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

[Amber29]

:floorlaugh:


Maybe MK borrowed that lamp, that night or during the week prior. AK had basically not been sleeping there all week and it does not seem like she was doing much studying unlike MK.

RG need not touch everything in the room,

It is also backwards logic to imply that just bc RG has no DNA in the rock room that is somehow equivalent to saying that it is the same as AK and RS not leaving DNA in the murder room. Not all evidence is of equal importance, some, such as DNA in the actual murder room, is the most important of all. That matches RG without question - all over the place. Evidence though not DNA adds further illumination on how RG got in the house, etc, but it is not needed. The evidence supports multiple ways RG could have gotten in, he could have broke through with the rock and climbed in, he could have knocked down the door, which had a loose clasp and came in, who knows.

The thing is, the prosecution need not prove how RG got in and if he went to the bathroom there, those facts add to what happened but what really matters is the DNA evidence left all over the murder room. If they did not have that they would not have been able to convict RG IMO. Indeed, they would not have even found RG without it.

They do not have that evidence in the murder room against RS and AK.

It's not true that they don't have evidence of them. It's that you explain the evidence they do have away. Did the PG say today that they have no evidence of them in the murder room? You're willing to over look evidence of missing footprints going to the bathroom and a lamp on the floor at the end of Meredith's bed, and I am not.

 

[otto]

Yes, from the murder wiki , this tells of the lamp, and that MK had her own lamp in addition to overhead lighting. AK had no overhead and only this one lamp:
<modsnip>

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.c...unt_of_the_Morning_of_Nov_2_Sound_Believable?

That would be the problem with the lamp ... and, in the context of "Guede did it", there is still no explanation about when, and how, Guede got the lamp from Knox's bedroom to Meredith's bedroom.

It has also been speculated that one reason that Sollecito/Knox tried to break Meredith's bedroom door, prior to anyone arriving, was to retrieve the lamp. Having failed, or been interupted by the arrival of the Postal Police, Knox later claimed that there was no reason to break the door.

 

[Yellow]

It's not true that they don't have evidence of them. It's that you explain the evidence they do have away. Did the PG say today that they have no evidence of them in the murder room? You're willing to over look evidence of missing footprints going to the bathroom and a lamp on the floor at the end of Meredith's bed, and I am not.

I think most people who live in a house leave footprints at some point.

If those footprints were in the murder room that would be a different story but they are not. What did they do, hop around the murder room on one leg so as not to leave footprints?

People on the guilt side neglect the fact that the independent experts discredited the DNA evidence against them. And 19 other experts staked their professional reputation on that view as well (I have worked w expert witnesses, many care more about their prof reputation than the few thousand dollars they get from a party; you wouldn't get 19 scientists lying)

How also could an alleged murder weapon in a stabbing have no blood on it?

And the lamp proves what? Just proves to me someone wanted more light, probably MK.

 

[TorisMom003]

Thanks. I'm trying to envision all the facts within the "Guede did it" theory. It is a fact that Knox's lamp was moved to Meredith's bedroom during the murder or clean up. We know that Guede did not clean up. If we have to exclude all the evidence outside the bedroom, then presumably we don't need to also exclude evidence inside the bedroom ... or do we?

I'd like to hear an explanation for the lamp on Meredith's bedroom floor in the context of "Guede did it." A suggestion that the lamp was there weeks before the murder occurred is simply impossible. However, if we exclude the glass of water next to the bed that was not spilled, we can say that the murder happened while Meredith was on the bed. If we exclude the lamp, we can explain why there is no evidence of Guede in Knox's bedroom. I have to wonder how much evidence inside and outside of Meredith's bedroom has to be excluded in order to defend Knox, because the list seems to grow with each day.

BBM

Link to this "fact" please. If one can not be provided then it is not "fact" but opinion and perhaps should be clarified as one.

 

[otto]

I think most people who live in a house leave footprints at some point.

