Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #18

[Fulcanelli]

And let it be so with AK and RS, who have also remembered incorrectly. Doesn't make them repeated liars. I have already granted that they have told a couple lies, but remembering the TOD (TIME OF DINNER) shouldn't be included, if other witnesses are granted the same latitude for not remembering some things.

They are not even remotely comparable.

And yes, RS and AK are repeated liars. They have even both admitted they lied. That's good enough for me.

 

[Sonata]

Italy is certainly not as liberal as Florida in terms of making information available to the public, but it seems that some information is available at different stages of a trial. When you refer to the pink bathroom photo, how was that false? Surely no one thought that pink powder was blood! Prosecutors all over the world will release any information they deem useful in gathering information at any stage of an investigation. The information they release does not have to be factual. Reporters should check facts before running with a story. Reporters should know this.

Unfortunately I think some people did.

I understand that they are allowed to publish this stuff but I do think there should be more care taken with HOW they spin the article or label the pictures so that people don't make that mistake. Doing otherwise is quite irresponsible I find.

 

[sherlockh]

The JonBenet Ramsay case was never solved.

I am a 100% PDI

 

[Sonata]

I am a 100% PDI

PDI? Is that Private Detective Inspector?

(Personally I do believe it was a family or friend of the family... but as I said... never proven, frustratingly!)

 

[Fulcanelli]

This is ironic that RG is believed, in culimination of other evidence, about the shoes, but not so about the TOD. Each side of the debate chooses if and when to believe RG. What's strange is that both sides of the debate believe him about the shoes, but neither about him having a date. The two sides of the debate do not agree that the tells the truth about TOD.

I find that interesting, but of course RG, the murderer, can't tell the truth about everything. In fact his associates called him a known habitual liar.

It's all absolutes with you isn't it? Either someone should be absolutely believed, or they should be absolutely disbelieved. The police and court understand that sometimes people may forget or misremember/confuse a specific point, they also understand that people will lie and they also understand that lairs will sometimes tell the truth. The police and the courts will tend to accept as correct and the truth that which is supported by the evidence. Guede's TOD is not supported by the evidence. That the prints are his shoeprints is supported by the evidence. That he had any form of consensual relationship or date with Meredith is not supported (and was disproved) by the evidence. They are not simply just taking his word for it.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Read this, Otto:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-scene-reveal-apartment-bloodbath-horror.html



"This is the grim, blood-soaked scene inside the Italian apartment where British student Meredith Kercher was sexually assaulted and brutally murdered.
In chilling new photographs released by Italian police today, the full scale of the horror that confronted police when they entered the apartment in Perugia becomes clear."

The Daily Mail came to their own conclusion, that's not down to the ILE.

And in fact, it's not really incorrect, since that stuff in the bathroom is a presumptive blood test and turns pink in the presence of blood...so, it is highlighting blood that is actually there.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Otto, are you saying all the dailymail's readers knew that wasn't blood? I can't say that I would have thought about it twice if I didn't know about the case.

Who cares what Daily Mail readers thought? How's it relevant to either the investigation or the trial what Daily Mail readers think?

 

[Fulcanelli]

I thought it was blood when I saw it. That was way before I started reading anything on it.

Sure you may want to verify what you've seen and read before you take it to heart, but you can't argue that the intent was to promulgate a mis-truth about a bloody scene; otherwise, they would not have used that picture. It's called an inference and it's exactly what they wanted people to do - infer that it would have been impossible to NOT notice blood. They misinformed the public about Amanda period.

How was this misinforming the public about 'Amanda'? I've seen that photo and there is no caption there saying 'Look what Amanda did!'.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Let's be honest here, what you're saying has nothing to do with the question you asked about the bathroom. I answered with a citation showing that it was presented in the press as Chris claimed. I believe his point stands. The majority of rubbish published about this case was in tabloids, so not sure what difference this one makes.

But the photo wasn't 'rubbish', it was a genuine crime scene photo.

 

[Sonata]

Who cares what Daily Mail readers thought? How's it relevant to either the investigation or the trial what Daily Mail readers think?

It's relevant because it shows a balanced argument - those who argue that the 'Knox family PR machine' has influenced the public's views of Amanda should also note that the release of these pictures without specific and clear explanation does the mirror opposite.

It might not be relevant to the trial process itself, but people do seem to discuss the press in this trial a lot. And yes, it is fascinating and relevant on a human level.

 

[RoseMontague]

It's all posted up you know where. I spent two days posting all that stuff up, translated, so that people like you could read it, I'm not doing it again here because you didn't bother.

Hmmm. I didn't expect to get a cite for they lied or that they found DNA. Hopefully we will get the transcript soon. Here are a few of the article quotes you provided:

Perugia, September 7 - (Adnkronos) - A new genetic survey to be conducted by experts and others' has just been requested by the prosecutor Manuela comfortable in the process of appeal to Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. The prosecutor said that there are sampled traces on the knife that can and should be analyzed. He also requested that the experts will undertake new calculations of biostatisticians to determine the degree of reliability 'of forensic analysis.

