Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #13

[otto]

So I guess Mignini just told what otto would call "a whopper lie."

Amanda can't remember that she ate dinner before she intended to go to work the night before, but that's just quirky Amanda being Amelie.

A prosecutor can't remember some detail (or perhaps he can - not particularly interested) from a four year old closed case, and that makes him a liar.

Where is the logic?

 

[otto]

So he's in jail and can't dig it up ... but this little story might get him a day pass to show police where he buried this evidence?

Since this story is so farfetched that the Knox/Sollecito families are not inclined to get their hands dirty, why would it show "laxness in the first trial"?

 

[otto]

I'm amused that Knox has picked up on the little girl persona too:

"I remember the first days, I was young and I didn't understand all of this"

Sure, she was three years younger, but still an adult and international traveler.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-new...ranted-time-in-knox-trial-20110521-1ey8o.html

 

[otto]

Looks like the appeal info won't be available until the Fall, as I expected:

"We now have everything we need," Rome biologist Carla Vecchiotti told the court, adding that the experts were calling for "maximum collaboration" from all parties involved.
They agreed to deposit their final report on June 30, with debate scheduled on July 25, and possibly July 29 and 30 if necessary. A verdict is not expected until fall."

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/arti...ays-in-appeal-trial-1390009.php#ixzz1N7fy1Y1T

 

[Nova]

My point is that some evidence is deemed "compatible" and some evidence is deemed an "exact match". Footprints are always deemed compatible, and DNA is exact. Aside from the barefoot print that is not compatible with any suspects other than Raffaele, what evidence was considered "compatible"?

otto, it is my understanding from recent reading that footprints CAN be exact, as exact as fingerprints. The problem is that (a) bare footprints are rare; and (b) they usually aren't laid down clearly enough for a unique i.d.

Basically, "compatible with" is determined by the outline of the print. Experts can only declare a match if the whorls and ridges of the toes and sole are as clear as what is needed in a fingerprint. The latter doesn't happen too often, probably (what follows is my conjecture) because the architecture of the foot and the weight of the person obscures the necessary details.

(ETA in other words, the fact that the bath mat print (and other foot prints in the cottage) can't be identified as a "match" to anyone may be something we should keep in mind, but it isn't unusual or proof of anything.)

 

[otto]

otto, it is my understanding from recent reading that footprints CAN be exact, as exact as fingerprints. The problem is that (a) bare footprints are rare; and (b) they usually aren't laid down clearly enough for a unique i.d.

Basically, "compatible with" is determined by the outline of the print. Experts can only declare a match if the whorls and ridges of the toes and sole are as clear as what is needed in a fingerprint. The latter doesn't happen too often, probably (what follows is my conjecture) because the architecture of the foot and the weight of the person obscures the necessary details.

A bloody barefoot print on a textured bathmat will never be anything more than compatible.

As you say, the footprint can be as exact as the fingerprint, but a shoe print, like a glove print, can only be compatible. A hand print on a fuzzy blanket will be compatible with someone's hand, like the barefoot print on the bathmat.

 

[Nova]

Addendum: In fact, I just Googled this matter of blood on Knox and Sollecito, and numerous articles and discussions popped up about how implausible it is that there was no blood found on their clothes or shoes ; additionally, that Guede's DNA & prints were all over the room, and not theirs. IMPLAUSIBLE that they were there , involved in a bloody struggle and slashing, and yet came out pristine.

Which is why Mignini is now saying "maybe AK directed the murder from another room."

 

[SMK]

So he's in jail and can't dig it up ... but this little story might get him a day pass to show police where he buried this evidence?

Since this story is so farfetched that the Knox/Sollecito families are not inclined to get their hands dirty, why would it show "laxness in the first trial"?

I am wondering the same thing, and hoping there is some advantage here: They simply cannot be this stupid.

 

[Nova]

A bloody barefoot print on a textured bathmat will never be anything more than compatible.

