Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #12

[wasnt_me]

You contradict.

A. "Patrick Lumumba [had] an ironclad alibi",
B. "If Rudy Guede hadn't left his DNA all over the body and crime scene, Lumumba would still be in prison"

Not true. Patrick had an alibi regardless of any other DNA. He was released on the basis of his alibi, as were Filomina, Laura, the guys downstairs, the bar owners, the bar buddies, the English friends, the University friends ... all dimissed on the basis of substantiated alibi ... no way that he would have been kept in prison regardless of Rudy's arrest. Patrick was detained for two weeks because there was eyewitness testimony against him ... but his alibi was irrefutable ... and that alone took time to clear him.

Knox and Sollecito were detained as suspects, as is common in Roman Law ... it is not unusual for suspects to be detained for questioning when their stories don't add up - as was common in the Monster of Florence case. To suggest that Amanda was known to be innocent prior to trial, but that the trial went forward because the prosecutor was afraid to admit he made a mistake is like proclaiming ignorance of the legal system. Knox and Sollecito were detained for up to a year without proof of guilt beyond what had been presented in court in the first few weeks after arrest ... which is normal. It meant that, at any point, if there was another suspect or new evidence, they would be released, like Patrick.

Amanda and Raffale gave a lying alibi about getting stoned, watching a movie, making dinner, getting stoned, pipes breaking, phone calls, and Amanda being unaccounted for from 8:45 until 10 the following morning. Raffaele was accounted for at 6 in the morning, after turning on the phone and computer.

Compared to all the other people in Perugia, only Amanda and Raffaele cannot explain themselves on the night of the murder ... weird huh.

I don't understand why you're saying that PL's alibi got him released, when any other time, you say it's AK's fault he was incarcerated for so long, because SHE didn't get him out. Which is it?

RS has computer activity up till 9:26pm. Additionally they have discovered that his computer was operational by playing CD's through out the night, causing his screen saver to activiate, deactiviate and activiate as he changed CD's.

Additionally, please tell me how the experts destroyed 3 or 4 computers in this case? that 75% of the computers, because as I understand, there were 4. If they burned up even 2 hard drives, I might give them the benefit of the doubt. But when they "ruined" the 3rd one in the EXACT same way...

well, what did Nova say the definition of insanity was?

The one they happen to not destroy has the least amoutn of evidence on it.
Had they not destroyed those computers, we might have more definitive information supporting the alibis. Had they not chosen to go into those drives without first copying them, we might have the information.

This was an accident? burning up MK's, AK's, AND RS's second computer?

You say they were lying about getting stoned, but in your own theory, you say they "thrill killed" after getting high off something. Off what, you haven't said. You also haven't said why it didn't show up on a drug test.

 

[wasnt_me]

BBM

I had never thought of it like that before, but with all the discussion about only Rudy leaving shoe prints in the "ironing board" sized bedroom ... not walking to and from the bathroom after the murder - wearing shoes - to get towels (supported by evidence) ... how did that happen? If he committed the murder and walked directly to the bathroom to get towels, he did not have any blood on his shoes when he left the room the first time.

We have other barefoot prints in the bathroom and hallway (mixed DNA in another bedroom) ... gives the impression that all three culprits could have committed the murder and walked out of the room after the murder without leaving bloody shoe prints. The only prints around the body were Rudy's shoes (not bare feet) and then straight down the hall and out the door. Where did the bloody barefoot prints come from?

I remember Edda and Curt saying, before the trial, that the real trial would be the appeal. I think that led many people to believe that there would be a complete retrial, much like what happens with a successfully appealed conviction in the US: a full re-trial. In fact, I wondered if that was what they expected. In this appeal hearing, a very long list was presented for appeal but only three points were accepted. That doesn't bode well.

How do AK and RS manage to make "bloody footprints" or any kind of footprints in the hallway but they don't show up on MK's floor, too? They made no attempt to clean the ones discovered in the hallway, some say because they didn't "see" them. Surely there were the same kind of prints inside MK's room, then, that were unseen, too.

