Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #17

[Nova]

Wow! I can't agree more with you on this!
It seems to me "a crime" is such a common way to refer to it.... I don't think I would say "this crime"...
I'm more of a believer in body language.. but seems there are often different ways interpreting things...
anyway, I'm no expert...

I'm not saying literary analysis is worthless, but I'm not convinced it can identify a murderer beyond a reasonable doubt. I feel the same way about body language.

 

[Malkmus]

I don't really have much to add as I think the links were pretty clear. Feel free to believe that AK shuffled naked on the bathmat after taking a shower in a bathroom with blood and an open door, and still her hair looks like a mess in the pics that morning. Maybe it was the weather? Her feet are wet, there is blood on the bathmat, and she steps on and off from the bathmat. This 'mastermind' theory came after 2 years!

I think you missed the part of my post that states Amanda mentioned stepping on the bloody bathmat in her email home two days after the murder. You also still haven't explained, nor has anyone, how sliding a bathmat across the hallway leaves bloody footprints. If anything it would be the opposite.

There also have been a million replies <modsnip> about that blood test. The negative blood test is perfectly explained in the judges report and why they still concluded the prints were made in blood. The little blood was used by Stefanoni for DNA testing, the luminol test is 10x more sensitive than the blood test and no alternative explanation makes any sense at all.

The report makes excuses for how the prints may have been blood, but never conclusively states they were. Out of 8 prints not one spec of blood, huh? Can you explain why there are no Luminol prints in the room where the murder took place?

 

[Nova]

Well, Steve, neither am I....but we do not need to be experts to realize this nit-picking is self-serving and ludicrous. "for a crime I never committed" is a commonly used phrase; :furious: I was also reading things where people said that Amanda's email home , where she speaks of seeing a drop of blood and says, "I thought perhaps Meredith was having menstrual issues" reveals her as the killer, as no decent woman would say that about a friend. I certainly would, we are not in the Victorian age here....

What a crock! "I would never kill her" is a way of adding emphasis, i.e., "Not only did I not kill her last night, I would never kill her under any circumstances!"

I'm sure the phrase does appear in the statements of guilty, but that doesn't mean everyone who uses the phrase is guilty.

 

[wasnt_me]

This is the footprint facing MK's door. What I notice, and y'all correct me if I'm wrong, there seems to be another identical toe right below the big toe in the photo.

 

[Nova]

I don't really have much to add as I think the links were pretty clear. Feel free to believe that AK shuffled naked on the bathmat after taking a shower in a bathroom with blood and an open door, and still her hair looks like a mess in the pics that morning. Maybe it was the weather? Her feet are wet, there is blood on the bathmat, and she steps on and off from the bathmat. This 'mastermind' theory came after 2 years!

There also have been a million replies to you about that blood test. The negative blood test is perfectly explained in the judges report and why they still concluded the prints were made in blood. The little blood was used by Stefanoni for DNA testing, the luminol test is 10x more sensitive than the blood test and no alternative explanation makes any sense at all.

I don't get the logic. We know MK's blood was on the bathmat, so anyone who used the bathroom the next day (as AK says she did) might well pick up trace amounts of blood in the process.

That the footprints are so faint as to be undetectable by a blood test suggests the blood in them (if you insist it's blood) came from some secondary source (such as the bath mat) rather than from MK's locked room. What is so incriminating?

 

[SMK]

What a crock! "I would never kill her" is a way of adding emphasis, i.e., "Not only did I not kill her last night, I would never kill her under any circumstances!"

I'm sure the phrase does appear in the statements of guilty, but that doesn't mean everyone who uses the phrase is guilty.

Absolutely! Imagine if a friend accused you of disclosing sensitive information about him. Wouldn't it be natural to say, "I would never do that!"?:maddening: This is faulty logic. Yes, some liars might use this phrasing, but so would truth tellers....

 

[SMK]

This is the footprint facing MK's door. What I notice, and y'all correct me if I'm wrong, there seems to be another identical toe right below the big toe in the photo.

Either that, or the print is "smeared"....:waitasec:

 

[wasnt_me]

I guess we'd have to read AK's appeal about the luminol prints. It goes on for PAGES about it.

