Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#8

[Harmony 2]

Am I incorrect in assuming that Meredith's purse, shoes, socks and jacket were all collected on the same day as the bra clasp (December 18th)?

Her jacket is photographed at different locations before being collected?

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/PDF-Files.html

photos from large zip file (175mb) of crime scene photos:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/miscellaneous/dec_18.zip

 

[SMK]

I guess this business of the abrasion/bruise on Amanda's neck - like so much else in this case, enough to raise questions, but not enough to be absolutely clear one way or the other - will have to remain an unknown possibility.

For my part, I don't find it being a hickey that hard to believe, but I can remain open to the idea that it might have - might have - come from some kind of scuffle. I think the fact that it was not a wound which broke the skin or bled sort of negates it as evidence (because can be explained away as a hickey, whether it was one or not).

 

[aa9511]

so, sometimes the defendant's testimony should be viewed as accurate and reliable w/ meaning easily comprehended, but other times not?

Well when it's something so obviously beneficial to her, such as saying a mark you got from the murder is just a hickey, should that not be taken with a grain of salt?

Or should we find it easier to believe that other witnesses, such as Laura, have more motivation to lie than Amanda herself?

Look at it from the guilty viewpoint for one minute: Would Laura, who stated that it did NOT look like a hickey to her, have more motivation to lie about the hickey than a guilty Amanda, who actually got the mark from the murder she is denying being anywhere close to?

 

[aa9511]

This can be determined only by an expert. The other two witnesses are irrelevant. They have no knowledge!

No, actually regarding this point, I would rather have the testimonies of eye witnesses who actually saw it. How can you say that the eye witnesses should be disregarded? They have their own life experiences, don't you think they have gotten a hickey before? Don't you think they have seen a scratch or a bruise before in their whole lifetimes? I think seeing something like that in person gives a much better ability to be able to tell what it might be from and what it's not from.

Again, I see that everything begins to make sense to people who want to believe they're innocent, when they throw out all the prosecution side witnesses. Leave only the defense witnesses and Amanda and RS, well, then of course everything will "make sense" that way.

 

[otto]

I don't know, I've never been a part of a stabbing before. But I find it very possible, as there must have been some movement going on, obviously.

It could have been, Rudy or Raffaelo thrusting his arm/hand, and their knuckles hit Amanda's neck. Something like that? Maybe Meredith managed to get one of her arms up and her knuckles hit Amanda's neck?

A zipper could make an abrasion like the one that was visible on Knox's neck (very thin skin). We don't know whether she had other cuts, scrapes, bruises or abrasions that may have healed in the days between the murder, on November 1, and the day she was photographed, on or after November 6.

 

[DerKritiker2011]

No, actually regarding this point, I would rather have the testimonies of eye witnesses who actually saw it. How can you say that the eye witnesses should be disregarded?

Because they have no knowledge about the possible reasons. They can only testify, that the mark exist and can give a discription. The reason of this mark must be determined by an expert not by an ordinary person.

 

[Harmony 2]

Here is another photo of her jacket at the scene at a different location. Looks like it traveled across the room...
On a side note, how was the door in Meredith's room locked? Did it require a key?

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/PDF-Files.html

Crime Scene Photos
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/miscellaneous/nov_2_and_3_edited.zip
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/miscellaneous/dec_18.zip
These files are a little over 300mb altogether (135mb/175mb)

 

[aa9511]

I guess this business of the abrasion/bruise on Amanda's neck - like so much else in this case, enough to raise questions, but not enough to be absolutely clear one way or the other - will have to remain an unknown possibility.

For my part, I don't find it being a hickey that hard to believe, but I can remain open to the idea that it might have - might have - come from some kind of scuffle. I think the fact that it was not a wound which broke the skin or bled sort of negates it as evidence (because can be explained away as a hickey, whether it was one or not).

