Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#5

[SMK]

UPDATE NOV. 23, 2013
Monday and Tuesday the prosecution and civil parties will make their cases in the Florence court of appeals, which is currently hearing the appeal of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. It is the second appeals trial in this case. The first appeal, which resulted in acquittal, was annulled by Italy’s Supreme Court in March 2013. The court remanded the case back down to appeal, in another jurisdiction outside Umbria.

On the eve of the prosecution’s case to the Florence court of appeals this coming Monday comes news that an internal review is being conducted of the appropriateness of of spending 182,000 euros ($240,000) in public monies to create a 23-minute high definition animated video used in the first Amanda Knox trial, in which she was convicted. The 23-minute high-definition video was approved by prosecutor Manuela Comodi, who curated the forensic aspect of the trial. Those in the video/tv/graphics business know HD graphics can be very costly, costing up to thousands of euros per minute.

But $240,000? It simply seems too much. And Comodi is being asked to justify this expense to the National Council of Magistrates in December. But as with almost every story that breaks on this case, there is more to the story than meets the eye. A review of the facts shows it was an anonymous group of Perugia citizens who filed a denuncia (formal complaint) with the Umbria audit office regarding the costly video and who it was awarded to and why (worth considering: who were these anonymous citizens and were they in any way related to the media group who did not get the bid?). An important detail might be the fact that the invoice for video services incorporated a much larger documentation project that included the animated video, but also a number of other media services, including video recording of witnesses testimony and key court hearings and presentations.

Prosecutors in Perugia apparently thought it necessary to have a master file of recorded trial testimony on file as part of the case record. Hence the price tag is for much more than just the animated video.

For the record, the animated video shown on the final day of closing arguments, as I reported from court here and mentioned again in this more broad analysis of the trial, was not a particularly effective tool for making the prosecution’s case. The oversexualized cartoon reenactment featuring badly-stereotyped avatars and seemed trivial and silly compared to the more compelling original testimony of police and witnesses, which jury members heard in the trial of first instance, but not in the appeal. A waste of money? Probably.

http://thefreelancedesk.com/front_featured/amanda-knox-appeal-2/

 

[Yellow]

I think my post was indirectly supported by all of this.

It could be that alllllllllllllllllllllll of those people have various "problems," such as being either confused, scared, partly truthful, unsure, prejudiced, misunderstood, sloppy, careless, timid, etc.. - OR IT COULD BE THAT just 3 PEOPLE ARE LYING BECAUSE THEY"RE GUILTY. I know which one makes more sense to me personally.

That is the thing, you don't need to buy ALL of the "problems"; you just have to believe there is "problems" with some of them. This case is not to prove AK innocent, it is to prove hr guilty.

Indeed, w all this evidence I think people have issues withe the fact that there are "excuses" for each individual piece of evidence but when piled up they do not buy that all of the "excuses" could all be true

But you do not have to buy all of the "excuses"; you just have to buy the mere reasonable possibility of some of them... Then this case comes falling down

And some evidence is more important than others, such as the DNA evidence, which has, to me, the most compelling "excuse."

Like I said once you buy the mere possibility that some of the excuses happened this case cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. You do not need to buy all of the excuses

 

[Yellow]

Has there ever been a case where the prosecution in a stabbing said something was the murder weapon, yet there was no evidence of blood of the stabbing object? And no evidence of bleach either to clean up said blood?

Has there ever been a case where the prosecution says it is the murder weapon and the weapon does not have blood AND it also does not match the wounds? I mean, isn't that how they prove it is the murder weapon - by matching the wounds?

 

[SMK]

Has there ever been a case where the prosecution in a stabbing said something was the murder weapon, yet there was no evidence of blood of the stabbing object? And no evidence of bleach either to clean up said blood?

Has there ever been a case where the prosecution says it is the murder weapon and the weapon does not have blood AND it also does not match the wounds? I mean, isn't that how they prove it is the murder weapon - by matching the wounds?

Did they admit it did not match the wounds? (not being snarky; really don't know this info. )

 

[geevee]

Prosecution and civil parties will be in court Nov 25,26
Then Knox and Sollecito defenses December 16, 17
Then rebuttals and jury deliberation Jan 9-10

Thanks SMK, I had no idea of the schedule.

