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.
Okay, but the problems you have about the case, valid as they might be, have been addressed or was attempted to be addressed by the defense, but the judge either didn't allow their experts, didn't allow them to do further tests, or ruled out of their favor on the thing in question.
1. Computer alibi. AK supposedly was checking her emails that night. Her computer was fried. I do nt know if there was another way to corroberate that she checked them besides the computer. 75% of the computers were fried, including MK's, which, if she'd used it at home, COULD have proved a later TOD. RS wanted his computer reviewed by the manfacturers to see if data could be retrieved, but the court denied that. They have since found other indications on his mac that he was using it that night. My theory is that he used one computer to research stuff and other other computer for the movies and the music. The one with less activity "happened" to have survived. Go figure. (just my hunch.)
2. mixed DNA. AK hardly was at home that week because she'd just met RS. We see that RS had little to no dna in that house, save for a cigarette bud. AK's DNA was in the bathroom, mostlylikely because she'd just showered in there. I'm assuming if she'd just stayed stinky, then that DNA wouldn't have been there, mixed with anything of MK's. I find it strange that RG's dna isn't in the bathroom, however, I'll use the guilter's excuse of why AK's isn't in the murder room--the detectives didn't swab the whole bathroom, and then they performed that test to turn it all pink. Didn't they say somewhere in the case they decided to use a blood test over a dna test in some places and once they did the first test, they hadn't enough material to do the second one? I want to say that had to do with the footprints, but maybe that also happened in the bathroom in some places. Just guessing, but it could be a reason RG's isn't in there. If the jury accepts AK as the lead murderer without her DNA in the murder room, then I can accept RG was in the bathroom without his DNA being in there.
3. Again, the Defense had experts to prove it was a real break-in. The judge disallowed the testimony because the expert was a ballistics expert. Ballistic deals with bullets, not rocks, says the judge with rocks for brains.
4. Multiple attackers? Then I'd ask the court to explain the extra 3 sets of DNA on the bra clasp but we now know it's contaminated. I'd then ask them to tell me about the other 19 unidentified DNA profiles in the house. Then maybe we'd have an answer about multiple attackers.
5. Lies. What lies besides RS dreaming up that he pricked MK and AK dreaming up the PL thing?
So that's how I see it. I believe the defense was NOT allowed to put on a case during the frist trial, and that's why evidence seems daming. In this appeal, they seem to be getting that chance. You said yourself that the MOT report was narrowminded in theory and cherry-picked, and while in court, that judge's view was also brought to the evidence that you question.
kay: Please help Allusonz!!
someone please clarify!!
ut em up:
