Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #13

[otto]

Possibly. Though I would hope not. Casey Anthony is an American girl, and noone feels any sympathy for her. Of course, the cases are hugely different. There is that "American girl at an Italian University" aspect to the Knox case. I really had no problem believing her guilty, and had no concern for her, until I read Hendry.

The four people involved in the case are from 4 different countries, yet the only person that anyone here seems to care about is the murderer from the US.

 

[Monzoo]

I appreciate you comming out of the woodwork to inform me.

No problem. Everything seems to be going in circles, so I haven't found much reason to comment. I've been reading along though.

 

[wasnt_me]

As far as those autometric tests go, I thought they'd already done them?

I still find it hard to believe that woman heard screams and running when the people in the broken down vehicle, who were right outside the cottage did not hear anything. I was thinking about it and wondered what the possibilities are that she heard screeching from the tow truck?

I don't know if in her testimony or the one from the neighbor who also claimed to hear the scream even mentioned the broken down car. In fact, did any of the witnesses claiming to hear or see things that night mention the tow truck incident?

 

[wasnt_me]

No problem. Everything seems to be going in circles, so I haven't found much reason to comment. I've been reading along though.

Yes, but maybe you can help stop that. What is it that you are interesting in discussing? We can certainly use fresh voices.

 

[wasnt_me]

oh, and if I remember correctly, the olive throwing guy claimed to have seen the tow truck. But I do not remember now when he came forward and if the information about the tow truck had been made public by then. His story was certainly ludicras enough.

Remember, he claimed that Ak was on the street chasing him with her 16 inch knife?

 

[Monzoo]

Yes, but maybe you can help stop that. What is it that you are interesting in discussing? We can certainly use fresh voices.

I will have to think about this.

I guess what srtikes me about this case is that we have a number of people discussing in this thread. I think everyone would say that their opinion is based on the facts of the case, correct? Yet there are two very different opinions that have formed.

So my question for everyone is:

What evidence, either brought into or removed from the case, would cause you to change your opinion as to whether RS and AK should be found guilty by the Italian courts? This is a different question from innocence/guilt.

For me, I believe that the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Things that could convince me that the decision was sound would be new items that could be forensically linked to RS and AK and the murder scene.

1. The "Semen" stain: if it was tested and found to belong to RS, it would be pretty damning.

2. Meredith's keys and/or the murder weapon: If they were found with both Meredith's blood and DNA or firgerprints from RS or AK -- would be pretty convincing.

I should note that I am not impressed with the quality shown so far in the case, however. I would want more transpanency on the forensics.

Something that would give me pause? If ILE found the tape of AK's interrogation and it was shown to have happened the way LE described andnothing like what AK has said happened. The interrogation should not count as evidence against her, however, so it wouldn't change my mind on guilty/not guilty even though I might be less inclined to believe her innnocent.

 

[wasnt_me]

Rafe's appeal is also attacking of course the phone records for MK's two phones.

Their premise is the same that we've been saying here. They assert that she died between 20:56 and 21:58. These are the times of the first call to her parents that was cut off with no logical retry, and the first call on her phone to voicemail, followed by the disdirected bank call at 22:00. They feel the 22:13pm download which happened enroute to the dump site corroborates this.

They then go into a lengthy discussion of how the court did not consider the full analysis of the phone cell towers.

I hope this information gets heard as well, because it seemed to be erroneously ignored by the court that MK used her phone a lot at night, sending text messages etc. It was wholey odd that she did not do it during the time that the prosecution asserts that she was still alive.

it's even more odd that she would not reattempt a call to her parents' house after the one at 20:56 was interrupted. They also stated that playing with the phone or the phone dialing on its own was unlikely because it had a lock on it.

Now I have written in here that my phone has a lock on it and so it can't fake call like that. Others have stated the same thing. What's the chance that MK was NOT using her phone at all up till 21:58 that it unlocked on its own somehow to place the voicemail call?

My phone has a code to unlock it. My new one does. The phone I had before it, did not have a code. You simply had to press the a button and it'd tell you that it was locked. You press the confirm to unlock it and that was it. No codes, no nothing. So a stranger could unlock my phone. I'm guessing the same with MK or they wouldn't be bringing this up.

