Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#10

[aa9511]

I thought about this some more and if he said that then I'm guessing they have to stick with what their expert Introna said. That was another one of his mistakes like saying the bra had been cut when it had been ripped off imo.

Yes, and I do not mean this as a slight in any way to you or to any posters on here, but that is what happens when someone has to fit what they say in with the evidence at hand. Sometimes what even Amanda's own defense says is going to go against what posters on this thread say. Because we are not always bound by the rules of evidence, and I do not mean that in a bad way, because I (sometimes) love the fact that we are free to express "out of the box" ideas and wonder and yes, speculate, about things.

But I suppose, I mean, if it doesn't help Amanda then he could have just left it out.

 

[aa9511]

We also don't know the context of that statement and what else was stated or even what it was in reference to. If that is what the defense is claiming then I disagree. At some point he had to be behind her when considering the following from Massei:

pg. 141

http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/TheMasseiReport.pdf

I agree about the context. And I will also say that one sentence taken out of many doesn't necessarily mean much without, like you said, the context.

You know a lot more about the case than I do.

During the trial, did the defense lay out a reasonable theory of how lone-wolf Guede could have done it by himself? This is not a hypothetical, I'm really asking because I don't know. I would think this would have been the best reasonable doubt they could have given the jury (lone-wolf Guede), and they would thus have probably needed a theory to show the jury how it could have been possible.

 

[Katody]

The taking of the phones has always been strange to me.

IMO there was just no need for RG as the "lone wolf burglar" to throw the phones away at all. Simply removing the SIM card would've been sufficient if he stole them for money or whatever. So what would've been another reason to take those phones for RG?
I don't take RG at his word because I think he's a liar but he said when he got to his house he had to wash his hands because they had blood all over them. Why was there no blood on the phones?

I'm not sure the phones were tested for blood.
Anyway I think if he washed his hands in Meredith's bathroom or even wiped them before taking the phones there would be no visible blood on them.

I think it's possible Guede threw the phones away in panic because he was spooked by the incoming message signal. He remembered how he was previously caught with stolen phones from the attorney's office and realized it would be much worse if they caught him with items linked to murder.

 

[Katody]

I thought about this some more and if he said that then I'm guessing they have to stick with what their expert Introna said. That was another one of his mistakes like saying the bra had been cut when it had been ripped off imo.

I think it's false dichotomy.

The stabbing was a dynamic, moving, chaotic situation. We know the attack started by Meredith's bed where there is isolated blood spatter and then there was movement around the room ending with the victim on the floor facing the armoire, having her throat cut.

I'm not sure how stabbing from the front can be excluded in such situation.

The idea of a static motionless attack where the victim being stabbed on both sides of her neck somehow proves there were two people stabbing from different directions at the same time is to me simplistic and frankly nonsensical.

 

[redheadedgal]

Hi Michael and thank you for that information!
Do you know the results of the fingerprints found on Meredith's cell phone?

i spent some time earlier looking for more info... and couldn't find anything other than that prints were found.

didn't the defense request another examination of the phones before the latest appeal started? and the judge refused?

why would a judge refuse to give the defense the opportunity to re-axamine the phones, the computers, etc. (i think 5 requests were denied), especially when the K's had asked that every request for testing be okay'd so the truth would be known? the K's names are on SCC doc bringing forth the charges/second appeal (right?)... odd their wishes would be denied too. the K's want the truth, and you'd think so would the court. it's just so contrary imo.

(if an appeal to the ECHR is made, no doubt these 5 denials will be mentioned)

 

[DerKritiker2011]

So I am assuming that Crini feels the phones indicate a later murder and a later time of death (not the 9:20 of Ron Hendry analysis which I became so accustomed to):

Hellmann has used this connection to show that the murder was not done after 22:13.

Galati had attacked this finding.

The Supreme Court had determined that Hellmann-Zanetti’s reasoning about re-location of the time of death is illogical.

And now Crini confirms Hellmann's finding using nearly the same argumentation.

It seems to be, that Galati and the Supreme court have done illogical decisions.

 

[SMK]

I posted my answer the last time you asked this question. So either you didn't get a chance to read it, or didn't think it was good enough

I believe, in fact strongly believe, that it's because of the fact that both Raffaele and Amanda's cell phones were already turned off.

By also turning off Meredith's cell phone, they would be left with the situation of THREE CELL PHONE OFF on the night of the murder - Raffaele, Amanda, and Meredith's.

Imagine how that would sound for Amanda and Raffaele if the investigators were to happen upon that information.

I'm sorry Sometimes my memory fails me -

I really had forgotten that this was asked and answered, so sorry :blushing:-

that is a good explanation, and thanks again.:loveyou:

 

[SMK]

The taking of the phones has always been strange to me.

IMO there was just no need for RG as the "lone wolf burglar" to throw the phones away at all. Simply removing the SIM card would've been sufficient if he stole them for money or whatever. So what would've been another reason to take those phones for RG?
I don't take RG at his word because I think he's a liar but he said when he got to his house he had to wash his hands because they had blood all over them. Why was there no blood on the phones?

That's a good question. Unless he wiped them off, on his shirt or something? Either that, or it wasn't RG who took them and threw them away.

 

[SMK]

Hellmann has used this connection to show that the murder was not done after 22:13.

Galati had attacked this finding.

