Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#6

[Yellow]

Yes, I agree comletely with the stretching to distance Knox from the bloody footprints. That's why I have many problems with information coming from a site where I have seen with my own eyes how they twist information around to make it appear meaningless or inconsequential (sp?) or otherwise distort the evidence. And admittedly, that happens on both sides (in general, on the internet, not saying on here), so not trying to accuse one side.

I think what Yellow is trying to say is that if that is blood from Meredith, why didn't it test positive, or show, that it had Meredith's DNA? I must admit I find this odd, if this is true. I just don't know. You would expect that if the luminol indicated blood, then obviously it is Meredith's blood, so then they didn't it test positive for Meredith's DNA?

I think that is what Yellow was saying. Correct me if I'm wrong, Yellow.

Yes, that is what I am saying, why does not the blood (even it was blood) test positive for MK DNA?i think both sides blogs cannot always be counted on for facts, but here the same basic fact is also pointed out in a pro guilty website, and another pro innocence one.

I don't think it is in dispute that the all or at least the majority of the footprints did not test positive for MK DNA. If it was her blood, her DNA should have been there. Only AK DNA was detected

 

[geevee]

But Otto, wouldn't Meredith's blood test positive for Meredith's DNA? I'm so confused at this point about this.

I thought blood automatically had DNA in it which could be tested.

So did they not test it?

I think blood can degrade to the point of not being able to get a dna profile but still test positive with luminol (pre-test) and then the phenolphthalein.

 

[aa9511]

I don't think it's outlandish at all, I just wonder why that sort of supposition is allowed in court. If the prosecutor says 'We really don't know what started the occurrences that culminated in Meredith's death, but this may be a likely scene that happened...' well okay then. But if he's stating it to the jury that this is what did occur, the new motive they've decided happened, I can't understand how that's allowed, it's certainly not evidence.

bbm

Oh, I see. Yes, but I suppose they're using bits of pieces already in evidence, such as what Otto posted above....that the roomates testified about some tensions b/w Amanda and the roomates over her cleanliness, fact that she brought random men in, etc..

So I guess that is technically in evidence.

 

[geevee]

The water should have been cleaned up immediately, and if it wasn't, it would have evaporated after 16 hours.

She still claims to have taken the mop over after showering to clean it up, I don't find it at all odd that even if it dried up (and we don't know how wet it was) that bleach or other cleaning product would be used to mop a floor.

 

[otto]

No, I do not believe it is rust or bleach or anything like that. IMO, that is blood that the Luminol reacted to. It is blood, IMO.

But my question is......since it is, by necessity, Meredith's blood....then why didn't it test positive for Meredith's DNA? In the link Yellow posted, it just said some tested postiive for Amanda DNA, and one tested postive for both Meredith and Amanda DNA.

But if they were all made with Meredith's blood, wouldn't they all test positive for Meredith DNA?

Maybe I am not understanding something regarding blood and DNA.

Tweets related to the Luminol

Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki 13m
Speaking of a female's print left in luminol, Crini sounds outraged saying other substances is vague unsubstantiated conjecture

Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki 13m
The most significant stain may be the one in Romanelli's room, says Crini.

 

[Yellow]

But Otto, wouldn't Meredith's blood test positive for Meredith's DNA? I'm so confused at this point about this.

I thought blood automatically had DNA in it which could be tested.

So did they not test it?

They tested and it was showed a genetic profile for AK. There is only mixed w MK DNA

MK DNA should have been in that blood print. Maybe it degrades but without showing it was MK's DNA AK was dragging all over the apartment, you cannot connect her back to the murder room

At the very least you have doubt and doubt is sufficient for acquittal absent anything else tying her to the room

 

[otto]

[/B]

bbm

Oh, I see. Yes, but I suppose they're using bits of pieces already in evidence, such as what Otto posted above....that the roomates testified about some tensions b/w Amanda and the roomates over her cleanliness, fact that she brought random men in, etc..

So I guess that is technically in evidence.

This is an appeal, so discussions do include evidence from the trial.

 

[otto]

They tested and it was showed a genetic profile for AK. There is only mixed w MK DNA

MK DNA should have been in that blood print. Maybe it degrades but without showing it was MK's DNA AK was dragging all over the apartment, you cannot connect her back to the murder room

At the very least you have doubt and doubt is sufficient for acquittal absent anything else tying her to the room

Knox's DNA is mixed with Meredith's blood in Filomina's bedroom. That I know for sure.

 

[geevee]

[/B]

bbm

Oh, I see. Yes, but I suppose they're using bits of pieces already in evidence, such as what Otto posted above....that the roomates testified about some tensions b/w Amanda and the roomates over her cleanliness, fact that she brought random men in, etc..

