Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#4

[whiterum]

Chris_H, with that last sentence and you're telling me that my argument fails to take flight from the runway??

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

Amanda HERSELF put Patrick there, and you're taking her "finally something is going right" and using it FOR her? Omg. She put him there!!!!!!!!!!!

I am just at a complete loss of even words or anything right now, can't even wrap my head around that.

It was because of AK's lies that the Swiss Professor had to return to Perugia to be grilled, questioned at length to confirm PL's alibi. Then obviously there should be no clap on the back for the lying accuser herself having the absolute gall at PL's release to utter words to the effect of " "Finally something is going right".

If your whole argument failed to take flight from the runway and the rest of your argument also fails granting its shaky premise, this one suffered severe turbulence and crash landed LOL .

 

[MichaelSmith]

Oooooh Otto good point about the clothes! I did not think of that!

The clothes she wore the night before were on her bed just like you'd expect them to be and a towel hanging over the chair.

 

[Amber29]

Aa9511

I actually agree as well about Patrick. I mean look what Hellmann did in acquitting the two. In his reasoning he basically implied "these 2 good kids wouldn't hang around RG". It wasn't in those exact words and I'd have to find the quote but that's what he implied. Like they are some how better than him, that is also the view in the media and is why he is always referred to a drifter.

Now before anyone accuses me of defending RG, I must say that is not at all what I'm doing. He is a murderer there is no doubt but I don't think AK and RS are above him.

 

[MichaelSmith]

bbm

I had to leave during the bathmat discussion this morning, so just going back and looking over what I missed. Sorry to keep bringing up this point, but I can't let it go when there is something very illogical where the illogical part of it must be pointed out.

Smooth floor, hard floor, rocky floor, marble floor, sticky mat, smooth mat, thick mat, thin mat, blue mat, red mat, green mat, and white mat - there is nothing there to excuse away the fact that a boogie would have disturbed the footprint.

It could have been disturbed either one or both of two ways:

- the water dripping down off of Amanda would have dripped on part or perhaps all of the footprint, diluting parts or all of it. The resulting footprint would have looked much different than the one which was actually found.

- if Amanda had stepped on all or part of the footprint, it would have been disturbed.

Facts are facts. The fact of the footprint being found the way it was is in evidence, and thank God there is photographic evidence so no one can say it was some other way.

We can hypothesize all we want, but there are facts in this case which we can't go around.

Your argument doesn't work. The photos of the luminiol print imply heavy blood loss even seeping into the cracks of the tiles yet the murder happened in the bedroom. If it was blood and there was a clean up then the footprint wouldn't be there because it was wiped away and all the luminol would show is a swirling pattern.

 

[otto]

The clothes she wore the night before were on her bed just like you'd expect them to be and a towel hanging over the chair.

Thanks. So after her shower, Knox tossed her clothes on the bed and kept the towel in her bedroom ... alternatively, Knox stripped down in the bedroom and then walked naked to the bathroom without a towel - not exactly cool in a shared accommodation. I suspect that Meredith also kept her towels in her bedroom, given that it was a shared bathroom and Meredith probably didn't want anyone using her towels.

 

[Footwarrior]

The clothes she wore the night before were on her bed just like you'd expect them to be and a towel hanging over the chair.

This didn't keep PLE from telling the press these clothes were missing:

Ironically, a sweater worn by Knox after the murder — one which police claimed she had burned because her blood was on it — was found intact on Amanda’s bed in April 2008, six months after Kercher’s murder

 

[SMK]

This didn't keep PLE from telling the press these clothes were missing:

It doesn't speak well of the investigators, though, that it took 6 months to discover it on the bed. They were proven wrong in their theory that she burned it as well.

 

[redheadedgal]

Your argument doesn't work. The photos of the luminiol print imply heavy blood loss even seeping into the cracks of the tiles yet the murder happened in the bedroom. If it was blood and there was a clean up then the footprint wouldn't be there because it was wiped away and all the luminol would show is a swirling pattern.

these two points (which are imo, completely based in fact, evidence and logic) have been repeatedly made...

the answer to the first is, "it's irrelevant" and any discussion about it is a "distraction" from what really matters -- "the fact there are bloody footprints in the first place!!"

the answer to the second was "why is it suggested blood MUST leave streaks? i think it's possible to clean a footprint completely".

 

[otto]

This didn't keep PLE from telling the press these clothes were missing:

I see ... thanks. So there were clothes on her bed, but we don't know when she put them there since she hadn't slept in her bed for two weeks.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I'm beginning to think that if LE hadn't been able to confirm Patrick's alibi....that you all would think to this day that Patrick did it! I really 100% believe this. Due to the fact that every single ridiculous lie Amanda has told up to this point has been believed by her supporters, to the point of even believing the most outrageous. And many would have gladly put the blame on Patrick in order to get Amanda off. The believers of her innocence would have taken up Patrick whole-heartedly, claiming that because he casually knew Rudy Guede, that must mean he was involved.

My previous response pointed out that ILE did not look for the Swiss professor; it was the other way around. IIUC when he did travel to Perugia, they interviewed him for many hours. Regrettably, the rest of my response was indirect enough to allow it to be misunderstood. I invite anyone to reread it and to PM me if he or she needs clarification beyond the paragraph below.