The defense also puts forth that the MOT report is in error in stating that the wind picked up the bank call, but it wasn't in the phone. It was actually the other way around.

On page 350 of the sentence there is an incorrect statement of fact: "3. hourly
22:00 consists of the number "08459724724" which, under the heading of
two cell corresponds all.utente "Abbey". Wind back the printout (the figure is
however lacking in the phone memory). "In fact, unlike
As stated above, the data is in memory of the phone,
while it is absent in tabulated Wind.
The reason for the absence of data in tabular Wind is explained by the fact that the
dialed number corresponding to a British audience, was without the prefix
International 0044 (or +44) and, therefore, the call could not be
recognized and properly routed.

 

[wasnt_me]

I will have to think about this.

I guess what srtikes me about this case is that we have a number of people discussing in this thread. I think everyone would say that their opinion is based on the facts of the case, correct? Yet there are two very different opinions that have formed.

So my question for everyone is:

What evidence, either brought into or removed from the case, would cause you to change your opinion as to whether RS and AK should be found guilty by the Italian courts? This is a different question from innocence/guilt.

Awesome game. I like it. Hope others play along.

Wow, requires some thought. What could they bring in to make me say guilty.

1. Proof of the staged break-in. The point of entry has always been focal to me and the mot report stating that it couldn't have been a breakin because the front door was intact does not sit well with me. Also them relying on RF's statements about her room after she'd been allowed to rifle through it and change how it looked originally doesn't work for me. Looking at RG's burglary history, I believe he broke the window, was comfortable threatening people with knives, and stole the cell phones.

2. Proof that RS, RG, and AK even met up that evening. as a chair juror I need to understand how these three even linked up that night.

3. Evidence comparative to RG's in the murder room. It does not satisfy me that RG's DNA shoe prints, finger prints and possibly semen is in that murder room, but all they have for RS is an incomplete DNA profile on a bra that is said to have also other unknown DNA on it. I also need to know how each other person's DNA is on that clasp.

4. An explanation as to why AK and RS would help RG commit sexual assault on MK. Drugs or no drugs, I just don't buy any reason a couple who normally stayed at RS's house would suddenly be at AK's house with RG deciding to help him sexually assault MK. What the heck for?

5. Of course bloody clothes, their signature in blood, the murder weapon, and a video tape of the whole thing might be useful, but I'll take what i can get. :innocent:

 

[wasnt_me]

Evidence removed from the case that would make me consider guilt?

1. Computer evidence that RS was accessing his computer at least half way through the murder, which I believe started at 9pm and ended around 945pm. Finding that he accessed a video at 926pm cinched innocence for me, considering the TOD.

2. The bra clasp and the knife. Honestly, if those were REMOVED, I might can consider some guilt. It's weird to say that but I do because it's obvious to me that those two things are weak sauce for evidence. I'd rather imagine that they found no murder weapon or just couldn't find RS's DNA than to come up with only some tiny half sample on a metal clasp touched by several evidence collectors 47 days after the crime.

3. Remove the videos showing evidence collection, so I don't know that they didn't change their gloves or wipe several areas in the bathroom with the same swab.

4. Remove AK's clothes that FR saw her in from her bed, so I can still wonder if AK's bloody clothes are out there somewhere.

5. Remove the knowledge that they also erroneous placed PL's cell phone at the murder house when he wasn't there, and then I MIGHT consider they were correct about MK's phone not being at the dumpsite by the 1013pm download.

 

[wasnt_me]

Now it'd be good to hear what could be added or removed to exhonerate them.

 

[Malkmus]

The victim's family is focused on the fact that two pieces of DNA are but a small piece of the total evidence, that two of the murderers changed their alibis 9 times and that even thought DNA was found 6 weeks after the murder, that time delay is meaningless in the big picture. Why are these facts of the case not discussed? Instead, every excuse in the book is provided for two of the murderers, excuses that even they didn't come up with.

I am convinced that if Meredith was from the US and Knox was from the UK, the arguments surrounding this case would be very different.

