Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #12

[Malkmus]

Interesting you to find flaws in that blog piece... but see no problems with the CNN 'Preston show'.

I wonder if this 'show' was intended to be right before the knife evidence was presented at the appeal... oops, those dang extensions. Kind of PRee isn't it?

Did I say I had no problems with the CNN piece? Nope. But they pale in comparison with the nonsense on that blog piece.

Do you really expect the knife DNA reexamination is going to go well for the prosecution?

Anyway, this is the latest on the knife from the experts:

In the leaked initial findings both said the knife, which was found in Sollecito's kitchen, revealed that the DNA material on it was so slight that it was insufficient to conclusively convict Knox.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...xperts-another-40-days-to-complete-tests.html

Has anything we've learnd about Perugian law enforcement instilled you with any confidence that they did a good job in analyzing the data in the first place? Good thing these experts are finally being given the documents that the defense was denied the first time around so it can be fully scrutinized and we can see why they were so hesitant to share them.

 

[wasnt_me]

I watched it. It was well done and clearly supportive of her innocence.

Oh, cool. I thought you were just monitoring, not following the case. But I guess you have no choice but to follow if you're monitoring! :rocker:

 

[wasnt_me]

I wasn't being cagey; I honestly don't know. As I said above, I know it happens, but I don't really understand the process whereby subduing a burglary victim escalates to rape. To me, struggling with a terrified victim is about the least sexy situation I can imagine. (ETA: I see I worded the foregoing very badly. I realize rape is primarily about power not sex, but it is dominance expressed in sexual form. I have trouble wrapping my mind around that leap to sexualizing power.)

And then we have the method of penetration. I guess we don't know whether there was penile penetration that didn't culminate in ejaculation, or whether the penetration was always digital.

But unless that happened after death (which is in and of itself a creepy addition to the case), then RG must have been somehow subduing MK while he raped her. (I know, I know: Mignini thinks AK and RS held MK down, but there is no forensic evidence of that.) And how was MK kept quiet during this?

And then, of course, we have the stain on the pillow that ILE refuses to test...

None of the existing evidence supports the sex orgy gone wrong theory; but on the other hand, I'm not sure what the existing evidence DOES support in terms of the sexual assault.

I agree. I, like you can't fathom some of these things either, but it appears to have often in other escalations. Unless, there's still the option that I brought up before, which is that RG had a thing for MK and was going over there to rape her all along and stealing became an afterthought. That certainly explains why no major items were missing.

You recall, when RG was caught in the nursery, he had in his backpack a laptop, cell phones, several sets of keys. I imagine all these things were stolen, not just some of them. So it stands to reason, at least to me, that if he were at the cottage to steal, then some laptops would have been missing as he's stolen laptops before.

I doubt, though, that he thought he had a real chance with MK, so I'm having a hard time imagining that he went there, MK for SOME reason let him in, and he had to stage the break-in after things didn't go as he'd planned. In his diary though he seems to spin this yarn that makes it sound like he had a thing for MK and he never even mentions her BF, who he should have known because he was aquainted with the men downstairs. That's weird to me to in RG's diary, her BF does not exist, even though RG could be making up his feelings for MK that he writes in the diary. Still, makes no sense that he mentions the boyfriend not once.

The key has to be in the lies he tells, because the fabrications that he makes up having to be based on his mindset at the time of the incident and covering his butt. So I try to study his point of view, even though I know he's lying. The answers have to be in what he chooses to explain, what he doesn't explain, and why. I mean from his first stories, not the ones he tells after months of learning the case. Am I making sense? That's why I want the skype call so bad!

 

[JBean]

Oh, cool. I thought you were just monitoring, not following the case. But I guess you have no choice but to follow if you're monitoring! :rocker:

Not only do I follow many cases here, I have opinions on them as well. Some less popular than others though LOL.

 

[wasnt_me]

Oh course we'll take your opinions, if you'd like to render them or if you're allowed to. with your :twocents:, we might actually raise a $1 for a pack of gum.

:innocent:

As for the show, I have to watch it, but I already knew CNN had a pro-innocence stance.

