WARNING:GRAPHIC PHOTOS Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #9

[otto]

If the convictions are upheld, I wonder if the sentences have a possibility of being lessened as RG's was. I mean 16 years? geez.

They said he got that for apologizing. well, AK apologized, too, so...

Not sure where you're getting your information, but that is absolutely untrue. Rudy's sentence was not reduced because he apologized.

 

[otto]

If AK and RS wanted to, as you say, implicate a stranger, then why leave the toilet unflushed, knowing it was full of, let us say, DNA which belonged to Guede?:waitasec:

Amanda and Raffaele had no reason to believe that Rudy had been detained by police for any reason, and did not know that they had his fingerprints. Knox and Sollecito wanted to stage the scene such that it appeared that a stranger broke in through Filomina's window. In theory, if Rudy had never been detained in the past, and since he was in Germany after the murder, evidence would not have easily led to Rudy.

 

[otto]

Getting back to the appeal, if it is all being based on a review of 1. the witness and 2. the evidence on the knife and bra clasp, and it appears the witness is no good, and there is too little evidence to retest ---BUT the prosecution claims this is all OK, and will simply point back to the original indictment which was all above board, and the collection procedures which were all OK too---then what is new in this appeal, and what is the purpose of it??????????:snooty:

Lawyers for Amanda and Raffaele screwed up by not attending the DNA analysis. They were invited, but did not attend. Big mistake on their parts. During the trial, Raffaele's lawyer asked to have the DNA tests evaluated. That was refused, but it was known at that time that it was a major point for appeal. During the appeal, as was expected, it was decided that some of the DNA analysis would be evaluated. This is not to say that the DNA will be re-evaluated, only the testing will be re-evaluated. The judge also said that in the event there is no more DNA to test, only the test methods will be assessed. That's where we are today.

This decision was made because the defense alleged that there was contamination. All that is happening now is an evaluation of the tests to confirm that they were done properly and to exclude the possibility of contamination. It has never been doubted that the DNA from the knife belonged to Meredith, or that the DNA on the handle belonged to Amanda. The only question is whether the tests were done correctly, and whether the DNA really came from, for example, the knife and the handle.

As I mentioned earlier, no one connected with the trial is alleging that there never was any DNA to test ... that's coming from people that want to imply that there was some sort of conspiracy between the prosecutor and all the investigators to falsify evidence. There was DNA to test and those tests are on record. Those tests are being evaluated due to a request made by the defense.

 

[otto]

I have it and it is a very good book. It would be great reading material this summer.

It's fairly well written, and it's a quick read. Candace mentions things that reflect poorly on Amanda, like her accusation against Patrick after 2 hours, and then goes on to say that Amanda didn't know the law, didn't understand that she was under arrest, didn't speak Italian ... and a bunch of other things intended to down play Amanda's understanding of the seriousness of the situation. It also belabors points intended to re-inforce Amanda's innocence. I too recommend it for anyone that supports Amanda the Victim theory.

 

[Nova]

Nova did not come to any conclusion. She speculated a theory that if there was nothing on the knife, then there was a case for it being thoroughly cleaned as they have claimed. She is merely citing that it was not thoroughly cleaned if they found something on it, starch stuck in it even after all these years, for example.

Nova, are you a "she," because if not, I apologize.

I'm a he, but you needn't apologize. Most posters at WS are female, so it's usually a safe guess (and since there's nothing wrong with being female, how can I take offense?). Thanks for the explanation above.

You are correct. I thought one of the links here said the presence of starch demonstrated that the knife had not been thoroughly cleaned, as the prosecution claimed.

If it wasn't thoroughly cleaned, then there should be massive amounts of MK's DNA on it.

Since DNA does not remain in large quantities, that is in fact suggestive of contamination.

I may be wrong, but I think lab contamination is often proved through such a deductive process. It isn't usually a matter of somebody seeing somebody else deliberately move DNA from one site to another.

 

[Nova]

The interpreter arrived at 12:30 (pg 143; Dempsey), so nothing could be accomplished before that....

No one I can think of makes this claim except for you. I believe the evidence is that interrogation started at 11:30, but AK was having trouble understanding all the questions. So they brought in an English-speaking interrogator an hour later. That doesn't mean "nothing" was accomplished in the first hour: AK was badgered in a foreign (to her) language for that period.

 

[Nova]

The statements were essentially the same, as far as I know. I think some information about the contents was published ages ago, but since neither statement was used in the trial of Amanda and Raffaele, they don't seem to be all that important. The important statement is the one that Amanda gave when she was by herself ... no coercion. It affirmed her statements against Patrick.

