Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #14

[dgfred]

Well, just to begin with one small thing: Knox was upset, because there were pictures of her with Meredith, which conveyed affection between the 2 girls. I would be upset, too.

But not on her phone, sent to anyone else, her camera, social network pages, etc :innocent: . Wonder how they got to the computer then?

In addition, whether she had 'affectionate' pictures OR not... neither really show guilt or her being innocent IMO.

 

[SMK]

But not on her phone, sent to anyone else, her camera, social network pages, etc :innocent: . Wonder how they got to the computer then?

:razz:

 

[dgfred]

It seems to me that in every single trial I follow, some errors are made. There were some errors in the investigation into the murder of Meredith Kercher as well, but not so many that we can conclude that all the evidence is tainted, or that anything was seriously wrong with the forensic analysis. Americans are proud of their forensic methods and courts systems, and it seems that Italians have the same pride in their country. I see no reason to read anything into this. I certainly don't see this as a reason to conclude that the victim's lawyer is aggressive and money hungry.

Deflection from looking at the real things that got her convicted. Attacking everything and everybody that doesn't agree.

 

[dgfred]

:razz:

When you send the 'spittle' my way, I feel like you got my point.

What do you predict/think RG will testify to and about?

 

[SMK]

When you send the 'spittle' my way, I feel like you got my point.

What do you predict/think RG will testify to and about?

I guess that is true......
Well, I am not expecting him to tell the truth. Nor do I think there will be a "break-through" moment. He will be self-serving. It would be amazing if he exonerated the two, but that is about as likely to happen as Mignini doing so. I guess the best to be hoped for, is that the Defense has long awaited this. And have a plan. And will wage a "frontal attack" that he does not suspect is coming. They best be prepared....

 

[Nova]

I'm a little disappointed that so much is made of referencing the fact that Amanda said her visible blood was not in the sink the day before the murder. Knox told multiple lies in the days after the murder. She was proven to be a liar because her stories were refuted with facts.

Fast forward a couple of years and Knox is in the courtroom testifying as a witness in her own defense. This is a completely different situation than the days following the murder. She is sworn to tell the truth and during questioning, under these circumstances, we can only hope that she told some truth, although I doubt she told all the truth.

Should we assume that everything that Knox said is a lie, that everything she said it true, that some of what she said it true? When I mention Knox's sworn testimony about her blood, it is suggested that I am cherry picking what I believe.

Is it really necessary to criticize people that comment on this case and if so, why? In debating this case, it is significant to mention Knox's testimony regarding the blood in the sink. Does that mean that I believe this? No. It means I am discussing a case and hopefully bringing relevant points to the discussion. Instead of the debate going forward, I have to read that I cherry pick what to believe.

otto, we get it. AK does not remember seeing blood on the sink on the door before the murder. The objection was to your converting that into a scientific certainty that no blood was present. That objection would be the same regardless of who was testifying.

The other issue was our general amusement of your swearing by AK's testimony when you have so often insisted that nothing she says can be trusted. Yes, I do understand why this testimony is different, but your stance is amusing all the same.

And BBM: that's EXACTLY what most of us have been saying: that AK was under intense pressure during the days following the murder and her lack of truthfulness in that context tells us little to nothing about her veracity on other occasions.

 

[Nova]

What information relevant to the investigation was held in the computer from Knox? Since information was obtained from Raffaele's computer, and it was fried when they tried to make a second copy, what difference does it make? Frying the phone (in the case I referenced) happened in the US and it made no difference in the court decisions and proceedings.

I don't know whether the destruction of the phone made a difference or not. According to whom?

I don't know what valuable (and for all you know, exculpatory) info was contained on the computers that were destroyed.

That you accept LE ineptitude so cavalierly is what is so alarming about pro-guilter reasoning.

 

[Nova]

But not on her phone, sent to anyone else, her camera, social network pages, etc :innocent: . Wonder how they got to the computer then?

In addition, whether she had 'affectionate' pictures OR not... neither really show guilt or her being innocent IMO.

Since the prosecution was allowed to speculate--even invent--friction between AK and MK, it would only have been fair to show pictures of them being affectionate with one another.

Not a smoking gun, I agree, but yet another example of how much of the case against AK and RS is invented out of whole cloth.

 

[dgfred]

Oh yeah, 'whole cloth' :innocent: .

 

[dgfred]

And 'invent' friction is another :innocent:... shame on them for taking what Meredith's friends said her comments regarding AK were.

 

[otto]

Well, just to begin with one small thing: Knox was upset, because there were pictures of her with Meredith, which conveyed affection between the 2 girls. I would be upset, too.

If that's the case, and Knox is in the photos, then she didn't take the photos. I'm sure that those photos were still available after her computer fried. Clearly they weren't be relevant to the case - since they haven't surfaced.

 

[wasnt_me]

There is a transcript of the Skype call on Perugia Murder File right now, on their current open forum. Of course Rudy was trying to explain away any idea that he was responsible. I guess I can paste some of it if I supply their link:




a bit more of an excerpt: Hope it is OK to post this: The Link is below. This is all from PMF:

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=375&sid=d8b8a42a3ed1be5ecd30de9693c24a9e&start=2250

Well, If RG can be believed and we know that he can't, but if he can, then he tells us that the murder happened during the time period that RS and AK have proof of where they were.

He says 920 to 930pm.

One thing is obvious. No matter what you believe, it's pretty dang on obvious that the murder took place when she got home.

Because you cannot tell me that she left her friend at what--850pm, called her parents at 856pm, the call got cut off, but she managed to meet RG, "fool around but stop because there was no condom," then check her drawer and complain about money, then he goes to the bathroom and sits there for 5 minutes, and an attack starts all within 30 minutes.

Also, this scream heard round the world, if it happened before 930pm, was NOT heard by all the people who claim to have heard at what--between 1100--midnight? Help me out if I got that part wrong.

Of RG's statements, what I can believe is that he arrived at 838pm and MK wasn't there. and he thinks the murder was over by 930pm.

That, I believe. I guess because if falls in line with that 856pm phone call that was cut off. RG never mentions that she called her mother, does he? Or tried to call her mom?

Also, I don't know if he gave this story before AK and RS's alibis came out or before the TOD came out in the papers. I'd think that if he knew what the alibis were and if he knew the prosecution would allege a later time of death, then he would have made the story match that. This is why I believe him about the times. I think he didn't know the times involved in the case, so he just went by what was most likely the right times of day.

 

[wasnt_me]

They heard from the ones that had written the Court during the first trial. This guy just popped out of the blue

What I still find amazing is all these inmates, whom it has now been shown one is now being investigated regarding his testimony, had nothing to gain from testifying still did even after trying to be silenced

Wonder how many witnesses that supported the prosecution side were "investigated...."

 

[SMK]

RG never mentions that she called her mother, does he? Or tried to call her mom?

Also, I don't know if he gave this story before AK and RS's alibis came out or before the TOD came out in the papers. I'd think that if he knew what the alibis were and if he knew the prosecution would allege a later time of death, then he would have made the story match that. This is why I believe him about the times. I think he didn't know the times involved in the case, so he just went by what was most likely the right times of day.

(Snipped by SMK for emphasis)
No , he doesn't mention the call, but the call was aborted. Either she was surprised suddenly and hung up (Hendry's Lone Wolf coming out of the bathroom) or it was one of those things where you speed dial, and think, no, have to do such and such first ...
Yes, I think he can be trusted on the times for the same reasons.

 

[wasnt_me]

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh: too funny

The italian justice system is like a box of chocolates....you never know what you're going to get!

 

[otto]

otto, we get it. AK does not remember seeing blood on the sink on the door before the murder. The objection was to your converting that into a scientific certainty that no blood was present. That objection would be the same regardless of who was testifying.

The other issue was our general amusement of your swearing by AK's testimony when you have so often insisted that nothing she says can be trusted. Yes, I do understand why this testimony is different, but your stance is amusing all the same.

And BBM: that's EXACTLY what most of us have been saying: that AK was under intense pressure during the days following the murder and her lack of truthfulness in that context tells us little to nothing about her veracity on other occasions.

Who is trying to twist the facts? Did she not remember, or did she clearly state that the blood was not there?

GM: Now, the last time you were in the little bathroom, before leaving the house, it might have been more or less around 4 o'clock?

AK: Around then, yes.

GM: All right. You knew that Filomena wasn't home?

AK: I knew that she had gone to a party that afternoon.

GM: A party. Fine. And Mezzetti?

AK: Laura, you know, I didn't know where she was. I knew she wasn't in the house when I was there, but I didn't really know where she was.

GM: When you saw the bathroom for the last time, were there traces of blood in it?

AK: No.

Knox Trial Testimony

 

[wasnt_me]

RG is rather specific about the times, isn't he? Although parts of what he says are obviously self-serving, it's hard to see what he would gain by lying about the times.

And if the prosecution is correct and RG only came to the cottage with AK and RS later in the evening, how would RG know that MK was in fact at home by 9pm or thereabouts?

Exactly and precisely!

I never ever even thought of that.

You are so damn right. This alone ought to get Ak and RS off the hook. Seriously. If he knew MK got home at friggin 9pm, then we have solid proof that RS and AK were at RS's house at that time.

Nova, sometimes, which 99% of the time, you're just brilliant. The one 1%, you simply glow.

Can you fly to Italy by the 27th to make sure someone brings this up?

In the meantime, I'd like some guilters to please explain how he knew this, and how he arrived at the same time AK and RS did, but he knows this. if the explanation is plausible, I'll readily let this piece go.

 

[wasnt_me]

I can't believe you actually asked that!

The destruction of three--count 'em three--hard drives comes to mind...

not only destroying the 3 nova, but saving over the time stamps in the only computer that was left, as well. Remember, they didn't copy the harddrive before going in and accessing files, so all the files started to say last opened November 6th, which shows when the police accessed them, deleting over when RS accessed them.

 

[wasnt_me]

But not on her phone, sent to anyone else, her camera, social network pages, etc :innocent: . Wonder how they got to the computer then?

In addition, whether she had 'affectionate' pictures OR not... neither really show guilt or her being innocent IMO.

While this is true, we do no tknow that she uploaded from her phone. no matter how she uploaded, we do not know that she didn't then delete off that device to save room. She already said she'd do that with text messages to save room on the phone. I erase stuff off my phone after putting it on my computer. I erase it off my camera as well.

I don't know if she ever had those pictures emailed to others or put up on a social networking site. Did she? because if so, the police could have pulled from there, and AK never would have used that as an excuse because she'd still have the pictures if they were housed on FB or something. So you're making a lot of assumptions to get to your conclusion.

 

[otto]

I don't know whether the destruction of the phone made a difference or not. According to whom?

I don't know what valuable (and for all you know, exculpatory) info was contained on the computers that were destroyed.

That you accept LE ineptitude so cavalierly is what is so alarming about pro-guilter reasoning.

I may be one of those people that trusts jury decisions, but at least I'm in good company because nearly everyone (excluding some convict's family members) trusts jury decisions.