I don't know if you or the media is correct on this but

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...?KEYWORDS=knox

They don't seem to be talking about any re-testing imo.

Can they retest? If the sample was very small then all the material could have been used up during testing.

I interpreted that as saying somebody else looked at the same data that was initially taken and said that you can't say whether it belongs to Amanda or not.

Yes.

[quote] So that pattern isn't evidence of a cleaning product, but it's also not evidence of blood, so what the **** is it, and why does it matter? [quote]

Because someone covered in some liquid that reacts to the testing product used that bathroom to clean themselves recently. We can come up with some explanation but they are all pretty out there and if any other explanation was possible it would have been brought up. Given a murder happened the only conclusion is that it was blood.

Further, when it was discussed about other stuff that reacts with the product the crime scene person testified that while it does react the reaction is different and that they are tried to differentiate based on that and so are certain it is blood and not something else.

I expect he would have argued that if it was a possibility. The two were not dating long so he would have know if he was going though the laundry. Further, if this is a concern then it is independent of the collection issue because he could have made the same argument regardless of when it was collected.

Given the circumstance that would not be the standard. The prosecution simply has to establish that the DNA is somewhere that it shouldn't be. After that it is a reverse onus situation where the defendant has to explain who the DNA could have gotten there.

The bra clasp had Meredith blood on it.

Because most of the police errors were meaningless. The harm they caused is that they allowed good lawyers with experts to cause a lot of confusion but none of the errors actually had any real impact on the validity of the evidence only on the perception of the validity.

I actually don't believe that many innocent people get convicted-- certainly a lot lot less than the number of guilty people who walk-- but my point is that our standards of what is justice shouldn't be contingent on how much money you have. I find that personally beneficial should I ever decided to kill someone but nevertheless depressing from a societal perspective.

That doesn't look like the luminol I've seen on forensic files. Normally it's something you see with a blacklight.

The main point of my post is how do we pick and choose what is true and false from statements of a person everyone apparently agrees has lied?

I'd like to wrap my head around this issue so I can focus on the myriad of other issues in this case.

I also postulated a potential motive for Rudy to have committed the murder which I believe is still a logical possibility however unlikely it may be.

Low count DNA is not accepted in all jurisdictions and there are people who have issues with it because of the higher risk of contamination in the lab.

Despite what was reported in the media the reviewers never said it wasn't Meredith's DNA. They simply presented the case that a sample that small is inconclusive because of the high risk of contamination. That got reported as can't verify it was her DNA.

On the stand though the same reviewers were cross-examined on these risks and ended up admitting that if no other material from the case was in the lab for at least six days prior to the testing of the knife then the contamination risk was not a factor.

A lot of what gets reported was very carefully scripted. You'll see often the media saying the sample was so small that it would not have been considered reliable in the States which was true then and might even still be true now. I'm not sure if the States accepts LCN DNA but this was a trial in Italy where they do.

You can surmise that it's blood (probably you'd say it was blood mixed with cleaning agent, from a cleanup?), but you certainly can't prove that it's blood since testing didn't say it was blood. Given that blood was actually found in the bathroom, it's a hell of a coincidence that they did that much cleaning but missed so many separate spots. I think it's just as likely that the pink glow is from a prior recent cleaning and the blood from whoever killed Kercher cleaning up. Without knowing what substance that is, though, I can't make any other informed decisions. All I know is, that sure as hell isn't Luminol.

Did the investigators ask when the last time the bathroom was cleaned? I believe that in one of her statements Knox said that she saw no blood the day before, but knowing when it was actually last cleaned, and with what, should have been asked at some point. That would be highly relevant to understanding the glowing pink bathroom pic, rather than what was stated prior in this thread, which was that it had to be blood, and that it was Luminol. It wasn't Luminol, and from what I've seen I'm not convinced it couldn't be a cleaning agent, but again without knowing what cleaning agent they used in the bathroom, and what agent they used to test for whatever they were testing for, I can't really say anything more.

It's your opinion that most of the police errors were meaningless. I've only started looking into this for two days and I've already seen two that I don't consider meaningless at all - the length of time it took to discover the bra clasp, and the improper collection of specimens in the bathroom by the crime scene technician.

Amanda's different stories make her look guilty. The investigators mistakes make them look incompetent (to what degree I don't know yet). You see one as evidence of unmistakable guilt, and say that means she should be found guilty. I see the later as evidence of reasonable doubt, and say that I understand why she was found not guilty (while offering no opinion on her guilt or innocence).

The lack of either blood evidence, or evidence of a significant cleanup, in the boyfriend's apartment is disturbing to me. Even if they both cleaned up, what are the odds he would have a complete change of clothes with shoes on him if the murder wasn't planned? And if that's the case, how did they manage to not track blood to his place? It seems like either blood transfer or evidence of cleaning would be highly likely to be present in his apartment if this was a spontaneous murder and then he and Knox went back to his apartment.

