Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #11

[SMK]

And I for one cannot believe a major magazine like Time would not get the point that this DNA thing is NOT good news for Knox and Sollecito, but leaves all as originally in the hands of Mignini et al.:http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2061544,00.html?xid=rss-mostpopular

 

[jjenny]

They werent standing outside with a mop. That was another false report perpetrated by the media early on and its had a hard time dying. Amanda had put away the mop in the closet when the pp arrived. People sometimes wait until the next day to clean messes, especially young college students who are too busy smoking pot and having sex. She didn't just go back to the cottage to get the mop, she also went to shower and get clothes for their trip that day.

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?

 

[jjenny]

Whether you believe that they are innocent or guilty, there still has to be evidence against them beyond a reasonable doubt...

Well I was not on their jury, was I? Yes, presumably someone can be actually guilty but not guilty in the court of law (if there is not enough evidence), but it really has no relevance to answering questions whether I believe AK and RS to be guilty.

 

[SMK]

Whether you believe that they are innocent or guilty, there still has to be evidence against them beyond a reasonable doubt.

I am sure many have unanswered questions but it boils down to is there evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and I don't believe there is.

I think i have personally gone past the not guilty to the innocent but that is me. I was one of those that started out thinking they were guilty but either I could not find the evidence to support theories or their guilt or I simply have come across to much that support an ILE that did not look at anyone else. Right about now I think I have more questions regarding Filomena that I do them

Does Italian jurisprudence have the reasonable doubt standard? If so , the jury of judges did not appear to follow it, or they were convinced where we cannot be. The whole case seems a mess and I am afraid justice will not be served.

 

[SMK]

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?

I had originally been quite suspicious of the mop story, too. What ruined all for me were the questions that kept arising that the prosecution and Massei Report failed to even attempt to address. Plus, it kept being proven that the mop story and many others were exaggerations or misrepresentations. But I would rather have stayed believing in Knox and Sollecito's guilt.

 

[jjenny]

Does Italian jurisprudence have the reasonable doubt standard? If so , the jury of judges did not appear to follow it, or they were convinced where we cannot be. The whole case seems a mess and I am afraid justice will not be served.

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

 

[SMK]

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

True, BUT.....in jurisprudence, reasonable doubt is supposed to be an objective, and not a subjective, standard.

 

[ohiogirl]

In the Italian justice system, it pays to play to the press. Most trials are presided over by professional magistrates, but some — like Knox's — also include a panel of jurors known as "citizen judges." Unlike in the U.S., where those deciding a case are carefully screened for bias and sequestered during the proceedings, Italian jurors are not only free to hold preconceived opinions; they're also at liberty to follow the news of the trial as it unfolds, leaving them vulnerable to swings in popular sentiment. Leaks like the one that broke this past week open the possibility that by the time the evidence is officially presented on May 21, the minds of the jurors will already have been made up. "This is a way to play with public opinion," says Francesco Maresca, a lawyer representing the murdered woman's family. "Obviously, somebody put it in circulation to cause confusion.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2061544,00.html#ixzz1JsikRPZY

I hope to goodness that I never get accused of anything in Italy. I guess, maybe, I just won't ever go there again.

 

[miley]

http://translate.google.com/#en|it|DNA swab :innocent:

not from google translation:

Police forensic scientists testified during the hearings that Mr Guede's DNA was on Ms Kercher's vaginal tampon, her bloodstained pillow, her bra, and her bag and on toilet paper.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5028996.ece​

 

[sherlockh]

not from google translation:

Police forensic scientists testified during the hearings that Mr Guede's DNA was on Ms Kercher's vaginal tampon, her bloodstained pillow, her bra, and her bag and on toilet paper.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5028996.ece​

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.

 

[SMK]

not from google translation:

Police forensic scientists testified during the hearings that Mr Guede's DNA was on Ms Kercher's vaginal tampon, her bloodstained pillow, her bra, and her bag and on toilet paper.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5028996.ece​

See, this is the problem. One reads facts, and remembers them, and builds ideas and theory in the mind. Then one is told that it was all "internet gossip", so one discounts it. Then one is shown it was NOT gossip, so all becomes valid again. Thanks, Miley. :seeya::crazy:

 

[SMK]

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.

