Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #14

[wasnt_me]

Y'all read there frequently... look for yourself as others have done when curious or doubting information. The mop/bucket is there, so you were wrong.

Please don't tell me where I read, because you don't know where I read or how often.

If you don't want to supply proof of what you claimed, then you'll be wrong until you do. Period. prove it, and I have no problems with it, but I won't go prove your claims. Do it yourself. while you're at it, show of the picture of AK holding the mop, because without that, you can't prove she was holding it either.

 

[wasnt_me]

But, she 'chose' to keep that nickname on her facebook/myspace? and stuff.

Do you think it STILL held the same conotation to her or anyone visiting her page for the first time? Probably she 'liked' the unintended conotation IMO.
It is not the fault/problem for ILE that the MEDIA pounced on this nickname after she is accused of being involved in a murder. It is only natural IMO.

yes, it's only natural to pounce on a childhood nickname and exploit it to sell papers during a murder case. Percisely.

 

[wasnt_me]

Try a valid argument and we can see. So basically at this moment we have a 'double-evasion' situation regarding the bare footprints.

*It's not blood.
*They are anybodys but AK or RS.
*It might be AKs and RSs but it was in fruit juice or something.
*RG floated to the bathroom to take his shoe(s) off to wash off (but still this isn't clean-up), left nothing on the way there or back, left a BARE footprint, then put his shoes back on, re-tracked in the blood, and went straight out the front door.
*Oh, and dripped some blood dead smack on AK's dna in the bathroom and Filomena's room... the tricky rascal.

Does that about cover the 'meaningful conversation' from the innocent side?

I don't even know what you're talking about because I didn't even bother giving you anything in that post. I'll take my cue from you. You read here often, you so should be able to go back and find the valid argument instead of making up things that you think I said. I don't even understand why you're putting all these words in my mouth. Where in my post did I say this stuff EVER in support of innocence? Fruit juice, you're being so absurd. Oh, but the floating thing... that IS what you guys assert RS did to get some half strand of possible DNA on a bra clasp.

 

[wasnt_me]

That would be a question to ask ILE. They had AK at the station everyday beginning with the discovery of MK's body; they had ample opportunity to observe whether AK had any suspicious cuts.

That they--once again--failed to do their jobs adequately does not magically become evidence of AK's culpability.

AK bled a little in her own house. I dare say we are all guilty of that.

Nova, the problem with the argument of AK's blood is the same as of FR's recollections and about how RS made up the story about the knife. The MOT report relies on AK's statement that the blood wasnt there the day before, as it relies on FR's recollections about her room.

They somehow got AK to say that the blood hadn't been there the before that day, is that correct? she wasn't bleeding, there are no open wounds on her, save her new ear piercings. So I don't understand:

1. how did she bleed with no wounds, unless it's her ears.
2. How she's supposed to know if a drop or two fell from said ears and when?
3. Where is the REST of the blood, IF it was supposed to be associated with the murder? She fought with MK, got an invisible wound, and only bled a drop on the faucet, which is a logical place for it to fall if she's bending toward the mirror for a closer look at her face?
4. And swabbing down that bathroom and turning it PINK all over did NOT reveal not ONE MORE drop of AK's blood? Please....
5. Okay, say there is some unknown wound. RG had his wounds when he was caught two weeks after the murder. Where are the pictures of AK's after they arrested her?

That's just not logical. I don't understand why logic is not applied with ascertaining guilt.

All I want to know is where did this blood come from and how it's associated with the murder. That's all I want to know. A lost earring in MK's room? Fine. Where is the earring, because surely the masterful investigators found it. If they didn't, then that's not the answer. next.

 

[wasnt_me]

I appreciate Allusonz' distinction: I am not trying to "discredit" Filomina in the sense of saying she is a bad person or a conscious liar.

But when one considers all the "help" she provided ILE, one may well suspect that Filomina had an inclination to be helpful to the authorities that colored her recollection of things like the temperature of the washing machine.

