Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #12

[wasnt_me]

I guess the defense expert who essentially said the same thing during the first trial was not able to persuade:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529951,00.html

......

He didn't testify because the court disallowed him, since he's a ballistic expert. Apparently being a ballistics expert, in their eyes, doesn't make you qualified to discuss projectiles.

 

[otto]

I asked for his qualifications and his history as to how he came into the job. I did not ask for his personal information, so I am not sure why you're interjected with SMK and I to say this.

I made a comment on this public discussion board regarding what I recently read on another thread.

 

[wasnt_me]

Snipped for space. The main trial is over. The appeal trial is just a short version. RG finished all his trials and appeals. In none of them it was concluded that the bathmat print was his. That you want me to look with my own eyes instead of listening to the print experts analysis makes me laugh so hard...lol...What is the point really?

.

The main trial has just begun, according to:

Italy has a justice system that relies heavily on the appeals system. You are given two chances to appeal your ruling. Fifty percent of rulings are overturned or adjusted on appeal. The Italian Justice System does not consider you guilty until your appeals are completed.

Fisher, Bruce (2011). Injustice in Perugia: a book detailing the wrongful conviction of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito (p. 252). Kindle Edition.

The footprints were not made in blood. The test for blood yielded a negative result. Theories as to why it yielded a negative result do not matter. But, for the record, it wasn't because there wasn't enough blood to test, as you say, because there was no blood finding to start with. They say there wasn't enough "material," not blood. They also say:

In considering these specimens, one must also consider the possibility that they arose from other sources and are irrelevant to the investigation.

There are prints in the murder room, something like 6 or 8. and ZERO belong to AK or RS.

IF I go with the theory you can stab someone and not leave footprints, I still wonder how you can fight with them, hold them down, stab them, and not leave fingerprints anywhere, DNA anywhere inside the murder room or how you can clean up that which is invisible to the naked eye. I wonder how the clothes you were witnessed to be in could be bloodless and DNA-less for MK, as well. I wonder other things, but lastly, how you go through such painstaking effort to do all this but for whatever reason, choose to NOT clean the "murder knife" just as well, and also to not dispose of it or do something about that big whopping footprint on the bathmat. Please don't say they couldn't get the blood out, because they managed to do some magical mr. clean if the clean up theory is accepted.

 

[wasnt_me]

I made a comment on this public discussion board regarding what I recently read on another thread.

Which pertains to my request for the prosecutor's credentials in what way?

 

[wasnt_me]

It seems that you are making the assumption that if someone make a mistake early in the investigation, that they prefer to compound that mistake with more mistakes rather than step forward and declare that a mistake was made. The fact that Patrick was arrested, held for 2 weeks and released supports the belief that if a mistake is made, it is corrected rather than compounded with additional mistakes. That is, there is absolutely no reason to believe that investigators would continue to focus on a suspect after that suspect had been cleared - regardless of what was published by media.

I don't know what a MOF indictment is.

MOF--monster of florence, after which some 20 other people were released, even though Mignini protested the basis for it. maybe PL got freed because someone else was not trying to repeat that particular debacle, and told Mignini he'd better get some evidence on AK and RS. Which made Mignini in turn "miraculously" find the bra clasp with RS DNA on it.

 

[wasnt_me]

Ok the rubber straw hats are finished!!! wasnt and the rest of the gang hope you enjoy them :giggle:

Just in time...

But now I want sunglasses with eyeballs painted on them that make me look awake even though I'm asleep.

