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

[flourish]

Originally Posted by ziggy

@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.

[ziggy]

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]

Originally Posted by flourish

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.

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]

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]

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.

[Nova]

Originally Posted by otto

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?

[Nova]

Originally Posted by SMK

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!

[SMK]

Originally Posted by nova

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]

Originally Posted by ziggy

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?

[otto]

Originally Posted by flourish

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Nova

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?

[otto]

Originally Posted by ziggy

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?

[Nova]

Originally Posted by sherlockh

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]

Originally Posted by Nova

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]

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/lum...-crime-scenes/

[SMK]

I do find this difficult to refute: That is why it has bothered me so much.


There Was No Clean Up

http://injusticeinperugia.blogspot.c...-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]

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?

[SMK]

Originally Posted by sherlockh

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]

Originally Posted by sherlockh

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?

[SMK]

Originally Posted by SMK

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]

Originally Posted by ChasingMoxie

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]

Originally Posted by SMK

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.

[SMK]

Originally Posted by sherlockh

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]

Originally Posted by SMK

Because it is presumed that they were not visible without the luminol.

Yes, because they were cleaned. I am probably misunderstanding you?

[SMK]

Originally Posted by sherlockh

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.