*Sigh*. I get it now. Did the journalist or the Times ever issue a correction???

 

[miley]

Here is Frank's take on why the defense didn't want the pillow stain tested:
http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/10/defensive-strategy-for-knox-and.html

Here is another article where RG's lawyer mentions the pillow stain.
http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/10/rudi-guede-keeps-his-position.html

Whether the stains are leftovers where AK+RS cleaned their fingerprints, or if it was Vaseline, or something RG had on his shoe, or ..... I have no idea, and don't understand the recent speculations on the topic which IMO have been very disrespectful towards the victim. I don't think these speculations were necessary at all. Especially since they are not based on any facts. JMO.

people are speculating because now, in 2011, reporters are referring to it as "semen" stains. And apparently, RS did ask for testing in the first trial and asks again in his appeal -

 

[sherlockh]

people are speculating because now, in 2011, reporters are referring to it as "semen" stains. And apparently, RS did ask for testing in the first trial and asks again in his appeal -

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.

 

[dgfred]

They werent standing outside with a mop. That was another false report perpetrated by the media early on and its had a hard time dying. Amanda had put away the mop in the closet when the pp arrived. People sometimes wait until the next day to clean messes, especially young college students who are too busy smoking pot and having sex. She didn't just go back to the cottage to get the mop, she also went to shower and get clothes for their trip that day.

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:

 

[SMK]

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:

Right, but suppose they really were planning to still go , later than originally planned (happens all the time with me, I say we should leave by 9 am, wind up leaving at noon)----maybe the scene at the cottage with Postal and other police called things off? and the spill, well, these 2 probably were hazy enough to put even that off. . .

 

[Nova]

There is only one reason to conceal this. It hurt there case.

I agree, but I can't figure out what Mignini would think harmful to the case.

RS would be a gift.

RG would only bolster the idea that the attack was sexual, as Mignini originally contended.

MK's boyfriend would be a wash, neither helpful nor hurtful to the case.

The only possibility that seems to require concealing evidence is if the semen belongs to an unknown John Doe. But that suggests a conscious and very deliberate conspiracy between Mignini and the judge and the forensic examiner and any number of others, and doesn't fit with anything we know of MK or any of the theories offered for the murder.

 

[SMK]

I agree, but I can't figure out what Mignini would think harmful to the case.

RS would be a gift.

RG would only bolster the idea that the attack was sexual, as Mignini originally contended.

MK's boyfriend would be a wash, neither helpful nor hurtful to the case.

The only possibility that seems to require concealing evidence is if the semen belongs to an unknown John Doe. But that suggests a conscious and very deliberate conspiracy between Mignini and the judge and the forensic examiner and any number of others, and doesn't fit with anything we know of MK or any of the theories offered for the murder.

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.

 

[OldSteve]

Indeed. Sorry to beat a dead horse, here, but all the scenarios that have AK and RS coming on the crime scene after the fact and then deciding to stage a cover up make no sense to me at this point.

Immediately after the murders, when both AK and RS did in fact make false statements to police, I could have entertained the notion that they did nothing but the cover up. But by the time they got to trial, their lawyers would have had to know they were better off confessing to tampering with evidence (the Italian equivalent, of course) than risking a conviction for murder.

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...

 

[Nova]

Here is Frank's take on why the defense didn't want the pillow stain tested:
http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/10/defensive-strategy-for-knox-and.html

Here is another article where RG's lawyer mentions the pillow stain.
http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/10/rudi-guede-keeps-his-position.html

Whether the stains are leftovers where AK+RS cleaned their fingerprints, or if it was Vaseline, or something RG had on his shoe, or ..... I have no idea, and don't understand the recent speculations on the topic which IMO have been very disrespectful towards the victim. I don't think these speculations were necessary at all. Especially since they are not based on any facts. JMO.

How disrespectful to the victim (except in the very broad sense that all murder investigations are necessarily disrespectful to the victim)?

(ETA: Never mind. You answer my question in a later post.)