Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #18

[RoseMontague]

This suggests that there is photographic evidence of the glass on top:

"... as has already been observed (the room was turned upside-down), involved the movement of objects and [44] thus also of pieces of glass, thus rendering the situation which was subsequently photographed somewhat different from the one described by the witnesses. Therefore, the presence of glass on top of the various objects scattered on the floor all over the place is considered as supporting proof of the testimony that is not falsified by the photos. It is certain that the presence of pieces of glass on top of objects found out of their place cannot but suggest a simulation, since the throwing of the stone and the breaking and falling of the glass must have happened when Romanelli's room was as she left it, and in particular pieces of glass should not have been found on top of objects supposedly thrown around by the phantom burglar, who was only supposed to have entered the room after breaking the window, so that the clothing and the objects would have actually been tossed down on top of the glass."

Ref: pg 55; http://www.westseattleherald.com/si...ttachments/MasseiReportEnglishTranslation.pdf

Since Guede had previously entered the law office by climbing up the door grate onto the balcony and in through the French doors, why wouldn't he do the same thing in this case. It was far easier to climb up over the balcony and in through the kitchen window than to scale a wall that was visible from the street a few times - especially since he didn't know if the window was locked. Furthermore, there is no evidence of broken glass on the ground below the window, making it very unlikely that anyone actually climbed in through that window.

Here is a quote from Burleigh's book on how this went down after the defense asked for a photograph of the glass on top of the clothes.

By the end of the trial, Mignini was insisting that the last best piece of proof of the students’ guilt was the fake break-in and robbery. He and the police said that the defendants had made one little mistake in their carefully staged scene: they had tossed around Filomena’s clothing first, and then thrown a rock at the window from inside, spraying glass on top of the clothes when it should have been under them. Police had described this in trial testimony but never shown it. It was determined that the Kerchers’ civil lawyer, Francesco Maresca, was the only lawyer in the room who knew how to find the picture in his copy of the massive, unorganized digital case archive. His laptop was beamed onto the wall screen, and his motocross screensaver came up, a bike at right angles to a spray of dirt. The dapper Florentine with the gold-embedded shark’s tooth dangling beneath his bespoke shirt collar smirked and then clicked the mouse again to bring up a picture of Filomena’s bed as it had looked on the morning of November 2, 2007. The defense lawyers insisted that what was supposed to be glass on top of a blue dress on the bed was actually a white dot pattern in the fabric. No one denied that or even bothered to explain what could have happened to the damning glass on top of the clothes in Filomena’s room. In the last minutes of the trial, it was clear that no photographic proof of “glass on top of clothes” even existed and that it didn’t matter anyway.

Rudy didn't pick the balcony because it was well lit and was also visible from the road.

It was not only lighted by the streetlamp, there is also a cottage lamp right next to the balcony.

 

[otto]

Here is a quote from burleighs book on how this went down after the defense asked for a photograph of the glass on top of the clothes.




Rudy didn't pick the balcony because it was well lit and was also visible from the road.

It was not only lighted by the streetlamp, there is also a cottage lamp right next to the balcony.

Nina came onto the scene half way through the trial, didn't she? We have two sources: the court summary and a crime novel ... what to believe?

How and why, after the murder, did two people break into the house via the balcony if it was such a well lit and easy to observe location?

It looks to me like Filomina's bedroom window was well lit and easily visible from the road

In contrast, the circled area looks rather obscured from the road.

 

[RoseMontague]

Nina came onto the scene half way through the trial, didn't she? We have two sources: the court summary and a crime novel ... what to believe?

How and why, after the murder, did two people break into the house via the balcony if it was such a well lit and easy to observe location?

It looks to me like Filomina's bedroom window was well lit and easily visible from the road

In contrast, the circled area looks rather obscured from the road.

Unfortunately the side with Filomena's window was not "well lit" at night.

 

[otto]

 

[RoseMontague]

During the day one side, at night, another. IIRC the break in was at night.

 

[otto]

Unfortunately the side with Filomena's window was not "well lit" at night.

The street lights on both sides of the cottage were on that night, so I don't see how the window on the side of the house, clearly visible from the road, was not well lit but the entrance obscured by bushes in the back of the house was well lit.

