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

[SMK]

Sounds correct, and I assume the prosecution would have otherwise tried to tie blood found in the cottage to a wound on Amanda if he could.

Quite possibly, yes.

 

[Amber29]

So she was asked about Meredith's blood. That's kind of obvious that the bloody bathmat tracks, and the blood sprinkle in the sink wasn't there before the murder.

No she wasn't asked that way, here's her testimony.

GM:
And you were in the little bathroom before leaving the house?
AK:
Yes.
GM:
Now, the last time you were in the little bathroom, before leaving the house, it might have been more or less around 4 o'clock?
AK:
Around then, yes.
GM:
All right. You knew that Filomena wasn't home?
AK:
I knew that she had gone to a party that afternoon.
GM:
A party. Fine. And Mezzetti?
AK:
Laura, you know, I didn't know where she was. I knew she wasn't in the house when I was there, but I didn't really know where she was.
GM:
When you saw the bathroom for the last time, were there traces of blood in it?
AK:
No.
GM:
All right. Now, let's get to the moment when Meredith's door was broken down--
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Amanda_Knox's_Testimony

Lets not try to turn words into her only dicussing Meredith's blood.
She never said well there was some of my blood already there...

 

[Katody]

No she wasn't asked that way, here's her testimony.

...

When you saw the bathroom for the last time, were there traces of blood in it?

...

Lets not try to turn words into her only dicussing Meredith's blood.
She never said well there was some of my blood already there...

Looks like the question is about the traces discovered in the morning, the bathmat, the sink, the bidet etc.

What other traces were there? Could you please explain simply what does it prove, I'm not sure I understand.

 

[Amber29]

You can see the summary of Aida Colantone (the interpreter who was sent to the cottage on Nov 4 to aid Amanda) concerning "the red mark" in her testimony
(it can be found as the final point listed in the summary)

here

and Laura's testimony about "the scratch" was a matter of public knowledge as news articles showed here.

I do not see any mention of the Medical Examiner's report.

I think that if Laura testified to it being a scratch and the defense wanted to refute that, they could've provided the medical examiners report that supposedly says it was a hickey. Since neither side ever brought forth this medical report, I'd say its not specified in it.

So apparently it was left to the jurors to decide who to believe.

 

[Amber29]

Looks like the question is about the traces discovered in the morning, the bathmat, the sink, the bidet etc.

What other traces were there? Could you please explain simply what does it prove, I'm not sure I understand.

Amanda's own blood was included in that bathroom, do you not agree?

Why does that question only mean Meredith's blood to you?

 

[Katody]

Amanda's own blood was included in that bathroom, do you not agree?

What do you mean by included? I know about one drop of blood ascribed to her.

Why does that question only mean Meredith's blood to you?

Because it seems they're still talking about the traces - plural in the bathroom.

 

[SMK]

I think that if Laura testified to it being a scratch and the defense wanted to refute that, they could've provided the medical examiners report that supposedly says it was a hickey. Since neither side ever brought forth this medical report, I'd say its not specified in it.

So apparently it was left to the jurors to decide who to believe.

That is a good point.

 

[Katody]

I think that if Laura testified to it being a scratch and the defense wanted to refute that, they could've provided the medical examiners report that supposedly says it was a hickey.

How do you know they had it? It was the prosecution that arrested and examined her.

 

[quesarita]

Amanda's own blood was included in that bathroom, do you not agree?

Why does that question only mean Meredith's blood to you?

Because I haven't seen evidence of Amanda bleeding in the time frame of the murder or right after.

 

[Amber29]

What do you mean by included? I know about one drop of blood ascribed to her.


Because it seems they're still talking about the traces - plural in the bathroom.

Amanda's blood was one of the traces found that day.

The question was general, was there any blood in the bathroom the last time you saw it?
Amanda's answer was no.

So in that answer she dated her blood as not there the last time she was there. Period.

Attempting to change the question to only pertaining to Meredith's blood is simply twisting the testimony.

As Amanda's blood on the faucet was part of the blood found.

