Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#7

[Katody]

Yes, alibi "unproven" means one has to keep an open mind and be open to the possibility that the suspect in a case just might, just might be lying about where they were at the time of the murder.

Sure, but I would expect such possibility to come together with a theory that is logical, coherent, reasonable and consistent with all the evidence.

While there is such a scenario that doesn't involve Amanda and Raffaele at all, I would expect something that is also more reasonable and plausible.

It is troubling that the prosecution, who unlike all the online 'enthusiasts' has access to the whole body of evidence, cannot come up with anything credible.
Let's see... Guede didn't flush Filomena's toilet, so Meredith attacked Amanda. That made people facepalm even in Italy.

 

[otto]

Follow up to comments regarding a public complaint about costs for producing and archiving trial related media.

"In other news, an internal review by the National Council of Magistrates found no wrongdoing on the part of Manuela Comodi, for how public monies (182,000 euros!) were appropriated to create a 23-minute HD video and archival documentation materials for use in the first Knox trial, that resulted in conviction."

http://thefreelancedesk.com/front_featured/amanda-knox-appeal-2/

 

[Katody]

1. Knox placed the duvet on MK and locked the door - nothing else. This was from being distraught and horrified that RG had done as he had.

Guede emptied Meredith's purse throwing items on top of the covered body. It's important for establishing the chronology.

2. Knox and Sollecito may have staged the burglary - ( for even the Postal Police believed it looked staged, prior to finding a murder had occurred on the premises) - to deflect from their having given Guede entrance via a key. (perhaps some argument/ill will had carried over from that afternoon, and from MK having distanced herself from AK on Halloween

bbm. If there was some argument it's hard to imagine Meredith wouldn't have told her friends at the dinner about it. All of them (and also John Kercher) knew about the dirty toilet episode, all of them knew about the condoms in Amanda's bag, all of them knew about Amanda's night with Daniel. Meredith was sharing everything.

 

[otto]

Guede moved the victim while she was still alive.
Evidence:

1. There were smears of blood showing the direction she was dragged.
2. Aspirated blood on the side of the wardrobe near her head - in her final position she was still alive.
3. Pool of blood around her head.
4. Aspirated blood on the bra. Droplets shape indicate she was lying on her back with the bra exposed.
5. Aspirated blood on her breast, indicating that the bra had been torn off after moving her while she was still alive.

3. There is blood pooling and coagulated blood near the wall. Meredith lost significant blood in that location. The blood is smeared, indicating that she was moved after she was fatally injured.

4. it is not possible to determine Meredith's position based on the blood on her bra. In fact, given that there is more blood on the right than the left, I think the conclusion would be that she was not lying on her back, but rather she was turned to her right.

5. presumably this is based on a comment on this forum that was linked to another forum comment where someone claims they looked at a photo and, based on looking at that photo, could confirm blood droplets on her chest?

 

[otto]

The problem is there is no evidence their alibi is false. Alibi that is unproven is not the same as alibi disproven.
You say you assume their alibi is false and from this the guilt follows. That's circular reasoning.

Knox and Sollecito did not provide an alibi for the time of the murder. Instead, they first claimed that they were eating and watching a movie throughout the evening. That was proven to be a lie. They then moved the dinner hour from 11 to 9:30. That was proven to be a lie. At no time did they tell the truth about when they ate dinner. The dinner time was proven by Dr Sollecito. Regarding watching a movie, they claimed that watched a movie and used the computer throughout the evening. That was a lie, as the movie ended at 9:10 and there was no computer activity after that time until 5:32 the following morning. Part of their alibi is that they slept until 10. That was a lie.

The pair do not have an alibi for the time of the murder, and alibi's that they offered are nothing but self serving lies.

 

[otto]

Not really, IMO. Let's look at it this way. Guede breaks into the house when it is empty. He is looking for rent money or something else to steal that he won't have to worry about pawning in order to get some cash. While in the house he has to go to the bathroom, and for some reason can't seem to hold it, so off he goes to the larger bathroom. While he is in there Meredith comes home and goes to her room. She sits on her bed with her back to the door to take off her shoes to get comfortable. (The photo of her shoes show that one was untied and laces loosened while the other was pulled off without being untied.) Guede sneaks out of the bathroom and down the hall quietly. Guede comes up behind Meredith in a blitz attack. Holding a knife to her throat he demands she get on the floor. He tells her that if she fights him or screams that he will stab her. I doubt that many women would fight in this situation. There is also no need for him to restrain her if she believes that if she does what he says that he won't kill her. It really wouldn't take much for a larger male that has a weapon to control a smaller woman that has no weapon at all.

MOO

It was raining on the night of the murder. Stone is slippery when wet. The exterior of the cottage is stonework. The grass and dirt below Filomina's bedroom window was not disturbed. There was no evidence that Guede scaled the 13 foot wall. There is no evidence of grass or mud from below the window in Filomina's bedroom.

It's like the small bathroom scenario in the sense that there's no evidence, so tunnel vision is used to create a scenario around a piece of evidence. There is no evidence that Guede climbed in the window, but the alternative - that he walked through the entrance - supports that theory that someone opened the door for him. It also means that there is no explanation for the broken window.

