Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #11

[Allusonz]

I read this article about the Idaho Innocence Project becoming involved with Knox case, but have no idea what influence they could possibly have:

http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-national/amanda-knox-case-being-examined-by-idaho-innocence-project-video#ixzz1KXGaDw2E

Dr. Greg Hampikian has actually been consulting with the DNA experts for her case for some time. I have posted his radio interview regarding the evidence a few times. He has not consulted on behalf of the Innocence Project prior to this but is very conversant with the case. There are actually quite a few DNA experts from around the world including the USA, UK etc

It would be good news if they accept it as they bring additional resources just to name one

ETA The Innocence Project was founded in 1992 by Barry C. Scheck and Peter J. Neufeld at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University to assist prisoners who could be proven innocent through DNA testing. To date, 268 people in the United States have been exonerated by DNA testing, including 17 who served time on death row. These people served an average of 13 years in prison before exoneration and release.

The Innocence Project’s full-time staff attorneys and Cardozo clinic students provide direct representation or critical assistance in most of these cases. The Innocence Project’s groundbreaking use of DNA technology to free innocent people has provided irrefutable proof that wrongful convictions are not isolated or rare events but instead arise from systemic defects. Now an independent nonprofit organization closely affiliated with Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University, the Innocence Project’s mission is nothing less than to free the staggering numbers of innocent people who remain incarcerated and to bring substantive reform to the system responsible for their unjust imprisonment

http://www.innocenceproject.org/about/Mission-Statement.php

 

[Allusonz]

Even in all RG's retellings, I guess he has two versions, only one person is attacking and killing MK--it's just not him.

So, though you can't really believe all the elements of his story, some parts of his story are supported by the evidence. he says he arrived around 830-845pm. MK's time of death is logically somewhere between her interrupted call to her mother at 8:56pm and 9:58pm when the phone attempts to call voicemail.

We have some kind of human based computer activity on RS's computer up till at least 926pm.

The judge says that MK is fiddling with her phone.

8:56pm fiddling with her phone to call her mom--something she was reported to have done nightly. Did not attempt to reconnect with her mom. however, weirdly enough, her mom didn't attempt to call her, according to the phone log.

9:58--fiddling on her phone AGAIN. This time to call voicemail and hang up on it a few seconds into the welcome recording.

10:00--Fiddling on her phone for a 3rd time. This time trying to incorrectly call her bank.

10:13 fiddling on her phone for a 4th time, doing a 9 second connection to the internet in a geographical location that appears to no longer be at the cottage. Pings off cell tower 30064, which could be at the cottage or could be enroute to the cell phone drop site.

After that, I guess MK said screw it, and didn't bother to "fiddle" with her phone anymore.

I'd even accept phone "fiddling" if the phones had been found at the cottage, but the fact that the assailant took the phones and dumped them makes me highly doubt that MK was the one doing the "fiddling" on all 4 fiddles.

BBM

Must agree those cell phone times tell a story all of there own including the location

 

[SMK]

BBM

Must agree those cell phone times tell a story all of there own including the location

Right, how can that be Meredith when no longer at the cottage? And I still believe Hendry's TOD @ aprox. 9:30 is the valid one. The far later one of the prosecution seems to be simply to include AK and RS in on Guede's dirty deed.

 

[Allusonz]

Right, how can that be Meredith when no longer at the cottage? And I still believe Hendry's TOD @ aprox. 9:30 is the valid one. The far later one of the prosecution seems to be simply to include AK and RS in on Guede's dirty deed.

Here is some more based on Dr. Lalli, cell phone activity etc re TOD

The stomach contents are a reliable way to determine T.O.D in this case because sufficient variables are known. The time of the beginning of a meal to the time the stomach contents empty into the duodenum was given by expert testimony to be between 2-4 hrs with 2-3 hrs more likely. The court watched the actual autopsy performed by pathologist Dr. Lalli, who correctly closed the duodenum to prevent any slippage of the stomach contents downward. The duodenum was found empty showing that the stomach contents had not yet passed from the stomach. The stomach contents were measured to be 500 cc's and the findings indicated cheese and other items consistent with Meredith's meal.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/6030636/time_of_death_crucial_issue_in_amanda.html

 

[SMK]

