View Full Version : WARNING:GRAPHIC PHOTOS Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #9
I also think the Case for Innocence panel did very badly by Amanda by not advertising more than 4 days prior to the event, not getting a sponsor for refreshments, not getting groups committed to attendance. I know first hand what goes into planning an event, and I was able to pack a ballroom in New York on a Monday night with 350 people. But 3 months of work went into that. Their poor showing revealed mainly poor planning, and was not good for Ms. Knox.
The turnout was indeed very poor. It's quite likely that people are simply not interested in the mess that Knox got herself into.
I'm still trying to figure out what it had to do with the Film Studies program.
ziggy
04-06-2011, 03:05 PM
We actually care about a persons rights? :thud: So Italy doesn't?
And people wonder why the word "xenophobia" keeps coming up in this case. Sheesh.
http://www.salem-news.com/gphotos/1291492341.JPG
That's a "tiptoe" mark? Interesting how most people tiptoe on the ball of their foot only, not the arch and/or side of foot...
(link to picture: http://www.salem-news.com/gphotos/1291492341.JPG )
You may find it interesting but the fact is that it is entirely possible. If one is on the ball of his foot, he/she can lower the back half of the foot without allowing the heel to touch the floor...ask any ballroom dancer...it's a required footwork technique, but it is derived from actions any average untrained person can do.
It's also possible to use the outside edge or inside edge of the foot more which puts more pressure on that edge. If someone is off balance and trying to not put a foot down, they may leave a partial print...when you are off balance and put your foot down you automatically go ball of the foot first, just like when you are going downstairs. You never go heel first when going from an up elevation to a down as in touching your foot to the floor for balance - heels only strike first naturally on the level like walking If your ankle wobbles at all you would put more pressure on the outside edge of the foot. Most ankle wobbles are on the outside of the ankle where typical sprains occur.
So I was using tip toe as something most people can relate to, but it encompasses the lowering of the foot ball, then middle part of the foot, but never letting the heel even kiss the floor.
I have pretty flat feet - when I was young at the public pool everyone made fun of my wet footprints. I learned to get out of the pool and walk with my toes kind of crunched and on the outside of my foot so that a sort of arch appeared in my wet print. I am not saying this is what the leaver of the bloody print did, but to presume that it was there and cleaned up is not proper given the limited facts and other possibilities.
What I can't put together is why, if it is Rudy, is his shoe off? I can see the motivation for AK or RS - don't leave blood on our shoes, but surely they didn't both attack MK barefoot and not leave luminol detectable bloody prints in her room or clean up smears on the floor of MK's room. If they had shoes on during their alleged sex orgy murderous attack, then they would already have blood on their shoes and it wouldn't matter.
I am curious to know what the source of the watery blood was...what collection of the blood was stepped in.
If it was cleaned up, what was used...paper towel, toilet paper, a rag, the mop??? and why is is not evident that there are cleaning smears under luminol? Scooting a bathmat is not going to wipe the area clean so that luminol does not glow in that spot, kwim?
Allusonz
04-06-2011, 03:24 PM
Thanks Otto.
I'm new to studying the case. I agree that the POE would be strange for a burglar to use when there were better windows to break to gain entry to the house. However, I read somewhere, and who knows where after all I've looked at, that it was RG's MO to use rocks, break windows and carry knives to his crime scenes. I'm exploring all theories, but the one I've started with is RG acting alone or with an unknown accomplice. So my question right now is why is it a problem for the broken glass to be on top of the roommate's clothes? I think I read somewhere that it's because said roommate claims she left nothing on the floor. I don't really take her word on remembering that, and it might be possible that Merideth or even Amanda went into the room and used some of the clothes and left them on the floor. I don't know, so can you bring clarity to me about this? Sorry if you've had to do it before in the other 8 threads.
One article I read also said he'd stolen a flick knife in a crime. Weren't they supposing a flick knife was used with merideth? Same article claims that a recorded jail call picked up him saying that amanda hadn't been there that night. Here's this link
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1081457/Rudy-Guede-Portrait-Merediths-murderer-begins-30-year-sentence.html
IIRC there were 6 instances in 33 days in which RG was involved in various activities none of which he was charged for which has lent some to believe that he was an informant for ILE
I studied Ron Hendry's theories alot and had many of the same questions which you are now bringing up. I can only give you my take on some of them
First off Filomena did testify to 3 different scenerios with respect to the shutters from closing them as tight as they would allow to not being sure that she in fact did close them completely. After alot of research I did come across the fact that it was indeed windy on that particular night which could of opened at least in my opinion the shutters to a more open position
As well when I look at the photographs of Filomena's room there is very little storage area. She testified that her room was clean. I may think my daughters room is a disaster but in her perception it is clean. What came very quick to me were the various footware and bags. Fimomena was in a hurry that day to get to a birthday celebration. IIRC the pictures correctly I believe I saw various footwear including slippers on the floor in various places. I dont believe that room was a spotless as she might of thought. As well the evening before was Halloween and these ladies worked and had boyfriends. I think in the scheme of things cleaning her room was probably not the priority at that particular time
As I looked at those photographs the one thing I could not eliminate was how does a rock which is thrown towards a window hit the window and do a complete 180 and go backwards instead of out the window if it indeed had been thrown from inside. That simply defies the logic of ballistics gravity etc.
I as well have often thought of how did a mixed DNA sample end up in Filomenas room. My first thought was maybe the postal police accidently tracked something in. As I watched the various ways the forensic team did things I believe it to be highly likely that that could be a probable explanation.
In the end though only you can determine what you believe may/may not of happened. Good luck with your research!!!
Allusonz
04-06-2011, 03:30 PM
The turnout was indeed very poor. It's quite likely that people are simply not interested in the mess that Knox got herself into.
I'm still trying to figure out what it had to do with the Film Studies program.
Only an opinion but I have a funky feeling that maybe some were asked to speak to a class rather than putting together a forum. I believe if this had of been something that had been planned by them it would of been advertised greater and for a longer length of time. I do not believe that is something that they would probably do in the middle of an appeal
Allusonz
04-06-2011, 03:37 PM
I'm sorry, I didn't read that. I was just inferring from other things I'd read. I thought I'd read that Filomina was certain that she'd closed her shutters before leaving, and so then I assumed that the shudders had to be open when Amanda arrived home. (if Amanda wasn't involved.) So I assumed that after she saw the bathroom and took a shower, she got blood residue on her feet from the bathroom. Then I assumed that she must have noticed Fil's room was a mess. Then I assumed she walked in there, saw the rock and the shutters and then closed the shutters. I'm assuming she closed them. Maybe she just walked in there and looked around to observe it was a mess without closing the shutters, and that's how she got the DNA and stuff in the room.
As for the link I asked about with the theory of the single assailant, I was wondering if you or anyone else had read it and lent it any credibility. someone else answered that they had done both.
That as well could be a theory as we do know in fact that they were in Filomena's room
ziggy
04-06-2011, 03:37 PM
As I look at the footprint on the bathmat again, I notice that the big toe area is lighter and smudged.
When I try to recreate this pattern, it's pretty easy first landing on the big toe and ball of my right foot and then rolling my ankle to the outside (as if off balance) - and that kind of forces my calf to relax a bit, my heel then starts to lower to the floor with the outside edge of my foot taking the most pressure. There are other light blood marks on the mat, and I wonder if something briefly was placed on the big toe area and absorbed some of the liquid in that area. Or maybe it's just the weave in that spot, not as fluffy and chenille like as the other.
Allusonz
04-06-2011, 03:41 PM
With cases like this, I always try to look for ways to prove the person didn't do it. I guess I'm a diehard believer in the US justice system's creed that it's up to the state to prove their case, not the defendent. When I first heard about RG and his insane story about "sitting on the toilet," I figured that he'd acted alone or he had his own accomplice that no one knows about.
If I go with Hendry's story, I'd say that RG broke in, looking for a place to sleep or waiting for Amanda to get home, since we've heard rumors that he was somehow interested in Amanda. Or, he could have known that MK would be alone because he seemed to know her boyfriend from downstairs. Since much wasn't stolen, I'm guessing he was interested in a place to sleep or in the girls.
From what I read, it appears that he staked the house out a little bit. Maybe saw no one coming or going for a while and decided to enter through that window somehow. Then, he riles through Fil's room because that's the first room he entered. Then he goes to that bathroom near Fil's room because he's gotta dump. I think THAT'S when MK might have come home (as Hendry's report theorizes) and he got surprised and didn't flush the toilet. It's possible that he could have exited the bathroom right away or he could have stayed in there for a long time, trying to figure out what to do.
We don't really know if RG has ever done this kind of crime before or sexually assaulted anyone before, do we? I read somewhere that he was a creepy lurker at clubs and bars that made women uncomfortable enough to ask management to throw him out.
Anyways, maybe the night before (again just theorizing) he saw MK at the club, tried to talk to her. Gleened some info about her, which let him know that Amanda was working the next night and MK would be with friends, then go home. She might have clued him in to what her other roommates were doing the next day, too. I'm guessing she might have talked to him a little and felt a little less guarded because her boyfriend knew him. or she could have been creeped out an avoided him at the club, which pisse him off enough to go to her house.
Anyways, I agree with the surprised MK idea. And I agree with how Hendry said it happened on the bed and she got jerked to the other side of the room during the fight. I don't think it took 3 people to do that to meredith.
I read some other hearsay about a shadowy figure that had been lurking in the garden near the cottage for a few days. And I had heard that Amanda had phone calls with RG before and after the murder. Are either of these two things backed by evidence? I read AK phone records on some website but it was never made clear that RG was one of the callers.
RG could very well of had a good idea what the plans for many of the people at the cottage were as he was known friends with the boys downstairs and MK's boyfriend was one of them. There are usually a few reasons for throwing a rock in a window one being to find out if anyone is home. You would probably find out quite quickly
ziggy
04-06-2011, 03:45 PM
@ flourish - hatred and fear are distinguishable from distrust so using a fear and hatred based word is inflammatory imo. I don't trust other government's police or legal systems - I don't think that makes me a hater, I just don't want to ever get arrested there and especially if I am innnocent! What is our Constitution founded on? Yep. Our rights and this includes the seizure of our person, are deeply rooted in our history and formation. Please tell me why I should not trust my country's respect for these rights more than I trust Italy's. And again, I DO NOT trust that they have the proper checks and balances in place to avoid a railroad job by the prosecution. I think our system, with all of its flaws, is the best in the world and I'm not alone.
The turnout was indeed very poor. It's quite likely that people are simply not interested in the mess that Knox got herself into.
I'm still trying to figure out what it had to do with the Film Studies program. Any department of a University can sponsor any event.
I know a thing or two about events planning, and they simply did not do the legwork it takes to pack a place. From my experience that is it, in a nut shell. Usually has less to do with the event subject, and more to do with how the leg work for that event was done. Monday nights are bad, always, and Seattle has major parking problems, and the late afternoon is not a time to draw a crowd. People are leaving work and going to dinner at the hour they chose. They actually did well with 120, all things considered. But it could have been far better.
With cases like this, I always try to look for ways to prove the person didn't do it. I guess I'm a diehard believer in the US justice system's creed that it's up to the state to prove their case, not the defendent. When I first heard about RG and his insane story about "sitting on the toilet," I figured that he'd acted alone or he had his own accomplice that no one knows about.
If I go with Hendry's story, I'd say that RG broke in, looking for a place to sleep or waiting for Amanda to get home, since we've heard rumors that he was somehow interested in Amanda. Or, he could have known that MK would be alone because he seemed to know her boyfriend from downstairs. Since much wasn't stolen, I'm guessing he was interested in a place to sleep or in the girls.
From what I read, it appears that he staked the house out a little bit. Maybe saw no one coming or going for a while and decided to enter through that window somehow. Then, he riles through Fil's room because that's the first room he entered. Then he goes to that bathroom near Fil's room because he's gotta dump. I think THAT'S when MK might have come home (as Hendry's report theorizes) and he got surprised and didn't flush the toilet. It's possible that he could have exited the bathroom right away or he could have stayed in there for a long time, trying to figure out what to do.
We don't really know if RG has ever done this kind of crime before or sexually assaulted anyone before, do we? I read somewhere that he was a creepy lurker at clubs and bars that made women uncomfortable enough to ask management to throw him out.
Anyways, maybe the night before (again just theorizing) he saw MK at the club, tried to talk to her. Gleened some info about her, which let him know that Amanda was working the next night and MK would be with friends, then go home. She might have clued him in to what her other roommates were doing the next day, too. I'm guessing she might have talked to him a little and felt a little less guarded because her boyfriend knew him. or she could have been creeped out an avoided him at the club, which pisse him off enough to go to her house.
Anyways, I agree with the surprised MK idea. And I agree with how Hendry said it happened on the bed and she got jerked to the other side of the room during the fight. I don't think it took 3 people to do that to meredith.
I read some other hearsay about a shadowy figure that had been lurking in the garden near the cottage for a few days. And I had heard that Amanda had phone calls with RG before and after the murder. Are either of these two things backed by evidence? I read AK phone records on some website but it was never made clear that RG was one of the callers.
I don't think those things were ever confirmed; it was said that Knox had no prior contact or interaction with Guede. I agree that the 3 person attack seems far-fetched when compared with Hendry's simple logical analysis.
The turnout was indeed very poor. It's quite likely that people are simply not interested in the mess that Knox got herself into.
I'm still trying to figure out what it had to do with the Film Studies program.Addendum (I responded to this in a prior post)--They had stated to the newspaper that they planned to tape the event for YouTube, specifically because there was not a chance to get a greater crowd at that date and hour (supposedly when they could get all principals together in one place).
I don't think those things were ever confirmed; it was said that Knox had no prior contact or interaction with Guede. I agree that the 3 person attack seems far-fetched when compared with Hendry's simple logical analysis.
IIRC, AK testified or told police that she met RG briefly at the downstairs apartment and then saw him around town a few times.
If there were phone calls between them, I'm sure ILE never found out about it or that would have been evidence at trial.
flourish
04-06-2011, 05:16 PM
I'm at work, so this is short, but feel free to check out the google images that pop up for "tip toe." Sure don't see arches touching the ground on those images.
Also, the definition of "xenophobia" absolutely can include "distrust," hence the following definition from http://sociologyindex.com/xenophobia.htm
Xenophobia is distrust, unreasonable fear, or hatred of strangers, foreigners, or anything perceived as foreign or different.
IMO, it's more inflammatory to imply that Italy doesn't care about the rights of its people than it is to use a word which was absolutely apt. :cow:
Only an opinion but I have a funky feeling that maybe some were asked to speak to a class rather than putting together a forum. I believe if this had of been something that had been planned by them it would of been advertised greater and for a longer length of time. I do not believe that is something that they would probably do in the middle of an appeal
Thomas Wright, one of the speakers and the man behind the Friends of Amanda efforts, and the head of the Film Studies program appear to be friends. On the surface, it looks like this was put together by the speakers themselves and Tom's friend provided the venue. I suspect they misjudged the public interest in the case.
As I look at the footprint on the bathmat again, I notice that the big toe area is lighter and smudged.
When I try to recreate this pattern, it's pretty easy first landing on the big toe and ball of my right foot and then rolling my ankle to the outside (as if off balance) - and that kind of forces my calf to relax a bit, my heel then starts to lower to the floor with the outside edge of my foot taking the most pressure. There are other light blood marks on the mat, and I wonder if something briefly was placed on the big toe area and absorbed some of the liquid in that area. Or maybe it's just the weave in that spot, not as fluffy and chenille like as the other.
Or maybe someone stepped there with blood all over the bottom of his foot, and the portion that was on the floor was wiped away.
RG could very well of had a good idea what the plans for many of the people at the cottage were as he was known friends with the boys downstairs and MK's boyfriend was one of them. There are usually a few reasons for throwing a rock in a window one being to find out if anyone is home. You would probably find out quite quickly
Rudy had been to the downstairs cottage and knew perfectly well that it would have been much easier to climb up over their doorway, onto the deck and into a window.
