Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #15

[Malkmus]

There couldn't be a 'plea deal' anyway if the person claims they didn't commit
the crime. In this case- murder.

Isn't a plea deal actually pleading to a 'lessor charge' for a reduction in sentence?

Personally, I'm inclined to side with you that there was no plea-deal, but more-so what BN implied, that there was something less-official agreed to behind closed doors. Hence, baloney reasoning like "remorse for the victim" or whatever it was that was cited as one of the reasons his sentence was reduced. Once you also add his strange past of being booked for break-ins but not charged and it really makes you wonder what his deal is.

Anyway, I see PMF has his sentencing report, but it's in Italian. I would start the machine translation but I'm at work and just don't have the time. I'm hoping what's in there clears it up a bit better. Of course I don't expect it to say anything remotely close to what BN implied, it would help to see if there is any merit to the claim.

 

[dgfred]

I think what was implied, is that HAD she actually been involved in the murder, it is likely that she would have thrown Guede and Sollecito under the bus as a matter of course. That she did not makes her insistence that she had no part in it ring the more true.

So in your eyes:
She is innocent because she didn't throw RG and RS 'under the bus', as you think 'likely' she would have if guilty.

But others see it:
She does not throw them under the bus, because the bus would flatten her too in return... because she is guilty.

I don't see how this makes her claim of not being a part in it... ring more true.

 

[SMK]

So in your eyes:
She is innocent because she didn't throw RG and RS 'under the bus', as you think 'likely' she would have if guilty.

But others see it:
She does not throw them under the bus, because the bus would flatten her too in return... because she is guilty.

I don't see how this makes her claim of not being a part in it... ring more true.

:waitasec: ................. :waitasec: ............. :razz:

 

[Malkmus]

So in your eyes:
She is innocent because she didn't throw RG and RS 'under the bus', as you think 'likely' she would have if guilty.

But others see it:
She does not throw them under the bus, because the bus would flatten her too in return... because she is guilty.

I don't see how this makes her claim of not being a part in it... ring more true.

One version has kept her in jail for 4 years already and may keep her in for 25 more. In other words, claiming she was never there has done her little good - but is something someone who was never there is likely to maintain. The easy way out if she is guilty would be to agree that evidence puts her at the scene because she was there but she didn't do anything- it was all put forth by these two guys. Also, RG has called her out, so why hasn't she retaliated?

ETA: To be more specific, we all know RG just testified at AK and RS's appeal, still stating all three of them were there that night. AK's response was that is untrue, and they were never together. So, there goes the theory that if one calls the other out they all roll on each other.

 

[dgfred]

Not really IMO. RG did not get as specific as he could have... in that he did not say they were there exactly and what exactly they all 'did'. He could not IMO because then he will be throwing away the part about him 'being innocent'. There is no story IMO he could tell limiting his participation to what he has claimed and explaining the evidence against him.

What part of his testimony do you see as RG 'calling out' AK?

It is a little too late IMO for any of them to 'call out' the other... as all three are known as fudging with the truth and are bound to their 'defenses'.

As for the theory, 'yours' can be ruled out too as it is past the time where one shifts accusations to the other. They are pretty much stuck with their first 'few' alibis... or non-alibis as it were.

 

[dgfred]

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=38&p=93342#p93342

This is a translation of the transcript of RG at the hearing with the inmates, done by Jools.

Oops, sorry Malkmus... he did actually throw them both under the bus. Look out for the tires... beep, beep.

 

[dgfred]

Here is a nice chart showing why RS foot was found comparable to the bathmat print.
Doesn't look too good regarding trying to prove that it is not.

Edit to fix: http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=375&p=93394

 

[SMK]

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=38&p=93342#p93342

Here is a nice chart showing why RS foot was found comparable to the bathmat print.
Doesn't look too good regarding trying to prove that it is not.

I see no chart. No chart at all???? :razz:

 

[dgfred]

I see no chart. No chart at all???? :razz:

Might have to register, I am not sure. Come on... here is your chance to take your razzer over there .

 

[dgfred]

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=375&p=93394

Try this page SMK. I may be doing it wrong anyway... a bit of inexperience showing.

 

[SMK]

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=375&p=93394

Try this page SMK. I may be doing it wrong anyway... a bit of inexperience showing.

Thank you. Very appreciated. I saw the chart :snooty: But IIP has a chart showing the opposite: That it cannot be Sollecito's. I no longer know where the facts are.

