Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #14

[otto]

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.

Nobody invented problems between Knox and the victim. Friends of the victim testified to problems the victim discussed regarding Knox.

 

[emyr]

I read over the conviction paperwork (not thoroughly as it is hundreds of pages long). I find the whole thing intensely complicated.

Is there a summary somewhere in sequence of the scenario where knox, guede, sollecito did it? (with corresponding evidence that backs up the story)? And is there a summary of the defense's version (or versions) of events? (explaining all the forensic evidence and how it would have gotten there?

I guess the things that interest me are 1) That Guede clearly went to the bathroom before the attack (no blood in that bathroom). That he had orange juice while he was there (I'm not sure if this is a fact or not, is it?) And if it is a "lone wolf" situation, I'm assuming the sequence would have to include him breaking the window, scaling the wall, rifling through the items but not stealing any, then going and having orange juice and using the bathroom, in any sequence as long as it happened before the attack on Meredith.

The Massai report seemed to give credence to eyewitness reports that I find less reliable than the forensic evidence left behind (i.e. the homeless guy who saw Knox but also remembered seeing buses later... when the buses were not running that night).

After killing Meredith, then someone went into the bathroom, leaving splatters of Meredith's blood (I assume dripping off of them) and a smear of blood on the light switch. I can't see any of this blood getting into the bathroom by any other method than the killer (or one of the killers) going in there to clean up. But Rudy Guede's shoeprints do not go in there? They go out the front door?

That is, unless the attack started in the bathroom? and moved to meredith's room?

On the other hand I find it highly unlikely that Knox/Soll staged the break in afterwards in the exact way that Rudy usually robbed places. Also that little peice of glass embedded in the interior window shutter really does look like the glass came in from outside to me. I don't know how it would have embedded there otherwise.

I give very low credence to people's memories (Filomena remembering she closed the shutters for instance). That's because my dad was a lawyer and he said eyewitnesses are the worst. In addition, I was an eyewitness and it was only after the evidence was shown to me (of a car accident that I witnessed) that I realized I had completely switched the two cars and incorrectly stated other things I was positive were true (and had no reason to lie about).

If Rudy was there alone, I do think the evidence would have to be:
non-staged break-in
scaling the wall
rifling through contents then being interrupted.
meredith arrives and rudy pretends he is supposed to be there and plays it off.
Has orange juice? He and Meredith chat
Goes to the bathroom. (maybe she came in while he was on the bathroom... however he did wipe, indicating he felt he had time to get that far. Also he was known to go to sleep on the toilet. Maybe she came in while he was sleeping on the toilet.)
Anyway, he's also known to come on strong. So he then starts hitting on her and she rebuffs him, annoyed. Maybe she then goes to see who else is in the house and then realizes someone has broken the window? She runs, turning her back to Rudy, to get her phone to call the police. (Or Rudy attacks her, and she tries to get to her phone, the nearest way she can call for help).

I'm sure my guesses are totally off base. I'm just unclear on what the real evidence is at this point and what the most likely scenarios are for the prosecution and defense. I'm also surprised the defense hasn't said that there could have been a completely different person at work with Rudy. And no one has looked into whether he hung out with people who would go burgling with him. Or maybe they have.

 

[otto]

Is anyone taking Guede's time of 9:20/9:30 seriously ... cherry picking which of the liar's statement to believe and disbelieve?

 

[wasnt_me]

(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.

Right and it happens about the SAME time he said he met her at her house. Go figure....:innocent:

 

[SMK]

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.

No, this is an overstatement.
Many people do not trust juries.
They have made some real mistakes.
There is failure to convict (OJ Simpson case, and many others I have read of ) and also wrongful convictions.
"The Jury has spoken" is a beautiful, noble , transcendent phase: But it is an empty abstraction. Humans err. They compromise. They are silly or shallow or biased. I was just reading Amanda's trial testimony, and I cannot see how they could convict her.

 

[otto]

No, this is an overstatement.
Many people do not trust juries.
They have made some real mistakes.
There is failure to convict (OJ Simpson case, and many others I have read of ) and also wrongful convictions.
"The Jury has spoken" is a beautiful, noble , transcendent phase: But it is an empty abstraction. Humans err. They compromise. They are silly or shallow or biased. I was just reading Amanda's trial testimony, and I cannot see how they could convict her.

