Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #11

[wasnt_me]

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

If you look at the glass, you will see that along the bottom of the frame, it looks as if it has been manually picked out. And you can see close up shots of the glass where it looks like the glass was bent one way and then got pings in it where it was bent another way. You can interpret the shards on the ledge as being shards he manually picked off the window.

He only needed to break the glass enough to unlatch the frame. then he could open the window. he doesn't need to wiggle through the hole, just open the frame. From there, he can climb into a fully open window.

We do not know if he was injured or not. we do know he had a cut on his hand, which he explained by saying the racist intruder did it to him. So since he related that wound to the cottage, I assume it happened there. He just lies about how it happened, because he worried that his blood was there somewhere and he needed to explain it away by saying the attacker had hurt him.

Remember, when you look at RG's story, it might be a good idea to look at it as if everything he says touches on evidence he THINKS is in the house. In someway, he feels the need to explain those things.

1. His presence. MK invited him.
2. His DNA on her. They messed around.
3. His crap in the toilet. He had a sudden bout of "what's your poop telling you?"
4. The scar on his hand. He claims the intruder attacked him.
5. the broken window. He claims the racist intruder broke in while he (RG) was listening to an ipod.
6. Towels in the bedroom that might have his blood or DNA. He claims he tried to help MK.
7. Her cell phones are gone. He notes that there was no phone to call the police.

He doesn't account for things that he doesn't THINK will be asked of him. For example, he says nothing about AK and RS. Nor does he hint to three people being around. I'm talking about his first story. If I'm wrong, let me know.

To my knowledge, the only thing that AK and RS have attempted to explain about the physical evidence is how MK's DNA might have gotten on the knife right?

If I'm incorrect, let me know, but I don't recall AK even trying to make an excuse for her blood in the bathroom. I have yet to read an excuse from RS about the bloody footprint or DNA on the bra clasp.

I feel the reason they offer no explanations, contrary to RG, is because they really were not there.

Am I making sense?

I DO see them scrambling to explain where they were and when, but it's just as others have said, if they were together with no witnesses but a computer, then they're scared. So they start accounting for the time by elongating when they could have eaten or had sex, or whatever.

Even now that RG has decided to implicate them, you do not hear them saying, well, we let him into the cottage, but we went to RS's and have NO idea what happened.

I don't know if I'm explaining it right, but I guess it's that conscience of innocence or whatever, where it doesn't occur to you to make excuses for what's at the murder site, because you in all honesty weren't there when it occurred. Please let me know if I'm explaining it well.

thanks!

 

[wasnt_me]

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.)

If not then, FR DEFINITELY implied it at least, by telling AK to go back and check for stolen items. Also, stories can vary once you know the full context of what happened. She now knows there was a break-in, so that's part of her conscious as she views the past, know what i'm saying?

 

[SMK]

I feel the reason they offer no explanations, contrary to RG, is because they really were not there.

Am I making sense?(wasnt_me)

Yes you are. It is the state of "consciousness of innocence". I once read something about detecting employee theft. The expert said, people who are guilty will give many explanations. Innocent people will not. For instance, if you ask a guilty person, "How did that money get in your desk?", they will give a long explanation, such as, "Oh, it must be because someone had asked me if they could leave it there, and I had said yes, and then I forgot, ...." where as an innocent person will say, "I don't know." because in fact they do not.

 

[wasnt_me]

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.

No big deal. I was just teasing. Besides, in my acceptence speech, I'd have to list ALL the members of WS that helped me along the way. Then I'd forget to mention someone, too, and (sigh....)

(still jovially teasing. So for anyone who really thinks I want an research oscar, I'm joking.)

 

[flourish]

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.

I have a difficult time accepting that she just parrots back to people, and even so, that doesn't really excuse her poor answers, which, if she's just parroting, can't really be considered to be truthful answers.

 

[wasnt_me]

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:



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.

exactly.

I have a problem with the latitude in the questions and with the fact that the lawyers can do a commentary and lead the witness. The lawyers seem to also be testifying as they use so much background to pose their questions upon. This is not allowed in the USA, right? the opposing lawyer would "Object! Leading the witness!" so fast. Or "object! relevence?" or "Object, the lawyer is testifying. Is there a question in your commentary?"

OR do I watch too much tv?

 

[flourish]

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:



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.

So again, why parrot? Why not just say "I don't know?"

 

[flourish]

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

I suppose that's possible, but we still haven't established that it's actually possible to climb up through that window, have we?

 

[SMK]

I suppose that's possible, but we still haven't established that it's actually possible to climb up through that window, have we?

I do not believe Hendry would perpetuate any falsehood, and he claims it is, so I do trust his judgement.

 

[wasnt_me]

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.

yep.

I remember the story of s serial killer/rapist, who broke into a lady's house. He'd killed before and somehow the woman got either his gun or his knife. He told her that she wouldn't use it, and she actually could NOT bring herself to use whichever weapon it was.

Do you know because she didn't do that, he did NOT kill her in return? He raped her and left. she was the ONLY victim that he didn't kill and in the end, she was the witness that convicted him. So he made a huge risk in leaving her alive, but I guess in a weird way, he respected that she'd spared his life.