So I guess that is technically in evidence.

My point is that it can't be evidence without a witness to it, merely conjecture to explain a circumstance that they have no evidence for (whatever started the argument that led to her death). They simply don't know and seem to be saying most anything to fit their theory (sex party first, housekeeping/toilet argument next).

 

[aa9511]

Here's a forensic article on 'detecting evidence after bleaching':

http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/detecting-evidence-after-bleaching.html

I thought this part was interesting: (from above link)

"Chlorine bleaches can remove a Bloodstain to the naked eye but fortunately, forensics experts can use the application of substances such as luminol or phenolphthalein to show that haemoglobin is present. In fact, even if the shady criminal washed a bloodstained item of clothing 10 times, these chemicals could still reveal blood."

So Luminol is in fact HIGHLY sensitive to blood. Sometimes on here, makes me think luminol is dismissable or something.

And it says, they can apply substances such as Luminol to show that haemoglobin is present. So the luminol reacts with the haemoglobin, so why would Luminol react to bleach? Bleach doesn't contain haemoglobin, isn't that a protein? Doesn't that negate the whole theory of the Luminol reacting to bleach from cleaning products, which I have heard over and over on this thread? :scared::scared::scared:

Bleach doens't contain protein, how would the Luminol react to bleach?

I have no doubts that the Luminol footprints are from blood. That is not even a question to dispute, MOO. In my mind. I am firmly convinced it's blood.

However, I do have issues with why that blood didn't test positive for Meredith's DNA?

 

[Yellow]

But please read about the Tetra.... (TMB) at the bottom of the page.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Luminol_Traces

It clearly states that Luminol is more sensitive to blood than TMB. Yet you stated earlier that TMB is more sensitive to blood than Luminol.....so who is correct? It cannot be that both are true.

So if TMB is less senstiive to blood than Luminol, would that not explain why the TMB test came back negative while Luminol test came back positive?

Both of us are citing to blogs w agendas so absent being a scientist I am not sure what is right. I would think that if that was blood, the sensitivity of the test would not matter - this would not have been a very small sample, where sensitivity is an issue. Both tests should have showed up positive for blood and only one did.

I was under the impression that luminol is a more overarching test and can interact w lots of things not just blood. Whereas the t test one is one just for blood, a specialized test. I may be wrong on that though

 

[TorisMom003]

Knox's DNA is mixed with Meredith's blood in Filomina's bedroom. That I know for sure.

And when was that mixed sample left in Filomina's room? Is it not reasonable to conclude that at some point in time that Meredith was bleeding and Amanda was helping to stop the bleeding while in the room? If so then there is the reasonable doubt needed to eliminate that mixture of DNA.

 

[TorisMom003]

I thought this part was interesting: (from above link)

"Chlorine bleaches can remove a Bloodstain to the naked eye but fortunately, forensics experts can use the application of substances such as luminol or phenolphthalein to show that haemoglobin is present. In fact, even if the shady criminal washed a bloodstained item of clothing 10 times, these chemicals could still reveal blood."

So Luminol is in fact HIGHLY sensitive to blood. Sometimes on here, makes me think luminol is dismissable or something.

And it says, they can apply substances such as Luminol to show that haemoglobin is present. So the luminol reacts with the haemoglobin, so why would Luminol react to bleach? Bleach doesn't contain haemoglobin, isn't that a protein? Doesn't that negate the whole theory of the Luminol reacting to bleach from cleaning products, which I have heard over and over on this thread? :scared::scared::scared:

Bleach doens't contain protein, how would the Luminol react to bleach?

I have no doubts that the Luminol footprints are from blood. That is not even a question to dispute, MOO. In my mind. I am firmly convinced it's blood.

However, I do have issues with why that blood didn't test positive for Meredith's DNA?

Luminol does have some limitations however. It is not specific to human blood (presumptive test). That means that it will react to the blood of other mammals the same as it will with humans. In fact, Luminol will react with substances other than blood such as iron, copper, certain vegetables, and cleaners like bleach. Criminalists call this reaction a “false-positive“. A well-trained criminalist can often tell the difference between a Luminol reaction with bleach (for example) versus one with blood. Bleach reacts with a glittering appearance in bright points of light throughout the reaction area. Blood will have a more subtle and uniform glow.

http://forensics4fiction.com/2011/05/27/luminol-the-magical-blood-reagent/

 

[geevee]

I thought this part was interesting: (from above link)

"Chlorine bleaches can remove a Bloodstain to the naked eye but fortunately, forensics experts can use the application of substances such as luminol or phenolphthalein to show that haemoglobin is present. In fact, even if the shady criminal washed a bloodstained item of clothing 10 times, these chemicals could still reveal blood."