If it is true that most people distrust juries, then the system would be overhauled. It hasn't been, so I think it's safe to assume that he majority of people trust the jury system.

 

[emyr]

Also, I do agree with everyone that these crazy people getting up and testifying to bizarre other-theories is helping no one.

 

[wasnt_me]

If Rudy was there alone, I do think the evidence would have to be:
non-staged break-in
scaling the wall
rifling through contents then being interrupted.
meredith arrives and rudy pretends he is supposed to be there and plays it off.
Has orange juice? He and Meredith chat
Goes to the bathroom. (maybe she came in while he was on the bathroom... however he did wipe, indicating he felt he had time to get that far. Also he was known to go to sleep on the toilet. Maybe she came in while he was sleeping on the toilet.)
Anyway, he's also known to come on strong. So he then starts hitting on her

Oh, I never thought of this.....

So he's in the house, and pretends have a right to be there... he's done that before you know.

I see, so he lies that he's waiting for AK and goes to the bathroom to crap and figure out what to do. MK then sees the broken window or starts to feel uncomfortable and tries to call her mom. He then starts the attack? Or even if she doesn't call her mom, somehow during the talk and "wait for AK," he gets too "frisky" and the attack starts.

RG's shoe prints do not go into the bathroom before he took his shoes off at the edge of the bed. I think one shoe came out in the scuffle, and he took the other one off. The left one that makes the struggle pattern on the pillow case stayed on. After the struggle, he sat down, took off both shoes, went to the bathroom barefooted. He stepped in the shower to rinse off his jeans. His first step out of the shower created the blood marks on the mat. He dried his feet so he could put back on his shoes. he went back to the bedroom with the towels, sat on the duvet, making it watery and bloody, decided to cover MK with it, possibly getting more blood on him somehow (at some point went throug her purse before or after the bathroom trip) then he put on his shoes and left, leaving a trial of only the left shoe print, because the other shoe hadn't gotten blood on the bottom because it had somehow come off during the struggle.

AK took a shower, had no towels in the bathroom, picked up the mat and used it to shield herself to go to her room. When she put it back, she put it back with the footprint facing the wrong direction.

This is just what I think happened. The prosecution nor defense said it happened this way.

 

[otto]

Also, I do agree with everyone that these crazy people getting up and testifying to bizarre other-theories is helping no one.

Regarding your other post, I don't recall anything about Guede drinking orange juice. In terms of how Rudy broke in the one other time he broke into an office, he climbed onto the balcony and broke in through the French doors. The cottage has a balcony that is easy to climb, and there are French doors ... so it cannot be said that the staged break-in at the cottage was similar to how Rudy broke in during his break-in at the office.

 

[dgfred]

Is anyone taking Guede's time of 9:20/9:30 seriously ... cherry picking which of the liar's statement to believe and disbelieve?

They may have arrived at that time, but IIRC he claimed leaving at about 10:30 or so... later on.

 

[wasnt_me]

:wagon:

Also, I do agree with everyone that these crazy people getting up and testifying to bizarre other-theories is helping no one.

:wagon:
:welcome2:
:welcome:

 

[wasnt_me]

They may have arrived at that time, but IIRC he claimed leaving at about 10:30 or so... later on.

Right. I don't remember when he claims to have left, but the evidence supports him arriving when he said he arrived. by evidence, I mean that 856pm phone call that got interrupted. there was a reason that call got interupted and nothing else happened on her phone for an hour, and she didn't try to call her mom back or ever, and if her mom was ill, I doubt she'd be playing phone tag with the bank and her voicemail instead of calling her mother at 10pm. Then her phone is nowhere near that house at 1015pm. They said MK's regular pattern was to do her calls and texting in the evening for lower rates. She was silent that night after 856pm.

That is why it can be believed. If the evidence supports something, then yes, you can believe he what he said. The evidence also supports that AK and RS were not there, so that can be believed as well when he said it.

He said he used towels in the house. The evidence supports that.

He said he took a dump. The evidence supports that.

He said someone was stabbing MK. The evidence supports that.