 

[wasnt_me]

Regarding Knox DNA in the cottage and in Meredith's bedroom, much has been said. If Knox DNA is in the bedroom, or indeed anywhere in the cottage, it is immediately dismissed because Knox lived in the cottage. If it's not in the bedroom or the cottage, the question is how is it possible that there was such a clean up that all of Knox DNA, except for that evidence which was introduced in court, could have been cleaned up? Who knows. I don't know why Knox's sheets were not checked for DNA. If there was no Knox DNA there, it is very suspicious. Knox had just had a shower. Was there truly no DNA from Knox in the shower? Knox DNA should have been in the kitchen. Was it thoroughly check for DNA, or was the kitchen not considered the crime scene and not carefully tested for Knox DNA. What about the large bathroom. Knox reported that she used the blow dryer in that bathroom. Why wasn't her DNA in that room ... not a hair or spec of DNA? Was there Knox DNA in Meredith's bedroom but it was not collected, or was it not there? Not a hair or spec of Knox DNA in the entire room or cottage (other than evidence introduced in court)? Really? What does that mean? In the Brad Cooper case, the absence of incriminating DNA meant nothing. Other evidence convicted him of 1st degree murder. No murder weapon, no DNA evidence, nothing but a bunch of lies he told and circumstantial evidence ... and he'll spend the rest of his life in prison. Why is the same set of circumstances okay in North Carolina, but not okay in Perugia?

Suppose three people attack one person. The person being attacked will be easily restrained, especially if a knife is present. In fact, upon seeing a knife, someone may initially cooperate. Possibly during an assault, there is a struggle, but it's not likely that the victim will be able to inflict much in the way of injuries to the attackers when restrained by three people. Brad Cooper had no injuries and there was no evidence of a struggle either, but he was guilty of murder.

I think the argument introduced by Knox parents is weak, but many people have taken it as crucial in her defense. Early on they claimed that there was no DNA in the entire cottage, so she must be innocent. I don't see it that way.

You're not addressing the questions, as you didn't address my questions before. It's hard to have meaningful discussions with someone who refuses to answer questions. Maybe you don't mean not to, but I try to address your questions when you ask them of me.

You're also not looking at all the evidence, because if you were, you'd know that MK had defensive wounds on her hands, meaning she wasn't being held down all that well or 3 people WERE having trouble, and that's EXACTLY when DNA and blood transfer would occur.

As far as what DNA was collected, you seem to have full faith in the investigators, so to that end, they must have all you need for DNA. on the other hand, if you have doubts about their investigation such as you presented above, then you might ought to have doubts about their conclusions.

I personally think there's no way in hell they would have concluded investigations, even after 100 days, if they felt they could return to the crime scene and pull another "bra clasp" out of the "rabbit's hat" to link to AK. But I'll thinking they didnt believe they could get away with such a thing twice.

 

[otto]

Snipped for space. Why do I think there was no prints in the murder room? Because they walked away? How about that? Just like RG got towels first without leaving any prints. You can actually stab someone without leaving any footprints. It has been done before. The floor is not instantly covered in blood. Just look where RG left his prints. It was very close to the body. An alternative could be that they wiped a print or 2 but I am not sure about that. I don't really agree with Massei but more with Mignini. I think the luminol prints occurred during the cleanup and that they were all wearing shoes at first, but that is just speculation.

There has been several trials all together and people have moved on. Lets drop the conspiracies and excuses for a change and lets look at the current appeals. Apparently you got your hopes up so good luck with that JMO of course.

BBM

I had never thought of it like that before, but with all the discussion about only Rudy leaving shoe prints in the "ironing board" sized bedroom ... not walking to and from the bathroom after the murder - wearing shoes - to get towels (supported by evidence) ... how did that happen? If he committed the murder and walked directly to the bathroom to get towels, he did not have any blood on his shoes when he left the room the first time.

We have other barefoot prints in the bathroom and hallway (mixed DNA in another bedroom) ... gives the impression that all three culprits could have committed the murder and walked out of the room after the murder without leaving bloody shoe prints. The only prints around the body were Rudy's shoes (not bare feet) and then straight down the hall and out the door. Where did the bloody barefoot prints come from?

