Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #20

[SMK]

This is strange, too:



I'm trying to imagine how the wounds on her hands were "threats" and not defense wounds. How does this happen? She's holding her hands up in a defense manner and one person is just lightly slicing them? Makes no sense. Sounds like torture. If two people are holding her down, how do the "light" torture marks occur? I can only assume that those "holding her down" are holding her hands. So they made her hold her hand out for these "light" threatening slices?

In my opinion, they should have just left them as defensive wounds.

The only thing that bothers me (in terms of what the jury could think) is that this description is like the wounds described in the murders performed by Mary Bell: light, playful scratches. I would hope this is a mistaken conception of the scratches, but the "lightness" would lead an investigator to think that maybe playful tormenting took place. ( I read Gitta Sereny's book , The Case of Mary Bell, and it really stuck in my mind, that the detective made much of the scratches being shallow.)

 

[SMK]

Steve Moore on Maresca in court today:


http://gmancasefile.blogspot.com/2011/09/is-this-really-still-about-meredith.html

 

[wasnt_me]

The only thing that bothers me (in terms of what the jury could think) is that this description is like the wounds described in the murders performed by Mary Bell: light, playful scratches. I would hope this is a mistaken conception of the scratches, but the "lightness" would lead an investigator to think that maybe playful tormenting took place. ( I read Gitta Sereny's book , The Case of Mary Bell, and it really stuck in my mind, that the detective made much of the scratches being shallow.)

I hope the jury sees how inane it is that these threats would occur on her palms like that, but not anywhere else on her body. If the murderer(s) were into cutting and blood letting, then I would think they'd logically cut her arms, legs, torso, etc, as well. and if you had two people holding her, a blood-letting fanatic would have all the ample time in the world to satisfy that craving. But we don't have signs of this. So you have to ask yourself why just the palm of the hands? The only simple and logical conclusion is defense wounds.

I see MK as batting away the knife. I don't think she grabbed the blade, as I have heard that some victims have done. I actually saw a show of a survivor who said she'd grabbed the blade and it sliced into her hand. I cannot imagine grabbing the blade and not letting go, but then I can't imagine getting attacked with a knife, either.

 

[SMK]

I hope the jury sees how inane it is that these threats would occur on her palms like that, but not anywhere else on her body. If the murderer(s) were into cutting and blood letting, then I would think they'd logically cut her arms, legs, torso, etc, as well. But we don't have signs of this. So you have to ask yourself why just the palm of the hands? The only simple and logical conclusion is defense wounds.

I see MK as batting away the knife. I don't think she grabbed the blade, as I have heard that some victims have done. I actually saw a show of a survivor who said she'd grabbed the blade and it sliced into her hand. I cannot imagine grabbing the blade and not letting go, but then I can't imagine getting attacked with a knife, either.

Great analysis.

 

[SMK]

Waterbury on the antics in court:

http://www.groundreport.com/Business/LandShark-Park-to-honor-Perugia-and-Mignini/2941573

 

[Footwarrior]

Steve Moore on Maresca in court today:

http://gmancasefile.blogspot.com/2011/09/is-this-really-still-about-meredith.html

Jesus.

Reading that makes me glad I wasn't in the courtroom today.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Link here.

 

[SMK]

Is there more info on this or only the tweet? I too think this is strange. Surely they could tell at the beginning that the cuts were not defensive wounds?

Salem

Right; it is usually pretty obvious which comprise defensive wounds or something else.

 

[Allusonz]

This is strange, too:



I'm trying to imagine how the wounds on her hands were "threats" and not defense wounds. How does this happen? She's holding her hands up in a defense manner and one person is just lightly slicing them? Makes no sense. Sounds like torture. If two people are holding her down, how do the "light" torture marks occur? I can only assume that those "holding her down" are holding her hands. So they made her hold her hand out for these "light" threatening slices?

In my opinion, they should have just left them as defensive wounds.

I would believe the person that did the autopsy over the lawyers. His testimony is also in the Motivational Report

"The forensic pathologist, Dr. Lalli, initially concluded that the pattern of bruises, defensive wounds/cuts, and stab wounds could not indicate whether one or multiple attackers had been present. There were larger cuts on her right hand, possibly as defensive wounds (with no one restraining her right hand), but only small cuts on her left hand. Both hands were covered in blood, as if holding her neck after it was stabbed. Dr. Lalli concluded that strangulation was attempted before the stab wounds were made"

http://www.zimbio.com/Meredith+Kercher/articles/bz4eDV_dEO7/Murder+Of+Meredith+Kercher

 

[Allusonz]

http://www.westseattleherald.com/2011/09/26/news/update-3-amanda-knox-court-today-prosecutor-migni

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

OMG Maybe he is thinking about his own appeals

 

[sherlockh]

We provided proof in previous threads that Amanda and Raffaelle got into the car with two of the people from the flat who then told them what they had seen in the room. Amanda's first statements (as confirmed by the article that everyone is linking here) was that Meredith was found in a cupboard with a blanket over her. Which isn't true.

