Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#4

[Amber29]

In with the crime scene photos Amber29 posted I saw one that showed Rafaels footprint 100% matching the print on the rug in the bathroom. Whatever came of that?

Also, was any of the blood in the bathroom attributed to anyone but Merideth? Thanks much!

Yes there was I believe the blood on the faucet is Amanda's and the blood of Meredith's is mixed with Amanda's DNA including on the box of Q tips.

 

[SMK]

Yes there was I believe the blood on the faucet is Amanda's and the blood of Meredith's is mixed with Amanda's DNA including on the box of Q tips.

This has been a major point of confusion and wavering for me.

This piece from 2009 gave me one very clear impression:

In the small bathroom that Knox and Kercher shared, investigators found numerous spots of blood, including on the sink, the toilet, the bidet, the rug, the light-switch and the door jamb. Three of these blood stains – one on the edge of the sink, the one on the drain of the bidet, and one on a Q-tip box - contained the mixed DNA of Kercher and Knox

The significance of the mixed DNA was not explained in court, but in past reports the prosecution has theorized that Knox used that bathroom to wash-up after the murder, and due to a nose-bleed or some other injury, her blood mixed with that of the victim.

Knox's defense, however, has mentioned the possibility that it could be menstrual blood or blood from Knox's ear, which she had recently pierced. Knox had taken a shower in that bathroom the morning after the murder, before Kercher's murder had been discovered.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=7656872

And then of course I became totally confused by later pieces such as:

(can only link here, but): Basically it says that the victim's blood was found mixed with Knox's DNA, so there is no mixed blood (nothing containing both Knox /MK blood) and the fact that this was a shared bathroom would mean of course Knox's DNA was in there, and Guede washing up alone could account for MK's blood mixing with Knox's DNA (DNA is deposited from wiping one's hands on a towel, something Knox did all the time in that bathroom, and so did MK.)

http://injusticeinperugia.blogspot.com/p/mixed-dna-not-mixed-blood.html

Once more, does anyone have any clarifying or illuminating info to clear this confusion? Would be much appreciated as always

ETA: But there was Knox's blood, in small amount, on the faucet you say?

 

[dgfred]

Yes there was I believe the blood on the faucet is Amanda's and the blood of Meredith's is mixed with Amanda's DNA including on the box of Q tips.

Yeah, in any other murder case if you had the victim's blood/dna mixed with the accused blood and other accused dna mixed with the victim's dna you would be way more convinced of guilt. Every time it is brought up the supporters start on about her living there. Strange the victims blood is not mixed with the other two flatmates blood/dna.

Thanks for quickly having an accurate answer to the post that had the question. :loveyou:

 

[dgfred]

This has been a major point of confusion and wavering for me.

This piece from 2009 gave me one very clear impression:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=7656872

And then of course I became totally confused by later pieces such as:

(can only link here, but): Basically it says that the victim's blood was found mixed with Knox's DNA, so there is no mixed blood (nothing containing both Knox /MK blood) and the fact that this was a shared bathroom would mean of course Knox's DNA was in there, and Guede washing up alone could account for MK's blood mixing with Knox's DNA.

http://injusticeinperugia.blogspot.com/p/mixed-dna-not-mixed-blood.html

Once more, does anyone have any clarifying or illuminating info to clear this confusion? Would be much appreciated as always

Well, you have the defense arguing that it was her blood but from her ear possibly. That should tell you the defense thought it was blood mixed... just that IIP did not.

 

[SMK]

Well, you have the defense arguing that it was her blood but from her ear possibly. That should tell you the defense thought it was blood mixed... just that IIP did not.

OK - I suppose that does clarify things. thanks muchly

 

[SMK]

One more thing regarding:

In the small bathroom that Knox and Kercher shared, investigators found numerous spots of blood, including on the sink, the toilet, the bidet, the rug, the light-switch and the door jamb. Three of these blood stains – one on the edge of the sink, the one on the drain of the bidet, and one on a Q-tip box - contained the mixed DNA of Kercher and Knox

The significance of the mixed DNA was not explained in court, but in past reports the prosecution has theorized that Knox used that bathroom to wash-up after the murder, and due to a nose-bleed or some other injury, her blood mixed with that of the victim.

Knox's defense, however, has mentioned the possibility that it could be menstrual blood or blood from Knox's ear, which she had recently pierced. Knox had taken a shower in that bathroom the morning after the murder, before Kercher's murder had been discovered.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/storyid=7656872

So perhaps she really did NOT take a shower, and simply said she did, creating a story to fit with the bolded above scenario?

 

[dgfred]

Watch out SMK... you are stepping in deep water now.

Mop = flood story and travel with mop
Break down door = prints on door or damage to it
Shower = bathmat boogie, poo and bleeding ears
hugs and kisses = distraught about murder of flatmate
unlocked front door = thief came in thru window tho

pricked Meredith story = worry over her dna on knife
worry what RG might say = worry he might rat you out

There are alot of those it seems.

