Amanda Knox New Motivation Report RE: Meredith Kercher Murder #1 *new trial ordered*

[Malkmus]

1. The police read his diary and it is an excuse to explain away the evidence. Of course he knew they would read it. It was meant for them. The rejection of DNA on the knife has been declared invalid and is part of the evidence.

What you're doing is interpreting his diary entry under the premise that he is guilty. It doesn't change my point that Wendy is factually wrong in fabricating a courtroom scenario involving the diary entry. The diary is so unimportant it wasn't even mentioned in the motivations report.

2. Bathroom near Meredith’s room:
On the drain of the bidet
On the Q-tip box located at the ledge of the sink
On the edge of the sink
Elsewhere in the apartment:
In a luminol-enhanced bare footprint in the hallway outside Kercher’s room
In a luminol-enhanced spot found in Filomena Romanelli’s room
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index..._know_about_the_mixed_blood_evidence_samples/

Yes, in three spots of blood in the bathroom like I said. If they'd done control samples, we'd know just how prevalent her DNA was in any other random location of the house she lived in.

I understand you are trying to say that floating DNA just so happened to land inside the Luminol spots that was actually fruit pulp. It is not probable and that is not what was concluded in the first trial.

Again, control samples would prove how probable this is. You seem to think that DNA only falls on the floor if someone has just murdered someone and is walking down the hall, but not if they're just walking down the hall.

3. Phone and computer records showed that they weren't doing what they said they were doing during the time of the murder. Her boyfriend did make incriminating statements about Knox being out from about 9pm to 1am.

The phone and computer records don't prove that she wasn't at Raf's apartment. That is Wendy's claim. Getting specific times you did something at someone's house doesn't break your alibi, but phone records showing you were at a restaurant when you said you were home would, for example. Wendy's claim is false.

4. She knew that Meredith made such a horrific scream that she put her fingers in her ear. An horrific scream was later reported by several witnesses. Knox knew before anybody else that Meredith was sexually assaulted. Knox knew that Meredith was killed in front of the wardrobe without seeing in the room when the door was opened. She tries to cover this up in her book by saying she heard 'someone' else say it.

She knew that someone screamed while being stabbed? Things that can simply be guessed about any murder don't count as inside information. There's a reason Wendy didn't list the actual thing Amanda "knew", because when you say she knew something only the murderer would know it implies knowledge of the crime only discovered by investigators later on. For example, if she somehow knew about the mushroom/apple Meredith had eaten when she got home from her friends.

The problem with knowledge of the crime scene is so many people saw into the room when the body was found. You're tiptoeing around the fact that Luca testified to telling Amanda on the ride to the police station the details of Meredith's condition, and the fact that she incorrectly heard that "A foot was found in the wardrobe", not that she was "killed in front of the wardrobe". Which, by the way, if she had said the body was in front of the desk or bed those would be true since she was in the middle of a small bedroom. She said absolutely nothing that everyone else didn't already know, and some of it was even wrong.

Racism is unfortunately a part of this case. Not in the least because Knox accused her boss of rape and murder. She has been convicted for this and this conviction has been confirmed by the SC of Italy. Why is this hardly reported in the US media? Instead we hear how awe-full it was that they called her a devil. She doesn't explain who did that and why. It was her boss's lawyer who called her a 'she-devil' because she falsely accused him of rape and murder.

You're stretching to make the racism angle fit.

The reason her callunia conviction isn't being endlessly reported on is because most people knows the case stinks and the right guy is in prison.

 

[Katie-L]

So many??? Like what? What justifies going out and buying lingerie and having sex when your roommate has been murdered and doing cartwheels in the policed station??? Her behavior screams guilt- like an uncaring sociopath/psychopath in the same vein as Jodi Arias doing handstands in the interrogation room, or Casey Anthony- another acquitted murderess.

Another person whose actions screamed "guilty" (and highly unbalanced)... the mother of Victoria Stafford (for whom the purple ribbon in my avatar honors).

Her behavior was so suspect, the police set up a number of concurrent undercover operations to see if they could learn what she did to her daughter.

4 months after her disappearance - the truth came out. The horrific, unbelievable details were kept until the trial. Tori's mom had nothing to do with her disappearance. She was taken by strangers, monsters - who did terrible things to her and murdered her in a brutal way.

Unfortunately - the early focus on her mom, led local police to the decision that they wouldn't release an amber alert. There is a slim possibility that the alert could have triggered a different situation - one in which Tori Stafford would be alive today.