Allusonz
04-06-2011, 05:27 PM
Sorry wrong quote proper quote sorry
Thomas Wright, one of the speakers and the man behind the Friends of Amanda efforts, and the head of the Film Studies program appear to be friends. On the surface, it looks like this was put together by the speakers themselves and Tom's friend provided the venue. I suspect they misjudged the public interest in the case
You could very well be right.
If the purpose though was to get a great group of people I must agree with SMK that usually there is much greater planning and advertising
For all I know they might simply have been in the same city at the same time and decided to use that time
As SMK stated there is normally a great deal of time, effort and planning put into forums such as this and it simply does not appear to be the case in this particular instance. Again though MOO
Sorry wrong quote proper quote sorry
Thomas Wright, one of the speakers and the man behind the Friends of Amanda efforts, and the head of the Film Studies program appear to be friends. On the surface, it looks like this was put together by the speakers themselves and Tom's friend provided the venue. I suspect they misjudged the public interest in the case
You could very well be right.
If the purpose though was to get a great group of people I must agree with SMK that usually there is much greater planning and advertising
For all I know they might simply have been in the same city at the same time and decided to use that time
As SMK stated there is normally a great deal of time, effort and planning put into forums such as this and it simply does not appear to be the case in this particular instance. Again though MOO
Because there was low attendance, it must have been impromptu? I think it's because people have moved on with their lives, and students aren't particularly sympathetic to the mess Amanda got herself in. Not everyone is prepared to make and except excuses for everything about Amanda.
Because there was low attendance, it must have been impromptu? I think it's because people have moved on with their lives, and students aren't particularly sympathetic to the mess Amanda got herself in. Not everyone is prepared to make and except excuses for everything about Amanda.I think many people are still very sympathetic to Knox and Sollecito. As stated, those who planned the event knew it would be tough to get full attendance , hence the YouTube. For all you know, a panel of "Knox: Guilty as Charged" may not have even gotten the 120 they got. Let us suspend judgement and not be catty about what they were trying to do, or what the numbers were. IMO, they were in good faith.
6angels
04-06-2011, 05:48 PM
May 21 ... something like that ... for the DNA testing evaluation to be presented to the court.
How long do appeals take in the US? A couple of years?
Why couldn't she be in jail, she was convicted of murder.
But this is NOT the USA hints why I asked. do NOT bait me I won't play along. and I said right in my post I can't believe shes still in jail as I don't believe she's guilty.
wasnt_me
04-06-2011, 06:34 PM
As I looked at those photographs the one thing I could not eliminate was how does a rock which is thrown towards a window hit the window and do a complete 180 and go backwards instead of out the window if it indeed had been thrown from inside. That simply defies the logic of ballistics gravity etc.
!!!
My idea about that is that Rudy, if he did indeed climb into that window, ransacked F's room first, because it was the first room he entered. I'm theorizing that ransacked her room, looking for something to steal, and then he realized that he really needed to go to the bathroom. I'm not sure if the boo-boo toilet was the closest one, but I'm guessing he went in that bathroom because it was nearest F's room. I'd have to look at the schematics again, but that's what i'm thinking. Then, I think while he was sitting on the toilet, MK came home. I think he was surprised, and as she was making her way into the house, I think he quietly closed the bathroom door.
If I'm not mistaken, the other roommate's rooms weren't touched, right? I think it's because MK interrupted him, then the unexpected fight occured.
I think he then took his clothes off while in MK's room and possibly bagged them or carried them into the bathroom. I think he took his shoes off as well, stepping in that blood a little on his way out. Or he could have dropped the clothes on the bathroom floor, accidently stepped on them, getting enough blood to leave the marks on the rug. I believe he probably showered, cleaned his shoes off in the sink, but still had some DNA on the bottoms. He then either put the shoes back on, or still had some blood on his feet because he didn't rinse himself off well. This makes him able to track blood and DNA into F's room.
I figure he went back in there to find something that he might could wear out of the house. I believe he could have dressed in something in her room and then left directly out the front door, as they say there's a DNA trail or something of the sort going from her room to the front door.
Or he could have rinsed his whole body off in the shower while fully dressed. But I think he removed his shoes. Then he could have gone to F's room to check and see if anyone was outside in the front area maybe. So he looked out the window and then left the house.
I don't know, just theorizing.
wasnt_me
04-06-2011, 06:43 PM
Rudy had been to the downstairs cottage and knew perfectly well that it would have been much easier to climb up over their doorway, onto the deck and into a window.
I'm not so sure he didn't do that. Hearing Allusonz theory about throwing the rock to see if someone is home makes sense. He could have thrown the rock, waited, determined that the house was empty and then found his way into the house from the deck. But I don't know what room that puts him in to start off.
I say this is possible because I believe I read somewhere that in one of RG's crimes, the place showed no forced entry. So it's plausible that he threw the rock to see if someone was home and then ran off to wait for the response. Some witness did claim to hear running. Then after getting no response from the rock, he could have found a descrete way inside.
Looking at a floorplan, if he went onto the balcony, and for my theory to still make sense, he would have had to go into the kitchen window. Then it was a choice of F's room or Laura's to enter first. Wonder if Laura's room was locked or not. Because if it happened to be, i could see him reasoning that he'd go back over there after he searched the rest of the house.
I don't even give RG enough to credit, though, to recall an easier way to get in the house. It could be that he was actually believing that he could get in that window, threw the rock, determined that it was still too hard of a climb and THEN looked around for an easier route that happened to cause no forced entry.
ziggy
04-06-2011, 06:46 PM
I'm at work, so this is short, but feel free to check out the google images that pop up for "tip toe." Sure don't see arches touching the ground on those images.
Also, the definition of "xenophobia" absolutely can include "distrust," hence the following definition from http://sociologyindex.com/xenophobia.htm
IMO, it's more inflammatory to imply that Italy doesn't care about the rights of its people than it is to use a word which was absolutely apt. :cow:
Technically arches don't touch the ground anyway. Doh! So let's call it someone commencing to tip toe and beginning to fail although not completely failing by keeping their heel from touching the floor. Google images lol. I was trying to make it easier to understand but I see that was lost on the nitpicking details which I've since attempted to clarify.
OK Italy as a whole, I apologize. Italy's "system" I distrust. Still doesn't make me a hater of Italy or anywhere else I distrust the "system" and/or the possible corruption that derives from a lack of care about individual rights perpetrated by the people who make up "the system".
ziggy
04-06-2011, 06:52 PM
@flourish: Dictionary definitions of xenophobia include: deep-rooted antipathy towards foreigners (Oxford English Dictionary; OED), unreasonable fear or hatred of the unfamiliar, especially people of other races (Webster's)[5]
OMG you took your meaning from the sociology index - well that's another discussion for the Political Pavillion but I think you are stretching it like Gumby on steroids. It's like any criticism is considerd hatred or fear. And I don't think that calculates.
ziggy
04-06-2011, 06:55 PM
Or maybe someone stepped there with blood all over the bottom of his foot, and the portion that was on the floor was wiped away.
Otto you seem to always tip toe, pardon the pun, around the fact that there is no evidence of smears or wiping away of blood. Besides let's look at it again - if your idea is correct, that person has a very high arch so that should be taken into consideration - there are a few possibilities for what we see.
flourish
04-06-2011, 07:12 PM
@flourish: Dictionary definitions of xenophobia include: deep-rooted antipathy towards foreigners (Oxford English Dictionary; OED), unreasonable fear or hatred of the unfamiliar, especially people of other races (Webster's)[5]
OMG you took your meaning from the sociology index - well that's another discussion for the Political Pavillion but I think you are stretching it like Gumby on steroids. It's like any criticism is considerd hatred or fear. And I don't think that calculates.
OMG I find your implications and statements to be incredibly rude and condescending. Considering that xenophobia could be considered a sociological construct, a sociological dictionary is appropriate.
It is incredibly clear that the footprint is NOT someone walking on tip toes. There is absolutely nothing wrong with my suggesting that one look at google images, as that is an easily accessible source to find those particular pictures...it's not like we're looking for pictures of specific people tip-toeing...my point was if you bothered to look at pictures of people walking on tip toe you would certainly realize that the side of the foot I referred to as the arch (so sue me) does not touch the floor. I understand the mechanics of walking, and I know that walking on tip toe does not make that kind of mark.
:hand:
ziggy
04-06-2011, 07:19 PM
I don't see the bathmat footprint actually "matching" either RG or RS. In one overlap, it looks like it could not be RG's and then in the RS overlap there are areas that don't match either. It was suggested that the mat was rinsed, and the stains remained. So if it was RG his "clean up" was hastened. If the supposed clean up was AK and RS, they did an freaking amazing job at not leaving their prints in MK's room, and then left the bathmat rinsed, but not bleached and with a visible print. It's all a big head scratcher. But it's only one brick in the wall huh.
ziggy
04-06-2011, 07:22 PM
OMG I find your implications and statements to be incredibly rude and condescending. I suspect you just didn't like that the quote didn't support YOUR statement. Considering that xenophobia could be considered a sociological construct, a sociological dictionary is appropriate.
It is incredibly clear that the footprint is NOT someone walking on tip toes. There is absolutely nothing wrong with my suggesting that one look at google images, as that is an easily accessible source to find those particular pictures...it's not like we're looking for pictures of specific people tip-toeing...my point was if you bothered to look at pictures of people walking on tip toe you would certainly realize that the side of the foot I referred to as the arch (so sue me) does not touch the floor. I understand the mechanics of walking, and I know that walking on tip toe does not make that kind of mark.
:hand:
I'm sorry that you don't consider that your original statement could have made others feel the same way.
Please consider that it's possible for someone to step on MOST of their foot without the heel coming in contact with the surface they are on. That's all. If you want to Google tip toe pictures as a contradiction to that fact that's fine, but it's not "on point".
wasnt_me
04-06-2011, 07:27 PM
Well, unless RG was responsible for the bathroom cleanup and AK and RS didn't critic his work. But if that were the case, surely Amanda would have gotten rid of the mat before the police arrived. It's not like they didn't have time to pick it up and take it somewhere else BEFORE Amanda called her roommate about the strange happenings in the house.
Know what I mean? If AK was staging the whole thing, why not remove the bathmat all together? And I don't believe that it was to implicate RG, because she at no point implicated him. If the cleanup to leave RG DNA and prints around was the goal, why not accuse him right off the bat instead of accusing PL?
So it makes no sense to me that she'd commit this murder with or without the other two men and then leave the bath mat on the floor--after cleaning up everything else. Just take it and dump it. I mean, someone took and dumped the phones, so why not the mat?
ziggy
04-06-2011, 07:31 PM
Also, here's a criticism of both RS's defense and the prosecution: if you're going to do a footprint for comparison, why on paper and not on the same type of bathmat? The investigation footprints of RG and RS are ink on paper and it seems that type of comparison is hardly the BEST they can do...there's quite a margin of error considering the consistency of the liquid and the absorbancy of the material. The evidence seems inconclusive as to either at this point. Reasonable doubt for RS.
Or maybe someone stepped there with blood all over the bottom of his foot, and the portion that was on the floor was wiped away.
Where are the smears that indicate wiping?
I think many people are still very sympathetic to Knox and Sollecito. As stated, those who planned the event knew it would be tough to get full attendance , hence the YouTube. For all you know, a panel of "Knox: Guilty as Charged" may not have even gotten the 120 they got. Let us suspend judgement and not be catty about what they were trying to do, or what the numbers were. IMO, they were in good faith.
Not picking on you, SMK, but why are we arguing this?
The murder was committed 3-and-a-half years ago. That's several lifetimes in modern news cycles. If they got 120 people to a symposium on a Monday afternoon, that's pretty impressive!
not picking on you, smk, but why are we arguing this?
The murder was committed 3-and-a-half years ago. That's several lifetimes in modern news cycles. If they got 120 people to a symposium on a monday afternoon, that's pretty impressive!
okie. :(
Otto you seem to always tip toe, pardon the pun, around the fact that there is no evidence of smears or wiping away of blood. Besides let's look at it again - if your idea is correct, that person has a very high arch so that should be taken into consideration - there are a few possibilities for what we see.
I don't understand what you mean when you say that there is no evidence of wiping away of blood. What was revealed with luminol?
OMG I find your implications and statements to be incredibly rude and condescending. Considering that xenophobia could be considered a sociological construct, a sociological dictionary is appropriate.
It is incredibly clear that the footprint is NOT someone walking on tip toes. There is absolutely nothing wrong with my suggesting that one look at google images, as that is an easily accessible source to find those particular pictures...it's not like we're looking for pictures of specific people tip-toeing...my point was if you bothered to look at pictures of people walking on tip toe you would certainly realize that the side of the foot I referred to as the arch (so sue me) does not touch the floor. I understand the mechanics of walking, and I know that walking on tip toe does not make that kind of mark.
:hand:
Flourish, I think anyone can see my looking at the bloody footprint that it was made by someone standing on the full foot, not tip toes. The only people that really walk toe first, heel second, are models. Everyone else steps heel to toe. The only reason the foot print ends at the edge of the mat is because the rest of the print was on the floor.
Pro-conspiracists would argue that the world was flat if it helped make evidence against Knox and Sollecito disappear.
sherlockh
04-06-2011, 08:20 PM
Where are the smears that indicate wiping?
Why would you need smears to wipe something away like dried blood? Is that a rule? Besides that I don't think any luminol was used in the bathroom?
I'm sorry that you don't consider that your original statement could have made others feel the same way.
Please consider that it's possible for someone to step on MOST of their foot without the heel coming in contact with the surface they are on. That's all. If you want to Google tip toe pictures as a contradiction to that fact that's fine, but it's not "on point".
The bloody footprint is cut off at the edge of the mat. What would be the obvious explanation for this?
Why would you need smears to wipe something away like dried blood? Is that a rule? Besides that I don't think any luminol was used in the bathroom?
If I'm wrong I'm willing to be corrected.
But we've seen numerous sources here talking about how luminol failed to reveal the wiping one would expect from a clean up.
sherlockh
04-06-2011, 09:10 PM
If I'm wrong I'm willing to be corrected.
But we've seen numerous sources here talking about how luminol failed to reveal the wiping one would expect from a clean up.
If that was true you would always get smeared luminol findings at any cleaned crime scene. Then you could never identify anything. Also these luminol pics are not exactly pristine anyway. But anyway, I tried to Google 'luminol footprints' and the first 2 pages were results from this case.
Isn't that amazing? :)
sherlockh
04-06-2011, 09:16 PM
On the topic of luminol, this article says experts can determine if it is blood by the speed of the luminol reaction. Stefanoni mentioned something like that but I thought blood gave a different glow. Here it says it is actually the speed of the reaction. I just thought that was interesting :)
http://scienceray.com/technology/luminol-a-chemical-to-reveal-hidden-crime-scenes/
I do find this difficult to refute: That is why it has bothered me so much.
There Was No Clean Up
http://injusticeinperugia.blogspot.com/p/there-was-no-clean-up.html
It was claimed by the prosecution that Amanda and Raffaele made an effort to clean up the evidence that would point to them.
The prosecution claimed that the footprints detected with luminol proved there was a clean up effort. Luminol does not prove that there was any clean up effort. There was absolutely no proof presented in court showing any clean up. Luminol glows from many different substances other than blood. Luminol reacts with various household cleaners, different types of soil, rust in tap water, and many other substances. Luminol helps to find areas that may be blood. When the luminol glows, the area can then be tested to see if the stain is actually blood. None of the footprints detected with luminol were tested for blood. If they were tested, then the information was withheld by the prosecution because it did not show the result they wanted. Either way, the footprints detected with luminol were never proven to be blood. These footprints had nothing to do with the murder. They certainly do not prove that there was a clean up effort of any kind.
Prosecutor Mignini made the claim that Amanda attempted to clean up her finger prints from the crime scene. Mignini stated: "It is reasonable to hypothesize that she herself felt the need to eliminate the traces of her presence from an apartment in which she lived."