 

[redheadedgal]

Along these lines , this quote from article RE 1990 Gregg Smart murder in Derry, New Hampshire, offers some illumination :

that site was been found to be inaccurate. way too many mistakes in other cases.

despite that, you failed to highlight "and when they do kill, it is not execution-style the way Gregory Smart was murdered" and that fits with how MK was killed.

things escalate. it happens:

Son finds father dead in apparent home burglary

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news...-father-dead-in-apparent-home-burglary/nMxJy/

Life for burglars who killed man

http://www.newsrt.co.uk/news/life-for-burglars-who-killed-man-1967961.html

Burglars kill family of three

http://newindianexpress.com/states/...family-at-Basar/2013/08/18/article1739838.ece

Unarmed woman killed by burglar

http://friedgreenonions.blogspot.ca/2009/01/unarmed-woman-killed-by-burglars-who.html

Burglars shoot, kill woman outside home

http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/story/19249184/burglar-shoots-kills-woman-in-fayette-county

 

[SMK]

that site was been found to be inaccurate. way too many mistakes in other cases.

despite that, you failed to highlight "and if they do, they rarely do it execution style" and that fits with how MK was killed.

things escalate. it happens:


http://www.daytondailynews.com/news...-father-dead-in-apparent-home-burglary/nMxJy/


http://www.newsrt.co.uk/news/life-for-burglars-who-killed-man-1967961.html


http://newindianexpress.com/states/...family-at-Basar/2013/08/18/article1739838.ece


http://friedgreenonions.blogspot.ca/2009/01/unarmed-woman-killed-by-burglars-who.html

OK, thanks. Points well taken.

 

[Amber29]

that site was been found to be inaccurate. way too many mistakes in other cases.

despite that, you failed to highlight "and if they do, they rarely do it execution style" and that fits with how MK was killed.

things escalate. it happens:


http://www.daytondailynews.com/news...-father-dead-in-apparent-home-burglary/nMxJy/


http://www.newsrt.co.uk/news/life-for-burglars-who-killed-man-1967961.html


http://newindianexpress.com/states/...family-at-Basar/2013/08/18/article1739838.ece


http://friedgreenonions.blogspot.ca/2009/01/unarmed-woman-killed-by-burglars-who.html


http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/story/19249184/burglar-shoots-kills-woman-in-fayette-county

Of course some burglars end up killing, I don't think he was implying that it doesn't happen. Simply that most burglars are looking to steal not kill.

 

[redheadedgal]

Myvice, thanks for you input. It doesn't make sense because we are being fed lies from all directions. Lies from Rudy G, lies from Amanda, lies from Raffaelo, and lies from the American media. The 3 players, Amanda, RS, and Rudy, are all lying to suit themelves. The American media is lying because of ignorance/lack of information, and also to please their viewers.

So all of this backgound noise and lies muddles our view of the evidence. Places, IMO, unreasonable doubts about the evidence we do have.

you forgot to mention the lies put out there by PLE and the prosecution... see back a few pages re: the bloody bathroom as just one example.

"unreasonable doubt about the evidence we do have"? you mean the evidence collected with dirty gloves, the evidence passed around with those dirty gloves, the evidence collected on pads scrubbed over multiple areas of a sink/fawcett, the dna amplified beyond normal range, the dna tested with no second control test as mandated, the TMB tests on the knife/footprints which were negative for blood... that evidence?

 

[dog.gone.cute]

While I find it strange that a woman would see feces in a toilet and not automatically flush it. I actually find Amanda's whole story about finding it unbelievable.

Take a good look at the pictures of Laura and Filomenas bathroom/laundry room
http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/album.php?album_id=21&sk=t&sd=d&st=0&start=60

See the blow dryer sitting near the wall outside the bathroom door?
There's a pic of the mirror in that room with a blow drying brush on the otherside opposite the actual blow dryer. One would assume the girls use that area to blow dry their hair.

Now in Amanda's story she noticed the feces in the toilet while putting the blow dryer back.(that is not in the bathroom)
Another convience that it was "after" that she saw it. Putting that aside what was amanda doing that far into that bathroom, the toilet is next to the tub and the blow dryer isn't even in the actual bathroom?

:seeya:

BBM: Odd, isn't it, that Knox did NOT flush the toilet ? And that's because she KNEW it was Guede's "mess" and that the investigators would eventually figure it out ...


:scared: Now me, I would have flushed ... and flushed again ... and then I would have sprayed Lysol ... and sprayed Febreeze ...

:scared: And then I would have wiped everything down with antibacterial wipes and cleaner ...

:seeya:

 

[Amber29]

you forgot to mention the lies put out there by PLE and the prosecution... see back a few pages re: the bloody bathroom as just one example.

