two different people, if that is the case.

If the print attributed to Knox on the pillowcase is resized in length and width, and compared to Guede's print, then it's almost possible to claim that an arc on the print belongs to Guede. If the print is not resized, then it does not match Guede.

 

[aa9511]

There is a mountain of evidence, and if each piece of evidence in that moutain is given it's own unique explanation, it can all be explained. However, it is important to view the evidence as a totality. If it can all be explained with one clear statement, such as "I was in another country at the time of the murder", then it works. That's not the case here. Instead, there are as many explanations as there are pieces of evidence, and that ultimately suggests that the explanations are more along the lines of excuses.

For example:

• Knox bloody footprints: not blood
• Sollecito's bloody print: reshape with photoshop and it belongs to Guede
• Knox shoe print on pillow case: fabric was folded only when Guede made that print, not folded for other pillow prints
• DNA on clasp: contamination in the cottage
• Meredith's DNA on knife: contamination in lab, or pricked with knife during imaginery dinner party
• Knox DNA on knife: she cooked for Sollecito, but they both said that he cooked for her
• Staged broken window: not staged, witnesses are confused
• Shifting alibi times: too stoned to remember
• Illogical behavior: the Amelie syndrome
• Failure to immediately contact police: police are confused
• Statement that Meredith routinely locked her bedroom: 6 witnesses misunderstood
• Phone call to mother before anything happened: doesn't remember making the call
• False accusation: police forced Knox to produce Patrick's name and blame him after approx. 1 hour of torture
• Confirmation of false accusations in two separate voluntary statements: unknown
  [*]Failure to admit false accusation to authorities: unknown
• Lamp in Meredith's bedroom: Meredith put it there
• Sollecito DNA on Meredith's bra: Meredith shared underwear with Knox even though there was conflict between them

The list goes on ... and on and on.

:goodpost:

ITA.

bbm

There are just some things for which there are just NO POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS, and this is one of them.

There is no explanation for why she didn't admit the false accusation after she got through her "terrorist-style" interrogation (which included drinking a cappucino) and had time to reflect in the days afterwards.

There is no explanation for Meredith's DNA on a knife in Raffaele's kitchen.

The other explanations are not reasonable, IMO, but that's ok. There is NO possible explanation for Meredith's DNA on a knife in Raffaele's kitchen, and in most US courtrooms, I believe that would be enough to get Guilty conviction even without all the rest.

 

[aa9511]

The soles of the shoes have some similarities, but are not identical. Guede is connected with the Nike shoe, Knox is connected with the Adidas shoe. The details of the soles of the shoes are of different sizes.

bbm

Ah, I see. Thanks.

 

[aa9511]

If the print attributed to Knox on the pillowcase is resized in length and width, and compared to Guede's print, then it's almost possible to claim that an arc on the print belongs to Guede. If the print is not resized, then it does not match Guede.

I see, ok yes that makes sense. But what about the treads on the bottom of the shoes? Could they not tell by just comparing the treads that they are clearly from two different types of shoes?

 

[otto]

I see, ok yes that makes sense. But what about the treads on the bottom of the shoes? Could they not tell by just comparing the treads that they are clearly from two different types of shoes?

Both treads have an arc, but the details are different. If the arc is resize and skewed, it appears to be the same size as the arc on Guede's shoes. If Guede's actual tread is compared to the print, full size, it does not match.

 

[aa9511]

Both treads have an arc, but the details are different. If the arc is resize and skewed, it appears to be the same size as the arc on Guede's shoes. If Guede's actual tread is compared to the print, full size, it does not match.

Sorry to belabor this, I am just trying to understand. Ok, so I got about the arc. What about the other marks on the shoes, sports shoes usually have treads going down the whole length of the shoe-sole?

 

[otto]

Sorry to belabor this, I am just trying to understand. Ok, so I got about the arc. What about the other marks on the shoes, sports shoes usually have treads going down the whole length of the shoe-sole?

The print on the pillow is faint, so it does not have all the details of the tread. The edge detail of the print is inconsistent with Guede's shoe. There is an arc on both shoes, but the arc of the print attributed to Knox is too small to be attributed to Guede's print. Other than the arc and the edge detail, there isn't much to work with. That's true of all the prints on the pillowcase ... not much to work with other than the arc.

 

[otto]

Regarding the wild claims from Kelsey Kay (alias) in tabloid news, where she claimed that she and Sollecito began discussing a marriage contract on the day they met, she was never sincere. Married women are not eligible for marriage.

"Raffaele went to visit her in the State of Idaho for two days. She has, however, proved unhelpful and it turned out that she was married, with a daughter."

http://www.unionesarda.it/articolo/...una_proposta_di_nozze_ad_amanda-5-351267.html

 

[aa9511]

The print on the pillow is faint, so it does not have all the details of the tread. The edge detail of the print is inconsistent with Guede's shoe. There is an arc on both shoes, but the arc of the print attributed to Knox is too small to be attributed to Guede's print. Other than the arc and the edge detail, there isn't much to work with. That's true of all the prints on the pillowcase ... not much to work with other than the arc.

I see, okay thank you.

 

[Amber29]

What is all this about copper in the soil? What does dirt have to do with luminol revealed prints in the cottage? Is someone trying to say that the luminol revealed prints were caused by copper rich soil that leaked into the water system?

If there was something in the water that would result in footprints being revealed by luminol after 46 days, then the footprints of all four occupants of the cottage would be visible. Why is it that only Knox's prints were visible because of dirt, but no one else's prints were visible because of the same dirt?

... or am I completely misunderstanding the new, novel excuse?

Yes not only would we expect a lot more prints but I would expect to see some in the living/kitchen area. The prints uncovered were limited to the hallway between Meredith and Amandas room and Amanda's room. If its something in the water, why were there none in those areas of the other roommates?