TMB will not detect blood that is not at least faintly visible to the naked eye. That isn't sensitive.

No. I have explained why this isn't the case referencing the defence expert witness.

If the list is not small you are free to prove that by sourcing what specifically causes Luminol to react.

Sorry. That is not how science or law work. Both will accept it as blood until there is a good reason not to. So far there is no good reason not to.

Closing arguments of Hellmann. If you need me to source this I probably can.

No I stop responding because you're an idiot and we are not even close to being on the same level when it comes to the science stuff. After I explained why you were wrong four times I lost interest.

How many times can you demonstrate that you're an idiot in one post?

Luminol unlike TMB is applied to the surface. TMB you use a dry swab to get material by rubbing and then test the swab. Applying Luminol too liberally does not impact if Luminol will react or not. What excessive Luminol will do is cause dilution because you are spraying a liquid on to the surface.


You are using IIP as a source?

Do you have a legitimate source?

Further what you quoted doesn't support your claim that these hits were not blood -- it states that no DNA was found on many of them but where does it say anything about them not being blood?

Lastly, when were these tests done relative to the arrest? The reason we can rule out bleach is that they waited six weeks to use Luminol in the cottage. That did not happen with Raffaele's apartment which as far as I know was searched only once. We also know the apartment had a strong smell of bleach and that 2 1/2 bottles of bleach that should not have been ar Raffaele's were discovered. If you post more details on this I think we might have some decent evidence of a clean up at Raffaele's apartment.


You just asked me to source multiple things in a foreign language and your too lazy to give me a page number in Massei.

The fact that I can't find any other witness that ever discussed it. Combine that with the defence requesting and being denied the ability to add a witness for that purpose at the end of the trial and it is pretty definitive.


Yeah -- and that makes any sense to you?


lol ok what does it mean to check the internet for daylight savings time?

l'ora legale is the correct time not daylight savings time. Even if you don't know Italian you should be able to figure that out. l'ora is time and legale is legal.

There is a print out of all the phone records. We will discuss that when we discuss Mauro Paggi's testimony.

I'm not sure what you are trying to imply. She asks Barbadori about the phone records several times and he answers -- never saw them not my department.

Barbadori never says it is Meredith. It is a girl who can't be identified. They don't really discuss it all that much.


No they didn't.

See what I did here to establish that it was fast? If you want to claim it was actually slow you need to offer more than just you repeatedly insisting on it. You can't because it never happened but try anyway as that will be fun to watch.

Henry seems to be trying to say that they did some sort of test that determined the CCTV camera was 10 minutes fast. That's hard to believe considering what the judge ultimately concluded. If this proof had been done, I would think we'd have a detailed explanation of it.

So I'm not really saying anyone screwed up, more that they never did it at all.

From page 6

Barbadori is about to give his first time and then he stops -- the bolded part reads before we start the camera is ten minutes fast.

Also from page 6

Barbadori states that 12:36 on the camera corresponds to 12:26

page 22

How did you determine it was ten minutes fast?

By comparison to the accurate time from the internet.

Bongiorno asks a follow up question so you went on the internet and checked the accurate time -- response yes.

then on page 24 Bongiorno asks Barbadori if he did the calibration himself

and Barbadori says no it was done by a technician. Bongiorno asks for the name and Barbadori does not know it off the top of his head but resolves to get the name of the technician for Bongiorno.

Are you really going to claim that there was no calibration that found the clock to be ten minutes fast?

Which would explain why they tested invisible stains with it and then hid the results. Also you are arguing a 1 in 10,000 dilution if that even is the threshold is always visible to the naked eye?

No I explained why this is the case citing a study where they determined exactly that. On the tile surface on every instance where they got DNA they also got a TMB positive. If you're referring to Gino's testimony you're misreading it which has been explained to you several times. My guess is that's why you're not posting it here, it's easier to hide behind vague statements.

It's been sourced before. I'm not under any requirement to prove what it reacted to, you are. Get it?

No, you need to prove blood is blood.

If the defense argued at closing that it's possible because of the activities leading up to the discovery of the body and the subsequent bungling of the crime scene, that someone tracked blood into Filomena's room that wouldn't be them admitting it his blood. It would be them covering all their bases. It's a good argument when you consider there was blood all over the hallway that no one saw. In fact we know people walked down the hallway with Guede's bloody prints and then walked into Filomena's room. That being said they never proved the luminol reacted with blood.

