Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#13

[Linda7NJ]

And they proved the break in was staged by the investigators' eyewitness accounts and assumptions?

And the wealth of knowledge law enforcement has.
Surely, you can't argue LE doesn't know what a real B&E looks like? What a real sex crime looks like? Or when a scene has been staged?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[otto]

Had the prosecution proved it by a report of an expert? No! It was also a assertion without evidence.

What do you mean "by a report of an expert"? Should a traffic accident reconstructionist have put forth a theory based on the assumption that Guede was already inside the cottage ... that sort of expert?

The clothing was on the floor. The computer was on the floor. Broken glass was on top of the clothing and computer. In order to refute the fact that broken glass on top of the ransacked clothing, it has been suggested that Filomina was a slob who threw her clothing and computer on the floor. Is that what people should believe?

 

[Linda7NJ]

Had the prosecution proved it by a report of an expert? No! It was also a assertion without evidence.

I can find an expert to testify to anything. So can anyone else.

If that's what your basis for determining proof is...how do you ever come to a reasonable conclusion during a trial? Both sides put forth experts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DerKritiker2011]

Broken glass was on top of the clothing and computer. In order to refute the fact that broken glass on top of the ransacked clothing, it has been suggested that Filomina was a slob who threw her clothing and computer on the floor. Is that what people should believe?

An expert had to look at this, not a judge. Massei was wrong, he sad, that the stone was thrown from inside. But this had caused violation of the shutters and a complete different arrangement of the broken glas in the room. We see, he had obviously no knowlege of a break in.

 

[dgfred]

Case solved. Judge has no knowledge and some guy said AK is innocent. Never mind the dna mixes, lack of any alibi, lying, bare footprints in blood, bathmat bare print, silly stories... did I mention the lying? One piece even hinting toward not-guily would be much more difficult to find IMO.

 

[otto]

An expert had to look at this, not a judge. Massei was wrong, he sad, that the stone was thrown from inside. But this had caused violation of the shutters and a complete different arrangement of the broken glas in the room. We see, he had obviously no knowlege of a break in.

Anyone that wants Knox to be innocent has claimed that everyone that is employed in the Italian Justice System is wrong, so in the context of that theory, obviously Massei is wrong. The problem with that theory is that the premise that Italian Justice System is not corrupt, confused, persecutory, incompetent and silly is simply unfounded. It is another of Knox's imaginings.

The only way for the rock to land where it did is if it rebounded off the interior shutter. It is impossible that the rock was thrown from the parking pad towards the wall that separates Filomina's bedroom and the living room, and the rock suddenly took a sharp 90 degree turn to the left while the glass continued on towards that wall. However, that information was not necessary in order to conclude that the break in was staged. The staged break in was obvious for other reasons.

 

[quesarita]

"Confessions, when true, are an important tool in convicting criminals. But false confessions frequently play a major role in convicting innocent people. Experiments show that juries and potential witnesses are influenced by confessions even if they know they were coerced. Also in the lab, experienced polygraph examiners, fingerprint experts, and other experts, when informed of a confession, see what they expect to see—that is, evidence of guilt.

To back up these findings with real-life data, the psychologists thoroughly reviewed the trial records of 241 people exonerated by the Innocence Project since 1992. Of these, 59—or 25 percent—involved false confessions, either by the defendant or an alleged accomplice. One-hundred eighty—or 75 percent—involved eyewitness mistakes. The analysis revealed that multiple errors turned up far more often in false confession cases than in eyewitness cases: 69 percent versus fewer than half. And two thirds of the time, the confession came first, followed by other errors, namely invalid forensic science and government informants."
https://www.psychologicalscience.or...to-more-errors-in-evidence-a-study-shows.html

"The results were troubling. As reported on-line in the journal Psychological Science, multiple errors were discovered in three out of four cases involving a false confession, compared to fewer than half of cases without a false confession. These additional errors included, in order of frequency, invalid or improper forensic science, eyewitness mistakes, and incriminating snitch testimony. Two-thirds of the false confession cases also had forensic errors, and a third had at least two of these additional errors. What’s more, false confessions were much more likely to come before (rather than follow) forensic missteps or informant errors. The timing strongly suggests that the false confession actually corrupted the other evidence."

 

[quesarita]

Apparently yes, the prosecution demonstrated that the break in was staged. It's all in the Massei Report.

The Massei report is a series of conclusions, not a demonstration or proof in itself. Hellman's report reached different conclusions.