As you say, the footprint can be as exact as the fingerprint, but a shoe print, like a glove print, can only be compatible.

Right. I think we should remember that the prints are merely "compatible with" rather than matches, but we should also remember that isn't unusual with foot prints. And the fact that prints cannot be matched doesn't prove they were made by different people.

 

[Nova]

I haven't followed the latest new suspect info closely because on the surface it strikes me as people trying to get their 15 minutes of fame. However, since the defense has put forth 5 claims made by people that they have info about the real killers, it seems the judge has no choice but to entertain this new information. I too think it was a mistake for defense lawyers to introduce this evidence ... but they have, and now we can hear ridiculous claims that Meredith was a super drug dealer who was murdered for drug debt ... and the murderers were paid a hefty sum. It's absurd ... and it seems to me that the decision by the defense to introduce this to the court proceedings tells us that they will stop at nothing, not even the absurd.

I absolutely agree that the MK as drug dealer executed with a (highly paid!) hit is absurd.

I, too, worry that the paid hit story will muddy the waters when the group of inmates who say RG told them AK and RS weren't involved are far more credible.

But it is the defense's job to put on any evidence that may exonerate the client. I worry they have miscalculated, but I don't fault them for doing their job.

 

[SMK]

@ Otto: You have to read on - and on, and on....It is a very lengthy piece ....I just think Aviello looks about age 12, and very effeminate, in his mug shots.....:waitasec::waitasec:

Three times during the course of the murder investigation and subsequent trial, Aviello wrote to the court and the presiding judge, offering his account. He claimed he could show investigators where the murder weapon was hidden along with a set of keys from the house Knox shared with Meredith.

At the time of the murder, Aviello and his brother - who has since vanished - were indeed living in Perugia: evidently, the Mafioso's story should have been investigated further by the authorities. His letters should, at the very least, have prompted police to look into the legitimacy of his evidence.

Instead he was ignored, thereby providing Knox's defence team with crucial confirmation of the court's partiality: in effect, it had decided that she was guilty before the trial was even completed.

So Knox's appeal will not merely be an examination of her and Sollecito, but a rigorous scrutiny of a profoundly flawed judicial system and its palpable inability to produce a verdict that stands any degree of scrutiny.

Indeed, Knox's legal team has already requested the removal of a judge and prosecutor who, aside from presiding over the criminal case against her, are also officiating in a separate charge of slander against her - to which I'll return later.
There is no doubt, too, that Knox's case was hampered by the fact that Italy and its judiciary took a violent dislike to her. And, I concede, her behaviour was, at times, brazenly uninhibited and inappropriate.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1286011/Why-I-believe-Mafia-supergrass-help-clear-Foxy-Knoxys-name.html#ixzz1N7bYhyhO

 

[otto]

Which is why Mignini is now saying "maybe AK directed the murder from another room."

I don't think he was doing that. We all know that we will never know exactly what went on in the cottage that night, and Rudy Guede isn't talking. It's reasonable to speculate on what might have happened - we are all doing that. We know that the prosecutors have put forth more than one possibility regarding the sequence of events that night. The defense has done the same. The bottom line is that the prosecution was more successful in arguing the case ... and the lovebirds were found guilty. I guess we'll see what the appeal decision is towards Halloween.

Why are you assuming that prosecution reflection and speculation on an old case means that the theory of the crime has changed?

 

[Nova]

If it was my daughter in prison, I'd be out there with a shovel - not waiting for police to do something about it. Instead, no one has done anything about it. It gives the impression that not even the defense considers this valid.

I know what you mean, otto, but in the U.S., at least, taking a shovel and doing your own digging might well invalidate the evidence by creating chain-of-custody issues. Your lawyer might well advise you to wait for police to investigate, so that neither side could argue that you planted whatever you found, or threw out something you claim you didn't find.

