Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #10

[otto]

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:

Sure, but that is not the easy point of access. The point of access is to climb over the downstairs entrance.

 

[wasnt_me]

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.

So far, I'm on the side of reasonable doubt. We can't get to any other evidence yet where I might find some unreasonable doubt because we keep going over this same stuff.

I did argue that FR's window provided cover or at least was less risky that than exposed balcony. I additionally argued that her room was the target, since she had the rent money--however, RG may have gleaned that information. Your point at the end is well-taken, especially considering that students all around that place were vacating for the holiday. Isn't that correct? There would be less traffic in general if this were the case. Perfect time for a burglary.

 

[otto]

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

It has been suggested that the wall is not well lit, so I provided a night shot showing that the wall is well lit. It has been suggested that a tree blocks a view of the wall, so I provided a day shot with the tree showing that the tree does not block the view of the wall. It has been suggested that it is easier to see someone climbing up over the downstairs entrance from a distance of 167 even though the downstairs entrance is not visible from that position. Now we have to wonder if the lights from an oncoming car would have prevented someone from seeing a break in at the window?

... not sure how I've failed to address.

 

[wasnt_me]

Sure, but that is not the easy point of access. The point of access is to climb over the downstairs entrance.

In your opinion, that is, but apparently not RG's opinion.

 

[wasnt_me]

According to Italian law, and on appeal, Rudy's sentence was reduced from 30 years to 24 years to match the sentences of the other two culprits. After the final appeal, it was then reduced by one third due to the fact that he opted for the fast track option. Everyone that opts for the fast track option has their sentence reduced by one third, not just Rudy.

Did we get a citation on this yet, so we all can be correct about this information?

 

[SMK]

Sure, but that is not the easy point of access. The point of access is to climb over the downstairs entrance.

Ergo, you are reiterating the idea that AK, RS, and RG came in together thru a door, and then the break in was later staged....after they said to Rudy, "Black man found, black man guilty".

 

[wasnt_me]

Search Italian law on the internet.

Searching italian law on the internet will not tell us that RG's sentence was twice commuted from 30 years down to 24 to match the other suspects, who had seperate trials that were not fast-tracked, and then down again to 16.

Where's the citation for this?

 

[wasnt_me]

Ha, thanks for the pic otto. That should 'temporarily' halt this line of the conspiracy regarding the staged break in.

Yes, temporarily being the operative word....

 

[wasnt_me]

Is the luminol evidence in this particular murder case valid?

To understand the argument on the other side, you must understand the language it's using. It is not disputing that there is luminol evidence. It's disputing what the luminol uncovered means and it's asserting that the luminol did NOT uncover it due to blood. No one is disputing that the luminol uncovered something.

 

[wasnt_me]

Not sure how you mean that - but just to be clear - here is what I said, and BBM to point out I do not think FR killed MK.

Originally Posted by OldSteve View Post
Regarding the keys - do we know for sure that no one else had a key to MK room? I thought MK and Filomena were close, and it is possible that Filomena had a key to M's room. I also thought that there was tension between Filomena and AK - remember in the movie how quick Filomena was to cast suspicion toward AK by saying MK never locked her room...
I say this not because I think Filomena killed MK, but I do think AK was an easy target for all to point to.

Yeah, thanks for pointing that out in the bold, because I sure didn't read the word "not" in that sentence!

:crazy:

 

[wasnt_me]

Just curious: Does anyone happen to know what ever came of the original idea that AK was captured on CCTV entering the cottage? I assume it was invalidated, but I happened to come across an article from way, way back at the beginning which mentioned it:

A CCTV camera at the parking area above the cottage recorded the image of a female figure in a light coloured skirt, said to be Ms Knox (who owned such a skirt, now being analysed), entering the driveway of the cottage at 8.43pm. If the image is that of Ms Knox, and if the timing of Ms Kercher's movements is correct, Ms Knox would have been inside the cottage for about half an hour by the time Ms Kercher arrived. It is not yet clear whether the surveillance cameras captured the image of any other figures arriving at the cottage.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2858134.ece

If it's true, which I don't know, how did they get the skirt? AK gave it to them? why would she give it to them? cause it has nothing on it.

Also, it would mean RS's friend wasn't calling him and going to his house to find him with AK in there at that time.

 

[wasnt_me]

As I've said, there is no perfect theory that completely explains this crime, so some speculation is to be expected from all sides.

That being said, my gut instinct is that if any of the rooms other than MK's had been locked, it would have been mentioned in one of the news stories by now.

I saw a picture with Laura's door open, but I dn't know when it was taken. Investigators should have noted whether the roommates had locked their doors. It's essential to the case as it would have proved AK couldn't access RF's room BUT through the window. As I said, there's no evidence that AK was in the murder room, but that fact still persists in the news. A lot of things like buying the bleach and clothes in the washer persist as fact because the news reported it, but they weren't true. Additionally, the news says RG's apology knocked down his sentence, but Otto claims that isn't true. So a news report with or without the information doesn't necessarily mean it happened. We have to rely on what's in evidence. And again, they should have gotten that kind of detail into evidence.

 

[wasnt_me]

Though I discount this image, I do not understand why they drew that 167ft line when there are closer lines of sight. That's odd.

 

[wasnt_me]

You are correct. My mistake re chronology.

But hypothetically, if the older girls "clicked" better with MK, they might have thought of AK as the outsider, even though she'd been there a few days longer. I was merely saying there could be any number of reasons why Filomena and Laura tended to be unduly suspicious of AK.

It's true. I chose to remark on it because Otto had said to me before that the other two roomies had lived longer with MK. That just didn't bare out in the evidence.

 

[wasnt_me]

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.

I read a theory that the floor was mopped some time prior. someone stepped on it while it was wet. That print(s) dried on the floor invisible to the eye and remained there because no one had mopped again yet.

 

[wasnt_me]

The break in was staged.

How do you come to that conclusion? Please let us know, step by step how this staging happened.

 

[wasnt_me]

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

I guess that's why it's funny to me and not to you.

 

[otto]

In your opinion, that is, but apparently not RG's opinion.

The break in was staged.

 

[wasnt_me]

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

Oh, Okay. You tell me that there is proof discrediting my theory, but you refuse to present it. I assert you have no proof, then. It's been obvious all along that this is just my theory, my GUESS. You can't prove it wrong, then don't say it's not possible.

 

[otto]

Did we get a citation on this yet, so we all can be correct about this information?

Feel free to research Italian law ... all the answers are there.