 

[otto]

"Confessions, when true, are an important tool in convicting criminals. But false confessions frequently play a major role in convicting innocent people. Experiments show that juries and potential witnesses are influenced by confessions even if they know they were coerced. Also in the lab, experienced polygraph examiners, fingerprint experts, and other experts, when informed of a confession, see what they expect to see—that is, evidence of guilt.

To back up these findings with real-life data, the psychologists thoroughly reviewed the trial records of 241 people exonerated by the Innocence Project since 1992. Of these, 59—or 25 percent—involved false confessions, either by the defendant or an alleged accomplice. One-hundred eighty—or 75 percent—involved eyewitness mistakes. The analysis revealed that multiple errors turned up far more often in false confession cases than in eyewitness cases: 69 percent versus fewer than half. And two thirds of the time, the confession came first, followed by other errors, namely invalid forensic science and government informants."
https://www.psychologicalscience.or...to-more-errors-in-evidence-a-study-shows.html

"The results were troubling. As reported on-line in the journal Psychological Science, multiple errors were discovered in three out of four cases involving a false confession, compared to fewer than half of cases without a false confession. These additional errors included, in order of frequency, invalid or improper forensic science, eyewitness mistakes, and incriminating snitch testimony. Two-thirds of the false confession cases also had forensic errors, and a third had at least two of these additional errors. What’s more, false confessions were much more likely to come before (rather than follow) forensic missteps or informant errors. The timing strongly suggests that the false confession actually corrupted the other evidence."

It's a good thing that there are no "false confessions" in this case!

 

[otto]

The Massei report is a series of conclusions, not a demonstration or proof in itself. Hellman's report reached different conclusions.

People on the internet reached their own conclusions as well, but that doesn't mean they are valid. In fact, we know that Hellman's conclusions were illogical and poorly reasoned because his decision was annulled. If the verdict on Jan 30 is the same as Hellman, all is good in Knox's world. If original verdict is upheld, then Hellman's decision is confirmed to be completely irrelevant.

 

[dgfred]

The Massei report is a series of conclusions, not a demonstration or proof in itself. Hellman's report reached different conclusions.

Hellmann, and the 'independent' report have both been squashed.

Massei is a report on the findings of the judge(s).

:jail:

 

[aa9511]

Filomena's DNA profile was not obtained so that is why her DNA was not found. There were two fingerprints belonging to Filomena found in her room. This is the fingerprint chart produced by the Polizia Scientifica...

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Fingerprint_Chart.jpg

Thanks. I got a chance to look at it - I must say I'm quite perplexed how anyone can think there was no clean-up done? Just by looking at Meredith's room and Laura's room, compared with the rest of the cottage, it is quite obvious to me that there was a clean-up.

Here is what I counted: (by person)

Meredith:

16

Filomena:

2

Laura:

14

Raffaele:

4

Amanda:

1

I mean, the breakdown is quite obvious: Amanda = 1. Yet we are supposed to believe that her DNA was "all over" the house, when there is only 1 fingerprint of hers in the whole house. So, to me, it seems like the supporters of her innocence have their DNA argument negated by the fact that there is only 1 Amanda fingerprint in the whole house. There are more Raffaele's fingerprints than Amanda's, and he does not even live there. So basically, it seems to me like the supporters of her innocence want to have it all - for example, no clean-up, but then there is the fact of only 1 fingerprint. And DNA everywhere, but again there is only 1 fingerprint.

No to mention, the person whom the staged burglary room belongs to, which necessarily had to have been cleaned to get rid of damaging evidence, that person Filomena also has only 2 fingerprints in the whole house. Compare with Laura - 14 and Meredith 16. Compare Amanda -1, Filomena- 2. Filomena's low number obviously by virtue of having her room cleaned of prints/evidence.

It is obvious to me that someone cleaned up the house, I don't know how can someone look at that fingerprint chart and say otherwise?

I also note that there are no prints except for 1 of Amanda's in the kitchen, even though the kitchen is where all 4 would have used, that would be where one would expect the most fingerprints. Also none of that kitchen table - how is that?? A table which everyone would use.

Things I found interesting:

-there are more Raffaele prints in the house than Amanda's, even though she lived there?

- why are there 2 Raffaele prints on Meredith's door?

- why is there 1 Raffaele print on Laura's door - I am really baffled by this?

- What is that thing with 1 Raffele print in the living room - is that a desk or something?

