Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #11

[flourish]

Good questions, but it may still be possible he entered via the window. But as stated, your questions are good ones.

Well, he must be an amazing contortionist to be able to wiggle past all those shards, at that height, in the dark, and not even get a scrape. Unbelievable IMO

 

[flourish]

Well, that is sure unfair. Neither a sincere appeal, nor a just review. Blimey.

Huh? What does that mean? :waitasec:

 

[SMK]

Well, he must be an amazing contortionist to be able to wiggle past all those shards, at that height, in the dark, and not even get a scrape. Unbelievable IMO

What if his clothing took the cuts? It was cold that evening, he likely had jacket, long pants....

 

[SMK]

Huh? What does that mean? :waitasec:

I mean to say, it is not a new analysis - just goes right back to the original one which the appeal summaries questioned rigorously.

 

[Nova]

Slightly different account of the same story from AK, just as Nova was saying could be expected.

What's weird about that account is that she has herself looking for a burglar before she opens FR's door. I know some things were amiss and seemed strange to her, but this is the first account I've heard where she specifically says she was looking for evidence of a burglary even before she saw the broken window.

I'm NOT saying I think this proves she is lying about when she first looked in FR's room (though no doubt some pro-guilters will argue as much). It would be perfectly understandable that in thinking back, AK may not remember when exactly she first thought of burglary.

(ETA but now that I've thought about it. By the time AK returned with RS, she had mentioned the unlocked and open front door to both RS and FR. No doubt one of them said, "Maybe somebody broke in." So never mind.)

 

[Nova]

This bears repeating, especially the Mime part.

Yes, it's odd how the language barrier arises as an issue and then disappears when the supposed conspiracy is discussed. In fact, it's very unlikely that AK was able to enter into a conspiracy with two non-English speaking boys.

(ETA and yet, watching interviews with Mignini in the I.D.-TV doc last night (actual interviews not reconstructions), he insists that AK is the mastermind and ringleader of the whole prank, rape, murder and cover-up--without ever once considering how she communicated so many complicated instructions to boys who didn't speak English.)

 

[Nova]

I got a question.

If you set out to fake an elaborate break-in, why not highlight the break-in?

Instead, it seems not to occur to AK that a break-in has taken place. Not even when FR is like "Go see if something was stolen." AK is hesitatant to go back to the house and check. She tells FR that she already saw the TV was there and her own computer was there. BUt FR insists, so they go back.

Why? Why instead doesn't AK call FR and say "There's a break-in. the windows are busted out, MK's door is locked and I ain't going back over there."

It just seems to me, that if you went through all the trouble to stage a break-in, why say nothing to FR about a break-in in the initial call?

Worth repeating.

Strangeness, immaturity and youth notwithstanding, I think AK's behavior on the morning after the murder is more consistent with NOT knowing MK was dead behind the locked door than with performing a staging.

 

[Nova]

When confused, I suggest using Nova's reasoning. Nova always asks how does "so in so fact" benefit the duo?....

At first I thought humility required that I skip over your kind remark, but while I can't take credit for inventing utility-centered reasoning, I do have something to add.

It seems to me that particularly in THIS case, far too much of the evidence against AK and RS is just that they (but usually AK) are "weird" or did something we now find "strange." For weeks, one poster kept insisting that AK had a "dead soul"; I don't know what that means but I'm reasonably sure it isn't evidence that she committed a crime.

Just because someone strikes us as odd isn't proof that he or she committed this particular murder--and ultimately who committed this crime is the only question that matters.

But that's not the prosecution's case. Mignini argued that AK and RS did odd things (and in the case of accusing PL, an unethical thing), most of which had nothing to do with the murder or a cover-up. And then he told the jury to ignore the lack of actual evidence and find the "oddballs" guilty.

 

[Nova]

Yeah, I got snubbed at the research oscars. Though I am a freshmen, I thought I was good at bringing in quotes and sites and ideas. It's cool, though. Maybe next year.

Now I gotta get back to this testimony.

You were unfairly snubbed, indeed. I would promise to include you next time, but I will not make the mistake of making any more lists.