 

[wasnt_me]

The blog 'Savive's Corner' has a report on it :innocent: .

I read it and he's got some facts right and some facts wrong. He makes maybe 2 good points in the piece, but the rest, he's really stretching it. But thanks for the read. It helps me affirm my beliefs in innocence.

 

[wasnt_me]

I was reviewing RG's appeal translation and I started again thinking about how the crime unfolded. Hendry says MK was sitting on her bed about to call her mom.

I don't know if this is true, but I noticed from the appeals paper:

On the pillowcase was a handprint in blood. Also on the floor, visible after rotation of the body, was a tennis sock stained with blood, two sponge towels, one green and the other ivory coloured, the latter completely soaked in blood, the upper bedsheet, also stained with blood in several places, and a light-blue zippered sweatshirt with collar and cuffs in darker blue, also bloodstained. page 4

I'm not sure if the bedsheet was under MK or just bundled up beside her, unseen until she was "rotated," whatever that means. If MK's pilllows and bedsheets were on the floor, and only the fitted sheet on the bed, how do the other items get on the bed?

on the single bed, covered by the bottom sheet, two irregularly-formed
bloodstains; also on the bed, amongst other items – a purse, two sponge socks, a bloodstained book - an ivory-coloured terry cloth towel heavily smeared with blood. page 4

I'm taking for granted that the bed was made. Maybe it wasn't. I understand that RG could have moved her purse from another location to the bed in order to rifle through it. but how did the set of socks and the book get on the bed or stay on the bed, if RG had ripped off her sheet? maybe she didn't make the bed, since she'd had such a long night the night before. But I see there's a set of socks on her bed and more socks on the floor. Just wondering the state of things, because I doubt her comforter and sheets were already on the floor before the attack. Am I making sense?

Don't know where I'm going with that, other than trying to really understand how the attack took place. I know what hendry says, but he doesn't account for how her sheet got off the bed and the other items, like a book and socks, got on the bed.

In any event, this on page 6, really makes me understand there was just one attacker:

The traces of DNA and Guede’s Y chromosome on the cuff of the left sleeve of the victim’s sweatshirt supported a conclusion that considerable pressure had been applied to immobilise her left hand, in contrast with her right hand, on which multiple wounds were visible.

If there were 6 available hands (from RG, RS, and AK) to hold MK down, why were there multiple wounds, which I guess are defense wounds, on her right hand?

 

[wasnt_me]

equally interesting in RG's appeal, page 15:

In the conclusion of this first, diffuse motive for the 2nd appeal, they also denounce the
violation of the rights of the defence in that the court acted improperly in treating Guede's
silences and false or reticent declarations as indications of guilt. The accused has the right to
lie and to say false things, and one cannot deduce clues or proof against him from this
behaviour. According to the defence, this is clearly a violation of his rights.

If this is true, why does AK get an extra year for implicating PL? I don't know if this IS true, but if RG's defense asserted it, then I just wonder where they got it from.

 

[missyjane77]

I apologize if this has been asked and answered, but did MK have bruising to indicate that she was held down by multiple people? I imagine that in the struggle of being raped/attacked, there would be lots of bruising.

 

[SMK]

I apologize if this has been asked and answered, but did MK have bruising to indicate that she was held down by multiple people? I imagine that in the struggle of being raped/attacked, there would be lots of bruising.

You know, this has been a very confusing issue for me as well. Originally they said MK had 40 wounds or bruises, later reports said 23. The prosecution contends the wounds indicate more than one attacker, and yet many analysts assert this was clearly a lone wolf killer.

 

[ohiogirl]

equally interesting in RG's appeal, page 15:

In the conclusion of this first, diffuse motive for the 2nd appeal, they also denounce the
violation of the rights of the defence in that the court acted improperly in treating Guede's
silences and false or reticent declarations as indications of guilt. The accused has the right to
lie and to say false things, and one cannot deduce clues or proof against him from this
behaviour. According to the defence, this is clearly a violation of his rights.

