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

[Nova]

Sollecito left his DNA on the bra clasp inside the murder room. A bloody female shoe print compatible with Knox's size was found on the pillow case inside the murder room. DNA traces on the kitchen knife confirm that it was used inside the murder room and handled by Knox. The Luminol footprints in front of Meredith's room going to Knox's room prove that she was inside the murder room. Mixed DNA/blood traces in bathroom/Filomena's room prove that she was inside the murder room. Staged crime scene/fake break in/alibi lies/false accusation all prove that they were involved. Just repeating the 'no evidence' claim over and over does not make it true. JMO.

The bra clasp is hopelessly compromised. Apparently, you think AK had one shoe on and one shoe off since you list both her shoe print and her bare footprint as evidence of her presence in the murder room.

Etc. and so forth. All wishful thinking, if you ask me.

 

[aa9511]

: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.

bbm

No, the evidence actually does not support that he climbed in the window. Thus the "staged window." Which is a CENTRAL part of the case. I do not understand how it is so easy to simply toss away crucial pieces of evidence in the case??! In that case, why don't we just make up evidence? Why don't we say, no he actually entered through the kitchen window? Or some other entrance? It would be the same thing, we are making up evidence that isn't there.

I have never heard anything about knocking down the front door.

I'm curious as to how you think other thousands of murder cases have been solved? Always DNA in the exact spot of the murder? In that case, they do not even check the rest of the house, or the rest of wherever the murder occured? Why do they even seal off the house.....all they have to do is seal off the murder room and simply collect evidence from there? If the murder happened in a bathroom, simply check in the bathroom, and nowhere else in the house. If there is evidence in the rest of the house, oh well. Who cares? It's not in the bathroom, or wherever the spot of the murder was, so we're not even gonna check that. Who cares if it helps to tell the story of what happened? Who cares if there is evidence of the perp there?

Let's take it even further. Let's say the murder occured while the victim slept in a bed. Well then, that is so easy! All they have to do is check the bed itself and collect evidence from there. They don't even have to check the rest of the room. Brilliant! Saves so much time. Who cares if things are missed??

 

[aa9511]

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?

Thanks. I find their theory of why the lamp was in Meredith's room very interesting, and it makes a lot of sense. I always thought, why did someone need so much light in that room? And that answer makes perfect sense.

 

[aa9511]

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.

Omigosh, brilliant! Because they had already thrown the keys away somewhere! Omg. Yesssss, that makes so much sense. That's why they were so adamant about the crack in the door.......

 

[Nova]

Ah. I do not understand why people would think Rudy would go through the trouble of first of all, finding her keys. Secondly, figuring out which key is for her door. Third, locking the door. :scared::scared:

That makes no sense at all in the lone-Rudy theory. A closed door, maybe, although I find that also not very probable in a murder done by a "random" person. But a locked door??!

Perhaps RG was making sure he'd have time to get out of the country. He wouldn't have known AK wasn't coming home that night (supposedly) and he may have wanted to make sure the murder wasn't discovered until morning.

The bloody linen may even suggest an aborted attempt to cover up the crime by cleaning the room.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The only problem is that the bathmat print is all alone and there was nothing on the floor in the bathroom, even where the heel should've been. How did he walk to the bathroom and leave no prints? Not to mention he chose to wash up say all over the bathroom and all Meredith's blood landed on AKs DNA and none was mixed with RGs DNA even though he was supposed to be scrubbing blood off.

He was probably rinsing blood from his pant leg when he made the print (Dan O. at JREFF is one poster who has commented on this extensively). Without doing experiments, it is difficult to say, but I would not expect much DNA deposition from a single hand washing. I would expect DNA on the towels, but they were not stored properly. I would think that brushing/flossing one's teeth and spitting out is a better way to deposit DNA. Saliva has DNA, and cheek cells are commonly used to obtain reference DNA.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The bra clasp is hopelessly compromised. Apparently, you think AK had one shoe on and one shoe off since you list both her shoe print and her bare footprint as evidence of her presence in the murder room.

Etc. and so forth. All wishful thinking, if you ask me.

This is why having comprehensive narrative is so important. These paradoxes would become more apparent, IMO.

 

[Yellow]

How is DNA on a lamp different from DNA on a knife ... other than the fact that is was not sweat on the knife and it was between the handle and the blade?

Why wouldn't Knox turn the light on each day? Did she do everything in the dark?