Here's a night photo of Filomina's window ... looks rather well lit to me

Ref: Perugiamurderfile.net

 

[Chris_Halkides]

RoseMontague,

You wrote in the previous thread, "Rinaldi was told to compare these prints only to the suspects, not the victim or anyone else in the apartment upstairs or downstairs" This is a very good point with respect forensic bias. It is folly to arrest someone on the basis of rather weak evidence and then to do the forensics later.

 

[RoseMontague]

That seems to be the same window in this picture. Any thoughts on why this was done?

 

[RoseMontague]

The street lights on both sides of the cottage were on that night, so I don't see how the window on the side of the house, clearly visible from the road, was not well lit but the entrance obscured by bushes in the back of the house was well lit.

Here's a night photo of Filomina's window ... looks rather well lit to me

Ref: Perugiamurderfile.net

Appears to be taken with a flash, also is this one of the pictures SA posted that he presented at JREF that were exposed as way over exposed?

 

[SMK]

Appears to be taken with a flash, also is this one of the pictures SA posted that he presented at JREF that were exposed as way over exposed?

It is hard to believe that anyone could live with such glaring light flooding the window at night. It does look like a flood light is on the place, and I doubt it looked that way at night, when the murder took place in 2007.

 

[SMK]

A response I received on JREF about the accuracy of the appeal schedule, thought it might be of interest:

I think it's a wishful-thinking schedule. I think that a verdict won't arrive before mid-October at the earliest. There's a lot of evidence/testimony from the first trial to add to the new evidence/testimony from the appeal trial, a combination of which will be used as the basis of the closing arguments.

The only way that I can see such an abbreviated argument phase is if Hellmann essentially decides that the prosecution cannot now prove its case, and thus decides that the court does not need to hear a lengthy defence argument. And we may get some indication of that by the end of next week.

Either way, I am certain that most of the pro-guilt commentators will not enjoy the outcome of Monday's/Tuesday's hearings - regardless of their current wishful thinking to the contrary. Ms Stefanoni's numerous huge errors will be exposed in court, and it won't be pleasant. I also personally suspect that either she or Comodi (or both) have misled the court in regard to "quarantine periods" and control testing. I have a funny feeling that in addition to an exposition of her incompetence and malpractice, Ms Stefanoni might also be exposed as a liar by the end of Tuesday. Just my hunch.

Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case - Page 91 - JREF Forum

 

[RoseMontague]

Ah yes, that was the pic taken both with a flash and over-exposed, both admitted by SA in these posts:

JREF Forum - View Single Post - Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

JREF Forum - View Single Post - Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

 

[RoseMontague]

RoseMontague,

You wrote in the previous thread, "Rinaldi was told to compare these prints only to the suspects, not the victim or anyone else in the apartment upstairs or downstairs" This is a very good point with respect forensic bias. It is folly to arrest someone on the basis of rather weak evidence and then to do the forensics later.

I agree Chris. I would compare it to a picture taken to show how that side of the cottage looked at night, but taken with a flash and a long exposure.

 

[otto]

That seems to be the same window in this picture. Any thoughts on why this was done?

Are you wondering why the entrance to the flat in the downstairs of the cottage was broken? I would assume that in order to examine the crime scene, investigators had to enter the flat. No one answered the door and there was a body upstairs ... I suppose that had to be sure that there wasn't also a body downstairs.

Why do you suppose police had to forcibly enter the downstairs flat?

 

[otto]

Ah yes, that was the pic taken both with a flash and over-exposed, both admitted by SA in these posts:

JREF Forum - View Single Post - Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

JREF Forum - View Single Post - Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

I disagree.

 

[RoseMontague]

I disagree.

SomeAlibi said he used a flash and a long exposure. Did you read what he said?

 

[RoseMontague]

Are you wondering why the entrance to the flat in the downstairs of the cottage was broken? I would assume that in order to examine the crime scene, investigators had to enter the flat. No one answered the door and there was a body upstairs ... I suppose that had to be sure that there wasn't also a body downstairs.

Why do you suppose police had to forcibly enter the downstairs flat?

I was asking because this seems to be the entrance you circled in your picture. Maybe Rudy already knew there wasn't much of value downstairs.

 

[ohiogirl]

I disagree.

really?

 

[Sonata]

What I find interesting about that shot of FRs window at night is just how open the outside shutters are due to the swelling - you can actually see part of the inside its that pronounced. I had always assumed the swelling was minimal and they would be fairly tight still. That looks like you could just reach your hand in and pull them apart!

 

[RoseMontague]

There could be another reason Rudy did not select the downstairs entrance.