At the trial, the prosecutor's own fingerprint expert, Giuseppe Privitera, flatly refuted this hypothesis. He said fingerprints tend to get smudged, often it is hard to find good ones even of someone who lives at the scene of an investigation, and nothing he found at the cottage suggested that any effort had been made to remove fingerprints intentionally. [. . . ] The prosecution presented no evidence whatsoever that proved that any clean up effort took place. Bloody shoe prints from Rudy Guede's shoes are seen going down the hall and right out the front door. How could Amanda and Raffaele clean the floor, removing all of the evidence that pointed at them, while leaving all of the evidence that pointed to Rudy completely untouched? There is no credible evidence putting Amanda or Raffaele in Meredith's room at the time of the murder. This type of clean up effort would simply be impossible. There is no credible evidence putting them in the room because they were not there. The prosecution's theory is simply nonsense.
sherlockh
04-07-2011, 11:35 AM
What is so difficult to refute? Which part you find more convincing then what is explained in the judges report? The judges report is pretty clear on what the footprints are made of, how they are connected to the crime scene and what is cleaned and by who. Why would it be so difficult to clean the visible footprints without touching the visible shoe prints?
What is so difficult to refute? Which part you find more convincing then what is explained in the judges report? The judges report is pretty clear on what the footprints are made of, how they are connected to the crime scene and what is cleaned and by who. Why would it be so difficult to clean the visible footprints without touching the visible shoe prints?Because it is presumed that they were not visible without the luminol.
ChasingMoxie
04-07-2011, 11:48 AM
What is so difficult to refute? Which part you find more convincing then what is explained in the judges report? The judges report is pretty clear on what the footprints are made of, how they are connected to the crime scene and what is cleaned and by who. Why would it be so difficult to clean the visible footprints without touching the visible shoe prints?
I find that HIGHLY improbable. So you think she cleaned her own prints and left RG's prints on purpose, and then when she had to come up with a suspect to defer attention she made up someone else entirely? If she knowingly left all of RG's evidence while cleaning up her own, wouldn't it then follow that she name RG when ILE is forcing her to say that she was there with someone?
Because it is presumed that they were not visible without the luminol. In addition, I believe the report by Sollecito's legal team's forensic expert, which proved the so-called print of Raffaele's was actually that of Rudy Guede, to be FAR more convincing than the Massei report.
Forensics expert Francesco Vinci showed in great detail, in his expert testimony in court, that the two prints actually belonged to Rudy Guede. THAT is what I find so difficult to refute.
sherlockh
04-07-2011, 12:20 PM
I find that HIGHLY improbable. So you think she cleaned her own prints and left RG's prints on purpose, and then when she had to come up with a suspect to defer attention she made up someone else entirely? If she knowingly left all of RG's evidence while cleaning up her own, wouldn't it then follow that she name RG when ILE is forcing her to say that she was there with someone?
I never said they knowingly left 'all' of RG's evidence. I said they left the shoe prints knowingly. Accusing your partner in crime is never a good idea IMO.
sherlockh
04-07-2011, 12:23 PM
In addition, I believe the report by Sollecito's legal team's forensic expert, which proved the so-called print of Raffaele's was actually that of Rudy Guede, to be FAR more convincing than the Massei report.
Forensics expert Francesco Vinci showed in great detail, in his expert testimony in court, that the two prints actually belonged to Rudy Guede. THAT is what I find so difficult to refute.
The shoe prints are RG's. I agree with that.
I never said they knowingly left 'all' of RG's evidence. I said they left the shoe prints knowingly. Accusing your partner in crime is never a good idea IMO.I do not think that that is what they did; I don't think Guded was their partner in crime; i think he acted alone.
sherlockh
04-07-2011, 12:24 PM
Because it is presumed that they were not visible without the luminol.
Yes, because they were cleaned. I am probably misunderstanding you?
The shoe prints are RG's. I agree with that.I think it is pretty clear from Vinvi's report and pictures that the footprint is as well.
Yes, because they were cleaned. I am probably misunderstanding you?I mean they would not have been able to see clearly what they left. They would not have therefore known what might show , or know how to make Guede's invisible ones remain yet not their own...
In addition, I believe the report by Sollecito's legal team's forensic expert, which proved the so-called print of Raffaele's was actually that of Rudy Guede, to be FAR more convincing than the Massei report.
Forensics expert Francesco Vinci showed in great detail, in his expert testimony in court, that the two prints actually belonged to Rudy Guede. THAT is what I find so difficult to refute.
Professor Vinci found evidence of all three suspects on the bra clasp. Do you accept this evidence as well?
sherlockh
04-07-2011, 12:42 PM
I think it is pretty clear from Vinvi's report and pictures that the footprint is as well.
I am not surprised. From a more objective point of view, in every trial against RG it was never concluded that his footprint was anywhere. Up to the Supreme Court it was noted that the bathmat print is compatible with RS and excludes both AK and RG. So how you can say 'pretty clear' is beyond me.
sherlockh
04-07-2011, 12:43 PM
I mean they would not have been able to see clearly what they left. They would not have therefore known what might show , or know how to make Guede's invisible ones remain yet not their own...
I still don't get it. How do you know how visible the prints were before they cleaned them?
Professor Vinci found evidence of all three suspects on the bra clasp. Do you accept this evidence as well?Yes. . . .
I still don't get it. How do you know how visible the prints were before they cleaned them?I guess I have been taking it on faith that the refuters are learned, and telling the truth.
I am not surprised. From a more objective point of view, in every trial against RG it was never concluded that his footprint was anywhere. Up to the Supreme Court it was noted that the bathmat print is compatible with RS and excludes both AK and RG. So how you can say 'pretty clear' is beyond me.
This is from the Rudy Guede's final appeal (PRESIDED OVER BY DR. UMBERTO GIORDANO)
"For Sollecito they give evidence: traces of DNA on the piece of fabric to which to the hooks of the bra are attached, the knife, which is compatible with the wounds inflicted on Meredith, found at his house with traces of Knox's DNA on the handle and Kercher’s on the blade, a print of a bare foot which is compatible with Sollecito's, found on the mat in the bathroom. For Knox: the traces on the knife handle found at the home of Sollecito, statements by Guede, the footprints from Knox and Sollecito detected by luminol, traces of genetic material on the sink and bidet, the phrase "I was there" in a conversation intercepted in prison between Knox and her parents, the testimony of Nara Capezzali who, at the time of the crime from her home about 70 meters away from via della Pergola heard a heart-rending scream and soon afterwards the footsteps of people going in opposite directions, towards via del Melo and along via del Bulagaio." (page 10)
Having viewed the records, the sentence and the appeal
heard in PUBLIC HEARING on December 16, 2010,
on the report made by Judge Dr. ENZO IANNELLI
Having heard the Chief Appeal Court Prosecutor
in the person of Dr. Gialanella
http://truejustice.org/ee//documents/perugia/guedesupremecourtsentencingreport.pdf
I guess I have been taking it on faith that the refuters are learned, and telling the truth.
In Rudy's final appeal ... notably overseen by a prosecutor other than Mignini ... the conclusion is that footprints from Knox and Sollecito were detected by luminol. This suggests to me that without luminol, they were not detected.
In Rudy's final appeal ... notably overseen by a prosecutor other than Mignini ... the conclusion is that footprints from Knox and Sollecito were detected by luminol. This suggests to me that without luminol, they were not detected.Right, they were not visible. How is it determined that they were made the night of the crime?
I guess I have been taking it on faith that the refuters are learned, and telling the truth.
Are "refuters" pro-conspiracy; attempting to refute, or prove false, the court conclusions?
Are "refuters" pro-conspiracy; attempting to refute, or prove false, the court conclusions?Of course.
Right, they were not visible. How is it determined that they were made the night of the crime?
How is it possible that luminol evidence is accepted in any courtroom ... except that there is no other expanation for the evidence that is detected using luminol. That is ... have we had any other reasonable explanation for the footprints that were detected using luminol?
This is from the Rudy Guede's final appeal (PRESIDED OVER BY DR. UMBERTO GIORDANO)
"For Sollecito they give evidence: traces of DNA on the piece of fabric to which to the hooks of the bra are attached, the knife, which is compatible with the wounds inflicted on Meredith, found at his house with traces of Knox's DNA on the handle and Kercher’s on the blade, a print of a bare foot which is compatible with Sollecito's, found on the mat in the bathroom. For Knox: the traces on the knife handle found at the home of Sollecito, statements by Guede, the footprints from Knox and Sollecito detected by luminol, traces of genetic material on the sink and bidet, the phrase "I was there" in a conversation intercepted in prison between Knox and her parents, the testimony of Nara Capezzali who, at the time of the crime from her home about 70 meters away from via della Pergola heard a heart-rending scream and soon afterwards the footsteps of people going in opposite directions, towards via del Melo and along via del Bulagaio." (page 10)
Having viewed the records, the sentence and the appeal
heard in PUBLIC HEARING on December 16, 2010,
on the report made by Judge Dr. ENZO IANNELLI
Having heard the Chief Appeal Court Prosecutor
in the person of Dr. Gialanella
http://truejustice.org/ee//documents/perugia/guedesupremecourtsentencingreport.pdf
For Sollecito they give evidence:
traces of DNA on the piece of fabric to which to the hooks of the bra are attached,
the knife, which is compatible with the wounds inflicted on Meredith, found at his house with traces of Knox's DNA on the handle and Kercher’s on the blade,
a print of a bare foot which is compatible with Sollecito's, found on the mat in the bathroom.
For Knox:
the traces on the knife handle found at the home of Sollecito, statements by Guede,
the footprints from Knox and Sollecito detected by luminol,
traces of genetic material on the sink and bidet,
the phrase "I was there" in a conversation intercepted in prison between Knox and her parents,
the testimony of Nara Capezzali who, at the time of the crime from her home about 70 meters away from via della Pergola heard a heart-rending scream and soon afterwards the footsteps of people going in opposite directions, towards via del Melo and along via del Bulagaio.
Must rush out, but surely I am not the only one who believed the defense's vigorous refutations of some of these, nor various experts' refutations? In fact, all of this was refuted. But I will leave it for others to grapple with. . .
How is it possible that luminol evidence is accepted in any courtroom ... except that there is no other expanation for the evidence that is detected using luminol. That is ... have we had any other reasonable explanation for the footprints that were detected using luminol?That they were made from another , prior, time? or that they were in fact made during a clean up or staging, after Guede had committed the act alone (I have written elsewhere how/why I have suspected this)
addendumIf Knox had not lived at that cottage, and if there were no Rudy Guede, I would believe the evidence.
quick closing thoughts:
why should we believe what Rudy says?
why was the bra collected 47 days later? contamination?
how do we know when Amanda's prints were made? why not the day prior?
the woman who heard this is from what I had heard not all that reliable, and half deaf
"I was there", at Sollecito's, even though they say I had left
were there not huge questions about the knife?
if Mignini can break the law once, he may do so even in this case?
and finally, can all refuters be stupid, evil, and dishonest?
Reasonable doubt about much of it...
For Sollecito they give evidence:
traces of DNA on the piece of fabric to which to the hooks of the bra are attached,
the knife, which is compatible with the wounds inflicted on Meredith, found at his house with traces of Knox's DNA on the handle and Kercher’s on the blade,
a print of a bare foot which is compatible with Sollecito's, found on the mat in the bathroom.
For Knox:
the traces on the knife handle found at the home of Sollecito, statements by Guede,
the footprints from Knox and Sollecito detected by luminol,
traces of genetic material on the sink and bidet,
the phrase "I was there" in a conversation intercepted in prison between Knox and her parents,
the testimony of Nara Capezzali who, at the time of the crime from her home about 70 meters away from via della Pergola heard a heart-rending scream and soon afterwards the footsteps of people going in opposite directions, towards via del Melo and along via del Bulagaio.
Must rush out, but surely I am not the only one who believed the defense's vigorous refutations of some of these, nor various experts' refutations? In fact, all of this was refuted. But I will leave it for others to grapple with. . .
Are you suggesting that because the evidence was argued during trial, it isn't valid? Has there ever been a trial where evidence was not argued? It seems to me that that is job of a defense lawyer ... to attempt to refute the evidence. The court determines whether the arguments are valid and ... in this case ... we have a detailed explanation from the Judge explaining why those arguments were rejected.
That they were made from another , prior, time? or that they were in fact made during a clean up or staging, after Guede had committed the act alone (I have written elsewhere how/why I have suspected this)
Can you refer me to where lawyers presented arguments providing an alternate time frame (other than the murder) for the footprints that were detected using luminol?
Can you refer me to where lawyers presented arguments providing an alternate time frame (other than the murder) for the footprints that were detected using luminol? no, it is my own thought. But as for all refutations to my refutations: Ergo, anyone who believes Knox and Sollecito were railroaded is a deluded idiot and half wit. : ( So why even have this forum, they are both guilty as sin, and the rest of us should dry up. Kind of what is being said, between the lines.
quick closing thoughts:
why should we believe what Rudy says?
why was the bra collected 47 days later? contamination?
how do we know when Amanda's prints were made? why not the day prior?
the woman who heard this is from what I had heard not all that reliable, and half deaf
"I was there", at Sollecito's, even though they say I had left
were there not huge questions about the knife?
if Mignini can break the law once, he may do so even in this case?
and finally, can all refuters be stupid, evil, and dishonest?
Reasonable doubt about much of it...
Half deaf? She doesn't seem half deaf. She seems to be quite capable of hearing normal conversation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd-Th8lIxyo
It is important to note that although Paul Ciolino claims police did not speak to Nara at all, she did testify in court ... thus making it rather obvious that Paul Ciolino is not being truthful. Clearly investigators spoke to her about what she heard on the night of the murder.
no, it is my own thought. But as for all refutations to my refutations: Ergo, anyone who believes Knox and Sollecito were railroaded is a deluded idiot and half wit. : ( So why even have this forum, they are both guilty as sin, and the rest of us should dry up. Kind of what is being said, between the lines.
The case is under appeal, just like many trials all over the world. Until the appeals are exhausted, new information is possible ... which is why many people are still following the case. Although there was an abundance of evidence presented during the 11 month trial, only three pieces of evidence are under review during appeal: knife, clasp, eye-witness testimony. All the other evidence has been accepted by the courts. We will know how the court rules on May 21. After that ... I think the Supreme court makes it's ruling.
The case is under appeal, just like many trials all over the world. Until the appeals are exhausted, new information is possible ... which is why many people are still following the case. Although there was an abundance of evidence presented during the 11 month trial, only three pieces of evidence are under review during appeal: knife, clasp, eye-witness testimony. All the other evidence has been accepted by the courts. We will know how the court rules on May 21. After that ... I think the Supreme court makes it's ruling.but that will not change anyone's mind, on either side, I assume....:snooty::snooty:
i.e., if the convictions are overturned, you will continue to think they are guilty; if they are upheld, I will still have reasonable doubt. How could it be otherwise, now?
Half deaf? She doesn't seem half deaf. She seems to be quite capable of hearing normal conversation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd-Th8lIxyo
It is important to note that although Paul Ciolino claims police did not speak to Nara at all, she did testify in court ... thus making it rather obvious that Paul Ciolino is not being truthful. Clearly investigators spoke to her about what she heard on the night of the murder.what about my other points?:snooty:
but that will not change anyone's mind, on either side, I assume....:snooty::snooty:
Really? I disagree. I had no opinion of the involvement of Amanda and Raffaele in the murder until the trial. Trial evidence convinced me of their guilt. If it is demonstrated that errors were made in the evidence, then I would reconsider my opinion. I think many would.
i.e., if the convictions are overturned, you will continue to think they are guilty; if they are upheld, I will still have reasonable doubt. How could it be otherwise, now?
It's unfortunate that you have such a rigid opinion of those that are following this case with great interest.
Really? I disagree. I had no opinion of the involvement of Amanda and Raffaele in the murder until the trial. Trial evidence convinced me of their guilt. If it is demonstrated that errors were made in the evidence, then I would reconsider my opinion. I think many would.Well, I sure hope the convictions are overturned, then - because I feel I gave months and months of serious consideration to their guilt, and only came to believe in their innocence reluctantly, slowly, and against my will. I trusted Mignini and the courts fully, until I was given reason to mistrust. I would like to see some of the zealots (not you, but on a "certain site") have to go through the same process....
what about my other points?:snooty:
why should we believe what Rudy says?
why was the bra collected 47 days later? contamination?
how do we know when Amanda's prints were made? why not the day prior?
the woman who heard this is from what I had heard not all that reliable, and half deaf
"I was there", at Sollecito's, even though they say I had left
were there not huge questions about the knife?
if Mignini can break the law once, he may do so even in this case?
and finally, can all refuters be stupid, evil, and dishonest?
