Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#7

[Katody]

It was raining on the night of the murder.

Do we have anything to confirm this? I thought it was a dry night.

It's like the small bathroom scenario in the sense that there's no evidence, so tunnel vision is used to create a scenario around a piece of evidence. There is no evidence that Guede climbed in the window, but the alternative - that he walked through the entrance - supports that theory that someone opened the door for him. It also means that there is no explanation for the broken window.

There is evidence that climbing through windows broken by a rock was his modus operandi. We have a broken window, Guede's traces all over the place and no evidence of entry through any other means. The logical conclusion is he broke-in through the window as was his habit.

Guede had no reason to believe that rent money, which is normally delivered to the landlord on the first of the month, would be in the cottage on the evening of November 1. Furthermore, he had no reason to believe that rent was paid in cash rather than by cheque.

Guede had all the reasons to expect money and other valuables in the house. He was right, by the way.

 

[otto]

But what if as someone else said, her jacket had been pulled up but not off, pinning her arms above her head. Would that not account for the smaller amount of bruising noted on her arms and the lack of defensive knife wounds on her hands? In that situation someone would struggle but fairly helplessly, trying to get away from the knife and at the same time free their arms.

I don't see the impossibility for this to have been done by a single perpetrator. It happens all too often.

Her hoodie was zip type, and there's nothing to suggest that this was used to pin her arms. I'm not aware of any cuts to the arms of her hoodie. Were there cuts on the arms of the hoodie where she defended herself with her "pinned" arms?

There is tunnel vision regarding pinning the entire events of Nov 1, 2007 on Guede. That is, the evidence is manipulated and interpretted with the sole purpose of wrapping it around Guede. Fortunately, the courts did not have tunnel vision and were able to recognize that with 43 injuries on Meredith's body, but no defensive wounds, she definitely struggled to defend herself but was unable, at any time, to prevent even shallow cuts to her neck. Not once, with 43 injuries, did she grab the knife to deflect a cut near her face.

 

[Katody]

Yes, I understand that. However, in this case, they are still the defendants. And to weigh the evidence and the case, one then must keep an open mind to this fact. Otherwise, it's just like saying, oh the prosecution is so stupid (for lack of a better word), so I'm not going to even listen to them.

But the fact remains, there is still a case brought against them. That is the case we are discussing. And so we must, IMO, bear in mind that they are th defendants in that case, and keep open mind to this issue of their alibi.

If, if it is possible and if they are lying about their alibi, I believe that would of course raise some questions that need to be answered. Becauase even if you still find them ultimately innocent of murder, that still leaves the question of - why were they lying and saying they were somewhere at at time when they weren't, and why were they lying and saying they were doing something they weren't doing at the time period of the murder?

First you need some evidence that they're lying.
So far the evidence is more suspect than the suspects.
Curatolo? Quintavalle? Postal Police geniuses of computer frying?

 

[otto]

Do we have anything to confirm this? I thought it was a dry night.


There is evidence that climbing through windows broken by a rock was his modus operandi. We have a broken window, Guede's traces all over the place and no evidence of entry through any other means. The logical conclusion is he broke-in through the window as was his habit.



Guede had all the reasons to expect money and other valuables in the house. He was right, by the way.

Crini mentioned the rain and I posted that information two weeks ago.

The evidence accepted by the court is that Guede walked through the entrance and that the broken window was staged.

I asked why Guede would expect cash (rather than cheque) for rent to be in the house on the evening of November 1 (when it would be due before the end of the day on Nov 1). How is stationg that he "had all the reasons to expect money" in the house an answer? What reasons?

 

[Katody]

Her hoodie was zip type, and there's nothing to suggest that this was used to pin her arms. I'm not aware of any cuts to the arms of her hoodie. Were there cuts on the arms of the hoodie where she defended herself with her "pinned" arms?

There is tunnel vision regarding pinning the entire events of Nov 1, 2007 on Guede. That is, the evidence is manipulated and interpretted with the sole purpose of wrapping it around Guede. Fortunately, the courts did not have tunnel vision and were able to recognize that with 43 injuries on Meredith's body, but no defensive wounds, she definitely struggled to defend herself but was unable, at any time, to prevent even shallow cuts to her neck. Not once, with 43 injuries, did she grab the knife to deflect a cut near her face.

Could you explain what injuries were there that indicated defensive struggle?

Also, assuming that it was a struggle all the time to prevent knife cuts is not logically correct. What if there was a struggle but the knife wounds were inflicted after the struggle, with the victim not defending herself anymore?

 

[otto]

I don't see any documentation in your post indicating that anything you wrote above is true.

