Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #13

[Nova]

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

Admit it!! You slept through most of that time :giggle:

too funny

My apologies to Paula Poundstone. I had a version of my Kansas joke that I told for years, but Poundstone did a similar bit about being born in Alabama.

Her wording was funnier, so I stole it.

 

[SMK]

Wasn't the satanic cult theory tossed around in the case of Laci Peterson? It seems to be something that comes up from time to time. Regarding the murder of Meredith, it happened on the Day of the Dead, so it's not unusual to wonder if some drugged up crazies with unresolved feelings about a deceased relative, or other personal issues, went nuts on that particular day.

I have no idea what happened during the murder of Meredith other than what is in evidence. One of the murderers claimed to be listening to the assault and murder from the other room, but the DNA on the knife indicates that the person that claimed to be listening from a distance was in fact weilding a knife.

Otto, I originally believed this wholly. I recall how moved I was by a blogger of a certain fame who wrote a fine post about Knox and the Kercher murder called, "A Sadist in the Room". Unfortunately, reading too many other things ultimately unraveled my belief that Knox wielded the knife or was even in the cottage.

 

[Nova]

It's odd how different rules seem to apply to different pieces of evidence.

Most of the time we agree DNA carries no date, yet somehow AK's DNA on a kitchen knife makes HER the one who stabbed MK!

Frankly, I'm amazed that anybody takes any of the testing on that knife seriously, but pretending for the moment that Stefanoni's results mean anything, AK is known to have cooked and eaten at RS' apartment, so we should EXPECT to find her DNA on some of the utensils there. A few molecules of AK's DNA on the handle does NOT mean she touched the knife on the night of the murder.

MK's DNA on the shaft of the knife is slightly more significant, but of course there's nothing approaching the quantity we should find if MK had been stabbed with that implement. And as it turns out, it isn't at all clear that ANY of the DNA is a match to MK.

 

[OldSteve]

I think the sexual assault derived as you say from MK walking in on a burglary in progress. So the "motive" came spontaneously, and was not premeditated in that case.
ETA: (just reinforcing what you say here) Of course the prosecution believe that Knox and Sollecito also was spur of the moment (Massei Report) but the scenario painted there seems too absurd even to entertain.

BBM
Yes, I should have explained myself better... the motive for killing her was sexual rage.

 

[OldSteve]

It's odd how different rules seem to apply to different pieces of evidence.

Most of the time we agree DNA carries no date, yet somehow AK's DNA on a kitchen knife makes HER the one who stabbed MK!

Frankly, I'm amazed that anybody takes any of the testing on that knife seriously, but pretending for the moment that Stefanoni's results mean anything, AK is known to have cooked and eaten at RS' apartment, so we should EXPECT to find her DNA on some of the utensils there. A few molecules of AK's DNA on the handle does NOT mean she touched the knife on the night of the murder.

MK's DNA on the shaft of the knife is slightly more significant, but of course there's nothing approaching the quantity we should find if MK had been stabbed with that implement. And as it turns out, it isn't at all clear that ANY of the DNA is a match to MK.

Exactly! Exactly! This case should be used in Criminology 101 as example of DNA run a mock. We all shed skin cells, sweat, etc. leaving our DNA all over the place. So, finding our DNA in places we've been to or on things that have been in places were previously at is meaningless.
Where it does make sense in this case is to test seamen stains and blood to identify to whom it belongs...

 

[Nova]

Exactly! Exactly! This case should be used in Criminology 101 as example of DNA run a mock. We all shed skin cells, sweat, etc. leaving our DNA all over the place. So, finding our DNA in places we've been to or on things that have been in places were previously at is meaningless.
Where it does make sense in this case is to test seamen stains and blood to identify to whom it belongs...

One would certainly think so, wouldn't one!

 

[otto]

OK, what if the appeals judges and jury find differently than the original jury did?

Won't that be interesting!

 

[otto]

As Allusonz said, you are not getting the point. Which is that if Mignini can't commit to a theory, it's because the evidence isn't there and the defendants should be found not guilty.

What do you mean? The trial was over a couple of years ago. Of course he successfully argued the case ... the verdicts were guilty for all three murderers.

 

[otto]

Still: your point, your burden of proof.

So you want me to prove my opinion that thrill kills are motiveless murders? ??

I don't understand your remark.

 

[otto]

Based upon the evidence found inside MK - the motive was sex IMO.