Here is some more based on Dr. Lalli, cell phone activity etc re TOD

The stomach contents are a reliable way to determine T.O.D in this case because sufficient variables are known. The time of the beginning of a meal to the time the stomach contents empty into the duodenum was given by expert testimony to be between 2-4 hrs with 2-3 hrs more likely. The court watched the actual autopsy performed by pathologist Dr. Lalli, who correctly closed the duodenum to prevent any slippage of the stomach contents downward. The duodenum was found empty showing that the stomach contents had not yet passed from the stomach. The stomach contents were measured to be 500 cc's and the findings indicated cheese and other items consistent with Meredith's meal.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/6030636/time_of_death_crucial_issue_in_amanda.html

Yes - so this means the later TOD simply does not square with the facts. And the later TOD is the only way to draw AK and RS into the scenario. Their involvement is contingent on this. When Meredith actually died, they were home in Sollecito's apartment, and computer activity was proven to occur on RS's computer later than 9:15. It seems the whole 3 killers scenario is simply a lie, outside of the facts, spun by the prosecution for its own ends.

ETA: I know this is covered in the Appeals summaries of both Knox and Sollecito. I can only pray that the appeal is going to be contingent on all of this important material, and not the few bits covered in the news, which is dubious, and I wonder why it is being focused on, when TOD, cell phone activity, computer records, can really nearly prove Knox and Sollecito were not involved.

 

[flourish]

Of course you are entitled to applaud and use smilies as you like. I'm not responding to that part of your post.



This reminds me of that sliver of space between "beyond reasonable doubt" and "beyond all conceivable doubt." Of course, a 20-year-old girl being involved in this crime is not beyond the realm of all possibility.

But her age and gender are only part of the equation. Other parts include the facts that:

1. She has no history suggesting a propensity for this type of crime. A few practical jokes do not a crazed sex killer make. (Even Mignini seems to recognized this, as he gets vaguer and vaguer when trying to explain how the "prank" got "out of control.") AK has no history of violence, gang affiliation or even long-running feuds with other girls.

2. She barely knew one of her alleged conspirators (RG), having met him briefly once and seen him around town a couple of times.

3. She'd only known the other alleged conspirator (RS) for about a week. This is where the comparison to Karla Homolka falls apart. Moreover, in the cases of thrill-killing couples I can think of, the male always takes the dominant role, at least in terms of public performance. The AK/RS bond is supposed to be the opposite. Possible? Perhaps. Likely? Of course not.

4. She and her alleged conspirators didn't share fluency in any language.

5. She and RS had little if any time to form the conspiracy with RG.

6. AK managed to do a "magical" clean up in which she removes almost all traces of herself and RS from the crime scene (and all traces from RS' apartment except the magically discovered knife), yet leaves large amounts of RG's DNA.

7. The attempts to show AK's "consciousness of guilt" are laughable. She did cartwheels? She got upset looking at knives after her friends was stabbed to death? Give me a break. The fact is she didn't run, she stayed and aided the investigation.

8. Perugia LE and court system have demonstrated their incompetence every step of the way.

And yet the Italian courts paint AK not just as a foolish bystander caught up in something she didn't expect, but as some sort of ringleader of the conspiracy. IIRC, RG's sentence was reduced in part because the court ruled he hadn't delivered the death blow. How the hell can the court possibly know that? It can't, of course. It's just as determined as ILE and English tabloids to paint AK as the fount of all that is evil.

Nova and folks: I admittedly was a tiny bit pizzed at SMK's response, and he mentioned the "20-year-old 'girl'" thing, which happens to push a particular button of mine--of course you make good points here, and I'm not discounting them, I simply enjoyed reading Sherlockh's post, responded in support of that post, then got frustrated and defensive b/c I felt like it was going back to the "how could an innocent-looking 'girl' possibly do a horrid thing?" and I take issue with that.

Also, there's a first time for everything...at some point in time, all criminals had no background of criminal activity...and I could have sworn I read something about a rock-throwing party in Seattle where the only person arrested was AK...no, that's not murder, but it's not nothing, either.

Anyway, I'm at work, was trying to avoid this thread, and am going to be a good worker now. :seeya: eace:

P.S. SMK: yes, Karla has seriously creepy eyes that can't hide her lack of...humanity...however, when folks heard about her crimes, there was a lot of "that little wisp of a girl? she couldn't have possibly....!!!" But she did.

 

[SMK]

Nova and folks: I admittedly was a tiny bit pizzed at SMK's response, and he mentioned the "20-year-old 'girl'" thing, which happens to push a particular button of mine--of course you make good points here, and I'm not discounting them, I simply enjoyed reading Sherlockh's post, responded in support of that post, then got frustrated and defensive b/c I felt like it was going back to the "how could an innocent-looking 'girl' possibly do a horrid thing?" and I take issue with that.