No, insults aside, it's clear you stopped responding after I posted a very persuasive study that looked at cleaned blood stains and the results were very clear. When you get a strong luminol reaction you get positive TMB and when you get DNA you should also get positive DNA. The report plainly says that and your argument was that it didn't.

How many times will you resort to name calling because you're a petty freep that can't argue the arguments?

[IMG][/IMG]

I'm assuming it wasn't blood or they probably would have mentioned they found Amanda and Raf's blood all over his apartment. I know this will mean nothing to you because it's rational.

You've told us it only takes 8 hours for bleach to not be an issue though. The reality is that Raf's cleaning lady had cleaned at some point like she always did and she didn't use bleach iirc.

I already sourced it. You're accusing me of never sourcing it. Maybe ask Poker Reference?

I think based on this transcript it seems pretty clear this isn't the first time they're discussing the CCTV footage which is what Raf's book says as well.


No, but if they actually did some type of calibration they wouldn't say they looked up the time on the internet.

Again, there is no indication this happened or that it was definitive. That's all I'm saying.

The print out of the phone records is in the postale.pdf presentation, we have them.

I'm wondering if she is referring to a print out of the phone records or a print out of the transcript of the call between the Carabinieri dispatch and Amanda's phone as it would have likely been recorded. If that call was recorded and it's obvious the Carabinieri aren't there you won't be able to stand on the razor thin leg you're on right now. And that's being generous to you and assuming you're arguing the only argument you can at this point even though I don't think you really understand this issue at all.

Why don't you try replying to what I actually said which was that you are wrong to say it was at a time we should see her given that you think it's 8:41 on the clock and the testimony would reveal it's impossible she's there at 8:41.

Yes they did, you're obviously lost on this issue, always have been, and are perfectly content with never facing reality.

I did. Unlike you I'm not going to ignore the obvious fact that your dumb proof is asinine in light of the freakin' judge at the trial plainly finding otherwise. If the prosecution had the proof there is literally zero way the judge would have done what he did. There's no credible argument you can make for it.

That being said, the defense did have the goods which has been clearly laid out in the defense presentation. You've been totally dispatched as you claimed this was never even mentioned at the trial and these transcripts prove you to be totally uninformed. The only thread you're left hanging by which is a repeated theme in this thread (i.e. the broken down car people didn't exist, oh wait no they just never testified, oh wait no they did but just one, oh wait maybe they all did), is that we don't know if the police were already there when the dispatch called directions because the police couldn't find the place.

That's it. Hang on to that thread even though we're creeping closer. We now have the lead defense attorney plainly stating in the transcript that was the case and there is no objection, nor any correction of that which leads me to believe the postal police testified to that on February 6th. Bask in your ignorance I guess.

I am arguing that forensic manuals that I have read have stated that TMB will not be sensitive enough to detect blood unless that stain is at least faintly visible.

No. That is not what the study determined.

It has been sourced by me. Since you refuse to do it I will source it again when I get home.

No. That is now how it works. Once there is very strong evidence of something (a positive Luminol reaction) the onus shifts to the person claiming the evidence is wrong because it is the result of a rare exception.


No. I explained why you were misinterpreting the study multiple times and you kept at it so I stopped responding much like I will stop responding now if you just keep claiming it. You are wrong and honestly not even close to being smart enough to read anything scientific. I think you had someone helping you but they while better than you were still pretty dumb.

No. I said it takes a couple of days.

I don't believe you have. Even if you have and I forgot just ****en do it again. I just sourced a **** load of stuff again in my last post even though I didn't have to because unlike you I don't lie and people trust me.

I'm trying to sort out what they said they did. Who did it and what did they do?

Are you really arguing that they did a definitive calibration and the judge ignored it?

lol ok.

Please source what in the transcript implies they have discussed this before?

This should be fun given you are relying on Google to translate for you.


Where would you get the accurate time?


What is not definitive about it?

Specifically how does someone even screw this up?

No. The postale.pdf contains the phone records but the phone records exist independently of the postale.pdf. We will deal with them in Paggi's testimony.


No. It is a print out much like a phone bill but with more detail.

Because the witness never said it was Meredith. In fact he said he doesn't know who it is. Again you are trying to make an argument by assuming that it is Meredith when the evidence says it is unknown person.

