Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #15

[dgfred]

He added that he heard Amanda. She was there, she confessed to it so it would be rather strange if he hadn't noticed her in the cottage. Raf was already arrested as well and maybe for some strange reason he expected him to be found guilty so he might as well describe him in vague terms and not a 7 foot stranger.

It wouldn't make him very believable if he suddenly recognized the stranger (i am not saying his toilet story was credible but that is the card he played) and at the same time you push Raf in a corner who might just confess what really happened and explain Rudy's involvement. What good would that do?

Neither of them goes straight into identifying the others. They all admit a little and try to fool the police. Raf says Amanda could have done it since she left his house at 9 and came back after midnight. Amanda says the black guy did it but gives him a different name. And Rudy says Amanda was there but the Italian stranger did it. All liars, and all guilty as hell.

Righto! Thanks, sherlockh.

 

[SMK]

Law & Courts
Mark C. Waterbury, Amanda Knox Book Author: "The Prosecution Has No Case Anymore" By Curtis Cartier Tue., Jul. 5 2011

The DNA evidence used to convict Knox and Sollecito was essentially the only scientific evidence linking them to the crime. It was found in two places--a kitchen knife said to be the murder weapon, and Kercher's bra clasp.
​But late last month an independent panel of scientists dismissed the DNA evidence in both places as unreliable because the traces were either too small to be measured or too contaminated to be conclusive.
Waterbury says the evidence being called unreliable isn't as much a new revelation as it is a confirmation of what was already the case. "The evidence was outrageously collected, stored, handled and analyzed," he says. "This report shows there's never been any DNA evidence that ties Amanda to the scene. And that's important to remember, the DNA evidence should have never been admitted in the first place."

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2011/07/mark_c_waterbury_amanda_knox_b.php

 

[Allusonz]

So I guess that it's TOO late for me to apologize....yeah...yeah!!!!:great:

oh nooooooooooo please don't get me started again reminds self to take it off of automatic replay lol

 

[wasnt_me]

All right, then what about "All eyes on me in the center of the ring, just like a circus, ah-ha! When I crack that whip, everybody gonna trip, just like a circus! ah-ha!"

That reminds me of RG's testimony with Mig reading the letter.

 

[Allusonz]

Yes, but I mean Patrica's cases in specific. I'd like to know how many of her cases were overturned by faulty DNA. Or how many of her cases were disputed for this reason.

That I am thinking would be very hard to get as has been shown in this case even with an open letter signed by 9 DNA experts they still did not release all the files

It does make me wonder how many have been convicted by shoddy ILE forensics

 

[Allusonz]

What's interesting is how RG constructs the story himself at the beginning. He paints of vision of it all happening in the livingroom. He runs out of the bathroom to see the assailant at the front door. and he at the same time describes being able to see MK on the floor.

He actually used the words "front door." I have to look at a layout, but I don't know if it were possible to see MK in her room dying and also be between the kitchen and livingroom to see someone at the front door.

It's interesting that he keeps referring to hearing the doorbell ring. There are only two reasons this would happen if it were AK and RS. 1. AK left her keys at RS's. 2. RS went to the front door ahead of AK, and she was behind doing something in the car that would preclude him from waiting for her to come and unlock the door. Not even if RG arrived with AK and RS would there be reason to ring the doorbell, except in those two instances.

I think it may have started in the front and the only reason MK ran to the back to her room was to get the keys to get out. RG cornered her back there. I think he got angry with her for being surly and trying to fight him or run passed him to get out of the room, and it started. The sexual assault was probably all about power and control and anger that she would fight him.

There are a few things in his various versions that stand out to me but the one that for some reason that truly rings a funky chord is him stating the doorbell rang. Don't know why it just does

 

[Allusonz]

I don't even understand that there is a conflict in AK's statement to begin with. RG is the real murderer, but he is not serving time for being the real and only murderer. The court didn't even cite that he stole the money or stabbed MK, so AK's statement is right on point when she says she wants the real killer to be revealed. She's right on point to even express doubts in regard to whether it was RG alone or RG and one of his friends. She doesn't know what happened in that cottage or who was there, so no one should expect her to speak as if she does. Only someone who believes in her guilt would add any kind of duplicitous meaning to her words.

