Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#7

[aa9511]

The blue mat in the bedroom is here, and then the zoomed image where there is a question about what left a clean stencil area on the floor in blood.

I don't think it had anything to do with the mat....that seems too big. Even clumped up, it wouldn't really fit the shape.

Maybe the dictionary or some other books.

But why would they move it? Do you think it had a handprint or footprint or something on it?

 

[Amber29]

That's interesting. But what would he say....that he was sleeping and Amanda did all of that and brought the knife back, cleaned it off, and put in back in the drawer, and he didn't see all of this because he was "sleeping?"

I just don't see how he could spin that one.

He said something similar at one time. Saying amanda had gone out and hadn't returned until 1am. IIRC

 

[MichaelSmith]

He said something similar at one time. Saying amanda had gone out and hadn't returned until 1am. IIRC

Which is what happened the night before.

Are Guede's statements of interest? Like when he said they weren't involved and he didn't even know who Raffaele was?

 

[aa9511]

SMK's 'quote from transcript' is made up. I guess it's bias skewing the recollection and unwillingness to look at the sources before writing something as fact. Now others follow up and the falsehood takes a life among the facts.

Just like the falsehood about 'running washing machine' that was posted yesterday. I do hope you will check the sources about it, Otto, and update us, as you promised.

I believe someone, maybe MichaelSmith, wrote a post upthread about precisely this issue: That there are 2 translations of the Amanda-Mom conversation. One was in one report, the other was in another. He even pointed out the differences between the two, specifically one says "in" and the other says "besides."

It is upthread just a couple of pages, if you care to check.

SMK was not making anything up. If there are 2 different translations of the converstion, and both are included in various reports, then how is that making something up?

 

[MichaelSmith]

I believe someone, maybe MichaelSmith, wrote a post upthread about precisely this issue: That there are 2 translations of the Amanda-Mom conversation. One was in one report, the other was in another. He even pointed out the differences between the two, specifically one says "in" and the other says "besides."

It is upthread just a couple of pages.

It wasn't me. I actually got fooled re that from SMK's c&p from the TJMK conspiracy theory site until Katody showed it was deceptive.

 

[aa9511]

truejustice: "Edda: Okay, you called me first to tell me about some things that had shocked you. But this happened before anything really happened in the house."

From Katody's post upthread (which apparently comes from Galati's appeal): "M): Yes, but this happened before anything had really happened, besides the house..." (bolding mine)

Both put the qualifier (really) in front of the word "happened." That changes the meaning. The really big thing that happened was finding Meredith's body, and so IMO Edda is saying in effect, "What had bothered you enough to call me prior to Meredith's body being discovered?"

The difference between the two "besides" versus "in" is interesting. It seems to me that in the second version Edda is thinking out loud and beginning to answer her own question, "Yes there was some reason to call; the house had been disturbed." MOO.

Oh, sorry, actually it was Chris_H. Here is what he posted. It's very informative, and answers the questions about the different versions and why people keep quoting different things.

 

[Sigh Sister]

Bongiorno complained about the lack of discovery in a 2009 address to the court (link provided some time ago). Dalla Vedova (see quote I provided today) said that they still did not have the raw data as of 2011. Raw data does not mean an electronic copy of a egram; it means the data that are used to make the egrams. The lack of discovery goes beyond the lack of electronic data files and negative controls, however. In an interview Greg Hampikian said, "It’s fairly routine in the US that I send a request and get what I want. But in the Knox case I haven’t been able to get a copy of the standard operating procedures of the lab and without that, it’s hard to see if they even followed their own guidelines." (the original link to this article is dead, but it is quotes elsewhere)
EDT
Either the tweet posted at TJfMK is wrong, or Galati is wrong.

I just read a lot of C&V 's report (a link for those interested - http://knoxdnareport.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/translation-of-the-conti-vecchiotti-report2.pdf) They mention that it's impossible to determine what guidelines she followed with some testing due to lack of documentation. The report is lengthy, but I recommend it to posters that haven't read it. I suggest starting at page 52. It gave me a bit of a headache, but it seems to me that Stefanoni's work should not be considered at all.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Yes of course. They are not going to get the data themselves and make copies. They rather not go and keep complaining about not being 'given' the data.

In 2008 Sollecito's defense expert Pascali offered to go to the lab. From Raffaele Sollecito's appeal document: " To deal with a similar unjust refusal, the defense made on July 3, 2008, a further instance in which it sought to 'acquire forensic laboratories of the numerical values and RFU peaks on all findings, or alternatively to obtain police Scientific CDROM containing the raw data and peak RFU. It was asked, Moreover, in case it was not possible to obtain copies of these data, that the Prof. Pascali was allowed to go to the police service science for a spot inspection of the data and make it directly computerized copy;
- Even that request, however, was inexplicably rejected on 11 July 2008 with the anodyne statement that 'on the charts of Forensic there are already bars with generic value on fluorescence peaks." Therefore the lack of discovery has been a problem for the defense at least between 2008 and 2011.