Since it's been proven they aren't bloody, then my next question is how does RS's print go from being "Not bloody" in the hallway to being "bloody" on the bathmat?

I actually have the answer, since you've been ignoring my questions.

It's RG's print. RG sat on the bed, put down the knife, might hav gone through the purse at this time.

Then he took off his shoes, walked barefoot to the bathoom. one of the prints in the hall is his. Then he got in the shower.

He rinsed the blood off his jeans. With watery blood running down his pants, he stepping onto the bathmat, leaving the watery print. the lighter red blood around his toe, they are mistaking that for RS's toe. It is actually water dripping off his pants. That's why I asked others if they saw the watery blood spatter in a picture on some gifts bags that were on floor as RG's footprints headed out the door.

In any event, when Ak picked up the bath mat to use as a towel (dummy) she put it back with the footprint facing the wrong direction.

It's possible that RG dried his feet while standing on the mat, because there are other smaller bloody looking prints or marks on the bathmat, which could indicate him shifting a bit as he did it.

It's not my theory, but it's a pretty interesting one.

DNA in what other bedroom?

 

[Nova]

Just enhancing your post by saying that AK had spent every night since she met RS with him, or almost every night, according to testimony. so for a week, she wasn't hardly even at the cottage. If the others cleaned house any that week, it would stand to reason that less of Ak's dna would be around.

Additionally, it makes no sense that if AK and RS had a habit of going to his place, where they coulld be alone--without interruption from even ONE roommate--they would have stayed at his house Nov. 1, instead of going to AK's house, where AK wasn't sure if one or perhaps even two of her roomates would be. If guilty, why the sudden desire on that night to depart from the routine and take a 16 inch knife with them on top of that?

I've asked Otto to explain that, since it's part of his theory, but I guess he's either ignoring me or doesn't have an answer.

Two really good points! As you may recall, I have never believed that AK took that steak knife out on the town with her "for fun." I think the forensic evidence there is entirely bogus.

But, as you say, why go to the cottage at all? It makes no sense to go there unless they planned to attack MK, but it makes no sense that they planned to attack MK because they didn't know she would be alone there.

The only thing that really makes sense is that they were never there at all that night.

(ETA re DNA: NO forensics team swabs an entire residence. Whenever we say "No DNA", the most we can mean is "No DNA where they looked." I think we can assume they took quite a few swabs from the body of MK and from her room. (Almost all of these tested positive only for RG.) As for the rest of the cottage, who knows?)

 

[Nova]

Note to wasnt_me: I appreciate the credit and I do know the famous definition of insanity ("making the same mistake over and over again"), but I don't remember mentioning it here. Maybe that was someone else...

 

[wasnt_me]

Nova, why you keep calling it a steak knife? that thing is reportedly 16 inches long! :crazy:

 

[SMK]

Note to wasnt_me: I appreciate the credit and I do know the famous definition of insanity ("making the same mistake over and over again"), but I don't remember mentioning it here. Maybe that was someone else...

It was Toris Mom about Casey Anthony's attorneys.

 

[wasnt_me]

I was JUST about to come in and give Torismom the credit, but you beat me to it, SMK!

:rocker:

 

[SMK]

I was JUST about to come in and give Torismom the credit, but you beat me to it, SMK!

:rocker:

:great:

 

[wasnt_me]

About to start reading these appeal documents.

in beginning, I see that there are other prisoners besides that one, who the defense wanted to call as new witnesses. I've only heard of the one, but can anyone shed light on these others?

both in relation to the recruitment of new evidence (in this case testimonies), following the revelations of some prisoners (Mario Joseph Alessi, Mark Castelluccio Ciprian De Cesare and Antonio Trinca) who would be able to provide a different version of the dynamics of the murder, Raffaele Sollecito exonerated. page 2

I know about Alessi, but what of the others? Anyone know what they could be testifying or would have been testifying to?

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/46866334/Apeal-Raffaele-English

 

[Nova]

Nova, why you keep calling it a steak knife? that thing is reportedly 16 inches long! :crazy:

Because that's what others called it when I first read about it.

What should I call it instead?