<edit to add other points>
Who believes Rudy?
Evidence was collected in stages. The purse, blue hoodie, luminol evidence was collected on Dec 18. Why is it only a problem that the clasp was collected after the first inspection?
No evidence was presented in court to argue that the luminol prints were made at any time prior to the murder. In fact, Amanda testified that the blood in the bathroom was deposited on the night of the murder.
Knox said that she was there while talking with her mother. There's nothing that can be done about this.
There were 43 injuries, including knife wounds made by more than one knife. Meredith's DNA on the knife pretty much connects that weapon to the murder.
There were two prosecutors trying Knox and Sollecito. I have yet to hear a single complaint about one of the prosecutors. Without a reliable complaint against her, she must be considered to be an honest, upstanding officer of the court capable of doing her job.
Conspiracy theorists abound ... some people believe that it is a conspiracy that man landed on the moon. Is it surprising that the term "anti-americanism" has come up as an explanation for the verdicts? It's absurd, but it's not surprising. "But days after Knox and Sollecito's conviction on December 4 last year, a Democrat senator from Knox's home state of Washington, Maria Cantwell, said the trial had been tainted by anti-American bias and that she had serious concerns about a miscarriage of justice." (link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/8100649/FBI-agent-believes-Amanda-Knox-is-entirely-innocent.html))
Well, I sure hope the convictions are overturned, then - because I feel I gave months and months of serious consideration to their guilt, and only came to believe in their innocence reluctantly, slowly, and against my will. I trusted Mignini and the courts fully, until I was given reason to mistrust. I would like to see some of the zealots (not you, but on a "certain site") have to go through the same process....
Some people following the case are completely confident that the DNA evidence will be upheld (because the evidence has already been reviewed by several experts) and that the conviction will be upheld. Since many of those people on a "certain site" are quite well educated (many holding several university degrees), I suspect they will modify their opinions based on evidence ... that is what I expect from educated people ... that they are able to re-evaluate information and modify opinions.
I should not still be here and typing, but just had to throw some last thoughts in:
They said Guede's statements were part of the evidence. THEY believe him, that's who.
" I was there" - where? at Raffaele's, so one has nothing to fear. She knows she did not leave? why assume it was "at the cottage"? the CONTEXT shows what she meant.
Well, the 2nd prosecutor may be known by "the company we keep"
I have NEVER thought this was anti-Americanism, and many, many others who believe in innocence believe it has ZIP to do with such.
:tears::tears:
If AK's "I was there" is still being invoked as evidence of her guilt, then this was indeed a sham trial in a kangaroo court. And I'll take back everything I've said in defense of the Italian judicial system.
It's unfortunate that you have such a rigid opinion of those that are following this case with great interest.I do not think so. I think other things are unfortunate. :innocent:
Malkmus
04-07-2011, 02:51 PM
Professor Vinci found evidence of all three suspects on the bra clasp. Do you accept this evidence as well?
Yes. . . .
You have to take things like this with a grain of salt, SMK. Professor Vinci never said Amanda's DNA was found on the bra clasp. What was said by him was that there were profiles of other people on it (which we've known), one of which was a partial profile belonging to a female. Vinci, Raffaele's lawyer, said it "could" be Amanda's. However, it was never attributed to her, and as it stands, that unknown female profile remains "unknown". You can bet that had such a thing ever been attributed to her, it would have been a huge plus for the prosecution.
You have to take things like this with a grain of salt, SMK. Professor Vinci never said Amanda's DNA was found on the bra clasp. What was said by him was that there were profiles of other people on it (which we've known), one of which was a partial profile belonging to a female. Vinci, Raffaele's lawyer, said it "could" be Amanda's. However, it was never attributed to her, and as it stands, that unknown female profile remains "unknown". You can bet that had such a thing ever been attributed to her, it would have been a huge plus for the prosecution.thanks.....it is shakier than i thought.....:waitasec:
If AK's "I was there" is still being invoked as evidence of her guilt, then this was indeed a sham trial in a kangaroo court. And I'll take back everything I've said in defense of the Italian judicial system.Bravo. :clap:
I should not still be here and typing, but just had to throw some last thoughts in:
They said Guede's statements were part of the evidence. THEY believe him, that's who.
" I was there" - where? at Raffaele's, so one has nothing to fear. She knows she did not leave? why assume it was "at the cottage"? the CONTEXT shows what she meant.
Well, the 2nd prosecutor may be known by "the company we keep"
I have NEVER thought this was anti-Americanism, and many, many others who believe in innocence believe it has ZIP to do with such.
:tears::tears:
The last point on the list was that refuters are stupid, evil, and dishonest ... I gave an example of a Democrat Senator - someone whom we would presume to be objective - who instead appears to believe that there was some sort of "anti-american" conspiracy. People that believe there was a conspiracy was not stupid, evil and dishonest, but some of them - notably public figures - are conspiracy theorists. Not everyone that believes it was a conspiracy agrees with the senator, some agree with the accident reconstructionist.
Amanda's statemet, in context, clearly did not communicate that she was referring to being at Raffaele's apartment.
Since the prosecutors are to be judged by their co-workers, then is there a reason why we don't take the high road and assume that Mignini would be an honorable officer of the court like his co-worker?
Some people following the case are completely confident that the DNA evidence will be upheld (because the evidence has already been reviewed by several experts) and that the conviction will be upheld. Since many of those people on a "certain site" are quite well educated (many holding several university degrees), I suspect they will modify their opinions based on evidence ... that is what I expect from educated people ... that they are able to re-evaluate information and modify opinions. I think you are giving them far too much credit. Have you ever seen a pack of academics fight? :floorlaugh: Some of the "well educated" are the most obstinate, egoistic, tyrannical of all. I would be willing to bet my bank account that IF the convictions are overturned, and the refuters dance a jig, and little Amanda comes prancing home, "that site" will cry foul. I don't feel badly for saying so, after the way they slurred me and my articles, btw....:maddening:
wasnt_me
04-07-2011, 03:05 PM
I find that HIGHLY improbable. So you think she cleaned her own prints and left RG's prints on purpose, and then when she had to come up with a suspect to defer attention she made up someone else entirely? If she knowingly left all of RG's evidence while cleaning up her own, wouldn't it then follow that she name RG when ILE is forcing her to say that she was there with someone?
This is what I'm thinking. I mean, you go through ALL the trouble of making sure RG's DNA, fingerprints, and footprints, and his literal crap stays on the scene, but then you implicate PL. That's nonsensical to me. That's why I believe that there wasn't a clean up, or there was just enough clean up to the actual murderer(s) to allow them to get out of the house without looking bloody. the culprit(s) might have cleaned the bathroom a little in the process of cleaning himself (themselves) up.
But, if going on the theory that they cleaned everything but RG's guilt, why in the world would they leave the bloody bathmat, if that was RS's print?
You have to take things like this with a grain of salt, SMK. Professor Vinci never said Amanda's DNA was found on the bra clasp. What was said by him was that there were profiles of other people on it (which we've known), one of which was a partial profile belonging to a female. Vinci, Raffaele's lawyer, said it "could" be Amanda's. However, it was never attributed to her, and as it stands, that unknown female profile remains "unknown". You can bet that had such a thing ever been attributed to her, it would have been a huge plus for the prosecution.
"In a new twist in the Meredith Kercher murder mystery, evidence has been heard alleging that a bloodied bra worn by the British student carried the DNA of all three people accused of killing her in a sex game gone wrong."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/3268373/Meredith-Kerchers-bra-had-DNA-from-all-three-suspects.html
Malkmus
04-07-2011, 03:09 PM
This is what I'm thinking. I mean, you go through ALL the trouble of making sure RG's DNA, fingerprints, and footprints, and his literal crap stays on the scene, but then you implicate PL. That's nonsensical to me. That's why I believe that there wasn't a clean up, or there was just enough clean up to the actual murderer(s) to allow them to get out of the house without looking bloody. the culprit(s) might have cleaned the bathroom a little in the process.
But, if going on the theory that they cleaned everything but RG's guilt, why in the world would they leave the bloody bathmat, if that was RS's print?
Not only that, but Raf himself called the police to tell them about the blood specifically in the bathroom. So he cleaned up his remaining prints, left his footprint on the mat, then called the police and told them there's blood in the bathroom? Doesn't make sense.
I think you are giving them far too much credit. Have you ever seen a pack of academics fight? :floorlaugh: Some of the "well educated" are the most obstinate, egoistic, tyrannical of all. I would be willing to bet my bank account that IF the convictions are overturned, and the refuters dance a jig, and little Amanda comes prancing home, "that site" will cry foul. I don't feel badly for saying so, after the way they slurred me and my articles, btw....:maddening:
What articles are you referring to?
Since the prosecutors are to be judged by their co-workers, then is there a reason why we don't take the high road and assume that Mignini would be an honorable officer of the court like his co-worker?(snipped by SMK---Otto post)
Well, Mignini has led us to believe it might be the other way around....as for that Senator from WA, yes, she was being silly. I thought so at the time. But that does not make us ALL "conspiracy theorist" types. and what of convictions which really prove false in the end, in our U. S. courts? I have become a skeptic from these American atrocities...
Malkmus
04-07-2011, 03:12 PM
"In a new twist in the Meredith Kercher murder mystery, evidence has been heard alleging that a bloodied bra worn by the British student carried the DNA of all three people accused of killing her in a sex game gone wrong."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/3268373/Meredith-Kerchers-bra-had-DNA-from-all-three-suspects.html
I'm sorry, is there something there that contradicts what I wrote? Cause I don't see it.
"evidence has been heard alleging", I mean come on. Could it be more vague?
What articles are you referring to?oh, things I wrote for Bruce Fisher....some blog pieces, a book review, some news articles...oy vey
:nevermind:
ziggy
04-07-2011, 03:14 PM
If that was true you would always get smeared luminol findings at any cleaned crime scene. Then you could never identify anything. Also these luminol pics are not exactly pristine anyway. But anyway, I tried to Google 'luminol footprints' and the first 2 pages were results from this case.
Isn't that amazing? :)
That's because this case is all over the internet in light of the controversy in which luminol prints that could not be said to have been made in blood and there were other explanations, were used to convict someone of murder.
You see a good deal of luminol prints where the blood may have been on the shoe but reduced as the person walked on carpet or other material - some of those footprints are not easily seen by the naked eye and luminol enhances the shoe print. Also, shoe prints on dark carpet - luminol enhances the print for shoe print matching.
The prosecutor's logic was that someone walked in MK's blood in her room, managed to clean up those footprints on the floor of MK's room, but after cleaning footprints from other locations in the flat as well, some of the "cleaned" footprint shapes glowed perfectly under the light and luminol test while other "cleaned" footprints disappeared without a trace. Flawed.
I'm sorry, is there something there that contradicts what I wrote? Cause I don't see it.
"evidence has been heard alleging", I mean come on. Could it be more vague?
You wrote: " Professor Vinci never said Amanda's DNA was found on the bra clasp"
I presented a link to an article with Vinci, Raffaele's DNA expert "alleging that a bloodied bra worn by the British student carried the DNA of all three people accused of killing her in a sex game gone wrong. "
That looks to me to be a contradiction.
Well, it would depend on who you believe. Why do you think Vinci is on the prosecution's side?
The court in Perugia has previously heard that a clasp on the bra carried only traces of DNA belonging to Mr Sollecito.
His lawyers argued on Friday that the presence of the DNA was the result of laboratory contamination and not evidence that their client was involved in the brutal attack on Miss Kercher.
Last week they sketched out a scenario in which an intruder murdered Miss Kercher after being disturbed while trying to rob the house she shared with other students in the Umbrian university town.
Mr Sollecito's lawyers allege that Miss Knox's DNA has also been found on the torn bra. They will argue that the DNA evidence is so complex and confused that it cannot be used to incriminate their client. [ . . . ]Defence lawyers have called the entire scenario a fantasy based on the the fevered imagination of prosecutors and deeply flawed evidence.
OR.............................
"The analysis of the profile [found on the bra] in our opinion shows clearly the presence of at least three individuals," according to forensic expert Francesco Vinci, retained by Mr Sollecito's legal team.
There was a "mix" of DNA with the strongest trace from Miss Kercher but also traces from other individuals, both male and female, making it "impossible or nearly impossible" to draw any firm conclusions from the evidence, said Professor Vinci.
Prosecutors allege that during a kinky sex game, Miss Kercher, on all fours, was held down by Mr Sollecito and Mr Guede, who allegedly tried to rape her.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/3268373/Meredith-Kerchers-bra-had-DNA-from-all-three-suspects.html
RR0004
04-07-2011, 03:29 PM
You wrote: " Professor Vinci never said Amanda's DNA was found on the bra clasp"
I presented a link to an article with Vinci, Raffaele's DNA expert "alleging that a bloodied bra worn by the British student carried the DNA of all three people accused of killing her in a sex game gone wrong. "
That looks to me to be a contradiction.
Wow...the media may have gotten it wrong...what a surprise!
Malkmus
04-07-2011, 03:31 PM
You wrote: " Professor Vinci never said Amanda's DNA was found on the bra clasp"
I presented a link to an article with Vinci, Raffaele's DNA expert "alleging that a bloodied bra worn by the British student carried the DNA of all three people accused of killing her in a sex game gone wrong. "
That looks to me to be a contradiction.
Why don't you read what Vinci himself is quoted as saying in the article you posted, Otto?
There was a "mix" of DNA with the strongest trace from Miss Kercher but also traces from other individuals, both male and female, making it "impossible or nearly impossible" to draw any firm conclusions from the evidence, said Professor Vinci.
Since the prosecutors are to be judged by their co-workers, then is there a reason why we don't take the high road and assume that Mignini would be an honorable officer of the court like his co-worker?(snipped by SMK---Otto post)
Well, Mignini has led us to believe it might be the other way around....as for that Senator from WA, yes, she was being silly. I thought so at the time. But that does not make us ALL "conspiracy theorist" types. and what of convictions which really prove false in the end, in our U. S. courts? I have become a skeptic from these American atrocities...
I don't follow. You are prepared to damage the reputation of an officer of the court because of what? Because she prosecuted the case against Amanda and Raffaele, or because co-counsel was Mignini?
Well, it would depend on who you believe. Why do you think Vinci is on the prosecution's side?
The court in Perugia has previously heard that a clasp on the bra carried only traces of DNA belonging to Mr Sollecito.
His lawyers argued on Friday that the presence of the DNA was the result of laboratory contamination and not evidence that their client was involved in the brutal attack on Miss Kercher.
Last week they sketched out a scenario in which an intruder murdered Miss Kercher after being disturbed while trying to rob the house she shared with other students in the Umbrian university town.
Mr Sollecito's lawyers allege that Miss Knox's DNA has also been found on the torn bra. They will argue that the DNA evidence is so complex and confused that it cannot be used to incriminate their client. [ . . . ]Defence lawyers have called the entire scenario a fantasy based on the the fevered imagination of prosecutors and deeply flawed evidence.
OR.............................
"The analysis of the profile [found on the bra] in our opinion shows clearly the presence of at least three individuals," according to forensic expert Francesco Vinci, retained by Mr Sollecito's legal team.
There was a "mix" of DNA with the strongest trace from Miss Kercher but also traces from other individuals, both male and female, making it "impossible or nearly impossible" to draw any firm conclusions from the evidence, said Professor Vinci.
Prosecutors allege that during a kinky sex game, Miss Kercher, on all fours, was held down by Mr Sollecito and Mr Guede, who allegedly tried to rape her.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/3268373/Meredith-Kerchers-bra-had-DNA-from-all-three-suspects.html
Vinci declared that DNA on the clasp matched all three suspects, and then tried to eliminate that evidence by suggesting it was a result of contamination. Seems to me that it's a very odd approach for introducing the contamination argument, but I suppose Raffaele's experts were desperate to explain his DNA on the clasp.
Wow...the media may have gotten it wrong...what a surprise!
I think the court concluded that Vinci got it wrong.
Why don't you read what Vinci himself is quoted as saying in the article you posted, Otto?