Please accept my apology.

 

[Nova]

AK on her computer:

GCM: Excuse me, difensore. When was the last time that you used your computer?

AK: I was listening to music. When I was at home, my computer was always on, and
when I left I turned it off. The last time I used it must have been on Nov 1,
when I came home. I changed clothes, I listened to music, I checked
this and that, and when I left, I turned it off.

LG: How do you explain that when your computer was subjected to examination, it was
burned up by an electric shock? Do you have any explanation?

AK: I think someone burned up my computer.

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=165

Forget the computer for a moment. Everyone who thinks it incredible that AK and other suspects make false statements under the pressure of interrogation should look at the form of the questioning:

LG: How do you explain that when your computer was subjected to examination, it was
burned up by an electric shock? Do you have any explanation?

AK: I think someone burned up my computer.

Why is AK being asked this question? Why would AK know the answer?

She wouldn't; yet if she says nothing she will be accused of being uncooperative. So she tries to say something; in this case, the "something" appears to be innocuous, but suspects get in trouble very quickly with such guesses because sooner or later they say something that conflicts with a previous statement and they are accused of being liars.

 

[Nova]

I caught the beginning of the program on the ID channel but then I had to go to work.
The part I saw really got to me emotionally.They re-enacted the scene where the dying Meredith leaves the bloody print on the wall.It was the first time I cried for Meredith and I got angry at Amanda again.Guilty or not,how could she have been so callous?
That's why I try to come up with excuses for her,like Asperger's because since I do not beleive in her guilt anymore I at least would like to develop a little bit of sympathy for her.She really does remind me of Casey Anthony a lot.There hardly is any forensic evidence against her as well ,it's mostly circumstancial.
I work with a guy from Nigeria who lived in Sienna at the time this happened.
I never asked him about this case until tonight.He had fire in his eyes when he told me Amanda Knox is guilty.He really got angry and went on a long rant about her.
He did not mention RS at all.He really is almost invisible in this case.I believe he is innocent whether or not there was any involvment from AK but I also don't have any emotion in regards to him.I don't feel sorry for him.It's so strange.

The Nigerian's response should tell you everything you need to know about how intense the media coverage was and what the mindset of the jurors was when they began the trial.

And that includes the greatly inflated reports of AK's "callousness". I don't pretend to know her or to know exactly how she felt; but I do know few of us have any training for reacting to a murdered friend.

 

[SMK]

The Nigerian's response should tell you everything you need to know about how intense the media coverage was and what the mindset of the jurors was when they began the trial.

And that includes the greatly inflated reports of AK's "callousness". I don't pretend to know her or to know exactly how she felt; but I do know few of us have any training for reacting to a murdered friend.

Aptly spoken.

 

[Nova]

Frank is an amatuer internet blogger... IMO that is not a 'journalist' but I guess it doesn't really matter one way or another to the actual case. I was only giving information I had read elsewhere... including pseudonyms
Oh, I guess it was only a 'drive-by' posting at me.

The quality of his work and whether his journalism meets your standards or mine is entirely beside the point.

If his charges are true, then he was mistreated by ILE FOR ACTING AS A JOURNALIST and reporting on the case. That makes him a journalist for purposes of this issue.

(I say "If his charges are true" because I have no way to independently confirm them, not because I have any reason to doubt them.)

 

[Nova]

Well, he must be an amazing contortionist to be able to wiggle past all those shards, at that height, in the dark, and not even get a scrape. Unbelievable IMO

He wasn't caught until two weeks later. We only know he did not cut himself so badly that he bled extensively or that the wound was still noticeable when he surrendered.

We don't know he didn't "even get a scrape."

 

[wasnt_me]

Hmmm....:waitasec: R i g h t . For one, what does "burned up by an electric shock" mean exactly? Like, fried from surge overload, or blue-screen-of-death or what?

And sorry, but, LOL at that response (AK's answer). Perhaps she said it in a tone that would convey more of a "Well, uh....if you say that then someone must have 'burned' it because I haven't seen it since I turned it off on Nov. 1." But why not just say, "No, I have no idea what you mean that my computer is burned up because the last time I used it on Nov. 1, it was working fine..."?