 

[sherlockh]

Let's try to keep the information on this thread as fact based as we can... If there are court documents or msm links that proof drugs were purchased that night from Rudy then link it please. Also, if there were blood tests done on Amanda or Rafaelle showing hard drugs in their system or hair, otherwise it is pure speculation. When I first became a member here and was following the Annie Le case I witnessed speculation grow and grow into later being posted as a fact and in the end it turned out to be false.

It is in the book 'Angel face' by Barbie Nadeau.
http://books.google.com/books?isbn=1458761258

As for Amanda and Raf, when they were finally arrested, on November 6, only the slightest trace of narcotics was found through hair samples - not even enough to identify the substance.

So they did test positive, but a hair test so shortly after the murder night wouldn't show much if drugs were taken. At least we can say that they were not regular hard drug users otherwise it would have shown in their hair samples IMO.

 

[Harmony 2]

It is in the book 'Angel face' by Barbie Nadeau.
http://books.google.com/books?isbn=1458761258

So they did test positive, but a hair test so shortly after the murder night wouldn't show much if drugs were taken. At least we can say that they were not regular hard drug users otherwise it would have shown in their hair samples IMO.

That would indicate they were not long term daily users of drugs... thanks

On another note, Amanda's dna was not found in samples taken from beneath each of Meredith's fingernails. The DNA matched Meredith.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Other_DNA_Evidence

 

[SMK]

That would indicate they were not long term daily users of drugs... thanks

On another note, Amanda's dna was not found in samples taken from beneath each of Meredith's fingernails. The DNA matched Meredith.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Other_DNA_Evidence

So this would dispel the idea that the unexplained scratch on Knox's neck was from Meredith. (each time I discover a solid proof/pointer of guilt, it vanishes, it would seem)

 

[sherlockh]

I mentioned the crime scene. There is evidence of all three liars all over the crime scene. There is evidence of Guede from the exterior door to Meredith's bedroom and the large bathroom. There is evidence of Knox in the small bathroom, the hallway and Filomina's bedroom. There is evidence of Sollecito in the small bathroom and Meredith's bedroom. In fact, there is evidence of all three throughout the crime scene.

Why would we want to restrict the perimeter of the scene of the murder to a few feet on either side of the victim's body when there is crucial evidence throughout the crime scene? That is, what is the purpose of redefining and reducing the perimeter of the crime scene? Should Guede's footprints and feces be excluded and, if so, why? Should the broken window be excluded and, if so, why?

ETA: in fact, it seems that by eliminating the evidence of the broken window, we are left with no alternative but to conclude that the murderer entered the cottage with a key: Knox

If there wasn't any evidence there wouldn't be a zillion pages in this thread discussing the 'no evidence'

 

[redheadedgal]

in an attempt to clear up one of the mistruths still held and perpetuated in this case:

amanda did not require a work visa to work @ le chic. her employment there was absolutely legal:

1) The residence permit for study permits the holding of part-time work for a maximum of 20 hours per week and an annual limit of 1,040 hours.

http://www.microsofttranslator.com/...it/immigrazionenet/APR_PDS_Motivi_Studio.aspx

 

[aa9511]

My only point of contention would be that the testimony of an alleged co-conspirator/accessory before/after the fact, MUST NECESSARILY (in IL law) be truthful and NOT skirt the 'dealmakers' culpability in the crime - in order to fulfill their part of the bargain - the immunity from prosecution.

Were the prosecution to discover that they dealmaker had lied regarding their guilt/culpability - perhaps, even, been a party to the murder when they had testified/made a deal for immunity from prosecution based upon simply accessory status - well, that would negate the deal. Even the opposing side of the coin - lied to pin it on her, simply to get out - also a negating circumstance. It would be SUCH a risk to take - guilt notwithstanding. I don't think any inference regarding his guilt/innocence can be drawn from his decision not to accept an immunity agreement.

So, were he to pin it on Amanda simply for a deal - should he have lied in any serious fashion, he would be negating the deal for himself.

Note: This is IL law. I'm unsure as to the intricacies of other US states but I would wager it's in a similar vein. The question of course is how it works in Perugia but I wanted to offer my views...

*JMO of course

Thanks, very interesting.

 

[sherlockh]

Why is it assumed that Guede looked out Filomina's bedroom window? Guede doesn't specify which window he looked out of. If it was Filomina's window and if the shutters were open, could he have looked out of the window from the hallway? Couldn't he also have looked out Knox's window, or the window in the laundry area? In any case, he says nothing about leaning out Filomina's window.

"Guede said he heard footsteps leaving the house and looked out of the window, where he saw a silhouette that he later identified as Knox's."