It doesn't really matter how many odd claims came from Vinci, the courts did not accept the testimony, and I think Vinci was let go from the defense team. I guess no one was happy with him.
ziggy
04-07-2011, 03:38 PM
If that was true you would always get smeared luminol findings at any cleaned crime scene. Then you could never identify anything. Also these luminol pics are not exactly pristine anyway. But anyway, I tried to Google 'luminol footprints' and the first 2 pages were results from this case.
Isn't that amazing? :)
That's because this case is all over the internet in light of the controversy in which luminol prints that could not be said to have been made in blood and other possible explanations ignored, were used to convict someone of murder.
You see a good deal of luminol prints where the blood may have been on the shoe but reduced as the person walked on carpet or other material - some of those footprints are not easily seen by the naked eye and luminol enhances the shoe print. Also, shoe prints on dark carpet - luminol enhances the print for shoe print matching.
The prosecutor's logic was that someone walked in MK's blood in her room, managed to clean up those footprints on the floor of MK's room, but after cleaning footprints from other locations in the flat as well, some of the "cleaned" footprint shapes glowed with very distinguishable shape under the light/luminol test while other "cleaned" footprints disappeared without a trace. Isn't that pretty much what you are willing to believe? How do you reconcile that?
I don't follow. You are prepared to damage the reputation of an officer of the court because of what? Because she prosecuted the case against Amanda and Raffaele, or because co-counsel was Mignini?
I am not in a position to damage anyone's reputation. I just have cause for doubt, is all.
I am not in a position to damage anyone's reputation. I just have cause for doubt, is all.
What justification is there to question the integrity of both prosecutors? We know that one illegally wire tapped some people ... what reason is there to paint the other with the same brush?
What justification is there to question the integrity of both prosecutors? We know that one illegally wire tapped some people ... what reason is there to paint the other with the same brush?I don't know, perhaps because she keeps such close association with Mignini? In any case, it is just speculation. I just do not think she made a good case, obviously. It needs no bad character to be doubted. Why would I still think I had reasonable doubt, if I thought she made a great case ? ( I think Amanda's character was dragged through the mud, myself...I even wrote things about her, based on swallowing such character assassination, without doing enough researching and reflecting...)
wasnt_me
04-07-2011, 03:58 PM
Hey, I'm changing gears a bit, and hopefully anyone interested will hop in with what they think.
I'm still trying to presume innocence on RS and AK. I don't think RG is innocent because he's the only stranger on the scene with no reason to be in the apartment, has a history of burgalry, placed himself at the scene and claimed conscentual sex when Meredith's bra had been ripped from her body and her shirt was jacked up to her neck. That's not conscentual. I have other reasons, but these are the main ones.
However, I'm having serious problems now with the breakin scenerio. Upon reading about the window, I understand that F's window has in essence two shutters. If you are standing inside the room, from what I understand, you must first open a set of white solid shutters, then you must open the glass and then you can swing open the green shutters. If Filomena locked ALL three layers to the window, I'm not seeing how the rock could have been thrown inside.
I can see that he could have climbed up and somehow forced open the green shutters. Now, he would have to break the glass and then get the white solid shutters open. If he threw the rock from the ground or banged it on the glass while standing up on the iron thing on the other window below, then the glass would have shattered, fell down on him and the rock would still be outside. Either it would fall on the ground or it would still be in his hand if he were standing on the iron thing.
So, for me, that begs the question (if we're still trying to believe what the scene is saying, that this window breakin the point of entry), are there marks on the white inner shutters to indicate a rock was hit against them or thrown against them?
Okay, so still going with this breakin through the window theory, say he climbed up there, after shattering the window, there is no longer a need for the rock, because it can't help him get through the white shutters. Why would he continue to carry it back up to the window to at this point force the white shutters open? If the white shutters were locked, then he only had to climb up a second time to somehow get himself up there enough to unlatch the frame of the glass and then somehow pry or bust open the white shutters. therefore, the rock should not even be in the room.
The only way that the breakin theory is actually viable is if those white shutters were for some reason already open inside the room, or if they were unlocked so that the rock could force them to fly back when it hit. But do we know if there are marks on this shutter, because the rock would have left marks if they'd been closed.
OR am I understanding incorrectly that there were white shutters, then glass, then green shutters?
I have decided that if there are three layers to the window, and if F was correct that she'd secured it all, then the rock must have been retrieved from outside and brought into the house. The white shutters were then opened, the rock was hit against the glass (not thrown because that would have opened the green shutters, allowing glass and the rock to go back outside) and then the rock was dropped on the floor in the room and the green shutters were opend.
So now, if the white shutters were open already, RG was incredibly lucky, because I tend to believe others who have agreed that F, going away for a few days, would have secured the room. Unless, for some reason, one of the remaining roommates opened the window at some point while F was gone. If Amanda doesn't own up to it, only Meredith could have done that. Now, I don't know where this garden is, but if she worried about seeing someone in it, and F's window overlooked it, Meredith could have opened it to check out the garden. (unlikely, but just saying, it's possible if the garden is located there or M needed to see something on that side of the house.)
So if he was that lucky, then he could have climbed up the window, forced back the green shutters, came down, retrieved the rock and threw it in, then unlatched the frame holding the broken glass, and then entered the house.
So, those who know more about this window, am I correct in my reasoning about it?
I am not in a position to damage anyone's reputation. I just have cause for doubt, is all.
Sure, and I'm asking what cause there is to doubt the integrity of an officer of the court; an officer that is without a blemish on her record?
I don't know, perhaps because she keeps such close association with Mignini? In any case, it is just speculation. I just do not think she made a good case, obviously. It needs no bad character to be doubted. Why would I still think I had reasonable doubt, if I thought she made a great case ? ( I think Amanda's character was dragged through the mud, myself...I even wrote things about her, based on swallowing such character assassination, without doing enough researching and reflecting...)
She has a normal working association with Mignini. That's normal, not reason to believe that she is a corrupt prosecutor.
ziggy
04-07-2011, 04:02 PM
Flourish, I think anyone can see my looking at the bloody footprint that it was made by someone standing on the full foot, not tip toes. The only people that really walk toe first, heel second, are models. Everyone else steps heel to toe. The only reason the foot print ends at the edge of the mat is because the rest of the print was on the floor.
Pro-conspiracists would argue that the world was flat if it helped make evidence against Knox and Sollecito disappear.
The only people who really walk toe first and heel second are models??? You are now an expert in this area after all the ciritcisms you've had of other people stating opinions across a scientific field? This is an epic fail otto:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Px69eKV5lWk
Models also walk heel first when going forward. What part of your foot hits the floor first when going downstairs? The ball. Try walking backwards or downstairs with your heel first otto.hmmm. I'm not sayin AGAIN - please really read this so that I don't have to reply when you twist my words again - I'm not saying this is what happened, merely pointing out that you are wrong.
In addition, just to set the record straight, I offered that it could be a partial footprint left by someone who didn't want to put their foot down but did so as not to fall over and tried to minimize the contact...not that someone tip toed around. I know that you know this. Pehaps for the first time in 8 or 9 years on Websleuths I'll use the ignore feature.
@flourish: if you feel there is a socioligical construct to this; then what about the other possibility in that same realm that Anti-Americanism played a role in this verdict? I think examining both types of xenophobia would be prudent.
Again: I don't have a dog in this hunt. Looking means looking at all the possibilites not dismissing them - do I lean one way? Yes, but, show me how the great weight of the evidence goes the other way in a logical sense and I don't care if I change my mind - I'm not attached to being right, just want to know what the truth is.
Hey, I'm changing gears a bit, and hopefully anyone interested will hop in with what they think.
I'm still trying to presume innocence on RS and AK. I don't think RG is innocent because he's the only stranger on the scene with no reason to be in the apartment, has a history of burgalry, placed himself at the scene and claimed conscentual sex when Meredith's bra had been ripped from her body and her shirt was jacked up to her neck. That's not conscentual. I have other reasons, but these are the main ones.
However, I'm having serious problems now with the breakin scenerio. Upon reading about the window, I understand that F's window has in essence two shutters. If you are standing inside the room, from what I understand, you must first open a set of white solid shutters, then you must open the glass and then you can swing open the green shutters. If Filomena locked ALL three layers to the window, I'm not seeing how the rock could have been thrown inside.
I can see that he could have climbed up and somehow forced open the green shutters. Now, he would have to break the glass and then get the white solid shutters open. If he threw the rock from the ground or banged it on the glass while standing up on the iron thing on the other window below, then the glass would have shattered, fell down on him and the rock would still be outside. Either it would fall on the ground or it would still be in his hand if he were standing on the iron thing.
So, for me, that begs the question (if we're still trying to make this window breakin the point of entry), are there marks on the white inner shutters to indicate a rock was hit against them or thrown against them?
Okay, so still going with this breakin through the window theory, say he climbed up there, after shattering the window, there is no longer a need for the rock, because it can't help him get through the white shutters. Why would he continue to carry it back up to the window to at this point force the white shutters open? If the white shutters were locked, then he only had to climb up a second time to somehow get himself up there enough to unlatch the frame of the glass and then somehow pry or bust open the white shutters. therefore, the rock should not even be in the room.
The only way that the breakin theory is actually viable is if those white shutters were for some reason already open inside the room, or if they were unlocked so that the rock could force them to fly back when it hit. But do we know if there are marks on this shutter, because the rock would have left marks if they'd been closed.
OR am I understanding incorrectly that there were white shutters, then glass, then green shutters?
I have decided that if there are three layers to the window, and if F was correct that she'd secured it all, then the rock must have been retrieved from outside and brought into the house. The white shutters were then opened, the rock was hit against the glass (not thrown because that would have opened the green shutters, allowing glass and the rock to go back outside) and then the rock was dropped on the floor in the room and the green shutters were opend.
So now, if the white shutters were open already, RG was incredibly lucky, because I tend to believe others who have agreed that F, going away for a few days, would have secured the room. Unless, for some reason, one of the remaining roommates opened the window at some point while F was gone. If Amanda doesn't own up to it, only Meredith could have done that. Now, I don't know where this garden is, but if she worried about seeing someone in it, and F's window overlooked it, Meredith could have opened it to check out the garden. (unlikely, but just saying, it's possible if the garden is located there or M needed to see something on that side of the house.)
So if he was that lucky, then he could have climbed up the window, forced back the green shutters, came down, retrieved the rock and threw it in, then unlatched the frame holding the broken glass, and then entered the house.
So, those who know more about this window, am I correct in my reasoning about it?
I think there are outside shutters and inside glass windows. There is no glass on the ground outside the window. The shutters were swollen from years of being weathered, and would stay closed using friction. If someone climbed in through the window, that person had to perch on the side of the building 20 feet above the ground (nothing to stand on), reach in a broken window with shards of glass everywhere, unlock the window, then climb in through the window without getting cut ... and, of course, then arrange the glass on top of the ransacked items again without getting cut. Anyone that has cleaned up a broken drinking glass knows that a cut is almost par for the course ... but apparently not so with this spiderman feat.
She has a normal working association with Mignini. That's normal, not reason to believe that she is a corrupt prosecutor.Otto, you speak with an idle tongue, i know nothing of her, and prior to his indictment, Mignini was "without blemish" as well. I don't like the case they made. Capeesh? :(
ziggy
04-07-2011, 04:07 PM
@wasnt me: have you read the Shutter Island section @ sciencesphere?
http://www.sciencespheres.com/
It's regarding Filomena, the shutters and the illogical presumptions that could have been made from her testimony. Just some food for thought on the shutters.
wasnt_me
04-07-2011, 04:14 PM
I think there are outside shutters and inside glass windows. There is no glass on the ground outside the window. The shutters were swollen from years of being weathered, and would stay closed using friction. If someone climbed in through the window, that person had to perch on the side of the building 20 feet above the ground (nothing to stand on), reach in a broken window with shards of glass everywhere, unlock the window, then climb in through the window without getting cut ... and, of course, then arrange the glass on top of the ransacked items again without getting cut. Anyone that has cleaned up a broken drinking glass knows that a cut is almost par for the course ... but apparently not so with this spiderman feat.
I think I'm confused by this window. I thought i read a report that explained that there were white shutters inside the room. I am trying to find it now. Told you, studying this case all night is probably not the best idea for me, but that's why I'm relying on you guys, who have been here since day one, and I appreciate you appeasing me as I catch up on the case. I'm sure sometimes I sound like a novice, because I don't know all the evidence yet.
@wasnt me: have you read the Shutter Island section @ sciencesphere?
http://www.sciencespheres.com/
It's regarding Filomena, the shutters and the illogical presumptions that could have been made from her testimony. Just some food for thought on the shutters.
This is an excellent passage from that text @ link below:
It is a critical fact for the understanding of this trial that guilt was preordained; the evidence was an afterthought. Once one sees this cart-before-the-horse mentality for what it is, one can practically sit back and watch as the evidence is twisted to achieve the result, rather than being objectively discovered and analyzed. The distortion of the evidence to wrongfully convict Amanda and Raffaele is especially clear in the Motivation. I urge everyone with an interest in this case to read it. Even in the translation produced by the anonymous and unaccountable team assembled by the guilters, the Motivation is self-damning in its illogical and preposterous assertions.
It is not a coincidence that while those who assert that Amanda and Raffaele are guilty point to this document, they rarely cite its actual contents. Those contents show just how weak the prosecution’s case was. As several observers stated shortly after its release, it appears to have been designed to be overthrown on appeal on the basis of its own content. It is as if those who wrote it knew perfectly well that they were convicting innocent people, and sought some form of repentance by including the seeds of self-destruction.
http://www.sciencespheres.com/
ziggy
04-07-2011, 04:18 PM
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/hendry1.jpg
I think I'm confused by this window. I thought i read a report that explained that there were white shutters inside the room. I am trying to find it now. Told you, studying this case all night is probably not the best idea for me, but that's why I'm relying on you guys, who have been here since day one, and I appreciate you appeasing me as I catch up on the case. I'm sure sometimes I sound like a novice, because I don't know all the evidence yet.
This is a picture of the broken window
http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image_page.php?album_id=21&image_id=631
ziggy
04-07-2011, 04:29 PM
Did they dust Filomena's room high and low along with the windowfor prints? I;'m reading and reading about all this stuff and not finding any reference to prints. Also, it strikes me that the "after" (after initial crime scene collection) photos of MK's room, shows the room with no residue of print powder. Did I miss those?
wasnt_me
04-07-2011, 04:32 PM
@wasnt me: have you read the Shutter Island section @ sciencesphere?
http://www.sciencespheres.com/
It's regarding Filomena, the shutters and the illogical presumptions that could have been made from her testimony. Just some food for thought on the shutters.
okay, I saw this report that says there are Scuris (inner panels) in the window.
http://aklwei.wordpress.com/2011/01/21/a-visual-guide-to-the-break-in/
http://aklwei.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/windowpage2.jpg
See on the left, that white shutter thing? The report says:
"since if these inner panels had been closed, they would have continued to provide an adequate obstacle to the possibility of opening the window, in spite of the broken pane."
See this picture, look at the window on the right side, see the white inner panel? I'm not imagining this am I? There is an inner white set of shutters, right?
http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image.php?mode=medium&album_id=21&image_id=630
Maybe there were three sets of window coverings ... I was only aware of the window and the outside shutters. Interesting ... will have another look at it.
It looks like there are inner shutters to me.
No, when I look more, there seems to be green outer shutters, and glass and white inner shutters, so that is TWO sets---the "third" looks like a reflection in the glass....
dgfred
04-07-2011, 04:46 PM
Yes, outer shutters (greenish)- glass panes- inner shutters (white).
The outer shutters would not shut 'completely' due to wood swelling. The inner shutters also had locking devices on them. Quite a feat for a burgler to climb up and get thru IMO... if one would even try in the first place.
wasnt_me
04-07-2011, 04:46 PM
No, when I look more, there seems to be green outer shutters, and glass and white inner shutters, so that is TWO sets---the "third" looks like a reflection in the glass....