 

[SMK]

I guess we'd have to read AK's appeal about the luminol prints. It goes on for PAGES about it.

:waiting:

here is the synopsis, then onto IIP to see document........

http://aklwei.wordpress.com/2011/01/26/scant-evidence-and-a-long-appeals-document/scant-evidence-2/

but this is in Italian:

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Amanda_Knox_Appeal.pdf

But here is IIP's summary in English:

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Appeal.html

 

[sherlockh]

I think you missed the part of my post that states Amanda mentioned stepping on the bloody bathmat in her email home two days after the murder. You also still haven't explained, nor has anyone, how sliding a bathmat across the hallway leaves bloody footprints. If anything it would be the opposite.

The report makes excuses for how the prints may have been blood, but never conclusively states they were. Out of 8 prints not one spec of blood, huh? Can you explain why there are no Luminol prints in the room where the murder took place?

I guess you missed the part where I said the links explain it rather well. She noticed the bloody footprint so she mentions she stepped on the bathmat. Then after 6 weeks she starts surfing. Then after 2 years she starts stepping on and off. I think they try to imply that the stepping on and off could have created bloody footprints. It is silly that you ask me to explain it since I am the one claiming it is a lousy theory anyway.

Luminol was not used in the murder room. I don't know where they got blood on their feet (either in the bathroom or the murder room).

 

[SMK]

This and the other violations in the summary make for interesting reading.....

Sixth Violation: The presence of Amanda Knox in her own residence

No evidence of Amanda was found in Meredith&#8217;s room
Several items of Rudy Guede were in the cottage and in Meredith's room including biological traces, fingerprints, footprints and feces. Some items of Amanda and Raffaele were found in her own residence, but nothing to link them to the murder because she lived there and Raffaele had visited several times.

The court stated that Rudy did not break and climb in the window thus Amanda is the only person who could have let Rudy into the cottage. This is simply not true. This theory is not backed by any evidence. Rudy could have come through the window or been let in by Meredith.

[. . . ]
The court claimed that Meredith would have never opened the door for Rudy but that is not certain. Meredith could have let Rudy into the cottage.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Appeal.html

 

[SMK]

Traces detected with luminol
The court makes two contradictory observations regarding the bare footprints detected with luminol. In one statement the court says Amanda walked to Filomena&#8217;s room then her own room from the murder room, then to the bathroom. In another scenario, Amanda goes to the bathroom first, washes off her feet, then walks to Filomena&#8217;s room with blood residue on the bottoms of her feet. The court cannot seem to decide exactly how those prints were made. More importantly, testing confirmed that the material detected with luminol was never determined to in fact be blood.

The defense argues that the observations made by Dr. Stefanoni should not be allowed because there is no proof that these prints were made in blood and there is nothing to link these prints to the murder.

Evidence shows that there were no footprints or shoe prints found inside the murder room that could be attributed to Amanda. There is no evidence that the luminol track findings deal at all with being blood, only 3 of 9 luminol tracks had the positive profile of Meredith. Meredith&#8217;s DNA profile was not found in any of the claimed bare footprints (nor was anyone's).

Cont. reading at link@ IIP : APPEAL SUMMARY FOR AMANDA KNOX: http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Appeal.html

 

[wasnt_me]

AK's appeal doc insists that the sensitivity of the TMB test was exhibited in this case when the scientists tested much smaller pictograms from the bathroom that tested positive for blood than the ones in the footprints, which tested negative.

The relief in question is even more significant when comparing the quantitative data of luminol positive samples with the "weight" of artifacts taken from the bath side the victim's room. In the latter case, are found to amount biological traces also significantly less than the amount found in luminol positive samples. Yet the tetrametilbenzina test was positive, confirming the reliability and sensitivity of the investigation in question.

I have no idea where this is in the appeal because I extracted the whole luminol portion and put it into google translator. I then just saved it to a word doc to read later (which coincidentally is now.) --actually, this might be around page 5, I figured out.

OMGoodess, the rest of this is hard to follow. Can someone else figure out what they mean here?