Actually, it recants her statements against Patrick by insisting those "memories" are "more unreal than real" to her. That was the entire reason for the gift statement, to recant her false testimony without openly admitting to perjury.

That interrogators read the "gift" as confirmation rather than recantation is indicative of their tunnel vision.

 

[Nova]

This is understandable. Just say black man to avoid this later. That sounds better than "a black" as RG said. I'm a so-called African American, but I don't too much like to be called such because we are 100's of years removed from Africa, and I'm not 100% AA, but white and indian as well, so it's not accurate and it makes me feel as if i'm some American immigrant transplant, rather than an American. We don't hear white people being call Italian-American, European-American and what have you. So anyways, I'm off topic.

I know this is OT, but in case it matters to you, I regularly use "European-American" when it's necessary to make a distinction. It's a commonly used term in academia.

 

[Nova]

There is no reason for Amanda to want Raffaele or Rudy caught. Instead, she mentioned names of people that were at the cottage, but accused Patrick of murder.

Amanda had no reason to suspect that Rudy would be connected to the murder. He had no criminal record and since he was in Germany, he couldn't be connected ... except through the finger prints that police had on file.

The scene was staged to suggest a break in, robbery and murder.

Of course there's no evidence that AK knew any of the above. She'd met RG once and seen him around a couple of times. I seriously doubt she discussed his fingerprinting history.

 

[Nova]

I know I can probably be frustrating because everyone else is more imersed. Going back over the threads occasionally, I see names of some of you who seemed to be posting from the start.

What I do hope, though, is that my newness can bring a fresh eye to old evidence. I see that it did happen once, because Otto hadn't seemed aware or had forgotten that the window in FR's room had that inner white panel.

I don't know if I'm helping the conversation or not. It seems though, that for all 9 threads, boardmembers are still debating and having to cite the same details again and again as if they'd never heard them before.

I can't speak for the real case experts here, but for somebody like me, who has some knowledge but not encyclopedia-like knowledge, your questioning and thinking aloud helps me go over the known evidence in my mind.

Please don't apologize.

 

[Nova]

IIRC there was no African hair, but ILE was fixated or seemed to be on a particular type of person

Maybe Nova or Malkmus may remember more. There was so much reported incorrectly, things leaked to the press etc sometimes certain things tend to become a bit of a blur when talking about items reported or said by ILE at the start

I'm not Malkmus on this case, but I've seen numerous references to ILE finding an African hair at the scene and pushing AK to identify a possible African assailant. HOWEVER, I don't remember any references to such a hair being presented at trial, so unless I'm wrong, I think we can assume they couldn't match any such hair to RG.

Maybe Sherlockh is right and ILE mistook a blood-soaked hair from MK as "African."

 

[Nova]

I don't know how any statement made in any language can indicate for a fact that the information in the statement took place. Something has to be taken in account for AK using an American phrase. But I really can't understand how that phrase never became universal after all this time, kind of like "What's up" or "what's happening." hasn't USA slang reached around the world yet? Rhetorical question.

But at the level the investigators are, I have to ask if AK was too frightened enough to tell them it was just something people say? I don't know what her specific response was in explaining it.

I'm looking into buy the Monster of Perugia, the framing of Ak.

Anyone know if it's good. I read everything on the sciencesphere blog, and I like the way the writer breaks things down, even though I don't 100% agree.

I don't know which American idioms are known in central Italy. And I doubt that ILE sat down and decided to frame AK.

Instead, it appears lead investigators decided AK was guilty based on her post-murder demeanor and an assumption that the break-in was staged, and then merely looked at every piece of evidence only in whatever light would prove her guilt. As such, "see you later" suddenly became an agreement to commit murder. If AK insisted she wasn't at the cottage, then ipso facto she must have blocked out the memory, etc.

 

[SMK]

Lawyers for Amanda and Raffaele screwed up by not attending the DNA analysis. They were invited, but did not attend. Big mistake on their parts. During the trial, Raffaele's lawyer asked to have the DNA tests evaluated. That was refused, but it was known at that time that it was a major point for appeal. During the appeal, as was expected, it was decided that some of the DNA analysis would be evaluated. This is not to say that the DNA will be re-evaluated, only the testing will be re-evaluated. The judge also said that in the event there is no more DNA to test, only the test methods will be assessed. That's where we are today.