- I think I counted 3 prints (laura and Filomena) on the large bathroom door, however no prints on the inside of the bathroom anywhere?

- Of course no prints in the small bathroom, that is to be expected.

- Lack of prints (only 1) on Filomena door, small bathroom door, and lack of Meredith prints on Meredith's door. Compare with Laura door and bathroom door which had numberious Laura prints on it. Laura had prints on Laura door. Meredith had no Meredith prints on Meredith door, even though whole rest of the room had Meredith prints.

- no Meredith prints on her nightstand - this was strange given Meredith prnts on other surfaces.

- None of Amanda's prints in her own room! How is that?? Compare with abundance of Meredith prints in Meredith room and Laura prints in Laura's room.

- Also same as above, very low number of Filomena prints (only 2) in Filomena's own room. Compare with 16 Meredith prints in Meredith room and 14 Laura prints in Laura room.

- 0 prints on front door.

Obviously, someone cleaned Amanda's room surfaces. Someone cleaned Filomena's room surfaces. Someone cleaned small bathroom. It even looks like someone wiped down large bathroom. Someone cleaned kitchen surfaces. And I believe someone cleaned living room surfaces. Someone cleaned off front door.

Cleaning, cleaning, cleaning.

 

[Linda7NJ]

"Confessions, when true, are an important tool in convicting criminals. But false confessions frequently play a major role in convicting innocent people. Experiments show that juries and potential witnesses are influenced by confessions even if they know they were coerced. Also in the lab, experienced polygraph examiners, fingerprint experts, and other experts, when informed of a confession, see what they expect to see—that is, evidence of guilt.

To back up these findings with real-life data, the psychologists thoroughly reviewed the trial records of 241 people exonerated by the Innocence Project since 1992. Of these, 59—or 25 percent—involved false confessions, either by the defendant or an alleged accomplice. One-hundred eighty—or 75 percent—involved eyewitness mistakes. The analysis revealed that multiple errors turned up far more often in false confession cases than in eyewitness cases: 69 percent versus fewer than half. And two thirds of the time, the confession came first, followed by other errors, namely invalid forensic science and government informants."
https://www.psychologicalscience.or...to-more-errors-in-evidence-a-study-shows.html

"The results were troubling. As reported on-line in the journal Psychological Science, multiple errors were discovered in three out of four cases involving a false confession, compared to fewer than half of cases without a false confession. These additional errors included, in order of frequency, invalid or improper forensic science, eyewitness mistakes, and incriminating snitch testimony. Two-thirds of the false confession cases also had forensic errors, and a third had at least two of these additional errors. What’s more, false confessions were much more likely to come before (rather than follow) forensic missteps or informant errors. The timing strongly suggests that the false confession actually corrupted the other evidence."

Interesting skew of the fact

There was no confession!

Just fingering an innocent man and lies. That's normal and to be expected from the guilty.

All IMO



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dgfred]

Hey aa, IIRC RS dna on cig butt.

 

[aa9511]

Well, the article does not state Amanda was the source for the information. Meredith's fingernail clippings were tested and only her own DNA was found.

Yes, but that is very misleading. We all know that the reason for her mark has never been determined independently of what Amanda says. In other words, we only have her word, do we not? Just because the article doesn't state Amanda was the source for the information? Then I would say that the article is misleading!

The way the article portrays it is as if it is some fact that Amanda's mark is a hickey.

So I find that portion of the article misleading.

If we went by the way the article portrayed it and what the article said, if that was what the Court went by, then Amanda's mark would have been determined by the Court as to have been a hickey.

Also, it does not have to be that Meredith made the mark on her. In guilty scenario, there were 3 people involved other than Meredith. It could have happened in any way - we just do not know. We do not know either way what it is or what it is not. It could be that Amanda scratched or made the mark with her own hand/nails/body by accident, it could have been done by Rudy by accident, or by RS by accident. None of their fingernails were tested right after the murder, and neither was Amanda's mark.

 

[aa9511]

Hey aa, IIRC RS dna on cig butt.

That is very strange.

 

[otto]

Court Testimony Regarding Injury on Knox's Neck:

"Laura Mezzetti, an Italian who shared an apartment with Kercher and defendant Amanda Knox, told the court she saw the scratch on Knox's neck, below her chin, the following day at the police station where they were waiting to be questioned but said she didn't point it out at the time because she thought investigators would notice themselves.

"I noticed it because it was known that Meredith had been killed by a wound to her neck," Mezzetti told the court. "I was afraid that Amanda, too, might have been wounded, I was worried and I looked at it really intensely."