I shouldn't be surprised that there are now excuses for the alleged absence of Knox's DNA on her lamp, but I am. Of course there's no DNA belonging to Knox on her own lamp, even though it was the only light source in her bedroom. This is normal. The absence of her DNA in Meredith's bedroom is also normal, or not normal, or it means that she had never entered the bedroom, but her lamp was there, but she didn't put it there because she had never touched her lamp and even if she did touch her lamp, it was only for a fleeting second and if someone touches something for a fleeting second, no DNA is transferred.

I don't think it is alleged MK had head wounds or was killed with a lamp. She was killed w a knife, and with weak circumstantial evidence, you need to connect her to the room at least and to the murder weapon or body. Indeed, DNA on the lamp would not prove anything either. So what if AK's DNA was on the lamp (if it was, but it seems like it was not even tested)

suppose people were to go DNA test all items in their homes,see if DNA is on every object they ever touched in their home. I know I rarely touch my lamps, bc I just flip on a light switch; other than plugging in the lamp months ago I would suspect DNA is not on my lamps. Maybe someone who knows how touch DNA works would know how long it would stay on an object or if it degrades.

Absent the lamp being alleged as a murder weapon, so what about the lamp? Um..I would suspect AK went into MK room in 2 months she was there, merely finding dna in the room would not say anything on whether she was involved in a murder absent the DNA being on the weapon or on the body or clothes of victim.

 

[aa9511]

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

2 theories of her guilt?? No, IIRC, those theories had her COVERING-UP. That is all. Covering-up the murder without participating in it, for whatever odd reason. That is what your theories were. And IIRC, in one you had heard sitting in the kitchen or the living room.

In not one of your theories did you have her actually participating, as in either restraining her or stabbing her, or helping RS or RG restrain or stab Meredith. Believe me, I would have remembered if you had said something along those lines.

 

[aa9511]

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.

Really? Now, regarding the lamp, all of a sudden it's, how often do we leave touch DNA?

For how many years have the supporters of her innocence been throwing out Amanda DNA mixed with Meredith's because supposedly Amanda's DNA was "everywhere" in that flat? Because she lived there?

But not all of a sudden, it's no, no, no, that was all wrong. No, see regarding the lamp, it's actually come on, how often do we leave our DNA in the places we live and touch regularly?

 

[Amber29]

Perhaps RG was making sure he'd have time to get out of the country. He wouldn't have known AK wasn't coming home that night (supposedly) and he may have wanted to make sure the murder wasn't discovered until morning.

The bloody linen may even suggest an aborted attempt to cover up the crime by cleaning the room.

RG didn't rush out of town though. He danced the rest of the night away in a nightclub.

 

[otto]

So if AK wasn't staying there at night, why is her lamp in MK's room all that out of the ordinary? MK may have needed more light for studying and AK wasn't spending evenings in the cottage.

Just thinking.

I suppose it's possible Meredith wanted a lamp on her floor next to the door. Seems odd to me, though. Any thoughts on why Meredith would want to put a lamp there?

 

[Yellow]

bbm

No, the evidence actually does not support that he climbed in the window. Thus the "staged window." Which is a CENTRAL part of the case. I do not understand how it is so easy to simply toss away crucial pieces of evidence in the case??! In that case, why don't we just make up evidence? Why don't we say, no he actually entered through the kitchen window? Or some other entrance? It would be the same thing, we are making up evidence that isn't there.

I have never heard anything about knocking down the front door.

I'm curious as to how you think other thousands of murder cases have been solved? Always DNA in the exact spot of the murder? In that case, they do not even check the rest of the house, or the rest of wherever the murder occured? Why do they even seal off the house.....all they have to do is seal off the murder room and simply collect evidence from there? If the murder happened in a bathroom, simply check in the bathroom, and nowhere else in the house. If there is evidence in the rest of the house, oh well. Who cares? It's not in the bathroom, or wherever the spot of the murder was, so we're not even gonna check that. Who cares if it helps to tell the story of what happened? Who cares if there is evidence of the perp there?

Let's take it even further. Let's say the murder occured while the victim slept in a bed. Well then, that is so easy! All they have to do is check the bed itself and collect evidence from there. They don't even have to check the rest of the room. Brilliant! Saves so much time. Who cares if things are missed??

The prosecution never established who staged that crime scene. They never proved it was AK. Given RG threw rocks before when he burglaries, that was his most operandi.

As I mentioned multiple times, I never said or believe you need DNA or forensics tying you to scene in all cases. Scott Peterson - no real physical evidence of how she was killed but a very compelling circumstantial case with a strong motive; Casey Anthony - another case that had very strong circumstantial evidence with the added bonus of having some forensics tying her car to the dead child, but I think you could get to at least 2nd degree murder even if they did not have the smell evidence. These are just 2 examples of largely circumstantial cases that I think are strong.