Guede had no reason to believe that rent money, which is normally delivered to the landlord on the first of the month, would be in the cottage on the evening of November 1. Furthermore, he had no reason to believe that rent was paid in cash rather than by cheque.

It's interesting that we have to have Meredith sitting on the edge of her bed with her back to the door, oblivious to everything, in order to be a victim of a "blitz" attack. A blitz attack is not a sneaky thing, it is fast and furious - not quiet. We also have to forget that she was trained in Martial Arts and that she would fight with everything she had to save her life. There are no defensive wounds, but there are shallow cuts on her neck. Did she really just lie there and let someone cut her ... no defensive wounds? That is not who she was according to her father.

 

[quesarita]

Shallow cuts to her neck? You mean, as if someone was holding a knife to her neck and everytime she made a small movement to try and defend herself she received a cut? In such a situation, I can easily believe that a woman, even one trained in martial arts, would try to hold still and hope that the sexual attack was going to be the end of it, not expecting the final cutting blow.

 

[aa9511]

I guess if you go on the theory of Guede acting alone, once the victim was stabbed in the throat, she was too weak to put up much resistance.

She may have resisted, but she would have been in a greatly impaired state at that point. (not to mention difficulty breathing, etc.)

Ok, but I thought the crucial, deadly stab to the neck was one of the last ones?

 

[aa9511]

1. I imagine being stabbed in the neck may put you in shock so severe that it completely rules out fighting back.

2. Her nose and lips had injuries, there was bruising on the back of her head. It is possible Guede knocked her out before the stabbing.

3. She was on the floor, facing the wardrobe when Guede inflicted the killing wound. He was on top of her. Not a position to fight back.

bbm

Do you have some link or something to this fact?

 

[otto]

Shallow cuts to her neck? You mean, as if someone was holding a knife to her neck and everytime she made a small movement to try and defend herself she received a cut? In such a situation, I can easily believe that a woman, even one trained in martial arts, would try to hold still and hope that the sexual attack was going to be the end of it, not expecting the final cutting blow.

Knife attack victims almost always have defensive wounds from grabbing the knife with their hands to protect themselves and attempt to stay alive. This was a prolonged attack and a slow death. Her father does not believe that his daughter would lie still and let someone attack her with a knife until she was dead. Why should we?

The blood loss near the wall (fatal injuries) happened before the sexual assault.

 

[aa9511]

Sure, but I would expect such possibility to come together with a theory that is logical, coherent, reasonable and consistent with all the evidence.

While there is such a scenario that doesn't involve Amanda and Raffaele at all, I would expect something that is also more reasonable and plausible.

It is troubling that the prosecution, who unlike all the online 'enthusiasts' has access to the whole body of evidence, cannot come up with anything credible.
Let's see... Guede didn't flush Filomena's toilet, so Meredith attacked Amanda. That made people facepalm even in Italy.

Yes, I understand that. However, in this case, they are still the defendants. And to weigh the evidence and the case, one then must keep an open mind to this fact. Otherwise, it's just like saying, oh the prosecution is so stupid (for lack of a better word), so I'm not going to even listen to them.

But the fact remains, there is still a case brought against them. That is the case we are discussing. And so we must, IMO, bear in mind that they are th defendants in that case, and keep open mind to this issue of their alibi.

If, if it is possible and if they are lying about their alibi, I believe that would of course raise some questions that need to be answered. Becauase even if you still find them ultimately innocent of murder, that still leaves the question of - why were they lying and saying they were somewhere at at time when they weren't, and why were they lying and saying they were doing something they weren't doing at the time period of the murder?

 

[Katody]

[/B]

bbm

Do you have some link or something to this fact?

The extensive photo documentation that I linked to recently. Hendry's reconstruction that I'm sure have been linked here many times already.

 

[otto]

The extensive photo documentation that I linked to recently. Hendry's reconstruction that I'm sure have been linked here many times already.

A traffic accident reconstructionist doesn't know anything about crime scene analysis, so although he may have produced a nice opinion piece, it has no more validity than any other layperson's opinion.

A traffic accident reconstructionist's opinion would not be accepted as an expert opinion in a murder trial, and we all know that, so why is his opinion presented as some sort of authority?

 

[aa9511]

It was raining on the night of the murder. Stone is slippery when wet. The exterior of the cottage is stonework. The grass and dirt below Filomina's bedroom window was not disturbed. There was no evidence that Guede scaled the 13 foot wall. There is no evidence of grass or mud from below the window in Filomina's bedroom.

It's like the small bathroom scenario in the sense that there's no evidence, so tunnel vision is used to create a scenario around a piece of evidence. There is no evidence that Guede climbed in the window, but the alternative - that he walked through the entrance - supports that theory that someone opened the door for him. It also means that there is no explanation for the broken window.

Guede had no reason to believe that rent money, which is normally delivered to the landlord on the first of the month, would be in the cottage on the evening of November 1. Furthermore, he had no reason to believe that rent was paid in cash rather than by cheque.

