Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#9

[aa9511]

You mean, faint brownish lines? I see those.

Yes, what are those, what is that?? The tint goes exactly to the point where the worn-out look stop.

 

[quesarita]

is the knife super scrubbed or does it have brown residue on it? How can both things be true?

 

[aa9511]

When Knox received a request from the lawyer, acting on behalf of the family, requesting that she remove all references to their daughter from her blog, she should have respected that request. She did not. When the issue was raised in court (meaning that now the world knew the disrespect she showed the victim's family), she dug her heals in and demanded that the family communicate directly with her.

I read the comments from people like Michelle Moore (wife of Steve Moore - retired FBI), which have since been deleted, encouraging Knox to stand her ground, to not back down, to not respect the wishes of the family. With people like that encouraging her to do the wrong thing, she doesn't stand a chance. What is obvious to me is that she does not know what is right and what is wrong. She does not understand empathy. She has no ability to understand how Meredith's family feels. She does not care about them.

She looks for the right words to say, but they are not genuine. She claims that Meredith was her friend when that serves a purpose for her. She claims that she hardly knew Meredith when that serves a purpose. In my opinion, Knox is capable of great cruelty - as evidenced by her demand that the family of a murder victim speak directly with her before she will consider honoring their request. This latest incident from Knox has offered a wide open window to her soul, and what is seen through that window is a selfish cruelty.

Otto, so have all of those comments been deleted. Dang, I should have checked it yesterday, but didn't. Do you know if there are any screen-shots, or anywhere I can still see them? TIA.

 

[SMK]

I'm with SMK on evidence over impressions. Re: the "simulated" break in:
1. There was an actual burglary of Meredith's phones and money, and RG's dna was found inside her purse, so "simulated" seems wrong to begin with.
2. The glass shard embedded in the inside wooden shutter indicates to me the rock was thrown from outside.
3. As much as I dislike conjectured scenarios . . . I can see RG entering Filomena's bedroom through the window, pulling or knocking clothes off out of the wardrobe, then hearing Meredith enter the front door, he freezes in the dark room, she walks past and doesn't see him, after a time he follows her and mayhem ensues. With everything that follows, he does not return to Filomena's room and leaves through the front door.

All of that makes sense. I read Hendry's analysis over and over, and I was absolutely convinced that this had unfolded with Guede as the sole perpetrator.

But then when I am reading Kercher's book, and he is talking about being informed of all the details of the Massei report, and it says that the officers looked closely, and found no disturbed vegetation below the window area; no impressions or prints of any kind; that the Postal Police had immediately seen a staging (even prior to the discovery of the body), and that Sollecito had surely aided Knox in the staging of the broken window and Filomena's tossed room - and that "a sample taken from Filomena Romanelli's room yielded ' a mixed genetic profile of the victim and Amanda Knox' and 'the samples taken from the corridor , almost in the middle of the corridor in front of the door to Amanda Knox's room gave the same result: victim plus Knox."

- then I begin to ponder the guilt of the defendants. ...... I can visualize a cleanup as easily as I can visualize Guede alone in the dark. :banghead: So I keep going round in circles.:scared:

 

[SMK]

And some of this is as convincing to me as the Hendry analysis of Guede as lone wolf:

From Kercher text (on Google Books: pp are not numbered):

"The mixed trace specimens found in the sink, and in the bidet and on the box of cotton buds,...signify that Amanda, soiled with Meredith's blood , entered the bathroom which was right next door to the room in which Meredith had been stabbed. Putting her hand against the door, she left a mark on it, and the dribble of blood which remained is a sign of proof of this, and left a mark also - with Meredith's blood, on the light switch. "

 

[SMK]

Yes, what are those, what is that?? The tint goes exactly to the point where the worn-out look stop.

To me, it looks like abrasive scuff marks made from scrubbing.

 

[SMK]

is the knife super scrubbed or does it have brown residue on it? How can both things be true?

I was telling aa that to me, the lines look like scuff marks made by some abrasive cleaner (like a scouring pad)

 

[quesarita]

I was telling aa that to me, the lines look like scuff marks made by some abrasive cleaner (like a scouring pad)

Yes, steel wool even, which can leave streaks of rust even on stainless.

 

[quesarita]

And some of this is as convincing to me as the Hendry analysis of Guede as lone wolf:

From Kercher text (on Google Books: pp are not numbered):

"The mixed trace specimens found in the sink, and in the bidet and on the box of cotton buds,...signify that Amanda, soiled with Meredith's blood , entered the bathroom which was right next door to the room in which Meredith had been stabbed. Putting her hand against the door, she left a mark on it, and the dribble of blood which remained is a sign of proof of this, and left a mark also - with Meredith's blood, on the light switch. "

I don't see how Meredith's blood with no trace of Amanda's dna (or blood) on the light switch and door is proof that Amanda put the blood on the light switch or door. It's possible, not provable. I'm not trying nitpick here, really, but the case hangs on such nebulous details which are reported as more definitive than they actually are.