The Supreme Court had determined that Hellmann-Zanetti’s reasoning about re-location of the time of death is illogical.

And now Crini confirms Hellmann's finding using nearly the same argumentation.

It seems to be, that Galati and the Supreme court have done illogical decisions.

Thanks - you have a point, there, yes.

 

[SMK]

An article posted December 20 by a crime blogger who became convinced of Knox's guilt.

http://justice4ever.com/2013/12/amanda-knox-ii/

Interesting, but some of what she asserts doesn't hold up:

For instance, that there was no blood transfer on the duvet (a point made by Mignini in court, and showing that the duvet was placed on the body many hours after death).

Fisher refuted this in his book, and apparently truthfully:
(this is a point we went over on the previous threads, I know;
just making it once more as per this new blogger article. smk)

See attached thumbnails showing significant blood transfer on the duvet:

 

[SMK]

A point I have also seen brought up on other forums, and which strikes me as important , too: The idea that the best defense for Knox and Sollecito is the court being convinced (despite prior rulings) of a sole attacker;

if Guede "acted with others" these others will be presumed to be Knox and Sollecito.

Anyone agree or disagree?

 

[MichaelSmith]

Hi Michael and thank you for that information!
Do you know the results of the fingerprints found on Meredith's cell phone?



http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article2596149.ece

I've spent a fair amount of time trying to find a cite from the transcripts re this but bare with me. I've seen it before but the phones turned up nothing re fingerprints afik. They'd been handled by Biscarini and the PP.

 

[MichaelSmith]

An article posted December 20 by a crime blogger who became convinced of Knox's guilt.

http://justice4ever.com/2013/12/amanda-knox-ii/

Interesting, but some of what she asserts doesn't hold up:

For instance, that there was no blood transfer on the duvet (a point made by Mignini in court, and showing that the duvet was placed on the body many hours after death).

Fisher refuted this in his book, and apparently truthfully:
(this is a point we went over on the previous threads, I know;
just making it once more as per this new blogger article. smk)

See attached thumbnails showing significant blood transfer on the duvet:

Who's Fisher?

 

[Amber29]

<modsnip>

These are my thoughts as well. It has always been said that RS has the best lawyer, so we will see.

I completely agree about keeping quiet and I have always felt the books were premature. Especially considering they both embellished the stories for the books.

 

[SMK]

Who's Fisher?

Bruce Fisher, author of
Injustice in Perugia: a book detailing the wrongful conviction of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito Fisher, 2011.

 

[SMK]

These are my thoughts as well. It has always been said that RS has the best lawyer, so we will see.

I completely agree about keeping quiet and I have always felt the books were premature. Especially considering they both embellished the stories for the books.

I get the feeling that with Knox's book (I may be wrong), the thought was that Hellmann's acquittal would be upheld by the supreme court, and that the prosecution would allow it to be rubber-stamped and over.

 

[Amber29]

A point I have also seen brought up on other forums, and which strikes me as important , too: The idea that the best defense for Knox and Sollecito is the court being convinced (despite prior rulings) of a sole attacker;

if Guede "acted with others" these others will be presumed to be Knox and Sollecito.

Anyone agree or disagree?

You likely won't see the defense argue a lone wolf theory. RGs conviction is considered definate and it was said he acted with others. The SCC has ruled on this. Hellmann was partly turned over for not considering RGs supreme ruling.

He also was not convicted of breaking and entering because they considered it staged.

 

[Katody]

A point I have also seen brought up on other forums, and which strikes me as important , too: The idea that the best defense for Knox and Sollecito is the court being convinced (despite prior rulings) of a sole attacker;

if Guede "acted with others" these others will be presumed to be Knox and Sollecito.

Anyone agree or disagree?

I agree with LJ wholeheartedly about it. Of course the defence is not obliged to solve the crime, in the ideal world they shouldn't have to prove anything, just show the obvious reasonable doubt.

Yet, what we're dealing with here is the very specific instructions given by the supreme court considering the elements of the case that require explanation and / or additional examination in the SC's view.

The defence shouldn't count on the judge to write it all by himself. They should present a detailed reasoning answering all of the SC issues as a blueprint for the judge.

This includes showing how the additional evidence that were not presented in Guede's trial shows that the finding of Guede's trial about multiple assailants is wrong.

 

[SMK]

You likely won't see the defense argue a lone wolf theory. RGs conviction is considered definate and it was said he acted with others. The SCC has ruled on this. Hellmann was partly turned over for not considering RGs supreme ruling.

He also was not convicted of breaking and entering because they considered it staged.

I guess you have a point there:

If these things stand in the SC with Guede's case, then the points cannot simply be changed or dismissed, legally.

A pro-innocence poster did say that unless the court believes in a sole attacker, Knox and Sollecito are sunk. I myself don't know if the lay judges could believe Guede acted with others who are not these defendants. I guess it depends. Hellmann seemed in his reasoning to be believing in a sole attacker despite prior rulings.

 

[MichaelSmith]

Just to change the topic but I'm curious what people make of the fact Stefano in his witness statement Nov 4 told the cops about Guede and his toilet habits and they must have known a very similar break-in to the cottage had occurred just two weeks earlier at the law office where Guede broke in via the second story window smashing the glass with a rock.

They knew by Nov 6 the DNA from the vaginal swab and toilet didn't match Amanda, Raffaele, Patrick.

Any thoughts?