WARNING:GRAPHIC PHOTOS Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #9

[Allusonz]

But, In cases where I have seen faked break-ins, they usually determine that it was a staged scene because Glass is OUTSIDE and not inside.

So I'm confused about that glass outside thing. Why does glass have to be outside to indicate that the rock was thrown outside.

With the mark that was on the outside of the inner shutter, it appears that the inner shutter was possibly open or unlocked. RG could have climbed up, pulled the green shutters open and then threw the rock. It hit the inner shutter, making that mark as it landed in the room.

Why is that not possible? I thought that glass was supposed to go in the direction of the force that's breaking it? That would mean inside, not outside. Of course this ALL hendges on the position of the white shutters.


Please, please, please, explain "Q" to me in this photo below if a low velocity hit from inside the house broke the glass. Because I don't understand how the glass blasted backward.

They did not forensically process the outside. That is why you do not find any close up photos of the ground etc. Glass was not looked for and in fact that area was not sealed off as they relied on Filomena and her boyfriends recollection with respect to what they saw there. This crime scene simply was not properly analyzed

 

[otto]

They did not use luminol in the bathroom and I already told you as I have on previous occassions that this was a partial footprint

"I already told you as I have on previous occassions" ... so incredibly condescending and rude.

What happened to the rest of the footprint? Most of the footprint is on the bath mat, and then it ends at the edge of the bath mat. We know there is a partial footprint on the bath mat. The remainder of the footprint appears to have been cleaned up.

 

[ziggy]

They did not use luminol in the bathroom and I already told you as I have on previous occassions that this was a partial footprint

No luminol in the bathroom? How usual or unusual is that I wonder. They used the solution that turns pink but did not use the luminol.

Were there ANY areas that looked as though they had the luminol smear pattern of someone trying clean up blood?

 

[ziggy]

"I already told you as I have on previous occassions" ... so incredibly condescending and rude.

What happened to the rest of the footprint? Most of the footprint is on the bath mat, and then it ends at the edge of the bath mat. We know there is a partial footprint on the bath mat. The remainder of the footprint appears to have been cleaned up.

Towels from that bathroom were used - was one under the back half of the foot maybe? Cleaning is not the only possibility and you act as if it is. It seems weird to clean the mere back half of a footprint but leave a hand print on the wall, and the other half of the footprint on the bathmat and shoe prints. I think one would tend to go for the really obvious stuff first.

otto, not to be rude, but you do tend to ask as one liner questions that have already been answered.

 

[wasnt_me]

Why do you think the window was "propped against the inner shutter" when it was broken?

I actually don't have a clue what happened in the process of breaking the window (not that interested either), but I do know that broken glass doesn't end up on top of other things unless the other things were there first.

Okay. I understand. If you're not interested in the window, I won't continue to direct questions to you about it.

But to just conclude the discussion, I asked if the glass window was against the inner shutter because that's what the paragraph that I took from your other post indicated. I was simply verifying that I had inferred from that piece of the post correctly.

 

[Allusonz]

I understand this reasoning, but I am not sure what giving different weights to different pieces of undisputable evidence have to do with reasonable doubt. If the evidence is in doubt, why is weight given it to?

I think that DNA when told it is present carries alot of weight with jurors in many cases. What concerns me is when the evidence with respect to the DNA is incorrect. It does not mean how the victim died etc does not play a role but I do believe subconsciouly we do tend to place more weight on some forensics

 

[wasnt_me]

Still waiting for an explanation for what happened to the other part of the footprint that ends at he edge of the bath mat, and why luminol was needed to reveal evidence.

Just guessing here, but someone said something once about the perp possibly stepping on a bloody item of clothing they'd dropped on the floor. I'm guessing it was dropped in such a way that the first step was onto that blood and the next step was half on the carpet while the back heel landed on that same item of clothing. Again, purely guessing.

Or maybe only half the foot got in the blood in the first place.

 

[ziggy]

Doesn't it seem like if that part of the window had been opened from the inside and a ginormous rock tossed, hurled or whatever, at it, that the glass would be directly underneath it and not sprayed into the center of the room? Also, the glass on the sill looks like it was placed there - the shards are pretty big. What's up with that? If you're staging why do that?

 

[Allusonz]

No luminol in the bathroom? How usual or unusual is that I wonder. They used the solution that turns pink but did not use the luminol.

Were there ANY areas that looked as though they had the luminol smear pattern of someone trying clean up blood?

No luminol presented as a cleanup although many have tried to state there was a cleanup. It was even presented in trial testimony that the knife was cleaned and they have now tested the knife for bleach and no bleach was detected on the knife thus no clean up of the knife either

 

[wasnt_me]

OR...you toss those things down and then disrupt something with glass on it and the glass ends up on top of the first pile ransacked. It's possible. The other things would not necessarily have to be there BEFORE the window glass was broken, merely after other things with glass on them had been distrubed.

Now, I'm not sure how much glass was on top of stuff, but maybe, just maybe, the perp had some glass on him when he entered through the window, which fell onto things as he went through the room, ransacking it, as well.

 

[Allusonz]

No luminol in the bathroom? How usual or unusual is that I wonder. They used the solution that turns pink but did not use the luminol.

Were there ANY areas that looked as though they had the luminol smear pattern of someone trying clean up blood?

Made a great picture for people uneducated though , so many thought that was alllllllllllllllllll blood and that AK walked into the bathroom like that.

 

[otto]

Okay. I understand. If you're not interested in the window, I won't continue to direct questions to you about it.

But to just conclude the discussion, I asked if the glass window was against the inner shutter because that's what the paragraph that I took from your other post indicated. I was simply verifying that I had inferred from that piece of the post correctly.

