Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #16

[Nova]

Isn't that the point of this particular circumstantial evidence ... that the murder had absolutely no impact on Knox? That she did not appear sad or in mourning like the other friends that Meredith had made in the time she lived in Perugia?

Well, if that's the point, it's entirely an invention of the tabloids. AK and RS were at the police station for most of the week that followed. We have no idea how they would have behaved if they had not been in the middle of a murder investigation.

But, no, MK was not AK's best friend in the world. She was a friend, but a new one. There's no reason to insist that AK should have been prostrate with grief.

What's more, I've asked again and again what MK's other friends were doing. I never get an answer about the Italian roommates, but we know they were more concerned about covering their own asses since they lawyered up right away. And Kercher's English friends skipped town and left the country rather than help with the investigation.

It was the supposedly uncaring Amanda Knox who neither left nor called a lawyer, but instead did whatever she could to aid LE. But because of a few stretches that may or may not have been cartwheels we're supposed to believe SHE acted guilty?!

More and more, I'm convinced that anti-Americanism did play a role in this miscarriage of justice. And still does.

 

[wasnt_me]

Right, Knox felt it was absurd to be Pollyanna-ish and say Kercher had not suffered. "She ****ing bled to death." Stop the white washing. I would have said similar, as I hate whitewashing. She knew it was no crime to say this, and as she knew she was not involved, she did not believe she needed to put on an act. Girls straddle boys when they sit on their laps all the time. If the murder left her unmoved, then one must accept it. How does that reveal her as the killer? Killers put on acts to deflect suspicion.

We do not know in what context AK made the statement. We do not know the feeling in her mind when she said the statement. I have often used the "F" word to signify how "F'ed" up or terrible something is. I used the word to emphasize that fact that I can't BELIEVE it happened. And let's not forget, a "?" could have been on the end of the statement.

We'd have to know the content of the whole conversation and the inflection in AK's voice to know the intent of her words.

I wouldn't say that using a curse word and sitting on your boyfriend's lap means you're unmoved or don't care about a crime. I'm so very confused at why this is being said.

I thought this was the statement guilters used to point out that AK knew Cause of death, though no one else did. Of course we know that the officer on the scene lifted up the cover and we know that the friends of RF told AK in the car what had happened to Mk. Saying someone bled to death doesn't mean that they know how the person died.

First of all, MK didn't die from blood loss, isn't that correct? I thought she essentially drowned in her own blood. i hate the thought of it, since I saw it happen to my dog first hand. She had a pierced lung, I guess, but the doctor who'd operated on her days before claimed there was nothing wrong with her lungs. Well, she couldn't breathe, it was god awful and i couldn't help her, and blood shot out of her nose and she was dead. Anyway, didn't this happen to MK? So if it did, AK's wrong, MK didn't bleed to death, that's first of all.

Second of all, AK also said MK was IN the waredrobe. So why isn't that "fact" brought up? She was wrong about that, but it was minimized because it proved she didn't know what the crime scene looked like.

 

[Nova]

Has anyone else read anything that Staphanoni will not take the stand on Saturday and that the August 1st date has been cancelled?

If this report turns out to be true, what do posters think it means?

(Yes, I'm asking for speculation.)

 

[Allusonz]

If this report turns out to be true, what do posters think it means?

(Yes, I'm asking for speculation.)

I am trying to find some MSM confirmation so that it is not speculation ...

ETA

"Haughty, fretful police scientist Stefanoni took copious notes at the hearing. She had vowed to defend herself mightily in court, but won’t get a chance. Judge Hellmann noted that his experts outrank her. He won’t put her on the stand this Saturday, July 30, when the experts face cross-examination by prosecutors and civil plaintiffs. The trail resumes August 27–with a verdict expected by September 15."

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/07/26/italians-cops-harass-scientists-in-amanda-knox-trial/

 

[wasnt_me]

Does anyone else think that if only Amanda had not send the "see you later" text, she and RS would not be in prison today?

They might not have arrested her and held her for a year, but they were after her from the moment she put on her footies.

 

[mdana]

I have been gone for almost a month. In summation, the mountains of evidence against the "killer loverbirds" has been reduced to AK overpaid for underwear (according to an undocumented accusation) and RS should not accept pretty as a compliment (pure opinion as far as I can tell). Am I missing anything else?

If only AK had written Miss Manners...