I remember Edda and Curt saying, before the trial, that the real trial would be the appeal. I think that led many people to believe that there would be a complete retrial, much like what happens with a successfully appealed conviction in the US: a full re-trial. In fact, I wondered if that was what they expected. In this appeal hearing, a very long list was presented for appeal but only three points were accepted. That doesn't bode well.

 

[Malkmus]

Snipped for space. The main trial is over. The appeal trial is just a short version. RG finished all his trials and appeals. In none of them it was concluded that the bathmat print was his. That you want me to look with my own eyes instead of listening to the print experts analysis makes me laugh so hard...lol...What is the point really?

I use my own eyes and the defense experts analysis of the footprint which doesn't use obfuscation to convince people the print was Rafaelle's. There's really no logical explanation of why the bathmat would have a different shaped big toe than Raf's reference print.

The footprints were all concluded to have been made in blood. Read the report for a change instead of the conspiracy forums.

Appeal to authority is not convincing. Sorry. Neither is sarcasm in lieu of an actual rebuttal.

You yell at me for what? It is considered very rude.

Yell at you? Please point to where I used any exclamation points. It's also hypocritical to call me rude when your original post was sarcastically mocking people's skepticism of the evidence.

You 'forgot' to say the blood test was the confirming test and far less sensitive than the initial luminol test. The DNA expert explained very simple and direct that this means there wasn't enough blood for the test to be positive. That doesn't mean it wasn't blood. All explained by the expert and in the judges report. So again what is the point in making up these theories? Just for fun?

I haven't made up any theories. But if you believe that blood lit up the Luminol but no blood could be found, then I think you're misleading yourself. You might also want to ask yourself why Stefanoni lied in court about not testing the prints for blood.

Why do I think there was no prints in the murder room? Because they walked away? How about that?

What does this even mean? Are you trying to be funny by saying the footprints anthropomorphized and walked out of the cottage on their own? Or are you saying that because a murderer walks away he leaves no prints? Either one makes no sense.

Just like RG got towels first without leaving any prints.

Rudy's bloody shoe prints are in the murder room as well as the hallway. Plus, since I believe that's Rudy's bare footprint on the bathmat I believe he took his bloody shoes off at one point when he got the towels. What doesn't make sense is that AK and RS would be able to wipe their prints and only have the ones in the hallway show up with Luminol, but none in the murder room where they would have stepped in the blood in the first place.

You can actually stab someone without leaving any footprints. It has been done before.

I'm sorry, but you're the one claiming they left bloody footprints after stabbing Meredith, so this doesn't make sense. Of course someone can stab someone else without leaving footprints, but your claim is that AK and RS did.

The floor is not instantly covered in blood. Just look where RG left his prints. It was very close to the body. An alternative could be that they wiped a print or 2 but I am not sure about that.

Then the Luminol would have detected them wouldn't it?

I don't really agree with Massei but more with Mignini.

That makes two of us.

(Snip)There has been several trials all together and people have moved on.

Rudy Guede has had several trials. Sorry, but no one was arguing AK and RS's defense in those, and is therefore irrelevant to your point. Can you elaborate on "people have moved on"? What does that mean and what are you basing it on?

Lets drop the conspiracies and excuses for a change and lets look at the current appeals.

I believe we've all been discussing the appeals and the devastating blows the prosecution has had thus far. Rather you're the one who has said nothing is going on and only refers to the first trial.

Apparently you got your hopes up so good luck with that JMO of course.

As I've said multiple times, I don't expect RS and AK to be set free. Recently, in light of how bad the prosecution's case has been falling apart, I have said there might be hope for their freedom.

 

[Malkmus]

It seems that you are making the assumption that if someone make a mistake early in the investigation, that they prefer to compound that mistake with more mistakes rather than step forward and declare that a mistake was made. The fact that Patrick was arrested, held for 2 weeks and released supports the belief that if a mistake is made, it is corrected rather than compounded with additional mistakes. That is, there is absolutely no reason to believe that investigators would continue to focus on a suspect after that suspect had been cleared - regardless of what was published by media.

