Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #13

[SMK]

:waitasec:So I guess what I was thinking in the post above, is, are they going to take the Massei and Micheli reports into account, or just the evidence being reviewed?

 

[SMK]

I think most of us from the comments here are being very cautious with respect to everything being presented.

I agree, Allusonz. And yeah, we must be cautiously optimistic. I am just one of those real worriers. Guess because I have been shocked by bad outcomes too many times in my personal life, and with some social and political events (like when John Kerry lost in 2004). Do not mind me.......:crazy:

 

[wasnt_me]

Directing the murder or wielding the knife--either role would make her just as guilty.

To me, the greater significance of Mignini's countless theories of the crime is that if the evidence supports all of them, then it doesn't prove any one of them specifically.

The problem is, AK can't have her hand on the kitchen knife and be stabbing MK if AK is not in Mk's room. So I don't know if Mig was serious about this statement, but if he was, then the knife must go right out the window.

AK would have to be pretty powerful to tell RS and RG to go in there and assault and kill MK and then they actually go do it.

 

[wasnt_me]

I know, I meant the prints attributed to Amanda. How do we know they were not there prior to the murder as she lived there, and must have walked barefoot in the cottage many times to and fro, from shower, etc.

Thanks. In my point you quoted I put that she did JUST that, but on November 2, MK's blood was on the floor when she did it. AK already admitted to showering, which means she had no shoes on. So she must have walked on RG's bloody bathmat and on RG's prints in the hallway while her feet were wet. If RG did rinse off in the shower, she may have gotten that material on her feet from the floor of the shower, too. It would be a possible explanation to why Stefani insists it's some type of blood, though the tests didn't register it. If she just walked through blood that was already there and try, it'd might be understandable that she'd get low traces on her bare feet.

 

[wasnt_me]

sniped for brevity:


My gosh that sounds gross - using a messy bath mat from the floor as a towel...
wonder if she was stoned....

yeah, by admitting to that, she definitely proved whatever people were saying about MK complaining that she wasn't good on hygiene. I guess either that or run to her room naked. I would have run for it.

 

[wasnt_me]

Fine, Fred. I agree.
But I don't put people on ignore, fyi.

You can do that? Oh, bless you!

Oh, but wait. I'd still see them in the "quotes..."
:banghead:

 

[SMK]

This Professor's article on Luciano Aviello does not make Aviello sound promising, at all:
http://www.americanmafia.com/Feature_Articles_462.html

 

[wasnt_me]

I"As Micheli argued, only someone who had been present at the assault would know that she has been sexually assaulted and staged the crime as a rape. If Guede was the only assailant, why would he stage the body? why would he cover her body? why would he lock the bedroom door?" So then I have to wonder, will these kinds of thoughts come up with this independent panel of reviewers? Or are they to keep away from this kind of thinking, and only look specifically at the facts and data they are reviewing? I suppose I am still a bit confused re this....

.

I don't subscribe to arguments like this. This argument is full of fallacies because it assumes to know the murderer. I would ask the reverse of every question.

Who says the body is staged? Why can't he have dragged her from beside the wardrobe and propped her on a pillow to gain rape access? Why can't the untested liquid be semen? Why can't a rapist be unable to ejaculate if it isn't semen? why isn't the bruising adequate enough to be rape? What degree of force does a man have to use on a woman who can barely even breathe?

Why can't the murderer cover MK? why wouldn't he lock the door? in this case, it would be RG's first murder, we guess, so maybe he horrified himself. Maybe he covered her because he KNEW her. Maybe he locked the door to delay discovery. Who knows why, but to say these things are the REASONS Ak did it, that's not logical.

What if AK did do it, but didn't cover the body or lock the door? We'd rule her out as a suspect?

That's why, to me, behavioral evidence takes low prescedence. If I see more concrete proof, then I can add the behavior as icing on the cake, so to speak. For example, look at all the evidence against RG. Then we have the behavior that he skipped town. Given the solid evidence against him, I can ice the cake by saying he behaved like a guilty person. If there was just as little evidence of him in that cottage as the other two, then I'd wonder why he left town, but I can't say doing so makes him the killer.

I'm surprised the court didn't use this logic:

Keys, cell phone and money were missing--RG has been caught stealing keys, cell phones, and money.

Rock thrown threw window--RG's robbery scene before had rock thru window.

Knife victim--RG threatened victim with a knife before and had stolen a knife from another crime scene.

