Amanda Knox found guilty for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy #15

[Myvice]

:twocents:

I think it is a "low blow" for the U.S. media to continue to attack the Italian System of Justice as well as its Judges because THEY -- the media -- do not like the way the law works over there -- OR -- they think that Knox is "innocent" -- which she is NOT if you look at the TOTALITY of the evidence against Knox, Raf and Rudy ...

This is not Judge Nencini "first rodeo" ... he is a well respected judge and did an outstanding job during this latest Appeal ...


BBM: I am confused by the term used "ordinary Italians" :

Was this term used in the article ?

Does it refer to Italians in Italy, or, Americans who are of Italian descent ?


:moo:

You're correct. It says a guy in a bar and a municipal worker.

I'm not sure how the judge saying RS didn't give a voice to the process translates to the judge saying RS would have gotten off if he ratted out AK.

Sounds like the old Martinez blitz when he walked outside and was asked for his autograph.

 

[TorisMom003]

I suppose we will find out what the judge actually said when either the video is released or the defense lawyers file their issues with the judge's comments with the correct court.

 

[Myvice]

"But Judge Alessandro Nencini broke with protocol this weekend, telling Italian journalists that the case against Knox was strong enough that former boyfriend Raffaelle Sollecito would have helped his chances to avoid jail time by trying to lay all the blame on Knox."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/02/03/amanda-knox-judge/5183469/

The title of the piece is "Italian judge blasted in Knox case"

Do you wonder why the reporter didn't give the actual quote since this was released to reporters?

The only quote I've seen is the one saying RS didn't give a voice to the process. To me that is saying there was a lot of evidence against them and it may have helped if a logical explanation had been brought forth. Nincini also said he had a son or daughter about their age and it pained him to have to make the decision. Doesn't sound biased to me.

 

[redheadedgal]

That has been disputed. Look a couple threads back.

Otto did a very good analysis which he posted where the outline of the knife clearly matched the imprint on RS's knife.

yes, a poster did attempt an overlay which was then disputed by many of us.

mignini himself created the theory of the two knives BECAUSE the knife from RS's apartment DID NOT MATCH the stain on the sheet or the wounds to MK. this is a known case fact.

why would he do this if the knives matched?

an unbiased overlay created by a tv station in italy:

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/album.php?album_id=43

 

[ashleigh_schwartz]

Why did they convict RS of this crime and sentence him to 25 years when they could not even place him in the apartment?

The bra clasp should not be admissible since it was kicked around on the floor until it got filthier and filthier and collected the genetic material of five different persons. IMO, the way the "evidence" was collected was enough to have them acquitted because it was hilariously inept.

The kitchen knife is not evidence, either, since Stefanoni indicated in her released lab notes that the results were too low to indicate a match to MK and the sample was below INTL standards.

As was stated by redhead, the knife didn't even match the wounds or stains, so it could not possibly be the murder weapon.

So what do they have that proves RS is guilty of this crime and should be sent to prison for 25 years?

And please no speculation. Give me direct evidence.

 

[Myvice]

yes, a poster did attempt an overlay which was then disputed by many of us.

mignini himself created the theory of the two knives BECAUSE the knife from RS's apartment DID NOT MATCH the stain on the sheet or the wounds to MK. this is a known case fact.

why would he do this if the knives matched?

an unbiased overlay created by a tv station in italy:

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/album.php?album_id=43

I'm sorry, I really am not trying to be snarky. I just have a herd time with the saying "unbiased TV station" in this case. You said the same yourself a few posts back I think.

 

[ashleigh_schwartz]

I'm sorry, I really am not trying to be snarky. I just have a herd time with the saying "unbiased TV station" in this case. You said the same yourself a few posts back I think.

I will ask you since you are so sure that they were given a fair trial and are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt:

Why did they convict RS of this crime and sentence him to 25 years when they could not even place him in the apartment?

The bra clasp should not be admissible since it was kicked around on the floor until it got filthier and filthier and collected the genetic material of five different persons. IMO, the way the "evidence" was collected was enough to have them acquitted because it was hilariously inept.

The kitchen knife is not evidence, either, since Stefanoni indicated in her released lab notes that the results were too low to indicate a match to MK and the sample was below INTL standards.

The knife didn't even match the wounds or stains, so it could not possibly be the murder weapon.

So what do they have that proves RS is guilty of this crime and should be sent to prison for 25 years?

And please no speculation. Give me direct evidence.

 

[SMK]

:twocents:

I think it is a "low blow" for the U.S. media to continue to attack the Italian System of Justice as well as its Judges because THEY -- the media -- do not like the way the law works over there -- OR -- they think that Knox is "innocent" -- which she is NOT if you look at the TOTALITY of the evidence against Knox, Raf and Rudy ...

This is not Judge Nencini "first rodeo" ... he is a well respected judge and did an outstanding job during this latest Appeal ...


BBM: I am confused by the term used "ordinary Italians" :

Was this term used in the article ?

Does it refer to Italians in Italy, or, Americans who are of Italian descent ?


:moo:

What bothers me is that Nencini even opened the door to any of this: It is after all the Italian commission which has voted unanimously to investigate him. At worst, this puts the verdict in jeopardy. At the least, it gives the defense a boost for the appeal.

 

[otto]

It means that it proves nothing either way. There is no test that can be done to see how long someone's DNA has been in a spot before the blood of someone else came into contact with it.

Given the types of arguments that are presented here to support the "convicted murderer is innocent" perspective, I'm almost tempted to try them in another context to see how well they hold up. For example, if there is a murder and there is evidence in a car, but the victim is in the bedroom, I might try to debate that evidence in the car should be ignored because the crime scene is defined by a couple of feet on either side of the body. If the suspect's DNA is mixed with the victim's blood, I might try to argue that although there is absolutely no evidence that the victim bled in that location, we just don't know, so the suspect's DNA in the victim's blood should be ignored. It seems to me that there should be basic principals that apply to all murder investigations, not different principals for different suspects.

 

[Jessica2012]

Given the types of arguments that are presented here to support the "convicted murderer is innocent" perspective, I'm almost tempted to try them in another context to see how well they hold up. For example, if there is a murder and there is evidence in a car, but the victim is in the bedroom, I might try to debate that evidence in the car should be ignored because the crime scene is defined by a couple of feet on either side of the body. If the suspect's DNA is mixed with the victim's blood, I might try to argue that although there is absolutely no evidence that the victim bled in that location, we just don't know, so the suspect's DNA in the victim's blood should be ignored. It seems to me that there should be basic principals that apply to all murder investigations, not different principals for different suspects.

WOW Otto, perfectly stated

 

[otto]

I will ask you since you are so sure that they were given a fair trial and are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt:

Why did they convict RS of this crime and sentence him to 25 years when they could not even place him in the apartment?

The bra clasp should not be admissible since it was kicked around on the floor until it got filthier and filthier and collected the genetic material of five different persons. IMO, the way the "evidence" was collected was enough to have them acquitted because it was hilariously inept.

The kitchen knife is not evidence, either, since Stefanoni indicated in her released lab notes that the results were too low to indicate a match to MK and the sample was below INTL standards.

The knife didn't even match the wounds or stains, so it could not possibly be the murder weapon.

So what do they have that proves RS is guilty of this crime and should be sent to prison for 25 years?

And please no speculation. Give me direct evidence.

There is no direct evidence, only circumstantial evidence. There is the problem of the bloody print on the bathmat, the DNA on the bra clasp, and the statement from Sollecito explaining how Meredith's DNA got onto his knife, for starters.

 

[Vinny]

The Knox PR machine sure did have its intended affect in the U.S.

I watched a piece on ABC the other night and it was incredibly biased.

Reading the majority of comments in articles I find on the web is filled with the same cries of "no evidence" "Italy is corrupt" blah blah blah.

Ugh. Poor Meredith. Knox gets all this attention and it's like the Kercher family doesn't even exist.

 

[Yellow]

RS will be interviewed on Anderson Cooper tonight on CNN.

 

[ashleigh_schwartz]

Given the types of arguments that are presented here to support the "convicted murderer is innocent" perspective, I'm almost tempted to try them in another context to see how well they hold up. For example, if there is a murder and there is evidence in a car, but the victim is in the bedroom, I might try to debate that evidence in the car should be ignored because the crime scene is defined by a couple of feet on either side of the body. If the suspect's DNA is mixed with the victim's blood, I might try to argue that although there is absolutely no evidence that the victim bled in that location, we just don't know, so the suspect's DNA in the victim's blood should be ignored. It seems to me that there should be basic principals that apply to all murder investigations, not different principals for different suspects.