 

[SMK]

I don't see how Meredith's blood with no trace of Amanda's dna (or blood) on the light switch and door is proof that Amanda put the blood on the light switch or door. It's possible, not provable. I'm not trying nitpick here, really, but the case hangs on such nebulous details which are reported as more definitive than they actually are.

I have the kind of mind which is good at psychological, literary, and philosophical meta-analysis, but is very poor and inept at technical details and things like forensics. So this is probably why I am so confused.

 

[SMK]

I don't see how Meredith's blood with no trace of Amanda's dna (or blood) on the light switch and door is proof that Amanda put the blood on the light switch or door. It's possible, not provable. I'm not trying nitpick here, really, but the case hangs on such nebulous details which are reported as more definitive than they actually are.

Then why do they call them "mixed traces"?

 

[SMK]

[/B]

bbm

Amanda, just be yourself.

It just illustrates my point that she's trying too hard to be something she's not.

The best advice those around her can give her is to just be honest, be yourself, say what is truly in your heart.

Why is she not able to speak from her heart?

If she has good intentions, she should be able to do that.

That she is not able to freely speak from her heart, tells me she doesn't want us to hear what's actually in her heart. Why is that?

These are only natural questions one is left asking.

What does she feel that she doesn't want to say?

The way she is trying to say what everyone wants her to say, it doesn't make sense, because if she was innocent, what she feels in her own heart should not be something to hide. Because she would still feel compassion for the Kercher family, as well as obviously being dismayed and yes, angry, at the position she's in.

Yet we see no such signs of real emotion. The conflicting emotions that would naturally arise from a true inocent person in that situation.

It is like emotions coming from a can, just whatever she thinks people want to hear.

It doesn't ring true because it's not conflicting and not natural.

It is ok, if innocent, to feel sad and angry at the same time. Or any number of conflicting emotions.

She doesn't seem to. Why? Why cannot she not say what she feels in her heart?

I would say that not being able to speak from one's heart might possibly point to guilt; but it could just as easily point to a person who feels too trapped in the limelight and too anxious to please parents, attorneys, public image, advocates, etc. Hard to determine what her true motives and conflicts are. For me at least. :moo:

 

[quesarita]

Then why do they call them "mixed traces"?

The mixed traces are on the sink faucet, in the bidet, and on a box of cotton. The blood on the light switch and door tested positive for Meredith's blood only. So when someone says, "Amanda put her hand on the door here, and on the light switch here," they are speculating.

 

[SMK]

The mixed traces are on the sink faucet, in the bidet, and on a box of cotton. The blood on the light switch and door tested positive for Meredith's blood only. So when someone says, "Amanda put her hand on the door here, and on the light switch here," they are speculating.

Ok, thanks for the clarification.

 

[redheadedgal]

Anyway, even for the layman the kitchen knife is visibly much too long. Thanks for demonstrating it.

i agree. anyone who just looks at the knife and the stain separately should see they don't match.

 

[redheadedgal]

Yes and it was amanda who shortly after the murder said something along the lines of I didn't know her that long and just wanting to get on with her life. IIRC

do you have a cite for this? or maybe a link to her alleged remarks so they can be read/seen in context of the entire conversation... as posters wanted to see the "i was there" remarks in context, i think we should examine this allegation the same way...

 

[redheadedgal]

A lawyer acting on behalf of the Kerchers requested that Knox remove all references to their daughter. Has Knox done that?

odd that maresca/the K's didn't make a fuss about amanda's website til now...

(and yes, i have no doubts it's been looked at before... at least by maresca)

 

[otto]

Otto, so have all of those comments been deleted. Dang, I should have checked it yesterday, but didn't. Do you know if there are any screen-shots, or anywhere I can still see them? TIA.

I kept a few screen shots, but they can't be posted here and I haven't posted them publicly.

 

[Katody]

From Amanda's letter:

"In the brief time Meredith and I were roommates and friends we never fought. Meredith was my friend. She was kind to me, helpful, generous, fun. She never criticized me. She never gave me so much as a dirty look.

But the prosecution claims that a rift was created between Meredith and I because of cleanliness. This is a distortion of the facts. Please refer to the testimonies of my housemates and Meredith's British friends. None of them ever witnessed or heard about Meredith and I fighting, arguing, disliking each other. None of them ever claimed Meredith was a confrontational clean-freak, or I a confrontational slob. Laura Mezzetti testified that both Meredith and I only occasionally cleaned, whereas she and Filomena Romanelli were more concerned with cleanliness. Meredith's British friends testified that Meredith had once told them that she felt a little uncomfortable about finding the right words to kindly talk to me, her new roommate, about cleanliness in the bathroom we shared. The prosecution would have you believe this is motivation for murder. But this is a terrifying distortion of the facts."

http://www.amandaknox.com/wp-conten...3.12.15-Attn-Court-of-Appeals-of-Florence.pdf

 

[otto]

odd that the maresca/the K's didn't make a fuss about amanda's website til now...

(and yes, i have no doubts it's been looked at before... at least by maresca)

What do you mean? Should the lawyer have introduced this concern in the media rather than a courtroom?