Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #14

[SMK]

I don't know why we're still harping on this.

This is a classic attempt to explain away evidence that isn't true but that LE says is "irrefutable." The dialogue goes like this:

LE: Well, if you can just clear up this one problem we have, we can put the whole matter to rest and you can be on your way. (Emphasis added to isolate the "carrot".)

RS: Uh, well, maybe I accidentally pricked MK when she was eating dinner at my house.

LE: Ah, ha! AK (or FR or even RS himself) told us MK was never at your house! You are lying and only the killer would lie.

And four years later this is still raised as evidence against RS.

Moral: never talk to police no matter how innocent you are or how helpful they appear.

Ah, ok, I see. I am sometimes murky on some of the details. I had thought RS had offered up this on his own, to family. I understand what you mean, and thank you for the clarification. I do fear , for example, my son ever speaking to police without an attorney, now that I am more fully aware of what can occur during even an informal interrogation.

 

[SMK]

But Mignini and his controversies aside, aren't you bothered by the fact that there is dried semen on MK's pillow that has never been DNA tested?

For all we know, there is an unindicted co-conspirator wandering free!

(Don't misunderstand me: I think the semen probably belongs to RG. But that's hardly something we should leave to assumptions!)

I agree, it ought to have been tested, yes.

 

[Nova]

Ah, ok, I see. I am sometimes murky on some of the details. I had thought RS had offered up this on his own, to family. I understand what you mean, and thank you for the clarification. I do fear , for example, my son ever speaking to police without an attorney, now that I am more fully aware of what can occur during even an informal interrogation.

I honestly don't know when RS made the statement about MK getting pricked with the knife.

My little play wasn't offered for historical accuracy, but to explain the thinking that goes into such a lie.

***

ETA In his diary, RS mentions that he is being held because MK's DNA is on one of his kitchen knives. He doesn't write it as an ILE claim, but as a scientific fact he has been told.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Raffaele.html

Per the site below, RS came up with "pricking" story during interrogation by ILE:

http://willsavive.blogspot.com/2011/01/facts-about-double-dna-knife.html


So there, SMK, I guess the impression accidentally given by my post was true: the story about MK eating at RS' apartment was something RS told interrogators under pressure.

 

[SMK]

I honestly don't know when RS made the statement about MK getting pricked with the knife.

My little play wasn't offered for historical accuracy, but to explain the thinking that goes into such a lie.

***

ETA In his diary, RS mentions that he is being held because MK's DNA is on one of his kitchen knives. He doesn't write it as an ILE claim, but as a scientific fact he has been told.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Raffaele.html

Per the site below, RS came up with "pricking" story during interrogation by ILE:

http://willsavive.blogspot.com/2011/01/facts-about-double-dna-knife.html


So there, SMK, I guess the impression accidentally given by my post was true: the story about MK eating at RS' apartment was something RS told interrogators under pressure.

Yes, and that does shed a different light on it. It was always a real sticking point with me, so this sort of smooths it over. Thanks.

 

[wasnt_me]

PMF has several in the gallery section.

Then they should be easy for you to find and show as others have done when proving a point.

 

[wasnt_me]

Where are you getting this information?

I believe Nova is understating it. It wasn't National television. It was INTERNATIONAL INTERNET via live video stream.

 

[wasnt_me]

They said later that the washer was not warm, and that the clothes had been put in the night before, by Meredith. Originally, Filomina was hinting that Knox had put clothes in as part of the clean up.

Whick is precisely why one needs caution when choosing to believe what else she said like:

1. MK NEVER locked her door. (never say never...)
2. Glass all on top of EVERYTHING (versus not beaneath anything)
3. Her room was clean (or not.)
4. She closed the shutters (or not).

and now

5. The washer/dryer was warm.

I mean, how did she even think to go over and look at the dryer and touch in the first place for? What idiot murderer does the incriminating laundry and calls the police at the same time?

 

[Nova]

Whick is precisely why one needs caution when choosing to believe what else she said like:

1. MK NEVER locked her door. (never say never...)
2. Glass all on top of EVERYTHING (versus not beaneath anything)
3. Her room was clean (or not.)
4. She closed the shutters (or not).

and now

5. The dryer was warm.

I mean, how did she even think to go over and look at the dryer and touch in the first place for? What idiot murderer does the incriminating laundry and calls the police at the same time?

Am I wrong or did no one ever testify as to whether there was glass UNDER the tossed clothing and other items? Because I can certainly see glass ending up on top of AND under items in the process of tossing the room.

 

[SMK]

Whick is precisely why one needs caution when choosing to believe what else she said like:

1. MK NEVER locked her door. (never say never...)
2. Glass all on top of EVERYTHING (versus not beaneath anything)
3. Her room was clean (or not.)
4. She closed the shutters (or not).

and now

5. The dryer was warm.

I mean, how did she even think to go over and look at the dryer and touch in the first place for? What idiot murderer does the incriminating laundry and calls the police at the same time?

Excellent point. BTW, it was the washer, not the dryer (there was no dryer), but point well made all the same!:rocker:

 

[wasnt_me]

I would love to know what meaning Foxy Knoxy has? I have seen the various journalists take on it but funny when a person truly thinks about it why do so many think of it as being sexual?

It's disgusting, especially since it was a name given to her in childhood. Anyone advancing that the childhood pet name is sexy is a gross person.

 

[wasnt_me]

Others have explained all this better than I. I happily and readily bow to their interest in footprints.

