Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #16

[miley]

So should we discredit eye witness testimony because the receipt was not found on the floor of the car? Facts are that she was not replacing the confiscated underwear the day after she was released from questioning ... instead she was playining in the shops with Sollecito. So Sollecito and Knox were out of words when asked what they did after Meredith's murder ... other than buy sexy lingerie and flirt in the shop.

the store clerk - some say he doesn't even speak English.. plus, there was music playing and no sound on the footage

they stopped by that one shop on their way home... do you have a source close to the case? something is different.. where are you getting this other information?

 

[miley]

The attack on the victim was sexually staged ... of course the culprit was housed with the other sexual offenders. Knox too. Wouldn't you expect that they were in good company?

didn't you just say she was raped some posts back?

 

[miley]

Sorry to disagree with everyone, but I think he looks like a D&D nerd. As for does he "look" innocent or guilty, I think that's a rabbit hole that leads nowhere.

what is a D&D nerd?

 

[sherlockh]

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.

Just for the record, if I out loud wonder why not everybody thinks exactly like me that is more of a general statement. So nothing personal

Curatolo is an important witness but not the one and only, and I doubt he is needed to proof their presence in the cottage during the murder. It is also not clear to me that Curatolo will be discredited by the judges. We will see. A new witness has been added during appeal who places them directly at the cottage and involved in the murder. How can you possibly know if Amanda owned a red coat or not? She might have never worn it before. Who knows?

Computer records show that the computer was on for about half an hour and his mobile phone shortly after. No, they didn't sleep in. No, RS wasn't working on his computer. Those are straight lies, and although hypothetically they could still be in his apartment doing something else, it gets a bit too hinky now. I agree about the shower. No relevance there. The rest all fits together. Of course, you can't time DNA but nobody else got murdered there. It is like saying the luminol prints were in fruit juice or soil as some have tried. It starts to sound so desperate and illogical. The footprints were in blood, as nothing else makes sense. The bathmat footprint is RS's. The break-in was staged. RG footprints show what he did and what he didn't do. MK was covered which shows somebody close to her killed her...etc. etc.. I guess you heard it all before.

Take all the evidence together and ask yourself..if I was innocent would there be witnesses, your luminol footprints in front of the murder room, your blood, your DNA mixed, would you not even remember what you did the day/evening when your roommate got murdered, would you accuse your bf/gf of going out if you really were together all night, would you get coerced by 10 police officers simultaneously in 2 hours, etc etc... None of it makes any sense...if you are innocent.

There is just too much. What you are doing is taking the evidence one by one and say this or that is not definite proof (and I even agree with you), but that is just not how it works in court. Your final conclusion is wrong. It is everything together and the final conclusion is DEFINITE. Guilty! All JMO.

P.S. Some people don't even need any evidence but can conclude a lot from their statements. Statement analysis does that. Not that I believe all that although it is clear to me that she lies...a lot.

seamusoriley at blogspot

Amanda Knox was part of a sexual homicide. This comes from her own words, and is not changed if prosecutors are corrupt or honorable, nor if evidence was dropped or mishandled. Amanda Knox, herself, has told us that she was part of a sexual homicide, was present, and that she knows hard evidence thus proves it.

 

[miley]

Otto, you keep using Sollecito's private diary entry as if that is the explanation Sollecito has presented in court. He did not. Your version spins the facts and it undermines your point. Yes, the fact that he wrote that version at all is troublesome, but it should remain within its proper context.

As for Guede, the difference between Guede, Knox, Sollecito, and Lumamba is Guede was never a suspect until his DNA made a cold match from the murder room. The police spent two weeks trying to make Lumamba fit to the crime, threatening him and intimidating him in jail. Not so for Guede. Guede was convicted from evidence gathered in a non-suspect-centric way. That makes his conviction far stronger.

If we are being fair and objective, we would have to say that the evidence convicting Guede might be the result of contamination. Then we look at the rest of the evidence and see what it can factually tell us (beyond a reasonable doubt). And that is, that after witnessing a brutal murder committed by people he barely knew, Guede did not call the police, and in fact went dancing afterwards because he was afraid of getting in trouble for the crime. Believable? no.