Edit: Re the bathroom, you actually stated that it couldn't be cleaning product because it wouldn't make that pattern. And yet we know it's not blood (or that it can't be proven it's blood) So again, what the hell do you think it is? You can't say it's blood (but we can't prove it) and then say there's no reasonable doubt.

I don't understand how Rudy matters. He couldn't have done it alone and he was certainly involved. He never testified against them or provided any evidence against them. He is a non-factor beyond being one of three people who actually know what really happened.

Henry, in all due respect, many of the things you post as fact are simply your opinion. I still do not see the evidence to convict Knox or her boyfriend. Too many things do not make sense. The evidence collecting and testing seems to be pretty shoddy, if not downright terrible. Maybe she did it, I really don't know. I just dont see the evidence where she was involved.

You can't know that he did not act alone. Why is it that he could not have acted alone?

Cool, thanks. I use the term as a genericised one, same way people still call all dental numbing agents Novocaine. I mean whatever makes non-visible blood show up.

Actually very little is opinion. More than 90% is fact.

Then you are a lost cause but I will try again.

1) The attack happened in such a way that an individual with two arms could not have done it.

2) Someone was in the house touching the body and the crime scene while Rudy was at a club with many witnesses.

This has been stated so many times that your inability to understand it means you are either trolling or too stupid to bother responding to in the future.

Thanks for the reply, its a mind bender for me to wrap my head around all the info and I appreciate yours and others efforts to reply to my questions.

Is this all in the Massei report? (I see you linked a book, but like others take pro-Amanda sites with a grain of salt, I think its only sensible to be somewhat dubious about Knox is guilty sources--I think its constructive to utilize pro Amanda sites to make points to prove her guilt & vice versa, but will still read your link)

I was hoping to find a timeline for Rudy like:

The above was made up by me to illustrate a point. This wouldn't dismiss any other evidence, but it would help ME further eliminate Rudy from even conceivably having any time to do any clean up (however unlikely/impossible that may be). Whereas if he wasn't seen at the club by a witness until midnight, then there is a much larger window of opportunity.

I fail to see how people hearing screams/people running means Rudy was no longer in the house (Again, not dismissing you, just trying to understand---can you take this as a given in all future posts I make?)

Can you explain what you mean by this? I'm still going through the case material, but I've read other case files of very scattered/complex crime scenes that only involved one perp.

What incontrovertible evidence leads you to believe that the actual attack had to involve multiple people?

cmon guys, there's two different footprints that don't match Rudy's. there were multiple people in the house

The autopsy report is hard to read though as it is pretty detailed so just got to the judges reasoning of on p371. It explains why it had to be at least two and most likely three people.

The Supreme Court in Rudy's case also stated that it was three people and I believe even stated it was Amanda and Raf so this decision now conflicts with the Supreme Court's decision in a related case.

So you no longer agree with this?

Max Raker,

I'm not sure what you are asking. Those statements are not in conflict.

Are those footprints confirmed to contain Kercher's blood? From what I've seen there are a lot of incorrect assumptions about what Luminol does and what is proves. So can someone link me to conclusive proof of a footprint that doesn't match Guede in the victim's blood?

That would obviously constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a second person (at least) involved in the murder. Or it would prove that someone contaminated the crime scene beyond all measure, but from what I've seen so far, there's zero indication that anyone believes that either a random person or the crime scene techs/investigators tracked blood around.

Stated by people who actually know? Who says this to be fact?

I thought he did testify against them via the letter that was read at the appeal, what am I confused about here?

If he did, then that's a big reason why he matters (to me). I don't know why I should give his testimony any merit if he's a proven liar who has admitted to being there and had sexual contact with her against her will. Plus, in his Skype conversation he makes no mention of Amanda and cannot identify Raf, true or false, I don't know, but it would seem beneficial to him if he could identify them and I see no reason why he would be covering this up at the time the Skype conversation took place.

I haven't read enough of the Massei report to respond about the multiple attackers, so I'll refrain from commenting further until I do (I assume that's where I can read about this?)

Whoa! Getting tired, if I don't reply tonight, its because I zonked out.

Does the issue have anything to do with retesting the knife or was it a reinterpretation of the original test?

Raf's footprint was in actual blood not luminol reacted blood. PokerReference posted the comparison chart a while back that establishes it is Raf's foot and certainly excludes Rudy.

Likewise the unidentified footprint in Amanda's shoe size was also in blood but beyond shoe size they can't get anything more.

This establishes three people at least had contact with the crime scene.

These are in addition to the luminol footprints where are also in Amanda's shoe size and go from the crime scene to Amanda's room and then seem to go in a circle in the room.





\

So I've been reading this thread for months now, great stuff on here.

Quick question - Does anyone have any more info on this:

Lawyer Dalla Vedova said: 'There were other sets of unidentified fingerprints in the murder room. The real culprits are possibly the ones who left the fingerprints.'