Yeah, but not if you look at the bigger picture I put in there. I see the reflection you mention, but look more left in the smaller picture. It's a totally different design the inner panel. See where the glass is broken, there is a reflection of the green shutter, but then the glass is missing and if you look behind the glass, you see a white panel with a very different design on it. It seems to be attached to the wall of the window. I was thinking before that it could have been the door of that cabinet next to the window, but looking at the larger photo, you still see an inner panel on the right side.
http://aklwei.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/windowpage2.jpg
ziggy
04-07-2011, 04:49 PM
Some clear pictures here:
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendry------2.html
I get what you are seeing. One theory is that they were not completely shut but partially open, the rock made impact which is supposedly visible in one picture and that the impact site on the so called inner shutters has crushed glass in it. The impact caused the shutter to fly open and allow the glass to spray inwards into the room as is illustrated in the photo of the blue throw rug - the inward spray went that far - it was a pretty darn big rock.
Also noted is that had it been thrown from inside, there would have been some type of impact site on the outer dark green shutters which seems to be lacking and in addition, this theory fails to explain how the trajectory from and object travelling from inside to out causes a spray of glass that looks to be consistent with an outside/in trajectory. I have no idea if I spelled that right:o
wasnt_me
04-07-2011, 04:52 PM
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/hendry1.jpg
I find it completely strange that you cannot see that inner panel in this photograph.
Yeah, but not if you look at the bigger picture I put in there. I see the reflection you mention, but look more left in the smaller picture. It's a totally different design the inner panel. See where the glass is broken, there is a reflection of the green shutter, but then the glass is missing and if you look behind the glass, you see a white panel with a very different design on it. It seems to be attached to the wall of the window. I was thinking before that it could have been the door of that cabinet next to the window, but looking at the larger photo, you still see an inner panel on the right side.
http://aklwei.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/windowpage2.jpg
OK, I DO see that now, yes. In the big picture....it has a solid white wood with design, plus there are the glass and white, plus the green = 3 sets of shutters, oy vey.....
dgfred
04-07-2011, 04:55 PM
Some clear pictures here:
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendry------2.html
I get what you are seeing. One theory is that they were not completely shut but partially open, the rock made impact which is supposedly visible in one picture and that the impact site on the so called inner shutters has crushed glass in it. The impact caused the shutter to fly open and allow the glass to spray inwards into the room as is illustrated in the photo of the blue throw rug - the inward spray went that far - it was a pretty darn big rock.
Also noted is that had it been thrown from inside, there would have been some type of impact site on the outer dark green shutters which seems to be lacking and in addition, this theory fails to explain how the trajectory from and object travelling from inside to out causes a spray of glass that looks to be consistent with an outside/in trajectory. I have no idea if I spelled that right:o
:spinner: Note if the window was opened (to the inside) the rock could have been thrown from the inside. There is a sort of impact site on the 'white' inner shutters. Hard to figure out anything from the 'glass trajectory' in the room IMO.
It is my belief that a rock was found, the inner shutters and glass window were opened, green outer shutters closed, and the rock thrown against the window from the inside.
I find it completely strange that you cannot see that inner panel in this photograph.I do not in this one, but see my other post, I DO see it in the other one---3 sets. One with glass and white, one with white etching, and one with green louvres.
ziggy
04-07-2011, 04:56 PM
There are some things that don't make sense on both sides of that shutter issue. I wish someone could do a recreation of how the rock made it into the room, past the inner wooden shutters. And BTW, her room, by the look of the table and the clutter on it, was not as tidy as she claimed, imho. The way the shoes are left looks just like a typical girl's room from my college days and all through the years.
wasnt_me
04-07-2011, 04:59 PM
Some clear pictures here:
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendry------2.html
I get what you are seeing. One theory is that they were not completely shut but partially open, the rock made impact which is supposedly visible in one picture and that the impact site on the so called inner shutters has crushed glass in it. The impact caused the shutter to fly open and allow the glass to spray inwards into the room as is illustrated in the photo of the blue throw rug - the inward spray went that far - it was a pretty darn big rock.
Also noted is that had it been thrown from inside, there would have been some type of impact site on the outer dark green shutters which seems to be lacking and in addition, this theory fails to explain how the trajectory from and object travelling from inside to out causes a spray of glass that looks to be consistent with an outside/in trajectory. I have no idea if I spelled that right:o
Okay, I think I need to read this, but I don't have time yet! I hate to have to duck out on the convo and then come back later when you guys will be onto something else, but this window perplexes me. I see the scuff marks, so that holds with the theory that something hit the inner shutters. If there are marks on these inner shutters, then I can no longer rule out that someone from outside the house threw it into the house, as I was debating about in that long post earlier.
dgfred
04-07-2011, 05:01 PM
Is that where the boots were prior to being 'ransacked'? Is that how she left her room? This is where the 'supposed' truth finding really comes in to play.
ziggy
04-07-2011, 05:01 PM
:spinner: Note if the window was opened (to the inside) the rock could have been thrown from the inside. There is a sort of impact site on the 'white' inner shutters. Hard to figure out anything from the 'glass trajectory' in the room IMO.
It is my belief that a rock was found, the inner shutters and glass window were opened, green outer shutters closed, and the rock thrown against the window from the inside.
That could be - I get your description and seeing that possibility. So you are saying that they closed the outer green shutters, opened the window first as though someone came in through it, and then tossed the rock at the window.
The devil's advocate on that one says - a rock thrown at such a very short distance from inside the room may have not been thrown hard enough to cause that sort of impact damage.
I mean, you look at the rock and the glass and you can determine it would not have to be thrown very hard to break the glass at close range. I'm just thinking from the "staging" mind. I don't think they would hurl it.
wasnt_me
04-07-2011, 05:03 PM
Is that where the boots were prior to being 'ransacked'? Is that how she left her room? This is where the 'supposed' truth finding really comes in to play.
I don't know anything about F's boots being moved, but I ready a theory about some boots being kicked under the bed in MK's room.
dgfred
04-07-2011, 05:06 PM
That could be - I get your description and seeing that possibility. So you are saying that they closed the outer green shutters, opened the window first as though someone came in through it, and then tossed the rock at the window.
The devil's advocate on that one says - a rock thrown at such a very short distance from inside the room may have not been thrown hard enough to cause that sort of impact damage.
I mean, you look at the rock and the glass and you can determine it would not have to be thrown very hard to break the glass at close range. I'm just thinking from the "staging" mind. I don't think they would hurl it.
Alright, making progress then. :rocker:
Have you seen the rock and noted the weight/size? Kind of big rock.
They didn't have to hurl it, it could have been held, wrapped in something, tossed, etc.
ziggy
04-07-2011, 05:06 PM
Is that where the boots were prior to being 'ransacked'? Is that how she left her room? This is where the 'supposed' truth finding really comes in to play.
I suppose. The slippers look most natural to me in the way they are left - have you had a pre-teen or teen girl and been in their room?
Boots bring up a memory of that show where the ex-criminal burglers breached peoples' homes to show them how easy it would be to steal everything in minutes. They ALWAYS went for the boots...they said women always try to hide money and other valuable things like weapons in boots. This would be something a thief would know or think of...so maybe the boots were targeted, don't know. Do you have any information on that that you feel is relevant?
wasnt_me
04-07-2011, 05:07 PM
That could be - I get your description and seeing that possibility. So you are saying that they closed the outer green shutters, opened the window first as though someone came in through it, and then tossed the rock at the window.
The devil's advocate on that one says - a rock thrown at such a very short distance from inside the room may have not been thrown hard enough to cause that sort of impact damage.
I mean, you look at the rock and the glass and you can determine it would not have to be thrown very hard to break the glass at close range. I'm just thinking from the "staging" mind. I don't think they would hurl it.
But in the photos, it appears that marker "R" is supposed to be an impact mark for the rock. "R" is marked on the white inner shutter, an "R" is facing outside the house. This is supposed by me just looking at all the pictures at: http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendry------2.html but I haven't read any of the material yet.
dgfred
04-07-2011, 05:09 PM
I suppose. The slippers look most natural to me in the way they are left - have you had a pre-teen or teen girl and been in their room?
Boots bring up a memory of that show where the ex-criminal burglers breached peoples' homes to show them how easy it would be to steal everything in minutes. They ALWAYS went for the boots...they said women always try to hide money and other valuable things like weapons in boots. This would be something a thief would know or think of...so maybe the boots were targeted, don't know. Do you have any information on that that you feel is relevant?
I have a 20 year old daughter, 21 in November, in college... sooo yes I have.
ziggy
04-07-2011, 05:10 PM
Alright, making progress then. :rocker:
Have you seen the rock and noted the weight/size? Kind of big rock.
They didn't have to hurl it, it could have been held, wrapped in something, tossed, etc.
Yep could have been except now you're stretching to a point that starts to get outside what the acts a non-career criminal would perform and fighting some semantics.
Your what if fails to explain how if it were wrapped it would leave such an impact and if not hurled how the impact would contain the crushed glass fragments imbedded therein.
If wrapped, first - that's way too criminal mindish and second, it would soften the impact on the wood.
If not hurled because it was so big - would not have reached a velocity to cause the type of damage created by the alleged impact.
Yeah, but not if you look at the bigger picture I put in there. I see the reflection you mention, but look more left in the smaller picture. It's a totally different design the inner panel. See where the glass is broken, there is a reflection of the green shutter, but then the glass is missing and if you look behind the glass, you see a white panel with a very different design on it. It seems to be attached to the wall of the window. I was thinking before that it could have been the door of that cabinet next to the window, but looking at the larger photo, you still see an inner panel on the right side.
http://aklwei.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/windowpage2.jpg
I had to enlarge it to see for sure, and you are right ... there are three openings to the window. That explains why there is confusion about whether the shutters were open or closed. I'm guessing the inside shutters were open, the outside shutters were closed (friction), and the window was locked. All the theories suggesting Filomina was confused are really confused theories based on the assumption that there were only two openings to the window.
http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t189/zed0101/knoxwindow.jpg
dgfred
04-07-2011, 05:12 PM
My guess is it was tossed... hows that?
ziggy
04-07-2011, 05:13 PM
I have a 20 year old daughter, 21 in November, in college... sooo yes I have.
Congrats on making it through the teen years! Having been one and lived with many, it's hard to imagine a person who leaves a table top full of "stuff" is necessarily a clean freak, but more possibly very typical and although not dirty, a bit of a messy or better, careless and carefree person. Especially when your room is a friggin cracker box. They look like my dorm room size.
ziggy
04-07-2011, 05:16 PM
My guess is it was tossed... hows that?
How's that? Like the first date with a good looking guy who is the worst kisser ever - super lacking and disappointing.
dgfred
04-07-2011, 05:20 PM
Thanks, she is the star of my night.
Another interesting thing to me is that the 'mark' on the inner shutters is kind of off-line to someone throwing a rock from the parking deck (same level as window) and if the outer shutters were not opened all the way then it would have been very difficult to hit that spot (mark) from the ground.
Of course what throws me is that we can't really be sure when that 'mark' was on the window or if is related at all to the crime. But it does look 'fresh'.
wasnt_me
04-07-2011, 05:20 PM
I had to enlarge it to see for sure, and you are right ... there are three openings to the window. That explains why there is confusion about whether the shutters were open or closed. I'm guessing the inside shutters were open, the outside shutters were closed (friction), and the window was locked. All the theories suggesting Filomina was confused are really confused theories based on the assumption that there were only two openings to the window.
http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t189/zed0101/knoxwindow.jpg
Otto, you are willing to make the assumption that those inside shutters were open? Because that would support the possibility that the rock could have been thrown from outside (assuming that the person first climbed up to pull open the green shutters.) Whether anyone actually climbed in from there is another matter.
I wonder what the opposite glass looks like. Because if that mark on the shutter (beside the digital number 7 in the 2007 date) in your blown up picture is the rock hitting the window, would the other pane on the opposite side be broken?
dgfred
04-07-2011, 05:20 PM
How's that? Like the first date with a good looking guy who is the worst kisser ever - super lacking and disappointing.
Reminds me of your arguments so far. :crazy:
ziggy
04-07-2011, 05:28 PM
Reminds me of your arguments so far. :crazy:
Doh! :) Good one. I like how well you relate to the disappointment by hot guys and their lack of abilites. We could get along.
claudicici
04-07-2011, 05:50 PM
Ziggy !!!!! good to see you !!!!
anyways,I think it makes sense that the rock was tossed from the inside,the inner window was open,the middle one broken and the shutters were shut.It looks like that to me because of all the glass on the window sill,behind the broken glass,how would it have gotten there if it was thrown from the outside?...and no glass on the outside.
I don't think RG gained entrance through that window,I think Meredith let him in ,she did meet him before and was probably trusting enough to open the door.I really think RG had sort of an obsession with her and killed her when she rejected his advances and then staged the break in himself in case someone saw him walk in through the front door he could go with the I was in the bathroom and someone broke in story.
wasnt_me
04-07-2011, 06:06 PM
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.
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/hendry9.jpg
dgfred
04-07-2011, 06:06 PM
Hey claudicici,
That is the only possible scenario IMO that the defense/AK supporters should have ever argued. Even tho once the changing alibis and evidence of blood/dna/footprints/fake break-in came to light that pretty much destroyed that possibility. For quite awhile I thought that maybe AK had let RG in to harrass Meredith, knew something terrible happened, and tried to cover up the fact that she had let him in. Afterwards came back to stage the break-in with RS to make it seem it was persons not known to Meredith. But then the facts of the luminal prints in the hallway, AK's blood and dna mixed with Meredith's in the bathroom and Filomena's room, and RS's bare print on the bathmat, with other evidence presented pretty much sealed their fates IMO.
Hey claudicici,
That is the only possible scenario IMO that the defense/AK supporters should have ever argued. Even tho once the changing alibis and evidence of blood/dna/footprints/fake break-in came to light that pretty much destroyed that possibility. For quite awhile I thought that maybe AK had let RG in to harrass Meredith, knew something terrible happened, and tried to cover up the fact that she had let him in. Afterwards came back to stage the break-in with RS to make it seem it was persons not known to Meredith. But then the facts of the luminal prints in the hallway, AK's blood and dna mixed with Meredith's in the bathroom and Filomena's room, and RS's bare print on the bathmat, with other evidence presented pretty much sealed their fates IMO.Exactly, exactly, what I had thought. But how is it certain (and I am really asking this, as I am not good at forensic evidence, etc.) that all of the above did not happen during a clean-up only????
wasnt_me
04-07-2011, 06:14 PM
But then the facts of the luminal prints in the hallway, AK's blood and dna mixed with Meredith's in the bathroom and Filomena's room, and RS's bare print on the bathmat, with other evidence presented pretty much sealed their fates IMO.
With all respect, I did not understand that AK's blood was in F's room.
I thought they said her DNA mixed with MK's blood was. To me, AK's DNA could have come off the fact that she just took a shower, stepped on that bloody mat, which is why it was wet, and she tracked it to F's room when she went in there to examine that fact that the window was broken.
dgfred
04-07-2011, 06:15 PM
If they were not involved in the actual murder, what would there have been to 'clean up'?
If they were not involved in the actual murder, what would there have been to 'clean up'?what i have just said, I meant basically a staging.....maybe "setting up"---so how to answer my question?
dgfred
04-07-2011, 06:21 PM
@wasn't me
That would be kind of terrible luck, to go along with ALL the other things... for Meredith's blood to mix with AK's dna in Filomena's room wouldn't it?
But even if you take that away, it doesn't explain the other things pointing at her/their guilt.
wasnt_me
04-07-2011, 06:22 PM
Yes, but this is all terrible luck, isn't it?
It might not take away other things insinuating guilt, but it is a logical explanation for that DNA/blood mixture, is it not? I'm of the belief of raising reasonable doubt, not proving innocence. I thought that was what building a defense is all about.
If we can agree that it is logical and possible, and even probable that the DNA/blood mixture can occur this way and be transferred by the feet to the room, then we have raised a little reasonable doubt on that one piece of evidence, yes?
I thought we were raising reasonable doubt about this window, but it seems that some are not agreeing at which direction broken glass flies. Also some are not agreeing about the white shutters, though, there is a mark on the outside of them indictating that a rock possibly hit them on its way inside.
Now, to be absolutely clear, if AK and RS are culpable, along with RG, I have no problem conceding to that--when reasonable doubt has been exhausted.
dgfred
04-07-2011, 06:26 PM
You lost me SMK???