Actually, but here we have two eyewitnesses versus Amanda. So we have to take the witness' credibility into account. I feel like, what you said above, it is only placing importance on Amanda's version. When we have two eyewitnesses who saw it and who stated their own interpretations of it, based on seeing in in person. Not just pics like we online posters have seen it.

So we have to weight the credibility and look at the credibility of the witnesses here, whose words are going against each other. Again, I say, what motivation would Laura have to lie or mis-lead, and if she did, would that motivation be greater than a guilty Amanda's? What motivation would Amanda have to lie about this? That is, if she got the mark from the murder, would we expect her to say "oh yes, I got that from everything that was going on during Meredith's murder"?? Or would we expect her to say it is something which it could be mistaken for by people who don't know what she did, like a hickey?

I don't find this issue as an "unknown," when we have someone else's word vs. only Amanda's word, in which Amanda's word can neither be supported or refuted, but look at her credibility and look at her motivations/incentives.

 

[aa9511]

Because they have no knowledge about the possible reasons. They can only testify, that the mark exist and can give a discription. The reason of this mark must be determined by an expert not by an ordinary person.

Ordinary people have experiences too. They don't just sit in a cave somewhere. They maybe gotten hickeys themselves before. They may have seen some friends' hickeys before. They have definately gotten scratch or bruise or mark before in their lifetimes. And I don't think there is such a thing as a "Hickey Expert," with PhD in Hickeys.

It's like when you see a women with a black eye, they say it's from getting hit with a ball or something, but most of the time you can look at it and tell it is from when their husbands hit them. And they are just ashamed and don't want to say it. But when someone sees it in person, they know what it really is from.

 

[SMK]

Actually, but here we have two eyewitnesses versus Amanda. So we have to take the witness' credibility into account. I feel like, what you said above, it is only placing importance on Amanda's version. When we have two eyewitnesses who saw it and who stated their own interpretations of it, based on seeing in in person. Not just pics like we online posters have seen it.

So we have to weight the credibility and look at the credibility of the witnesses here, whose words are going against each other. Again, I say, what motivation would Laura have to lie or mis-lead, and if she did, would that motivation be greater than a guilty Amanda's? What motivation would Amanda have to lie about this? That is, if she got the mark from the murder, would we expect her to say "oh yes, I got that from everything that was going on during Meredith's murder"?? Or would we expect her to say it is something which it could be mistaken for by people who don't know what she did, like a hickey?

I don't find this issue as an "unknown," when we have someone else's word vs. only Amanda's word, in which Amanda's word can neither be supported or refuted, but look at her credibility and look at her motivations/incentives.

Yes, I understand this. When I said it might be a hickey, I did not mean because Amanda said it was, and we should take her word for it. And I also did not mean that Laura would be lying - only that she might possibly be mistaken ( I think Laura was shook up over the murder, and it was natural to take note of a "wound" on Amanda's neck.) I simply meant that it might be an abrasion as Laura said, and then we have to wonder about it's origin. Or it might be a hickey (simply because from pictures I've now seen, it's shown that they do sometimes look like this - and not because we must take Amanda at her word. )

 

[MichaelSmith]

Am I incorrect in assuming that Meredith's purse, shoes, socks and jacket were all collected on the same day as the bra clasp (December 18th)?

Her jacket is photographed at different locations before being collected?

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/PDF-Files.html

photos from large zip file (175mb) of crime scene photos:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/miscellaneous/dec_18.zip

Not incorrect at all Harmony.

[video=youtube;CD5UM8Rwprw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD5UM8Rwprw[/video]

 

[SMK]

Here is another photo of her jacket at the scene at a different location. Looks like it traveled across the room...
On a side note, how was the door in Meredith's room locked? Did it require a key?

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/PDF-Files.html

Crime Scene Photos
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/miscellaneous/nov_2_and_3_edited.zip
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/miscellaneous/dec_18.zip
These files are a little over 300mb altogether (135mb/175mb)

It's always been said that Meredith's door required a key to lock it, yes. And her keys were missing after the murder.

