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

[aa9511]

Oh, I can't find Harmony's post now, but I found this:

Samples taken from under her fingernails yielded only her own DNA. The court noted that her finger nails were very short and probably would not inflict significant scratches on an attacker. [190]

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Summary_of_the_Massei_Report#Meredith_Kercher_2

I also saw on another couple of websites, it said nobody's else DNA was found under her fingernails.

The fact that no one'e DNA was found under her nails, though, supports that she was restrained. She had to have been, I see no other way. If one of her hands was free, you can bet she would have been clawing and trying to get away. So the fact that apparently her nails were tested and yielded nothing, that tells me she was restrained (as we all probably know), and so how would Rudy have been able to restrain both her hands and stab her at the same time.....impossible.

 

[geevee]

*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.

In the picture of her hand posted a few pages back (with the blonde hair) it does not look like anyone cut her nails recently before that shot was taken (attacker or ME), and I firmly doubt any attacker is going to find clippers and cut fingernails before leaving the scene of a murder.

Just moo

 

[miley]

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

Yes it would. As a rule of thumb, hair follicle tests shows a 90 day history. If someone is accused of doing drugs, today, Nov. 24, wait 7-10 days, (time required for new hair growth) a month even... after that waiting period, a new test would reveal drug use within the 90 day window, catching the day of Nov.24 which would fall somewhere in the middle.

 

[aa9511]

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 not. I wanted to get more familiar with the case before I read it so I can catch all her lies.

 

[geevee]

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....

If a nail scratches across the surface of something and leaves an abrasion, I would believe, no matter how close the nail was trimmed, that skin cells and dna would be there. They did find dna in her nail clippings but it belonged to MK, not AK or anyone else, so some (probably her blood) did collect under her nails and was identified.

Check the hand pic a couple pages back, her nails are not all that short, you can see white tips.

 

[otto]

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.

Animated crime scene re-enactment was used in the Trayvon Martin trial. No one has called that re-enactment a cartoon. It seems that again, something is lost in translation. Crime scene re-enactment tools have been around for a long time and are becoming increasingly common in trials. To label a crime scene re-enactment "a cartoon" - like a funny entertainment piece for children - doesn't seem quite right.

 

[SMK]

If a nail scratches across the surface of something and leaves an abrasion, I would believe, no matter how close the nail was trimmed, that skin cells and dna would be there. They did find dna in her nail clippings but it belonged to MK, not AK or anyone else, so some (probably her blood) did collect under her nails and was identified.

Check the hand pic a couple pages back, her nails are not all that short, you can see white tips.

Thank you. yes, I did see, and this is what I had thought would be the case. Could not find anything about dna with fingernail scratches when I googled. Thanks again.

 

[SMK]

Animated crime scene re-enactment was used in the Trayvon Martin trial. No one has called that re-enactment a cartoon. It seems that again, something is lost in translation. Crime scene re-enactment tools have been around for a long time and are becoming increasingly common in trials. To label a crime scene re-enactment "a cartoon" - like a funny entertainment piece for children - doesn't seem quite right.

Is there any way to still link to this re-enactment? I cannot find it anywhere. Perhaps they don't want it public.

 

[SMK]

Yes it would. As a rule of thumb, hair follicle tests shows a 90 day history. If someone is accused of doing drugs, today, Nov. 24, wait 7-10 days, (time required for new hair growth) a month even... after that waiting period, a new test would reveal drug use within the 90 day window, catching the day of Nov.24 which would fall somewhere in the middle.

So by all accounts, Knox and Sollecito were not using a lot of drugs prior to the murder, then. Correct?

 

[otto]

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....

A scratch/abrasion can occur from an altercation. It does not need to be caused by a fingernail.

 

[SMK]

I was reading the murder wiki, which asks, "Who returned to move Meredith?", claiming that the victim was moved from the wardrobe to the center of the room, and her bra removed, [as part of the simulation, to make it appear an intruder was there, who assaulted the victim] quite some time after death:

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Staged_Burglary#Who_Returned_To_Move_Meredith.3F


Countering this, Fisher asserts in his text:

<modsnip>

Fisher claims this is just simply a falsehood, and that pictures show droplets on her bare breasts from the wound which indicates that no one had to have come and moved her or removed the bra at a later time - it was removed before she died.

Can anyone offer insights??
I find this all quite confusing.

 

[otto]

Is there any way to still link to this re-enactment? I cannot find it anywhere. Perhaps they don't want it public.