Also, there's a first time for everything...at some point in time, all criminals had no background of criminal activity...and I could have sworn I read something about a rock-throwing party in Seattle where the only person arrested was AK...no, that's not murder, but it's not nothing, either.

Anyway, I'm at work, was trying to avoid this thread, and am going to be a good worker now. :seeya: eace:

P.S. SMK: yes, Karla has seriously creepy eyes that can't hide her lack of...humanity...however, when folks heard about her crimes, there was a lot of "that little wisp of a girl? she couldn't have possibly....!!!" But she did.

Did not mean to get you upset I am a "she" BTW.
I am well aware that young girls can do all sorts of horrid things, I think I only posed that question because I view Amanda as innocent , and moreover very vulnerable within the context of the interrogation, and Sherlock had said, "the killer was right there in front of them"....No offense meant...

 

[Malkmus]

Nova and folks: I admittedly was a tiny bit pizzed at SMK's response, and he mentioned the "20-year-old 'girl'" thing, which happens to push a particular button of mine--of course you make good points here, and I'm not discounting them, I simply enjoyed reading Sherlockh's post, responded in support of that post, then got frustrated and defensive b/c I felt like it was going back to the "how could an innocent-looking 'girl' possibly do a horrid thing?" and I take issue with that.

Also, there's a first time for everything...at some point in time, all criminals had no background of criminal activity...and I could have sworn I read something about a rock-throwing party in Seattle where the only person arrested was AK...no, that's not murder, but it's not nothing, either.

Anyway, I'm at work, was trying to avoid this thread, and am going to be a good worker now. :seeya: eace:

P.S. SMK: yes, Karla has seriously creepy eyes that can't hide her lack of...humanity...however, when folks heard about her crimes, there was a lot of "that little wisp of a girl? she couldn't have possibly....!!!" But she did.

Amanda was never arrested. She was the one given the citation for a noise violation, and only because she took responsibility as the host of the party. Btw, I believe you asked for citation regarding them being stripped and given medical examination 4 days after the murder. This is in candace dempseys book and I would imagine is fairly standard procedure when being put in jail for suspected murder.

 

[flourish]

Did not mean to get you upset I am a "she" BTW.
I am well aware that young girls can do all sorts of horrid things, I think I only posed that question because I view Amanda as innocent , and moreover very vulnerable within the context of the interrogation, and Sherlock had said, "the killer was right there in front of them"....No offense meant...

SMK, it's okay...it's my own button that I allowed to get pushed, no problem nor hard feelings, you womanly, feminine SMK, you

Okay, now back to your regularly scheduled thread, already in progress.

 

[SMK]

SMK, it's okay...it's my own button that I allowed to get pushed, no problem nor hard feelings, you womanly, feminine SMK, you

Okay, now back to your regularly scheduled thread, already in progress.

:floorlaugh::blowkiss:

 

[Nova]

PERUGIA, Italy — An Albanian man told an Italian trial court in sometimes confusing testimony....

I don't understand the rules of evidence used in Italian courts.

Apparently, there's some sort of provision whereby the most nonsensical testimony is allowed, as long as it includes something negative about Amanda Knox.

 

[Nova]

Just watched a 48 hours case where a man spent 18 years in jail, on death row, because the real killer stated that he was the accomplice. A lot of corruption in the case, and before being executed, the real killer confessed that he'd lied on the guy. So the guy is finally free. Same bogus info happened with the confession and with the murder weapon as has happened with knox. Shame, really, that this happens to innocent people all the time. They also said the killer couldn't have acted alone in the TX trial. apparently he did, and says he named the innocent guy because he happened to see him on the corner as he was being arrested.

There wasn't a false confession in this case I'm talking about, but the lengths the prosecutor went to in order to ensure his convictions was diabolical.

Anyway, he's free now, but his life ruined.

Not a confession, but there was coerced testimony and a false accusation a la AK with PL. As you'll recall, the real killer later told authorities that the prosecutor threatened to indict the killer's wife if the killer didn't testify against the innocent man.

 

[Nova]

This is what gets me angry. It may be idealistic, but to me, both prosecution and defense should be interested in objective justice and truth, and not just spinning things for their own side.

Well, in theory (at least in the U.S.), all trial lawyers are officers of the court and subject to ethical obligations that aid in determining the truth. But they are also adversaries and--just as happens here--people get carried away advocating for their own views.