It is in the Micheli report that he looked from Filomena's window, so I guess it could mean that he went into that room, but he did that before going into the murder room. If he had been covering for any possible evidence found then why would he not say he touched a bunch of stuff or had blood on him or something. As far as I know, 'looking' does not leave any DNA.

Same for the small bathroom. He said he got some towels but nowhere does he claim to have washed his bloody hands or taken off his bloody shoe and socks or walking around with a bloody towel or anything that would explain the blood around. So I am not really seeing any covering of traces since there was blood involved.

He does however cover for traces found in the murder room. Here it becomes obvious. He said he got blood on his hands and touched a bunch of stuff around. He said he had consensual sex with Meredith. He said he had a date with Meredith. That is all covering. Very different from the stories about the bathroom and Filomena's room IMO.

 

[aa9511]

Yes, I see it is described here, but could not find an image which showed it:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/feb/15/meredith-kercher-knox-trial

Do you know if it was a wound like a bruise, or was it a scratch like from fingernails, or like a small cut from a knife? If it was under her chin, wouldn't the police have noticed it on the day the body was found, where they talked to her (Amanda)?

I'm also curious as to does anyone know what the results were for Meredith's fingernails? I'm assuming nothing was found under them as it said there was no sign of a defensive struggle. So where would the scratch have come from? They must have tested under her fingernails? Unless it was a scratch from RS or Rudy?

 

[aa9511]

That is very suspicious on the morning after the murder!

 

[sherlockh]

So this would dispel the idea that the unexplained scratch on Knox's neck was from Meredith. (each time I discover a solid proof/pointer of guilt, it vanishes, it would seem)

Meredith had very short nails so it is possible that no DNA was left under her fingernails.
From the Massei report:

Only the DNA of the victim was found in the samples taken from underneath the fingernails. It was noted, however, that the nails were very short and probably could not have given any significant scratches to the attacker.

The scratch on Knox's neck was not significant and also not by itself solid proof of guilt. I don't remember it was ever presented as such. More interesting is that Knox said it was a hickey and people discussing what a hickey looks like

 

[aa9511]

Otto, I also see there is a brief 2013 discussion about it here:

http://gator941.hostgator.com/~mich...&start=0&sid=ba7d2ef32dcebdcb47990a898322bacf

Wow. No, that does not look like a hickey or a love bite. Like Laura said, that would be more rounded and purple and have a very different appearance. This one is long and vertical.

I just have to say, wow. That is a pretty convincing thing to add to the already big pile of evidence.

 

[aa9511]

That is the thing, you don't need to buy ALL of the "problems"; you just have to believe there is "problems" with some of them. This case is not to prove AK innocent, it is to prove hr guilty.

Indeed, w all this evidence I think people have issues withe the fact that there are "excuses" for each individual piece of evidence but when piled up they do not buy that all of the "excuses" could all be true

But you do not have to buy all of the "excuses"; you just have to buy the mere reasonable possibility of some of them... Then this case comes falling down

And some evidence is more important than others, such as the DNA evidence, which has, to me, the most compelling "excuse."

Like I said once you buy the mere possibility that some of the excuses happened this case cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. You do not need to buy all of the excuses

Personally, I think all of the evidence together is very convincing.

 

[redheadedgal]

That is very suspicious on the morning after the murder!

not so suspicious after a night of sex... google "hickey on neck" and see corresponding images

round? not long and vertical? not necessarily: http://www.experienceproject.com/stories/Like-Getting-Hickeys/1813831

 

[aa9511]

It is in the book 'Angel face' by Barbie Nadeau.
http://books.google.com/books?isbn=1458761258

So they did test positive, but a hair test so shortly after the murder night wouldn't show much if drugs were taken. At least we can say that they were not regular hard drug users otherwise it would have shown in their hair samples IMO.

Thanks Sherlockh!

 

[aa9511]

That would indicate they were not long term daily users of drugs... thanks

On another note, Amanda's dna was not found in samples taken from beneath each of Meredith's fingernails. The DNA matched Meredith. http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Other_DNA_Evidence

BBM

I would suggest that it is still not certain whether they were or were not, because certainly after the murder they would have probably not done hard drugs just in case they were ever brought in for testing. If they are guilty, that makes a lot of sense. Trying to "stay low" and not get on the policia's radar, so to speak. So considering how the circumstances were highly unusual, I would not take that as indicative of their general behavior.