Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #11

[SMK]

Just a thought - AK might have staged the crime scene if she believed that RS was involved.... While I have felt AK was never involved, I'm just a bit less sure of RS...
I cannot remember all the facts to know if there was a time when AK and RS were not together on the night of the murder, thus leading AK to think RS might have been involved...

This is interesting, but oddly, I have heard others who suspect the opposite (that AK was involved, but not RS, and that RS attempted to cover for AK). Of course RS told the police he could not really vouch for where AK was while he slept, and she could say the same of him. In the Lifetime movie, he tells police she left his house to go to Le Chic, but I never read any reports of this, and wonder why they even put that in the film, which was supposedly "fact driven".

 

[Nova]

Any detailed speculation on rape scenarios, masturbation, sperm, necrophilia, tampons, menstruation, or whatever I find disrespectful to the victim. If you seen nothing then I guess you have a different opinion. Like I said JMO.

Perhaps you don't belong at a true crime discussion site then. This is not to say I won't miss you; I will. But discussions of the areas that upset you can't be avoided with sexual crimes.

And the murder of MK was either sexual (at least in part) or staged to appear sexual.

(ETA: sherlockh, because there is no tone of voice or facial expressions in the posts, I want to strongly reiterate that I mean no disrespect and I do NOT want you to avoid this site. I'm just saying some topics can't be avoided; untested but apparent semen on a pillowcase is one of them. At this point, I don't know whether MK was using a tampon when she was killed or not, but half the population of the Western world uses them, so I don't see any disrespect in their mention.)

 

[SMK]

Addendum Also, when all hit the fan and things got serious and they were jailed, I would imagine Amanda would blurt out finally that she had only been trying to cover for RS.:waitasec:

 

[Nova]

I find the whole mop story peculiar regardless of whether they were literally standing outside of the house with the mop. Maybe people wait to clean messes until the next day, but this was a water spill. If you are not gonna clean the water spill until the next day, why bother at all?

Because you wake up sober the next morning and find there's still water standing on the floor.

 

[SMK]

Perhaps you don't belong at a true crime discussion site then. This is not to say I won't miss you; I will. But discussions of the areas that upset you can't be avoided with sexual crimes.

And the murder of MK was either sexual or staged to appear sexual.

Thank you Nova; in all honesty, I was a bit offended by this refutation of the sexual discussion, because I was similarly rebuked on another site for the same, and knew it was not correct, but could not put my finger on why. You are better at answering than I.

 

[Nova]

"Reasonable doubt" is in the eye of the beholder. That is, what reasonable to one person might not be so reasonable to the next.

The concept assumes there is some sort of reasonable mean on which reasonable people can agree, and that a jury as a group can find that mean through deliberation. Still, I know from personal experience it is a term that isn't defined well (at least not in New York or California), and juries struggle with it.

But Allusonz' point was just that whether RS and AK are guilty is one question and whether that guilt was proven is another.

Frankly, given ILE's errors and omissions, I'm not sure anyone's guilt can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the evidence that remains.

 

[Nova]

And again have been denied this request which they probably knew before they requested it. RS defense team knew about this 'evidence' a long time ago. Why they asked for testing on the very last day of the first trial and not before? IMO they knew there is a good chance of a rejection of the request by waiting so long, and that is exactly what happened. There is a defense strategy behind it what the links I provided show.

Reporters might as well call it 'saliva' or 'make up' stains. That they call it 'semen' says something about those reporters. What the stains really were we probably never find out. IMO.

And that's outrageous.

Perhaps the testing request on the last day of trial was just an interjection for purposes of the appeal.

But the request for testing in the appellate brief itself left plenty of time for testing. I see no reason to assume it was bogus.

 

[Nova]

NO, they were 'supposed' to go on their trip early that morning well before lunch. Cleaning a water spill the next day is not reasonable, any way you look at it. Not to mention lying about what time this 'spill' happened in the first place. :innocent:

If you were too stoned to clean it up the night before and are supposed to go out of town for the day, then cleaning a spill in the morning is perfectly reasonable. When else would you do it?

 

[Nova]

The only thing I can think of is if it belonged to Guede, and they did not want all arrows pointing to him, as a lone wolf, but I guess this does not make much sense, either.

No, I think it's possible. As I said yesterday, it conjures up an image of AK and RS standing around watching RG -- Mignini may have thought that a tough sell.

Or maybe Mignini really did think the stains came from the boyfriend and proving so might cause the jurors to question the boyfriend's alibi.

 

[sherlockh]

And that's outrageous.

Perhaps the testing request on the last day of trial was just an interjection for purposes of the appeal.

But the request for testing in the appellate brief itself left plenty of time for testing. I see no reason to assume it was bogus.

Although I rather have it tested just to get it over with, I also understand why they refuse it. This is not new evidence and the trial has been going on for years. By now there has been plenty of evidence who has been involved and what happened. If this stain had something to do with either RS, RG or AK then that would not change anything. I also just showed that there is a bit of another site to the story but overall I actually agree with the testing if possible. The more testing the better

 

[OldSteve]

If you were too stoned to clean it up the night before and are supposed to go out of town for the day, then cleaning a spill in the morning is perfectly reasonable. When else would you do it?

Could AK and RS been so stoned that they had no idea of what happened to MK the night before, and upon seeing MK murdered in her room that morning thought that they might have been involved, but just could not remember, and so they closed and locked MK's door, and staged the break-in.

ETA: Maybe so stoned they actually saw what happened and did nothing... and this they remembered the next morning.

When all is said and done, this is my best theory...

 

[Nova]

Just a thought - AK might have staged the crime scene if she believed that RS was involved.... While I have felt AK was never involved, I'm just a bit less sure of RS...
I cannot remember all the facts to know if there was a time when AK and RS were not together on the night of the murder, thus leading AK to think RS might have been involved...