 

[wasnt_me]

I thought it was a butcher knife until I read it was 16 inches long. Seems some writer exaggerated though, because I doublechecked. it's 31cm, which is about 12 inches or a foot long. I still can't imagine cutting steak with that.

So I guess it's a butcher's knife. That's why the defense was talking about how absurd is was to think AK would just carry it around in her bag for protection. That's just not practical. A steak knife, maybe. But those are what? half the size of what we're talking, on average.

I wasn't getting on you. I thought you were being sarcastic by calling it a steak knife, but then the next time you said it, you sounded more serious.

 

[wasnt_me]

reading that translated appeal is hard!

but I wondered, did RG have a private lawyer or a public defender? AK and RS have private defenders, yes?

 

[sherlockh]

I use my own eyes and the defense experts analysis of the footprint which doesn't use obfuscation to convince people the print was Rafaelle's. There's really no logical explanation of why the bathmat would have a different shaped big toe than Raf's reference print.

I will try to keep it short as I don't want to get into endless discussions that don't lead anywhere. The bathmat footprint was scientifically proven in court to not match either RG or AK. It is compatible with RS's footprint. The report mentions several characteristics that are all different from RG and compatible with RS. If you want to hang on to a few internet photoshoppers and makeup weird scenarios of RG taking his shoe on/off then that is your good right, but I can't take it very seriously.

What does this even mean? Are you trying to be funny by saying the footprints anthropomorphized and walked out of the cottage on their own? Or are you saying that because a murderer walks away he leaves no prints? Either one makes no sense.

I'm sorry, but you're the one claiming they left bloody footprints after stabbing Meredith, so this doesn't make sense. Of course someone can stab someone else without leaving footprints, but your claim is that AK and RS did.

Then the Luminol would have detected them wouldn't it?

My and the courts claim is that the luminol footprints are made in blood. Not just because the alternatives for the luminol reaction don't make any sense, but also because there is mixed DNA in one of them, one of them is compatible with the bathmat print, and because the findings were in several different rooms and in the context of the bloody crime scene it is just a very logical conclusion.

I already said I don't know where they stepped in blood. I tend to believe it was very little blood (as in diluted) since the confirming blood test was negative and could be from cleaning up in the bathroom. Could also be from within the murder room and that they were wiped (not cleaned). I don't recall any luminol was used inside the room and it wouldn't have helped. Even our friend Hendry indentified wiped areas so maybe that is what happened, but again I am not sure.

I know it is fun to make up alternatives, but these will never work in court. Not in this one or anywhere else. So what is the point we continue these discussions? I moved on.

Rudy Guede has had several trials. Sorry, but no one was arguing AK and RS's defense in those, and is therefore irrelevant to your point. Can you elaborate on "people have moved on"? What does that mean and what are you basing it on?

With moving on, I mean the people in Italy, in the courts, the people that have a serious interest in following this trial. The footprint is a proven fact, and it is not coming back. Of course, it is very telling what happened in all of RG's trials. It wasn't his footprint.

I believe we've all been discussing the appeals and the devastating blows the prosecution has had thus far. Rather you're the one who has said nothing is going on and only refers to the first trial.

As I've said multiple times, I don't expect RS and AK to be set free. Recently, in light of how bad the prosecution's case has been falling apart, I have said there might be hope for their freedom.

Nothing much is going on since the leaks of the retesting of the knife and clasp. That is what I meant. I haven't seen anything devastating. I was actually a bit surprised that they could still find some DNA on the knife, but I am willing to keep an open mind and will just wait till they present the conclusions. The difference between guilt and innocence sides is that guilt can accept the opinions of the independent experts in court and deal with it, where innocence will only accept if it goes their way. All JMO.

 

[wasnt_me]

Sherlockh, no matter how many times you say it, doesn't make it true. The Motivation report has already disproven your statements about the bloody footprints and I've already pointd that out to you. Yes, it will be an endless conversation if you don't accept what the report said about the footprints, about the luminol and about NOT finding blood in the footprints.

I'm not quite sure why you keep asserting it when there's proof that it's not true. I mean, unless you show us a court document that says the luminol footprints passed the test for blood.