I don't know. We have a small portion of the information (courts probably spent hours and days discussing this evidence), a couple of blurry images and nothing more to go on ... so I don't see that we can come up with an explanation of what exactly happened.

One point that was made is that because there was no evidence outside the window (no footprints, forensic evidence, glass shards), the outside shutters were closed when the window was broken. That also explains the broken glass on the outside window ledge and absence of glass on the ground outside the window.

 

[Allusonz]

"I already told you as I have on previous occassions" ... so incredibly condescending and rude.

What happened to the rest of the footprint? Most of the footprint is on the bath mat, and then it ends at the edge of the bath mat. We know there is a partial footprint on the bath mat. The remainder of the footprint appears to have been cleaned up.

Nice try but in no way was that condesending or rude. We do not know if it was cleaned up or just that as one person has gone to great lengths to explain walking on part of a foot.

 

[otto]

Towels from that bathroom were used - was one under the back half of the foot maybe? Cleaning is not the only possibility and you act as if it is. It seems weird to clean the mere back half of a footprint but leave a hand print on the wall, and the other half of the footprint on the bathmat and shoe prints. I think one would tend to go for the really obvious stuff first.

otto, not to be rude, but you do tend to ask as one liner questions that have already been answered.

If there was a reasonable explanation for why the footprint ends at the edge of the bath mat, an explanation for why the remainder of the print is absence, I would not use it as an example of a clean up. As it is, I have not read a reasonable explanation for the missing portion of the print. I think it is evidence of a clean up.

It is not a one-liner, it is a point that refutes the oft repeated claim "there is no evidence of a clean up".

 

[otto]

Nice try but in no way was that condesending or rude. We do not know if it was cleaned up or just that as one person has gone to great lengths to explain walking on part of a foot.

Walking on part of the foot does not explain why the print ends at the edge of the mat.

 

[wasnt_me]

I don't know. We have a small portion of the information (courts probably spent hours and days discussing this evidence), a couple of blurry images and nothing more to go on ... so I don't see that we can come up with an explanation of what exactly happened.

One point that was made is that because there was no evidence outside the window (no footprints, forensic evidence, glass shards), the outside shutters were closed when the window was broken. That also explains the broken glass on the outside window ledge and absence of glass on the ground outside the window.

Thanks for appeasing me. I am still of the theory that glass travels in the direction of the thing flying through it, so that's why I think there isn't glass outside. Residual glass that might have fallen straight down as the window was still closed would be the reason that some got on that sill, because at that point, only gravity controls those pieces.

 

[wasnt_me]

If there was a reasonable explanation for why the footprint ends at the edge of the bath mat, an explanation for why the remainder of the print is absence, I would not use it as an example of a clean up. As it is, I have not read a reasonable explanation for the missing portion of the print. I think it is evidence of a clean up.

It is not a one-liner, it is a point that refutes the oft repeated claim "there is no evidence of a clean up".

The part I don't get about that, Otto, is--say the missing half was due to a clean up. Okay, then why not take the whole bathmat with you, since it has the majority of your footprint on it?

I mean, I'm saying if the perp's aim is to remove the print, then he failed by leaving the majority of it on the bathmat. Some also say that someone tried to wash the bathmat. well, it still had the blood on it, so why not just remove it from the house? I mean, if the perp was paying that much attention to the footprint and the bathmat to try to wash it. Also I think I heard something about people seeing AK at a laundry mat? Again, why not take that mat there and wash it? Then if the thing still had blood on it, throw it in a dumpster somehwere. If I were the perp, that's what I'd do, and I'd risk whether or not Laura or FR would remember that the mat had been there. Better no mat than a mat with a print on it.

I think the bathmat got wet because AK stood on it after her shower.

 

[Allusonz]

If there was a reasonable explanation for why the footprint ends at the edge of the bath mat, an explanation for why the remainder of the print is absence, I would not use it as an example of a clean up. As it is, I have not read a reasonable explanation for the missing portion of the print. I think it is evidence of a clean up.

It is not a one-liner, it is a point that refutes the oft repeated claim "there is no evidence of a clean up".

Maybe they simply stepped partially on the mat? Or maybe again it was simply a previous stain from before? The only thing I have seen the experts agree on with respect to this is that it is a partial that cannot be completely associated to any one person. Mind you they only took the footprints of a couple

 

[Allusonz]

Walking on part of the foot does not explain why the print ends at the edge of the mat.

Or maybe ILE did this here as well!!!! They scraped up the bloody footprints then tried to replace them the next day :floorlaugh:

Maybe they scrubbed them off like they did in these instances


After placing rulers on the sides of a bloody shoeprint, for example, a blue-rubber-gloved hand reaches down with a piece of white cloth and scrubs the bloody mark off the tile floor before putting the cloth into an evidence tube. This happens three times for three separate footprints. In film footage taken at least a day later, another team of investigators attempts, using photographs, to place where the footprints had been. "They should have lifted the tile," Bremner says, shaking her head

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...#ixzz1Igrqx3DJ

 

[ziggy]

The part I don't get about that, Otto, is--say the missing half was due to a clean up. Okay, then why not take the whole bathmat with you, since it has the majority of your footprint on it?

Exactly - it doesn't seem logical to clean a third of a footprint and leave the majority print there along with a gruesome bloody handprint on the wall and somebody who could implicate you's doodie in the toilet. If it was a conspiracy RG could implicate them so why did they only clean up evidence that would inculpate them and leave his? And no evidence of a conspiracy exists - no texts, nothing.