I remember very vividly both Amanda and Raffaele stating in the courtroom that they did spend the night together. No evidence was ever presented that proving it false.

I have no idea what you are talking about when you say "that was proven to be a lie". There is evidence they used the computer in the form of metadata and additionally the logs that were accepted into the case file by the current court.

That a lot of metadata had been overwritten while the PC was in the hands of the police doesn't logically mean there was no further activity. Simply the data is no longer there. Even Massei accepted this if you care to read his conclusion.

There is evidence they ate the dinner in the form of Mr. Sollecito's testimony. That they don't remember the exact time doesn't make it false.

Finally, there is no credible evidence that they didn't sleep until 10 in the morning. Sorry but Quintavalle really doesn't cut it. On Curatolo don't get me even started.

Are we back to demanding links for the lies that Knox and Sollecito told about their dinner hour? I have probably posted the links at least 20 times in six years, and have spent too much time referencing the page numbers in the Massei report. If people want to believe that Knox and Sollecito told the truth from the beginning, I can't argue with it anymore, but I will suggest that reading the Massei Report will help in terms of understanding the facts of the case.

Should we also forget that Sollecito turned on his computer at 5:32 AM and that he turned on his phone at 6 AM? Are we to believe that this happened while they were asleep?

 

[SMK]

It was raining on the night of the murder. Stone is slippery when wet. The exterior of the cottage is stonework. The grass and dirt below Filomina's bedroom window was not disturbed. There was no evidence that Guede scaled the 13 foot wall. There is no evidence of grass or mud from below the window in Filomina's bedroom.

BOLDED AND SNIPPED BY SMK

I understand that Crini says it rained the night of the murder (Nov 1, 2007), and I think your observations are good ones.

HOWEVER: I am a stickler for facts and empirical data, and 3 separate accounts say it rained on Oct. 31, BUT NOT ON Nov 1:


1. 3 day weather for Perugia, Italy; Oct 30, 31, and Nov 1, 2007:

WEATHER IN PERUGIA, 30 OCT, 31st OCT and 1 NOV 2007
http://gator941.hostgator.com/~michael/viewtopic.php?style=1&f=6&t=79

2. Wiki Murder: The Staged Burglary; middle of page; sect. "Is There Any Evidence of Someone Gaining Entry?" ; first sentence: "....it had rained the night before the murder..."

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Staged_Burglary

3. Testimony of Gio Brocci: She says it had rained the night before the murder:

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Gioia_Brocci's_Testimony

 

[otto]

I know the answer to this one. His reconstruction is wrong because he says that Guede acted alone and shows how this was done in his reconstruction. Unless someone says that AK and RS were a part of the crime with Guede, then the person is not believed.

Clearly traffiic accident reconstructionist have no expertise in crime scene analysis. That much is obvious.

Please explain why this (Hendry) vehicle accident reconstructionist is qualified to give an opinion about blood spatter evidence and crime scene analysis. Is it because he uses tunnel vision to wrap the evidence around Guede?

 

[Katody]

Crini mentioned the rain and I posted that information two weeks ago.

The evidence accepted by the court is that Guede walked through the entrance and that the broken window was staged.

That's a fallacy of appeal to authority. There is no reason to believe some court was right or that Crini is right.
So you have no actual source for the above claims.

 

[Katody]

Are we back to demanding links for the lies that Knox and Sollecito told about their dinner hour? I have probably posted the links at least 20 times in six years, and have spent too much time referencing the page numbers in the Massei report. If people want to believe that Knox and Sollecito told the truth from the beginning, I can't argue with it anymore, but I will suggest that reading the Massei Report will help in terms of understanding the facts of the case.

Thank you I have very good grasp of the evidence. It is always good to separate opinions from undisputed facts.

Should we also forget that Sollecito turned on his computer at 5:32 AM and that he turned on his phone at 6 AM? Are we to believe that this happened while they were asleep?

It doesn't contradict in any way the claim they slept until 10.

 

[Harmony 2]

I understand that Crini says it rained the night of the murder (Nov 1, 2007), and I think your observations are good ones.

HOWEVER: I am a stickler for facts and empirical data, and 3 separate accounts say it rained on Oct. 31, BUT NOT ON Nov 1:


1. 3 day weather for Perugia, Italy; Oct 30, 31, and Nov 1, 2007:

WEATHER IN PERUGIA, 30 OCT, 31st OCT and 1 NOV 2007
http://gator941.hostgator.com/~michael/viewtopic.php?style=1&f=6&t=79

2. Wiki Murder: The Staged Burglary; middle of page; sect. "Is There Any Evidence of Someone Gaining Entry?" ; first sentence: "....it had rained the night before the murder..."

