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

[aa9511]

Why was RS in the courtroom? DId he have to be there? I would think he would want to stay far away..........

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Prosecutor argues to reinstate Knox guilty verdict

COLLEEN BARRY, AP
43 minutes ago

FLORENCE, Italy (AP) — The prosecutor seeking to reinstate Amanda's Knox's guilty verdict in her roommate's 2007 murder urged an appeals court on Monday not to repeat mistakes purportedly made by the court that freed her.

Prosecutor Alessandro Crini said Italy's highest court had "razed to the ground" the Perugia appellate court's 2011 decision to throw out the guilty verdicts by casting doubt on the logic that freed Knox and co-defendant Raffaele Sollecito. The high court ordered a fresh appeals trial, this time in Florence, saying the earlier appeals decision was full of contradictions...

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-world/20131125/EU--Italy-Knox.Trial/

 

[SMK]

SMK, please read my post from above. What is sounds like is, Raffaelo was asking a lot of questions in the car pertaining to details of how her body was found and how she was killed. Guilty people usually want to know what others (namely, investigators/police) know of the details of the crime so they can know what to say and what not to say generally and in questioning.

Thanks--that may be what Follain was getting at, too - as in the text he had Luca wondering why Raffaele was asking such pointed yet 'stupid' questions (was she cut with a knife? (what else))

 

[Sigh Sister]

This question could be posed to any number of posters on here in the "not guilty" category as well.

Of course it could. As a person who believes they are innocent, I think Amanda's lamp in Meredith's room is curious.

Any evidence that gives you pause?

 

[SMK]

Why was RS in the courtroom? DId he have to be there? I would think he would want to stay far away..........

I think he is trying to show a good faith effort.

 

[Yellow]

This question could be posed to any number of posters on here in the "not guilty" category as well.

Well, it seems like no one cares to answer this on the guilty side (nor explain how an allege stabbing weapon could have neither blood nor match the wounds) but I will answer this from the non guilty side.

I think her entire statement - if it was admissible, which it is not - is weird. If that entire statement were deemed admissible, I could see how you could make out a case of guilt.

Yet that statement is not admissible and for a very understandable reason. And even if it was, it just leaves you with reasonable doubt. I could see one scenario how some of the weird things she did could paint a picture of guilt, but that is just it - it is just one scenario. There are multiple other scenarios where it is either ambiguous or she is clearly innocent.

She could have been in the cottage that night, maybe interrupted the thing, maybe even went in the murder room - that explains the lying. But still that does not prove her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

For the record, I don't think she was in the cottage that night but I just don't see how you could get to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt relying on some inconsistencies in statements, some odd behavior of a 20 year old kid and some luminal prints in a house she lived in. So, I guess she walked around barefoot. That proves murder?

If there was blood DNA on the knife that matched the wounds (regular DNA not this low copy unreliable stuff) I would buy the story. You need something tying her to that room. I would also buy into it more if there was multiple low copy MK DNA all over that knife - but there was not.

RG did this plain and simple in a robbery gone bad, IMO. It is a disgrace he is getting out so soon.

 

[aa9511]

44. Points out Sollecito says Romanelli’s door was wide open; Knox doesn’t notice theft. Crini highlights the ‘combination’ of inconsistencies

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index...d_prosecutor_alessandro_crini_summarises_the/

- This is a big point for me. How could Amanda not notice the broken window, which she very conveniently chooses to omit in later recounts of her "morning at the cottage"? Then when RS comes in, he says it's the first thing he noticed that something was very wrong, the broken window. This is where we see the unraveling of their statements/actions begin.....they didn't coordinate this part of their story very well, thus the mistake/inconsistency in this critical aspect of their stories.

But one would expect many inconsistencies like that from two people who are both lying about everything surrounding the murder.

 

[aa9511]

Of course it could. As a person who believes they are innocent, I think Amanda's lamp in Meredith's room is curious.

Any evidence that gives you pause?

Oh really? I have never seen any inkling of pause in any of the not-guilters, so forgive me.