Malkmus
04-07-2011, 06:30 PM
With all respect, I did not understand that AK's blood was in F's room.
I thought they said her DNA mixed with MK's blood was. To me, AK's DNA could have come off the fact that she just took a shower, stepped on that bloody mat, which is why it was wet, and she tracked it to F's room when she went in there to examine that fact that the window was broken.
It was Amanda's DNA, not blood in Filomena's room. Part of the appeals requests were to reexamine the findings of mixed blood and DNA because, they claim, there were unknown female DNA traces in those samples too. Had ILE taken reference DNA samples of the roommates it would have cleared up a lot of these mysteries.
dgfred
04-07-2011, 06:33 PM
Yes, but in Italy they give different 'weight' to different pieces of evidence.
Some point more towards guilt, some less. But the problem is when trying to explain/excuse away one piece of evidence... there are still SO MANY others.
It is not reasonable IMO to have to explain so many different aspects showing guilt, but have literally nothing that even resembles evidence of innocence.
You lost me SMK???I meant, how does this evidence prove murder? could the same evidence have been left if they, horrified to find what Rudy had done, and feeling guilty because they somehow directed Rudy to rob, and to try and score sexually, ran around in a panic, attempting to make it look like a random robber/murder? Just want to know, how is THAT scenario ruled out by the evidence??? Not so much thinking legally, as wanting to know if it is still POSSIBLE that AK & RS tampered with the crime scene, but were not directly involved in the murder???:waitasec:
wasnt_me
04-07-2011, 06:36 PM
It was Amanda's DNA, not blood in Filomena's room. Part of the appeals requests were to reexamine the findings of mixed blood and DNA because, they claim, there were unknown female DNA traces in those samples too. Had ILE taken reference DNA samples of the roommates it would have cleared up a lot of these mysteries.
What?
You have got to be kidding me. Are you seriously saying they didn't collect DNA from the roommates?
wasnt_me
04-07-2011, 06:37 PM
Yes, but in Italy they give different 'weight' to different pieces of evidence.
Some point more towards guilt, some less. But the problem is when trying to explain/excuse away one piece of evidence... there are still SO MANY others.
It is not reasonable IMO to have to explain so many different aspects showing guilt, but have literally nothing that even resembles evidence of innocence.
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?
dgfred
04-07-2011, 06:42 PM
What?
You have got to be kidding me. Are you seriously saying they didn't collect DNA from the roommates?
Important parts of that post to note:
'appeals requested to reexamine'
and
'they claim'
Off course they want and claim, that is their job. But that doesn't mean it was granted or true.
dgfred
04-07-2011, 06:44 PM
What?
You have got to be kidding me. Are you seriously saying they didn't collect DNA from the roommates?
I don't think it was in 'doubt', but offered some other possibilities no matter how remote or unlucky.
Allusonz
04-07-2011, 06:45 PM
Yes, but in Italy they give different 'weight' to different pieces of evidence.
Some point more towards guilt, some less. But the problem is when trying to explain/excuse away one piece of evidence... there are still SO MANY others.
It is not reasonable IMO to have to explain so many different aspects showing guilt, but have literally nothing that even resembles evidence of innocence.
This is incorrect. More weight is placed on some items rather than others and we both know it
Allusonz
04-07-2011, 06:46 PM
I don't think it was in 'doubt', but offered some other possibilities no matter how remote or unlucky.
no DNA from the roommates remember they had this cased closed before they had even collected all the forensics
wasnt_me
04-07-2011, 06:46 PM
yes, I saw all that, but it doesn't answer my question.
My question is:
Are you telling me that they NEVER at any point collected DNA from the other roommates?
The other poster said:
Had ILE taken reference DNA samples of the roommates it would have cleared up a lot of these mysteries.
This statement leads me to believe they never DNA typed the roommates, other than AK and MK.
Thanks, Aullsunz, who has answered the question as I was posting. So the other 2 roommates' DNA was not taken. This is a fact.
Allusonz
04-07-2011, 06:47 PM
Important parts of that post to note:
'appeals requested to reexamine'
and
'they claim'
Off course they want and claim, that is their job. But that doesn't mean it was granted or true.
does not mean that it won't be granted either
ziggy
04-07-2011, 06:47 PM
Hi Claudi!! :) That's an interesting take and it's good to see you.
Funny that I'm over here, the one who is usually saying "they are guilty" in so many other cases with one leg further down the defense fence. Those who don't know me have called me a conspiracy theorist for the defense of AK and RS; which to me is amusing. It's more like a perfect storm than a conspiracy if anything. The investigation just seems to have failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and the police work and CSI was shoddy.
Speaking of conspiracies - it comes to mind that there is no proof that one existed between RG and the others - zip. This conspiracy would have to have been made before AK and RS went back to the flat because otherwise the knife that AK allegedly took from RS's to murder MK would not fit into the scenario.
No evidence of a conspiracy to commit anything or even meet.
Allusonz
04-07-2011, 06:48 PM
yes, I saw all that, but it doesn't answer my question.
My question is:
Are you telling me that they NEVER at any point collected DNA from the other roommates?
The other poster said:
This statement leads me to believe they never DNA typed the roommates, other than AK and MK.
They never collected DNA, foot measurements from the roommates.
dgfred
04-07-2011, 06:48 PM
That would be up to the 'other poster' to verify, not me.
dgfred
04-07-2011, 06:49 PM
does not mean that it won't be granted either
We shall see.
dgfred
04-07-2011, 06:52 PM
This is incorrect. More weight is placed on some items rather than others and we both know it
What???
Isn't that exactly what I posted? :waitasec:
Allusonz
04-07-2011, 06:53 PM
yes, I saw all that, but it doesn't answer my question.
My question is:
Are you telling me that they NEVER at any point collected DNA from the other roommates?
The other poster said:
This statement leads me to believe they never DNA typed the roommates, other than AK and MK.
Thanks, Aullsunz, who has answered the question as I was posting. So the other 2 roommates' DNA was not taken. This is a fact.
Remember that one of the first calls both Filomena and Laura made were to lawyers
Otto, you are willing to make the assumption that those inside shutters were open? Because that would support the possibility that the rock could have been thrown from outside (assuming that the person first climbed up to pull open the green shutters.) Whether anyone actually climbed in from there is another matter.
I wonder what the opposite glass looks like. Because if that mark on the shutter (beside the digital number 7 in the 2007 date) in your blown up picture is the rock hitting the window, would the other pane on the opposite side be broken?
The inside shutters had to be open to break the glass from the inside.
Filomina's window testimony per court conclusions:
"Filomena Romanelli stated (cf. declarations at the hearing of February 7, 2009) that when she left the house in via della Pergola 7 on the afternoon of November 1, 2007 she had closed the shutters of her window (p. 68); she had pulled them in (p. 95); "the wood was slightly swelled, so they rubbed against the windowsill" (p. 26), adding that "it was an old window...the wood rubbed". And on the day she went away, she recalled "having closed them because I knew that I would be away for a couple of days" (p. 96). She later added, when noting what she had declared on December 3, 2007, that "I had pulled the shutters together, but I don't think I closed them tight" (p. 115).
[36] It must be held that when Filomena Romanelli left the house in via della Pergola, she had pulled the shutters towards the interior of her room, although she did not think that she had actually closed them; furthermore, because they were old and the wood had swelled a bit, they rubbed on the windowsill; to pull them towards the room it was necessary to use some force ("they rubbed on the windowsill"); but in this way, once they had been pulled in, as Romanelli remembered doing, they remained well closed by the pressure of the swelled wood against the windowsill."
Ref: pg 48
It cannot be assumed - as the Defence Consultant did - that the shutters were left completely open, since this contradicts the declarations of Romanelli, which appear to be detailed and entirely likely, considering that she was actually leaving for the holiday and had some things of value in her room; already she did not feel quite safe because window-frames were in wood [38] without any grille. Also, the circumstance of the shutters being wide open does not correspond to their position when they were found and described by witnesses on November 2, and photographed (cf. photo 11 already mentioned)."
Ref: pg 50
"As for the presence of glass in Romanelli's room, the violence of the blow, the characteristics of the glass (which was rather thin as indicated by Romanelli and Pasquali), the large rock used, and finally the shield effect caused by the inner shutter hanging half-open behind the glass pane [41] (a position of the inner shutter which corresponds to the scratch on it visible in the photos) give an adequate explanation of the distribution of the glass."
Ref: pg 52
Allusonz
04-07-2011, 07:08 PM
Some clear pictures here:
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendry------2.html
I get what you are seeing. One theory is that they were not completely shut but partially open, the rock made impact which is supposedly visible in one picture and that the impact site on the so called inner shutters has crushed glass in it. The impact caused the shutter to fly open and allow the glass to spray inwards into the room as is illustrated in the photo of the blue throw rug - the inward spray went that far - it was a pretty darn big rock.
Also noted is that had it been thrown from inside, there would have been some type of impact site on the outer dark green shutters which seems to be lacking and in addition, this theory fails to explain how the trajectory from and object travelling from inside to out causes a spray of glass that looks to be consistent with an outside/in trajectory. I have no idea if I spelled that right:o
As well how would a rock thrown from the inside hit the window and do a complete 180 and turn BACKWARDS INTO THE ROOM .....
Remember that one of the first calls both Filomena and Laura made were to lawyers
Did they call their employer (lawyer) and make notification of the situation, or were they calling lawyers to represent them?
As well how would a rock thrown from the inside hit the window and do a complete 180 and turn BACKWARDS INTO THE ROOM .....
Open the window from the inside, put a rock through the window.
Allusonz
04-07-2011, 07:11 PM
@wasn't me
That would be kind of terrible luck, to go along with ALL the other things... for Meredith's blood to mix with AK's dna in Filomena's room wouldn't it?
But even if you take that away, it doesn't explain the other things pointing at her/their guilt.
not if MK's blood was tracked in by the forensic teams or ILE
Allusonz
04-07-2011, 07:12 PM
Open the window from the inside, put a rock through the window.
That would not explain the impact marks, the footprint marks on the clothes as well as other things seen in the photos
Allusonz
04-07-2011, 07:14 PM
Did they call their employer (lawyer) and make notification of the situation, or were they calling lawyers to represent them?
Don't think they were just calling to say Hi on a holiday
wasnt_me
04-07-2011, 07:14 PM
"As for the presence of glass in Romanelli's room, the violence of the blow, the characteristics of the glass (which was rather thin as indicated by Romanelli and Pasquali), the large rock used, and finally the shield effect caused by the inner shutter hanging half-open behind the glass pane [41] (a position of the inner shutter which corresponds to the scratch on it visible in the photos) give an adequate explanation of the distribution of the glass."
Ref: pg 52
Okay, so they are trying to say that the someone threw or hit the glass while the glass frame was open and propped against the white inner shutter? This is their answer for how all that glass got distributed in the room like it did?
Allusonz
04-07-2011, 07:15 PM
If they were not involved in the actual murder, what would there have been to 'clean up'?
there is no evidence of clean up many have tried this line of thought and failed miserably
Don't think they were just calling to say Hi on a holiday
I think they were calling to say their home had been made a crime scene and work may be disrupted?
Allusonz
04-07-2011, 07:19 PM
That would be up to the 'other poster' to verify, not me.
Next you will be trying to tell me that there is less weight put on DNA evidence than other types of evidence
Allusonz
04-07-2011, 07:21 PM
I think they were calling to say their home had been made a crime scene and work may be disrupted?
On a holiday? With Laura calling from out of town even? I would sincerely doubt it. Anyone that has been involved in the legal field knows you do not talk to LE without a lawyer. I am quite certain they were not calling to pass the time of day, more likely for advice
there is no evidence of clean up many have tried this line of thought and failed miserably
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.
Allusonz
04-07-2011, 07:22 PM
Open the window from the inside, put a rock through the window.
Would not explain the glass spray
Okay, so they are trying to say that the someone threw or hit the glass while the glass frame was open and propped against the white inner shutter? This is their answer for how all that glass got distributed in the room like it did?
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.
Allusonz
04-07-2011, 07:25 PM
Hi Claudi!! :) That's an interesting take and it's good to see you.
Funny that I'm over here, the one who is usually saying "they are guilty" in so many other cases with one leg further down the defense fence. Those who don't know me have called me a conspiracy theorist for the defense of AK and RS; which to me is amusing. It's more like a perfect storm than a conspiracy if anything. The investigation just seems to have failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and the police work and CSI was shoddy.
Speaking of conspiracies - it comes to mind that there is no proof that one existed between RG and the others - zip. This conspiracy would have to have been made before AK and RS went back to the flat because otherwise the knife that AK allegedly took from RS's to murder MK would not fit into the scenario.
No evidence of a conspiracy to commit anything or even meet.
So very true!!!
Allusonz
04-07-2011, 07:29 PM
:spinner: Note if the window was opened (to the inside) the rock could have been thrown from the inside. There is a sort of impact site on the 'white' inner shutters. Hard to figure out anything from the 'glass trajectory' in the room IMO.
It is my belief that a rock was found, the inner shutters and glass window were opened, green outer shutters closed, and the rock thrown against the window from the inside.
The white shutter if it had been closed would not of had imbedded glass on the outside based on the trajectory of the rock
Allusonz
04-07-2011, 07:36 PM
There are some things that don't make sense on both sides of that shutter issue. I wish someone could do a recreation of how the rock made it into the room, past the inner wooden shutters. And BTW, her room, by the look of the table and the clutter on it, was not as tidy as she claimed, imho. The way the shoes are left looks just like a typical girl's room from my college days and all through the years.
Remember that RG broke into a 2nd story place very much like this just 2 weeks before this happened, so we know he is capable of it. Approximately the same height, same MO
Remember that RG broke into a 2nd story place very much like this just 2 weeks before this happened, so we know he is capable of it. Approximately the same height, same MO
Was the wall a flat face with nothing to step on?
Allusonz
04-07-2011, 07:40 PM
Is that where the boots were prior to being 'ransacked'? Is that how she left her room? This is where the 'supposed' truth finding really comes in to play.
According to Filomena her room was spotless. One of the things that has always perplexed me is where would she of put all this stuff? There simply is not sufficient storage for much of it. Most as well do not put their shoes etc inside drawers etc. I do not believe her room was as clean as she might of thought it was. They were very busy ladies with work, Halloween, and then spending much time with their boyfriends etc. I do not believe that cleaning their room was that great of a priority
Allusonz
04-07-2011, 07:42 PM
I think there are outside shutters and inside glass windows. There is no glass on the ground outside the window. The shutters were swollen from years of being weathered, and would stay closed using friction. If someone climbed in through the window, that person had to perch on the side of the building 20 feet above the ground (nothing to stand on), reach in a broken window with shards of glass everywhere, unlock the window, then climb in through the window without getting cut ... and, of course, then arrange the glass on top of the ransacked items again without getting cut. Anyone that has cleaned up a broken drinking glass knows that a cut is almost par for the course ... but apparently not so with this spiderman feat.
Filomena testified that she did not believe she had closed the shutters completely. She as well gave 3 different descriptions of how much they were closed which raised suspicion to me as to her memory
Allusonz
04-07-2011, 07:43 PM
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.
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
ziggy
04-07-2011, 07:43 PM
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.
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.
ziggy
04-07-2011, 07:44 PM
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.
Well, according to you, footprints that have been cleaned can still show up under luminol so why not half footprints that have been cleaned?
Allusonz
04-07-2011, 07:45 PM
Okay, so they are trying to say that the someone threw or hit the glass while the glass frame was open and propped against the white inner shutter? This is their answer for how all that glass got distributed in the room like it did?
Yup so it appears which in my mind leaves more questions than answers
Allusonz
04-07-2011, 07:48 PM
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.
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/hendry9.jpg
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
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
04-07-2011, 07:48 PM
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
04-07-2011, 07:53 PM
"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
04-07-2011, 07:53 PM
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
04-07-2011, 07:53 PM
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
04-07-2011, 07:56 PM
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
04-07-2011, 07:57 PM
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/hendry9.jpg
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
04-07-2011, 07:59 PM
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
04-07-2011, 08:01 PM
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
04-07-2011, 08:01 PM
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.