Guede admits he was there, and he has never stated that he wasn't there that night. Amanda and raffaelle say they were not there. The weight of evidence between the two (excluding all DNA) is still very skewed.

Actually, they figured out it was Rudy because of his fingerprints - his were on file... the dna came later. I wonder how long it takes to process fingerprints?

on Frank's comments someone posted a link that led me to this video - it's been posted here a bunch - I wanted to post it again so I'm going to stick it here.
[video=youtube;o_hq8lgw4vA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_hq8lgw4vA[/video]

 

[miley]

We don't know that she didn't buy more underwear elsewhere. It's true that her clothes were in lock-down at the cottage, so I would bet she bought more than just the one pair. However, we don't have record of everyone of her actions that day, so it's rather moot. And pointless, anyhow, as buying underwear is rather irrelevant to anything.

you're absolutely right -- over the last year or so, I've wasted a lot of words on this issue.

ETA: True, Nova - we never hear about or dissect what the other roomies were doing.

 

[Nova]

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.

BBM: For example? I think the footprint evidence is just more wishful thinking, but for purposes of discussion I'll give you that it might be said to put RS at the cottage on the night of the murder. (RS or any number of other people with a similar size foot. For some reason, people keep forgetting the print was never called a "match.")

But phone records do not put them in the cottage, computer records do not, and I know of no credible witness statements that put them there (the latter being emyr's point).

RS never put either of them at the cottage. AK did briefly but the rest of her statement was a lie, so repeatedly insisting that one part of it must be true is just random cherrypicking. In any event, AK began recanting within hours.

Maybe the idea that AK or RS might be innocent seems so incredible to some because they misunderstand what the existing evidence actually proves.

 

[Nova]

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.

I thought she was stabbed in the throat. That may have caused her to drown in her own blood, but it wouldn't pierce a lung.

I think AK's remark sounds like a response to the sorts of insipid comments people make after a tragedy. "I hope she didn't feel any pain." "She f__kin' bled to death!" Perhaps not the most sensitive response, but I can understand the feeling.

Good point about the wardrobe. Of course, that statement by AK is ignored. This whole case was constructed like tweezers picking lint from a carpet.

 

[Nova]

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/

Wow! I guess I have to keep my fingers crossed that he isn't keeping her off the stand to "protect" her.

 

[miley]

Just for the record, if I out loud wonder why not everybody thinks exactly like me that is more of a general statement. So nothing personal

Curatolo is an important witness but not the one and only, and I doubt he is needed to proof their presence in the cottage during the murder. It is also not clear to me that Curatolo will be discredited by the judges. We will see. A new witness has been added during appeal who places them directly at the cottage and involved in the murder. How can you possibly know if Amanda owned a red coat or not? She might have never worn it before. Who knows?

Mignini's witness, Curatolo, is not reliable. No, the prosecution has to prove she owned a red coat, not the other way around and who is this new witness?

It is like saying the luminol prints were in fruit juice or soil as some have tried. It starts to sound so desperate and illogical. The footprints were in blood, as nothing else makes sense.

snipped - I just wanted to point out.. Raffaele's house had luminol hits too - nothing suspicious.

 

[Sonata]

It's not really a choice, though sonata, because if two innocent people are locked up, then the killer IS most likely running free anyways--unless he happened to be the third wheel suspect in the murder.

I was just referring to that situation in the context of this particular case where I believe that RG is guilty and Ak and RS are innocent.

JMO

 

[Sonata]

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.

Just so you know, when you post about AK with words like 'princess' it just makes the post seem more biased and less relevant.

 

[Sonata]

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.

Brilliant. I am a fan of contextual humour as a tool to show up a ridiculous argument!

 

[Sonata]

what is a D&D nerd?

A Dungeons and Dragons nerd.

Although, I am a fan of geeky guys so saying RS looks like a D&D nerd and he looks pretty, fine, good-looking or whatever you want to call it are not mutually exclusive for a gal like me. :great:

 

[Nova]

Mignini's witness, Curatolo, is not reliable. No, the prosecution has to prove she owned a red coat, not the other way around and who is this new witness?

snipped - I just wanted to point out.. Raffaele's house had luminol hits too - nothing suspicious.