 

[Nova]

Nova and folks: I admittedly was a tiny bit pizzed at SMK's response, and he mentioned the "20-year-old 'girl'" thing, which happens to push a particular button of mine--of course you make good points here, and I'm not discounting them, I simply enjoyed reading Sherlockh's post, responded in support of that post, then got frustrated and defensive b/c I felt like it was going back to the "how could an innocent-looking 'girl' possibly do a horrid thing?" and I take issue with that.

Also, there's a first time for everything...at some point in time, all criminals had no background of criminal activity...and I could have sworn I read something about a rock-throwing party in Seattle where the only person arrested was AK...no, that's not murder, but it's not nothing, either.

Anyway, I'm at work, was trying to avoid this thread, and am going to be a good worker now. :seeya: eace:

P.S. SMK: yes, Karla has seriously creepy eyes that can't hide her lack of...humanity...however, when folks heard about her crimes, there was a lot of "that little wisp of a girl? she couldn't have possibly....!!!" But she did.

I understand, flourish. For what it's worth, in the time I've been reading threads on this case, I haven't really noticed any posters condescending to AK and claiming she couldn't participate in a murder because of her age or gender. It's only that her age, gender and lack of criminal history make her a less likely candidate than an older male with a history of sexual violence.

And then we add that fact to the general lack of forensic evidence against her.

But for the record, I'm aware that females can kill, even as teenagers.

 

[SMK]

I don't understand the rules of evidence used in Italian courts.

Apparently, there's some sort of provision whereby the most nonsensical testimony is allowed, as long as it includes something negative about Amanda Knox.

Agreed!

 

[SMK]

Not a confession, but there was coerced testimony and a false accusation a la AK with PL. As you'll recall, the real killer later told authorities that the prosecutor threatened to indict the killer's wife if the killer didn't testify against the innocent man.

That is ghastly and inexcusable, and this prosecutor should be tarred and feathered and driven from his office.

 

[Nova]

That is ghastly and inexcusable, and this prosecutor should be tarred and feathered and driven from his office.

That ADA is retired, but insists he did nothing wrong. After the defendant got a new trial with the help of the Innocence Project, the current ADA looked at the evidence (actually, the lack thereof) and refused to retry the case.

(The innocent man spent a total of 18 years in jail or on death row. Per 48 Hours, he is due $1.4 million in compensation, but the State of Texas is refusing to pay, citing a technical problem in the wording of the man's release document. The compensation case is being litigated in the courts.)

 

[SMK]

That ADA is retired, but insists he did nothing wrong. After the defendant got a new trial with the help of the Innocence Project, the current ADA looked at the evidence (actually, the lack thereof) and refused to retry the case.

(The innocent man spent a total of 18 years in jail or on death row. Per 48 Hours, he is due $1.4 million in compensation, but the State of Texas is refusing to pay, citing a technical problem in the wording of the man's release document. The compensation case is being litigated in the courts.)

Good lord, I hope he wins. Stubbornness reminds me of Mignini, and may not bode well for Knox & Sollecito. :anguish:

 

[SMK]

One thing I cannot seem to get straight: If someone can help me, I would greatly appreciate it. Know I have asked this before: When they say that a "limited review" was granted for the appeals of Knox and Sollecito, does this mean only those pieces of key evidence (bra clasp, knife, etc. ) and that homeless Toto witness are being considered - and that all the various and diverse important material contained within the vast formal Appeals Summaries - TOD, cell phone and computer records, luminol - will just be left out? IMO, if the answer is "yes", Knox and Sollecito are doomed; if it is "no", there is a great deal of hope.

 

[Nova]

One thing I cannot seem to get straight: If someone can help me, I would greatly appreciate it. Know I have asked this before: When they say that a "limited review" was granted for the appeals of Knox and Sollecito, does this mean only those pieces of key evidence (bra clasp, knife, etc. ) and that homeless Toto witness are being considered - and that all the various and diverse important material contained within the vast formal Appeals Summaries - TOD, cell phone and computer records, luminol - will just be left out? IMO, if the answer is "yes", Knox and Sollecito are doomed; if it is "no", there is a great deal of hope.

I'd love to have this answered as well. I have read both answers in a various posts and at various links.

Pro-guilters usually argue that only the announced items will be re-examined by the appellate court. And they may be correct.

But I've also seen summaries of the Italian judicial system that say or imply that all the evidence is reviewed during the first appeal.

So I hope you get an answer, but be aware that the answer you get may be contradicted by other sources.