I don't know what a MOF indictment is.

They had no choice but to release Patrick because he had a witness for an alibi. Because AK and RS didn't have that luxury, the same could not be done for them. Patrick being released was for sure an embarrassment for ILE, and why it was so important that Rudy and the two others they had in custody be the actual culprits.

 

[otto]

They had no choice but to release Patrick because he had a witness for an alibi. Because AK and RS didn't have that luxury, the same could not be done for them. Patrick being released was for sure an embarrassment for ILE, and why it was so important that Rudy and the two others they had in custody be the actual culprits.

Knox and Sollecito gave several alibis. Included in the "stayed at Raffaele's apt" alibi are some serious problems. When asked to account for what they did, they couldn't get the time or the story straight. They both attempted to deflect blame. Rather than do what the innocent guy Patrick Lumumba did, which is deny any involvement during his two weeks of questioning in prison, they spilled in less than two hours - both of them. They both capitulated, first Raffaele distancing himself and then Amanda accusing her boss of murder.

The "stayed at Raffaele's apt" alibi includes the claim that dinner was hours after after it happened, there's a movie that ended shortly after 9 PM that wasn't turned off, music was turned on at 6 AM when the pair were, according to alibi, asleep, phone calls from dad placing dinner before 8:30 and a message on the phone that was retrieved shortly after 6 AM ... and all that stuff about whether the water leak meant they had finished supper 3 hours earlier than claimed in the alibi.

They have no alibi that includes what they did at the apartment from about 8:45 PM until 6 AM ... there is no electronic record of their whereabouts during that time - not at the apartment, not on the phone, not at the computer, not playing music, not watching movies. Nothing ... but they slept late, until 10 AM, and had breakfast after Amanda returned from her cottage shower (a scene that supposedly concerned her).

So, when Amanda discovered a break in at the house, she decided to have a shower and then go back to Raffaele's apartment and have lunch before mentioning the break in. Amanda and Raffaele should have called the police after speaking with Filomina, who was alarmed and going to meet them at the cottage. Instead, there is some question about whether the postal police arrived before the carabinieri were called, whether they had clear directions and what Amanda and Raffaele were doing on the front step when the postal police unexpectedly arrived to ask about phones. We'll never know why Amanda, who was reportedly alarmed at the situation (wide open door, blood in the bathroom, what appeared to be a locked bedroom door, et cetera) did not immediately call her roommate or Raffaele, but instead went for a walk and had lunch. Weird, huh

Yes, Patrick, Filomina, Laura, all the guys downstairs, all the bar owners, all the school friends ... they all had alibis that made sense ... everyone except Amanda and Raffaele. Their alibis not only could not be verified, but they continued to lie and attempt to deflect guilt during questioning. There are many classic signs of deception that are either perceived or labeled as youthfulness.

 

[Nova]

No they I guess could not find one or a ballistic expert. Instead they relied on the memory of FR, her bf, and general observations made by a couple of ILE (from their memory) :giggle:

Thanks. That's what I thought. And that's reason enough to acquit the defendants.

 

[Nova]

It seems that you are making the assumption that if someone make a mistake early in the investigation, that they prefer to compound that mistake with more mistakes rather than step forward and declare that a mistake was made. The fact that Patrick was arrested, held for 2 weeks and released supports the belief that if a mistake is made, it is corrected rather than compounded with additional mistakes. That is, there is absolutely no reason to believe that investigators would continue to focus on a suspect after that suspect had been cleared - regardless of what was published by media.

I don't know what a MOF indictment is.

You must be joking! Perugia LE held on to Patrick Lumumba until he was finally pulled from their bony claws by irrefutable DNA evidence (and/or an ironclad alibi, as Malkmus points out above). If Rudy Guede hadn't left his DNA all over the body and crime scene, Lumumba would still be in prison.

And even then they didn't admit their error, they simply substituted one black man for another and pushed on with the same theory.