Dear Miss Manners,

I am currently without suitable clothing due to my personal belongings being confiscated by the police. Every action I take is scrutinized and twisted into something sociopathic. If I try to relieve tension by stretching or pecking my new parmour, it is deemed uncaring and evil. If I act stoic, I am criticized as an unfeeling *****. How much should I spend on a suitable undergarment? If I spend too much I am frivolous psychopath. If I spend too little, I am a cheap tart. What pound of flesh is enough? Is 15 Euros what an innocent person would be perceived as spending by the general mass fed by the tabloids?

The reason I ask, is I found a thong autographed by Madonna, and I am pretty sure she wore it on her Blond Ambition Tour. When I get back to the states, I think I can get at least 10 times (I have become a bit of a collector lately) what they are asking for it. However, I am afraid my decision could be misconstrued as some form of admission of guilt by some. I am afraid the media frenzy that has surrounded me for the last few days could morph into me being suspected of murder (ha, ha). I get the feeling the police could catch the killer, and somehow I would be blamed or portrayed as the mastermind of the murder. Wow, I am really getting paranoid. I think I have been watching too many of my boyfriend's horror movies.

 

[wasnt_me]

If this report turns out to be true, what do posters think it means?

(Yes, I'm asking for speculation.)

Well, first, it means I have to return this darn popcorn machine I rented.

ETA:

secondly i can't use the Muppet show theme for Saturdays' court date. That's what I get for planning ahead.

 

[Allusonz]

I have been gone for almost a month. In summation, the mountains of evidence against the "killer loverbirds" has been reduced to AK overpaid for underwear (according to an undocumented accusation) and RS should not accept pretty as a compliment (pure opinion as far as I can tell). Am I missing anything else?

If only AK had written Miss Manners...

Dear Miss Manners,

I am currently without suitable clothing due to my personal belongings being confiscated by the police. Every action I take is scrutinized and twisted into something sociopathic. If I try to relieve tension by stretching or pecking my new parmour, it is deemed uncaring and evil. If I act stoic, I am criticized as an unfeeling *****. How much should I spend on a suitable undergarment? If I spend too much I am frivolous psychopath. If I spend too little, I am a cheap tart. What pound of flesh is enough? Is 15 Euros what an innocent person would be perceived as spending by the general mass fed by the tabloids?

The reason I ask, is I found a thong autographed by Madonna, and I am pretty sure she wore it on her Blond Ambition Tour. When I get back to the states, I think I can get at least 10 times (I have become a bit of a collector lately) what they are asking for it. However, I am afraid my decision could be misconstrued as some form of admission of guilt by some. I am afraid the media frenzy that has surrounded me for the last few days could morph into me being suspected of murder (ha, ha). I get the feeling the police could catch the killer, and somehow I would be blamed or portrayed as the mastermind of the murder. Wow, I am really getting paranoid. I think I have been watching too many of my boyfriend's horror movies.

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

You have simply made me chuckle too hard OMG

 

[Allusonz]

If this report turns out to be true, what do posters think it means?

(Yes, I'm asking for speculation.)

Now as for speculation maybe the 2 patrols sent to collect the DVD put Hellmann on the warpath and he has simply decided to make his ruling this Saturday

 

[wasnt_me]

The knife, we must recall, came to court with its own bodyguard. How amusing to hear the few journalists still holding out for guilt describe it and the bra clasp as not terribly important. How insulting to Italians when these same journalists claim that judge and jurors will ignore the lack of evidence and convict on a circumstantial case. Read the headlines across Italy this week, the predictions that Amanda and Raffaele will go free

This is true? The bolded part? It arrived at the appeal in this way?

The cloying sympathy shown Rudy on the Amanda Knox hate sites, piously plastered victim photos, is one of the most distasteful and bizarre aspects of this sensational case.

Gotta agree with this....

Amanda and Raffaele had, in fact, been using it for cooking up until the time of their arrest. A police officer picked it out of a drawer, using “intuition” because it was “big and shiny.” As the experts pointed out yesterday, officers couldn’t even agree on whether it was sealed into an envelope on-site or later, a baffling break in the chain of custody. Stefano Gubbiotti of the Perugia police stored it, in fact, in a calendar box. He had just come from the house where the murder occurred and was sorting evidence from there at the same desk. Did he change his gloves? Well, he thinks so. H also stepped out for a cigarette break.