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Staged_Burglary

3. Testimony of Gio Brocci: She says it had rained the night before the murder:

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Gioia_Brocci's_Testimony

This is in Massei regarding the weather:

http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/TheMasseiReport.pdf

Page 50
all the more as both the witnesses Romanelli and Marco Zaroli gave statements indicating that the earth, on that early November evening, must have been very wet (declarations of Marco Zaroli, hearing of February 6, 2009, p. 174, and declarations of Filomena Romanelli, hearing of July 7, 2009 p. 24; see also the document acquired at the hearing of March 28, 2009 concerning the fact that on October 30, 2007, it was raining).

There is no mention of rain on October 31st or November 1st.

 

[otto]

I would rather expect pointing out which elements of his reconstruction are wrong and why.

I suppose I'm not interested in reading a vehicle accident reconstructist's opinion of a crime scene. I don't see that it has any relevance to the murder of Meredith.

 

[Harmony 2]

I understand that Crini says it rained the night of the murder (Nov 1, 2007), and I think your observations are good ones.

HOWEVER: I am a stickler for facts and empirical data, and 3 separate accounts say it rained on Oct. 31, BUT NOT ON Nov 1:


1. 3 day weather for Perugia, Italy; Oct 30, 31, and Nov 1, 2007:

WEATHER IN PERUGIA, 30 OCT, 31st OCT and 1 NOV 2007
http://gator941.hostgator.com/~michael/viewtopic.php?style=1&f=6&t=79

2. Wiki Murder: The Staged Burglary; middle of page; sect. "Is There Any Evidence of Someone Gaining Entry?" ; first sentence: "....it had rained the night before the murder..."

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Staged_Burglary

3. Testimony of Gio Brocci: She says it had rained the night before the murder:

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Gioia_Brocci's_Testimony

Hi SMK
Did you mean October 30th?

 

[otto]

This is in Massei regarding the weather:

http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/TheMasseiReport.pdf



There is no mention of rain on October 31st or November 1st.

From media source reporting on the trial rather than a website or forum:

November 25, 2013
"Curatolo è sicuro del suo ricordo e non basta dire che è un tossico per svalutarne la testimonianza - prosegue Crini - e il fatto che confonda una data con un'altra non è fondato, perché ha fatto confusione con la sera di Halloween, ma il ricordo è preciso per il fatto che ricorda come in quella sera (tra il 1 e il 2 novembre 2007) pioveva e in effetti pioveva la sera del delitto".

"Curatolo is sure of his memory and not enough to say that it is a toxic to devalue the testimony - Crini continues - and the fact that confuse a date with another is not well founded, because he mixed up the night of Halloween, but the memory is correct for the fact that remembers how in the evening (between 1 and 2 November 2007) it was raining and in fact it was raining the night of the murder. "

http://www.lanazione.it/firenze/cro...eredith-processo-accusa-sollecito-crini.shtml

Duplicate of Nov 25 comment
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10004392&highlight=rain#post10004392

 

[Sigh Sister]

Her hoodie was zip type, and there's nothing to suggest that this was used to pin her arms. I'm not aware of any cuts to the arms of her hoodie. Were there cuts on the arms of the hoodie where she defended herself with her "pinned" arms?

There is tunnel vision regarding pinning the entire events of Nov 1, 2007 on Guede. That is, the evidence is manipulated and interpretted with the sole purpose of wrapping it around Guede. Fortunately, the courts did not have tunnel vision and were able to recognize that with 43 injuries on Meredith's body, but no defensive wounds, she definitely struggled to defend herself but was unable, at any time, to prevent even shallow cuts to her neck. Not once, with 43 injuries, did she grab the knife to deflect a cut near her face.

BBM

On page 112 of Massei:

"On the hands were small wounds showing a very slight defensive response"

http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/TheMasseiReport.pdf

I was under the impression that she had no defensive wounds at all. Harmony posted clips from the report yesterday, and this caught my eye.

 

[otto]

Thank you I have very good grasp of the evidence. It is always good to separate opinions from undisputed facts.


It doesn't contradict in any way the claim they slept until 10.

I'm interested in facts, not car accident specialist opnions about blood spatter.

The culprits must have been sleep walking when they used the computer and phone between 5:30 and 6 AM. Obviously, either they woke up and used their electronics or they slept until 10. It cannot be true that they slept until 10 and used electronics for 30 minutes starting at 5:30 AM.

 

[otto]

BBM

On page 112 of Massei:

"On the hands were small wounds showing a very slight defensive response"

http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/TheMasseiReport.pdf

I was under the impression that she had no defensive wounds at all. Harmony posted clips from the report yesterday, and this caught my eye.