 

[Nova]

Regarding Knox DNA in the cottage and in Meredith's bedroom, much has been said. If Knox DNA is in the bedroom, or indeed anywhere in the cottage, it is immediately dismissed because Knox lived in the cottage. If it's not in the bedroom or the cottage, the question is how is it possible that there was such a clean up that all of Knox DNA, except for that evidence which was introduced in court, could have been cleaned up? Who knows. I don't know why Knox's sheets were not checked for DNA. If there was no Knox DNA there, it is very suspicious. Knox had just had a shower. Was there truly no DNA from Knox in the shower? Knox DNA should have been in the kitchen. Was it thoroughly check for DNA, or was the kitchen not considered the crime scene and not carefully tested for Knox DNA. What about the large bathroom. Knox reported that she used the blow dryer in that bathroom. Why wasn't her DNA in that room ... not a hair or spec of DNA? Was there Knox DNA in Meredith's bedroom but it was not collected, or was it not there? Not a hair or spec of Knox DNA in the entire room or cottage (other than evidence introduced in court)? Really? What does that mean? In the Brad Cooper case, the absence of incriminating DNA meant nothing. Other evidence convicted him of 1st degree murder. No murder weapon, no DNA evidence, nothing but a bunch of lies he told and circumstantial evidence ... and he'll spend the rest of his life in prison. Why is the same set of circumstances okay in North Carolina, but not okay in Perugia?

Suppose three people attack one person. The person being attacked will be easily restrained, especially if a knife is present. In fact, upon seeing a knife, someone may initially cooperate. Possibly during an assault, there is a struggle, but it's not likely that the victim will be able to inflict much in the way of injuries to the attackers when restrained by three people. Brad Cooper had no injuries and there was no evidence of a struggle either, but he was guilty of murder.

I think the argument introduced by Knox parents is weak, but many people have taken it as crucial in her defense. Early on they claimed that there was no DNA in the entire cottage, so she must be innocent. I don't see it that way.

I'm sure Knox left DNA in many places in the cottage; she just didn't leave much in the places ILE checked. If you are arguing that ILE can't be trusted to correctly collect DNA samples, I won't argue.

The problem with the prosecution's case is that there is so much of RG's DNA in the places one would expect to find the killer's DNA, but little to none of AK's and RS' DNA.

 

[otto]

You must be joking! Perugia LE held on to Patrick Lumumba until he was finally pulled from their bony claws by irrefutable DNA evidence (and/or an ironclad alibi, as Malkmus points out above). If Rudy Guede hadn't left his DNA all over the body and crime scene, Lumumba would still be in prison.

And even then they didn't admit their error, they simply substituted one black man for another and pushed on with the same theory.

You contradict.

A. "Patrick Lumumba [had] an ironclad alibi",
B. "If Rudy Guede hadn't left his DNA all over the body and crime scene, Lumumba would still be in prison"

Not true. Patrick had an alibi regardless of any other DNA. He was released on the basis of his alibi, as were Filomina, Laura, the guys downstairs, the bar owners, the bar buddies, the English friends, the University friends ... all dimissed on the basis of substantiated alibi ... no way that he would have been kept in prison regardless of Rudy's arrest. Patrick was detained for two weeks because there was eyewitness testimony against him ... but his alibi was irrefutable ... and that alone took time to clear him.

Knox and Sollecito were detained as suspects, as is common in Roman Law ... it is not unusual for suspects to be detained for questioning when their stories don't add up - as was common in the Monster of Florence case. To suggest that Amanda was known to be innocent prior to trial, but that the trial went forward because the prosecutor was afraid to admit he made a mistake is like proclaiming ignorance of the legal system. Knox and Sollecito were detained for up to a year without proof of guilt beyond what had been presented in court in the first few weeks after arrest ... which is normal. It meant that, at any point, if there was another suspect or new evidence, they would be released, like Patrick.

