Nothing at all... why? Just never seen SMK posting on the guilty side.
Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #15
- Thread starter Salem
- Start date
- Status
Nothing at all... why? Just never seen SMK posting on the guilty side.
Actually, I think most of us who now think AK and RS are innocent (or at least think their guilt is not proven) started out thinking they were guilty.
So you have no idea either?
Giving out information on the case as it is at the time is not 'leaking' if you know who is giving out the information.
Maybe... but none seem to have 'thought' that here... then changed their minds, that is what I am saying.
Well I'd be glad to give you a 'smack' on the head :slap: ... as you know.
Well, I really earned one this time. Thanks.
Sorry, I didn't mean fascinating to sound negative. I meant it more along the lines of "I wouldn't have thought those were the specific pieces that convinced you, and that is surprising and interesting to me."
Specifically you said: "I find the lack of an alibi (no computer use) and the evasive/contradictory statements/lying much more 'suspicious' . I also find comparing the email home to her first statement to prosecutors and judges quite telling."
It surprises me if those are your top reasons for believing them to be guilty.
Now mixed dna of AK and Meredith, luminol barefoot prints, staged break-in, evidence of multiple attackers, bathmat print.... that's different. I continue to find the luminol footprints damaging, and I still dont' have hard data to discount what they do or do not prove. I also find the bathmat print somewhat damaging. I do think it fits Raffaelle's footprint better than Guedes. That being said, I have been told by investigator that the shape of a footprint without a DNA finding is poor quality evidence.
As for the rest:
1) No alibi of computer use: Massei report stating that there is data loss makes me dismiss this. If what others say here is true, that they friend the other computers, then that is more reason to discount it, for me.
2) mixed DNA: damaging. But it is not the mix that I find damaging as much as it is the lack of Rudy's DNA in the mix. So, mixed DNA in the bathroom with no Rudy DNA there. Damaging.
3) blatant lies: I don't find the lies that blatant. I do think there is a lot of self-serving statements going on, but I don't find it to be that suspicious. For example, I don't think Amanda had dinner at 11pm. I think she's saying that to confirm she is innocent. I think she probably had dinner at 8 or 9. But I don't think it means she's guilty. For instance, I think Roy Kronk in the Anthony trial isn't guilty of anything, but I think he also tries and says things to make himself look in the most favorable light, to the point that he is lying.
4) Staged break-in: Extremely damaging if true. I think it's just as likely not to be staged as it is to be staged, myself.
5) Evidence of multiple attackers: Extremely damaging if true. Especially because there is very little unidentified DNA, so if there were multiple attackers then the likelihood leans towards Amanda or Raffaelle.
Compared to these:
1) Lack of alibi: I don't find this that damaging. It was the middle of the night.
2) Contradictory statements compared to email: Not at all damaging (to me).
3) Lying: slightly damaging. (again to me.)
It's interesting to see how people's opinions are shaped.
1. If everyone who turns off his computer committed murder, there'd be no one left.
2. Mixed DNA of people who live together is to be expected.
3. Ditto barefoot prints.
4. Except for the statement implicating PL, the "blatant lies" have been exaggerated over the years by the media and internet posters. Inconsistent statements re everyday events are common.
5. Break-in was only "staged" according to an Italian roommate. A competent analyst finds otherwise.
6. Ditto the "multiple attackers." There are numerous cases where a lone assailant was assumed to be a gang simply because the carnage was so horrific to witness afterwards.
7. Yes, the bathmat print is unconvincing (and its sheer existence calls into question whether AK and RS did any cleaning).
Honestly, I think you've forgotten, fred. I was first attracted to this case because I saw a Dateline or 48 Hours implying AK was convicted because Italians hate George Bush. I didn't question the hatred, but I doubted Italians would take it out on a 20-year-old American girl.
And then I started looking at the evidence...
(BTW, I still don't think George Bush had anything to do with the convictions.)
Did not mean anyone here. There was a minority who thought Guede would be a "breakthrough" in general on forums supportive to Knox.
I used to post pro-guilt on Ms. Represented's pro-guilt blog, "Lies Our Mothers Told Us", - she is now a member at PMF - and one of her posts, "A Sadist in the Room", inspired me to do a series of pro-guilt blog posts on "Musing in Obama's America". I have taken the posts down, but the titles can still be found.
Even tho my reply will do no use and poo-poo'd away:
1- Claiming you are on your computer at the time of a murder is different than 'a turned off computer' IMO.
2- dna mixed with the victims blood (but not other flatmates which had alibis)
is not 'expected' IMO.
3- Barefoot prints in luminol at a murder scene, comparable to the defendants is not expected either IMO. Why not shoeprints? Why not evidence of prior spills/barefooted cleaning/fruit juice or whatever? Was RS ever in the cottage barefooted before the murder?
4- I don't see giving misleading statements or conflicting answers in a murder investigation as 'exaggerations'.
5- 'competant analysis' :floorlaugh: Does that give me a two snark free advantage? I believe the court will continue to rule the break-in as 'staged' regardless of that competant analysis.
6- In this case, the autopsy and evidence of bruising/multiple wounds gave the jury/judges the impression of multiple attackers.
7- 'Ditto' on the bathmat print in that the court found it as contributed by RS, don't blame me :innocent: . And there has to have been some 'cleaning' around it just by the nature of the print. Does the 'bathmat boogie' ring a bell?
Read the MOT, it is not proven even though Massei does the best to pretend it is. Many of the experts in the first trial argued it was a single attacker, of course Massei disregarded their findings in a single sentence.
I do. Not that I think that it is his fault directly, but irrational American hatred was high in Europe after the invasion of Iraq. When I would go to Scotland, if someone mistook me for an Australian or Canadian, I would not correct them. I remember the first time around 2003, I corrected someone that I was an American, they were suprised because I seemed so well read and articulate.
i'm not going down this road... see mdana's post or see here
evelyn24
cray cray
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2004
- Messages
- 2,115
- Reaction score
- 11
That was me too. I'm very happy to hear the independent tests confirmed what we all believed to be the case. Will it matter though?
1. The computer records were "lost" (convenient) by the police computer forensics.
2. The other flatmates did not use the common bathroom of MK and AK.
3. Footmarks are not conclusive and she took a shower before the arrival of the postal police.
4. What about the other witnesses in this case that did the same thing. Are they guilty of accomplices to murder? As I have stated, all the cases I have researched have testimony or statements that are lies by witnesses that are not charged with a crime.
5. Huh? I have no idea what this means.
6. An impression is not conclusive evidence or a fact.
7. Footmark is not conclusively RS. Read the MOT if you are going to argue the case, Massei surmised it was RS, again disregarding conflicting testimony.
You recall my posts???
:blushing::blushing: (I own the Musing in Obama's America blog)...Let us hope so.....
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