 

[aa9511]

It couldn't be the duvet, as that was added after the staging, perhaps at the same time that Knox's lamp was moved into Meredith's bedroom. Whatever it was, it definitly caught some blood spatter and left a silhouette when it was moved. It could be one object, or it could be a book and something else. If I had to guess, I would say that the dictionary was flipped over and perhaps something was removed.

But Otto, why the removal/moving for whatever was in that place?

 

[MichaelSmith]

But Otto, why the removal/moving for whatever was in that place?

Is that a trick question?

 

[Harmony 2]

Even in the visible bloody shoe print trail of Guede there are prints missing. The print where he stepped in blood is missing, no prints where he walked through the door, and a print in front of Knox's room is missing. Where did these prints go?

IMO. This is all explained by the cleaning evidence, the bloody female shoe print on the pillow, and the lamp on the floor. They were not cleaning 'DNA' but prints. In the process of cleaning these prints a few of Guede's prints had to be cleaned as well.

If they were cleaned why didn't Guede's shoe prints show up with luminol? Was luminol used in Meredith's room?

 

[sherlockh]

If they were cleaned why didn't Guede's shoe prints show up with luminol? Was luminol used in Meredith's room?

No Luminol in Meredith's room. Too much blood I assume There were no shoe prints found with Luminol. Only foot prints. Maybe shoe prints are easier to clean? Either way, there are both foot and shoe prints missing IMO.

 

[aa9511]

There is only one version of the transcript in court documents. It's quoted in Massei's report and in Galati's appeal. I posted it above, with sources.

But you're right, SMK wasn't making up anything, she just quoted the falsified transcript with whole sentences made up by someone from a propaganda site.

Well let me just say that I have seen a FAIR share of links to a certain pro-innocence site and links to information from there. Which I do click on the links and see what the poster wants me to see. So, perhaps I have been getting brainwashed from clicking on those links, not even realizing that I'm being brainwashed??

It goes both ways.

 

[aa9511]

In 2008 Sollecito's defense expert Pascali offered to go to the lab. From Raffaele Sollecito's appeal document: " To deal with a similar unjust refusal, the defense made on July 3, 2008, a further instance in which it sought to 'acquire forensic laboratories of the numerical values and RFU peaks on all findings, or alternatively to obtain police Scientific CDROM containing the raw data and peak RFU. It was asked, Moreover, in case it was not possible to obtain copies of these data, that the Prof. Pascali was allowed to go to the police service science for a spot inspection of the data and make it directly computerized copy;
- Even that request, however, was inexplicably rejected on 11 July 2008 with the anodyne statement that 'on the charts of Forensic there are already bars with generic value on fluorescence peaks." Therefore the lack of discovery has been a problem for the defense at least between 2008 and 2011.

Kind of hard to accept what the defense says without getting the other side's version of the story.

I'm sure if you read any motion submitted by a defense in the U.S., we would find similar grievances.

It's their job to try to use any issue they possibly can to try to get the case against their clients dismissed or help their clients in any way.

 

[Harmony 2]

No Luminol in Meredith's room. Too much blood I assume There were no shoe prints found with Luminol. Only foot prints. Maybe shoe prints are easier to clean? Either way, there are both foot and shoe prints missing IMO.

link

http://www.forensicsrus.com/page7.html

 

[Katody]

No Luminol in Meredith's room. Too much blood I assume There were no shoe prints found with Luminol. Only foot prints. Maybe shoe prints are easier to clean? Either way, there are both foot and shoe prints missing IMO.

There was one luminol trace described as shoeprint in the hallway.

There was no clean up for the simple reason that there are many visible bloody prints of Guede's shoe. One is located directly on the way to the bathroom.

So no cleanup unless we postulate the floor was cleaned up around Guede's prints and around the luminol prints leaving them intact, but that would be... a peculiar hypothesis.

 

[aa9511]

Is that a trick question?

No...LOL! No, like, what footprint, handprint, shoeprint, what are the theories?

 

[aa9511]

link

http://www.forensicsrus.com/page7.html

Oh that is very clear and has a very clear shape.

Oh wait, is that from the bleach?

 

[MichaelSmith]

Kind of hard to accept what the defense says without getting the other side's version of the story.

I'm sure if you read any motion submitted by a defense in the U.S., we would find similar grievances.

It's their job to try to use any issue they possibly can to try to get the case against their clients dismissed or help their clients in any way.

Yet some people automatically side with the prosecution in every case <modsnip>. Each to their own I guess.

 

[Myvice]

otto:

Is this it?

http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image_page.php?album_id=21&image_id=1657

Are these like the shoes Guede was wearing?