Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #11

[Allusonz]

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.

Speaking for myself many of us have our own experiences. Sometimes they rear there ugly heads when we least expect them. That did happen to me just recently. That does not mean it is fair to others to not be able to discuss these issues in a manner that is appropriate.

 

[Allusonz]

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.

Let me see if I understand this argument right. If a trial lasts 1 day is that the first day or the last day?

It does not matter when the defense requests something. If they had made the request and the judge agreed it would not of been the last day correct?

What is baffling me even more and the real issue is that if I was the prosecutor and the defense makes a request to test something which could potentially seal this case up as a prosecutor I would be jumping all over trying to accommodate that request whether it be the first day last day or middle day

Usually it is the defense objecting; here we have the prosecution not wanting it and the judge stating no reason to test it as she was sexually active and it cannot be date stamped (the fact a judge states that it cannot be date stamped since she is sexually active tells me the possibility this is from someone spitting is ludicrous )

This is not about what day it was requested. This is about an item that if it tested positive for RS's DNA would of changed the entire dynamics of this case. This "timed request argument" makes no sense

 

[Allusonz]

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?

Funny. I ask that of my children all the time and I get we will....

 

[Allusonz]

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.

BBM

So true. I am not good with conspiracy theories as you are probably very well aware of (not my forteit) thus your reasoning here makes alot of sense

 

[miley]

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.

I pointed out what C. Halkides said about the confirmatory test needing to be done and agreed. so, I never said it was a semen stain... however, I believe the chances of it being semen (and not make-up) are likely because of the cs test done by Vinci.

originally, Flourish asked for a reputable source, questioning why some posters were referring to a semen stain - I pointed to the recent articles ... I provided three sources (two who have written books) this would lead anyone to believe it was true.
Just like the tampon issue, there are more articles that say there was dna on a tampon - I just cited the Times article. I thought it was true (not speculating)

from your link:

Frank Sfarzo:
...as if the shoe had touched the same substance of the two stains and then, in some way, imprinted it on the tissue. If that's true this second picture is particularly revealing, since it suggests that the substance must have been left during the crime.

(snip)And that substance may belong to Rudy or, hopefully for him, to the one who went with him.
​

one stain being on tissue? wonder if this is the same tissue that had the unidentified male dna on it

 

[Allusonz]

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:

Cleaing a water spill the next day is reasonable. I have had pipe leaks, wiped up the worse of it, had it fixed, then cleaned it well after the plumber fixed it.

Many times I will ask who and when did this spill happen to my children. Many times I will get I don't know not because they are lying simply because that was not the most important thing on their mind at the time

Conversely, I do remember a time when something that was very precious to me was accidently broke and I received a call immediately and they were upset. Not because of the cost but they knew the sentimental value it held for me

 

[Allusonz]

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.

Yup tough to state to any LE with 100% certainty that they were there if they were sleeping. Prosecutors do use this argument still though. The smart ones try to find something else to collaborate the theory.

 

[Nova]

Speaking for myself many of us have our own experiences. Sometimes they rear there ugly heads when we least expect them. That did happen to me just recently. That does not mean it is fair to others to not be able to discuss these issues in a manner that is appropriate.

Although I first joined here to discuss Jon-Benet Ramsey, and also followed the Darlie Routier case for awhile, I now avoid the threads dealing with children.

I'm not sure why, but it occurs to me now that I started avoiding the children cases after my grandchildren were born.

But that's just me. I know a lot of posters here are particularly touched by and interested in missing, abused and murdered kids--and I'm sure it's not because they love their own kids less than I.

 

[Malkmus]

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?

Why even mention the mop if it was a fabricated story and they weren't actually caught outside holding it? Peculiar, I guess, but probably more unfortunate than anything else considering the story got twisted into something it was not. The facts surrounding the mop are that it was never found to have any blood on it, the leak was verified in court via photographs, and had Amanda never mentioned the incident we'd never have know about it. But the leak did happen and its perfectly normal that she mentioned it in her summary of events. The problem with people thinking its suspicious is that when you try to actually work it into some sinister clean up it doesn't add up at all. Much like all the other hearsay and conjecture surrounding the case.

 

[Allusonz]

Why even mention the mop if it was a fabricated story and they weren't actually caught outside holding it? Peculiar, I guess, but probably more unfortunate than anything else considering the story got twisted into something it was not. The facts surrounding the mop are that it was never found to have any blood on it, the leak was verified in court via photographs, and had Amanda never mentioned the incident we'd never have know about it. But the leak did happen and its perfectly normal that she mentioned it in her summary of events. The problem with people thinking its suspicious is that when you try to actually work it into some sinister clean up it doesn't add up at all. Much like all the other hearsay and conjecture surrounding the case.

Sometimes hitting that thanks button is simply not enough!!!!!!

 

[Nova]

BBM

So true. I am not good with conspiracy theories as you are probably very well aware of (not my forteit) thus your reasoning here makes alot of sense

I tend to think a conspiracy gets more unlikely the greater the number of people who are required to keep the secret. (This is just one reason 9/11 conspiracies make no sense to me.)