It's the kind of story you would hear because someone is relating the "truth" third-hand from stories they misunderstood from people telling them things in the car.

And, because so far no one who believes that these guys are guilty has been able to explain to me this:

Please tell me why Rudy's fingerprints were on Meredith's ransacked purse. If Amanda had to stage a robbery, how does that explain the fact that Meredith's purse was empty and Rudy's fingerprints are on her purse? Did Amanda stage his fingerprints and Meredith's blood on the purse?

If Rudy was there because he was invited, and the result ended with Amanda having to stage the scene to appear like a robbery.... then how does that lead to him robbing Meredith?

Give me a plausible explanation. Any plausible explanation, and how it fits into the scene.

There were no fingerprints there. There was a bit of his DNA on the handbag, but not inside where you would expect it if he went through it. Rudy admitted that he moved the bag. I am not sure what is your point anyway. Even if he took the money, there is still staging in Filomena's room.

 

[Allusonz]

What makes the stakes in this murder trial any different from any murder trial? Freedom or prison, those are the options in most countries. If the options were freedom, prison or death ... now that would be excruciatingly high.

I can't agree with this simply for the fact that any person in any country should have the right to be found guilty based on evidence which proves them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

If that doubt is sufficient then they should be found not guilty not because of the colour of ones skin, pink toy vibrators, what nationality you are. My list is long and has been posted before but will again if I must

 

[wasnt_me]

RG did not need to stick his hands inside the bag. All he needed to do was turn the bag upside down and dump all the contents into his napsack. This is evidenced by the fact that none of the things that would be in a woman's purse were located anywhere in the room and the fact that a few receipts floated down and landed on her covered body. He persumably stole her wallet, her keys, her makeup, and her phones all because they were in the purse. Maybe her phone starting calling voicemail and her bank as a result of being tossed into his bag. I think he fumbled with the phone, but if they think MK was playing her on phone, then it's possible that the jostling around of the phone being dumped in his bag caused. it. One phone rang enroute to his house, and he decided to go dump the phones, which he didn't want traced back to him. Then I'd guess he went home and sorted out the loot in his bag, like a kid does his Halloween sack. Or he could have dumped other things from her purse other places, and they, like the knife and his clothes, were never found.

 

[Allusonz]

What is interesting to me is that his lawyer is allowed to comment on anything OUTSIDE the bounds of the "confession." PL has no relevance in the actual murder case, but amazingly, his lawyer can comment on it in open court. It's also amazing that the civil suits continue to run concurrent with the trial when the judge said that her "confession" couldn't even be used as evidence in her trial. RS definitely has SC appeal grounds on that, I would think, because he had nothing to do with said "confession," yet it's impacting his trial.

This trial has indeed opened the eyes of many from around the world with respect to the issues Italy faces in their judicial system. It has also shown me personally a number of other things which have nothing to do with Italy. How individuals interpret/reason with respect to a number of issues. How I have so often initially believed what LE agencies have stated without questioning it too much. I know for me I now reflect more. As well how the media can manipulate stories not in search of the truth but for the profit. One thing that is of extreme concern to me is the lengths people will go from an internet forum to expose people with differing opinions. This is my short list

 

[SMK]

Excerpt from a post, about the murder scene and autopsy photos shown today in court. I had this in the back of my mind, but to see it in a post has me a bit worried:

So why do you think Hellmann allowed this disgraceful display of photographs? If he was even thinking of aquitting the defendants don't you think he would have refused to allow such photos into open court? The only reason I can think of for him to permit the showing of such graphic material is because he is not going to aquit. I hope I am wrong.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7616059#post7616059

 

[emyr]

There were no fingerprints there. There was a bit of his DNA on the handbag, but not inside where you would expect it if he went through it. Rudy admitted that he moved the bag. I am not sure what is your point anyway. Even if he took the money, there is still staging in Filomena's room.

Awww man, that's embarassing. Ok, so his DNA.

But you don't understand my point? _Even_ if he took the money? Isn't it a reach to think that someone else took the money? Isn't it an indication that you are ignoring evidence to buttress an argument, rather than look for the truth, if you say that Amanda and Raffaelle stole from Meredith's purse, when the evidence points to Rudy doing it?

A _bit_ of DNA? After all the arguments about how the contested DNA proves beyond any reasonable doubt that Amanda and Raffaelle are guilty? The DNA that shows up of Rudy doesn't indicate that he stole from her purse?

