Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #14

[SMK]

It's a picture of the "blonde hair" collected from Meredith's body. Massei explains this in his report:

Thanks.....:waitasec:...........

 

[emyr]

Can someone answer me if there is CCTV footage released of all footage between the time Rudy Guede was last seen and 12 the next day? Does one have to go by that camera to get to the house?

Can someone tell me if it was an apple or a mushroom found in Meredith's esophagus. And was it for sure her esophagus? As in she had just eaten it the moment she was attacked? When I heard it was a mushroom my first thought was that it was a shroom mushroom. Then I thought surely they would mention that. What exactly was it?

Also, can someone list the reasons why the broken window was determined to be staged? Are all the reasons:
1) b/c Filomena said the exterior shutters were closed
2) b/c it seems a less likely window to use to break in
3) b/c there was no visual evidence of someone walking through the grass below the window, and no evidence on the wall as well.
4) b/c the pattern of the glass inside the room indicated a rock being thrown from the inside and bouncing off the exterior shutters and back into the room. (I'm unclear on the glass pattern stuff).


Is that, from the forensics, about right?

 

[Nova]

Can someone answer me if there is CCTV footage released of all footage between the time Rudy Guede was last seen and 12 the next day? Does one have to go by that camera to get to the house?

Can someone tell me if it was an apple or a mushroom found in Meredith's esophagus. And was it for sure her esophagus? As in she had just eaten it the moment she was attacked? When I heard it was a mushroom my first thought was that it was a shroom mushroom. Then I thought surely they would mention that. What exactly was it?

Also, can someone list the reasons why the broken window was determined to be staged? Are all the reasons:
1) b/c Filomena said the exterior shutters were closed
2) b/c it seems a less likely window to use to break in
3) b/c there was no visual evidence of someone walking through the grass below the window, and no evidence on the wall as well.
4) b/c the pattern of the glass inside the room indicated a rock being thrown from the inside and bouncing off the exterior shutters and back into the room. (I'm unclear on the glass pattern stuff).


Is that, from the forensics, about right?

As near as I can tell, no true forensic examination was done of the glass in FR's room. She (and a couple of police officers) said there was glass "on top" of the tossed clothes and her computer, and those in charge of the investigation immediately assumed staging.

I keep asking, but thus far nobody has even claimed that anyone looked to see if there was glass underneath the tossed items as well. (As there might be if the glass had been rearranged during the tossing of the room.)

Nor have I seen anything that explains the glass obviously impaled on the outside of the inner shutters, glass that shouldn't be there unless the rock was thrown through the glass from the outside.

I have seen nothing from the prosecution that compares with Ron Hendry's actual analysis of the break-in using forensic science. This is very odd when one considers that the assumption that the break-in was staged is the lynch pin of the prosecution's entire case.

 

[SMK]

Can someone answer me if there is CCTV footage released of all footage between the time Rudy Guede was last seen and 12 the next day? Does one have to go by that camera to get to the house?

Can someone tell me if it was an apple or a mushroom found in Meredith's esophagus. And was it for sure her esophagus? As in she had just eaten it the moment she was attacked? When I heard it was a mushroom my first thought was that it was a shroom mushroom. Then I thought surely they would mention that. What exactly was it?

Also, can someone list the reasons why the broken window was determined to be staged? Are all the reasons:
1) b/c Filomena said the exterior shutters were closed
2) b/c it seems a less likely window to use to break in
3) b/c there was no visual evidence of someone walking through the grass below the window, and no evidence on the wall as well.
4) b/c the pattern of the glass inside the room indicated a rock being thrown from the inside and bouncing off the exterior shutters and back into the room. (I'm unclear on the glass pattern stuff).


Is that, from the forensics, about right?