What evidence was found in Meredith?

 

[otto]

You are still missing the point!!! The only time of importance with respect to eating is MK's and that does not appear to be in dispute. The reason that particular time is critical is for determining the TOD

Just because AK did not note the time they ate and used a guesstimation (my word probably not in dictionary) is they did not look at the time much like I have no idea what time I am currently posting

The three convicted murderers do not have an alibi that can be independently verified or corroborated by anyone one or any activity - including electronic activity. Two of the convicted persons claimed they were eating dinner at the time of the murder (giving three different times), but that was proven to be a lie ... thus making their dinner hour very significant in terms of revealing lies and leaving them without an alibi.

 

[otto]

Yes, it is an ad hominem logical fallacy. And I agree with Nova, that what SkewedView meant was, why pick on Amanda's dress, her smile, her weirdness, etc., when it is evidence alone which counts. Many murderers are sharp dressers, do not turn cartwheels, etc.

I think it's pretty clear where the continued discussion about this is coming from.

 

[otto]

It is not robust. It is new, and controversial, which requires a very strict set of protocols which must be followed in order for this testing to be considered to be reliable and that there are only a couple of laboratories worldwide which have been certified. Again in this article you honed in on one word without taking into consideration what the entire article is about. Their are significant issues with regular DNA testing let alone LCN DNA testing. As well let me remind you again that the Italian lab was not CERTIFIED

"Unvalidated or improper forensic science is a leading cause of wrongful convictions. In more than 50% of the DNA exonerations nationwide, unvalidated or improper forensic science contributed to the underlying wrongful conviction"

http://www.innocenceproject.org/fix/Crime-Lab-Oversight.php

I understand that it is your opinion that LNC DNA is controversial, but according to courts in the UK and NY, it is robust, reliable and should not be excluded.

 

[Allusonz]

The three convicted murderers do not have an alibi that can be independently verified or corroborated by anyone one or any activity - including electronic activity. Two of the convicted persons claimed they were eating dinner at the time of the murder (giving three different times), but that was proven to be a lie ... thus making their dinner hour very significant in terms of revealing lies and leaving them without an alibi.

Exactly. There is no one to independently confirm what time they had eaten thus the one that truly matters is the time that MK ate in order to determine the TOD. That is the one that matters. Anything else which can confirm what AK and RS were doing such as RS's friend stopping by at 8:40 or the computer activity provides backup to them being where they said they were.

 

[Allusonz]

I understand that it is your opinion that LNC DNA is controversial, but according to courts in the UK and NY, it is robust, reliable and should not be excluded.

Mine and many other experts opinions you mean

 

[Allusonz]

What evidence was found in Meredith?

Oh please!!! Again you are simply undermining your own arguments

 

[Allusonz]

I don't understand how three people who barely know one another decide to kill a fourth (relative) stranger on the "spur of the moment." These aren't gang killers we are talking about.

Must agree. The other aspect I am now trying to figure out is how AK orchestrated this verbally to RS and RG considering her limited knowledge of Italian considering that the latest theory of Mignini is that she was in another room, instead of in the room plunging the knife into her. Now I must also wonder if 2 knives would be needed in his latest theory

 

[Mariah]

She was smooching outside the cottage while her roommate was still in the cottage and police were investigating. The handstands were cartwheels and splits and they were done at the police station on the evening of Nov 5 when Amanda was in the lobby and Raffaele was being questioned. The officers told her to cut it out.

You got me...I know very little about the beginning of the investigation. Probably what I saw was a reinactment. Still I think her behavior was odd but what do I know? In any event it doesn't make her guilty or innocent. MOO:banghead:

 

[Allusonz]

You got me...I know very little about the beginning of the investigation. Probably what I saw was a reinactment. Still I think her behavior was odd but what do I know? In any event it doesn't make her guilty or innocent. MOO:banghead:

:welcome:

Gives you a straight jacket (designer btw) you will need it for this thread :innocent:

 

[Mariah]

[

:wagon::wagon:

welcome, but it's incredible that RS giving AK a peck on the lips and AK doing yoga meditation are the only things to give you pause in this wild case.

Thank you...most of you are way ahead of me on the evidence. The story of what transpired and why, on the night of the murder seem to be unusual. DNA that wasn't tested. Correct me if I'm wrong. A very strange case. MOO:innocent: