Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #10

[Nova]

It is suggested, in connection with this murder investigation, that luminol evidence is not useful, that it shouldn't be trusted, that it means nothing. I think that if luminol evidence is so questionable, it should not be used at any crime scene ... yet it is. I suppose that means that luminol evidence is quite valuable.

It has value, it just isn't the "gotcha" that it is portrayed to be in crime shows. This is because so many substances--including bleach, for God's sake--glow in response to luminol.

Finding a resident's footprints with luminol in her own home doesn't really tell us much.

 

[otto]

No, it doesn't. That's merely one way to explain why FR's room seemed to be the primary target. But it's at least equally likely that FR's room was merely the first room entered and then the burglar was interrupted before he got a chance to trash the other rooms. In fact, I think the latter is the more commonly held theory.

The break in was staged.

 

[jjenny]

That's so funny since we can't connect AK to the murder room, but the theory that she killed MK still persists!

I don't know why it's so funny considering AK is actually convicted of murder.

 

[otto]

I think the reason for the confusion is that some outlets reported his sentence was reduced from life to 30 years in exchange for fast-tracking. This makes it appear his sentence was reduced twice and people (including reporters) are looking for a reason for the second reduction.

I'm not saying you're wrong, otto. On the contrary, I think your math is correct. I'm just explaining how I think the confusion arose.

His sentence was reduced twice ... first to match the culprits ... so it was reduced from 30 years to 24 years. It was then further reduced because of the laws associated with choosing the fast track option.

 

[jjenny]

Yes it did, and that's the problem if LE saw it like this - whereas might not AK simply be looking for love and comfort from her boyfriend? Isn't it natural to seek this?
There was no video made to show what took place.

It is not unusual at all for LE to begin suspecting someone based on behavior.

 

[Nova]

There is a leafy tree that squarely blocks the view of FR's window from the approaching angle of the road. So the fact that FR's window is closer to the road doesn't matter.

 

[otto]

There is a leafy tree that squarely blocks the view of FR's window from the approaching angle of the road. So the fact that FR's window is closer to the road doesn't matter.

I knew you were going to say that.

 

[Nova]

It is not unusual at all for LE to begin suspecting someone based on behavior.

And it is not unusual at all for LE to be wrong.

 

[wasnt_me]

Testimony from witnesses.

Cite then, please.

 

[otto]

Cite then, please.

You want me to cite testimony from Filomina claiming that she didn't lock her bedroom, from Laura claiming she didn't lock her bedroom? How about one fact supporting the opinion that the doors were locked. It is your theory after all. I'm simply asking for one single fact supporting this theory.

 

[wasnt_me]

There is a leafy tree that squarely blocks the view of FR's window from the approaching angle of the road. So the fact that FR's window is closer to the road doesn't matter.

A sky view can't give you an accurate determination of what's seen at street level. I put a several pictures in thread 9 proving that FR's window is secluded. It seems a waste to have to go pull them back out for you, but a true representation of what people can see isn't going to be discerned from an ariel photo or a zoomed in photo like your second one. In the second one, just look how close you have to be to the rail to look down to see.

 

[Nova]

I knew you were going to say that.

The fact that you can find one precise point where a passing driver can get a clear view of FR's window does not change the fact that a burglar might have felt generally sheltered by the tree.

But while we're at it, let's talk about the slope of the road. At the vantage point where that photo was taken, the road is sloping up and headlights from cars would shoot upward and miss the cottage completely.

In the competing shot, where the balcony is visible to cars coming from the other direction, the road is sloping downward, allowing headlights to illuminate the balcony.

 

[wasnt_me]

You want me to cite testimony from Filomina claiming that she didn't lock her bedroom, from Laura claiming she didn't lock her bedroom? How about one fact supporting the opinion that the doors were locked. It is your theory after all. I'm simply asking for one single fact supporting this theory.

Yes. You said there was such testimony. Back it up. My theory is that. A theory. You want to disprove it, use facts. Where's the testimony? If you don't have the testimony, you can't disprove it. If you do, then fine. Be my guest and disprove it. I want justice, not to be right.