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
04-07-2011, 08:03 PM
"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.
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".
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
04-07-2011, 08:10 PM
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
04-07-2011, 08:12 PM
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
04-07-2011, 08:13 PM
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
04-07-2011, 08:16 PM
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
04-07-2011, 08:17 PM
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.
wasnt_me
04-07-2011, 08:18 PM
Oh but otto: wasnt_me just had an excellent and reasonable explanation - maybe only half of the foot stepped in the blood. I guess we'll just have to see you ask the same question again and again because your idea of reasonable is slightly unreasonable.
You know what? I totally hate to admit this, but you see the picture on my advatar?
Okay, those two pee all the time in the house and when I step in it, usually only the front of my foot steps in it. I retract my foot at that point, turn it to walk on my heel to the bathroom to wash it off. Sometimes, I accidentally hit the ground with the whole foot as I'm making my way to the bathroom. When I hit the ground on accident, I will make only a partial print.
No one wants to luminol my floor, I promise you!
Allusonz
04-07-2011, 08:19 PM
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.
Actually in all fairness from the research I did do glass should spray in all directions. Maybe not to the same degree but I do know what my ummmmmmmm very errant golf balls have done. I have a wicked slice which I am quite certain has caused some home owners great inconvenience let alone myself being very upset at what I had done
Allusonz
04-07-2011, 08:20 PM
You know what? I totally hate to admit this, but you see the picture on my advatar?
Okay, those two pee all the time in the house and when I step in it, usually only the front of my foot steps in it. I retract my foot at that point, turn it to walk on my heel to the bathroom to wash it off. Sometimes, I accidentally hit the ground with the whole foot as I'm making my way to the bathroom.
No one want to luminol this floor, I promise you!
Oh god that is so totally cute and trust me have been in that situation :giggle:
And totally cool someone else has a quirky sense of humour :)
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.
I'm sure that a missing bath mat would have raised as much suspicion as the staged break in.
wasnt_me
04-07-2011, 08:23 PM
Actually in all fairness from the research I did do glass should spray in all directions. Maybe not to the same degree but I do know what my ummmmmmmm very errant golf balls have done. I have a wicked slice which I am quite certain has caused some home owners great inconvenience let alone myself being very upset at what I had done
Allusonz, give the 411 on what you know about glass spray. Save me some research! :great:
I'm sure that a missing bath mat would have raised as much suspicion as the staged break in.I doubt it. I really doubt it.
Allusonz
04-07-2011, 08:28 PM
Allusonz, give the 411 on what you know about glass spray. Save me some research! :great:
From the research I did and from personal experience it should of gone all directions. The larger portions approximately where they are the smaller portions would spray both in and out but the majority of the spray would be in the direction of the rock
In my case with the golf ball, it was a finer spray. Again it depends on a number of variables such as the speed, weight etc much like a bullet so there truly is an art in being able to explain an instance such as this
wasnt_me
04-07-2011, 08:28 PM
I'm sure that a missing bath mat would have raised as much suspicion as the staged break in.
That's why I said in my post that I would take my chances, if I were the perp, and I would remove the bathmat because if the perp was Amanda, then only she and MK shared the bathroom. What were the chances the other roommates would ever remember that bathmat? I'd risk it.
Also, if luminol or something showed that there was a square missing right there, I'd risk it because explaining away that bathmat is circumstanial. Explaining away my bloody footprint on it, is a lot harder.
That's why I make the case that if the killer was so concerned about that print as to clean half of it, why not just remove the bathmat OR work a hell of a lot harder to rinse that bathmat out.
Let's face it, that stain looks deep. At least to me. So I'd stand at the sink all night running water and peroxide over it until it disappeared or was so smudged that you couldn't tell what it was. And I sure as heck wouldn't show it to the investigators first off.
wasnt_me
04-07-2011, 08:30 PM
From the research I did and from personal experience it should of gone all directions. The larger portions approximately where they are the smaller portions would spray both in and out but the majority of the spray would be in the direction of the rock
In my case with the golf ball, it was a finer spray. Again it depends on a number of variables such as the speed, weight etc much like a bullet so there truly is an art in being able to explain an instance such as this
So I'm sort of correct that the spray will go with the flying object, depending on weight? finner portions might be light enough to go other directions. I just still can't shake the shows I've seen where the police indicate that the majority of glass outside means the glass was broken from the inside.
My next question is about the curtain. Was it pulled off to the side the whole time, because that would affect glass spray IF the rock was thrown from outside.
Allusonz
04-07-2011, 08:34 PM
That's why I said in my post that I would take my chances, if I were the perp, and I would remove the bathmat because if the perp was Amanda, then only she and MK shared the bathroom. What were the chances the other roommates would ever remember that bathmat? I'd risk it.
Also, if luminol or something showed that there was a square missing right there, I'd risk it because explaining away that bathmat is circumstanial. Explaining away my bloody footprint on it, is a lot harder.
That's why I make the case that if the killer was so concerned about that print as to clean half of it, why not just remove the bathmat OR work a hell of a lot harder to rinse that bathmat out.
Let's face it, that stain looks deep. At least to me. So I'd stand at the sink all night running water and peroxide over it until it disappeared or was so smudged that you couldn't tell what it was. And I sure as heck wouldn't show it to the investigators first off.
I have to toally agree with this. If they were trying to do a cover up, they would of removed the bathmat before trying to clean up invisable DNA to the naked eye. I would of tossed the bathmat
wasnt_me
04-07-2011, 08:35 PM
That's what i'm saying, Allusonz. I mean what's worse? The police finding the print or the police asking what happened to a bathmat? And if you're the perp in the mindset of cleaning, you GOT to be thinking about that, right?
dgfred
04-07-2011, 08:38 PM
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.
But ziggy,
The footprint, whether cleaned or not is definately male, and shown in court (to the judges and jurors opinions that matter) to be RS's (even tho still argued here quite often). I like the 'stepped on a piece of clothing' reasoning in that RG would not have taken his shoes off, it is a male's print, it has no reason to be there, AK mentions a shower with RS and cleaning her ears (also mentions the possibility of a bleeding ear :innocent: ), AK mentions the 'bathmat boogie' in a I think weak attempt to explain away evidence that may be found against her. The same thing I think RS did with his 'knife pricking' and 'worried what the lies' the captured RG would say about him.
Allusonz
04-07-2011, 08:42 PM
But ziggy,
The footprint, whether cleaned or not is definately male, and shown in court (to the judges and jurors opinions that matter) to be RS's (even tho still argued here quite often). I like the 'stepped on a piece of clothing' reasoning in that RG would not have taken his shoes off, it is a male's print, it has no reason to be there, AK mentions a shower with RS and cleaning her ears (also mentions the possibility of a bleeding ear :innocent: ), AK mentions the 'bathmat boogie' in a I think weak attempt to explain away evidence that may be found against her. The same thing I think RS did with his 'knife pricking' and 'worried what the lies' the captured RG would say about him.
That actually cannot be stated. It was not compared to the flatmates, residents downstairs, the girls from the UK, boyfriends or girlfriends
wasnt_me
04-07-2011, 08:44 PM
I don't understand what the bathmat boogie is?
In any case, RG could have taken his shoes off. If he wanted to get the blood off the bottom of them, or take off his pants to rinse his jeans. I really can't imagine him trying to rinse his jeans in the sink while wearing them.
How's this for crazy. I just stepped in some water in the kitchen. I swear it's water, because the doggies are blocked from going in the kitchen. I stepped accidentally in it and only got wet my third, fourth and fifth toe and a little of my 'whatever it is' that connects the toes to the foot.
Now, this is water, not blood, but it smeared on the hardwood a little as I realized and retracted my foot and I didn't see any "print" but of course I wouldn't seeing as it's water. But I bring this up because there might be a smear mark somewhere related to this foot in blood UNLESS the perp stepped on some bloody clothes.
Hi Claudi!! :) That's an interesting take and it's good to see you.
Funny that I'm over here, the one who is usually saying "they are guilty" in so many other cases with one leg further down the defense fence. Those who don't know me have called me a conspiracy theorist for the defense of AK and RS; which to me is amusing. It's more like a perfect storm than a conspiracy if anything. The investigation just seems to have failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and the police work and CSI was shoddy.
Speaking of conspiracies - it comes to mind that there is no proof that one existed between RG and the others - zip. This conspiracy would have to have been made before AK and RS went back to the flat because otherwise the knife that AK allegedly took from RS's to murder MK would not fit into the scenario.
No evidence of a conspiracy to commit anything or even meet.
Exactly! And besides, otto has explained to us that AK spoke not one word of Italian while the boys spoke not one word of English. How was the conspiracy effected? Smoke signals?
dgfred
04-07-2011, 08:51 PM
You will enjoy the 'story' I'm sure when you find it. :great:
There are no shoe prints of RG going to or from the bathroom. Only his shoe prints in Meredith's room and leaving to the front door.
*Ha, was your water spill at 8:30 or 11:30? Could you remember tomorrow?
dgfred
04-07-2011, 08:53 PM
Why does there need to be a 'conspiracy' anyway?
Malkmus
04-07-2011, 08:57 PM
I'm sure that a missing bath mat would have raised as much suspicion as the staged break in.
I'm sure that if Raf and Amanda knew there was one of their bloody footprints on the bathmat after they had just cleaned up every other trace of themselves, that they would have opted to just throw some water on the footprint to at least distort it or thrown it in the washing machine before calling the cops to take a look at it.
Malkmus
04-07-2011, 08:59 PM
But ziggy,
The footprint, whether cleaned or not is definately male, and shown in court (to the judges and jurors opinions that matter) to be RS's (even tho still argued here quite often). I like the 'stepped on a piece of clothing' reasoning in that RG would not have taken his shoes off, it is a male's print, it has no reason to be there, AK mentions a shower with RS and cleaning her ears (also mentions the possibility of a bleeding ear :innocent: ), AK mentions the 'bathmat boogie' in a I think weak attempt to explain away evidence that may be found against her. The same thing I think RS did with his 'knife pricking' and 'worried what the lies' the captured RG would say about him.
Please explain how the "bathmat boogie" is an excuse to explain away evidence.
wasnt_me
04-07-2011, 09:01 PM
You will enjoy the 'story' I'm sure when you find it. :great:
There are no shoe prints of RG going to or from the bathroom. Only his shoe prints in Meredith's room and leaving to the front door.
*Ha, was your water spill at 8:30 or 11:30? Could you remember tomorrow?
I'm sure it was early to midevening, but I can't be certain that it was before or after 8pm.
Isn't that the kind of answer that AK had given once to some question and it was assumed that she was lying about the whole event?
I theorize that he'd already taken off his shoes in the room. Perhaps carried them and some of his bloodied clothes into the bathroom. Then dropped his bloody clothes, including his jeans on the floor, stepped on them, getting the half print, then stepped on the bathmat.
Tell me this, what kind of prints of his went out the door? where they super faint with blood? I mean barely visible blood as if he'd cleaned or wiped off the soles?
dgfred
04-07-2011, 09:04 PM
What if...
You are planning to do a little 'touch up' cleaning right before you call the police, and suddenly you see the postal police riding around near the cottage looking all around? :panic:
wasnt_me
04-07-2011, 09:08 PM
I'd say ain't enough "touch up" cleaning in the world for what was found in there.
If it were me, I'd actually feel safe in my own home, all night cleaning it, if I knew the roommates weren't returning. I mean, what is the point of leaving and returning? To clean RS's house all night? why they gotta do that? If it was to get cleaning supplies, were any found in their car? Was any blood found in their vehicles that might have gotten in there when they left the first time?
What if...
You are planning to do a little 'touch up' cleaning right before you call the police, and suddenly you see the postal police riding around near the cottage looking all around? :panic:That is POSSIBLE, surely. But was it not proven that Raffaele DID in fact phone 112 or whatever their emergency number is, PRIOR to the arrival of the postal police? Hence, he was NOT surprised, and not in a panic. When they asked him if he had phoned the police, he said, "But are you not the police?" and then they explained about the 2 cell phones discovered by the woman. I had read that the clock which made them think RS had phoned AFTER their arrival, was proven to be slow by some considerable minutes. Is this established fact as is being hailed? And as for the bathroom mat print, I enjoyed this analysis: http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-03.html
dgfred
04-07-2011, 09:11 PM
Please explain how the "bathmat boogie" is an excuse to explain away evidence.
Let's see:
AK's BARE footprints found in luminal in the hallway and to/in front of her room.
AK's blood and dna mixed with Meredith's in bathroom, and dna mixed with Meredith's blood in Filomena's room (maybe some on the way before boogie).
'Excuse' of no towels, limited lighting, naked 20 yr old female, open front door, blood drops on sink (maybe on floor too before boogie), poo in toilet, etc that I PLAINLY stated "I THINK" are excuses.
I already know you don't agree so why ask?
dgfred
04-07-2011, 09:16 PM
Whether he called a few minutes before or a few minutes after is irrelevant to me since I believe the postal police were driving around looking for the cottage in the area... not sure of it's exact location. I believe RS spotted them either while they were nearing the cottage walking to it or just after they both arrived at the cottage (AK's second trip).
Raff and Amanda were likely NOT taken by surprise by the arrival of the Postal Police---indeed, they thought it was the 112 responding to their call. that is why they stood outside.
2:35 p.m. The parking garage CCTV camera across the street from the cottage captures the Postal Police car arriving at the gate. The camera timer is 10 -12 minutes slow.
12:45 p.m. This is the actual time the Postal Police arrive at the gate.
12:46 p.m. Meredith's second phone is dropped off at police station.
12:47 p.m. Amanda calls her mother in Seattle.
12.50 p.m. Raffaele calls his sister Vanessa who is a police officer.
12:51 p.m. Raffaele calls 112. They said call back.
12:54 p.m. Raffaele calls 112 back and reports a possible robbery at the cottage.
12:55 pm Raffaele completes his 112 call
12:58 - 1:00 p.m. Postal Police arrive to the cottage. The Postal Police who are trying to find Filomena, as they had found two mobile phones and one of the numbers belongs to Filomena. Amanda thinks the phones are Meredith's. Amanda asks the police to break Meredith's door down. Amanda is unaware that the Postal Police are at the cottage from another call regarding the phones. Amanda assumes the police are there responding to Raffaele's call. http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/timeline-2.html
wasnt_me
04-07-2011, 09:18 PM
Okay, but I thought we already estblished that AK's blood was NOT mixed with MK's blood in FR's room.
sherlockh
04-07-2011, 09:20 PM
That's because this case is all over the internet in light of the controversy in which luminol prints that could not be said to have been made in blood and other possible explanations ignored, were used to convict someone of murder.
You see a good deal of luminol prints where the blood may have been on the shoe but reduced as the person walked on carpet or other material - some of those footprints are not easily seen by the naked eye and luminol enhances the shoe print. Also, shoe prints on dark carpet - luminol enhances the print for shoe print matching.
The prosecutor's logic was that someone walked in MK's blood in her room, managed to clean up those footprints on the floor of MK's room, but after cleaning footprints from other locations in the flat as well, some of the "cleaned" footprint shapes glowed with very distinguishable shape under the light/luminol test while other "cleaned" footprints disappeared without a trace. Isn't that pretty much what you are willing to believe? How do you reconcile that?
Sorry, need to catch up :) All luminol prints have been concluded to been made in blood. Or was that your opinion? Not sure, what was stated about a cleanup in MK's room. Even our friend Hendry claims that areas in the room were wiped, not cleaned. I can't even see where RG stepped in blood. I don't think he picked up blood on his shoe from the pillow case. Besides that people have told me that it is a mini room where 4 people would hardly fit in so it wouldn't take that many steps to leave the room. I am not sure which footprints disappeared without a trace.
dgfred
04-07-2011, 09:23 PM
Okay, but I thought we already estblished that AK's blood was NOT mixed with MK's blood?
Yes we did. AK's blood and dna mixed with Meredith's in several spots in the bathroom. AK's dna mixed with spot of Meredith's blood in Filomena's room.
I said exactly that in my original post but it may have not been clear.
wasnt_me
04-07-2011, 09:24 PM
Something did have to be wiped in MK's room if there are bloody towels in the room.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
0