I take your bow, but I decline to engage with the contentions around it because we already had a meaningful conversation about it, but contenders act as if it never happened. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. It's very tiresome to repeat valid arguments in a room of deaf ears.

 

[wasnt_me]

Once again the "bra clasp" ... don't know how many times I have to point this out - DNA does not show how or when cells got to where they are found.

What would be important would be to identify the type of cells found on the clasp - are they seaman, blood, saliva, or simply skin cells; then use DNA to id who's they are.
But the clasp has been left for some time unattended, then it was passed around and touched by gloved hands that who knows what they touched before - would you want this sort of "evidence" used against you if you were on trail?

I find it very funny that the court decisions in this case are being upheld as gold when they are being appealed as we speak.

Whether they withstand the appeal, even Italy knows its court is fallable. If Italy believed in its convictions as strongly as guilters, then Italy would have no appeals process at all.

What is the purpose of an appeals process when the court verdicts are so immaculately correct? What's the implication of a 50% overturn rate for verdicts that are so prestinely passed down? What does that mean for our convicted Mig? That his verdict is just and will also be upheld? Then he is also a convict and criminal.

If anyone diasgrees, then we will finally have solid evidence in this thread that Italy's court decisions are not in fact infallable.

 

[wasnt_me]

Your evasion is noted.

Where? In the court of "it doesn't matter?"

 

[wasnt_me]

OK. so you are saying had Mignini been away on, say, a 2 week vacation during that period, the MOF stuff would not have been brought into the media, Doug Preston would not have opened a website about it, and rather than a sex game theory, they may have simply said "evidence of 3 at cottage. Evidence of some sex assault by Guede". And then the affirmations/counter- refutations would have been less sensational, on both sides? :seeya: so I am at least partly correct??:waitasec:

People in hell want ice water, so I guess this will be the first admission that the prosecution was wrong about the sex game theory? Because if they were right about it, vacations, or MOF or Preston and nothing else would have precluded the truth.

 

[wasnt_me]

It wasn't continuous.

She wasn't due a lawyer until she went in front of the judge IIRC.

Wasn't a suspect until she accused Patrick of the murder.

There was an interpreter there, so she did have one.

The 'well' was perfectly fine as the Italian people are competant to not be 'poisoned' by salacious media reports and do the job they were required to do.

Why are you challenging that these items when "the court" rightfully decided that the interrogation information was not admissable because of these reasons? I thought that court was always right? What happened?

 

[wasnt_me]

Ah, ok, I see. I am sometimes murky on some of the details. I had thought RS had offered up this on his own, to family. I understand what you mean, and thank you for the clarification. I do fear , for example, my son ever speaking to police without an attorney, now that I am more fully aware of what can occur during even an informal interrogation.

We can never know how the conversation went, because there is no record of it; however, there's no other way RS would have brought up this. He would have had to have been asked directly about this knife and about MK's DNA on it, not blood, DNA.

Logically, an RS would have said he had no clue. So he would have had to have been pressed to offer more.

What's completely ignored by the other side is that Mig taped other "witness" statements, even ones made in his office. It is unacceptable that the primary witnesses' statements were not recorded. FR's was recorded. Why not AK or RS's? Mig admitted to this in the CNN transcript.

So again, I do not know why we are debating it, because the other side has already conceded that if the court says it, it's true. And the court ruled the statements inadmissable in the murder trial. So why are they now contesting the basis of that court decision just because people on AK's side have repeated it?

 

[wasnt_me]

Am I wrong or did no one ever testify as to whether there was glass UNDER the tossed clothing and other items? Because I can certainly see glass ending up on top of AND under items in the process of tossing the room.

I don't think I've ever heard of anything more said than RF's statement about glass being on top of everything, which is impossible, as glass might also slide beneath things as it flies across a floor (a poor example would be the bed or dresser, but you get the idea.) Because they didn't bother to get her out of there or take pictures until 3pm, we'll never know.

 

[Allusonz]

Where are you getting this information?

How about here. This is Dr. Greg Hampikian talking about both the knife and bra clasp showing what they recorded specific to the bra clasp not including how they improperly took samples from other areas (which we now know was LCN DNA on the bra clasp)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vEFPZgW9HA

 

[Allusonz]

I don't think I've ever heard of anything more said than RF's statement about glass being on top of everything, which is impossible, as glass might also slide beneath things as it flies across a floor (a poor example would be the bed or dresser, but you get the idea.) Because they didn't bother to get her out of there or take pictures until 3pm, we'll never know.

True!!! As well they never had any experts testify otherwise. Of course anything they would try to do forensically would be questioned as she had been allowed to enter her room. As I believe Malkmus and Nova have pointed out the glass spray cannot be explained as staged

 

[Allusonz]

We can never know how the conversation went, because there is no record of it; however, there's no other way RS would have brought up this. He would have had to have been asked directly about this knife and about MK's DNA on it, not blood, DNA.

Logically, an RS would have said he had no clue. So he would have had to have been pressed to offer more.

What's completely ignored by the other side is that Mig taped other "witness" statements, even ones made in his office. It is unacceptable that the primary witnesses' statements were not recorded. FR's was recorded. Why not AK or RS's? Mig admitted to this in the CNN transcript.

So again, I do not know why we are debating it, because the other side has already conceded that if the court says it, it's true. And the court ruled the statements inadmissable in the murder trial. So why are they now contesting the basis of that court decision just because people on AK's side have repeated it?

Another thing to note as well is that he admitted to being at the police station during the CNN interview and was NOT "called in"