 

[otto]

The fact that you can find one precise point where a passing driver can get a clear view of FR's window does not change the fact that a burglar might have felt generally sheltered by the tree.

But while we're at it, let's talk about the slope of the road. At the vantage point where that photo was taken, the road is sloping up and headlights from cars would shoot upward and miss the cottage completely.

In the competing shot, where the balcony is visible to cars coming from the other direction, the road is sloping downward, allowing headlights to illuminate the balcony.

I posted a street view photo from the road. Of course a passing driver has a clear view of the window, even with the tree.

Are you suggesting that with the sloping road, trees, headlights and a distance of 167 feet it's easier to see the balcony than it is to see the bedroom from 25 feet?

 

[Nova]

A sky view can't give you an accurate determination of what's seen at street level. I put a several pictures in thread 9 proving that FR's window is secluded. It seems a waste to have to go pull them back out for you, but a true representation of what people can see isn't going to be discerned from an ariel photo or a zoomed in photo like your second one. In the second one, just look how close you have to be to the rail to look down to see.

Whose side are you on, here? I used both the photos from your link AND otto's photo to support Hendry's (and I thought, your) argument that an intruder might have felt safer entering FR's room rather than the balcony.

The point isn't that there is one particular place where FR's window is visible from the road in the daylight. The point is that an intruder may have felt he had more cover at FR's window than on the balcony, especially given what headlights from passing cars may have illuminated.

 

[Nova]

I posted a street view photo from the road. Of course a passing driver has a clear view of the window, even with the tree.

Are you suggesting that with the sloping road, trees, headlights and a distance of 167 feet it's easier to see the balcony than it is to see the bedroom from 25 feet?

I'm suggesting it may be given the angle of headlights from passing cars, yes.

Just because the window is briefly visible as one passes the tree doesn't mean it didn't feel more secluded to an intruder. Do you have a picture from FR's window toward the road and from the ground beneath FR's window toward the road? After all, the issue is what an intruder would have felt, not what can actually be glimpsed in an instant.

 

[otto]

Yes. You said there was such testimony. Back it up. My theory is that. A theory. You want to disprove it, use facts. Where's the testimony? If you don't have the testimony, you can't disprove it. If you do, then fine. Be my guest and disprove it. I want justice, not to be right.

No. I've asked for one fact supporting your theory.

 

[otto]

I'm suggesting it may be given the angle of headlights from passing cars, yes.

Just because the window is briefly visible as one passes the tree doesn't mean it didn't feel more secluded to an intruder. Do you have a picture from FR's window toward the road and from the ground beneath FR's window toward the road? After all, the issue is what an intruder would have felt, not what can actually be glimpsed in an instant.

So it's easier to see a balcony at night, in the dark from 167 feet than a well lit wall from 25 feet?

 

[wasnt_me]

The fact that you can find one precise point where a passing driver can get a clear view of FR's window does not change the fact that a burglar might have felt generally sheltered by the tree.

But while we're at it, let's talk about the slope of the road. At the vantage point where that photo was taken, the road is sloping up and headlights from cars would shoot upward and miss the cottage completely.

In the competing shot, where the balcony is visible to cars coming from the other direction, the road is sloping downward, allowing headlights to illuminate the balcony.

I'm not sure why the railing colors are different, but this gives a good view of what people can see in regards to the balcony:

And this, complete with the dude who seems to drive on the other side of the road, thereby not being able to see the window at all. Do they drive on the opposite sides of the roads from USA? Again, if those two trees are grown in, the line of sight gets even smaller, perhaps to where the camera man in Otto's picture was positioning himself in order to purposely get a clear shot of the window.

And this of the invisible balcony, complete with the lamp post in the foreground:

 

[Nova]

So it's easier to see a balcony at night, in the dark from 167 feet than a well lit wall from 25 feet?

That in no way addresses what I said, so I see no reason to repeat myself.