 

[Amber29]

Because I haven't seen evidence of Amanda bleeding in the time frame of the murder or right after.

Doesn't dispute the evidence of her blood on the faucet and Amanda's answer that there wasn't blood in the bathroom when she was last there the day before.

 

[Amber29]

How do you know they had it? It was the prosecution that arrested and examined her.

How do you know it's specified in this report what it was?

Have you seen it?

Why would the defense not have a copy of a medical report on amanda?

 

[Katody]

Amanda's blood was one of the traces found that day.

The question was general, was there any blood in the bathroom the last time you saw it?
Amanda's answer was no.

So in that answer she dated her blood as not there the last time she was there. Period.

Attempting to change the question to only pertaining to Meredith's blood is simply twisting the testimony.

As Amanda's blood on the faucet was part of the blood found.

So there was one drop of Amanda's blood on the faucet found? Or did they find a lot more?

 

[Katody]

How do you know it's specified in this report what it was?

I think it would be extreme incompetence to photograph something and not specify what the direct examination reveals.

I've seen so many prosecution's dirty moves excused that way that I'm beginning to wonder, could they be that incompetent?

Why would the defense not have a copy of a medical report on amanda?

Because it wasn't included into the case file.

 

[Amber29]

So there was one drop of Amanda's blood on the faucet found? Or did they find a lot more?

Looked more like a smear of blood on the faucet to me, not a drop.

Was it included in the blood found in the bathroom? Yes

The question was NOT was there any of Meredith's blood in the bathroom, it was Were there traces of blood the last time you were in there?

I'm sorry you want to read between the lines of the question but that really isn't how it goes. Like I said Amandas answer was NO.

 

[SMK]

I think it would be extreme incompetence to photograph something and not specify what the direct examination reveals.

I've seen so many prosecution's dirty moves excused that way that I'm beginning to wonder, could they be that incompetent?



Because it wasn't included into the case file.

I had assumed as it was listed as property of the "Polizia Scientifica de Perugia" - and presumably taken upon her entry into the jail there - that the defense and prosecution both would request this and all relevant materials as part of their case files.

 

[Amber29]

I think it would be extreme incompetence to photograph something and not specify what the direct examination reveals.

I've seen so many prosecution's dirty moves excused that way that I'm beginning to wonder, could they be that incompetent?



Because it wasn't included into the case file.

I've seen a lot of the defenses own incompetence. Like in allowing two witnesses to testify to it looking like a scratch/abrasion, not a hickey and doing nothing to refute it.

That means its left for the jury to decide who they believe, the defendant or the witness testimony.

 

[Katody]

I had assumed as it was listed as property of the "Polizia Scientifica de Perugia" - and presumably taken upon her entry into the jail there - that the defense and prosecution both would request this and all relevant materials as part of their case files.

Knowing the spotty record I wouldn't assume anything the defence requested they were provided, without evidence.

I could believe they were said "we have only the photo, but there was no description, ah and sorry for the photo being all red and orange, that's the way it came out".

I find it harder and harder to believe each time incompetence is called up to excuse another thing.

 

[Amber29]

Knowing the spotty record I wouldn't assume anything the defence requested they were provided, without evidence.

I could believe they were said "we have only the photo, but there was no description, ah and sorry for the photo being all red and orange, that's the way it came out".

I find it harder and harder to believe each time incompetence is called up to excuse another thing.

There is nothing to back up anything that is being assumed in this post.

Unless you have seen this report.

It could simply say undetermined, we don't know.

 

[Katody]

Looked more like a smear of blood on the faucet to me, not a drop.

OK, I assume this is a yes. There was only one drop or smear.
Let's imagine for a moment that drop was there the day before but went unnoticed. What would the answer be for the question if the traceswere there the day before?

Actually I dug up a photo here.

I must say looking at it I find it quite plausible it went unnoticed.

But of course the idea that Amanda bled from her neck wound all over the place and then instead of cleaning up the traces pointed them out to Filomena and to the police, while parading her open wound in full view is ludicrous anyway. I think the prosecution really hit the rock bottom of absurd with this one.