If this is true, why does AK get an extra year for implicating PL? I don't know if this IS true, but if RG's defense asserted it, then I just wonder where they got it from.

Well that one got me out of my lurking. The accused has the right to lie and say false things, but the fact that he is lying cannot be used as proof against him? WTF?

 

[Nova]

I was reviewing RG's appeal translation and I started again thinking about how the crime unfolded. Hendry says MK was sitting on her bed about to call her mom.

I don't know if this is true, but I noticed from the appeals paper:

On the pillowcase was a handprint in blood. Also on the floor, visible after rotation of the body, was a tennis sock stained with blood, two sponge towels, one green and the other ivory coloured, the latter completely soaked in blood, the upper bedsheet, also stained with blood in several places, and a light-blue zippered sweatshirt with collar and cuffs in darker blue, also bloodstained. page 4

I'm not sure if the bedsheet was under MK or just bundled up beside her, unseen until she was "rotated," whatever that means. If MK's pilllows and bedsheets were on the floor, and only the fitted sheet on the bed, how do the other items get on the bed?

on the single bed, covered by the bottom sheet, two irregularly-formed
bloodstains; also on the bed, amongst other items – a purse, two sponge socks, a bloodstained book - an ivory-coloured terry cloth towel heavily smeared with blood. page 4

I'm taking for granted that the bed was made. Maybe it wasn't. I understand that RG could have moved her purse from another location to the bed in order to rifle through it. but how did the set of socks and the book get on the bed or stay on the bed, if RG had ripped off her sheet? maybe she didn't make the bed, since she'd had such a long night the night before. But I see there's a set of socks on her bed and more socks on the floor. Just wondering the state of things, because I doubt her comforter and sheets were already on the floor before the attack. Am I making sense?

Don't know where I'm going with that, other than trying to really understand how the attack took place. I know what hendry says, but he doesn't account for how her sheet got off the bed and the other items, like a book and socks, got on the bed.

In any event, this on page 6, really makes me understand there was just one attacker:

The traces of DNA and Guede’s Y chromosome on the cuff of the left sleeve of the victim’s sweatshirt supported a conclusion that considerable pressure had been applied to immobilise her left hand, in contrast with her right hand, on which multiple wounds were visible.

If there were 6 available hands (from RG, RS, and AK) to hold MK down, why were there multiple wounds, which I guess are defense wounds, on her right hand?

Good question about the defensive wounds and the number of people available to hold her down.

As for the condition of the bed, I've said before that when my niece (a year younger than MK was when she died) comes for a visit, it seems the first thing she does is set off a bomb in the guest room. Within minutes, all of her clothes and stuff are on the bed and all of the bedclothes are on the floor!

 

[Nova]

equally interesting in RG's appeal, page 15:

In the conclusion of this first, diffuse motive for the 2nd appeal, they also denounce the
violation of the rights of the defence in that the court acted improperly in treating Guede's
silences and false or reticent declarations as indications of guilt. The accused has the right to
lie and to say false things, and one cannot deduce clues or proof against him from this
behaviour. According to the defence, this is clearly a violation of his rights.

If this is true, why does AK get an extra year for implicating PL? I don't know if this IS true, but if RG's defense asserted it, then I just wonder where they got it from.

I imagine there's a difference between a lie (I wasn't in the apartment that night) and actual libel (so-and-so was with the victim when she screamed) of another party. I believe AK was convicted of a false accusation against PL, not merely an untrue statement.

If the appellate brief is correct, Italy's law is very different from that of the U.S. Here it is not only a crime to lie to police or on the stand, but a jury is told that lying may well be evidence of guilt.

 

[Nova]

I apologize if this has been asked and answered, but did MK have bruising to indicate that she was held down by multiple people? I imagine that in the struggle of being raped/attacked, there would be lots of bruising.

Good question. Maybe Allusonz or Malkmus or wasnt_me can answer...

 

[dgfred]

"Fluff" piece? Because it spent a quarter of its time dealing with DNA and the impact of interrogation techniques?

What would "serious" be? Another discussion of who stuck out her tongue and wiggles her hips?