That is observed, for example, the trace 180. The documentation of findings shows the shape of a foot in the room of Amanda Knox, and instead, while Since the important quantity of DNA (240 picograms), it is found the positive blood or the genetic profile of Meredith Kercher. And it is precisely this last finding, as already anticipated, the most significant possible that at those tracks there was blood. Only three cases have been found from the biological Meredith Kercher, while many 121 traces gave birth to nothing genetic, others were found belong to Amanda Knox. It 's more than legitimate to ask, then, how you can say that it is presence of blood, since the genetic investigations have excluded this nature, but especially in view of the ground that at the luminol positive samples was not recovered from the biological Meredith Kercher. Consultants Knox defense had argued that the intense luminescence track was fair with a large quantity of material with the reagent luminol. Concluded, therefore, the nature of blood traces in considering the question of the biological profile of Meredith Kercher (Technical Report, signed by Prof. Tower, p. 4).. Prof. Torre reiterated in debates
<<with this luminescence is hard to believe that it would not be pulled out of DNA is a strong luminescence, the first should have been maybe make a specific diagnosis of blood>> (July 6, 2009 hearing transcript, page 28).. It 'just the case to highlight how the Court itself has said-about genetic investigations on the knife-the possibility of obtaining DNA from a single cell. Well, the non-discovery of the biological profile of the victim proves that the tracks in question did not contain blood of the victim.

 

[wasnt_me]

I don't pretend to understand this google translation, but it is sounding the like 122 things lit up in the hallway and 124 things lit up in FR's room, but no blood. Does anyone know if I got that right? Here's the quotes:

The Court stated, first, that <<The same experienced operators in luminol, The specificities of the floor would not have taken the test (Sic)>> (path p.. 304). The apoditticità of the assertion is obvious and does not deserve further comment. Still supports the ruling that <<The other possible formulas and related specific substances appear unlikely. It must be assumed that one or more of 122 these substances were present in various environments in which the luminol gave positivity>>
(path p.. 305). With regard to the observation in question is sufficient to recall what already argued about the existence of numerous substances luminol positive. This list is provided by Dr Stefanoni, by both geneticists defenses of both defendants was not intended to be exhaustive, but simply to demonstrate the ease of positive luminescence.

Well 's proposed event was not even considered in the sentence. Unlike luminol positive for traces highlighted in the chamber Romanelli, where there were no traces of bare feet, but as many times 124 stated by Dr Stefanoni, the floor was characterized by extensive and diffuse luminescence. If those comments are also added to the different luminescence (ICTU oculi
detected by comparing the photographs) is not really hypotheses peregrina the floor of the room has been affected by Romanelli cleaning with a mild positive luminol. In this way, this debate was the special care and attention to hygiene home by roommate Meredith and Amanda.

 

[SMK]

I don't pretend to understand this google translation, but it is sounding the like 122 things lit up in the hallway and 124 things lit up in FR's room, but no blood. Does anyone know if I got that right? Here's the quotes:

The Court stated, first, that <<The same experienced operators in luminol, The specificities of the floor would not have taken the test (Sic)>> (path p.. 304). The apoditticità of the assertion is obvious and does not deserve further comment. Still supports the ruling that <<The other possible formulas and related specific substances appear unlikely. It must be assumed that one or more of 122 these substances were present in various environments in which the luminol gave positivity>>
(path p.. 305). With regard to the observation in question is sufficient to recall what already argued about the existence of numerous substances luminol positive. This list is provided by Dr Stefanoni, by both geneticists defenses of both defendants was not intended to be exhaustive, but simply to demonstrate the ease of positive luminescence.

Well 's proposed event was not even considered in the sentence. Unlike luminol positive for traces highlighted in the chamber Romanelli, where there were no traces of bare feet, but as many times 124 stated by Dr Stefanoni, the floor was characterized by extensive and diffuse luminescence. If those comments are also added to the different luminescence (ICTU oculi
detected by comparing the photographs) is not really hypotheses peregrina the floor of the room has been affected by Romanelli cleaning with a mild positive luminol. In this way, this debate was the special care and attention to hygiene home by roommate Meredith and Amanda.