That's a lot of emphasis on DNA that was collected by hilariously inept officers and tested in a lab that was not even accredited to do that type of DNA analysis. Not to mention, Stefanoni refusing to turn over some data that would help determine whether or not the DNA was properly handled.

2 independent experts hired by the court disproved this "DNA evidence" and that is in joint with 20 other experts hired by the defense. Yet somehow the prosecution is absolutely, without a doubt, right, but the other 22 are wrong.

Biased? Yeah, I think so.

I am leaning toward this case being a joke now.

But I will ask you as well since you are so sure that they were given a fair trial and are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt:

Why did they convict RS of this crime and sentence him to 25 years when they could not even place him in the apartment?

The bra clasp should not be admissible since it was kicked around on the floor until it got filthier and filthier and collected the genetic material of five different persons. IMO, the way the "evidence" was collected was enough to have them acquitted because it was hilariously inept.

The kitchen knife is not evidence, either, since Stefanoni indicated in her released lab notes that the results were too low to indicate a match to MK and the sample was below INTL standards.

The knife didn't even match the wounds or stains, so it could not possibly be the murder weapon.

So what do they have that proves RS is guilty of this crime and should be sent to prison for 25 years?

And please no speculation. Give me direct evidence.

 

[redheadedgal]

I can't find a number like that anywhere...what I can say is that Italy has not appeared in recent publications of the World Report by the Human Rights Watch. Italy has come under fire for its treatment of migrants and asylum seekers but that's kind of like saying America's justice system is broken because of Guantanamo in my opinion. The issues are not only unrelated to Amanda Knox, but they're also extremely convoluted within the current atmosphere of the EU.

under violations by state see "violations by article and by state 1959-2013"

if i am reading the chart correctly, it seems italy is second only to turkey in #violations:

http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=reports&c=#n1347956587550_pointer

 

[aa9511]

I completely agree with you that Amanda had more forensic evidence against her than RS. In my opinion RS has the least amount of forensic evidence against him of the three which makes me think of a couple of things. In his initial statements he admitted to lying he was with Amanda. Amanda after police told her that Raffaele took away her alibi said she saw blood on Raffaele's hand during dinner. Their stories completely contradicted eachother which is why police asked him to come in once again for questioning without Amanda. In my opinion the majority of evidence against Raffaele if looked at independently from Amanda is circumstantial. I could be wrong, but that's how I see it. One major factor for me in believing he is not innocent is that his lawyer essentially agreed it was not a "lone wolf" attack by introducing Aviello. As Otto said, it was more or less to say, there was more than one attacker but it was not my client (Paraphrasing). If he was innocent then why all of this drama when the evidence against him is less than the other two? I also believe that with RS in the mind of many it's guilt by association. I wonder to what extent he was involved.

Jessica, I agree with most of what you said. Totally agree. I do believe he's guilty, based on circumstantial evidence and based on his bathmat footprint and bra clasp DNA, as well as there were more fingerprints found of him than there were of Amanda, and one of those fingerprnts is on Laura's door, indicating he went into Laura's bedroom, which would corroborate that he went into Laura's room to place the 112 call calls to his sister and Amanda calls to her mother. Also his cell phone being turned off at the same time as Amanda's that is a big clue. And, like I said, circumstantial evidence such as inconsistencies in his alibi story, etc.. It is not just one thing or the other for me, it's everything put together as a whole.

But I completely agree that he has the least amount of forensic evidence against him of the three.

And I think that his defense could have tried to give explanations for the circumstantial evidence.

His defense could have tried to put doubt on the bra clasp by way of collection and/or contamination. Also try to put doubt on the bathmat print.

I think, like you, that he has the least amount of evidence against him in this case, out of the 3 of them.

I believe that any lawyer advising him would have, from the very beginning, told him that you need to separate your case from Amanda's case. Because very clearly, he has less evidence against him than there is against Amanda. I believe that any lawyer whatsover would have advised him this way.