 

[SMK]

I'm amused that Knox has picked up on the little girl persona too:

"I remember the first days, I was young and I didn't understand all of this"

Sure, she was three years younger, but still an adult and international traveler.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-new...ranted-time-in-knox-trial-20110521-1ey8o.html

Well, Otto, my good man, "young" does not translate into "little girl". And when I look back to my marriage to my husband at age 25, I can see how young and "green" I really was. And Knox was certainly green to being charged with a violent sex murder. 20 is considered young in the U.S.: In most states, you cannot even drink at that age legally, nor buy cigarettes (must be 26 in NJ to buy cigs)....

 

[SMK]

I know what you mean, otto, but in the U.S., at least, taking a shovel and doing your own digging might well invalidate the evidence by creating chain-of-custody issues. Your lawyer might well advise you to wait for police to investigate, so that neither side could argue that you planted whatever you found, or threw out something you claim you didn't find.

You know, I had thought the same thing, Otto. Your daughter would NOT be well-served with you digging this stuff up, as Mignini would insist you had tampered with evidence, and it now had to be thrown out......

 

[Nova]

Amanda can't remember that she ate dinner before she intended to go to work the night before, but that's just quirky Amanda being Amelie.

A prosecutor can't remember some detail (or perhaps he can - not particularly interested) from a four year old closed case, and that makes him a liar.

Where is the logic?

Because Amanda Knox has been charged BY MIGNINI with slandering ILE in her account of that night's interrogations. How could Mignini possibly forget what he did that night?

 

[otto]

Right. I think we should remember that the prints are merely "compatible with" rather than matches, but we should also remember that isn't unusual with foot prints. And the fact that prints cannot be matched doesn't prove they were made by different people.

We have a footprint and a small suspect pool; restricted to those that were in the house. Evidence that was relevant in court is that the print matched one of the accused in length, width and identifying characteristics. If the print was different in length and width, like Rudy, it was discarded as a possible match. Amanda's foot was discarded for similar reasons: it was shorter and narrower than Raffaele's distinct print (hammer toe) and the hammer toe print on the bathmat.

 

[SMK]

I don't think he was doing that. We all know that we will never know exactly what went on in the cottage that night, and Rudy Guede isn't talking. It's reasonable to speculate on what might have happened - we are all doing that. We know that the prosecutors have put forth more than one possibility regarding the sequence of events that night. The defense has done the same. The bottom line is that the prosecution was more successful in arguing the case ... and the lovebirds were found guilty. I guess we'll see what the appeal decision is towards Halloween.

Why are you assuming that prosecution reflection and speculation on an old case means that the theory of the crime has changed?

Ummmm....:waitasec: Because Mignini had originally said Amanda wielded the knife and the fatal wound, and now he is suggesting she may have been calling directions from down the hall????????

 

[otto]

I know what you mean, otto, but in the U.S., at least, taking a shovel and doing your own digging might well invalidate the evidence by creating chain-of-custody issues. Your lawyer might well advise you to wait for police to investigate, so that neither side could argue that you planted whatever you found, or threw out something you claim you didn't find.

Get the guy to draw a map. Surely he knows the location along the wall behind his property well enough to draw a map.

With today's technology, anyone can hold the camera with a live feed to a recorded source. When the keys are found, police can be called to collect the evidence. I don't see the problem.

 

[otto]

Well, Otto, my good man, "young" does not translate into "little girl". And when I look back to my marriage to my husband at age 25, I can see how young and "green" I really was. And Knox was certainly green to being charged with a violent sex murder. 20 is considered young in the U.S.: In most states, you cannot even drink at that age legally, nor buy cigarettes (must be 26 in NJ to buy cigs)....

What she's really saying is that she has spent a long time in jail, is suffering, was youthful at the time of the crime and could they hurry along the process because her youth has transformed into maturity ... basically: the sentence has been harsh, I'm suffering and I am rehabilitated (no longer young, foolish).