As far as the mushroom/apple: Originally I had read it was a piece of mushroom, eaten at home. But this was changed to a piece of apple, from an apple cobbler dessert. I believe it was in fact the esophagus, and sometimes particles of food might be lodged in there until broken down by acids. I read somewhere else, though, that it was the deudonum, which is below, and not above, the stomach. ETA: I had seen footage which was supposedly Rudy walking past the car park and toward the cottage, but not sure if it was him or not.

 

[otto]

Here's an article worth reading! It says that LNC DNA was used in 2005 to exonerate Tim Masters. So LNC DNA is fine with the Innocence project when it works to free someone, but not good enough when it's used to convict?

"Eikelenboom testified about "low copy number" DNA, by which small samples of DNA are amplified and copied in an effort to obtain a full profile."

"Eikelenboom told jurors he previously worked on the Tim Masters case in Colorado. Masters was convicted in 1999 of a 1987 murder, but was freed in 2008 after Eikelenboom and his wife discovered new DNA evidence."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/06/21/florida.casey.anthony.trial/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

 

[SMK]

Here's an article worth reading! It says that LNC DNA was used in 2005 to exonerate Tim Masters. So LNC DNA is fine with the Innocence project when it works to free someone, but not good enough when it's used to convict?

"Eikelenboom testified about "low copy number" DNA, by which small samples of DNA are amplified and copied in an effort to obtain a full profile."

"Eikelenboom told jurors he previously worked on the Tim Masters case in Colorado. Masters was convicted in 1999 of a 1987 murder, but was freed in 2008 after Eikelenboom and his wife discovered new DNA evidence."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/06/21/florida.casey.anthony.trial/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Eikelenboom testified about "low copy number" DNA, by which small samples of DNA are amplified and copied in an effort to obtain a full profile.
He said that when tape is used to cover a person's mouth, it is possible the sticky side of the tape could contain skin cells from the face as well as DNA from the mouth. However, he told Assistant State Attorney Jeff Ashton, factors such as heat and water have "a very detrimental effect" on DNA and it would be difficult to determine a profile from tape that, in this case, had been exposed to the elements for as long as six months.
An FBI examiner previously testified that DNA testing on the tape was inconclusive, but a possible indication of DNA there did not appear to match Caylee, Casey Anthony or George Anthony.
Eikelenboom told jurors he previously worked on the Tim Masters case in Colorado. Masters was convicted in 1999 of a 1987 murder, but was freed in 2008 after Eikelenboom and his wife discovered new DNA evidence.
Eikelenboom said that the forensics company his wife founded, which he joined in 2005, received international attention after his work in the Masters case.

Yes, Eikelenboom is into "touch DNA analysis" described below, which would seem to be indicative of the bra clasp evidence:

The name "touch DNA" reflects that investigators extract samples from only a few cells left behind by a person who briefly touched an object, such as clothing.

"Touch DNA" a relatively new analysis - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_9833167#ixzz1PxP5LpOj

Richard and his wife, Selma, are Dutch forensic scientists who started their own business, Independent Forensic Sciences, a few years back in the Netherlands. They specialize in several areas of forensics including trace evidence, bloodstain analysis, and DNA testing. The type of testing that Casey’s team wants performed by Eikelenboom is referred to as “touch DNA”, or “contact DNA” testing.

http://www.realitychatter.com/t2788-richard-and-selma-eikelenboom

 

[Malkmus]

Here's an article worth reading! It says that LNC DNA was used in 2005 to exonerate Tim Masters. So LNC DNA is fine with the Innocence project when it works to free someone, but not good enough when it's used to convict?

"Eikelenboom testified about "low copy number" DNA, by which small samples of DNA are amplified and copied in an effort to obtain a full profile."

"Eikelenboom told jurors he previously worked on the Tim Masters case in Colorado. Masters was convicted in 1999 of a 1987 murder, but was freed in 2008 after Eikelenboom and his wife discovered new DNA evidence."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/06/21/florida.casey.anthony.trial/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

No, the issues surrounding the knife analysis is and has always been the lab lacking certification for LCN testing, the lack of full disclosure re the .fsa files, and Stefanoni's dubious testing methods - the "too low" results for example. That's not to mention the ridiculous scenario needed to get the knife from Rafaelle's over to the cottage.