It is possible the prosecution objected to the testing just out of a principle from Lawyering 101: never ask a question if you don't know the answer. If Mignini thought he didn't need RG's or RS' semen on the pillowcase, why take a chance he'll be surprised by adding some new party to the scene?

 

[Nova]

Yup tough to state to any LE with 100% certainty that they were there if they were sleeping. Prosecutors do use this argument still though. The smart ones try to find something else to collaborate the theory.

The vast majority of the population who sleep with others would have exactly the same alibi for that night: I was asleep with my partner and can't know what s/he did while I was unconscious.

Then there's the percentage of the population who sleep alone who have even less in terms of alibis.

That this is constantly reiterated as "RS and AK have no alibis" for the night of the crime is nonsense. By the same token, I have no alibi for that night either; nor does my partner.

 

[dgfred]

Cleaing a water spill the next day is reasonable. I have had pipe leaks, wiped up the worse of it, had it fixed, then cleaned it well after the plumber fixed it.

Many times I will ask who and when did this spill happen to my children. Many times I will get I don't know not because they are lying simply because that was not the most important thing on their mind at the time

Conversely, I do remember a time when something that was very precious to me was accidently broke and I received a call immediately and they were upset. Not because of the cost but they knew the sentimental value it held for me

What about lying about what time you ate supper and when that water spill took place?

If you notice, AK has a story for several different elements that don't make much sense... and are not logical:

Planned trip- but not another shower at RS's, and no clothes for trip
Blood in bathroom- hurt ear or menstruel problems
Blood/dna/Prints in bathroom- bathroom shuffle
Prints in hallway- bathroom shuffle
Mop/Going to cottage- water spill the night before
Accusation of Patrick- coerced or forced... after less than 3 hours
1st call to mother- doesn't remember
Where they were all night- doesn't remember

 

[Nova]

Why even mention the mop if it was a fabricated story and they weren't actually caught outside holding it? Peculiar, I guess, but probably more unfortunate than anything else considering the story got twisted into something it was not. The facts surrounding the mop are that it was never found to have any blood on it, the leak was verified in court via photographs, and had Amanda never mentioned the incident we'd never have know about it. But the leak did happen and its perfectly normal that she mentioned it in her summary of events. The problem with people thinking its suspicious is that when you try to actually work it into some sinister clean up it doesn't add up at all. Much like all the other hearsay and conjecture surrounding the case.

BBM: Really well put, Mal. I think that's why there are so many of us who started out thinking AK was guilty or at least heavily involved, only to find that item after item we'd heard was either wrong or meaningless.

 

[Malkmus]

Also, Arturo de Felice made an interesting statement which states that she "buckled". This was PLANNED

.” He explained:”Initially the American gave a version of events which we knew was not correct. “She buckled and made an admission of facts that we knew were correct and from that we were able to bring them in."

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...+in&cd=12&hl=en&ct=clnk&source=www.google.com

That quote coincides directly with an earlier news report from the night of Novemeber 5th, hours before Amanda and Raf would give up their alibis to ILE:

Monday, 5 November 2007 -- Ominous words:"It is not excluded that in the next few hours one of the many persons interviewed in recent days might be converted into a suspect."

Unfortunately the link to the original news report is dead, but that one line is quite telling.

 

[Malkmus]

What about lying about what time you ate supper and when that water spill took place?

If you notice, AK has a story for several different elements that don't make much sense... and are not logical:

Planned trip- but not another shower at RS's, and no clothes for trip
Blood in bathroom- hurt ear or menstruel problems
Blood/dna/Prints in bathroom- bathroom shuffle
Prints in hallway- bathroom shuffle
Mop/Going to cottage- water spill the night before
Accusation of Patrick- coerced or forced... after less than 3 hours
1st call to mother- doesn't remember
Where they were all night- doesn't remember

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You can look at all those things as suspicious if you think the pair are guilty, but if you actually try to fit any of them into some sort of scapegoat plan none of it makes sense. I've asked this a dozen times, How did the bathmat shuffle help Amanda in any way? Hoe does not remembering a phone call help her? Hoe does showering at her place instead of RS's help her?

 

[dgfred]

Yeah, especially when one drops the other from the 'dual' alibi.

 

[dgfred]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You can look at all those things as suspicious if you think the pair are guilty, but if you actually try to fit any of them into some sort of scapegoat plan none of it makes sense. I've asked this a dozen times, How did the bathmat shuffle help Amanda in any way? Hoe does not remembering a phone call help her? Hoe does showering at her place instead of RS's help her?

The point is she has an 'odd' story for every incriminating piece she 'thinks' could be used against her. Of course... my opinion.

Only thinking that it may help her is what is important to see, not that it actually did help at all.

Those things are suspicious whether guilty or not IMO.

 

[Malkmus]

The point is she has an 'odd' story for every incrimination piece she 'thinks' could be used against her. Of course... my opinion.

Only thinking that it may help her is what is important to see, not that it actually did help at all.

Those things are suspicious whether guilty or not IMO.

Otherwise known as confirmation bias.

 

[dgfred]

Nope, just call 'em as I see 'em.