 

[Sigh Sister]

If this is true, this is what it sounds like to me: Raffaelo was trying to get as much information about what the policia/cabinieri had seen or knew, so they could guage what their own response would be to initial questioning. It's what guilty people do - try to find out what others know about the crime. Walks like guilty, talks like guilty, is guilty.

I think it's perfectly natural to ask what happened. I would find NOT asking questions suspect.

 

[Sigh Sister]

Oh really? I have never seen any inkling of pause in any of the not-guilters, so forgive me.

Not sure what there is to forgive? So, is there any evidence that gave you at least a moment of hesitation?

 

[aa9511]

I think it's perfectly natural to ask what happened. I would find NOT asking questions suspect.

Unless it's the guilty person, who already knows everything about how the crime went down, asking the questions. :facepalm:

 

[Yellow]

I'm thinking it was attributed to the largest cut on her neck. They say 2 knifes were used based on the different wounds and that the assault seemed to come from the right and the left. IIRC

I don't think what you assume should be there matters. I assume there should be RGs DNA in the small bathroom where he supposedly washed himself and there's not but what do I know.

Do you have the ME report saying the knife is not consistent?

It is my understanding that the prosecution does not contest that the knife wounds from the DNA knife do not match. Their solution is that there is some missing bigger knife that made the wounds.

So they think the DNA knife was used to kill MR yet it left no blood on the blade nor does it even match the wounds. I think that would be a first in the history of crime to claim something is the murder weapon where it neither has blood nor matches the cuts.

The reason why the situation you cite w RG is not comparable is bc we already have RG DNA all over the body, the murder room, he admits being in the house at the time of the crime, sure, more DNA evidence would help but there is already so much we don't need more

Other than the low copy DNA on knife and bra clasp (collected violating 50 different protocols) they have no DNA of AK or RS in the murderroom. They have no physical evidence tying them to the crime at all. That is why the prosecutor made a big stink on testing more of that knife - they thought they would find more DNA. But all they found was a tiny part found by techniques rejected by the scientific community. No appeals could is going to uphold a guilty verdict if it is based on that. Indeed, I never heard of a court upholding a verdict based on a testing affirmatively rejected by the scientific community. Maybe someone else knows a case where that happened but I doubt it would be upheld on appeal in the end.

 

[Myvice]

p 83 Follain A Death in Itay I may have had the wrong Luca ( the forensic pathologist) But some Luca did in fact give them details of the crime in the car (see Follain page 83)

But the problem is that Amanda told them she was killed by the wardrobe and not where she was found. She was questioned about it at court and couldn't explain how she would know that detail without witnessing the crime.

 

[Yellow]

Warning: The Associated Press’s Colleen Barry is once again filing highly biased reports from the court. This is an appeal by Knox and Sollecito AGAINST a guilty verdict (by Judge Massei) and not an appeal by the prosecution to “reinstate” a guilty verdict. Get a grip.

FRom: http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index...d_prosecutor_alessandro_crini_summarises_the/

Just a question, why are we allowed to cite to clearly pro guilt websites (and likewise I have also seen pro innocent ones too?) I could see citing to court documents on such sites, but I thought we were not allowed to cite to blogs. It seems like people throw around comments on those sites (on both sides I might add) as facts as opposed to stating that what those sites report is merely opinion?

 

[Sigh Sister]

Unless it's the guilty person, who already knows everything about how the crime went down, asking the questions. :facepalm:

Pretty weak piece of evidence to place in the "guilty" column, imo.

 

[aa9511]

Not sure what there is to forgive? So, is there any evidence that gave you at least a moment of hesitation?