I know some here have even suspected Filomina of complicity in the crime because she seems to be so key in providing evidence against AK. I don't go that far, but I think ILE may have convinced Filomina of AK's guilt early on and that belief greatly "aided" Filomina's memory.

ETA: but even if Filomina were the most neutral and objective witness of all time, the tossed bedroom should have been processed properly.

I don't think she's involved in the crime, but she's the perfect "Anti-AK" in this case:

1. Same type of Alibi, as far as we know--they both spent the night with their boyfriends. We do not know what corroberation FR has, computers, phone records, etc, except she went to a bday party. She might have the corroberation, but until we know it's the same type of alibi as AK.

2. She lived in the cottage and was MK's roommate, just the same as AK.

3. We don't know if FR's footprints or DNA is all around the house, because ILE never took FR's dna, which is in excusable. Anyone who lived at the house should have been taken as a "control."

4. FR made assertions about things, just as AK did. Why is FR believed? Because she got a lawyer quicker? and she needed a lawyer because...? Maybe to get her statement taped, since AK's wasnt.

5. Also read a rumor that she had a lot of friends in the justice department. AK certainly did not.

Just fascinated by why things went so differently for the other roommate than for AK. And if AK had been home that night and killed as well, would FR and her boyfriend be on trial, if they'd found the bodies? I wonder that about poor MK, too. would see be in jail if AK were the one dead? I could already see the theory. She and her pot-growing bf took advantage of the holiday and empty cottage to murder AK for x number of inconsistent reasons.

 

[wasnt_me]

Even if you think the end is correct, don't you want the means of proof to be accurate?

We've both seen the stain and we know perfectly well there was plenty of material to test. In fact, IIRC, the Court ruled that testing was unnecessary (because MK was sexually active with her boyfriend), not that testing was impossible.

Correct, and the defense says that they can date it because the same material stain is in RG's footprints.

 

[passionflower]

I lost track of this case.
Is this case still in appeal?

 

[wasnt_me]

Hmmmmm :waitasec: , wonder if she WAS involved, she would want them to find RG on their own... because wouldn't he immediately implicate her anyway if she 'told' on him? Since the Supreme Court ruled he was co-responsible AND the defense is now having inmates to testify that other were also there... that seems to indicate there were others there, but zero evidence of them and some of both AK and RS. Why would RS be worried about 'strange things' the recently arrested RG would claim about him?

***Her blood indicates that she was there the night of the murder, not just her own words. If her blood is not there the afternoon before the murder, but is there the morning after the murder- it is unexplainable and all attempts to do so are very weak IMO.

I seriously can't believe you think that AK lies about EVERYTHING ELSE, but saying that the blood wasn't there the day before. That's rich. She has no bleeding wounds, no where the blood leaked from but her ears, which would be a logical explanation in the bathroom for newly pierced ears, not even enough blood to notice has fallen from your ear at any time, be it a day before or not, but you believe her when she says this, but nothing else?

:floorlaugh:

 

[wasnt_me]

I lost track of this case.
Is this case still in appeal?

yes. if I'm not mistaken, we have a court date coming up. I want to say it's the 21st, but don't quote me. :waitasec:

 

[dgfred]

Please don't tell me where I read, because you don't know where I read or how often.

If you don't want to supply proof of what you claimed, then you'll be wrong until you do. Period. prove it, and I have no problems with it, but I won't go prove your claims. Do it yourself. while you're at it, show of the picture of AK holding the mop, because without that, you can't prove she was holding it either.