"unreasonable doubt about the evidence we do have"? you mean the evidence collected with dirty gloves, the evidence passed around with those dirty gloves, the evidence collected on pads scrubbed over multiple areas of a sink/fawcett, the dna amplified beyond normal range, the dna tested with no second control test as mandated, the TMB tests on the knife/footprints which were negative for blood... that evidence?

I'm not gonna say the ple didn't lie or anything but how are we supposed to know what they fed the media and what the media ran with from their own"sources"
I watched a CNN interview with mignini one time, then saw the unedited version. It was incredible the way they edited his words and made it seem like he said things he didn't say. They completely misled their audience with that aired version.
That's just one example, the media hears any little bit about a story and they run with it.

 

[SMK]

you forgot to mention the lies put out there by PLE and the prosecution... see back a few pages re: the bloody bathroom as just one example.

"unreasonable doubt about the evidence we do have"? you mean the evidence collected with dirty gloves, the evidence passed around with those dirty gloves, the evidence collected on pads scrubbed over multiple areas of a sink/fawcett, the dna amplified beyond normal range, the dna tested with no second control test as mandated, the TMB tests on the knife/footprints which were negative for blood... that evidence?

Yes, there has been disinformation and exaggeration on both sides, which has kept this case so compelling and so confusing.

 

[Amber29]

:seeya:

BBM: Odd, isn't it, that Knox did NOT flush the toilet ? And that's because she KNEW it was Guede's "mess" and that the investigators would eventually figure it out ...


:scared: Now me, I would have flushed ... and flushed again ... and then I would have sprayed Lysol ... and sprayed Febreeze ...

:scared: And then I would have wiped everything down with antibacterial wipes and cleaner ...

:seeya:

Thank you! I would've done similar, there's no way I would leave that in a toilet in my house!

There is no explanation for why she left that IMO other than knowing who left it.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

One more thing regarding:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/storyid=7656872

So perhaps she really did NOT take a shower, and simply said she did, creating a story to fit with the bolded above scenario?

:seeya:

:twocents: I have NEVER believed that Knox took a shower AT the cottage the morning Meredith was found ...

If you look at the photos of Knox taken outside the cottage, she is a "mess" ...

Ah ... the continually changing stories by Knox and Raf ...

:moo:

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Yes, there has been disinformation and exaggeration on both sides, which has kept this case so compelling and so confusing.

:seeya: Respectfully disagree ...

The "disinformation and exaggeration" are the work of a highly paid PR Firm that was hired by Knox's family to distort and sway the American public's opinion that Knox is "innocent" ...

Well, their PR campaign did NOT convince me that Knox is "innocent" ...

I have looked at both sides, and the one thing that totally sealed it for me was when :

Knox accused Mr. Patrick Lumumba, an INNOCENT man, of the murder of Meredith, when she KNEW he was working at his bar that evening ...

So IF you are innocent, then WHY point the finger at another innocent person ?

Only a GUILTY person would do this to mislead the investigators.

:moo:

 

[SMK]

:seeya: Respectfully disagree ...

The "disinformation and exaggeration" are the work of a highly paid PR Firm that was hired by Knox's family to distort and sway the American public's opinion that Knox is "innocent" ...

Well, their PR campaign did NOT convince me that Knox is "innocent" ...

I have looked at both sides, and the one thing that totally sealed it for me was when :

Knox accused Mr. Patrick Lumumba, an INNOCENT man, of the murder of Meredith, when she KNEW he was working at his bar that evening ...

So IF you are innocent, then WHY point the finger at another innocent person ?

Only a GUILTY person would do this to mislead the investigators.

:moo:

I understand. But Mignini was off-kilter in his early statements, (I was just reading some, and don't agree that the crime began with Knox and Sollecito becoming sexually excited at MK resisting Guede, although I suppose its possible)and the press spun things against Knox in ways that were blatantly unfair. I also know that many people in the spotlight hire PR people as a matter of course (I used to work in PR). PR does not automatically = lies, in any sense. It is spin-doctoring, but can be very factual. In any case, I am just warming up to AK being involved and culpable, so don't want to go to any extremes, but prefer to stay sober and objective. ETA: Although when it comes to Marriot, I kind of know what you mean

 

[Footwarrior]

you forgot to mention the lies put out there by PLE and the prosecution... see back a few pages re: the bloody bathroom as just one example.

What is really hard to find is a retraction from any of the papers that published the bloody bathroom picture. Or any of the bogus smears of Amanda and Raffaele in this case. Then again, if the Daily Mail printed retractions for all the stuff they got wrong, they would not have room to print any news.

 

[SMK]

What is really hard to find is a retraction from any of the papers that published the bloody bathroom picture. Or any of the bogus smears of Amanda and Raffaele in this case. Then again, if the Daily Mail printed retractions for all the stuff they got wrong, they would not have room to print any news.

Yes, the Daily Mail is a sensationalist rag, for certain.