lol ok. You wonder why no one here is convinced by your argument.

Anyway you refused to source what causes false positives for Luminol so I did and her it is.

So if not blood what was on the bottom of Knox and Raffaele's feet?

Or you're lying again and I never refused to source anything. Not to mention you're flat out wrong.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...ostcount=13823

more persuasive than your non arguments

herp derpa derp

seriously, just give up on this thread. you cannot possibly be paid enough to endure this ass reaming.

239,

No. Sorry those are the items that you have to choose from. So what will it be? Knox liked to rub parsnip pulp on her feet?

I'd say my arguing is more competent than your trolling. YMMV.

239's obfuscation is ridiculous. According to him, so many substances can cause luminol to glow that we can't read anything into it. And yet:

- It's widely used in crime scenes around the world to look for cleaned up blood
- It's widely stated that it can be used to find cleaned up blood when other tests fail.
- If lots of commonly used substances commonly glowed in luminol, there would be dozens to hundreds of tracks everywhere and everything would light up, not just a set of footprints matching Amanda Knox and Sollecito.

He also claims that bleach can't be ruled out. When asked to explain how the footprints could be bleach, given the time taken before the spraying, crickets...

No wonder he's posting pretty boy gifs...the guy is getting an ass reaming.

No they aren't as I already sourced and demonstrated you to be in error. Further I'm not forced to choose anything. You need to prove that there was a reaction with blood which you obviously can't do. If we used your own DNA standards you should also provide the source of the blood and show us where exactly in Meredith's blood people were walking around barefoot, but that wouldn't be necessary if you could just prove it was Meredith's blood

I think what you've been doing in this thread for the last few years far exceeds even the most conservative definitions of "trolling."

No. You know this isn't true because I have explained it to you a half-dozen times. As Truthsayer just pointed out the reason Luminol is used is that it only reacts with very limited number of compounds. The vast majority of which will not be found at a crime scene. Once the Luminol reacts the presumption is that it is blood until there is a good reason to believe otherwise.

When the new trial happens if the defence wanted to claim it wasn't blood they would need to offer a plausible explanation for what it is. The defence will not be attempting this as they have now stipulated that it is blood but if they wanted to make that argument they would need to offer a reason to believe it is a false positive. Failing that it will be accepted as blood.

---------------

I have another question for you -- you must know that the odds of a conviction are extremely high -- how does that make you feel?

If this was in the US it would have been a slam dunk and she'd have been in prison for a few years already. Surely this outcome was inevitable.

It was a slam dunk in Italy as well but the Italian system allows you two shots at a trial.

The only reason the second trial led to her being set free is that Raffaele's daddy bribed people. That is why they now have to re-do the second trial.

As it currently stands she is guilty.

Thanks for adding that. If you've read this entire thread your participation in it is truly bizarre.

I've only seen it bumped to the top of the page 12,000 times in the last few years - after a while you get curious wtf is going on. All of the OOT regs think this thread is absolutely full of AIDS - the only reason it's allowed to continue is because it's somewhat of a curiousity now. From what I've read in here, you're doing a terrible job of representing your side.

I think your participation in this thread is truly bizarre - and so is henry's, to a degree, but really you have 98% of your posts here over the last 7 years.

If you want to look for luminol hits that weren't blood you need only look at Raf's place where apparently there were several. That being said your summary of my position just isn't right and I don't think you know what the evidence actually was given what you laid out above.

At the end of the day it's actually your asinine position that deserves to be trolled. Your contention is that Amanda and Raf were walking around barefoot in blood even though there is no indication in the murder room anything like that ever happened. Not to mention your argument is that they got down on their hands and feet and managed to meticulously clean all of their footprints up leaving only Guede's in an effort to frame him. Then when all they have to do is wait for Guede to be implicated, Amanda implicates herself and someone she knew was innocent and who probably had an alibi.

Well done, guys.

In other words I know you are but what am I? You're firing on all cylinders J.

If this was the US I don't think they would have been charged.

lol

Why don't you actually post your position like Henry has? Luminol is commonly used to detect blood that other tests can't find. For example, a well cleaned murder weapon might show zero blood on tests but glow under luminol. There might be a footprint trail leading from the murder to the weapon. These kinds of things are valuable for crime scene investigators even though far less sensitive confirmatory tests won't find blood. In this case we have footprints of Knox and Sollecito outside the murder and in the staged break in room combined with DNA in some spots. You claim these are not blood. We also have a single, very bloody footprint matching Sollecito but not Rudy on the bath mat, with no prints there or back - indicating quite strongly that bare footprints were cleaned up. It all forms a very consistent pattern - but you claim they are some substance you don't want to identify for fear of looking stupid.

There are multiple indications including Sollecito's ample DNA on the dead girl's bra clasp.

There are a bunch of missing footprints for Guede. And yes. Are you claiming this is hard? One guy is wearing shoes. The others are barefoot. They wipe up the barefoot footprints and intersections of footprint/shoeprint because it's highly incriminating; they leave the rest for obvious reasons.

Amanda implicated an innocent man only once Raf withdrew her alibi, causing her to freak out - which he did once the police confronted that his call to 112 happened after the police arrive - something that wouldn't have been pressure unless it was true. He threw her under a bus in no time. He admitted calling the police after they'd arrived, said that Knox went out that night and that he'd lied for her because she'd asked him to. No long interrogation. No translation issues. He was 24 and son of a wealthy well connected doctor. Can you explain this behavior? I don't think you can since you've avoided it.

You are failing so badly it hurts man. Post some more pretty boy gifs.

239 clearly phoning it in at this point - not even a 112 phone call at that.

If it was in the US she never would have been a suspect let alone charged and convicted. Keystone cops, an insane prosecutor, homeless heroin junkie and cocaine dealing eyewitnesses, junk science, evidence destroyed....... It could only happen in Perugia when it comes to this case.

In the US, Rudy Guede would have been caught and put on death row. End of....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22310186

New BBC article on the case. Claims appeal judge misunderstood probability in refusing a second DNA test on the knife.

If you believe the judge was bought then that isn't really the reason, but its a decent look at common mistakes people make when it comes to probability.

It's hard to believe that is a real article, wow.

There is nothing wrong with that article -- it is very basic math. We actually covered the exact same thing previously which was when we found out Matt R didn't understand statistics.

239,

You ignored my question -- Knox is likely going back to jail. Does that make you feel like you've wasted all this time astroturfing for nothing?

If this isn't an act, you are astonishingly dumb.

What is your problem with the article? Did you even read it? It's mostly about how statistics are used to rule people out as a suspect for a crime. All it really says about thE AK trial is they should have retested the knife. I would think you would support this. It's not like a second test would come out worse then the 1st test for her.