I have never seen more than screen shots. The tool used is either Autodesk 3D Max or Maya. There is nothing unusual with presenting an animated crime scene re-enactment during trial, and there is nothing unusual about a 23 minute re-enactment being very expensive. The re-enactment was professionally done, as it should be, and several people worked on the project. We can see an identical style and characterization of the participants in the crime in the Trayvon Martin crime scene re-enactment. It is 1:35 in length, so it would have cost a lot less.

http://www.wftv.com/videos/news/trayvon-martin-shooting-reenactment-animation/vGfcS/

 

[aa9511]

The hair was lost before it was tested I believe.

The hair, the hair is huge, IMO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Omg, I cannot believe this, how could it have gotten lost??? That hair would have been HUGE, did I say that already. I mean, HUGE! If that had been Amanda's hair, her fate would have been sealed. There is no explaining away they could have done. It did not just drop there, it was in her hands as if she had been grasping at it. Ugh. I cannot believe this. That would have proved it 100%, IMO.

 

[SMK]

The hair, the hair is huge, IMO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Omg, I cannot believe this, how could it have gotten lost??? That hair would have been HUGE, did I say that already. I mean, HUGE! If that had been Amanda's hair, her fate would have been sealed. There is no explaining away they could have done. It did not just drop there, it was in her hands as if she had been grasping at it. Ugh. I cannot believe this. That would have proved it 100%, IMO.

Yes, it seems a very strange twist of fate that it was lost. As it is clearly in the picture, you would think the next step would be to lift it with a tweezer, put it in a sterile bag or container, and test it. Very odd that it was lost.

 

[otto]

I was reading the murder wiki, which asks, "Who returned to move Meredith?", claiming that the victim was moved from the wardrobe to the center of the room, and her bra removed, [as part of the simulation, to make it appear an intruder was there, who assaulted the victim] quite some time after death:

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Staged_Burglary#Who_Returned_To_Move_Meredith.3F


Countering this, Fisher asserts in his text:

<modsnip>

Fisher claims this is just simply a falsehood, and that pictures show droplets on her bare breasts from the wound which indicates that no one had to have come and moved her or removed the bra at a later time - it was removed before she died.

Can anyone offer insights??
I find this all quite confusing.

Meredith was attacked with her bra exposed. Blood was on the bra, and not on her skin, in the area where she was protected by the bra. She was found not wearing her bra, and there was no blood on her skin in the area where the bra was.

There is blood pooling evidence to support that she was moved. There is a lot of blood near the closet and on one of her shoulders, but the position in which she was found apparently did not support the blood pooling near the closet nor on her shoulder.

 

[aa9511]

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.

I don't believe this has to be the case. She would have had to have been scratched or something to where her skin cells would have fallen. If someone is just pushing onto something, how would their DNA fall on it?? It makes more sense that there would be DNA there if while she was holding her, she was scratched so that skin cells fell, or cut to where her blood would have dripped there. I don't think it's true that if you just hold someone, your DNA would necessarily have to be on that person.

 

[otto]

Yes, it seems a very strange twist of fate that it was lost. As it is clearly in the picture, you would think the next step would be to lift it with a tweezer, put it in a sterile bag or container, and test it. Very odd that it was lost.

I don't think it makes much difference. It may have been Meredith's hair ... revealing nothing. It may have been Knox's hair, but we already know how that debate would go. Knox lived there, so of course her hair was there, so a hair belonging to Knox in the victim's hand is ... meaningless, just like all the other evidence.

 

[aa9511]

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

Interesting. I do believe that if this case had been in the U.S., the blood experts would have done a much better job of putting the blood evidence together for a better understanding of what happened. Those are what are reffered to as "blood swipes" I believe (just got rudimentary knowledge from the Arias case). Like when someone has blood on them and they lean against a wall or something while moving. Those look like swipes to me. Another type would be blood spatter, which would come from the spraying when contact is first made with the body from the knife.

 

[Harmony 2]

Animated crime scene re-enactment was used in the Trayvon Martin trial. No one has called that re-enactment a cartoon. It seems that again, something is lost in translation. Crime scene re-enactment tools have been around for a long time and are becoming increasingly common in trials. To label a crime scene re-enactment "a cartoon" - like a funny entertainment piece for children - doesn't seem quite right.

The word "cartoon" came from Andrea Vogt's article:

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

 

[aa9511]

I don't think it makes much difference. It may have been Meredith's hair ... revealing nothing. It may have been Knox's hair, but we already know how that debate would go. Knox lived there, so of course her hair was there, so a hair belonging to Knox in the victim's hand is ... meaningless, just like all the other evidence.

Yes, but Meredith's hair was dark! And why would Meredith have her own hair in her hand? She was obviously grabbing onto someone's hair for that hair to be in her hand.

I agree that they would have tried to explain it away, but IMO that is something that could not have been explained away. <modsnip>.