Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#8

[aa9511]

It wasn't the unflushed toilet alone. It started with the door being open and no one being home. Strange, but not overly concerning as the door latch was broken. She calls out and nobody was home. Maybe someone forgot to lock the door. Then the blood in the bathroom. Another curious finding, but it wasn't a bloodbath so, just strange. Then comes the unflushed toilet. She sees it and thinks Laura and Filomena wouldn't leave the toilet unflushed. What if someone came in while she was in the shower?? Then she feels a "lurch of panic". It was the totality of all these findings that caused her to be concerned. The poo was just the final straw.

Everything had been pretty cleaned up outside of Meredith's room and Filomena's room, whether that was by "natural" reason or by someone cleaning it. The other things you mentioned, could have been explained by Meredith being home or Filomena being home. Unlocked door (one of them forgot to lock it), blood (she already said "menstrual," that could have been Meredith or Filomena, poo (their guy-friends). Don't you find it odd that she just "calls out" and thinks "nobody was home." Why wouldn't she go and really check the two closed doors? At least knock on Filomen'a room, if no reply, open it. It wasn't locked, or do we know have to have another locked door? Then she would have obviously seen the open window. Knock loudly and yell out Meredith's name repeatedly by her door. Does she say she even checked Meredith's door, or does she just say she "called out" from the living room?

I just can't go from seeing the poo, to not seeing the broken window (then she would have known for sure something was wrong.) Because she would have gone and checked Filomena's room to see if she was there. And checked Meredith's room, but only very conveniently it happened to be locked so she couldn't tell for sure.

There is something very wrong with her story. It is causing alarm bells to go off all over in my brainz.

 

[Katody]

It's probably true that Guede's pants were wet from blood. If he was able to cover the wet spot with his sweat shirt, the wet spot was not at the bottom of his leg. However, it seems that some prefer to believe that the wet spot, covered by the sweat shirt, was at the bottom of his leg. He must have looked like a maniac running down the street with his sweat shirt pulled down around his ankle.

I'm very curious how 'wet spot covered by sweat shirt' has morphed into 'washed pants in the small bathroom'. That bloody footprint attributed to Sollecito sure does seem to be difficult to shrink and put on Guede.

I think Guede's footprint on the bathmat proves he was in the bathroom. It matches Guede plain and simple, as professor Vinci demonstrated in court.

I have yet to see a theory explaining the print from those who believe it's Raffaele's. They need to explain how the footprint happened to be there, why was it pointed to the police by Amanda etc.
Of course they need also to explain why the big toe is of shape and dimensions of Guede's big toe and completely different from Raffaele's.

It seems there is expectation that Guede's DNA must be found in the bathroom. Strangely those who claim it's Raffaele's print are not bothered by the lack of his DNA there.

 

[Katody]

Maybe the blood-soaked towels were so that he would not drip much outside the bedroom.

Indeed there is one almost clean towel that Guede left on the bed. It's possible he dried his hands with it.

 

[otto]

I think Guede's footprint on the bathmat proves he was in the bathroom. It matches Guede plain and simple, as professor Vinci demonstrated in court.

I have yet to see a theory explaining the print from those who believe it's Raffaele's. They need to explain how the footprint happened to be there, why was it pointed to the police by Amanda etc.
Of course they need also to explain why the big toe is of shape and dimensions of Guede's big toe and completely different from Raffaele's.

It seems there is expectation that Guede's DNA must be found in the bathroom. Strangely those who claim it's Raffaele's print are not bothered by the lack of his DNA there.

I think you are confused regarding the court ruling on the bathmat print. If not, could you please provide a link indicating where the court summary of findings indicates that the bloody bath mat footprint belongs to Guede.

I have reviewed the court reasoning/summary regarding the print, and as far as I know there is absolutely nothing to suggest that the print belongs to anyone other than Sollecito.

 

[miley]

Ok... Making spontaneous statements doesn't count as speaking in your own defense when you can't be questioned by the prosecutor on what you say.
I think it was RS who was scared to BE questioned.

The other day you asked me what I thought happened that night and I gave you my version of events.. but I don't even know where you stand.
So I'm curious, what exactly do you think Sollecito's role is in all this? Did he hold Meredith down so Guede could sexually assault her? Did Amanda stab Meredith? What do you think happened?

 

[SMK]

I actually think that the case is very straight forward. However, if one becomes bogged down in conjecture from foreigners implying that the Italian justice system is corrupt, stupid, incompetent, and so forth, it may appear confusing.

I realize this and understand this aspect of it, yes. But what is more worrisome to me is that some of what I at least had viewed as really strong evidence (such as the moving and staging of the body, with the cutting of the bra, many hours after death) was dropped from the Massei report and dropped from the prosecution arguments, as if they themselves did not believe the evidence really did show this. Do you see that this to my thinking weakens their case or at least punches a few holes in it?