What would you like to discuss about these claims? There weren't nine alibis, there were two. Raf has always claimed to be at the apartment and Amanda said she was also at the apartment and changed that once to say she was at the cottage.
As far as the claim that people are convicted on DNA evidence years after the fact - the cases I read about all involved DNA properly collected and stored within a timely manner, and analyzed years later.

If the crime happened in the US the prosecution would still have to struggle with a motive that makes no sense and forensic evidence that wasn't collected or analyzed correctly.Do you convictions are never overturned in the U.S.?

 

[Malkmus]

So no one cares what those representing the victim think?

Why doesn't that surprise me.

We care what they think in general, and sympathize with their plight. They're opinion of whether the courts made the right decision during the first trial, however, has no bearing on whether Amanda Knox and Rafaelle Sollecito are actually guilty of this crime or not. Since many of us don't think the jurors got it right, why should any extra weight be given to the family's opinion?

 

[otto]

What would you like to discuss about these claims? There weren't nine alibis, there were two. Raf has always claimed to be at the apartment and Amanda said she was also at the apartment and changed that once to say she was at the cottage.
As far as the claim that people are convicted on DNA evidence years after the fact - the cases I read about all involved DNA properly collected and stored within a timely manner, and analyzed years later.

If the crime happened in the US the prosecution would still have to struggle with a motive that makes no sense and forensic evidence that wasn't collected or analyzed correctly.Do you convictions are never overturned in the U.S.?

The father of the victim, who probably knows more about this case than everyone, has said that between the two, they provided 9 alibis. Would you doubt the father of the victim? Would you suppose that he is making things up, or is it quite possible that he knows exactly whereof he speaks?

Apparently Mr Kercher is aware of cases where DNA was collected years after the fact and it was accepted as evidence.

Does any motive for murder make sense?

 

[otto]

We care what they think in general, and sympathize with their plight. They're opinion of whether the courts made the right decision during the first trial, however, has no bearing on whether Amanda Knox and Rafaelle Sollecito are actually guilty of this crime or not. Since many of us don't think the jurors got it right, why should any extra weight be given to the family's opinion?

I don't think that the handful of people that think the jury got it wrong has any bearing on the legal case ... at least I hope not.

The victim's family, on the other hand, had a legal representative in the courtroom during the trial. If anyone knows what happened during the trial, it would be the victim's family ... not some people in another country. On that basis, I would give the family's conclusions about the trial far more weight.

 

[SMK]

I don't think that the handful of people that think the jury got it wrong has any bearing on the legal case ... at least I hope not.

The victim's family, on the other hand, had a legal representative in the courtroom during the trial. If anyone knows what happened during the trial, it would be the victim's family ... not some people in another country. On that basis, I would give the family's conclusions about the trial far more weight.

Obviously, the victim's family's representation will be biased toward the prosecution. I don't want to get into it, but I have read long posts on the JRandi forum saying John Kercher is just plain wrong, and that he has not attempted to be fair at all about Knox and Sollecito; nor has the legal rep. I excuse him of course and feel sympathy for his position because of his grief. It is too much to ask that he now ponder Knox and Sollecito perhaps being innocent, and I do not expect him to.

 

[SMK]

I don't think that the handful of people that think the jury got it wrong has any bearing on the legal case ... at least I hope not.

The victim's family, on the other hand, had a legal representative in the courtroom during the trial. If anyone knows what happened during the trial, it would be the victim's family ... not some people in another country. On that basis, I would give the family's conclusions about the trial far more weight.

It is hardly "a handful". I mean the attorneys, authors, groups, CNN, 48 hours, books, DNA experts, etc.

 

[otto]

I was trying to understand what Mr Kercher may have meant when he said that reliable DNA had been found years after the fact and I started thinking about the Morgan Harrington case. She went missing in October and was found about four months later. She had been in a farmer's field the entire time and her remains were mostly skeletonized. Her mother described her remains as beautiful bones. The weather had been harsh with wind, snow, rain, sun, freezing, melting, yet ... there was DNA. The DNA could be matched to another assualt, but has yet to be matched to a suspect.