So Stefanoni is incompetent then? How do you reconcile this obvious truth with what they did in this case? Why did she use it on the knife? I think you're wrong and the fact that it's at least 10k to 1 it seems fairly straightforward.



It definitely is and the fact that you keep ignoring what it says and post replies like this reveals your lack of interest in arguing the arguments as usual.

I posted a really nice chart that lays it out within the past few weeks I'm sure of it.

You can argue 1500 ways that you don't have to prove blood is blood, but I still disagree sorry.
There's not much that is scientific about that study. Even if you ignore the DNA part it clearly says that in the cases where they had a strong reaction they got positive TMB, sorry.


Your study says 8 hours, sorry.

Only your happy gang of trolls does sorry. Consider you were a belligerent troll on this issue and claimed it never existed, source time, w/e your dumb line was, then Poker Reference chimed in and said it only existed at IIP, all the while it's clearly in the Massei report that you claim to have read, I don't really feel like helping you. I just feel like telling you you're wrong, just like you were the first time you decided to be belligerent about it. So enjoy your anger and bask in your ignorance, sir

It seems pretty clear to me that he's saying he hasn't been the only one that looked at it. I don't know why Raf's book would lie about someone testifying, doesn't make much sense.


Well exactly. Had this been done in a convincing way it would be front and center as proof and it isn't. So as usual you're hiding behind some vague bs while ignoring what actually happened at the trial on this issue.

Nowhere but the postale.pdf document that I've seen exists the phone records in that much detail. It shows the numbers to and from that were called. That appears to me to be the real deal, that's all I meant.


Yes, we've seen it. It's in the postale.pdf. We can't be sure that's what she meant but it probably is.

You claimed that he said it was a figure that was there at a time consistent when Meredith was. That's clearly impossible is my point. I know you like to ignore what your arguments actually mean. I'm not saying you think it's her, I'm saying that if you believe your own CCTV argument, it's impossible that it's her. So you should be saying that.

I have to crash, when I get some time I'll try to figure out what calibration the police thought they did. I'm starting to remember that I read something about that at one point, but I'll have to find the discussion. Hopefully Henry will be able to tell us why this definitive proof was ignored.

WTF? How does this have anything to do with Stefanoni? Are you trying to imply that if you have something that is a low probability test you shouldn't use it even if using it is a freeroll?

Not wrong. I'll post a quote from a manual tomorrow when I'm at my other computer.

Nobody cares about you. The legal system and normal people see it agree with me.

We covered this as well and why you were wrong. I asked you a bunch of questions that demonstrated how you were wrong and you ignored them all.

Nope. You never even read the studies remember? You tried to pretend you did and then got busted.

Raffaele lies about having a girlfriend despite pictures of them together and he answering his door when reporters knock. He denied that he was moving to Switzerland despite registering a corporation there and starting a business. Nobody knows why he lies about stupid **** he just does.

Anyway you said from reading the transcripts it is pretty clear that this is not the only person who testified about the CCTV. I asked you for specifics in the transcripts that imply that -- as usual you were lying.

What is vague about we compared the clock to the accurate time and found the equipment to be ten minutes fast?

What is not convincing about calibrating the equipment this way?

How would you have calibrated the equipment?


No. It isn't. The phone records are the phone records. The postale.pdf was never admitted as evidence.

He never said that. I think you misunderstood what I said.

Henry has read the testimony in Italian. According to Henry, Barbadori states that he compared the time stamp on the CCTV to the actual time on the internet, and found the time stamp to be 10 minutes fast. This seems an amazingly straightforward, obvious, logical way of confirming the time on the cctv, and I don't understand why you seem to think it's a flawed method.

So you're saying Henry has wrongly translated that testimony, and that Barbadori didn't actually say that? Or are you saying that the expert is lying?

Imagine for a moment that Raf was guilty. Impossible I know, but just imagine.

Might he lie then?

ROFL? Detailed explanation:

1. He went to the camera
2. He noted the current time on the camera
3. He checked the exact time using the internet on his phone
4. He noted the difference between those two numbers.

There you have it. The complete, scientific procedure for checking the accuracy of a CCTV clock. The guy testified he did it. I'm not sure what you're having trouble wrapping your head around?

What's more, this version fits with the testimony of every witness on the scene and multiple entries in the log book of the postal police. What precisely is so difficult for you?
You're having a hard time because you believe 100% in your head that Massei was biased against Knox and was unfairly confirming the prosecution, so that any non confirmatoin of the prosecution is damning to their case. You have no reason to assume this bias apart from the bias in your own head.