 

[dgfred]

Thank you. Very appreciated. I saw the chart :snooty: But IIP has a chart showing the opposite: That it cannot be Sollecito's. I no longer know where the facts are.

Could you post IIP's chart? I understand the confusion. But IMO if the chart on PMF is/was wrong both JREF and IIP would be trashing it... which they are not.

 

[SMK]

Could you post IIP's chart? I understand the confusion. But IMO if the chart on PMF is/was wrong both JREF and IIP would be trashing it... which they are not.

Sure, lemme go find it.......

 

[SMK]

Well, could not find the exact material I was looking for, but here is something on IIP, saying cannot be Sollecito's footprint, must belong to Guede:


SOLLECITO'S PRINT:

GUEDE'S PRINT:

Prints detected with luminol were incorrectly measured by Dr. Rinaldi.

One of the tracks found using luminol in the corridor that was facing in the direction of the front door was wrongly attributed to Raffaele. The court went against Professor Vinci who showed that the footprint was only 215 mm long and was actually 3cm shorter than that of Raffaele. However the court came up with a measurement of 245mm using an unexplained correction made by the prosecution in the hearing on May 9, 2009. The 215mm measurement is based upon a survey conducted by Professor Vinci. Once again, Dr. Rinaldi made an error in measurement.

The reason that Dr. Rinaldi’s measurements were incorrect is due to the fact that he obtained an incorrect measurement of the floor tile. He used that measurement to calculate the size of the prints on the tile. Incorrect measurement of the floor tile changed the perspective of the prints. The measurement of the floor tile was off by 7mm. This resulted in the footprint going from 227mm to 244mm. Dr. Rinaldi admitted in his testimony that if you change the perspective, you change the reference system and each measurement is associated with that reference. He never explained what system he used or how he decided on his calculations. Dr. Rinaldi provided data with no proof of his measurements or his calculations. The court wrongly deemed the dimensional data accurate, when in fact it is not scientifically correct. The court ignored Professor Vinci who said that the data showed the footprint could not have been made by Raffaele.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/appeal4.html

To the naked eye, the bathmat print appears to match Guede's, not Sollecito's, especially when one looks at the big toe. And the measurements confirm this.

 

[emyr]

Sorry I am chuckling. As stated previously I have done this since I was young. Maybe I thought I was superman or simply that my mother was a neat freak perfectionist and you did not dare leave a drop of water on the floor after a shower or bath. Thus it became a game for me. You don't slide well though rofl

If and i say if she has ever done this she probably expanded on it I would think

Oh dear, you actually provided an explanation that makes sense to me.

This whole time I've been thinking she did the bathmat boogie so she wouldn't slip. Which... clearly it's easier to slip when you are sliding around on a mat, rather than just walking carefully. But if the goal is not to drip water everywhere because you are walking naked and shower wet to your bedroom... and the floor is cold tile... and all the towels are missing because they are all in Meredith's room because the killer brought them all in there. Ok. Yes, that might not be ridiculous.

Cold, naked, and really wet and dripping water... killer came into the same bathroom and cleaned himself up... yes I could see this.

Actually if this is the real scenario, she's damn lucky. Because cleaning up water droplets would have caused smearing and looked like a clean up.

*****

Of course, all of this could be easily explained by being a murderer who took a shower to wash off blood, and who was trying not to leave prints everywhere and was hopping around.

If she was trying to be so fastidious, it doesn't make sense that she didn't clean up the bathmat footprint though.

Pretzels. Pretzels every which way.

 

[dgfred]

Well, could not find the exact material I was looking for, but here is something on IIP, saying cannot be Sollecito's footprint, must belong to Guede:


SOLLECITO'S PRINT:

GUEDE'S PRINT:

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/appeal4.html

To the naked eye, the bathmat print appears to match Guede's, not Sollecito's, especially when one looks at the big toe. And the measurements confirm this.

How could that be... you can plainly see the width of the big toe and the width of the foot compare EXACTLY to RS's measurements??????

 

[SMK]

How could that be... you can plainly see the width of the big toe and the width of the foot compare EXACTLY to RS's measurements??????

Huh????????? Not to me........did ye not read the accompanying text? and why, pray, do they show this on IIP??????????????????:razz::razz::razz: this is the ERROR of the doctor's measurements, read the text........pleasa reada da texta freda..................kay:

 

[emyr]

How could that be... you can plainly see the width of the big toe and the width of the foot compare EXACTLY to RS's measurements??????