Step 1--spray luminol. See if it reacts.
Step 2--if it reacts, perform a test for blood
Step 3--accept the results. negative means no blood.

 

[TorisMom003]

I wanted to thank those that answered my questions. Also thanks for the correction on my mixing up RG and RS. Too many initials at times. Sorry for not thanking you all before now, been busy trying to keep up with the Caylee case thread as things are slowly moving along in the selection of a jury.

 

[Nova]

I thought it was a butcher knife until I read it was 16 inches long. Seems some writer exaggerated though, because I doublechecked. it's 31cm, which is about 12 inches or a foot long. I still can't imagine cutting steak with that.

So I guess it's a butcher's knife. That's why the defense was talking about how absurd is was to think AK would just carry it around in her bag for protection. That's just not practical. A steak knife, maybe. But those are what? half the size of what we're talking, on average.

I wasn't getting on you. I thought you were being sarcastic by calling it a steak knife, but then the next time you said it, you sounded more serious.

12" is certainly large for a steak knife in the U.S., but it's not beyond the realm of possibility. Our steak knives are certainly larger than 6", which would be half.

I should probably just call it a "kitchen knife" to distinguish it from what we usually see in a place setting.

I think it's clearly too large to carry around on a "night out."

 

[Nova]

I wanted to thank those that answered my questions. Also thanks for the correction on my mixing up RG and RS. Too many initials at times. Sorry for not thanking you all before now, been busy trying to keep up with the Caylee case thread as things are slowly moving along in the selection of a jury.

I hope you're not apologizing for mixing up the initials. We've all done it.

 

[ChasingMoxie]

I wanted to thank those that answered my questions. Also thanks for the correction on my mixing up RG and RS. Too many initials at times. Sorry for not thanking you all before now, been busy trying to keep up with the Caylee case thread as things are slowly moving along in the selection of a jury.

Ack! I know exactly what you mean! I'm falling way behind everywhere, too! I get caught up in selection and next thing you know there are 8 more pages in this thread and Susan Powell was possibly found (sadly, it turned out not to be her ).

 

[SMK]

I came across this and thought it was interesting, in terms of people who have wondered about the US State Dept.'s opinion on Knox case;

Cables show U.S. State Department monitored Knox case from the beginning

ROME – Newly released diplomatic cables reveal State Department officials regularly monitored Amanda Knox since the day after her arrest and through her conviction for murdering her roommate.
The cables (PDF), released as part of a formal Freedom of Information Act request and made available to seattlepi.com, reveal that U.S. embassy officials in Rome reported to the Secretary of State's Office in Washington, D.C., on a regular basis regarding "Amcit Amanda Knox" (American citizen Amanda Knox).
According to the U.S. Department of State, Knox, a University of Washington student, was visited in jail by embassy officials even before seeing her own father.
The cables, sent from the Rome embassy to the secretary of state in Washington, D.C., (and copied to the consuls in Florence, Milan and Naples) reveal new details about the diplomatic oversight of the case during earliest days of the young Seattle native's arrest.http://www.seattlepi.com/amanda-knox/article/Cables-show-State-Department-has-monitored-Knox-1383417.php#ixzz1Miwk1vSs

 

[otto]

There is no contradiction between A and B above. Both are true. Malkmus believes the alibi was paramount. He's probably right; he usually is.

I have no reason to trust ILE to substantiate alibis, not given their penchant for error. As far as I know, Filomena and her boyfriend alibied one another, just as AK and RS did. I guess Filomena didn't move her hips suspiciously, so her alibi was believed. Do you have a link to everyone's alibi?

As for your reference to what is usually called "tunnel vision", you are misstating the arguments of others. Nobody is saying that Mignini KNEW AK was innocent and prosecuted her anyway; what a lot of us are saying is that he WOULD HAVE and SHOULD HAVE KNOWN she was innocent if he had taken an objective look at the evidence. Alas, he did not.

BBM

Do you think police published a list of all suspects and their alibis?

Why do you think that investigators should have known that Knox was innocent given that a jury has since found her guilty?