If those footprints were in the murder room that would be a different story but they are not. What did they do, hop around the murder room on one leg so as not to leave footprints?

People on the guilt side neglect the fact that the independent experts discredited the DNA evidence against them. And 19 other experts staked their professional reputation on that view as well (I have worked w expert witnesses, many care more about their prof reputation than the few thousand dollars they get from a party; you wouldn't get 19 scientists lying)

How also could an alleged murder weapon in a stabbing have no blood on it?

And the lamp proves what? Just proves to me someone wanted more light, probably MK.

Are these experts that testified during trial, or experts that were in another country forming an opinion without access to the facts of the case?

Meredith Kercher wanted more light next to the door on the floor of her bedroom, so instead of using her own lamp, she took one from another room?

 

[redheadedgal]

Did the PG say today that they have no evidence of them in the murder room?

mignini said it about amanda early on:

<modsnip>

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2...utor-cant-put-amanda-knox-in-the-murder-room/

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...s-evidence-that-may-undermine-conviction.html

 

[otto]

BBM

Link to this "fact" please. If one can not be provided then it is not "fact" but opinion and perhaps should be clarified as one.

See post 940

 

[Yellow]

What I have noticed from the supporters of her innocence, is that all doors are left open. In other words, all possibilities are open and nothing is ruled out, no matter how low the probability is. Or what obstacles had to be overcome to get there. Or what the evidence actually shows. The evidence is this case is actually not evidence at all, it's merely some non-existent glob just sitting there, meant to be ignored.

We are supposed to believe that either Rudy broke in through the window, which there is no evidence of, and then attacked Meredith. Using various open possibilites. Such as, restraining her from the back, or restraining her by sitting on top of her, or by strangling her or suffocating her first, or.......INSERT ANYTHING.

Or, Meredith did indeed open the door for him, and he walked right in, allegedly to use the bathroom, but then decided to instead burglarize the house and kill Meredith, even though he by necessity would have known she was there. Restraining her using - select from options A-Z.

Or, he again came in through the window (leaving no evidence), but Meredith came in and startled him. Then he went through the motions of attacking her, using various possibilites, choose any from A-Z, in which he was able to restrain both her hands, feet, and mouth at the same time as stabbing her.

Or, Amanda, Rudy, and RS were indeed all there. Rudy was let in through the door. But either Rudy then decides to burglarize/attack Meredith even knowing 3 people were there with him.

Or he somehow convinces Amanda and RS to sit still while he goes about his business. Then convinces them to cover-up and stage a burglary afterwards.

Then convinces them to lie about their own actions and make it look like they really did it, instead of him.

In the above sceario, he still would have had to restrain Meredith alone, using any option A-Z.

Or Amanda, RS, and Rudy were all at the house together. Rudy was let in through the front door. Something happened, Rudy and RS and Amanda all 3 took part in restraining/stabbing her. The exact responsbilities of each remains unknown, as in who exactly restrained her, who stabbed her, etc.. The point being all 3 were complicit in the murder, it is still murder even if you are complicit in it. That would allow for the questions regarding the window (no evidence) and the questions regarding the restraining/stabbing (one person couldn't have done it). Evidence pointing to more than one doing it. That answers all of that.

And yet, out of all the numerous, possibly hundred of possibilities left open by the supporters of her innocence, I wonder why this last one is so notably LEFT OUT. Even though it fits the evidence and answers many questions.

You would think one more possibility wouldn't hurt, seeing there are so many left open? How come that one is left out?

That is not true, I have stated 2 theories of her guilt. But that is just it, it is one of a few possible scenarios.

If the burden was to prove her innocence, showing that 1 scenario would be enough

But it is not, it is to prove her guilt. Bc she left no evidence in the murder room (any supposed evidence was discredited by independent experts) that leaves open the possibility that they were not in that room.