There is no dispute there are samples and traces on the knife, just that if there was DNA found.

Here is one you quoted from Maresca:

Plaintiff's lawyer Francesco Maresca with a question but 'pointed out that these starch granules were never analyzed, but only visually under the microscope, then you can not' know whether it contains biological traces of DNA or less.

That seems pretty clear that even Maresca is not saying they lied or that they found DNA on the blade of the knife.

Here is one from the defense expert you quoted:

The knife found the murder weapon from the charge of Meredith Kercher 'not' washed 'cause even a simple rinse alienate the traces of starch. " And 'As argued in court this morning the professor Carlo Torre, a consultant in the process of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito of American appeals for the murder of Meredith Kercher. Speaking of grams of starch found by the experts of the Court on the knife, Torre has said how 'and' reasonable to think that stem from activities 'cooking'. The consultant then recalled how on the same knife, "there are no cells, there is no 'blood and there is no' genetic material." (AGI)

Here is one from Comodi you quoted:

A new report in relation to traces of DNA and 'was asked this morning by the prosecution, Manuela comfortable, the Assize Court of Appeals of Perugia that is processing Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito to the murder of Meredith Kercher. In particular, the Prosecutor Manuela Handy spoke of "objective notes" the report carried out by experts appointed by the Court of Assizes of Appeal, defined by the same expert am "hopelessly inadequate". In particular, the prosecutor asked the Court to order bio-statistical analysis and that the traces found on the knife kits are analyzed using the latest technology.

All of these seem to indicate not that there was DNA found just that the prosecution is awishin and ahopin something will be found in that starch that might show some DNA. I don't see anything calling C&V liars from the experts or the prosecution either, which is the other cite I asked you for.

Perhaps when we get the transcripts this will become more clear. In the meantime I believe you have failed to support your claims.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The bottom line is this photo was leaked by PLE without explanation. To an ordinary individual this appears as blood when in fact it is simply the chemical used

The question that should be asked is why was so much information leaked by PLE, by whom, and should the individual/s be brought up on charges.

After reviewing an interview with AK's mother and stepfather, they indicated during that interview that legal options would be pursued after she is set free

Who says there was no explanation? Just because the Daily Mail didn't give one, it doesn't mean they weren't given one or one wasn't available. And you need to make your mind up. One moment you are lambasting the ILE for giving the media explanations....the next you are criticising them for not giving them explanations.

 

[Fulcanelli]

When the prosecutor is the one in charge of the investigation as he indicated he was in the CNN interview yes he is fully responsible for the actions of the people under him.

ETA Just as I am responsible for the people in my employ and the various government agencies we deal with. It ultimately is my neck on the line if they breach any laws, acts, etc etc etc

There's a difference between saying someone is 'responsible' because they are in charge, quite another to accuse them of being deliberately responsible and people have been doing the latter a lot.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Then in the same vein everyone would have the responsibility of retracting information that has been proven to be false rather than continuing to spread it

I suggest you write your complaint to the Daily Mail. You should be able to find their address on the Web.

 

[RoseMontague]

But the photo wasn't 'rubbish', it was a genuine crime scene photo.

At least that genuine photo was not presented in court as being anwhere close to reality. Here is the one Stefanoni presented:

 

[Fulcanelli]

Explain to me then how so many people believed this to be blood during the initial days? No one can simply as it is a matter of perception but a perception that should never of been allowed to occur

Because the purpose of the pink stuff is to highlight blood.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Sent them photos of the crime scene, what else?

On that note, however, you have to ask yourself, Otto, why would ILE give the press a photo of a bathroom dyed in pink like that? Without the dye, it would be an ordinary bathroom, and yet it was given with a bunch of other pictures depicting real bloodshed.

Why does there have to be a sinister motive? The media wanted some crime scene photos, the ILE gave them some. The press decided which ones they would use.

It isn't dye. It's a presumptive blood test. Like luminol. And in that vein, releasing the pictures of the bathroom is no different to releasing pictures of the lumonol reactive hallway.

 

[RoseMontague]

Because the purpose of the pink stuff is to highlight blood.

My understanding is that after it has been exposed to air for awhile, it all turns pink. Halkides had a post on this not too long ago.

Surely you don't believe that everything that is pink in that photo is blood?

 

[Fulcanelli]

IIRC Stephanoni stated in testimony that she saw a scratch but subsequent photos of the knife showed none. Both the b and c samples were too low. Remember she tested this knife somewhere in the midst of 50 - 60 items of MK's. To my knowledge the raw data she was ordered to turn over simply showed further how inadequate the methods were and gave the experts further documentation to question such as not using the right quantification tests, no positive negative controls etc

That was because the scratch is only visible under intense light. She had to shine a lamp on it to find it.

What do you mean 'too low'?

 

[RoseMontague]

That was because the scratch is only visible under intense light. She had to shine a lamp on it to find it.

What do you mean 'too low'?

According to the appeal documents too low could mean either under 10 picograms or that there is no DNA at all.