Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #15

[emyr]

Okay, I have a question. Is there any definitive information on what was in Meredith's throat? 100% certain correct?

 

[Nova]

I'm very busy trying to stay neutral in the Caylee forum after a very surprising verdict was handed down. So maybe I'll just add a reminder here also because we are getting so close - NO bashing the decision maker(s) no matter what the final outcome is in this case, okay?

Keep in mind that the judge/jury doesn't necessarily care what the popular opinion is - oh my! :innocent:

Salem

I'm honestly not sure what this means with a system where judges also sit on the jury. Obviously we won't be allowed to attacked the judge's children or to make catty remarks about his taste in clothes.

But sometimes it's hard to overlook judicial incompetence. Let's hope we won't have to try.

 

[otto]

I'm honestly not sure what this means with a system where judges also sit on the jury. Obviously we won't be allowed to attacked the judge's children or to make catty remarks about his taste in clothes.

But sometimes it's hard to overlook judicial incompetence. Let's hope we won't have to try.

It seems rather clear to me. "NO bashing the decision maker(s) no matter what the final outcome is in this case" would mean to not bash the judge, jury and prosecutor, just like in the Anthony Trial.

 

[otto]

Okay, I have a question. Is there any definitive information on what was in Meredith's throat? 100% certain correct?

I have never heard that there was anything in her throat. Is there a link to a journalist that has attended the trial, or court documents that suggests there was something in her throat?

 

[Malkmus]

I have never heard that there was anything in her throat. Is there a link to a journalist that has attended the trial, or court documents that suggests there was something in her throat?

It's listed in the motivations report:

In the autopsy, Dr. Lalli noted the following: "... oesophagus containing a fragment apparently a piece of mushroom

 

[otto]

It's listed in the motivations report:

Thanks. Mushroom in her esophagus ... that's a little further down than the throat (or what I have in mind with "throat"). Is this interpreted to suggest that she was attacked as she was eating a mushroom? Does that tell us anything?

 

[SMK]

It seems rather clear to me. "NO bashing the decision maker(s) no matter what the final outcome is in this case" would mean to not bash the judge, jury and prosecutor, just like in the Anthony Trial.

Well, I have seen tons of bashing of the Defense team, Casey, and the Anthonys, but...does not mean I would ever do likewise, no matter the Knox/Sollecito verdicts. :innocent:

 

[SMK]

Thanks. Mushroom in her esophagus ... that's a little further down than the throat (or what I have in mind with "throat"). Is this interpreted to suggest that she was attacked as she was eating a mushroom? Does that tell us anything?

They later said it was a piece of cooked apple from the desert, which puts TOD closer to when she arrived home, as there was still food moving through the upper tracts and deudonem.

 

[otto]

They later said it was a piece of cooked apple from the desert, which puts TOD closer to when she arrived home, as there was still food moving through the upper tracts and deudonem.

Who said it was apple and is there a link to an article from a journalist that attended the trial or court documents?

 

[emyr]

It's listed in the motivations report:

Just checked out this interesting thing in the randi forum:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=196814&page=278

They say the defense requested a test of the food fragment, but it has not been done. All that is known for certain is that there was an unknown food fragment in her throat, possibly from the mushrooms that were in the refrigerator, or possibly regurgitated from her previous meal.

I was struck by something further down however. A poster stated that they tested the footprints with both luminol and TMB. The result, either way, is that the footprints were not made in blood because: the forensic team states the footprints flouresced in a way to indicate blood under luminol, but did not show up at all under the TMB test. If the presence of blood was strong enough to flouresce in such a way under luminol, then the TMB test would HAVE to be able to detect it. Therefore it cannot be blood. If the luminol had flouresced in an INDETERMINATE manner, and then the TMB had no reaction, then it is possible it is blood. That is not what the forensic analysts said.

So the footprints were not made in blood.

 

[otto]

Just checked out this interesting thing in the randi forum:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=196814&page=278

They say the defense requested a test of the food fragment, but it has not been done. All that is known for certain is that there was an unknown food fragment in her throat, possibly from the mushrooms that were in the refrigerator, or possibly regurgitated from her previous meal.

I was struck by something further down however. A poster stated that they tested the footprints with both luminol and TMB. The result, either way, is that the footprints were not made in blood because: the forensic team states the footprints flouresced in a way to indicate blood under luminol, but did not show up at all under the TMB test. If the presence of blood was strong enough to flouresce in such a way under luminol, then the TMB test would HAVE to be able to detect it. Therefore it cannot be blood. If the luminol had flouresced in an INDETERMINATE manner, and then the TMB had no reaction, then it is possible it is blood. That is not what the forensic analysts said.

So the footprints were not made in blood.

What sort of condition does the defense expect the food fragment to be in after 4 years, and is this request based on the hope that no tests can be done - giving the defense an opportunity to create a theory around their preferred food type?

Is there a scientific link to go along with someone's opinion that luminol does not reveal blood at a crime scene in Italy?

 

[otto]

Well, I have seen tons of bashing of the Defense team, Casey, and the Anthonys, but...does not mean I would ever do likewise, no matter the Knox/Sollecito verdicts. :innocent:

The suspect, family and defense lawyers are not the decision makers.

 

[dgfred]

They later said it was a piece of cooked apple from the desert, which puts TOD closer to when she arrived home, as there was still food moving through the upper tracts and deudonem.

There was an open pack of mushrooms in their fridge. :innocent:

 

[otto]

There was an open pack of mushrooms in their fridge. :innocent:

Hmmmmmm ... there were mushrooms in the fridge, there were mushrooms in her stomach contents (IIRC) and the autopsy report states that there was a mushroom in her esophagus but hey, maybe it was an apple. Luminol reveals blood at crime scenes everywhere in the world but, in Perugia, luminol does not work. If it reveals anything, it was the turnip.

 

[dgfred]

Hmmmmmm ... there were mushrooms in the fridge, there were mushrooms in her stomach contents (IIRC) and the autopsy report states that there was a mushroom in her esophagus but hey, maybe it was an apple. Luminol reveals blood at crime scenes everywhere in the world but, in Perugia, luminol does not work. If it reveals anything, it was the turnip.

A pic is on PMF gallery/ crime scene/ page 1

 

[dgfred]

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image_page.php?album_id=21&image_id=2033

 

[otto]

I see we're still trying to fudge the time of death, making it as early as possible so as to minimize the possibility that Knox and Sollecito could commit the murder.

 

[SMK]

The suspect, family and defense lawyers are not the decision makers.

:razz:

 

[SMK]

There was an open pack of mushrooms in their fridge. :innocent:

:razz:

 

[Malkmus]

The suspect, family and defense lawyers are not the decision makers.

Neither is the prosecutor.

It seems rather clear to me. "NO bashing the decision maker(s) no matter what the final outcome is in this case" would mean to not bash the judge, jury and prosecutor, just like in the Anthony Trial.