Well, each has admitted in one way or another that while sleeping, he or she couldn't know for sure what the other was doing.

Otherwise, both have claimed that RS was in his apartment all night. At one point, briefly and under the pressure of interrogation, RS said AK went out from 9 to 1, but he recanted that later.

And as you know, AK gave statements claiming she went to the cottage with Patrick Lumumba. Those statements were untrue and at trial, she testified that she was also at RS' apartment all night.

 

[miley]

Yes, because they mistranslated the Italian word for 'swab'. That was my point. Just look in the Massei Report and you won't find anyting about any tampon.

You're right - thanks for pointing it out.

 

[sherlockh]

Perhaps you don't belong at a true crime discussion site then. This is not to say I won't miss you; I will. But discussions of the areas that upset you can't be avoided with sexual crimes.

And the murder of MK was either sexual or staged to appear sexual.

Luckily it is not up to you where I belong. I always pretend that there could be family members reading and therefore I am not going to speculate in any detailed way about sexual scenarios concerning the victim. I know other forums that have strict rules on that but I am not totally sure about this one, so if it is ok with the moderators here then okie :innocent:

 

[Nova]

Thank you Nova; in all honesty, I was a bit offended by this refutation of the sexual discussion, because I was similarly rebuked on another site for the same, and knew it was not correct, but could not put my finger on why. You are better at answering than I.

Everyone knows MK had a boyfriend and nobody blames her for that, I hope.

If the stains in question are semen and come from anyone else, then THAT was the disrespecting of MK, not our discussion.

 

[Nova]

Although I rather have it tested just to get it over with, I also understand why they refuse it. This is not new evidence and the trial has been going on for years. By now there has been plenty of evidence who has been involved and what happened. If this stain had something to do with either RS, RG or AK then that would not change anything. I also just showed that there is a bit of another site to the story but overall I actually agree with the testing if possible. The more testing the better

Thank you for the kind reply. I trust this means you knew I wasn't trying to get rid of you when I said certain topics couldn't be avoided.

If the stain were shown to come from RS or AK, I think it might change things quite a bit in favor of the prosecution (which is why I suspect Mignini already knows they aren't the source of the material).

Since RS is making the request, I assume he and his attorneys are sure he isn't the source. Leaving the material untested allows judges to speculate (even if they don't admit it) and that may be what the defense wants to avoid.

 

[Nova]

Could AK and RS been so stoned that they had no idea of what happened to MK the night before, and upon seeing MK murdered in her room that morning thought that they might have been involved, but just could not remember, and so they closed and locked MK's door, and staged the break-in.

ETA: Maybe so stoned they actually saw what happened and did nothing... and this they remembered the next morning.

When all is said and done, this is my best theory...

In my (not as limited as I'd like to claim) experience of being drunk and/or stoned, memories tend to return in bits and pieces during the following day.

So is it possible AK and/or RS remembered enough to think they were responsible even when they weren't? I suppose so.

I still tend to think one or the other would have said as much when s/he "buckled" during interrogation, however, but maybe not.

 

[sherlockh]

Thank you for the kind reply. I trust this means you knew I wasn't trying to get rid of you when I said certain topics couldn't be avoided.

If the stain were shown to come from RS or AK, I think it might change things quite a bit in favor of the prosecution (which is why I suspect Mignini already knows they aren't the source of the material).

Since RS is making the request, I assume he and his attorneys are sure he isn't the source. Leaving the material untested allows judges to speculate (even if they don't admit it) and that may be what the defense wants to avoid.

Ah, you weren't?...lol... Is ok. I know you don't agree but the prosecution has a really strong case already. They are already convicted and this piece of evidence will not increase or decrease their sentences IMO. My reasoning for the request is different. I think the defense knows that the stains are nothing, and they would be pretty sure the test would be denied since it already had been denied before. So not much to lose I think. Just keep the 'semen' rumor alive. Besides I guess my faith in judges is a bit bigger and I don't think they will speculate on untested stains. JMO.

 

[Nova]

Luckily it is not up to you where I belong. I always pretend that there could be family members reading and therefore I am not going to speculate in any detailed way about sexual scenarios concerning the victim. I know other forums that have strict rules on that but I am not totally sure about this one, so if it is ok with the moderators here then okie :innocent:

Please believe me that I was NOT saying you don't belong here, sherlockh, only that some topics are unavoidable, depending on the crime. I am truly sorry if that wasn't clear. (You'll see I went back and added a lengthy disclaimer because I feared you would misunderstand.)

I don't know about other sites. This site was basically founded circa 1997 to discuss Jon-Benet Ramsey, a case that involved apparent sexual abuse and murder of a 6-year-old. So while unnecessarily lurid posts aren't encouraged, to my knowledge, we've always been allowed to discuss both the known facts and the reasonable possibilities.

I don't think anyone here was reveling in lurid details, but if you think otherwise, I hope you will alert the moderator.

***

On that note, have we definitely established that MK was not wearing a tampon when she was killed? At the moment, I don't know that it matters; but I'm asking in case it seems important at a future time.

 

[Nova]

Ah, you weren't?...lol... Is ok. I know you don't agree but the prosecution has a really strong case already. They are already convicted and this piece of evidence will not increase or decrease their sentences IMO. My reasoning for the request is different. I think the defense knows that the stains are nothing, and they would be pretty sure the test would be denied since it already had been denied before. So not much to lose I think. Just keep the 'semen' rumor alive. Besides I guess my faith in judges is a bit bigger and I don't think they will speculate on untested stains. JMO.

If I had your faith in judges, this would destroy it.

I'll go on record as saying that every time a woman is found murdered and partially or fully unclothed, everything that looks like semen on or near her must be tested.