I love new facts. At least new ones to me. So this guy had the knife, which hadn't been bagged yet, on the same desk with items from the cottage? seriously? The knife is toast, or shall we say, Rye bread?

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/07/26/italians-cops-harass-scientists-in-amanda-knox-trial/

Oh, that's my girl, Dempsey ended with a song! "Here comes the Sun!"

See, I'm not the only one who does it. I feel better now...

 

[SkewedView]

But here we get back to Otto's argument. Is Stephanoni's misconduct so gross that all of Guede's DNA evidence must also be thrown out?

I actually have to say that I find the evidence handling both lazy and sub-par. That being said, any DNA that left a clear and strong signal (Definitely anything above 400 RFUs, perhaps anything above 100 RFUs) I would likely accept. So anything that convicted Guede that was a strong signal I would accept. I think the vaginal swab might have been borderline, but I think there was plenty of strong DNA to convict him.

Also the fact that he said he had never been to their apartment before means any DNA found in there is unlikely to have arrived there from contamination.

Fruit of the tainted tree. That principal that gets rid of all evidence/statements - no matter how useful they may be - if they were attained through illegitimate means (such us coercion, illegal searches etc), often applies in these types of cases as well. Look at how many truly guilty people walked after the FBI lab got caught in these types of shenanigans. How many walk when it has turned out that a Judge was holding kangaroo courts in exchange for kickbacks from private prisons...that is one of the costs of putting results before ethics. It is also one of the (many) reasons why I keep harping on the ethics thing.

If Steffanoni and her lab wind up investigated due to all of this, it could have far ranging consequences. Of course, it could also all get swept under the rug. Just depends on the motives of whomever would have jurisdiction over such an investigation.

 

[wasnt_me]

I think its a good thing bc if there are guilters left in Italy, they might cry out for reform in the system. anyone might. They need to keep pressure on that system to cause change.

 

[miley]

Are you suggesting that someone innocent and jailed for 4 years would not wear a weathered or tense expression or show signs of ageing/maturing? Seems a bit far-fetched to me...

talk about tense expressions and aging -just look at what four years of presidency does.. stress will do it.

 

[Allusonz]

Isn't that the point of this particular circumstantial evidence ... that the murder had absolutely no impact on Knox? That she did not appear sad or in mourning like the other friends that Meredith had made in the time she lived in Perugia?

Sorry for the abrupt departure all severe thunderstorms will do that.

Everyone reacts differently to different situations. For us as posters here to state how she acted as a fact I believe does a great injustice not only to the many indivuals these are being directed at but we also must recognize that our own perceptions may be wrong. This has been proven time again in threads as I believe it was expressed in a previous post last night or today. It is something that we should all be aware of.

An example would be like stating that an individual can tell whether someones hair has been washed from a photograph

 

[Allusonz]

We do not know in what context AK made the statement. We do not know the feeling in her mind when she said the statement. I have often used the "F" word to signify how "F'ed" up or terrible something is. I used the word to emphasize that fact that I can't BELIEVE it happened. And let's not forget, a "?" could have been on the end of the statement.

We'd have to know the content of the whole conversation and the inflection in AK's voice to know the intent of her words.

I wouldn't say that using a curse word and sitting on your boyfriend's lap means you're unmoved or don't care about a crime. I'm so very confused at why this is being said.

I thought this was the statement guilters used to point out that AK knew Cause of death, though no one else did. Of course we know that the officer on the scene lifted up the cover and we know that the friends of RF told AK in the car what had happened to Mk. Saying someone bled to death doesn't mean that they know how the person died.

First of all, MK didn't die from blood loss, isn't that correct? I thought she essentially drowned in her own blood. i hate the thought of it, since I saw it happen to my dog first hand. She had a pierced lung, I guess, but the doctor who'd operated on her days before claimed there was nothing wrong with her lungs. Well, she couldn't breathe, it was god awful and i couldn't help her, and blood shot out of her nose and she was dead. Anyway, didn't this happen to MK? So if it did, AK's wrong, MK didn't bleed to death, that's first of all.

Second of all, AK also said MK was IN the waredrobe. So why isn't that "fact" brought up? She was wrong about that, but it was minimized because it proved she didn't know what the crime scene looked like.

So true. Often we are hearing or reading of this in articles or sound bites which is much different than being there in person. Often this information is misreported or some parts end up on the cutting room floor.

