Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #11

[wasnt_me]

Google Maps

This panorama shows the back balcony of the house. It appears completely visible if you are coming down that road. And on the left, attached to the wall, is a lamp post, to boot.

I'm guessing that's why RG chose the front window.

 

[wasnt_me]

I don't know what the dates are for the final decision on the appeal. I do know I need to be doing my taxes instead of doing this! :maddening:

I just don't want to!

I mapped out going to dump the cell phones. From RG's house, it's a 3 minute walk. From the cottage, it's 8-10 minutes. It really seems to make sense that RG does it after going to his house to clean himself up.

I think they said witnesses saw a car in the cottage lot, a black one like RS, but it seems like they went through his car and didn't find any blood, nothing. Am I wrong? Well, they said it was a dark car, and RS drove a black one, to my understanding.

I'm still learning how to use google maps, but here's my map so far, and it's only correct to the extent of addresses I got off that other slide show above. What I am concerned about is that person in the slide show gave an address for the cell phone dump that appeared further away on the map than the actual house he indicated in the photos as being the house where they were dumped. I went by his picture instead of the address.

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=e...6828,12.389349&spn=0.004558,0.011319&t=h&z=17

 

[SMK]

I don't know what the dates are for the final decision on the appeal. I do know I need to be doing my taxes instead of doing this! :maddening:

I just don't want to!

I mapped out going to dump the cell phones. From RG's house, it's a 3 minute walk. From the cottage, it's 8-10 minutes. It really seems to make sense that RG does it after going to his house to clean himself up.

I think they said witnesses saw a car in the cottage lot, a black one like RS, but it seems like they went through his car and didn't find any blood, nothing. Am I wrong? Well, they said it was a dark car, and RS drove a black one, to my understanding.

I'm still learning how to use google maps, but here's my map so far, and it's only correct to the extent of addresses I got off that other slide show above. What I am concerned about is that person in the slide show gave an address for the cell phone dump that appeared further away on the map than the actual house he indicated in the photos as being the house where they were dumped. I went by his picture instead of the address.

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=e...6828,12.389349&spn=0.004558,0.011319&t=h&z=17

I know what you mean, it gets addictive. Really appreciate what you are doing with the Google maps, well done!!!

 

[Nova]

Oh man I am dying of laughter here I thought you knew this. Yes the DEFENSE requested this, and it was denied. It is also in RS's appeal again

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

And a judge rules "Oh, never mind. The semen was probably from MK's boyfriend." Unbelievable! (I mean the ruling is unbelievable; he may be right about the source of the semen, but only a test will show for sure.)

So for all we know, the semen WAS from the accomplice some have speculated came in with RG. (I realize probably not, because the blood splatter evidence doesn't show a second person in on the attack, but still...)

Other than RG, whose DNA was found inside the victim (IF we can even believe that much), I don't see how anyone can be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt in this case.

 

[Nova]

From RS's appeal

The defense is requesting that testing be done on this stain. It was originally stated by the court that the stain could not be dated because Meredith was sexually active so there was no reason to test it. Forensics expert Francesco Vinci found this same substance smeared in one of Rudy's shoe prints on the pillow. This proves this substance was wet at the time of the murder so it must have been deposited on the pillow at that time. This discovery was made using Crimescope.

And why wasn't the prosecution itself hot to test the semen? After all, if it turned out to belong to RS, that would be practically a slam dunk! RS' semen smeared by RG's shoe print? Case closed on both boys.

Conversely, if the semen proved to belong to RG, that would at least explain why he left only skin cells inside MK: he was probably penetrating her digitally while masturbating with the other hand. (Sorry, but the case is the case. I didn't invent the facts.) Maybe not a slam dunk, since RG could still claim consensual sex, but certainly of great probative value.

And if the semen belonged to a fourth person (not RS, RG or MK's boyfriend), then that would be strongly suggestive of an unnamed accomplice.

Only if the semen belonged to MK's boyfriend could the deposit be ignored and attributed to an earlier encounter.

So I'm going to suspect Mignini had good reason to assume the semen would NOT belong to RS or RG. WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?!

 

[Nova]

I honestly believe that it already had been and they know the results

I am though worried about Nova as a request like this from the defense should be a prosecutors dream come true :giggle:

BBM: I appreciate your concern. It's true, I almost had an aneurism over this, but I'm calmer now.

As I say in my post, I strongly suspect that ILE knows whence the semen came. But why conceal it? Unless it does belong to an unnamed person that ILE is protecting. But I don't normally jump to big conspiracy theories like that.

If it belongs to the boyfriend, why not just shrug and say so?

 

[Nova]

Really? Humnn...:waitasec:

I also have always wanted to know how you sit on a bidet and poo. Honestly, I have never even delved into how one works.

I hope this is a general question and not a new fact in this case.

You don't poo in a bidet, wasnt_me, you use it to wash after you have pooed in the toilet. I don't have one handy to check, but I don't believe bidets have drains big enough to handle solid waste.

IIRC you don't sit on a bidet, you squat over it.

 

[Nova]

RG had no car? Because it seems to be a long way to that garden dumpsite.

I could be wrong, but the way I read the map, the garden is just another couple of blocks beyond RG's house. Your scenario that he cleaned up and then dumped the phones before going out to the disco makes perfect sense.

 

[flourish]

I guess it depends on who you consider to be a reputable source...

Helmen denied a request to examine a pillowcase found under Kercher’s body that had the footprint in blood that the prosecution attributed to Knox. That pillowcase also had a spot of semen that had never been tested. The defense wants the spot tested to see whose it is, but the prosecution maintains that it likely belonged to Kercher’s boyfriend Giacomo Silenzi. The judge decided that it was not relevant in this murder. The judge also denied the reexamination of the time of Kercher’s death.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-...manda-knox-murder-evidence-will-be-retested/#​

It was tested though... (a year after the crime) Vinci discovered the stain, a crimescope showed it as being semen... now, according to Chris Halkides, that testing was never followed up with a confirmatory test.
Vinci also found the same substance in or on Rudy's shoe...

maybe BN has inside info. .. Stephano? (I've forgotten her name now) the forensic examiner... anyway she said that she was torn between the two stains (the other being the bloody print stain) because testing one would compromise the other - she decided to test the print. This is my very general interpretation... hope it helps.

Thank you, miley
So if all this is true (not referring to you, miley, but the information), then they were able to test it enough to know it was semen, but couldn't test it enough to get the dna???? And if there were two stains that may have compromised each other, then how do they know the one they tested wasn't in fact, compromised by the other stain?? I'm the farthest thing from a scientist, but that all just sounds....hinky. :waitasec:

 

[SMK]

And why wasn't the prosecution itself hot to test the semen? After all, if it turned out to belong to RS, that would be practically a slam dunk! RS' semen smeared by RG's shoe print? Case closed on both boys.

Conversely, if the semen proved to belong to RG, that would at least explain why he left only skin cells inside MK: he was probably penetrating her digitally while masturbating with the other hand. (Sorry, but the case is the case. I didn't invent the facts.) Maybe not a slam dunk, since RG could still claim consensual sex, but certainly of great probative value.

And if the semen belonged to a fourth person (not RS, RG or MK's boyfriend), then that would be strongly suggestive of an unnamed accomplice.

Only if the semen belonged to MK's boyfriend could the deposit be ignored and attributed to an earlier encounter.

So I'm going to suspect Mignini had good reason to assume the semen would NOT belong to RS or RG. WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?!

Good question, excellent analysis.

 

[Nova]

Thank you, miley
So if all this is true (not referring to you, miley, but the information), then they were able to test it enough to know it was semen, but couldn't test it enough to get the dna???? And if there were two stains that may have compromised each other, then how do they know the one they tested wasn't in fact, compromised by the other stain?? I'm the farthest thing from a scientist, but that all just sounds....hinky. :waitasec:

It really does. Despite what some might think, I go to conscious tampering with evidence or perjury only in very rare cases. More often, I think irregularities result from human error, tunnel vision, an unconscious desire to please superiors, etc. I really do believe that most people want to think of themselves as decent people, and most members of LE (including ILE) genuinely want to serve the public.

But this business of claiming they couldn't test a significant sample of semen because it was in close proximity to a blood stain, and THEN getting a judge to agree with them, is very troubling indeed. How can the defense not be allowed to test a stain when the prosecution has claimed the blood stain incriminates a defendant?!

 

[Nova]

Good question, excellent analysis.

Thank you.

The only other reason I can think of why Mignini did not want the semen DNA tested is that if it turned out to belong to RG, then the jury would be left with a picture of RG digitally raping MK (while she was dead or alive) and simultaneously masturbating with his other hand.

That leaves us with a picture of AK and RS doing what? Standing by and cheering? "Go Rudy! Go Rudy! Go Rudy!" That is even harder to believe that the vague "sex-game-gone-wrong" or "prank-that-got-out-of-control."

Maybe Mignini was afraid his case would crumple if he put the image of AK and RS as cheerleader squad into the jury's heads.

All of this is total speculation on my part, but I'd love to hear other theories as to why Mignini fought the testing of the pillow.

 

[Nova]

It has been said here before, but it almost seems that Italian judges take their orders from prosecutors, rather than the other way around as in the U.S. and U.K.

 

[SMK]

Thank you.

The only other reason I can think of why Mignini did not want the semen DNA tested is that if it turned out to belong to RG, then the jury would be left with a picture of RG digitally raping MK (while she was dead or alive) and simultaneously masturbating with his other hand.

That leaves us with a picture of AK and RS doing what? Standing by and cheering? "Go Rudy! Go Rudy! Go Rudy!" That is even harder to believe that the vague "sex-game-gone-wrong" or "prank-that-got-out-of-control."

Maybe Mignini was afraid his case would crumple if he put the image of AK and RS as cheerleader squad into the jury's heads.

All of this is total speculation on my part, but I'd love to hear other theories as to why Mignini fought the testing of the pillow.

I think you have hit the nail on the head, and it makes me angry at Mignini. :furious: If your case begins to seem ridiculous, then you revise it, not withhold information to make it stronger, and maybe put 2 innocent people away. GRRRRRRR

 

[SMK]

It has been said here before, but it almost seems that Italian judges take their orders from prosecutors, rather than the other way around as in the U.S. and U.K.

I know, and in this case, it is very worrisome indeed.

 

[SMK]

@Nova: Thinking on it, even if you leave out the logistics of the scenario, simply the semen matching Guede would be enough to lean the preponderence of evidence pointing back to the lone wolf theory as the likely one. You throw out Mignini's bathwater, and there is no baby.

 

[Nova]

@Nova: Thinking on it, even if you leave out the logistics of the scenario, simply the semen matching Guede would be enough to lean the preponderence of evidence pointing back to the lone wolf theory as the likely one. You throw out Mignini's bathwater, and there is no baby.

True, though technically it wouldn't rule out AK or RS, it would certainly take the focus off of them.

 

[SMK]

True, though technically it wouldn't rule out AK or RS, it would certainly take the focus off of them.

Agreed. And your scenario strengthens the case even further...

 

[wasnt_me]

I hope this is a general question and not a new fact in this case.

You don't poo in a bidet, wasnt_me, you use it to wash after you have pooed in the toilet. I don't have one handy to check, but I don't believe bidets have drains big enough to handle solid waste.

IIRC you don't sit on a bidet, you squat over it.

I had heard that this is what it was and how it was used, but I've never seen one or looked into it deeply. earlier, whomever I was talking to about the poo said "bidet" when they meant to say "toilet," (I'm guessing) and that caused me to ask this question. I got confused as to what I'd heard it was for. We don't have them in the USA typically and it actually seems to be a waste of space in a tiny bathroom if you ask me. Just use a moistwipe, is all I'm saying.

Thanks for clearing it up.

 

[Nova]

I had heard that this is what it was and how it was used, but I've never seen one or looked into it deeply. earlier, whomever I was talking to about the poo said "bidet" when they meant to say "toilet," and that caused me to ask this question. I got confused as to what I'd heard it was for. We don't have them in the USA typically and it actually seems to be a waste of space in a tiny bathroom if you ask me. Just use a moistwipe, is all I'm saying.

Thanks for clearing it up.

When we were looking for a house five years ago, I did see one model where the developer had installed a bidet, so maybe they are making a comeback at certain income levels. (That model was out of our range.) But you're right, they do take up space.

Not a bad idea, IMHO, but personally I prefer a full shower after... well, you know.

In any event, if RG had deposited solid waste in the bidet, it wouldn't have had anywhere to sink, as per ILE claims. Bidets aren't that deep. Sorry if this offends, but they look rather like drinking fountains for very short people.