Yes, and the last paragraph about cleaning is pertinent, too..........:waitasec:

 

[Malkmus]

I guess you missed the part where I said the links explain it rather well. She noticed the bloody footprint so she mentions she stepped on the bathmat. Then after 6 weeks she starts surfing. Then after 2 years she starts stepping on and off. I think they try to imply that the stepping on and off could have created bloody footprints. It is silly that you ask me to explain it since I am the one claiming it is a lousy theory anyway.

Luminol was not used in the murder room. I don't know where they got blood on their feet (either in the bathroom or the murder room).

Sherlock, I'm not sure where you stand on the theory of Amanda doing the shuffle as an excuse for the prints. You've said "So with a little help from a 'friend' she is now trying to give an innocent explanation here for the luminol footprints." You've said PMF explains it well. And you've now said it's a lousy theory. I think we need to settle on it being a lousy theory, because shuffling on a bathmat doesn't create bloody prints, and even if it did, one would have to consciously remove them afterwards for them to later be revealed by Luminol. So it makes no sense.

 

[SMK]

The defense argues that the observations made by Dr. Stefanoni should not be allowed because there is no proof that these prints were made in blood and there is nothing to link these prints to the murder.

from the appeal summary


This is what I have always thought, but those who think they are guilty simply will not consider this info, and that a mistake may really have been made....

 

[wasnt_me]

As proof that there was no clean up, AK's appeal cites:

1. Bathmat-- of course
2. MK's bloody doorhandle. No one tried to wipe that off.
3. blood on the light switches, sink, bidet, and "the switch on the edge of water, close to shower."
4. RG's footprints, so well defined the shoe type was easily traceable.

The appearance of these tracks is very significant, because both were so well outlined that it was possible to relate a type of shoe and were gradually weakened as the presence of blood under the shoe fell. The entire framework outlined demonstrates absolutely clear that Meredith Kercher is the murderess escaped after the crime.

It also addresses how the court said knox cleaned from 745 to noon. The appeal said it made no sense that she cleaned for 4 hours and yet missed these items mentioned or "decided" she'd explain them away because they were "insignificant." Lame.


130 Regarding the positive luminol footprints found in the room of Amanda Knox There is another consideration. Knox's room, in fact, during the first inspection has been found a foot imprint their fingerprints at the positive luminol, or close the window under the radiator. This impression was enhanced by fingerprint, which showed that it was equipped with more than 16 characteristic points such as to permit the allocation. The footprint in word, among others, proved not to belong neither to Amanda Knox or Raffaele Reminder:

<<we had found fingerprints on a radiator, arch supports, we made comparison with all three but not attributed, are not fatherhood>>
(hearing transcripts hearing April 23, 2009, p.. 214).

(I believe google is translating footprints to = fingerprints sometimes.)

So there was even another footprint in AK's room and they don't even know who the heck is belonged to, just as they don't know the other contributors to that blob on Fr's floor. Without these answers, how can this evidence be used against AK or RS?

 

[wasnt_me]

from the appeal summary


This is what I have always thought, but those who think they are guilty simply will not consider this info, and that a mistake may really have been made....

Refusal to accept doesn't make one right.

 

[sherlockh]

Sherlock, I'm not sure where you stand on the theory of Amanda doing the shuffle as an excuse for the prints. You've said "So with a little help from a 'friend' she is now trying to give an innocent explanation here for the luminol footprints." You've said PMF explains it well. And you've now said it's a lousy theory. I think we need to settle on it being a lousy theory, because shuffling on a bathmat doesn't create bloody prints, and even if it did, one would have to consciously remove them afterwards for them to later be revealed by Luminol. So it makes no sense.

Everything in context. She never took a shower that morning. I don't believe a word of that. Then she says she uses the bathmat to dry her feet, yet used it to shuffle to her room because she is afraid of slipping with her wet feet. Then after 2 years she starts stepping on and off after questioning from RS's lawyer. If that is not an obvious planned defense strategy then I don't know what is.

Still, I find this bathmat shuffle thing so strange that I do wonder if there is some truth in it. Therefore I think it is possible that indeed there was no towel (RG used them) in the bathroom after they washed up. That they didn't want to leave any trace with their wet feet and therefore did do some kind of shuffle. Just speculating of course.

So I guess I stand somewhere in the middle