Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #14

[SMK]

Just as I have been saying nothing shows AK or RS in MK's room - nothing shows the other person Aviello mentions to be in MK's room.
So, unless I want to be those who look at things differently depending how it benefits them,
I have to say I do NOT believe another person was involved, and hence do not believe this new account.

I wonder if this sort to testimony does more to hurt AK/RS than help them, as it takes up time, and if a juror thinks it bogus, will it cloud their judgement?

Yes, absolutely: This worries me as well.
ETA:
And I also agree with wasnt_me and you about the mob brother story, and both of you about no evidence of AK or RS OR others there. I do not know if this was the right tack to take, with these 5 inmates. A whole day devoted to them! I think Hendry's Lone Wolf scenario was a better refutation!!!:furious:

 

[wasnt_me]

Well, Oldsteve, I do completely agree, but I just keep in mind that the prosecution in both cases (RG's and RS and AK's) keep insisting others were involved.

So I'd say it might be good for AK and RS to introduce another person to keep the prosecution theory there, just because it's been sold so hard. Do you know what I mean? To make everyone who believes in the group murder suddenly have to rethink it to one person, might be detrimental, but if they just say, fine, it was more than one, but it just wasn't us, the defense MIGHT have scored points on reasonable doubt. If this new jury is willing to believe the lone-wolf TRUTH, then it hurts.

But I am interested in the truth, personally, as well a getting RS and AK out of jail. So I want the truth to be known that it was JUST RG and I want AK and RS out of jail.

BUT if I can only get AK and RS out of jail, I can live with that, if it means people believe someone else helped RG. I want the ENTIRE truth, but I gotta take what I can get.

Know what I mean? I'm pretty certain AK and RS are innocent, so if this story helps get their freedom, fine.

If people are willing to believe AK and RS were there with NO EVIDENCE, then maybe they are willing to believe X-accomplice was there with no evidence. I personally do not believe either, except for maybe someone did help RG breakin, and get into the window, but then fled upon spotting MK coming home.

 

[SMK]

Well, Oldsteve, I do completely agree, but I just keep in mind that the prosecution in both cases (RG's and RS and AK's) keep insisting others were involved.

So I'd say it might be good for AK and RS to introduce another person to keep the prosecution theory there, just because it's been sold so hard. Do you know what I mean? To make everyone who believes in the group murder suddenly have to rethink it to one person, might be detrimental, but if they just say, fine, it was more than one, but it just wasn't us, the defense MIGHT have scored points on reasonable doubt. If this new jury is willing to believe the lone-wolf TRUTH, then it hurts.

But I am interested in the truth, personally, as well a getting RS and AK out of jail. So I want the truth to be known that it was JUST RG and I want AK and RS out of jail.

BUT if I can only get AK and RS out of jail, I can live with that, if it means people believe someone else helped RG. I want the ENTIRE truth, but I gotta take what I can get.

Know what I mean? I'm pretty certain AK and RS are innocent, so if this story helps get their freedom, fine.

I hope you are right.......I really do......I suppose the raising of reasonable doubt is always good, providing Italians really do adhere to that standard of jurisprudence (which we in the US proport to, but fail at often I believe).

 

[wasnt_me]

That's what's so convuluted about the justice system. I think "justice" would be AK and RS released because they didn't do it, but it's an injustice to MK to let it go as RG had help, and RG gets only 16 years. Isn't that why, in the USA, if you were there and did nothing to prevent it--participated even,then it's just like you did the murder, too? Beause I think in the USA, RG would still face murder charges, not be given 16 years because he didn't wield the weapon--allegedly.

So y'all let me know. am I right or wrong about that?

What were RG's Final charges? sexual assault? What else? He certainly didn't get what he deserved for the murder or for burglary. and I hope those that believe in the current verdict can at least agree on this about RG.

 

[Nova]

I just read something interesting regarding the texts with PL.

The police contend that AK had said "see you later" in a way that grammatically meant a definite meeting was taking place.

So the theory is, why didn't PL text her or call her back to say, "No, no, no. I said don't come to work." There are apparently no attempts from PL's phone to do it even after AK allegedly switched hers off.

He didn't because he understood her when she said, "see you later, good night." He understood that she was just signing off, not making plans with him. So why did the police tell her it was a definite meeting? Because they were lying to push her into a confession.