Why is the measurement for the ball of the foot so off? Seems like that would be the most accurate part of the print.

 

[SMK]

The court completely ignored the fact that the size of Raffaele’s print was altered for comparison purposes. The court just looked at the dimensions in the presentation forgetting the sample was altered. The court actually used Professor Vinci’s altered sample to try and insinuate that the prints were actually the same size. This is made clear on page 380 where the court says the development of the heel of the isthmus to the extent of the big toe seem almost superimposable. This only occurred because the print was altered by Professor Vinci to show the differences in characteristics. When looking at the results of the tests done by Professor Vinci, it is clear to see the total lack of compatibility between Raffaele’s foot and the sample found on the floor. It is inexcusable that the court actually tried to use this altered data to prove that the prints were the same size.

Finally, the assessment reached by the ruling of the court leaves many unanswered questions that the court just ignores. The presence of the bloody shoe prints are all from a left foot, and the presence of the bare footprints are all from a right foot. They all appear to be from the same person. Had Raffaele gone into the bathroom to wash off his bloody right foot as suggested using either the sink, shower or bidet, where is his DNA? According to the court’s hypothesis, washing off a bare foot will result in a rubbing action that results in loss of cells from exfoliation (see page 406). The presence of these findings of shoe prints and bare footprints in various locations inside the house makes the argument that cleaning occurred nearly impossible.

For most of the case, the prosecution tried to prove that it was Raffaele’s shoe print in the murder room. When that was proven wrong, they tried to state that some of the luminol prints were attributed to him. The evidence simply does not support the court’s claims.

The manipulation of the measurements by the prosecution’s expert is not acceptable. The measurements were altered to match Raffaele’s foot and there was no explanation whatsoever for the altered measurements. Professor Vinci showed the exact measurements of the prints and backed up his measurements with proof. Professor Vinci clearly showed that the prints do not match Raffaele’s foot.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/appeal4.html

 

[SMK]

By the way, this was the original reading I did which changed my mind RE guilt, and led to my reading Hendry:


http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-02.html

From "Lies and Misinformation" on Injustice in Perugia:

None of the footprints, shoe prints or stains that were detected with luminol were ever proven to be blood.

No footprints or shoe prints were found in the room where Meredith was killed other than the shoe prints of Rudy Guede. Remember from page one that Rudy's prints are clearly made in Meredith's blood. His tread pattern walks right out the front door. All of the footprints and shoe prints made in Meredith's blood belong to Rudy Guede.

The footprints, shoe prints and stains detected with luminol had absolutely nothing to do with Meredith's murder.

Mixed DNA from all occupants of the apartment would have been found all over the residence if any control testing had ever been done. Unfortunately, the investigators didn't perform any control tests. They could have easily checked random areas of the floor for mixed DNA. If DNA was mixed on other areas of the floor then it would be assumed that it would also be found mixed on stains found on the same floor. Control testing was not done, so these questions will never be answered.

The mixed DNA found on the floor in the areas that glowed from luminol is nothing more that the effects of cohabitation. These footprints and stains had nothing to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher.

If you are wondering why no DNA was mentioned from the other two women living in the house, it is because the investigators never checked for it. They were only looking for the DNA of their suspects. There was absolutely no control testing. Amanda and Raffaele were considered guilty from the start. They simply cherry picked the evidence they needed to fit into Mignini's fantasy.

The crime scene video clearly shows poor evidence collection and possible contamination.

The shoe prints in the hallway were photographed and scrubbed off the floor less than twelve hours into the investigation. The luminol testing was done much later on December 18, 2007.

They most likely scrubbed these prints away because they knew that foot traffic would spread the blood around the cottage. This was a very poor procedure. They should have covered the prints to protect them, or at least lifted them onto some medium rather than destroying them. This procedure made any future investigation much more difficult. They also completely trashed the cottage in their initial search. The entire cottage was contaminated long before the luminol tests were completed.

There were a total of five shoe prints found on the pillowcase. The prosecution's expert only found two shoe prints on the pillowcase. Forensics expert Francesco Vinci identified all five by highlighting the fabric using a process called Crimescope. None of these shoe prints represent a woman's shoe size 37. The prosecution's expert found one partial shoe print on the edge of the pillowcase. It was that shoe print that was said to be a woman's shoe. The truth is, there were three partial shoe prints. All three partial shoe prints match the tread pattern on Rudy Guede's shoes.