It's interesting that we have to have Meredith sitting on the edge of her bed with her back to the door, oblivious to everything, in order to be a victim of a "blitz" attack. A blitz attack is not a sneaky thing, it is fast and furious - not quiet. We also have to forget that she was trained in Martial Arts and that she would fight with everything she had to save her life. There are no defensive wounds, but there are shallow cuts on her neck. Did she really just lie there and let someone cut her ... no defensive wounds? That is not who she was according to her father.

Very good point about stone being slippery when wet. Good observation.

 

[quesarita]

Knife attack victims almost always have defensive wounds from grabbing the knife with their hands to protect themselves and attempt to stay alive. This was a prolonged attack and a slow death. Her father does not believe that his daughter would lie still and let someone attack her with a knife until she was dead. Why should we?

But what if as someone else said, her jacket had been pulled up but not off, pinning her arms above her head. Would that not account for the smaller amount of bruising noted on her arms and the lack of defensive knife wounds on her hands? In that situation someone would struggle but fairly helplessly, trying to get away from the knife and at the same time free their arms.

I don't see the impossibility for this to have been done by a single perpetrator. It happens all too often.

 

[Katody]

3. There is blood pooling and coagulated blood near the wall. Meredith lost significant blood in that location. The blood is smeared, indicating that she was moved after she was fatally injured.

Correct, it doesn't conflict with what I'm saying.

4. it is not possible to determine Meredith's position based on the blood on her bra. In fact, given that there is more blood on the right than the left, I think the conclusion would be that she was not lying on her back, but rather she was turned to her right.

She was obviously moved around, the point is, she was still alive while the attacker placed her in the position she was finally found. If she was lying on her side for some time, the droplets would have been elongated in one direction due to gravity.

5. presumably this is based on a comment on this forum that was linked to another forum comment where someone claims they looked at a photo and, based on looking at that photo, could confirm blood droplets on her chest?

It's based on the quote from Massei that was posted here yesterday IIRC. There was a crime scene photo once posted on Frank Sfarzo's blog that confirmed it further, showing aspirated blood on her bare skin. I believe the photo is no longer available (maybe the wayback machine will help).


Once again,
The point is, she was still alive while the attacker placed her in the position she was finally found. There is also no evidence that the bra was removed time after the death in some bizarre act of staging.

 

[Katody]

A traffic accident reconstructionist doesn't know anything about crime scene analysis, so although he may have produced a nice opinion piece, it has no more validity than any other layperson's opinion.

A traffic accident reconstructionist's opinion would not be accepted as an expert opinion in a murder trial, and we all know that, so why is his opinion presented as some sort of authority?

I would rather expect pointing out which elements of his reconstruction are wrong and why.

 

[TorisMom003]

Why would someone take one shoe off by untying it, loosening the laces and then have the other shoe taken off without untying it or loosening the laces unless they were interrupted while taking off their shoes? Where does one usually sit in their bedroom when taking off their shoes?

Depending on who one believes the footprint in blood on the bath mat in the bathroom belongs to, there may be evidence of Guede in the smaller bathroom.

While stone is slippery when wet, one can manage quite well in rubber soled sneakers without slipping. Also there is a window with bars that can be used to hold onto under the window that was broken into. If a man in dress shoes can make it up to the second floor window then I see no reason why a man who is younger and in sneakers couldn't make it up to the second floor window.

 

[Katody]

Knox and Sollecito did not provide an alibi for the time of the murder. Instead, they first claimed that they were eating and watching a movie throughout the evening. That was proven to be a lie. They then moved the dinner hour from 11 to 9:30. That was proven to be a lie. At no time did they tell the truth about when they ate dinner. The dinner time was proven by Dr Sollecito. Regarding watching a movie, they claimed that watched a movie and used the computer throughout the evening. That was a lie, as the movie ended at 9:10 and there was no computer activity after that time until 5:32 the following morning. Part of their alibi is that they slept until 10. That was a lie.

The pair do not have an alibi for the time of the murder, and alibi's that they offered are nothing but self serving lies.

I don't see any documentation in your post indicating that anything you wrote above is true.

I remember very vividly both Amanda and Raffaele stating in the courtroom that they did spend the night together. No evidence was ever presented that proving it false.

I have no idea what you are talking about when you say "that was proven to be a lie". There is evidence they used the computer in the form of metadata and additionally the logs that were accepted into the case file by the current court.

That a lot of metadata had been overwritten while the PC was in the hands of the police doesn't logically mean there was no further activity. Simply the data is no longer there. Even Massei accepted this if you care to read his conclusion.

There is evidence they ate the dinner in the form of Mr. Sollecito's testimony. That they don't remember the exact time doesn't make it false.

Finally, there is no credible evidence that they didn't sleep until 10 in the morning. Sorry but Quintavalle really doesn't cut it. On Curatolo don't get me even started.

 

[TorisMom003]

I would rather expect pointing out which elements of his reconstruction are wrong and why.

I know the answer to this one. His reconstruction is wrong because he says that Guede acted alone and shows how this was done in his reconstruction. Unless someone says that AK and RS were a part of the crime with Guede, then the person is not believed.