As for did RG act alone, when he was caught at the nursery, he was alone. When he allegedly threatened that one man with a knife to get out of the house, he was alone. I don't know about the law office, but I'm guessing he was alone. For some reason, whenever I do think of the law office crime, I do picture him not being alone. I don't know why. But since they have accused AK and RS of participating, though there's no proof, that means it's possible that they'd buy an accomplice with RG that wasn't AK or RS.

I think I'm rambling at this point, but I think it would be good to prove RG had an accomplice just because the prosecution has done a bang up job convincing people somehow that RG couldn't overtake MK on his own. I believe he could and most likely did. But if the defence can raise reasonabe doubt, even to the point that maybe RG acted with that guy's brother, and the jury accepts it, because it gives them more than one culprit, then that's good for the defence. Bad for us, who want actual justice, though.

 

[wasnt_me]

The mobster guy's story is ver weird.

He seems to be a professional witness, or professional "wanna be" witness, like that druggie the prosecution had on the stand.

Still, it's so odd, because according to the article above, he was ingratiating himself to the police in the past, so where does this turn to the defense factor in with his motives this time?

Unless he'd appealed to the cops first, who didn't listen to him at all. maybe that's the point of bringing him in, but I wouldn't do it, because he's already proven himself to be unreliable, just like that druggie witness for the prosecution.

I almost hate to ask this, but is there proof he EVEN HAS a brother?

 

[Nova]

The problem is, AK can't have her hand on the kitchen knife and be stabbing MK if AK is not in Mk's room. So I don't know if Mig was serious about this statement, but if he was, then the knife must go right out the window.

AK would have to be pretty powerful to tell RS and RG to go in there and assault and kill MK and then they actually go do it.

Mignini made the statement in response to the reporter questioning whether the knife would hold up to re-examination. Mignini shrugged it off and made the statement, apparently arguing that AK is guilty even if his every theory of the crime is incorrect.

 

[Nova]

yeah, by admitting to that, she definitely proved whatever people were saying about MK complaining that she wasn't good on hygiene. I guess either that or run to her room naked. I would have run for it.

Of course she'd found the front door unlocked, assumed one of the roommates was running a short errand and so left the door unlocked while she showered.

So for all she knew, she would come to face-to-face with a roommate (and even that roommate's friends or boyfriend) when she left the bathroom. I might not be so brazen about nudity under those conditions.

 

[Nova]

I don't subscribe to arguments like this. This argument is full of fallacies because it assumes to know the murderer. I would ask the reverse of every question.

Who says the body is staged? Why can't he have dragged her from beside the wardrobe and propped her on a pillow to gain rape access? Why can't the untested liquid be semen? Why can't a rapist be unable to ejaculate if it isn't semen? why isn't the bruising adequate enough to be rape? What degree of force does a man have to use on a woman who can barely even breathe?

Why can't the murderer cover MK? why wouldn't he lock the door? in this case, it would be RG's first murder, we guess, so maybe he horrified himself. Maybe he covered her because he KNEW her. Maybe he locked the door to delay discovery. Who knows why, but to say these things are the REASONS Ak did it, that's not logical.

What if AK did do it, but didn't cover the body or lock the door? We'd rule her out as a suspect?

That's why, to me, behavioral evidence takes low prescedence. If I see more concrete proof, then I can add the behavior as icing on the cake, so to speak. For example, look at all the evidence against RG. Then we have the behavior that he skipped town. Given the solid evidence against him, I can ice the cake by saying he behaved like a guilty person. If there was just as little evidence of him in that cottage as the other two, then I'd wonder why he left town, but I can't say doing so makes him the killer.

I'm surprised the court didn't use this logic:

Keys, cell phone and money were missing--RG has been caught stealing keys, cell phones, and money.

Rock thrown threw window--RG's robbery scene before had rock thru window.

Knife victim--RG threatened victim with a knife before and had stolen a knife from another crime scene.

As for did RG act alone, when he was caught at the nursery, he was alone. When he allegedly threatened that one man with a knife to get out of the house, he was alone. I don't know about the law office, but I'm guessing he was alone. For some reason, whenever I do think of the law office crime, I do picture him not being alone. I don't know why. But since they have accused AK and RS of participating, though there's no proof, that means it's possible that they'd buy an accomplice with RG that wasn't AK or RS.

I think I'm rambling at this point, but I think it would be good to prove RG had an accomplice just because the prosecution has done a bang up job convincing people somehow that RG couldn't overtake MK on his own. I believe he could and most likely did. But if the defence can raise reasonabe doubt, even to the point that maybe RG acted with that guy's brother, and the jury accepts it, because it gives them more than one culprit, then that's good for the defence. Bad for us, who want actual justice, though.

No, you're not rambling. And we can add smooching, cartwheels, etc., to the dubious behavioral evidence.

 

[Nova]

The mobster guy's story is ver weird.

He seems to be a professional witness, or professional "wanna be" witness, like that druggie the prosecution had on the stand.

Still, it's so odd, because according to the article above, he was ingratiating himself to the police in the past, so where does this turn to the defense factor in with his motives this time?

Unless he'd appealed to the cops first, who didn't listen to him at all. maybe that's the point of bringing him in, but I wouldn't do it, because he's already proven himself to be unreliable, just like that druggie witness for the prosecution.

I almost hate to ask this, but is there proof he EVEN HAS a brother?

I'm no expert, but I think some snitches just enjoy the attention and the change in their daily routine. It doesn't matter whether which side they help.

 

[SMK]

The mobster guy's story is ver weird.

He seems to be a professional witness, or professional "wanna be" witness, like that druggie the prosecution had on the stand.

Still, it's so odd, because according to the article above, he was ingratiating himself to the police in the past, so where does this turn to the defense factor in with his motives this time?

Unless he'd appealed to the cops first, who didn't listen to him at all. maybe that's the point of bringing him in, but I wouldn't do it, because he's already proven himself to be unreliable, just like that druggie witness for the prosecution.

I almost hate to ask this, but is there proof he EVEN HAS a brother?

Yes, his brother is Antonio Aviello, and he fled Perugia and is a fugitive from justice. I actually had a bit of hope until I read that article about all of his constant stories..... As Nova says, he likely simply enjoys the attention..................

 

[OldSteve]

Mignini made the statement in response to the reporter questioning whether the knife would hold up to re-examination. Mignini shrugged it off and made the statement, apparently arguing that AK is guilty even if his every theory of the crime is incorrect.

He might be right, OldSteve would have to look into her eyes to see if she has a soul - she might be dead inside...

 

[SMK]

Idaho Innocence Project Says Amanda Knox is Not Guilty of MurderMay 24, 2011
Boise, Idaho -- The Idaho Innocence Project is working closely with the case of Amanda Knox the American charged with murder in Italy.

Their independent DNA testing could help set her free.

Doctor Greg Hampikian says Amanda Knox is not guilty of murdering Meredith Kercher in Italy in 2007.

"The DNA evidence shows she wasn't involved at all in a crime. Neither Knox nor her boyfriend was involved in this crime; that's my view," said Dr. Greg Hampikian, Director of the Idaho Innocence Project.

[. . . ]

Hampikian says even though the case is thousands of miles away in Italy, the DNA proof is right in front of their eyes.

"There are more than 100 samples that were processed from the room where the young woman was murdered," said Hampikian.

Hampikian says their independent testing here at the Idaho innocence project at BSU shows that the DNA evidence is not Amanda's and it's not her boyfriend's.

"They collected the DNA; they collected it quite well and I mean they collected a lot. They processed it all, on the victim's body, in her body, on her pocketbook, feces unflushed in a toilet, one guy, who was never in that apartment before, who is in the criminal data base, and it's Rudy Guede," said Hampikian.

[. . . ]

Hampikian says in the end the DNA evidence will exonerate the young American.

"I don't think there's anything that would cause anyone to think she's viable suspect in this case from the forensic evidence there's nothing there," said Hampikian.


http://www.fox12idaho.com/story/14701664/idaho-innocence-project-says-amanda-knox-is-not-guilty-of-murder

ETA:Guess these things have no bearing on the appeals, though OR....does that bolded section at the top mean the defense submitted this to the independent panel???:waitasec:

 

[otto]

Idaho Innocence Project Says Amanda Knox is Not Guilty of MurderMay 24, 2011
Boise, Idaho -- The Idaho Innocence Project is working closely with the case of Amanda Knox the American charged with murder in Italy.

Their independent DNA testing could help set her free.

Doctor Greg Hampikian says Amanda Knox is not guilty of murdering Meredith Kercher in Italy in 2007.

"The DNA evidence shows she wasn't involved at all in a crime. Neither Knox nor her boyfriend was involved in this crime; that's my view," said Dr. Greg Hampikian, Director of the Idaho Innocence Project.

[. . . ]

Hampikian says even though the case is thousands of miles away in Italy, the DNA proof is right in front of their eyes.

"There are more than 100 samples that were processed from the room where the young woman was murdered," said Hampikian.

Hampikian says their independent testing here at the Idaho innocence project at BSU shows that the DNA evidence is not Amanda's and it's not her boyfriend's.

"They collected the DNA; they collected it quite well and I mean they collected a lot. They processed it all, on the victim's body, in her body, on her pocketbook, feces unflushed in a toilet, one guy, who was never in that apartment before, who is in the criminal data base, and it's Rudy Guede," said Hampikian.

[. . . ]

Hampikian says in the end the DNA evidence will exonerate the young American.

"I don't think there's anything that would cause anyone to think she's viable suspect in this case from the forensic evidence there's nothing there," said Hampikian.


http://www.fox12idaho.com/story/14701664/idaho-innocence-project-says-amanda-knox-is-not-guilty-of-murder

ETA:Guess these things have no bearing on the appeals, though OR....does that bolded section at the top mean the defense submitted this to the independent panel???:waitasec:

From your post: "Hampikian says their independent testing here at the Idaho innocence project at BSU shows that the DNA evidence is not Amanda's and it's not her boyfriend's."

So now he has DNA that was collected at the murder scene by forensic experts and he has done independent DNA tests on that evidence? Anyone actually believe that?

 

[otto]

Of course she'd found the front door unlocked, assumed one of the roommates was running a short errand and so left the door unlocked while she showered.

So for all she knew, she would come to face-to-face with a roommate (and even that roommate's friends or boyfriend) when she left the bathroom. I might not be so brazen about nudity under those conditions.

But of course ... front door wide open, blood on the floor ... no need to be concerned. However, regarding the unexplained call to mom before anything happened ... well, she was so concerned about discovering the front door wide open and the blood. In the email to 25 people, she was very concerned about the door and blood too. In fact at the time, she was so concerned she decided to go for lunch, until she called mom before anything happened ... and then she was concerned. I guess Amanda was concerned and unconcerned at the same time. Amelie is such a funny girl - so confusing.

 

[SMK]

From your post: "Hampikian says their independent testing here at the Idaho innocence project at BSU shows that the DNA evidence is not Amanda's and it's not her boyfriend's."

So now he has DNA that was collected at the murder scene by forensic experts and he has done independent DNA tests on that evidence? Anyone actually believe that?

An article I had read about 8 weeks ago said he was, in fact, in Italy in 2008-9, and was doing international consulting, and was called to Perugia on the Kercher case. So yes, I think I do believe it. SEE article below.................

 

[SMK]

From your post: "Hampikian says their independent testing here at the Idaho innocence project at BSU shows that the DNA evidence is not Amanda's and it's not her boyfriend's."

So now he has DNA that was collected at the murder scene by forensic experts and he has done independent DNA tests on that evidence? Anyone actually believe that?

BOISE -- It's a criminal case that gained international attention.
Amanda Knox, the American student tried and convicted of killing her roommate while studying abroad in Perugia, Italy, back in 2007.
That case has ties in Idaho.
Dr. Greg Hampikian is a professor of biology at Boise State University and the director of the Idaho Innocence Project.
“We take cases primarily from Idaho, we're working on several cases right now in Idaho with people who claim to be innocent who are imprisoned,” said Hampikian.
By using DNA evidence, the Idaho Innocence Project has helped to exonerate seven people across the country. Hampikian's research has taken him around the world.
Two years ago, by chance he became involved with one of the most high profile international murder cases.
“I was trying to study how DNA evidence is used in other countries, and when I looked at the data -- I was appalled,” said Hampikian.
The data he was looking at was from the Amanda Knox case, an American student convicted of murdering her roommate at a home they shared in Perugia, Italy. Knox, as well as her ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, and another man, Rudy Guede, were all convicted in the murder of Meredith Kercher.
"The one piece of evidence that tied her to this case had such a low level of DNA with the victim on it that I think it was probably just one of these casual transfers, certainly not from a stabbing,” said Hampikian.
Hampikian volunteered his services to Knox's defense team.
After scouring over the evidence at his lab on the BSU campus, Dr. Hampikian says Knox and Sollecito are innocent of the crime.
DNA evidence points to Rudy Guede as the prime suspect.
“All of the evidence in that room where she was killed, that was collected the day after the murder, all of it point to Rudy Guede, none of it points to Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito,” said Hampikian.
The findings of Hampikian and his team are being used by the Italian defense team.
“It's nice to see that our research gets some sort of hearing,” said Hampikian.http://www.nwcn.com/home/?fId=120425444&fPath=/news/local&fDomain=10227