Thank you. Who is this new eyewitness and why haven't MSM sources heard about him?

And how many times do we have to reiterate the limitations of luminol? They are rather well known at this point, so repeatedly asserting that luminol prints MUST be blood just sounds uninformed.

 

[Nova]

what is a D&D nerd?

D&D = Dungeons and Dragons, a role-playing game from the 70s or 80s.

"D&D nerd" conjures up a stereotype of brainy and interested in sci-fi and fantasy, but non-athletic and not physically adventurous.

A D&D nerd is akin to a Trekkie or whatever is the Harry Potter equivalent.

 

[Nova]

A Dungeons and Dragons nerd.

Although, I am a fan of geeky guys so saying RS looks like a D&D nerd and he looks pretty, fine, good-looking or whatever you want to call it are not mutually exclusive for a gal like me. :great:

Boy, am I sorry I ever speculated about RS' haircut! (I'm not blaming you, Sonata. It's not your fault it's still being discussed.)

But for the record, I said Sollecito is "good-looking" and then made a general remark that one wouldn't want to look pretty in a men's prison. I certainly never intended to insult his looks or his masculinity. I don't know the guy.

 

[Sonata]

Boy, am I sorry I ever speculated about RS' haircut! (I'm not blaming you, Sonata. It's not your fault it's still being discussed.)

But for the record, I said Sollecito is "good-looking" and then made a general remark that one wouldn't want to look pretty in a men's prison. I certainly never intended to insult his looks or his masculinity. I don't know the guy.

No worries! I didn't get that from what you said anyway!

I agree - I think he is pretty and I mean that in a very good way.

Also, I'm glad you brought it up. Made the posts a bit lighter for a hot second!

 

[miley]

Regarding the forensics (where the conversation was before we all got distracted by pretty boys and sexy undies):

Forensics is the use of science to find the truth in criminal matters. I can't stress that enough. Science. Not magic. Science. If it were magic, we'd only care if the results were convincing. The methods used to get to those results wouldn't matter. In science, however, the first thing you look at in an experiment/test is the methods used. If the methods are flawed, the results are invalid. Period. Doesn't matter how attractive those results may be. (See the various discredited 'Cold Fusion' experiments for a good reference)

In this case, the methodology of PLE and its lab people is hopelessly flawed, as proven by their own videos, still images and lab reports. Sorry, there's no getting around it, they are hoist by their own petard.

Pure and simple, if you are going to use science to take away someone's freedom, you'd better treat it like science, not like some magic show, and most certainly not like some legal argument, where eloquence and 'gotcha' moments dominate. If the courts and the public can't respect scientific method and the ethics that go with it, then we shouldn't use science in the courts at all. The independent experts showed how much respect Stephanoni and her cohorts have for those ethics - in their own words and pictures.

I've been so disillusioned - I didn't realize science could be so corrupt. I came across this the other day, the comments are interesting too.

To my mind, people who are modifying data want to make the numbers look better than they are, and people who are falsifying data want to make the numbers just flat-out say things that they don't say. And the far end of that process is fabrication, where you give up on tweaking and bending and processing, and just make the stuff up. As the PLoS paper says, you slide along from what could be explained as carelessness all the way to what can only be described as blatant fraud. http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2011/04/12/scientific_fraud_how_often_and_how_much.php​

I think Stephanoni should be investigated.. including her past work. I wouldn't be surprised if some underneath her have silently questioned her methods only too afraid to speak up.

 

[sherlockh]

Mignini's witness, Curatolo, is not reliable. No, the prosecution has to prove she owned a red coat, not the other way around and who is this new witness?

snipped - I just wanted to point out.. Raffaele's house had luminol hits too - nothing suspicious.

Not reliable to you. We will see what the judges say. Same for the shop owner. RG is the new guy. He wasn't part of the first trial.

Rafaelle is the murderer so luminol hits at his house don't seem so strange to me. I guess they got lucky that MK's DNA wasn't found there. Oh wait, it was found.

It might be an interesting defense tactic to show that in regular households you can also find full bare luminol footprints, but for some reason the defense didn't do that. I wonder why?