This decision was made because the defense alleged that there was contamination. All that is happening now is an evaluation of the tests to confirm that they were done properly and to exclude the possibility of contamination. It has never been doubted that the DNA from the knife belonged to Meredith, or that the DNA on the handle belonged to Amanda. The only question is whether the tests were done correctly, and whether the DNA really came from, for example, the knife and the handle.

As I mentioned earlier, no one connected with the trial is alleging that there never was any DNA to test ... that's coming from people that want to imply that there was some sort of conspiracy between the prosecutor and all the investigators to falsify evidence. There was DNA to test and those tests are on record. Those tests are being evaluated due to a request made by the defense.

Right, I get it, but they are really just going in a circle. This appeal, to work, had to be based on broader things. It seems like there will be a big wait until September, and then it will be right back to the drawing board. I really wish I had never become involved in this.

 

[Nova]

We also know MK's door was locked-I presume from the outside with a key? Would Rudy lock the door, considering he got out of the apartment without even flashing the toilet?

That's an interesting question. Could MK's door be locked and then pulled closed from the outside? I've never heard this discussed before the recent posts on the subject.

If it were relatively simple to accomplish, locking the door might be like covering the body with a duvet: a hurried attempt to cover the horror out of regret, compassion, fear of discovery, whatever...

 

[Nova]

We know that both of them (AK and RS) admit to taking drugs that night.
I wonder how much do they really remember of what they were doing.

I don't know. But in my experience, drugs that interfere with one's memory also tend to interfere with one's ability to plan and to respond logically. So I doubt AK and RS could simply "forget" forming a conspiracy to murder with someone they barely knew and then cleaning up after the crime.

 

[SMK]

We also know MK's door was locked-I presume from the outside with a key? Would Rudy lock the door, considering he got out of the apartment without even flashing the toilet?

Yes, that is an interesting question. I assume it was the kind of lock where you would turn it from the inside, and then close it behind you (no key). So, it would be simple to do. But it does bring suspicions to mind, and I can see why ILE might have thought this pointed to someone living there, but its hard to say. The duvet and the locked door are suspicious, from my perspective. For instance, there was a woman killed in Cape Cod (Christa Worthington case); also by a black male . She was simply left on the floor, her shirt pushed up to her neck, her pants off, and stabbed. :waitasec:

 

[Nova]

No problem, and I agree fully---but it was supposed to be the correct thing to say "African American"---but I agree with your reasoning, sorry

Still OT, but in fairness, white people DO use terms like Irish-American, Italian-American, Jewish-American, etc. Jesse Jackson proposed African-American as an alternative to black in order to get the focus off skin color and instead to acknowledge the very different cultural history of Africans in the New World.

The Reverend Jackson is not king, not even of black people--and wasn't_me doesn't have to agree with him, of course. With her, I will do my best to use "black" and "white" (despite the limitations of those terms).

What's interesting about these threads, I find, is that although the case principals refer to Africans rather readily, posters here have not found it necessary to make such distinctions EXCEPT with regard to whether an African hair was found that pointed ILE in a certain direction. Otherwise, few references to PL or RG mention race.

So maybe we're making a little progress...

 

[Nova]

I was able to find a little bit on the 'hair in hand' found in the motivations report.

p110
"Also, her hands were bloodstained and were protected with plastic bags in order to allow sample collection, as some hairlike fibres could be seen."

p190
"As for what appeared to be hairlike filaments found on the victim's body, when examined under a microscope they appeared to be strands of wool and gave no results."

I guess that solves the 'mystery' of the hairs in hand found

It solves the mystery of what was found. But the more important question is what ILE was thinking while they interrogated AK. Since they didn't wait for forensic results, perhaps they assumed a strand of dark wool was an African hair.

 

[otto]

No one I can think of makes this claim except for you. I believe the evidence is that interrogation started at 11:30, but AK was having trouble understanding all the questions. So they brought in an English-speaking interrogator an hour later. That doesn't mean "nothing" was accomplished in the first hour: AK was badgered in a foreign (to her) language for that period.

"No one I can think of makes this claim except for you."

That sounds like an attempt to discredit anything I have to contribute to this discussion ... not nice.

I seem to recall Malkmus posted information about the 11:30 start time, 12:30 interpreter time, and 1:45 accusation time (accompanied by copies of the statements 1:45 and 5:45) a long time ago. Perhaps Malkmus can comment.

 

[Nova]

Granted, but if Guede were questioned, they could of course ask for a sample. . .

True. And if they intended to hide RG's involvement, I think flushing the toilet would be an instinctive reaction. They wouldn't wait to think about whether RG's feces could be matched to him.