Amanda and Raffale gave a lying alibi about getting stoned, watching a movie, making dinner, getting stoned, pipes breaking, phone calls, and Amanda being unaccounted for from 8:45 until 10 the following morning. Raffaele was accounted for at 6 in the morning, after turning on the phone and computer.

Compared to all the other people in Perugia, only Amanda and Raffaele cannot explain themselves on the night of the murder ... weird huh.

 

[SMK]

It seems that you are making the assumption that if someone make a mistake early in the investigation, that they prefer to compound that mistake with more mistakes rather than step forward and declare that a mistake was made. The fact that Patrick was arrested, held for 2 weeks and released supports the belief that if a mistake is made, it is corrected rather than compounded with additional mistakes. That is, there is absolutely no reason to believe that investigators would continue to focus on a suspect after that suspect had been cleared - regardless of what was published by media.

I don't know what a MOF indictment is.

"MOF" = Monster of Florence case. I do not think Mignini is conscious of having compounded anything. He is being faithful to his own nature. What you do not seem to be grasping is Mignini's special character. Under some circumstances , it is a character of a very high order. But it is subject to mania. I concluded this after a couple of years of reading about him, seeing him, observing him, and understanding his world view, his stance toward things. He could let Patrick go, and bring in Rudy. But once his mind had seized on the idea of Amanda, he could not let go. It was not willful; it was natural and necessary. His suspicion regarding someone like Knox's ethics is part of his secret animus, and guides him. This is my conclusion, others can differ. As far as those around him, I believe they respect and trust him, due to the fact that his character is robust, and all energy and will. He has confidence to inspire others. As I said, a bit like Javert in Victor Hugo's Les Miserables. Or Saint Paul. A genius, but a dark one, and a bit dangerous. This is my "take" on him. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

 

[OldSteve]

Returning again to where I mentioned:

Now what needs to be done is to show that AK and RS were in the room with MK - blood smeared in the room with their finger prints, foot prints, bodily fluid, something unique to the night of the crime, but not DNA that could have migrated onto things since AK, RS had use of the cottage. Also would be helpful - any marks or busing on AK or RS.

If I were a juror - I would find it impossible to believe that AK somehow miraculously avoided ALL THE THINGS I mentioned above!

I would also consider her lackadaisical attitude toward legally protecting herself when dealing with LE as an indication that she was not a deep thinker about crime scene staging, clean up, and tricky.

Had she been (criminally cunning), she would have been on the first train out of there!

She never would have gone with RS when he was interrogated, and would most certainly not have allowed herself to be questioned into the wee hours of the morning under conditions described by a most respected (especially by me!) 25-year FBI veteran, Steve Moore, who independently researched and analyzed the case for a year while AK waited for her appeal.

Steve Moore likened the tactics used to get AK to implicate PL as those used by "third-world intelligence agencies" from about 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. when she was exhausted!!
She was interrogated in Italian, which she did not speak fluently at the time.
"She gave them a confused indictment of someone else … which she recanted after she got some food."
http://abcnews.go.com/International...tired-fbi-agent-steve-moore/story?id=11541334

 

[Nova]

You contradict.

A. "Patrick Lumumba [had] an ironclad alibi",
B. "If Rudy Guede hadn't left his DNA all over the body and crime scene, Lumumba would still be in prison"

Not true. Patrick had an alibi regardless of any other DNA. He was released on the basis of his alibi, as were Filomina, Laura, the guys downstairs, the bar owners, the bar buddies, the English friends, the University friends ... all dimissed on the basis of substantiated alibi ... no way that he would have been kept in prison regardless of Rudy's arrest. Patrick was detained for two weeks because there was eyewitness testimony against him ... but his alibi was irrefutable ... and that alone took time to clear him.