Public and press perception of behaviors is not evidence of anything except active imaginations among human beings. (imho).

 

[Malkmus]

Yes, according to you the photo shows that. I am asking why a shoe would light up to Luminol since it makes no sense. So have you considered that the photo shows something else? What has all this to do with the footprints anyway.

CSI members's boot on left side, ruler in middle:



CSI member's boot and ruler lighting up with luminol:


Crevices all around tiles lighting with luminol, second toe print not compatible with Amanda's morton toe:


So how does one step in blood, then get it around the edges of every tile, then on the rulers and boots of the CSI team investigating the crime scene?

Ok, so can we just agree that the defense was wrong to argue that since it can be ruled out?

This what the defense expert Sarah Gino said:

CONSULTANT - Drops of juice I would say no, I seem easier to a person coming out of a shower where the floor has been washed with the material, with the chlorine.

Prosecutor DR Comodi - With chlorine, how long before?

CONSULTANT - How long before what?

Prosecutor DR Comodi - The floor must be washed with chlorine.

CONSULTANT - No floor in the shower, I imagine someone who washes his feet in a shower a little 'like a child in the pool and then makes the short stroll barefoot left those footprints.

Prosecutor DR Comodi - I mean even if the foot is washed with the shower gel?

CONSULTANT - I do not know if the shower gel may be positive maybe this can more easily tell the Doctor ...

Prosecutor DR Comodi - But the pot of dirt shower chlorine allowed me to wash the shower with chlorine, if I wash myself at least I personally am washing your feet and even the soles of the feet, so if your foot I the wash with a sponge and scented bubble bath then out of the shower the chlorine ...

The issue here is knowing all the chemicals that react with luminol and all the products used in the household. I will say, I highly doubt it was strictly bleach, but I feel like we need more information of what was in the house, what is lighting up things that obviously aren't blood, and whether the prints are strictly Amanda's.

 

[Malkmus]

Is this the proper thread for comments about Knox in her ABC interview?

Yes, although, I for one, haven't seen it.

 

[sherlockh]

So how does one step in blood, then get it around the edges of every tile, then on the rulers and boots of the CSI team investigating the crime scene?

This what the defense expert Sarah Gino said:

The issue here is knowing all the chemicals that react with luminol and all the products used in the household. I will say, I highly doubt it was strictly bleach, but I feel like we need more information of what was in the house, what is lighting up things that obviously aren't blood, and whether the prints are strictly Amanda's.

The rulers and boots have nothing to do with the crime scene. You keep that one up as if it makes any sense but it doesn't. Besides, it is your own interpretation of some Luminol pictures. And still talking about bleach as if that wasn't ruled out yet. Gino spoke for the defense and she keeps it generic for a reason. We know what reacts with Luminol. If there was something obvious that Knox and her ex had put on their feet they would have told us a long time ago. Sorry, but there is no point in this endless repeating of impossibilities. We will just see the outcome in the next appeal trial.

If time allows, an alternative method for reducing interference from hypochlorite bleach is to wait several days until the bloodstains have dried thoroughly, by which time the hypochlorite will have decomposed.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12570200

Examination of bleach drying time suggested that any interfering effect becomes negligible after 8 h.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bio.865/abstract

The Luminol tests were done after 6 weeks!

 

[sherlockh]

Is this the proper thread for comments about Knox in her ABC interview?

Yes, I just saw it. I think I am not the person to comment on it but I wonder what the general feeling about all this attention for a girl accused of murder is, while her trial is still ongoing. I don't think it is normal.

 

[Malkmus]

The rulers and boots have nothing to do with the crime scene.

And yet they light up with the lights off. So are you just going to evade the obvious problem here with the luminol, or try to explain how they are lighting up?

By the way, the crevices around the tiles are part of the crime scene, but you have nothing to say about it or my previous question to you regarding this.

You keep that one up as if it makes any sense but it doesn't.

Please elaborate. When you say "it doesn't make sense", do you just mean it doesn't make sense to you? Because I think to most people this clearly shows that the Luminol is reacting to a variety of things that aren't blood.

Besides, it is your own interpretation of some Luminol pictures.

Actually, I'm not interpreting the photographs. There's no way to interpret them other than what they show, which is an assortment of objects not covered in blood giving a positive reaction to Luminol.

And still talking about bleach as if that wasn't ruled out yet.

I said I'm doubting it was bleach, but that we need more information of what cleaning products were used in the house. It is the sodium hypochlorite that decomposes, but there are bleaches that don't contain sodium hypochlorite.

 

[Malkmus]

Yes, I just saw it. I think I am not the person to comment on it but I wonder what the general feeling about all this attention for a girl accused of murder is, while her trial is still ongoing. I don't think it is normal.

There is a lot of attention surrounding her because a lot of people believe she is innocent.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I believe that the majority of them do indeed detect hemoglobin, including HematraceR. However, I found on that detected IgG. The authors of one study (Hurley IP et al., Forensic Science International 190 (2009) 91–97) wrote, "Positive results for human IgG were obtained with both formats. The simple direct immunodot assay was able to detect an IgG concentration of 0.1 mg/mL, while the detection limit for the sandwich immunodot assay was 0.01 mg/mL compared with the control (no IgG)...Tokiwa et al. demonstrated a detection limit of 0.022 microgram/mL using an anti-HbA0 ELISA, compared to the limit of 0.01 microgram/mL IgG detected by the present study." Hematrace has a sensitivity of 0.07 microgram/mL I don't believe that the differences in sensitivities above are terribly important, but I included this information because it suggests that these confirmatory assays are pretty sensitive

I have not found a paper that does a comparison versus presumptive tests yet, and I don't have all of the information in front of me that I would like to have. However, blood is about 40% red blood cells by volume, and within a red blood cell hemoglobin is nearly at saturation. I think that assuming a concentration of hemoglobin (Hb) of 2 mg/mL blod is reasonable. Therefore, the ELISA test against hemoglobin can detect blood that has been diluted 100,000-fold. I would like some time to check these calculations again, but even if they are off by a factor of 100, that still means that a confirmatory test could detect blood that was 1000-fold diluted. That's not too shabby.

 

[sherlockh]

And yet they light up with the lights off. So are you just going to evade the obvious problem here with the luminol, or try to explain how they are lighting up?

No, I don't have to explain if the police boots really light up because of the Luminol. I don't need to know if he had blood or fruit pulp on his shoes. It got nothing to do with the Luminol footprints. It is a silly distraction because you know I can't prove anything about the guys shoes.

By the way, the crevices around the tiles are part of the crime scene, but you have nothing to say about it or my previous question to you regarding this.

Because it is completely unimportant. It is a distraction from the footprints. You think the crevices proof that there was fruit pulp on the floor?

Please elaborate. When you say "it doesn't make sense", do you just mean it doesn't make sense to you? Because I think to most people this clearly shows that the Luminol is reacting to a variety of things that aren't blood.

Again using a generic term like 'a variety'. It is just too obvious now. The list is very limited as I have already shown.

Actually, I'm not interpreting the photographs. There's no way to interpret them other than what they show, which is an assortment of objects not covered in blood giving a positive reaction to Luminol.

Of course you are.

I said I'm doubting it was bleach, but that we need more information of what cleaning products were used in the house. It is the sodium hypochlorite that decomposes, but there are bleaches that don't contain sodium hypochlorite.

Lol..sorry this just makes me laugh.

 

[Katie-L]

No, I don't have to explain if the police boots really light up because of the Luminol. I don't need to know if he had blood or fruit pulp on his shoes. It got nothing to do with the Luminol footprints. It is a silly distraction because you know I can't prove anything about the guys shoes.

Because it is completely unimportant. It is a distraction from the footprints. You think the crevices proof that there was fruit pulp on the floor?

Correct me if I'm wrong - but I believe the original issue you raised was "why are the luminol readings not important".

The answer has been given many times over.

Because footprints are footprints. They don't indicate anything criminal.

They may have indicated some info or connection to the crime IF they had been tested for blood, specifically the blood of the victim, the tests were positive, then matched to the foot of a suspect.

Otherwise they are just footprints on a floor - where footprints are expected to be. And footprints leading to a door - which is what footprints generally do when someone walks to a door barefoot.

Again - Luminol is not a blood test. It's simply a chemical that reacts with certain substances. If those substances are not tested - they don't say anything relevant about anything at all.

 

[sherlockh]

There is a lot of attention surrounding her because a lot of people believe she is innocent.

Yes, and a lot of people who think she is guilty. Doesn't make it normal though to give her a promotional tour on tv while the trial is still pending.

 

[kwmred]

Not guilty, and I sincerely hope the U.S. doesn't make her go back to Italy should their kangaroo court convict her again.

 

[Malkmus]

No, I don't have to explain if the police boots really light up because of the Luminol. I don't need to know if he had blood or fruit pulp on his shoes. It got nothing to do with the Luminol footprints. It is a silly distraction because you know I can't prove anything about the guys shoes.

Because it is completely unimportant. It is a distraction from the footprints. You think the crevices proof that there was fruit pulp on the floor?

Again using a generic term like 'a variety'. It is just too obvious now. The list is very limited as I have already shown.

Of course you are.

Lol..sorry this just makes me laugh.

Evasion noted.

 

[Malkmus]

Yes, and a lot of people who think she is guilty. Doesn't make it normal though to give her a promotional tour on tv while the trial is still pending.

Doesn't make it normal, or just upsets you because you think she's guilty?

 

[sherlockh]

Doesn't make it normal, or just upsets you because you think she's guilty?

Not a matter of guilt or innocence. The trial is still pending.

 

[sherlockh]

Correct me if I'm wrong - but I believe the original issue you raised was "why are the luminol readings not important".

The answer has been given many times over.

Because footprints are footprints. They don't indicate anything criminal.

They may have indicated some info or connection to the crime IF they had been tested for blood, specifically the blood of the victim, the tests were positive, then matched to the foot of a suspect.

Otherwise they are just footprints on a floor - where footprints are expected to be. And footprints leading to a door - which is what footprints generally do when someone walks to a door barefoot.

Again - Luminol is not a blood test. It's simply a chemical that reacts with certain substances. If those substances are not tested - they don't say anything relevant about anything at all.

The answers given were unfounded and not sourced personal opinions. Repeating opinions doesn't make them true. If it was a rule then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Reality is much different then stating they were just footsteps. Galati made it perfectly clear that this kind of illogical reasoning is invalid and against the law. If you can't provide any reasonable alternative besides blood for the Luminol reactions then it is assumed to have been blood. Galati won the appeal by the way.

Defect in the reasoning, contradictions and lack of logic in the motivations (Article 606(e) of the Criminal Procedure Code)
As for the other bare footprints, revealed by Luminol along the hallway of the murder house, the forcing and, therefore, the illogicality, of the Appeal Court’s reasoning is evident in holding that the prints (considered by the Scientific Police as compatible with those of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito), could have been the same as those left there on earlier occasions, when it is a given of common experience that Luminol principally reveals traces of blood and, without giving the least evidence that other material, equally copious and equally sensitive to Luminol, had been poured out onto the floor, it is beyond logic to hypothesise that Ms Knox and Raffaele could have had bloodstained feet on a prior occasion and different from the murder. But here also the Court has limited itself to adhering to the undemonstrated theses of the defence.

 

[Katie-L]

The answers given were unfounded and not sourced personal opinions. Repeating opinions doesn't make them true. If it was a rule then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Reality is much different then stating they were just footsteps. Galati made it perfectly clear that this kind of illogical reasoning is invalid and against the law. If you can't provide any reasonable alternative besides blood for the Luminol reactions then it is assumed to have been blood. Galati won the appeal by the way.

Well - you asked for links about Luminol. They were provided. The information is massive. You can choose your source (wiki's, howstuffworks, scientific articles, etc).

But if you don't read them and learn what luminol is - I'm not really sure how to advance the discussion.

If everyone who works with Luminol, chemists, academics, everyone - says one thing - and a prosecutor in Italy says the opposite - well.... ??

 

[TartLemon]

Absolutely irrefutable is that Amanda lied about Patrick Lummumba(sp?) and was ordered by the court to pay restitution. Has she?

 

[sherlockh]

Well - you asked for links about Luminol. They were provided. The information is massive. You can choose your source (wiki's, howstuffworks, scientific articles, etc).

But if you don't read them and learn what luminol is - I'm not really sure how to advance the discussion.

If everyone who works with Luminol, chemists, academics, everyone - says one thing - and a prosecutor in Italy says the opposite - well.... ??

Completely false. It is your opinion only. That is not 'everyone'. There is no disagreement about what Luminol is. The disagreement is that the traces are not blood or that the evidence has no value just because a confirmatory test is not possible. These claims have not been sourced at all. You can't state them as facts without any sourcing. Not even the defense made these kind of claims. This is from the defense expert.

Massei report

But it must be noted that the negative result for blood does not necessarily indicate that no blood was present. The result may have been negative because there was not sufficient material to indicate the presence of blood. Dr. Gino stated that in her experience there is a probabilistic relation to the number of cases in which the blood test comes out positive or negative. The negative result was also partly a consequence of Dr, Stefanoni's choice to use most of the DNA to determine the individual profiles and only the remainder to attempt to determine the nature of the trace.