If the independent experts verify her results it will much harder to criticize them, but full disclosure is mainly what everyone's been after and what's been lacking until now.

 

[SMK]

No, the issues surrounding the knife analysis is and has always been the lab lacking certification for LCN testing, the lack of full disclosure re the .fsa files, and Stefanoni's dubious testing methods - the "too low" results for example. That's not to mention the ridiculous scenario needed to get the knife from Rafaelle's over to the cottage.

If the independent experts verify her results it will much harder to criticize them, but full disclosure is mainly what everyone's been after and what's been lacking until now.

I agree about the knife. But this "touch DNA analysis" - which I had not heard of before - worries me a bit about the bra clasp.

 

[wasnt_me]

wasnt me,

I also think the mop thing was weird. Also, when I read the Massei report, I thought it stated that Amanda used the bathmat to slide down the hallway into her room. But then I read that she used it as a shield to cover herself? Honestly, if she used the bathmat to slide down the hallway, I would find this so suspicious. Who does that?

I don't know if it was lost in translation, but my understanding is that she said there were no towels in the bathroom after her shower. So she used the bathmat like a towel to shield her naked body on her way to her room. It's my understanding that she did this because she'd left the cottage door either open or unlocked, so whomever she thought was home, but just outside, could get back into the house.

As I've stated, I think that when she returned the mat to its spot, she put it down backward, so that the footprint appeared to be entering the room, instead of exiting the shower. That's just what I think, of course no proof.

 

[wasnt_me]

Well you never apologized for acting that way in the first place, which was uncalled for IMO.
I did not reply to the bucket baiting question, because there was no evidence that I know of concerning that mop or the mop in the closet.
That's why I guess they are mentioned by both accused for the water 'spill'.
I have no problem with giving credit to valid points as long as I find them so.

your request for an apology when someone asks you for proof is uncalled for, and of course the question wasn't baiting. back to square one, I guess.

 

[wasnt_me]

Yes, he seems to be asking AK about blood stains in general, not just the couple of drops she shed herself. I think you are right that he is merely establishing that MK hadn't been murdered when AK left the house on the afternoon of Nov. 1.

I don't know why this matters. I've forgotten.

My point was merely that since there is no indication that AK was looking for blood drops, she can only testify that she doesn't remember seeing any. That isn't the same thing as saying with certainty that none existed.

I was objecting to twisting AK's testimony into something she could not have known.

unfortunately, this point of AK saying the stains weren't there before has been disingenuiously used to indicate that her OWN blood stains hadn't been there the day before.

It was used in a way to try to prove that she could only have bled the night of the murder. This was a very dirty trick or it was a statement not very well read by the person (otto) who was trying to use it to prove she herself had admitted to bleeding the night of the murder.

However, with the clear scope of her testimony, you see, everyone sees, that she was asked if she saw blood in general. Did she see it in the sink, in the bidet, on the floor, or on the light switch on before she left the house Nov 1 at 4pm.

Just never take for granted that the person you're disagreeing with actually has his or her facts straight before you wind up debating under a false premise.

 

[Allusonz]

I agree about the knife. But this "touch DNA analysis" - which I had not heard of before - worries me a bit about the bra clasp.

The idea behind Touch DNA is for example where would the most likely places that DNA be. For example if you are pulling down a pair of pants would it be on the pant leg or the waist.

Even with touch DNA there are still protocols/standards which must be adhered to thus an item deemed to be invalidated for example from possible contamination would not be admitted into trial. There are very few that are again certified to do this.

 

[Allusonz]

your request for an apology when someone asks you for proof is uncalled for, and of course the question wasn't baiting. back to square one, I guess.

