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

[SMK]

http://groundreport.com/the-smear-campaign/

Yes, I understand that this is all very persuasive.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Another thing I wonder about: If there was no evidence of defensive wounds, and if it appears she was restrained by multiple attackers, were any of the bruisings indicative of someone's fingers grasping and holding? (usually that is how you would restrain someone: By firmly grasping their arm or wrist and holding on with all your strength.) Wouldn't this leave hand marks of finger-shaped bruises? Was this ever mentioned?

The cartoon indicated that Amanda was responsible for some bruising on Meredith, if I correctly remember Barbie's description of it. If she were restrained to the point of bruising, there probably would have been DNA transfer as well.

 

[minazoe]

People may be interested to read about the Juliana Redding case which was in 48 hours tonight. The defense case sounded utterly preposterous but the defendant got off

The defendant allegedly left DNA all over the crime scene. But defense argued that the real killer grabbed a rag that had the defendant's DNA and then spread it all over the crime scene. The defendant and victim did not know each other, yet somehow the killer got a rag with the defendant's DNA and then wiped it and that explains multiple pieces of DNA all over the crime scene - body, clothes, blood evidence in a fingerprint, etc. DNA was all over, and secondary transfer explains ALL of if, the defense said

And the defense was acquitted!

It sounds utterly preposterous. But the defense raises reasonable doubt to explain all of that DNA - and they succeeded. I personally would have found the D guilty but it just goes to show how reasonable doubt operates in a much much stronger DNA case than this one! In that are the jury certainly went overboard bc one cannot believe that much DNA could be transferred. But here the DNA evidence is so thin, it is not a stretch to say it is problems.

It's so funny you mention this...because it immediately made me think of the Knox case...but for a different reason....

It made me realize that a woman can really kill someone and like it...do it as a job...in a mundane kind of way...usually we think of women shooting, poisoning...even stabbing...but beating? Overpowering another female with sheer force...

I think we always think of men first...but Amanda does look sort of powerful...

 

[minazoe]

I don't know what happened that night, but Amanda is unusual...So I think this contributes to the finger pointing...has anyone read her book?

 

[SMK]

I don't know what happened that night, but Amanda is unusual...So I think this contributes to the finger pointing...has anyone read her book?

I have sometimes wondered if her having a disordered personality made her suspect. Well, of course it did - but this might have been true even if innocent. I have not read her book.

 

[geevee]

Considering the lack of defensive wounds it is assumed she was restrained well.

IMO It's more likely that she would have DNA under her nails if RG was the lone wolf. After all he somehow had to have her completely restrained while wielding a knife and removing her clothes.

This BBC article says no skin or DNA was found underneath MK's fingernails, I believe I read upthread that her nails were short and the only DNA found in the clippings was her own.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8390909.stm

 

[whoanellie]

Speaking as a scientist, Barbie's statement literally makes no sense. How is it possible that you have enough material to say that something is present but not enough to know what it is? Barbie's reporting on the forensics of this case has been her weakest area, IMO, and this continues in that tradition. If one is trying to claim that something is a narcotic on the basis of a hunch, then one has left good forensics behind. Here is a FAQ list. "It takes approximately 7-10 days from the time of drug use for the effected hair to grow above the scalp." and "For head hair, Omega's standard window of detection is 90 days. However, longer and shorter timeframes are possible. Body hair samples are noted as an approximately 12 month timeframe." Therefore, if the authorities believed that Knox and Sollecito took drugs less than 7 days before their incarceration, they could have sampled again later.

I had the same thought. On its face, it makes no sense that a test could detect a trace of "narcotics" but not be able to identify the specific drug. I would need a lot more info to accept Barbie's claim.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I don't know what happened that night, but Amanda is unusual...So I think this contributes to the finger pointing...has anyone read her book?

Yes, and I found it very helpful to understanding this case. She got a few things wrong, but IMO it did not distract from the main points.

 

[Harmony 2]

Mod note:
Only victims, suspects, and parties directly involved in a case may be referred to by name. All others must be referred to by their initials, and can only be discussed in the context of their reported (by MSM) participation in a case.

 

[SMK]

Sorry for the graphic nature of this picture (url from Hendry) but is this handprint of the victim accounted for within the multiple attackers scenario? RH accounts for it by proposing that the victim attempted to rise one last time; would this be possible in the case of multiple attackers?


http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/rh120.JPG

 

[Amber29]

Sorry for the graphic nature of this picture (url from Hendry) but is this handprint of the victim accounted for within the multiple attackers scenario? RH accounts for it by proposing that the victim attempted to rise one last time; would this be possible in the case of multiple attackers?


http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/rh120.JPG

Once she was mortally wounded I doubt there was much need to restrain her as she wasn't going far and most likely wasn't a threat.