Can't commit w murder if you were not in the room. Maybe you could still be involved in a murder, maybe she yelled to RG "stab her" from the hallway but you wouldn't have her physically stabbing her if they were not in that room

 

[redheadedgal]

Link to this "fact" please. If one can not be provided then it is not "fact" but opinion and perhaps should be clarified as one.

exactly. thank you.

no dna was found on the item so who knows who moved it, and when.

it is a non-issue that is repeatedly brought up for one reason imo.

 

[otto]

mignini said it about amanda early on:

<modsnip>

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2...utor-cant-put-amanda-knox-in-the-murder-room/

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...s-evidence-that-may-undermine-conviction.html

The quote from Dempsey's blog is nothing more than her opinion.

 

[redheadedgal]

lol -- she is reporting an interview b/w BG and GM...

and the original interview was linked.

 

[otto]

exactly. thank you.

no dna was found on the item so who knows who moved it, and when.

it is a non-issue that is repeatedly brought up for one reason imo.

Exactly. No DNA belonging to Knox was on her lamp. Her DNA was on Sollecito's knife in his apartment, even though she had only known him for a couple of weeks, but it was not on the lamp she used for six weeks.

The absence of Knox's DNA in Meredith's bedroom is a non-issue since it is not even where it should be.

Perhaps someone should ask Knox why she kept her lamp on the floor of Meredith's bedroom.

 

[Yellow]

Are these experts that testified during trial, or experts that were in another country forming an opinion without access to the facts of the case?

Meredith Kercher wanted more light next to the door on the floor of her bedroom, so instead of using her own lamp, she took one from another room?

Maybe she used both lamps at different times. Maybe she as not going to study that night so she put it on the floor or maybe she was done w the lamp and she was going to give it back to AK. I don't know what possible relevance it could have to a murder

The judge or whoever is in charge of this case said a few weeks ago I believe that there is no reason to consider C&V unreliable. It is the prosecutions burden to prove why C&V is unreliable.

Expert witnesses are just that; they comment on their field of expertise and that is it. No expert witness (at $500 an hour) is going to be asked to sit through a whole trial for months on end - indeed, even in most regular cases, expert witnesses rarely sit in. All the witnesses had to comment on was whether low copy DNA is considered reliable in the scientific community. It would be like asking if a lie detector is reliable. They can give their opinion, but they need not have sat through the whole trial and examine every bit of evidence,

Same thing for contamination, there was a video or the scene and you can clearly see what went on. Experts can testify on whether that violates standards of protocol

The way the defense expert witnesses operates in this case is the same expert witnesses operate in thousands of cases every day. I am not sure why they should be subject to a higher burden just bc this case is famous than they would be for a normal trial.

 

[Footwarrior]

Exactly. No DNA belonging to Knox was on her lamp. Her DNA was on Sollecito's knife in his apartment, even though she had only known him for a couple of weeks, but it was not on the lamp she used for six weeks.

Otto, please give us the swab number for the DNA sample taken from the lamp.

Or did you just make up the claim that the investigators tested the lamp?

 

[otto]

Otto, please give us the swab number for the DNA sample taken from the lamp.

Or did you just make up the claim that the investigators tested the lamp?

The claim that there is no DNA belonging to Knox on the lamp did not originate with me. It originated with Knox. It has been repeatedly stated that there was no DNA belonging to Knox anywhere in Meredith's bedroom. Is the suggestion now modified such that much of the room was not tested for DNA, or was the room thoroughly examined for DNA belonging to Knox and none was found?

If the lamp was not tested for DNA, even though it was moved during the murder, what else was not tested and how does this relate to the claim that there was no DNA belonging to Knox in Meredith's bedroom?

 

[Yellow]

Exactly. No DNA belonging to Knox was on her lamp. Her DNA was on Sollecito's knife in his apartment, even though she had only known him for a couple of weeks, but it was not on the lamp she used for six weeks.

The absence of Knox's DNA in Meredith's bedroom is a non-issue since it is not even where it should be.