We also know from the video taken of the collection of the mop that it had a very long handle as can be seen when they were looking for the wrapping paper used from the cottage.

The picture of the bucket and what is said to be a mop is not the mop they took into evidence as it is very small thus I am more inclined to believe that the ones in the picture which appears to be an industrial one is probably something that is from the forensics team. Whatever is in that bucket is not the mop that we have all seen in the video being wrapped as evidence

 

[wasnt_me]

It's just a plastic bucket.

Full of water, it might be too heavy to carry and AK would probably wheel it.

But empty, it might be carried very easily, even for 10 minutes.

The "mop" in question is so short, it's practically just a "brush." Also easily carried.

I suppose it's possible that AK and RS drove over to get the mop and bucket after dinner on the night of the murder. I suppose it's possible they both lied because they were afraid to put themselves anywhere near the scene of the crime.

But I think it's odd that RS was sober enough to drive, but so stoned he and AK decided to leave a burglary unreported for more than 12 hours.

I guess I'm thinking of those heavy industrial mop buckets I remember seeing the janitors at school with. Maybe it would have been easily carried. I think our new poster had a valid point of why it wasn't caught on the video, but we don't know for sure which was AK walked.

I still find it strange about the bucket, but it's not enough to convict. It is enough to wonder if they did drive there that night and see something. Maybe they didn't really "see" anything, but after discovering the body the next day, thought it was the best thing to just say they weren't there getting the bucket.

Know what I mean? Maybe when they got there, the doors to the room and the house were closed, they got the bucket and left. RG says in his testimony that someone must have returned to the house. Maybe he says that because he felt bad and returned. He could have spotted them leaving with the bucket at that point, reentered the house to check if MK was alive or not, then put the duvet on her and left, that time locking her door.

I guess if the house was dark when they arrived for the bucket, then they'd assume no one was home, so they wouldn't knock on MK's door.

OR like you said, maybe the bucket was light and she could have carried it in one hand.

I pulled up another picture of the mop and posted it. There were actually two mops in that bucket, and the short thing you refer to looks like the lever that one would use to squeeze the mop in the bucket.

 

[ohiogirl]

I agree about the knife. But this "touch DNA analysis" - which I had not heard of before - worries me a bit about the bra clasp.

Too bad they didn't get Eiklenbloom to do the test in the first place. imo

 

[wasnt_me]

I think he's saying RG doesn't dare say anything other than what he said when he appeared before for fear of being charged with perjury.

And I'm sure he's right. Mignini & Co. have shown an fondness for vindictive prosecution. I don't doubt they will go after RG with knives out if RG dares to stray from the prosecution script.

So anyone hoping that RG--his sentence for murder now set--will suddenly tell the truth is dreaming.

IMO, obviously.

"Some say that I'm a dreamer....I know that I'm not the only one...."

:great:

 

[Allusonz]

Can someone answer me if there is CCTV footage released of all footage between the time Rudy Guede was last seen and 12 the next day? Does one have to go by that camera to get to the house?

Can someone tell me if it was an apple or a mushroom found in Meredith's esophagus. And was it for sure her esophagus? As in she had just eaten it the moment she was attacked? When I heard it was a mushroom my first thought was that it was a shroom mushroom. Then I thought surely they would mention that. What exactly was it?

Also, can someone list the reasons why the broken window was determined to be staged? Are all the reasons:
1) b/c Filomena said the exterior shutters were closed
2) b/c it seems a less likely window to use to break in
3) b/c there was no visual evidence of someone walking through the grass below the window, and no evidence on the wall as well.
4) b/c the pattern of the glass inside the room indicated a rock being thrown from the inside and bouncing off the exterior shutters and back into the room. (I'm unclear on the glass pattern stuff).


Is that, from the forensics, about right?