In this case Massei concluded that, in his judgment and despite the testimony, it was unlikely that postal police would not have noticed the calls - and they testified they didn't see the calls. He even stated that the case was established solely by this observation. Given that you think he made a million logical leaps elsewhere (I think he made a few), why can't he have made a logical leap here? Why can't he just have given them the benefit of the doubt? Furthermore, even if you impute bias, perhaps he just went with this one because they didn't want to appear to confirm everything?

Your reasoning that Massei's judgment is definitive is on par with PFUNK reasoning. It's whack, and it's showing your bias. I expect much better from you.

Amanda?

Fabio D'Astolto

He is called in on his day off by the police because he was born in Australia and moved to Italy at 14 so speaks both English and Italian. He has worked as an interpreter for the police for 22 years.

His testimony is important for five reasons.

1) It establishes that Knox had someone there to work as an interpreter right from the start. There were actually two individuals Fabio and Anne who worked as a team. Fabio did the bulk of the translating of documents as well. The defence strategy on cross makes no sense to me -- Fabio admits that he only translated what he felt was relevant and they take issue with this because it is subjective. He explains that Knox going on about what she ate is not relevant to the police and used the pizza story as an example of things that did not need translation. This ends on him saying that with 22 years experience he knows what is relevant and what is not. It was odd questioning but the defence had to ask something to distract from the three items below.

2) Fabio D'Astolto also describes Knox's behaviour. She was cuddling, kissing, and sometimes laughing with Raffaele while everyone else was crying and being somber. Amanda and Raffaele were also talking in hushed tones on several occasions.

3) Fabio describes that he was tasked with escorting Knox to the scientific police. The scientific police had requested that the three roommates as well as anyone that normally had access to the cottage be fingerprinted so that they could exclude fingerprints that should be in the cottage from normal life. As Knox was walking toward the area of the scientific police her mood changed from what was described in #2 to upset. She started to hit herself with both fists to her temples very hard. Fabio tried to call him down but she just kept hitting herself over and over again -- simultaneous fists to temples.

4) The three roommates were requested to be at the cottage the following day to examine their knives. The police wanted to know if any knife was missing from the kitchen. Fabio was there to act as Knox's interpreter. Again Knox went from being perfectly fine to having a mental breakdown when confronted with the knives. The medical examiner was there and helped Knox in her capacity as a doctor. Then they covered Knox with a coat and helped her to the police car so she could leave the scene.

5) He also reported Knox's neck injury. It was something that he saw and under the circumstances noted that Knox had what appeared to be a scratch on her neck.

I was tired when I read this and rushing but I don't believe I missed anything. As a supplementary note the freaking out and hitting her temples will appear again during her interrogation when she is told that Raffaele has stopped supporting her alibi. It seems to be her response to being put in a situation where she feels ****ed. I really hope she has to go on a show with a tough reporter to promote her book as watching her freak out like that would be hilarious.

Personally I think #3 is very damaging. Giving your fingerprints for exclusion purposes is not stressful unless you're actually the murder. That she went from hugging, kissing, and laughing to complete mental breakdown when asked to do a routine thing is a strong indicator of guilt.

Why do you pretend to read and speak Italian when it's Pokerface who translates for you?

There was no scratch. It was a hicky.

We just covered this. She wrote two pages and handed it to a guard, who handed it to the prison governor who then gave it to Mignini.

Did you ever post Knox's psychological assessment? She clearly has some kind of personality disorder whether she's guilty or innocent. I don't know if I'd call her a psychopath or sociopath given her spontaneous feelings of distress (that description would probably fit Sollecito better), but she's clearly unable to connect fully and meaningfully with reality.

It all fits: multiple lines of behavior, needless lies, her narcissism and hedonism, the comments of her boss, her inappropriateness. It makes up a remarkably consistent profile. If there was some abuse or violence that caused this to develop (there often is) it would also be another avenue to explain her participation in a violent sexualized murder.

Who is Pokerface?

As for it being a hickey -- no.





Those pictures were taken five days after the murder.

Also this is how Knox's roommate describes it the night the body was found as being really intense.

I've never found the psychological assessment. Only references to it which contain many of the same adjectives you just used.

I do have the preliminary hearing report now and the psychological assessment figured prominently in that so maybe it will have details.

lol

close up photo magnified 250% with lighting.