 

[Katody]

I think you are confused regarding the court ruling on the bathmat print. If not, could you please provide a link indicating where the court summary of findings indicates that the bloody bath mat footprint belongs to Guede.

I think what you missed is that the court has yet to rule about it. I'm sure you're aware there is an ongoing trial right now. Professor Vinci's expert report and testimony that is part of the case file clearly indicates the footprint belongs to Guede, and is not compatible with Raffaele.

 

[otto]

I realize this and understand this aspect of it, yes. But what is more worrisome to me is that some of what I at least had viewed as really strong evidence (such as the moving and staging of the body, with the cutting of the bra, many hours after death) was dropped from the Massei report and dropped from the prosecution arguments, as if they themselves did not believe the evidence really did show this. Do you see that this to my thinking weakens their case or at least punches a few holes in it?

I don't understand what you mean by "dropped" from the evidence. Has new evidence been introduced to suggest that the bra was not cut?

Pg 43 of the Massei Report says that the bra was cut off.

 

[miley]

It's interesting to me that Massei states that it was raining on October 30 and makes no mention of rain on the 31st or the 1st. Either the Italian news article is incorrect or Crini is contradicting Massei.

here's a site that traces weather history around the world. I tested it against past hurricane dates
Perugia, Italy:
Oct. 30, 2007 = Rain (or Drizzle) Thunder
Oct. 31, 2007 = No Rain
Nov. 1, 2007 = No Rain .. low 9C (chilly at 48)
http://freemeteo.com/default.asp?pid=155&la=1&gid=3169070&monthFrom=11&yearFrom=2007&sid=161810

 

[otto]

here's a site that traces weather history around the world. I tested it against past hurricane dates
Perugia, Italy:
Oct. 30, 2007 = Rain (or Drizzle) Thunder
Oct. 31, 2007 = No Rain
Nov. 1, 2007 = No Rain .. low 9C (chilly at 48)
http://freemeteo.com/default.asp?pid=155&la=1&gid=3169070&monthFrom=11&yearFrom=2007&sid=161810

Could you please tell me where the weather station is that reports for the region that includes Perugia?

 

[SMK]

I don't understand what you mean by "dropped" from the evidence. Has new evidence been introduced to suggest that the bra was not cut?

Pg 43 of the Massei Report says that the bra was cut off.

And quite some time after death, then? (this is the crux of the 'who returned to move Meredith' argument).

OK, my error then. Someone told me the issue had been dropped by Massei and Crini both. (of course neither side disputes that the bra was cut off).

Of course the opposing side has shown that she might have been moved minutes after death, not hours.

But I will grant you, then, that I was in error that the argument had been dropped by the prosecution.

ETA:
Apparently it was Micheli who was strong on this 'someone returned later that night and staged the body' motif.
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index...e_staged_scene_who_returned_to_move_meredith/

 

[otto]

And quite some time after death, then? (this is the crux of the 'who returned to move Meredith' argument).

OK, my error then. Someone told me the issue had been dropped by Massei and Crini both. (of course neither side disputes that the bra was cut off).

Of course the opposing side has shown that she might have been moved minutes after death, not hours.

But I will grant you, then, that I was in error that the argument had been dropped by the prosecution.

ETA:
Apparently it was Micheli who was strong on this 'someone returned later that night and staged the body' motif.

Crini is not presenting the case, he is summarizing the facts that are relevant to the appeal, and only the appeal. He did not say that he has changed his mind about the evidence and now the evidence is that the bra was not cut. Where did that come from?

Evidence that was presented during trial still stands, but some pieces of evidence were re-opened for discussion in the appeal.

I think the problems stems from the possibility that people are still assuming that, throughout the world, US legal procedure is followed. This is not true. In the US, an appeal means that the case is thrown out and all of the evidence is presented again. In Italy, the bulk of the case is accepted, but specific points are appealed and re-examined. An appeal does not mean that the case is thrown out and that only those appeal points are relevant.

The point of whether Meredith's body was moved was not presented in the appeal documents and is not being reconsidered.

 

[SMK]

Crini is not presenting the case, he is summarizing the facts that are relevant to the appeal, and only the appeal. He did not say that he has changed his mind about the evidence and now the evidence is that the bra was not cut. Where did that come from?

Evidence that was presented during trial still stands, but some pieces of evidence were re-opened for discussion in the appeal.

I think the problems stems from the possibility that people are still assuming that, throughout the world, US legal procedure is followed. This is not true. In the US, an appeal means that the case is thrown out and all of the evidence is presented again. In Italy, the bulk of the case is accepted, but specific points are appealed and re-examined. An appeal does not mean that the case is thrown out and that only those appeal points are relevant.

The point of whether Meredith's body was moved was not presented in the appeal documents and is not being reconsidered.