I agree that it had a p.o.v. But that does mean that p.o.v. was arbitrary or unfair.

Well, since it attempted to show Mignini in a bad light. Maybe you should consider things Preston has said in the past:

'... as for Mignini himself, I think he's a sincere man and an honest and incorruptible judge. I don't think that he's a bad man...'

'I think in many ways he was badly misled by Giuttari, the police officer who was running the investigation (MOF).'

Which is it? Terrible and corruptible... or not :waitasec: .

 

[dgfred]

Did I say I had no problems with the CNN piece? Nope. But they pale in comparison with the nonsense on that blog piece.

Do you really expect the knife DNA reexamination is going to go well for the prosecution?

Anyway, this is the latest on the knife from the experts:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...xperts-another-40-days-to-complete-tests.html

Has anything we've learnd about Perugian law enforcement instilled you with any confidence that they did a good job in analyzing the data in the first place? Good thing these experts are finally being given the documents that the defense was denied the first time around so it can be fully scrutinized and we can see why they were so hesitant to share them.

Not going bad, since it can not be retested they will be going over the previous testing/procedures/results. Up to this point several of Italy's top forensic minds have verified them so it shouldn't be a problem for the prosecution.

How do YOU see it?

The defense was not 'denied' anything... and you most likely know that.
The case IMO does not completely revolve around the knife or bra-clasp evidence anyway... as there is other proof of their guilt.

 

[dgfred]

I read it and he's got some facts right and some facts wrong. He makes maybe 2 good points in the piece, but the rest, he's really stretching it. But thanks for the read. It helps me affirm my beliefs in innocence.

What part(s) do you consider 'stretching'?

What part(s) 'affirmed' you belief in innocence?

 

[Nova]

Well, since it attempted to show Mignini in a bad light. Maybe you should consider things Preston has said in the past:

'... as for Mignini himself, I think he's a sincere man and an honest and incorruptible judge. I don't think that he's a bad man...'

'I think in many ways he was badly misled by Giuttari, the police officer who was running the investigation (MOF).'

Which is it? Terrible and corruptible... or not :waitasec: .

The only thing that put Mignini in a bad light was what he chose to say, and what others, such as Preston, said about him. They gave Mignini a chance to respond to everything said against him, and did so without using bad lighting to make him look sinister or any of the tricks production can play if it chooses.

I'm sorry the emperor has no clothes, but it isn't CNN's job to dress him.

Mignini himself made the point that he was convicted of abuse of authority, not of corruption (just as Preston says in the quote you supplied).

And that's more or less what some of us have accused him of in the AK case. Nobody has claimed he is taking bribes to frame her.

 

[dgfred]

So it was Mignini's fault that AK admitted being at the crime scene and accused Patrick EVEN THOUGH the police dept was the one doing the interrogation? How did he 'abuse' his power in THIS case?

*Very interesting that he will submit himself to these interviews with people that obviously don't agree with his point of view. Wonder why this is not reciprocated by the 'other' side???

That entire 'show' was just a propaganda piece, and anyone with even background knowledge of the case SHOULD be able to see thru it. If the position of someone is that it is/was a valid, honest, and balanced reporting of the case... then it is very telling on their personal reasoning/view of the case.

The questions raised by TJMK are the kind that a truly honest reporter/host should ask in an interview with a AK/RS supporter... wonder why they never do :waitasec: ???

 

[miley]

And then, of course, we have the stain on the pillow that ILE refuses to test...

None of the existing evidence supports the sex orgy gone wrong theory; but on the other hand, I'm not sure what the existing evidence DOES support in terms of the sexual assault.

I think during the first medical examination, the dr. said that she apparently had sex sometime before death and there were no signs of rape. Prosecutors couldn't even prove rape during the trial... (maybe) that's why during closing arguments Mignini tried to fallback on the satanic ritual theory until Comodi? stepped in saying no motive was necessary, people kill just to kill (something like that)

Is there a possibility she had sex w/ her boyfriend before he left town and the dna is actually his? because I have no idea... I think most likely, rudy stabbed her first and then convinced himself it was consensual, what do you think?