 

[sherlockh]

It's hard to imagine them having the wherewithal to clip her nails under those circumstances. And then where did they put the clippings?

*Snipped*. It is a whole lot more likely then the coroner clipping the nails without informing the DNA expert. The coroner reports everything he does. There is no evidence that he clipped the nails and threw the clippings away. It doesn't work like that. It just shows how easily everyone involved in this case is attacked. I think probably Meredith cut her own nails. Of course, there is no proof of anyone else cutting Meredith's nails that night, but there is plenty of proof of a cleaning and staging taking place. If I think of that and the picture of the scratch on Knox's neck then it wouldn't surprise me at all that she decided to cut the nails. That is JMO.

 

[SMK]

*Snipped*. It is a whole lot more likely then the coroner clipping the nails without informing the DNA expert. The coroner reports everything he does. There is no evidence that he clipped the nails and threw the clippings away. It doesn't work like that. It just shows how easily everyone involved in this case is attacked. I think probably Meredith cut her own nails. Of course, there is no proof of anyone else cutting Meredith's nails that night, but there is plenty of proof of a cleaning and staging taking place. If I think of that and the picture of the scratch on Knox's neck then it wouldn't surprise me at all that she decided to cut the nails. That is JMO.

Yes, Joel Steinberg chewed all his fingernails down and spat them into the garbage while waiting for police to arrive. It's possible;

I guess also as you say maybe Meredith had a reason for cutting them a bit shorter (perhaps she had broken some while cleaning and decided to trim them all down.)

 

[SMK]

Once she was mortally wounded I doubt there was much need to restrain her as she wasn't going far and most likely wasn't a threat.

True. I just wondered about the victim's frame of mind (attempting to rise in a room where 3 others who just attacked you are present) but I suppose in such a horrific situation, poor MK's actions were automatic. Maybe going for cell phone to call 112 if others were out of the room (and had taken the phones for this reason mayhap).

 

[sherlockh]

Speaking as a scientist, Barbie's statement literally makes no sense. How is it possible that you have enough material to say that something is present but not enough to know what it is? Barbie's reporting on the forensics of this case has been her weakest area, IMO, and this continues in that tradition. If one is trying to claim that something is a narcotic on the basis of a hunch, then one has left good forensics behind. Here is a FAQ list. "It takes approximately 7-10 days from the time of drug use for the effected hair to grow above the scalp." and "For head hair, Omega's standard window of detection is 90 days. However, longer and shorter timeframes are possible. Body hair samples are noted as an approximately 12 month timeframe." Therefore, if the authorities believed that Knox and Sollecito took drugs less than 7 days before their incarceration, they could have sampled again later.

That would never prove that they took drugs on the night of the murder.

 

[whoanellie]

Is it rumor or fact? The prosecution video budget is also being investigated. And then there is the Hampikian talk. Well, I guess on both sides this all goes round and round. I had been under the impression that Mignini had already been convicted and had received jail time (while Amanda was still in jail).

Can you explain what you mean by "Hampikian talk"?

 

[SMK]

Can you explain what you mean by "Hampikian talk"?

Oh, the trade secret stuff that Vogt wrote about, and the Innocence Project losing funding, etc. Part of the tit-for-tat sparring on both sides. I'm not paying it much mind...

 

[SMK]

Just a question so I can lay the "unexplained scratch" to rest in my mind: If you scratch someone with your fingernail and your nail is short, does it still of necessity get DNA beneath? Just wanted to cross this one off the list....

 

[aa9511]

i find this odd. in the various pics of her, it appears she kept her nails on the longer side:

http://2.citynews-today.stgy.it/~media/originale/21822447732725/meredith-kercher-2.jpg

pic 20: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pic...e-murdered-British-student.html?frame=2206666


were her nails clipped during the autopsy? (a usual protocol after a murder)

Photo no. 16 with her and her mother is so sweet.

Yes, it looks like she kept her nails neat and certainly not short. Not very long either, in between.

 

[aa9511]

Here is a crime scene pic of Meredith's hand. Her hands were bagged but that hair that was in her hand was lost I believe. Her nails do appear short. Graphic I'm sorry.
http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image_page.php?album_id=21&image_id=3316

They seem to be extending just a little over her nailbed. So I would say there would have been enough there to test under the nails....which they should have done!! Maybe they did, but didn't find anything? A quote someone (Harmony) posted earlier said something like, "DNA under the fingernails was Meredith's DNA." Let me find Harmony's post and move it up.