From the way the "misunderstanding" is described, I've always assumed the text was written in Italian. Is that true?

(I've always wondered why "see you later" means "we have a definite appointment today" in Italian, while "hasta luego" (until later) and "hasta la vista" (until we meet again) in Spanish have the same ambiguous meanings they have in English. But I do understand that slang has its own, often invisible, rules.)

 

[otto]

A drop of AK blood on a faucet - DNA doesn't tell us when/how it got there.
Show me her blood in MK's room - now that would be something I would find significant. Just a drop (it's just a drop) on the sink faucet - simply comes under the heading of "curious, but not incriminating".

ETA: Least anyone think I have a interest in finding AK innocent, I don't. I also have no interest in finding her guilty - I simply seek the truth.

Amanda's blood was on the sink. When asked in court whether the blood was there the day before, she said that it was not. Therefore we know when her blood got onto the sink.

 

[SMK]

That's what's so convuluted about the justice system. I think "justice" would be AK and RS released because they didn't do it, but it's an injustice to MK to let it go as RG had help, and RG gets only 16 years. Isn't that why, in the USA, if you were there and did nothing to prevent it--participated even,then it's just like you did the murder, too? Beause I think in the USA, RG would still face murder charges, not be given 16 years because he didn't wield the weapon--allegedly.

So y'all let me know. am I right or wrong about that?

What were RG's Final charges? sexual assault? What else? He certainly didn't get what he deserved for the murder or for burglary. and I hope those that believe in the current verdict can at least agree on this about RG.

Yes, I have always thought it was bizarre the way that Guede got such a light sentence but : 1. It had to do with his "fast track trial" cutting down to a third and 2. It was claimed (falsely, I believe) that Knox was the throat slasher. (very silly). In any case, Perugia Murder File is claiming today was "a disastrous day for the Defense" and hooting over the silence of Bruce Fisher et al, and this DOES give me a measure of hope. They are TOO cocky, too confident, and pride goeth before a fall.....

 

[Nova]

Just as I have been saying nothing shows AK or RS in MK's room - nothing shows the other person Aviello mentions to be in MK's room.
So, unless I want to be those who look at things differently depending how it benefits them,
I have to say I do NOT believe another person was involved, and hence do not believe this new account.

I wonder if this sort to testimony does more to hurt AK/RS than help them, as it takes up time, and if a juror thinks it bogus, will it cloud their judgement?

But the difference is that no DNA of AK or RS was found in MK's room. There was plenty of unidentified DNA found.

So if there are new suspects, they have to be checked against the unidentified DNA before we exclude them as we exclude AK and RS.

 

[otto]

I have seen just about everyone believing in AK's and RS's innocence asking why it HAS NOT BEEN TESTED. AK's and RS's defense want it tested so I am not sure where you come up with the "supporters, hope, and IF" part as this makes no sense whatsoever. I am of the opinion that it already was tested just not disclosed as it would not help the prosecution's case. Leaving the impression it was untested leaves a possibility that it could be RS's which only helps the prosecution thus your reasoning here makes simply no sense

If the stain wasn't tested, how do we know that it was semen?

 

[Nova]

That's what's so convuluted about the justice system. I think "justice" would be AK and RS released because they didn't do it, but it's an injustice to MK to let it go as RG had help, and RG gets only 16 years. Isn't that why, in the USA, if you were there and did nothing to prevent it--participated even,then it's just like you did the murder, too? Beause I think in the USA, RG would still face murder charges, not be given 16 years because he didn't wield the weapon--allegedly.

So y'all let me know. am I right or wrong about that?

What were RG's Final charges? sexual assault? What else? He certainly didn't get what he deserved for the murder or for burglary. and I hope those that believe in the current verdict can at least agree on this about RG.

If I understand you correctly, the issue in the U.S. isn't whether "you were there," but whether you participated in some ongoing felony that ties you to the murder.

I.e., if a convenience store robbery ends with the owner being shot and killed by a robber, you are not guilty just for being in the store (even if you had a chance to intervene and did not); however, you ARE guilty of murder if you were helping with the robbery (even if you are only driving the getaway car parked half-a-mile away).