But that is not the strategy that he chose. He chose to put his case with Amanda's. I don't believe this was his lawyer's choice, as I said, any lawyer should have seen this was not the best course for him. This means it was his own decision of what he wanted his own defense strategy to be. Why? I believe the answer is very simple - he was afraid to go against Amanda, because he was afraid that at any moment, Amanda could change the strategy of her own defense, and reveal RS's true involvement in all of this. Then he would be completely stuck. He viewed Amanda as a wild card which he did not want to take any chances on. At the same time, Amanda viewed RS in this way, also. But the difference is, RS actually had a better case than her. So it is very intriguing why he would choose a strategy which actually made his case worse for him.

 

[redheadedgal]

I can't find a number like that anywhere...what I can say is that Italy has not appeared in recent publications of the World Report by the Human Rights Watch. Italy has come under fire for its treatment of migrants and asylum seekers but that's kind of like saying America's justice system is broken because of Guantanamo in my opinion. The issues are not only unrelated to Amanda Knox, but they're also extremely convoluted within the current atmosphere of the EU.

under violations by state see "violations by article and by state 1959-2013"

if i am reading the chart correctly, it seems italy is second only to turkey in #judgments (violations):

http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=reports&c=#n1347956587550_pointer

 

[ashleigh_schwartz]

here is the problem of the bloody print on the bathmat

Did it belong to RS? If not, then no dice. If so, where is the proof?

the DNA on the bra clasp

How is the bra clasp even admissible when the police officers kicked it around the floor and it collected the genetic material of five different persons? In fact, why should it be admissible since it is a fact that this "evidence" was handled in that way by the officers? You can say they "proved" there was no contamination, even though that is doubtful, and the handling of itself was, in fact, contamination.

and the statement from Sollecito explaining how Meredith's DNA got onto his knife, for starters.

Not even evidence. MK's DNA was not on the blade; Stefanoni's released notes indicated that the results were too low for a match and what little they found was not even derived from blood.

As I said, he could have said that because it sounded a lot better than saying, "I don't know how that got there!"

So what you got is nothing basically?

Ah, that pretty much affirms my thoughts last night about this being a witch hunt.

 

[sindydee]

I'm arguing her BLOODY footprints had been in that hallway. She cleaned up the hallway. The luminol still reacted.

What is your argument for her footprints glowing with luminol? If you can come up with one REASONABLE alternate scenario...I'll be thrilled to consider it.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly. Her bloody footprints in the hallway that had been cleaned up. They showed up only with luminol. So they were there, and then they were not. Well not to the naked eye. Which means someone had removed them. So who was that?

Does anyone have the link to website with the black map of this with the purple and red footprints on it please? I thought I had book marked it and I forgot. TIA

 

[otto]

That's a lot of emphasis on DNA that was collected by hilariously inept officers and tested in a lab that was not even accredited to do that type of DNA analysis. Not to mention, Stefanoni refusing to turn over some data that would help determine whether or not the DNA was properly handled.

2 independent experts hired by the court disproved this "DNA evidence" and that is in joint with 20 other experts hired by the defense. Yet somehow the prosecution is absolutely, without a doubt, right, but the other 22 are wrong.

Biased? Yeah, I think so.

I am leaning toward this case being a joke now.

But I will ask you as well since you are so sure that they were given a fair trial and are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt:

Why did they convict RS of this crime and sentence him to 25 years when they could not even place him in the apartment?

The bra clasp should not be admissible since it was kicked around on the floor until it got filthier and filthier and collected the genetic material of five different persons. IMO, the way the "evidence" was collected was enough to have them acquitted because it was hilariously inept.

The kitchen knife is not evidence, either, since Stefanoni indicated in her released lab notes that the results were too low to indicate a match to MK and the sample was below INTL standards.

The knife didn't even match the wounds or stains, so it could not possibly be the murder weapon.

So what do they have that proves RS is guilty of this crime and should be sent to prison for 25 years?

And please no speculation. Give me direct evidence.

Thanks. I'll remember to include the viewpoint that investigators are inept and that DNA analysis is junk science because anything is possible and contamination is always possible. In the murders of Michelle Young and Nancy Cooper, there is no murder weapon, but it sounds like it's a good strategy to state that if there is no murder weapon, the husbands have to be innocent ... because in this case, claiming that the murder weapon is not the murder weapon is sufficient to state that the suspect should not be a suspect.