I don't see any way around the fact that it was Rudy who stole Meredith's things. I really don't. And if he came in by invitation what was he doing stealing from Meredith? If he just came to hang out, then why is he thieving from friends? If he came to hang out, then spontaneously committed a murder, wouldn't stealing a bunch of stuff and then going out to dance afterwards be strange behaviour?

It just doesn't fit. Rudy came to steal. He, in fact, stole. So then... he came there to steal. So he broke in. And the fact that everyone feels like it must have been staged, is just that. The arguments that the break in was staged are:

1) The way the break-in happened seems irrational.
2) The memory of Filomena states that glass was on top of items.

That's not proof by any means.

 

[sherlockh]

BBM
I think one has to very careful there in what they say there, especially as a foreigner, and an American one at that.
Imagine if she had said, something like - after the night I had with LE grilling me I would have said the Pope did it" - they would have given her a triple life sentence.

Look at what happened to her for saying she slapped on the back of the head.

She shouldn't lie about anybody slapping her head. Try telling the truth for a change. What has being a foreigner or even American have to do with anything? She lied from start to finish. She accused Patrick 3 times before she appeared in front of the judge. Once within 2 hours of police questioning, 2nd time a few hours later because she demanded to be heard again and came up with a lot more detail about Patrick, 3rd time on a piece of paper. Then she decided not to speak in front of the judge even when she already told her mother Patrick was innocent. There is no excuse for that.

 

[SMK]

She shouldn't lie about anybody slapping her head. Try telling the truth for a change. What has being a foreigner or even American have to do with anything? She lied from start to finish. She accused Patrick 3 times before she appeared in front of the judge. Once within 2 hours of police questioning, 2nd time a few hours later because she demanded to be heard again and came up with a lot more detail about Patrick, 3rd time on a piece of paper. Then she decided not to speak in front of the judge even when she already told her mother Patrick was innocent. There is no excuse for that.

I do not think she did lie about being slapped on the head; I believe her. It is a very Italian thing to do, sorry for the implied racism, but I am Italian and the head slapping thing is common. Patrick and his attorney going to extremes (satanic rituals? proof? ) is not the way to address what occurred.

 

[sherlockh]

Awww man, that's embarassing. Ok, so his DNA.

But you don't understand my point? _Even_ if he took the money? Isn't it a reach to think that someone else took the money? Isn't it an indication that you are ignoring evidence to buttress an argument, rather than look for the truth, if you say that Amanda and Raffaelle stole from Meredith's purse, when the evidence points to Rudy doing it?

A _bit_ of DNA? After all the arguments about how the contested DNA proves beyond any reasonable doubt that Amanda and Raffaelle are guilty? The DNA that shows up of Rudy doesn't indicate that he stole from her purse?

I don't see any way around the fact that it was Rudy who stole Meredith's things. I really don't. And if he came in by invitation what was he doing stealing from Meredith? If he just came to hang out, then why is he thieving from friends? If he came to hang out, then spontaneously committed a murder, wouldn't stealing a bunch of stuff and then going out to dance afterwards be strange behaviour?

It just doesn't fit. Rudy came to steal. He, in fact, stole. So then... he came there to steal. So he broke in. And the fact that everyone feels like it must have been staged, is just that. The arguments that the break in was staged are:

1) The way the break-in happened seems irrational.
2) The memory of Filomena states that glass was on top of items.

That's not proof by any means.

It is not a fact. You are just speculating based on one trace of DNA which I admit proves he touched the purse. He obviously had blood on his hands when he touched it. If he had gone through the purse there would have been more traces, if he had hold the purse upside down there would have been more traces, where are his bloody shoe prints showing he went back and forth doing these things?, where is the blood on the phones that he grabbed with his bloody hands? How did he do all those things in the 1 or 2 minutes till he was heard running away?

I agree. It just doesn't fit

 

[Malkmus]

She shouldn't lie about anybody slapping her head. Try telling the truth for a change. What has being a foreigner or even American have to do with anything? She lied from start to finish. She accused Patrick 3 times before she appeared in front of the judge. Once within 2 hours of police questioning, 2nd time a few hours later because she demanded to be heard again and came up with a lot more detail about Patrick, 3rd time on a piece of paper. Then she decided not to speak in front of the judge even when she already told her mother Patrick was innocent. There is no excuse for that.

Making this quick cause I'm in my iPhone, buy the Amanda "demanding to be heard a second time" is another myth started on pmf. She had no reason to be heard a second time, it was PLE who needed her to mar a Statement a second time as a suspect. If you read her note it makes no mention of meeting Patrick.