If DNA could survive those conditions (the exact location of the DNA was never made public) and be considered reliable, why would DNA that had been in a closed bedroom - a room where the suspect claimed he had never been - be considered unreliable because it was collected 6 weeks after the fact?

I'm sure there are more examples like this. That makes me more inclined to believe that the DNA was not contaminated at the scene. If anything, it would have been contiminated in the lab. However, the problem with that scenario is that because it was collected 6 weeks later, it was tested separate from all the other DNA, making it less likely that it was contaminated in the lab.

 

[otto]

It is hardly "a handful". I mean the attorneys, authors, groups, CNN, 48 hours, books, DNA experts, etc.

It's interesting that you lump CNN into the mix. I agree that one has to lump CNN into the mix after seeing the editing job on the interview with the prosecutor, the childhood pictures of Knox in connection with case updates, and the misrepresentation of photos of police breaking a door. CNN has released propaganda on the case, not factual reporting, so we have to conclude that regardless of the facts, CNN wants to skew the information to influence an outcome.

48 hours ... we have the reporter suggesting first that it's not possible to hear sounds of people running on the metal stairs from the nearby building, but in his re-staging, it is possible. He kind of defeats his own theory, but then rushes past that to continue arguing the opposite.

There have been books on the case, none of which make any solid arguments about what really happened. They are theories and speculations, some with more exaggerations than others.

Even Donald Trump and some politicians have spoken out about the case, although I doubt any of them have actually studied the case.

What we have, in my opinion, is a successful PR campaign. I wonder how those same people would feel if they had been on the jury, or if the victim had been their daughter. What I see is an American woman found guilty of murder in Italy. American women are found guilty of murder in the US all the time, even pretty ones from nice families, yet with Knox we are supposed to believe that pretty women from nice families don't murder.

 

[dgfred]

To me, it's the most frustrating aspect of this discussion. Whenever the forensic evidence against AK or RS is shown to be lacking (which is invariably), the discussion somehow slides to irrelevant details such as cartwheels and how AK dressed on the stand. When that doesn't work, the discussion shifts again to accusations against AK's parents, and then back to "but the jury said she was guilty."

Oh, that goes both ways too.

Staged break in - wasn't staged
Luminal prints - wasn't blood
Lying - was coerced
Lying - false confessions
Erratic behavior - AK being AK
dna found - contaminated or planted
clean up around bathmat - wasn't cleaned up
t-shirt to court - fully appropriate for court
full trial and jurors say guilty - they got it wrong, we are right.

etc, etc... it IS a vicious cycle it seems for both points of view.

 

[otto]

Oh, that goes both ways too.

Staged break in - wasn't staged
Luminal prints - wasn't blood
Lying - was coerced
Lying - false confessions
Erratic behavior - AK being AK
dna found - contaminated or planted
clean up around bathmat - wasn't cleaned up
t-shirt to court - fully appropriate for court
full trial and jurors say guilty - they got it wrong, we are right.

etc, etc... it IS a vicious cycle it seems for both points of view.

Naturally there as some points in the prosecution case that are weaker, and those points are emphasized by some people. Other points are stronger, and those are emphasized by others. This is true of all trials.

The luminol evidence was blood, but because it is incriminating some prefer to suggest that it is fruit juice. By that argument, many murder scenes seem to be covered with fruit juice.

The staged break in has never been successfully argued away. It is what it is. A real burglar would have climbed onto the balcony, just like Rudy did during a previous break in.

No one coerced the pair to lie about their dinner time, they did that all by themselves ... and then the lies kept coming.

Amanda's behavior is so erratic that one defense lawyer decided to call a spade a spade and very generously compared her to the fictional nut Amelie.

DNA at every crime scene can be argued to be planted, contamination, corruption, incompetence ... a very common argument in trials.

The bathmat clean up is one of the more entertaining points, with some arguments implying there was only half a foot - not sure where the other half is.

Knox has finally learned to dress like other people her age that attend court, but it took her too long to straighten up.

One argument that has been often raised is that because the jury was not sequestered, they violated any rules of remaining objective. When a jury is not sequestered in the US (Brad Cooper), that is not a problem. This leads one to believe that only Italian jurors are incapable of remaining objective during trial proceedings.