So Luminol is in fact HIGHLY sensitive to blood. Sometimes on here, makes me think luminol is dismissable or something.

And it says, they can apply substances such as Luminol to show that haemoglobin is present. So the luminol reacts with the haemoglobin, so why would Luminol react to bleach? Bleach doesn't contain haemoglobin, isn't that a protein? Doesn't that negate the whole theory of the Luminol reacting to bleach from cleaning products, which I have heard over and over on this thread? :scared::scared::scared:

Bleach doens't contain protein, how would the Luminol react to bleach?

I have no doubts that the Luminol footprints are from blood. That is not even a question to dispute, MOO. In my mind. I am firmly convinced it's blood.

However, I do have issues with why that blood didn't test positive for Meredith's DNA?

Try this:

https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/bca/bc...es/forensic-programs-crime-scene-luminol.aspx


I hope no one ever looks through my search history. :scared:

 

[otto]

My point is that it can't be evidence without a witness to it, merely conjecture to explain a circumstance that they have no evidence for (whatever started the argument that led to her death). They simply don't know and seem to be saying most anything to fit their theory (sex party first, housekeeping/toilet argument next).

The prosecution has to conjecture a motive and that's what he does. Based on testimony from roommates, friends and family, the prosecutor is comfortable taking it another step and suggesting that the well documented conflict erupted on the night of the murder due to more inconsiderate actions by Knox.

In the US, a motive is not necessary. In Italy, the prosecution must present some sort of theory.

 

[aa9511]

I think blood can degrade to the point of not being able to get a dna profile but still test positive with luminol (pre-test) and then the phenolphthalein.

Ok, I see. Thank you, geevee. That makes sense. Although I do wonder if that was stated in any records, that they were not able to obtain a DNA profile? And what about that low-carbon DNA stuff, I have not heard of that being associated with any of the footprints.

Also, it said some footprints had Amanda DNA, so if they were able to obtain Amanda DNA from the footprint, wouldn't they be able to obtain Meredith DNA?

 

[otto]

And when was that mixed sample left in Filomina's room? Is it not reasonable to conclude that at some point in time that Meredith was bleeding and Amanda was helping to stop the bleeding while in the room? If so then there is the reasonable doubt needed to eliminate that mixture of DNA.

Other than the night of the murder, is there other documented instance where Meredith was bleeding profusely, to the extent that Knox would track the blood to Filomina's bedroom?

What's the theory if it's not the obvious? When was Meredith bleediing?

The mixed blood and DNA is on a piece of broken glass.

 

[TorisMom003]

Other than the night of the murder, is there other documented instance where Meredith was bleeding profusely, to the extent that Knox would track the blood to Filomina's bedroom?

What's the theory if it's not the obvious? When was Meredith bleediing?

Why does one need to be bleeding profusely to have a drop of their blood mixed with someone else's DNA? Sorry but again this is one point that has reasonable doubt to explain it away. Also, how do we know that Amanda tracked the blood to Filomina's room? Is it not possible that all three women could have been in the room together? Or even just Meredith and Amanda? We don't have Meredith's complete history as to nose bleeds, finger cuts, or any other times when she had bled while living in the cottage.

 

[SMK]

Tweets related to the Luminol

Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki 13m
Speaking of a female's print left in luminol, Crini sounds outraged saying other substances is vague unsubstantiated conjecture

Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki 13m
The most significant stain may be the one in Romanelli's room, says Crini.

What is that stain, and who is it attributed to? ETA: I just found the answer: Mixed DNA in R room, and cannot be attributed to Knox having spit or bled, as why only where MK bled? (murder wiki) Also, Romanelli's dna not found in her own room?

 

[aa9511]

My point is that it can't be evidence without a witness to it, merely conjecture to explain a circumstance that they have no evidence for (whatever started the argument that led to her death). They simply don't know and seem to be saying most anything to fit their theory (sex party first, housekeeping/toilet argument next).

No, I think prosecutors are able to speculate/theorize on motive if there is something, no matter how small, supporting it in evidence. They can speculate, we've seen here in the U.S. it happens all the time in opening and closing arguments.

It has to be based on something in evidence, which this was, because the roomates testified to these things about cleanliness, men, etc.. They witnessed it, so they could testify to it during trial.

So the prosecutor was taking a point form the evidence, and using that to speculate about the motive, which they are allowed to do, IIUC. In openings and closings.

An example, there usually in cases we do not know exactly what led up to the "fight" or "argument" or "confrontation." Because the murderer doesn't talk, and the victim is dead. Yet the prosection/defense come up with theories all the time. And they discuss it in openings and closings. I don't think there is anything unusual with what they did in this case.