In the U.S., if RG and his friend broke into the cottage, they would both be guilty of MK's murder even if only one of them wielded the knife.

If this distinction doesn't make sense, let me know and I'll send you a PM with (I hope) a clearer explanation.

 

[Nova]

Amanda's blood was on the sink. When asked in court whether the blood was there the day before, she said that it was not. Therefore we know when her blood got onto the sink.

Actually, we only know that she did not notice any blood there the day before. You keep confusing eyewitness testimony with scientifically proven fact.

 

[otto]

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).

Sigh ... hopefully that communicates the same tone intended in your comment ... sigh.

Let me put this in really simple words ... is this working? Am I getting the condescending tone right?

Amanda's blood was visible in the sink. It was tested, and proven to be blood from Knox. Knox was asked if that blood was there the day before the murder. Knox said that it was not there the day before the murder. Therefore, we know that Amanda's blood got onto the sink between the time that Meredith returned home from dinner with friends and the following day when police collected evidence from the sink. Amanda has not been able to provide an explanation for how her blood got into the sink at that time.

Was that simple enough ... proper use of "layman's terms"?

 

[Nova]

If the stain wasn't tested, how do we know that it was semen?

We don't know for sure, otto, as everyone has admitted countless times. But we call it the "semen stain" to distinguish it from other artifacts of the crime.

 

[otto]

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.

In the case of a mixed sample, it is possible to determine whether the primary donor is Meredith or Amanda, and it is possible to exclude donors based on the 16 markers used in DNA analysis. The analysis of the mixed sample resulted in the conclusion that the visible blood belonged to Knox and that it was mixed with Meredith's DNA.

 

[Nova]

Yes, I have always thought it was bizarre the way that Guede got such a light sentence but : 1. It had to do with his "fast track trial" cutting down to a third and 2. It was claimed (falsely, I believe) that Knox was the throat slasher. (very silly). In any case, Perugia Murder File is claiming today was "a disastrous day for the Defense" and hooting over the silence of Bruce Fisher et al, and this DOES give me a measure of hope. They are TOO cocky, too confident, and pride goeth before a fall.....

According to otto in a previous thread, RG's "life" sentence of 30 years was reduced to 24 years to match that of RS and AK.

Then, one third (8 years) was deleted because RG had chosen the fast-track trial.

24-8=16

 

[otto]

She is simply not a reliable witness. If one has to give 3 different versions of the state of which one closed the shutters. That is not trying to discredit her as a person simply I have serious doubts as to how much weight can be attributed to her memory

Three different versions? How about one explanation for the outside shutters, one explanation for the window and another explanation for the inside shutters. I guess the warm washing machine "attack on Filomina" didn't work so we're moving onto the another way to attack her credibility?

 

[Nova]

Sigh ... hopefully that communicates the same tone intended in your comment ... sigh.

Let me put this in really simple words ... is this working? Am I getting the condescending tone right?

Amanda's blood was visible in the sink. It was tested, and proven to be blood from Knox. Knox was asked if that blood was there the day before the murder. Knox said that it was not there the day before the murder. Therefore, we know that Amanda's blood got onto the sink between the time that Meredith returned home from dinner with friends and the following day when police collected evidence from the sink. Amanda has not been able to provide an explanation for how her blood got into the sink at that time.

Was that simple enough ... proper use of "layman's terms"?

Can't you see the fallacy in your own argument as written above?

AK can't account for how her blood got into the sink, so she doesn't know how (OR WHEN) it got there. Hence, her testimony that it wasn't there the day before means nothing except she didn't notice it the day before.

You'd make a better case if you argued the drying times of blood drops.

 

[otto]

It doesn't look like anyone is taking this latest attempt by Knox and Sollecito to get out of jail seriously: http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/06/18/italy.knox/index.html

 

[otto]

Actually, we only know that she did not notice any blood there the day before. You keep confusing eyewitness testimony with scientifically proven fact.

Knox testified in court that her blood was not there the day before the murder.

 

[otto]

We don't know for sure, otto, as everyone has admitted countless times. But we call it the "semen stain" to distinguish it from other artifacts of the crime.

So someone spilled grapefruit juice in Meredith's bedroom and everyone has now decided that it's semen? That's funny.