The Massei Report summarizes all the arguments, both defense and prosecution, and then presents conclusions. I've noticed that statements from the defense in the Massei Report - not conclusions - are often quoted to make some point. Rather than once again check the Massei Report, I'm wondering if the comment on page 112 is a conclusion, or a summary of the presented arguments.

What does Massei conclude about defensive injuries?

Page 116 Massei: "there had not been an active and valid defence on the part of the victim."

Go to Page 369 of the Massei Report to read that Conclusions regarding defensive injuries.

 

[Yellow]

bbm

I disagree that there is no evidence tying them to the murder room, or the murder itself. One can use different "date points" to connect the dots. They lied about where they were that night, I know there is much debate on this, but IMO, this is my opinion only based on the evidence, I believe they're lying about where they were that night. So if you come from my viewpoint, is that they're lying about their alibi for the night. Then, they have their cell phones turned off, happened to be on the same night Meredith is murdered, and happened to be on the same night of which they're lying about where they were and what they were doing. Then, you have all the events of the next day, discovery of body, etc.. Then, you have all their different stories. Etc., Etc.. It is just too much, how can you say this is a "weak circumstantial case"?

I think the main difference between what we think is, I'm coming from the viewpoint that they're lying about a lot of things, and others have a viewpoint that they're not lying. This affects the prism of how we interpet all the other evidence from that point on. For example, if one doesn't think they're lying, and that they were really at home at Raffaelo's that night, then of course, they couldn't possibly be at Amanda's cottage. I ask that people keep an open mind, and part of that is maybe considering that they just might be lying about the "fact" that they were at Raffaelo's the whole night. If one keeps an open mind about this "fact," one can see all other evidence in a different light.

So to think that they're telling the truth about their alibi, as I said, automatically means one must disregard all other evidence. Because it is not possible to be two places at one time. This makes it possible to disregard everythingggggggggg from that point on. Such as DNA evidence, Luminol footprints, evidence of someone staging and some covering-up, the lies, evidence of lies, forensic evidence, etc..

I do not believe the forensic evidence is so easy to disregard, IMO. It is there. There are Luminol footprints, and there is DNA evidence of Amanda in that home when the murder occurred, and subsequent to that, lying about it. There is clear evidence.

As I said, to believe that they were at Raffaelo's when they said they were, of course means no other possibility is possible.

Still does not place them in the murder room. They could be lying about coming back that night after the murder and inadvertently stepping in stuff before they realized a murder occurred.

Even taking the state's side, all you have is some luminol prints, some allegations of lying or not having a solid alibi, some weird things about not remembering a phone call and character evidence. At most you have them maybe in the house passed out or stoned at the time of the murder or coming back later and tramping over the crime scene.

It is a huge leap from lying to murder, especially when the allegations of lying often stupid stuff, like when she called her mom. Why lie? There are so many assumptions one must make to get to guilt that it makes the case weak and confusing

How could you have a stabbing object have no blood on it? Why would RG DNA be on and in body and in room yet not AK and RS? If they were holding her down, they would have found something like touch DNA or fingerprints or some inadvertent trace like RG made the bloody palmprint. How could there be bloody footprint in hallway yet not be in the murder room? Where did they go? There is no evidence of cleaning in the murder room where did they go? No one answers these questions. I have not seen one answer to the key question: how could a stabbing object not be teaming in blood?

One can paint a case for guilt but it is but one scenario- and probably not the most likely scenario based on the lack of evidence supporting it.

It may bother people bc they think AK is a lyer, but a lyer is not a murderer all the time. They need something more to seal the deal. They thought they had it w the DNA but that turned out to make them look silly. They have no alternative now. The SC said testing in the knife (new testing) would be dispositive - it came back without MK DNA indicating that indeed the prior MK DNA could have been just a fluke. That knife should have DNA all over it.

 

[SMK]

Hi SMK
Did you mean October 30th?

Yes, I think you're right. The weather data has Oct 30 rain; not the 2 following dates.....I don't know what to make of testimony that "it had rained the night before the murder".

 

[Sigh Sister]

The Massei Report summarizes all the arguments, both defense and prosecution, and then presents conclusions. I've noticed that statements from the defense in the Massei Report - not conclusions - are often quoted to make some point. Rather than once again check the Massei Report, I'm wondering if the comment on page 112 is a conclusion, or a summary of the presented arguments.

What does Massei conclude about defensive injuries?

Page 116 Massei: "there had not been an active and valid defence on the part of the victim."

Go to Page 369 of the Massei Report to read that Conclusions regarding defensive injuries.

It is a summary of Lalli's report. I'm just point out there WERE wounds on her hands, albeit small.