Knox and Sollecito were detained as suspects, as is common in Roman Law ... it is not unusual for suspects to be detained for questioning when their stories don't add up - as was common in the Monster of Florence case. To suggest that Amanda was known to be innocent prior to trial, but that the trial went forward because the prosecutor was afraid to admit he made a mistake is like proclaiming ignorance of the legal system. Knox and Sollecito were detained for up to a year without proof of guilt beyond what had been presented in court in the first few weeks after arrest ... which is normal. It meant that, at any point, if there was another suspect or new evidence, they would be released, like Patrick.

Amanda and Raffale gave a lying alibi about getting stoned, watching a movie, making dinner, getting stoned, pipes breaking, phone calls, and Amanda being unaccounted for from 8:45 until 10 the following morning. Raffaele was accounted for at 6 in the morning, after turning on the phone and computer.

Compared to all the other people in Perugia, only Amanda and Raffaele cannot explain themselves on the night of the murder ... weird huh.

There is no contradiction between A and B above. Both are true. Malkmus believes the alibi was paramount. He's probably right; he usually is.

I have no reason to trust ILE to substantiate alibis, not given their penchant for error. As far as I know, Filomena and her boyfriend alibied one another, just as AK and RS did. I guess Filomena didn't move her hips suspiciously, so her alibi was believed. Do you have a link to everyone's alibi?

As for your reference to what is usually called "tunnel vision", you are misstating the arguments of others. Nobody is saying that Mignini KNEW AK was innocent and prosecuted her anyway; what a lot of us are saying is that he WOULD HAVE and SHOULD HAVE KNOWN she was innocent if he had taken an objective look at the evidence. Alas, he did not.

 

[Nova]

Returning again to where I mentioned:

Now what needs to be done is to show that AK and RS were in the room with MK - blood smeared in the room with their finger prints, foot prints, bodily fluid, something unique to the night of the crime, but not DNA that could have migrated onto things since AK, RS had use of the cottage. Also would be helpful - any marks or busing on AK or RS.

If I were a juror - I would find it impossible to believe that AK somehow miraculously avoided ALL THE THINGS I mentioned above!

I would also consider her lackadaisical attitude toward legally protecting herself when dealing with LE as an indication that she was not a deep thinker about crime scene staging, clean up, and tricky.

Had she been (criminally cunning), she would have been on the first train out of there!

She never would have gone with RS when he was interrogated, and would most certainly not have allowed herself to be questioned into the wee hours of the morning under conditions described by a most respected (especially by me!) 25-year FBI veteran, Steve Moore, who independently researched and analyzed the case for a year while AK waited for her appeal.

Steve Moore likened the tactics used to get AK to implicate PL as those used by "third-world intelligence agencies" from about 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. when she was exhausted!!
She was interrogated in Italian, which she did not speak fluently at the time.
"She gave them a confused indictment of someone else … which she recanted after she got some food."
http://abcnews.go.com/International...tired-fbi-agent-steve-moore/story?id=11541334

Great summary, Steve, and IMHO, exactly right!

 

[wasnt_me]

I'm sure Knox left DNA in many places in the cottage; she just didn't leave much in the places ILE checked. If you are arguing that ILE can't be trusted to correctly collect DNA samples, I won't argue.

The problem with the prosecution's case is that there is so much of RG's DNA in the places one would expect to find the killer's DNA, but little to none of AK's and RS' DNA.

Just enhancing your post by saying that AK had spent every night since she met RS with him, or almost every night, according to testimony. so for a week, she wasn't hardly even at the cottage. If the others cleaned house any that week, it would stand to reason that less of Ak's dna would be around.

Additionally, it makes no sense that if AK and RS had a habit of going to his place where they could be alone--without interruption from even ONE roommate--that they wouldn't have stayed at his house Nov. 1, but instead of going to AK's house, where AK wasn't sure if one or perhaps even two of her roomates would be. If guilty, why the sudden desire on that night to depart from the routine and take a 16 inch knife with them on top of that?

I've asked Otto to explain that, since it's part of his theory, but I guess he's either ignoring me or doesn't have an answer.