He said the window was not broken. The evidence does not support that BUT we cannot know this for certain, if there is even a .9999% chance he didn't do it. As other evidence stacks up in or out of his favor, you can determine that he is or is not lying about this statement.

He says he did not take the money. the evidence does not support that, seeing as his bloody fingerprints are in her purse.

He says he had sexual contact with her. The evidence supports that.

He says it was conscentual. The bruising between her legs does not support that.

I suppose, if I have time, I can go through every statement he's known to have said in this manner, but hopefully you get the gist. If the evidence can support it, then okay. If it does not support it or there is no evidence to support it, you have to weigh your belief in it against other factors.

Each witness should be done this way instead of being branded as liars. Seriously.

So let's discuss why that's right or wrong, then, since people have complained about being hypocritical about witnesses. Just discuss the verscity of the statement and not the witness.

 

[Allusonz]

They may have arrived at that time, but IIRC he claimed leaving at about 10:30 or so... later on.

Yes he did state that fred and btw grats on being able to link now

 

[Allusonz]

Also, I do agree with everyone that these crazy people getting up and testifying to bizarre other-theories is helping no one.

:welcome:

hands you a straight jacket

 

[Allusonz]

Regarding your other post, I don't recall anything about Guede drinking orange juice. In terms of how Rudy broke in the one other time he broke into an office, he climbed onto the balcony and broke in through the French doors. The cottage has a balcony that is easy to climb, and there are French doors ... so it cannot be said that the staged break-in at the cottage was similar to how Rudy broke in during his break-in at the office.

Yes he did drink juice not only here but as well at a previous break in

"The witness Brocchi, heard at the hearing of 26 June 2009, stated: "I noticed that this person or persons who had broken into the office had also drunk some drinks that were present in a cabinet" (p. 16 transcript); and also the witness Palazzoli, at the same hearing, reported "Yes, I remember that there was a bottle of orange juice left, if I remember correctly, in the trainees' room (p. 37 transcript 26 June 2009). And also it is likely that the bathroom was used (Palazzoli: "the light had been left on in the office bathroom" p. 35 transcript of the hearing on 26 June 2009)."

"RG also said he took orange juice from the fridge in Via della Pergola. From pages 225/6 of RS's appeal"

 

[Allusonz]

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....

I have heard varying things with respect to how much they will be allowed to question him from simply being asked whether he spoke to these inmates then being allowed to stand down, to being asked further questions so I guess we will have to wait and see with this respect

 

[wasnt_me]

Plus, being "similiar" does not mean "exact." The other breakin happened at an office. One happened at a nursery. Two happened in homes. In one house and in the nursery, we do not know even know how he got in at all. So the distinction about the kind of window he chose to make it "similiar" is irrelevant. expecting him to use a balcony with french doors each time, is expecting the crimes to be "exact," not "similiar."

It has already been proved in photos of the house that the balcony is widen open and easily seen from the road and houses behind the cottage. This is why he chose the window, which was shielded down in the valley by trees. Since that was thoroughly debated before, I personally see no reason to go through it again.

 

[Allusonz]

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.

Whether her files are still on her hard drive is not the point. The point is that no expert should first be working with the original hard drives but mirrored copies. I would not even dream of trying to calculate the chance of frying 3 hard drives but it did not stop with hard drives

She was told she was HIV positive in which it is mandatory to give a list of anyone you have had sexual conduct with

It was stated that it was AK on the CCTV when in fact it was not

It was stated that the luminol prints were not tested with TMB when in fact they were and Stephanoni perjured herself

It was stated that there were shoeprints of both RS and AK in MK's room which turned to be false

It was stated that there was abundant DNA on the bra clasp when in fact it was LCN DNA

It was stated to the media that bleach was purchased which again turned out to be false

The list can go on and on

 

[Nova]

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

For someone so devoted to playing word games, it's odd how you can't understand words whenever it suits you.

The point is that AK is being asked about the existence of something for which she wasn't looking. The best she can say is that she has no memory of seeing blood the day before.

If it was there and she overlooked it, she has no way of knowing that.

 

[Nova]

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.

Yes, we (myself included) all tend to trust jury decisions. But we do so not because we have data on their accuracy, but because to distrust them is frightening.