Just...weirdness, weirdness everywhere, and weirdness lost in translation.
I really, really should be fftobed: now...

For me, if translated correctly, it means what I already think about AK's character. She goes along with what people tell her without question. they said it was burned up, she accepted that. As you point out, does she even KNOW what that means? I don't think so. I think she takes for granted, even up to this point in the trial, that they know what they are talking about.

that's how she got in all that trouble of PL. Assuming they knew what they were talking about when he pressed that he was involved somehow. That's why she probably believed that RS had turned on her. She's not streetwise enough to challenge anything they say. So it seems.

 

[wasnt_me]

Another thing I wanted to add, as I feel it is important: I do believe Hendry's analysis, that Guded was surprised by MK's early return, and responded by killing her. Considering that prior to this, he had only been a petty thief, makes me deduce that taking this huge leap to killer was due to the fact that he really did enter via the broken window.

Because: If he had been let in by AK, he could have gotten out of the bind, by saying to Meredith, "Hey, sorry, I was using your bathroom, Amanda said no one was home tonight and I could hang out here, but I will be going now, really sorry". The worst MK could have done was be mad, maybe say something like , "Well, why did she say you could hang here? I really do not appreciate this!" But to feel he had to kill her, to use the knife, I believe Rudy must have known MK could see that she was coming in on a robbery in progress, as Hendry asserts - and that he had entered unlawfully, and consequently was destroying his relationship with the guys downstairs, and would now be known as a criminal, & would be arrested and shamed in Perugia - Hence, he felt he had no choice but to kill her. He had been lucky til then; now his luck had run out.

I agree that this escalated things, and MK probably was NOT trying to be reasonable with him, either. Not that she should, I'm just saying that she probably wasn't calm, which would have given him a chance to calm down and lie his way out of it. I'm sure she got hysterical to see him, which up the anty for him.

 

[SMK]

I agree that this escalated things, and MK probably was NOT trying to be reasonable with him, either. Not that she should, I'm just saying that she probably wasn't calm, which would have given him a chance to calm down and lie his way out of it. I'm sure she got hysterical to see him, which up the anty for him.

I think you are right, and of course I agree with you that MK was likely too much in shock to figure out what would have served her best. Very sad.

 

[Nova]

For me, if translated correctly, it means what I already think about AK's character. She goes along with what people tell her without question. they said it was burned up, she accepted that. As you point out, does she even KNOW what that means? I don't think so. I think she takes for granted, even up to this point in the trial, that they know what they are talking about.

that's how she got in all that trouble of PL. Assuming they knew what they were talking about when he pressed that he was involved somehow. That's why she probably believed that RS had turned on her. She's not streetwise enough to challenge anything they say. So it seems.

Few of us are streetwise when it comes to LE interrogation. Didn't we all attend "The Policeman Is Your Friend Day" in the 1st grade?

 

[miley]

What is your question?

The report from the appeals court was that the bra clasp has deteriorated and there is not enough dna on the knife to retest... sooo, they will have to review the previous findings.

Why do you need a source for reading about their finding? It is public knowledge.

I was legitimately asking for a source (why?) so I could read it for myself - I have a different interpretation about the knife:

The trial was told that Knox’s DNA was on a 12in kitchen knife but according to leaked details yesterday, two forensic experts from Rome’s La Sapienza university said that the amount of material on it was too low to convict Knox.

Both professors will now cast their opinion on original tests carried out by police scientists on both items to see if they were properly carried out.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-insufficient-convict-her.html#ixzz1KCMdLnHZ
​

 

[SMK]

Few of us are streetwise when it comes to LE interrogation. Didn't we all attend "The Policeman Is Your Friend Day" in the 1st grade?

Yes, this was misleading, to say the least. Of course the policeman is your friend if you need protection, but during an interrogation, he is anything but. I am having to tell my 23 year old son, who has Aspberger syndrome, never to speak with police without a lawyer present, lest he "wind up like Amanda Knox".