Thank you for this clarification- yes, sadly I probably was following US protocol, not understanding Italian appeals are vastly different. So the idea of the body being staged still stands, just is not being focused on in this phase of the process. The jury will still take it into consideration (accepting it as fact) together with all the facts of the initial trial, correct? (and yes, I do get confused by reading so many different people's opinions on all these matters. Sorry )

 

[otto]

Thank you for this clarification- yes, sadly I probably was following US protocol, not understanding Italian appeals are vastly different. So the idea of the body being staged still stands, just is not being focused on in this phase of the process. The jury will still take it into consideration (accepting it as fact) together with all the facts of the initial trial, correct? (and yes, I do get confused by reading so many different people's opinions on all these matters. Sorry )

I have to run out, but I'll look for the original ruling where Sollecito and Knox appealed the murder conviction, specifying which points they wanted the court to reconsider. Of the numerous points they wanted reconsidered, very few were accepted by the court.

Perhaps someone knows where that link is, but it identifies exactly what the appeal court will consider. Everything not considered during the appeal is accepted by the court and not open for debate.

 

[Katody]

Thank you for this clarification- yes, sadly I probably was following US protocol, not understanding Italian appeals are vastly different. So the idea of the body being staged still stands, just is not being focused on in this phase of the process. The jury will still take it into consideration (accepting it as fact) together with all the facts of the initial trial, correct? (and yes, I do get confused by reading so many different people's opinions on all these matters. Sorry )

That's not correct.
If there was evidence of moving the body introduced the defence will dispute it or not according to their chosen strategy. Then the jury will consider it on it's merits according to the arguments presented.
There is no automatic accepting things that are not proven as facts. That's not how civilized courts work.

Since Massei's court made no finding that the body had been moved and AFAIK neither did Crini in the appeal make such claim, there will be no discussion of this because there is nothing to discuss. No one is appealing such finding and no one is claiming it.

 

[SMK]

I have to run out, but I'll look for the original ruling where Sollecito and Knox appealed the murder conviction, specifying which points they wanted the court to reconsider. Of the numerous points they wanted reconsidered, very few were accepted by the court.

Perhaps someone knows where that link is, but it identifies exactly what the appeal court will consider. Everything not considered during the appeal is accepted by the court and not open for debate.

OK, no worries. And wouldn't Dr. Galati's Appeal To The Supreme Court of Cassation (stating the reasons that the acquittal should not be upheld, but overturned - "too many unanswered questions" ) also show us what points are being emphasized (IIRC, Quintavalle, other witnesses, and quite a lot of other material):

Dr. Galati's Appeal To The Supreme Court of Cassation

 

[SMK]

That's not correct.
If there was evidence of moving the body introduced the defence will dispute it or not according to their chosen strategy. Then the jury will consider it on it's merits according to the arguments presented.
There is no automatic accepting things that are not proven as facts. That's not how civilized courts work.

Since Massei's court made no finding that the body had been moved and AFAIK neither did Crini in the appeal make such claim, there will be no discussion of this because there is nothing to discuss. No one is appealing such finding and no one is claiming it.

I didn't mean to imply 'barbarism' and I cannot help if I am too busy and stressed to brush up on my philosophy of jurisprudence.

OK, so Massei did NOT rule that the body had been moved (only that the bra had been cut as per p 43). So no one will be taking account of 'who returned to move the body?'. That's a big piece of the argument gone (to me) but I guess Massei didn't care, either. OK, thanks for the info. :facepalm:

 

[redheadedgal]

Thanks for posting the Italian version. The English version was posted on this forum about a year ago.

English statement is here ... Knox, "who although sufficiently understands and speaks Italian is assisted by ... Engish speaking interpreter" ...

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Amanda_Knox's_Confession#Amanda_Knox.27s_1:45_am_Statement

1) i don't see AK's signature on the translated version
2) the date at the bottom of the translated versions from the above link is 2008 05 09

 

[otto]

OK, no worries. And wouldn't Dr. Galati's Appeal To The Supreme Court of Cassation (stating the reasons that the acquittal should not be upheld, but overturned - "too many unanswered questions" ) also show us what points are being emphasized (IIRC, Quintavalle, other witnesses, and quite a lot of other material):

Dr. Galati's Appeal To The Supreme Court of Cassation

I can't find it. It was the decision regarding whether the appeal could proceed. I don't remember the name of the judge or anything, just that several points were appealed and only a few were accepted for appeal.

It's probably not important. The appeal court will consider all the prior decisions and reasonings before making a decision but, from what I understand, they will not go back and question decisions made by Massei unless they were accepted as appeal points.

 

[otto]

1) i don't see AK's signature on the translated version
2) the date at the bottom of the translated versions from the above link is 2008 05 09

Isn't it true that the statements from 1:45 AM and 5 AM on November 6 were excluded from the proceedings?

If they were excluded, how are they relevant today?