Yes, that there isn't more signs of Amanda and RS in the murder room, such as more DNA or footprints or other evidence. But there are several theories I have....first of all, they had time to clean up after the murder. Second, I have seen other stabbing cases where there was little or no perp DNA left near the body or in the crime scene for that matter. Usually this is the case when it's either pre-planned, or when the perp has time to clean up afterwards. Third, yes, the investigators/evidence-gatherers could have made mistakes.....but I have a different take on those "mistakes".....that they probably missed a lot of crucial information/evidence. I think there was a lot more evidence of RS and Amanda in that room, and the investigators just didn't see it, didn't gather it, and thus didn't test it. Example A would be the hair in Meredith's hand. They can only gather information from what they collect to test. There was probably a lot more DNA/evidence in that room, as well as in the bathroom, hallway, Filomena's room, which they failed to notice, thus failed to collect and test. MOO.

So that's my answer.

 

[Amber29]

Well, it seems like no one cares to answer this on the guilty side (nor explain how an allege stabbing weapon could have neither blood nor match the wounds) but I will answer this from the non guilty side.

I think her entire statement - if it was admissible, which it is not - is weird. If that entire statement were deemed admissible, I could see how you could make out a case of guilt.

Yet that statement is not admissible and for a very understandable reason. And even if it was, it just leaves you with reasonable doubt. I could see one scenario how some of the weird things she did could paint a picture of guilt, but that is just it - it is just one scenario. There are multiple other scenarios where it is either ambiguous or she is clearly innocent.

She could have been in the cottage that night, maybe interrupted the thing, maybe even went in the murder room - that explains the lying. But still that does not prove her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

For the record, I don't think she was in the cottage that night but I just don't see how you could get to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt relying on some inconsistencies in statements, some odd behavior of a 20 year old kid and some luminal prints in a house she lived in. So, I guess she walked around barefoot. That proves murder?

If there was blood DNA on the knife that matched the wounds (regular DNA not this low copy unreliable stuff) I would buy the story. You need something tying her to that room. I would also buy into it more if there was multiple low copy MK DNA all over that knife - but there was not.

RG did this plain and simple in a robbery gone bad, IMO. It is a disgrace he is getting out so soon.

Yellow I'm sorry it seems people who find her guilty have listed the evidence repeatedly. For me the evidence as a WHOLE paints a clear picture beyond a reasonable doubt.
You have doubts that I don't share. Please don't lump us into a whole that don't want to answer questions. I can't think of a question you have asked that hasn't been answered by someone.

 

[Yellow]

Oh really? I have never seen any inkling of pause in any of the not-guilters, so forgive me.

So far it is only two Pro innocent people even answering the question.

I don't think anyone on either side of this case can see every single piece of evidence supporting their side without any trace of reasonable doubt. Pro guilt may think on the whole it shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but I would suspect that most would think at least some single pieces of evidence are subject to doubt or multiple possible interpretations.

And for pro innocence, one can make out a scenario of guilt especially if you uses her statement. But getting to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is another matter.

 

[Yellow]

Yellow I'm sorry it seems people who find her guilty have listed the evidence repeatedly. For me the evidence as a WHOLE paints a clear picture beyond a reasonable doubt.
You have doubts that I don't share. Please don't lump us into a whole that don't want to answer questions. I can't think of a question you have asked that hasn't been answered by someone.

<modsnip> Do people think it was cleaned and if so how could you clean it and still leave the DNA (low copy)? Do people think that we should use low copy DNA testing as evidence? Or do people not believe the knife is the murder weapon but they still think the other evidence is strong enough to convict so they don't even care about the knife?

 

[aa9511]

Just a question, why are we allowed to cite to clearly pro guilt websites (and likewise I have also seen pro innocent ones too?) I could see citing to court documents on such sites, but I thought we were not allowed to cite to blogs. It seems like people throw around comments on those sites (on both sides I might add) as facts as opposed to stating that what those sites report is merely opinion?

True. Personally, I rarely post links at all (as everyone probably knows), and don't go a lot to either pro-guilt or pro-innocence sites. But when something they say is clearly true, then.....? For example, here they said Colleen Barry wrote a falsehood and a misleading article, which is the truth. She completely took the appeal out-of-context and it serves to mislead a lot of "regular" citizens who don't know much about the case and read something like that. I have seen this countless times.