I had to think about that. Because I was thinking did I actually have what it took to stab or shoot someone, even in a situation like hers. I might can shoot them, but stab them? Sadly, they'd probably take the knife from me because that's something I don't know if I can do. Plunge a knife into someone when I've been raised not to hurt people.

The gun, I could probably pull a trigger, but I believe these things I'm talking about are the reason that a lot of people are killed by the weapons they have in the house to protect themselves. They can't bring themselve to become an assailant, even of the assailent in their home, and therefore, the bad guy gets control of the weapon.

Just my guess.

 

[SMK]

yep.

I remember the story of s serial killer/rapist, who broke into a lady's house. He'd killed before and somehow the woman got either his gun or his knife. He told her that she wouldn't use it, and she actually could NOT bring herself to use whichever weapon it was.

Do you know because she didn't do that, he did NOT kill her in return? He raped her and left. she was the ONLY victim that he didn't kill and in the end, she was the witness that convicted him. So he made a huge risk in leaving her alive, but I guess in a weird way, he respected that she'd spared his life.

I had to think about that. Because I was thinking did I actually have what it took to stab or shoot someone, even in a situation like hers. I might can shoot them, but stab them? Sadly, they'd probably take the knife from me because that's something I don't know if I can do. Plunge a knife into someone when I've been raised not to hurt people.

The gun, I could probably pull a trigger, but I believe these things I'm talking about are the reason that a lot of people are killed by the weapons they have in the house to protect themselves. They can't bring themselve to become an assailant, even of the assailent in their home, and therefore, the bad guy gets control of the weapon.

Just my guess.

That is a fascinating story, and yes, makes you wonder what you should do, or could do. I agree it would be hard to hurt a human being, and wish it were for everyone. I recall a serial rapist/murderer story (it was a Lifetime movie in the '90s, based on a true story) who killed every young girl he abducted except one. And it turned out it was because she was the only one who did not cry or plead, but acted cool. So you just never know. Pray god we do not have to find out!!!

 

[wasnt_me]

I feel the reason they offer no explanations, contrary to RG, is because they really were not there.

Am I making sense?(wasnt_me)

Yes you are. It is the state of "consciousness of innocence". I once read something about detecting employee theft. The expert said, people who are guilty will give many explanations. Innocent people will not. For instance, if you ask a guilty person, "How did that money get in your desk?", they will give a long explanation, such as, "Oh, it must be because someone had asked me if they could leave it there, and I had said yes, and then I forgot, ...." where as an innocent person will say, "I don't know." because in fact they do not.

yes, exactly. this is exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[wasnt_me]

I have a difficult time accepting that she just parrots back to people, and even so, that doesn't really excuse her poor answers, which, if she's just parroting, can't really be considered to be truthful answers.

But I'm not saying "parroting."

I'm saying she takes for granted the the police and officials have told her the truth and are acting in good faith with her. Therefore, when they say something, she believes them. This is different from "parroting," which I understand is just to repeat what others say.

For example, I imagine tha if AK were pulled over for speeding and the police told her that she was going 80 in a 55, she'd assume that he clocked her at 80, and she'd take the ticket. But all the while, she'd be trying to figure out how she got to 80, when she'd seen her speed at 55 two seconds before the police lights come on. I can see her thinking that her speedometer is broken rather than thinking the police was lying to her.

I'm saying she puts more authority into the police than she does into her own knowledge and memory.

Does that make sense?

 

[wasnt_me]

That is a fascinating story, and yes, makes you wonder what you should do, or could do. I agree it would be hard to hurt a human being, and wish it were for everyone. I recall a serial rapist/murderer story (it was a Lifetime movie in the '90s, based on a true story) who killed every young girl he abducted except one. And it turned out it was because she was the only one who did not cry or plead, but acted cool. So you just never know. Pray god we do not have to find out!!!

I know that's right!

 

[jjenny]

Really? Blaming MK for not behaving right and getting herself killed?

 

[flourish]

I do not believe Hendry would perpetuate any falsehood, and he claims it is, so I do trust his judgement.

Then why not show photos of someone actually climbing INTO the window, instead of just showing the grate-standing thingy? Just showing the "grate-climbing," but not showing the guy actually scale the wall and get into the window indicates that the grate-climbing guy couldn't actually get into the window. :cow:

 

[flourish]

Really? Blaming MK for not behaving right and getting herself killed?

HUH? Did I miss something? :waitasec:

 

[jjenny]

HUH? Did I miss something? :waitasec:

Several posters here seem to be arguing that she didn't behave calmly enough and thus got herself killed.

 

[SMK]

Really? Blaming MK for not behaving right and getting herself killed?

I think we went out of our way to say it was NOT her fault, and was the natural and normal reaction. Come now.

 

[SMK]

Several posters here seem to be arguing that she didn't behave calmly enough and thus got herself killed.

I just replied that we went out of our way to show that MK's reaction was the natural and normal one, and that it was in NO way her fault, whatsoever, that she got killed. We were merely pointing out that one simply cannot gauge how to appease one who might kill you. *sigh*