Perhaps someone should ask Knox why she kept her lamp on the floor of Meredith's bedroom.

Not sure how absence of DNA in the murder room can be a "nonissue" just bc it suppsoedly was not also on the lamp. That would be like saying we should exclude RG in the murder room just bc his DNA was not in the rock room

Some pieces of evidence in this case are more telling than others, and I don't see what the lamp has to do with anything. If perhaps it had AK DNA on it then it might be more telling but even then it would not put her there the night of the murder

I guess the argument w the lamp is that AK plugged it in to do a clean up even though there was no evidence she was even in the room. Another story is that AK did little studying, had not been at the cottage for that entire week at night so she had not turned on the lamp and maybe any DNA on the lamp disappeared bc it had been too long. Really once you have a lamp in place, how often do you touch it? Sometimes you just use the light switch so actual touch of the lamp is minimal

Further, I don't think we always leave touch DNA on every object we touch & even when we do it does not always pick it up in testing. I think it was only recently in Jon Benet case that they had the testing to really do touch DNA - I think it is still developed and maybe not all samples are ripe for testing.

 

[SMK]

@Otto:
I could have sworn that in the past few days, someone tweeted that Crini in court had said to the effect, "there was no other occasion for Sollecito to leave a bloody/bare footprint in the cottage".

I cannot seem to locate it now, but I was struck by it, and took note of it. Do you recall it?

 

[Yellow]

The claim that there is no DNA belonging to Knox on the lamp did not originate with me. It originated with Knox. It has been repeatedly stated that there was no DNA belonging to Knox anywhere in Meredith's bedroom. Is the suggestion now modified such that much of the room was not tested for DNA, or was the room thoroughly examined for DNA belonging to Knox and none was found?

If the lamp was not tested for DNA, even though it was moved during the murder, what else was not tested and how does this relate to the claim that there was no DNA belonging to Knox in Meredith's bedroom?

We don't know when the lamp was moved. None of us know where the lamp was before the murder bc none of us were in the cottage

It was the prosecution's job to test. That was just sheer negligence if they did not test that lamp. They should have tested everything in that room. One can conjecture that maybe they would have found AK DNA but one cannot use that against AK simply bc the prosecution was incompetent. I think the prosecution knew at that point they were barking up the wrong tree so they did not do further testing,

They should also have tested every knife in that drawer too.

 

[Yellow]

Exactly. No DNA belonging to Knox was on her lamp. Her DNA was on Sollecito's knife in his apartment, even though she had only known him for a couple of weeks, but it was not on the lamp she used for six weeks.

The absence of Knox's DNA in Meredith's bedroom is a non-issue since it is not even where it should be.

Perhaps someone should ask Knox why she kept her lamp on the floor of Meredith's bedroom.

I also think it is wrong to equate a lamp with a knife. For a lamp as I explained, you have no reason to be touching it often once it is in place, let alone hold onto it for more than a second for the light switch, indeed, maybe it was a light switch in the wall so you do not even have to touch the lamp

With a knife, while eating, you are putting pressure on the knife to cut for 30 seconds or so at a time. It is much more likely to leave DNA when you are using the device in that way.

 

[otto]

We don't know when the lamp was moved. None of us know where the lamp was before the murder bc none of us were in the cottage

It was the prosecution's job to test. That was just sheer negligence if they did not test that lamp. They should have tested everything in that room. One can conjecture that maybe they would have found AK DNA but one cannot use that against AK simply bc the prosecution was incompetent. I think the prosecution knew at that point they were barking up the wrong tree so they did not do further testing,

They should also have tested every knife in that drawer too.

Perhaps claims that there was no DNA belonging to Knox in Meredith's bedroom should be re-evaluated. If there was none, then the absence of her DNA on her lamp is a problem. If her DNA was on her lamp and it simply wasn't tested or mentioned during trial, then the claim that there was no DNA belonging to Knox in Meredith's bedroom shouldn't be made.