Okeydokie. Hey, congrats on 1000 post. :seeya:

 

[wasnt_me]

That's exactly what I was saying. So looking at that (for the first time)and 'thinking' it would be the 'sexy' conotation... how would it be 'gross'? That was why I mentioned she was the one that left it like that, and might not mind the 'sexy' meaning taken by some before being accused of the murder.

that was not the connotation when the word "gross" was used. Reply to the right poster, because I did not leap to the conclusions that AK decided to change the meaning of "foxy knoxy" when she put it on her facebook page. Just because it's another poster's opinion that some women wouldn't mind being called foxy in a sexual way, doesn't mean that AK did or that AK meant for her nickname to be anything other than it was, which is a nickname given to her by children during soccer with no sexual connotation. Those ignorant of where it came from can be excused, but those who know it was a childhood nickname and twist it into a sexual perversion because of a murder she was allegedly involved it, are gross. Yes. They are.

 

[wasnt_me]

Okeydokie. Hey, congrats on 1000 post. :seeya:

I owe to you.
:blowkiss:
:rocker:

 

[wasnt_me]

Um, no. Blood was there. There is no way of telling whose profile (MK, AK or both) came from blood, or from other genetic material, which an uncleaned sink is teaming with. Stating pure speculation as fact does not make it true.

I don't understand this. I understand what you are saying, the concept, but are you saying there is no DNA in blood? Like I said, I understand the concept, just not where it derived from.

 

[wasnt_me]

I didn't know that at all, and I don't remember any ruling by the Court of it not being necessary. Where can I see that 'ruling'?

I recall a print/other stain of some kind being around or over the stain, and the other print/stain was chosen as more relevant. But if there is plenty of material to test... I'm all for it.

Interesting you want accuracy but the first claim made would be contamination, planting, conspiracy, or incompetant gathering/testing/reading results if whatever the stain was turned out to be RS's... or goodness gracious even AK's :innocent: .

It's in the MOT report.

Actually, if it belonged to our dynamic duo this would be the first hard piece of evidence, but the testing would have to be SO well documented, etc and so on because of all the other problems we've had with this case.

Still if it's there's, I don't know how RG stepped in it, and the other two didn't.

With the way they hid the extensive testing on the footprints that said no blood in them, I would not be surprised if Stefanni did test this stain, but since it didn't yield what she needed, she hid it, just like she hid the "T" test that prove no blood was in the luminol foot prints.

 

[wasnt_me]

Now, had there been a sample that had blood, and the only profile was AK's, that would be a different story. But that is simply not the case. Indeed, every single sample that had only one profile and was associated with blood was MK's.

OH? :waitasec:
I was understanding that the drop on the silver facuet, and now the cotton box that Dfred has brought up that I forgot about, had AK's blood only. I'd have to go back and look at there and see where I read it wrong.

 

[Nova]

My, you sure seem a tad cranky in your post lately.

Nobody said cuts. AK testified the blood was not there the DAY before. She also 'wondered' about her own ears and possibly Meredith's 'period'. Which part did ILE fail to do their jobs adequately regarding the blood in the bathroom 'once again'?

I hope you are not guilty of bleeding in your own house, the night of a murder of your flatmate, but having NO IDEA where the blood came from when asked... even tho you claim to have not been present in the flat that very night in between there being NO BLOOD OF YOURS there-then suddenly there is! Add in not knowing what you were doing or where you were that night propably wouldn't help either. Additionally, Don't accuse an innocent man of the murder and don't claim you were 'there'. Conspiracy??? Evil prosecutor??? Maybe not.

I am a little cranky, fred, and I apologize for that. Most of the time it certainly isn't your fault. It's more frustration that we seem to circle back to same bogus arguments again and again.

Apparently, I misunderstood your point about AK's blood. I though you were implying she was injured during a struggle with MK. If so, then ILE had ample opportunity to observe her for suspicious wounds; all they could come up with was a hickey.

FOR A FEW BRIEF HOURS, AK put herself at the cottage on the night of the murder with a man who happened to have an ironclad alibi. By dawn, AK was already recanting that story. Repeatedly citing only the part of her phony story that supports your case is the sort of thing that does make one cranky.