MK died from drowning in her own blood and it was known very quickly by all that were present was had happened although until the actual autopsy was completed only then would an actual COD be identified.

 

[emyr]

Really? The primary piece of evidence? Again presented as fact but it isn't. There are phone records, computer records, witness statements, their own statements, and a whole set of evidence in the cottage (much more than just knife and bra clasp) that proves they were in the cottage and not RS's apartment. I have no problem with other opinions but the way the 'innocence' of princess AK must be defended by all these far fetched theories and claimed facts that are no facts at all just leaves me wondering....why? JMO.

Fair question. I was basing that off of the Massai report where he disbelieved the alibi and he placed Curatolo's testimony first. He goes on for pages to explain how the homeless guy's memory is sound. And then he goes back to that when he builds his case for who would stage a robbery. (He also spent a lot of ink on Filomena's memory of the swollen shutters).

Then there is extensive exposition about the store owner that saw Amanda that morning, but he gave less credence to this testimony since Amanda didn't own the clothes the shopowner said she was wearing (red coat).

The third piece of evidence was that they said they slept in when the records showed Sollecito's phone and computer turned on at 6 am. But then Sollecito answered his cell at 9:40 am and told his dad he was still in bed (which corroborates their story).

And Massai said it wasn't feasible that Amanda would want to go back to her cottage to change clothes and shower, because she should've already had her clothes there, and who needs to shower again when they just showered the night before? (I can testify that Europeans don't understand how frequently American's shower).

Contrary to what you just said, there is no cell phone or any computer evidence that places them in the cottage that night. There are no eyewitnesses that saw them at all that night. As far as a whole set of evidence inside the cottage that places them there that night, there is in fact none. Stephanoni herself stated that you can't determine what time DNA was deposited, so if you don't have the bra clasp or knife what evidence are you left with? The mixed DNA samples in the bathroom and the footprints?

That IS troubling, but it fits within Amanda's story that she showered there (in a bathroom where the real killer cleaned up). It doesn't definitively disprove her alibi.

The staged burglary hypothesis also doesn't definitively disprove her alibi.

You can aggregate the circumstantial evidence together, but as far as something that DEFINITIVELY proves they lied, an eyewitness does that. Without something definite like that, you have to build your case on inference and circumstantial evidence, which is a lot harder. IMO.

 

[Allusonz]

Well, first, it means I have to return this darn popcorn machine I rented.

ETA:

secondly i can't use the Muppet show theme for Saturdays' court date. That's what I get for planning ahead.

No way!!! I await my own specialized DVD and we can share the popcorn while we listen to it

 

[Allusonz]

From the Motivational Report

Even Massei could not rule out a single or lone wolf killer

The consultants and forensic scientists have asserted that from the point of view of forensic science, it cannot be ruled out that the author of the injuries could have been a single attacker, because the bruises and the wounds from a pointed and cutting weapon are not in themselves incompatible with the action of a single person. With regard to this, it is nevertheless observed that the contribution of each discipline is specifically in the domain of the specific competence of that discipline, and in fact the consultants and forensic experts concentrated their attention on the aspects specifically belonging to forensic science: time of death, cause of death, elements indicating sexual violence, the injuries present on the body of the victim, and the causes and descriptions of these.


The answer given above concerning the possibility of their being inflicted by the action of a single person or by more than one was given in relation to these specific duties and questions, which belong precisely to the domain of forensic science, and the meaning of this answer was thus that there are no scientific elements arising directly from forensic science which could rule out the injuries having been caused by the action of a single person.

 

[Allusonz]

I don't see what it matters if Rudy's DNA came from contamination as well. DNA is useful for placing people where they shouldn't be. Rudy has already admitted to being at the scene of the crime so it doesn't matter if it were thrown out, we have his uncontested confession of being there with her as she died. It would be pointless to contest it.

I often get the impression that some people don't realize that you can get full DNA profiles from contamination not just partial and that is a very important piece of information

 

[miley]

Quite right. A camisole and panties is two pieces of underwear, but when it comes to panties, was Knox really spending $82 to replace the underwear that was locked in a crime scene?

Probably not ... esp., if she only bought one pair.

typically downtown boutique clothing stores are more expensive - it's like breaking open the hotel mini-bar (you pay) which is probably why she only purchased a tank top and a pair of panties.

I've never seen the $82 reference - it may have cost more!