...
Mezzetti said she observed Knox's scratch from a few yards (meters) away. She described the wound as "vertical, less than 1-centimeter (0.4 inches) thick," red in color and gestured that it was under her chin.

...
Mezzetti said she did not see any scratch when she saw Knox on Oct. 31, 2007, during breakfast at the apartment, and that she did not see Knox again until two days later at the police station. She said the scratch was different from a love bite, which would be "purple and more round."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/italy-murder-trial-knox-had-a-scratch/

 

[aa9511]

It's also against the law to marry someone for the sole purpose of gaining citizenship.

http://www.usimmigrationlawyers.com/legal-advice/marrying-for-immigration-purposes

Yes, I mean I realize it's very odd, but I guess I think of it more of a desperation kind of thing.

I mean, in that case there are many people who are not murderers to try to marry for citizenship. Yes, it does say something about character, definately, but I don't think it necessarily ties back to the murder.

 

[dgfred]

Especially when anybody can google if that would help you avoid extradition. Apparently... he didn't.

 

[Amber29]

Thanks. I got a chance to look at it - I must say I'm quite perplexed how anyone can think there was no clean-up done? Just by looking at Meredith's room and Laura's room, compared with the rest of the cottage, it is quite obvious to me that there was a clean-up.

Here is what I counted: (by person)

Meredith:

16

Filomena:

2

Laura:

14

Raffaele:

4

Amanda:

1

I mean, the breakdown is quite obvious: Amanda = 1. Yet we are supposed to believe that her DNA was "all over" the house, when there is only 1 fingerprint of hers in the whole house. So, to me, it seems like the supporters of her innocence have their DNA argument negated by the fact that there is only 1 Amanda fingerprint in the whole house. There are more Raffaele's fingerprints than Amanda's, and he does not even live there. So basically, it seems to me like the supporters of her innocence want to have it all - for example, no clean-up, but then there is the fact of only 1 fingerprint. And DNA everywhere, but again there is only 1 fingerprint.

No to mention, the person whom the staged burglary room belongs to, which necessarily had to have been cleaned to get rid of damaging evidence, that person Filomena also has only 2 fingerprints in the whole house. Compare with Laura - 14 and Meredith 16. Compare Amanda -1, Filomena- 2. Filomena's low number obviously by virtue of having her room cleaned of prints/evidence.

It is obvious to me that someone cleaned up the house, I don't know how can someone look at that fingerprint chart and say otherwise?

I also note that there are no prints except for 1 of Amanda's in the kitchen, even though the kitchen is where all 4 would have used, that would be where one would expect the most fingerprints. Also none of that kitchen table - how is that?? A table which everyone would use.

Things I found interesting:

-there are more Raffaele prints in the house than Amanda's, even though she lived there?

- why are there 2 Raffaele prints on Meredith's door?

- why is there 1 Raffaele print on Laura's door - I am really baffled by this?

- What is that thing with 1 Raffele print in the living room - is that a desk or something?

- I think I counted 3 prints (laura and Filomena) on the large bathroom door, however no prints on the inside of the bathroom anywhere?

- Of course no prints in the small bathroom, that is to be expected.

- Lack of prints (only 1) on Filomena door, small bathroom door, and lack of Meredith prints on Meredith's door. Compare with Laura door and bathroom door which had numberious Laura prints on it. Laura had prints on Laura door. Meredith had no Meredith prints on Meredith door, even though whole rest of the room had Meredith prints.

- no Meredith prints on her nightstand - this was strange given Meredith prnts on other surfaces.

- None of Amanda's prints in her own room! How is that?? Compare with abundance of Meredith prints in Meredith room and Laura prints in Laura's room.

- Also same as above, very low number of Filomena prints (only 2) in Filomena's own room. Compare with 16 Meredith prints in Meredith room and 14 Laura prints in Laura room.

- 0 prints on front door.

Obviously, someone cleaned Amanda's room surfaces. Someone cleaned Filomena's room surfaces. Someone cleaned small bathroom. It even looks like someone wiped down large bathroom. Someone cleaned kitchen surfaces. And I believe someone cleaned living room surfaces. Someone cleaned off front door.

Cleaning, cleaning, cleaning.

Yes I agree with this. It's seems a few doors were wiped. Even Filomenas window sill, compared to all the other windows. The thing in the living area with RS prints is the fridge, strange that only a RS print is found on the fridge.