 

[SMK]

Not incorrect at all Harmony.

Amanda Knox Evidence Uncollected By Forensic Police - YouTube

I find it odd that the jacket had not been collected right away, the day of the discovery. And also that it was tossed on the floor after handling, rather than placed carefully in a labeled, plastic and sterile bag. They did strange things even while filming....

 

[aa9511]

Yes, I understand this. When I said it might be a hickey, I did not mean because Amanda said it was, and we should take her word for it. And I also did not mean that Laura would be lying - only that she might possibly be mistaken ( I think Laura was shook up over the murder, and it was natural to take note of a "wound" on Amanda's neck.) I simply meant that it might be an abrasion as Laura said, and then we have to wonder about it's origin. Or it might be a hickey (simply because from pictures I've now seen, it's shown that they do sometimes look like this - and not because we must take Amanda at her word. )

I understand. But that would necessarily take the assumption that Laura was "out to get" Amanda. Just like everyone else is "out to get" Amanda. That she saw the mark, and for her quest to "get Amanda," she put her own inferences on it, and that's why she stated what she did in court.

I don't feel comfortable with using that analysis of Laura to completely disregard her testimony.

We will have to agree to disagree

How very convenient for Amanda that she can simply say it's a "hickey." Check mark, done, crossed off the list.

 

[SMK]

I understand. But that would necessarily take the assumption that Laura was "out to get" Amanda. Just like everyone else is "out to get" Amanda. That she saw the mark, and for her quest to "get Amanda," she put her own inferences on it, and that's why she stated what she did in court.

I don't feel comfortable with using that analysis of Laura to completely disregard her testimony.

We will have to agree to disagree

How very convenient for Amanda that she can simply say it's a "hickey." Check mark, done, crossed off the list.

No, I certainly don't think Laura was "out to get Amanda", and her testimony is taken well under advisement. No, she might be mistaken but she might also be correct, and I understand that.

 

[DerKritiker2011]

Ordinary people have experiences too. They don't just sit in a cave somewhere. They maybe gotten hickeys themselves before.

Maybe? Or not?

I think hickeys can be differ. They are dependend on the length of suck, the size of the affected area, the location and so on. In this case it MUST be determined by an expert not by a ordinary person.

 

[otto]

Lucky for Knox that she was wearing long sleeves and that very little of her was visible the day after the murder. The neck injury was visible for at least five days. What other injuries healed in that time?

 

[Amber29]

I find it odd that the jacket had not been collected right away, the day of the discovery. And also that it was tossed on the floor after handling, rather than placed carefully in a labeled, plastic and sterile bag. They did strange things even while filming....

Yes I agree but it also gives more weight to why they returned on dec 18th. There was still plenty that needed collected. Including much of the evidence that would be used against RG.
Seems a lot less like a "we have to find something against RS visit" as has been suggested.

 

[otto]

Yes I agree but it also gives more weight to why they returned on dec 18th. There was still plenty that needed collected. Including much of the evidence that would be used against RG.
Seems a lot less like a "we have to find something against RS visit" as has been suggested.

Isn't Dec 18 the day that the luminol was applied?

 

[SMK]

Lucky for Knox that she was wearing long sleeves and that very little of her was visible the day after the murder. The neck injury was visible for at least five days. What other injuries healed in that time?

I was going to add that actually, the absence of abrasions or cuts does not necessarily point to innocence either: 15 year old Brenda Wiley(state of New Jersey) killed her brother and mother using a glass bottle and a kitchen knife, yet when interrogated by the police (the chief investigator happened to be my brother-in-law) she had no visible abrasions on her at all. Also, in the axe murder of Betty Gore by Candance Wylie (state of Texas) Wylie managed to only get two small nicks, one on her toe and one near her hairline on the upper forehead. Neither were significant or required medical attention. So it is possible to commit a violent knife/ax murder without sustaining any abrasions at all.