Although I strongly disagree with pro-guilt commenters, I don't doubt the sincerity and good intentions of the vast majority of them. The passage above tells me that you believe something very different about "many" of the pro-innocence posters: that they have so great a personal investment in Ms. Knox's freedom that they would like to see an innocent man in prison. Really? That fails to explain a great deal, not the least of which is why a number of pro-innocence posters have gotten involved in more than one wrongful accusation or wrongful conviction. I regret that I cannot say more than that we have reached an impasse.

 

[otto]

It doesn't speak well of the investigators, though, that it took 6 months to discover it on the bed. They were proven wrong in their theory that she burned it as well.

I can't seem to find an author for that article ... it's hard to take something seriously when no one wants to take credit for the content. Is the author's name there and I just can't see it, or is there no author?

http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/14/s...nda-knox-murder-case-may-lead-to-her-release/

 

[Footwarrior]

I see ... thanks. So there were clothes on her bed, but we don't know when she put them there since she hadn't slept in her bed for two weeks.

It's not rocket science Otto. Amanda was seen wearing those clothes at 8:40 pm the night of the murder. The afternoon of the following day, they are on her bed and Amanda is wearing different clothes. Consistent with Amanda's story of taking a shower and changing clothes that morning.

 

[otto]

It's not rocket science Otto. Amanda was seen wearing those clothes at 8:40 pm the night of the murder. The afternoon of the following day, they are on her bed and Amanda is wearing different clothes. Consistent with Amanda's story of taking a shower and changing clothes that morning.

So ... did the woman with the suitcase describe what Knox was wearing and was that in the court transcript?

 

[otto]

My previous response pointed out that ILE did not look for the Swiss professor; it was the other way around. IIUC when he did travel to Perugia, they interviewed him for many hours. Regrettably, the rest of my response was indirect enough to allow it to be misunderstood. I invite anyone to reread it and to PM me if he or she needs clarification beyond the paragraph below.

Although I strongly disagree with pro-guilt commenters, I don't doubt the sincerity and good intentions of the vast majority of them. The passage above tells me that you believe something very different about "many" of the pro-innocence posters: that they have so great a personal investment in Ms. Knox's freedom that they would like to see an innocent man in prison. Really? That fails to explain a great deal, not the least of which is why a number of pro-innocence posters have gotten involved in more than one wrongful accusation or wrongful conviction. I regret that I cannot say more than that we have reached an impasse.

BBM

It seems that some professionals swing either way. For example, Hampikian cannot be included in that claim:

"Last week Hampikian was arguing the reliability of DNA evidence that convicted a man for the 1988 murder of 12-year-old Sarah Cherry in Maine."

http://thefreelancedesk.com/the-secret-u-s-forensic-defense-of-amanda-knox/

 

[SMK]

I can't seem to find an author for that article ... it's hard to take something seriously when no one wants to take credit for the content. Is the author's name there and I just can't see it, or is there no author?

http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/14/s...nda-knox-murder-case-may-lead-to-her-release/

I think over to the left, Stephen Robert Morse, of the City University of New York?

 

[otto]

I think over to the left, Stephen Robert Morse, of the City University of New York?

I'm not ready to accept what he wrote without a little more information - like court documents, or a couple of other articles written by recognized journalists or newpapers. His current interests seem to be related to "sassy" entertainment pieces.

http://morse.policymic.com/

 

[SMK]

BBM

It seems that some professionals swing either way. For example, Hampikian cannot be included in that claim:

"Last week Hampikian was arguing the reliability of DNA evidence that convicted a man for the 1988 murder of 12-year-old Sarah Cherry in Maine."

http://thefreelancedesk.com/the-secret-u-s-forensic-defense-of-amanda-knox/

I would take this as being to Dr. Hampikian's credit, because it shows a proclivity for objectivity. He does say openly in interviews that sometimes his work with the Innocence Project led to convictions being upheld. This is as it should be. I can't grasp his technical language so have been unable, alas, to judge his work with the Knox case.

 

[SMK]

I'm not ready to accept what he wrote without a little more information - like court documents, or a couple of other articles written by recognized journalists or newpapers. His current interests seem to be related to "sassy" entertainment pieces.

http://morse.policymic.com/

Yes, I would agree with you, otto.

 

[whoanellie]

Your argument doesn't work. The photos of the luminiol print imply heavy blood loss even seeping into the cracks of the tiles yet the murder happened in the bedroom. If it was blood and there was a clean up then the footprint wouldn't be there because it was wiped away and all the luminol would show is a swirling pattern.

Actually the footprint that some think should have been so "disturbed" is the bloody footprint that would have dried on bathmat for at least several hours prior to Amanda's shower. In my experience dried blood stains on things such as towels or bathmats are not easy to "disturb" at all. The print is not perfect and I would guess that there is nothing about the print that is inconsistent with a subsequent exposure to a dripping wet person. On the other hand I wouldn't expect a dripping and shimmying Amanda to have dramatically altered a footprint left in dried blood.

For Heaven's sake haven't these people tried to clean up a blood stain?

 

[SMK]

It's not rocket science Otto. Amanda was seen wearing those clothes at 8:40 pm the night of the murder. The afternoon of the following day, they are on her bed and Amanda is wearing different clothes. Consistent with Amanda's story of taking a shower and changing clothes that morning.

This upends a lot: Who was this witness?