Here the circumstantial case is weak and the absence of DNA in the murder room is telling. Think Peterson (which had a much stronger circumstantial case than this but suppose this case was as strong as Peterson). Suppose DNA of some third party were found on Lacey's body, on her clothes, in the home, went to the bathroom in the home, making it no doubt that this third party killed her. Suppose this third party who did not know the victim admits he was in the house. If you had that scenario in the Peterson case, would that bring reasonable doubt about his guilt if a third party's DNA connected the third party to the crime? Or would one still think, it is a definite fact that well Scott must have joined with this unknown stranger to kill his wife? He saw some stranger killing her so he decided to join in?

This AK case does not even have any motive unlike the Peterson case where there was a strong motive (still sick, but strong).

I would be interested in know if there have been any cases anywhere where people join in with total strangers to commit crimes at the spur of the moment against their friends, families, even acquaintances. Not just murder, any crime. I never heard of any.

 

[aa9511]

It has no relevance to the murder.

But when taken together with the other indicators that someone in that cottage conducted a clean-up after the murder, it becomes quite relevant:

Hey, what is that lamp from AK's room, doing on the floor there? becomes an investigative question.

Nah, who cares? The relevant point is they need only collect information around Meredith's body up until the exact point they discover the FIRST point of Rudy's DNA. Then that's it....case closed. Shut down the house, everyone go home.

 

[Yellow]

I suppose it's possible Meredith wanted a lamp on her floor next to the door. Seems odd to me, though. Any thoughts on why Meredith would want to put a lamp there?

I wonder if it was on or plugged in. If not plugged in, she could have been borrowing it and put it by door to remember to give it back,

If it was on, that would be a little weird. I don't see any reason any one - MK, RG, AK, etc.,- would even do that.

The only thing that it could be is maybe there was not a desk that the line would stretch to in order to plug into a wall outlet; not sure if that is the case or if people knew where the outlets were but MK could have had computer, etc plugged in the outlets near her and maybe an outlet by the door was the only available outlet and the cord was too short to both plug in and put it of the table. Most times you would just use an extension cord but maybe she used it only temporarily and did not have one

 

[MichaelSmith]

Knox mentioned the sexual assault in her 1:45am statement.
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Amanda_Knox's_Confession#Amanda_Knox.27s_1:45_am_Statement

This was before the coroners report was deposited at the court at 8 November.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1568860/Meredith-Kercher-murder-Judges-report.html

Yep. I know.

The media had been reporting for days she was sexually assaulted/raped/had sex with her attacker.The autopsy was leaked on November 4 and the news went global. It was certainly no secret.

The autopsy: Meredith was raped
http://www.repubblica.it/2007/11/sezioni/cronaca/perugia-uccisa/autopsia/autopsia.html

 

[otto]

It is sheer speculation that MK fought back (and even more speculation that she fought back in the manner you describe).

Not all women (or men, I suppose) do, because we do not socialize middle-class women to fight back physically.

That's why self-defense classes for females have become so common.

Most theories (including that of the prosecutor) assume MK was taken by surprise. And who knows which wounds came first? Maybe she was simply too stunned to fight back.

So it would be nice if we could stop insisting that MK flailed away with her head, trunk and all four limbs as if it were proven fact.

Meredith wasn't a middle-class woman. She was a British student that had that had trained in martial arts.

"Her father John also described how Meredith was strong and had been trained in karate, insisting she would have tried to fight off her attackers. Meredith’s family were speaking in court about the impact of her murder in Perugia, Italy"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ith-Kercher-fought-end-family-tell-court.html

 

[Amber29]

He was probably rinsing blood from his pant leg when he made the print (Dan O. at JREFF is one poster who has commented on this extensively). Without doing experiments, it is difficult to say, but I would not expect much DNA deposition from a single hand washing. I would expect DNA on the towels, but they were not stored properly. I would think that brushing/flossing one's teeth and spitting out is a better way to deposit DNA. Saliva has DNA, and cheek cells are commonly used to obtain reference DNA.

Yeh that's pure speculation, there's no evidence that he washed his pants in there.

 

[aa9511]

As was stated upthread earlier today, I think Crini should have been a little more broad as to motive, as headlines such as this look slightly ridiculous:



http://www.independent.ie/world-new...have-triggered-kerchers-killing-29787279.html

Yes, I agree.

 

[otto]

Making it all the more likely that MK simply borrowed the lamp because she didn't expect AK to come home after 9pm.

#mountain #molehill

Why would Meredith borrow Knox's lamp? She had a fixed light and a lamp of her own. Why would Meredith decide that it belonged on the floor near the door? Doesn't that seem like an odd place to put a lamp?