Filomena testified to the state of the shutters in 3 different positions. I don't seriously believe she knows what state those shutters were in. As well since we know they could not be closed properly and this had been told to the person owning the cottage, the fact that it was very windy the night of Nov 1st I could easily see how the shutters could blow open further

According to the ballistics expert the pattern was consistent with a rock being thrown from the outside. His testimony was not considered as he was not a rock throwing expert

Here is a link to the CCTV I believe it is of the night of the murder in which testimony confirmed it to be MK and RG

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgeJeYoNadA

 

[SMK]

Too bad they didn't get Eiklenbloom to do the test in the first place. imo

Yes, it seems he is a global consultant , and worked for the Forensic Institute in the Netherlands, and also has an institute in the U.S. I guess he was not consulted for this case, though....

 

[Allusonz]

Wow. You guys are friendly. Thanks for the welcome.

I'm coming into this very late, so this is what I've gathered and tell me what I'm getting wrong:

Amanda and Raf were supposed to go Gubbio on November 2nd for a trip.

at 8:35 pm Nov 1st Amanda texted goodnight to Lumamba knowing she did not have to go to work. And turned off her phone. At the time she is supposed to be watching Amelie with Raf, and there is a movie playing on his laptop.

At 8:43pm a person wearing light colored clothing exits a white car and heads towards the cottage. (Is the time stamp wrong? Is this actually 9 pm?)

At 9pm, Meredith arrives home wearing dark clothing (Did the CCTV not register her? Is there no one else seen on CCTV between the hours of 8am to noon the next day? One would think the CCTV would see Knox arriving at the cottage the next day. Also walking around with a mop.)

At 9:10 pm the movie ends.

Sometime between 9pm and midnight, Meredith is murdered (Is the time narrower than this?)

10:00 pm Mrs.Lana told not to use her toilet b/c there is a bomb. she calls the police who come to investigate. (Who made this phone call incidentally?)

10pm: Meredith's phone rings her bank

10:13 pm, Meredith's phone does something.

10:30pm: CCTV cameras pick up someone leaving the cottage? (I've seen this a few places... is this true? seems like it would have been in the trial if it was.)

12:10 am, Meredith's father tries to call. Her phone is now in the garden.

5:32am Raffaele plays music on his computer at his place.

12:08 pm: Amanda notifies Filomena that there has been a break in. She is at Raffaelle's house.

12:35 pm : Amanda and Raffaelle are at the cottage.

12:51 pm: Raf calls carabineri

12:54 pm: Raf calls emergency number again.

12:55-1pm: Postal police arrive (via time stamp on CCTV which was proven to be roughly 20 minutes off? Or is the time stamp correct?)

1:50 pm: Amanda calls US (I assume to convey to someone there what just happened)

There are some incorrect times/explanations in this timeline such as someone exiting a white car

According to the experts including Dr. Lalli etc there is no way the duodeum was empty past 10pm. I did start a timeline but I do know that it is out of date and will try and update one or find one for you

ETA For the purposes of determining TOD it begins with the time you start eating which from the testimony is between 6:00 - 6:30. The was no abnormal pathology noted and the duodeum was tied off correctly and this autopsy was video taped

 

[Allusonz]

I don't know if it was lost in translation, but my understanding is that she said there were no towels in the bathroom after her shower. So she used the bathmat like a towel to shield her naked body on her way to her room. It's my understanding that she did this because she'd left the cottage door either open or unlocked, so whomever she thought was home, but just outside, could get back into the house.

As I've stated, I think that when she returned the mat to its spot, she put it down backward, so that the footprint appeared to be entering the room, instead of exiting the shower. That's just what I think, of course no proof.

Most bath mats have a rubber backing as the purpose of them is to prevent slippage thus to have her slip sliding down the hallway seems bizarre. As well from the luminol testing there is nothing to show that any cleanup had taken place and with slip sliding down the hallway on a bath mat would of showed up much the same way someone attempting to clean up would

I think this idea of her sliding down the hallway on it is simply another attempt to discredit her.