If your own blood is found in your own house after you've been away, which is more likely? You snuck back in to bleed on stuff or you simply didn't notice the blood before you left?

 

[Nova]

What straw man??? My post was in reply to the post regarding anyone that took it in the wrong context was 'gross'. It was the context the media chose, and anyone looking at the web site might see a 20 yr old girl calling herself 'foxy'. That was it.

Thanks to you and Al I can know read and know that 2009 is 2 years ago and foxy might mean clever as well as sexy. :truce:

The most recent return to this thread of the "Foxy Knoxy" nickname came from otto who presented it as proof that ILE couldn't be blamed for untrue and illegal leaks because the media got the nickname from a social media site.

"Foxy Knoxy" isn't part of the false info leaked by ILE and nobody said it was. Misdirecting the discussion to a winnable but uncontested point from an unwinnable point is classic strawman.

If your broaching of the subject was inspired by something else, I apologize. In the context of these threads, it seemed to be a continuation of otto's non-argument.

 

[Nova]

Hmmmmm :waitasec: , wonder if she WAS involved, she would want them to find RG on their own... because wouldn't he immediately implicate her anyway if she 'told' on him? Since the Supreme Court ruled he was co-responsible AND the defense is now having inmates to testify that other were also there... that seems to indicate there were others there, but zero evidence of them and some of both AK and RS. Why would RS be worried about 'strange things' the recently arrested RG would claim about him?

But AK didn't know all that and couldn't have calculated that. She isn't even Boston Rob of Survivor, much less Professor Moriarity!

A more reasonable reaction from an inexperienced criminal would be to quickly dispose of evidence pointing to her accomplice.

***Her blood indicates that she was there the night of the murder, not just her own words. If her blood is not there the afternoon before the murder, but is there the morning after the murder- it is unexplainable and all attempts to do so are very weak IMO.

I don't understand how you know this or even how you think you know this.

To my knowledge, there was no detailed search for blood in the cottage on the day before the murder. Nor was there a surveillance camera to record any bleeding done while AK was taking her shower.

 

[Nova]

Sigh...I hate that people misinterpret this so badly...

Let me put this in layman's terms.

I go to your bathroom sink and take a swipe. Said swipe will have your genetic profile on it if you used it to wash your hands, gargle, brushed your teeth etc.

Next, I cut myself and wash the blood off in the sink, then take a swipe. The swipe will show a mix of our genetic profiles and the presence of blood. It will not tell us which genetic profile came from blood and which didn't.

Thus, your quote proves nothing other than that somebody washed MK's blood off in a sink that AK regularly uses, and their genetic material became mixed. This is why forensic techs absolutely hate it when a suspect lives at the scene of the crime - otherwise telling dna & print evidence often becomes useless, unless you wish to insinuate that it means more than it really does to a non-scientifically educated jury (as often happens, much to the dismay of the various forensic certification boards).

Just because Mignini thinks that 'interpretation is more important than details' (don't get me started on how much this attitude disgusts me), doesn't make it right that it has been presented by him and then by Massai as a scientifically proven fact when it is in fact pure speculation. I swear, the hoodwinks pulled by the prosecution's expert witnesses in this case would get most scientists in less forgiving fields (pretty much any that don't involve putting people in prison, ironically enough) a nice black listing from all reputable publications and studies (not that it's anything unusual nowadays, this has become a plague that has only one solution - automatic allowance of independent expert review of all forensics in cases with long sentences).

Thank you. I'm repeating this here because it answers questions posed in my previous post.

 

[Allusonz]

I don't understand this. I understand what you are saying, the concept, but are you saying there is no DNA in blood? Like I said, I understand the concept, just not where it derived from.

Grats on 1000 posts !!!

What they can tell is if the profiles are male or female. What they cannot tell from the mixed profiles when both are female since the sink etc would be full of various DNA from the people living there is which comes from which person when the gender is the same. The brushing teeth example and a drop of blood is a great example that SV used