Actually I believe that reply was in response to it being stated that Mignini was consistent in his versions throughout the trial of the first instance. I did not agree:innocent:

 

[wasnt_me]

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2011/07/mark_c_waterbury_amanda_knox_b.php

From that article:

In the appeals trial, however, there have been no gymnastics, shopping trips, or new sexy nicknames to throw around--just a scared and shy young woman with a compelling story

I think that's an important statement because there's no distractions. There's no salicous gossip to throw around and confuse the unsequestered jury. Now, things can be viewed more clearly and placed within their respective contexts. I, for one, really hope more evidence is allowed, so we can put to rest the guilters' unanswered questions. They have them and need to have them settled, and if the jury returns with an aquittal, I hope they can accept it. I, personally, won't accept less because I don't feel the evidence supports a conviction or reduction in sentence. The evidence requires an aquittal.

 

[Allusonz]

Otto has just told everyone not in agreement with the original jury to just step back and accept it, accused them of only thinking Amanda is innocent because she is American, and told a member to piss off. Rudeness indeed.

Thanks Malkmus!!!

 

[wasnt_me]

Actually I believe that reply was in response to it being stated that Mignini was consistent in his versions throughout the trial of the first instance. I did not agree:innocent:

Sorry, I understood it to be 2 different conversations. I guess that's what I get for restricting my view of certain posts.

But I thought one contention was that AK looks like a fool for making the statement that she wants to find out who the killer is.

I thought the other contention was that Mig and the prosecution have been consistent.

I addressed both of these contentions in separate posts.

 

[wasnt_me]

There are a few things in his various versions that stand out to me but the one that for some reason that truly rings a funky chord is him stating the doorbell rang. Don't know why it just does

I know. Even within the context of lying, I'm totally trying to figure out about this doorbell. Doesn't the bell carry throughout to his final statement? And the reason it could be significant is that a car was seen in the driveway. we do not hear much about said car, but is it possible someone stopped by while he was in the middle of the crime? Because I just know of no circumstance that AK would be ringing the doorbell, or why even RG would think she was ringing it. Again, RS ringing it, that's possible in the context of RG's tale. But for that to happen, AK had to either not be with him or so far engrossed in something else that she was taking longer to get to the door with him.

 

[emyr]

I'm confused on the lamp. Why wasn't it used at trial? I've seen it come up a few times as a reason to convict, yet it wasn't used as evidence. What's the real story behind the lamp?

 

[wasnt_me]

There's no story behind the lamp, as I understand. It's just AK's lamp and it was in Mk's room. No one knows why it was in there or when it was placed in there. Got knocked over during the struggle and was behind the bedroom door when they broke it down.

 

[mdana]

There's no story behind the lamp, as I understand. It's just AK's lamp and it was in Mk's room. No one knows why it was in there or when it was placed in there. Got knocked over during the struggle and was behind the bedroom door when they broke it down.

Yet another small fact that somehow got turned into something entirely different on the basis of wild speculation and nothing else as far as I have read. I did not notice it mentioned in the MOT as incriminating evidence, if there is other information I would like to read it.

 

[mdana]

No that is not the meaning of what he said, and you are one of the main culprits IMO. Is it possible for y'all to debate/argue WITHOUT being rude and condenscending???

We get it... you don't agree with our interpretations or our thoughts on the case. It is perfectly acceptable to ignore or skip over our post if you can not.

One side may get upset with the other side's interpretation of the case, that is perfectly understandable in a debate. However, one side (starts with a G) continually cries foul when their observations are weakend by the actual facts of the case and accuses the other side of alleged misbehavior while ignoring their own misdeeds. You really can't lecture others for mischaracterizations of others words when you engage in the process on a regular basis.

You might want to look in the mirror and take heed of you own advice.

 

[mdana]

Maybe it's time for a reminder that 47% of all criminal trials in Italy are overturned in the first round of appeals. So, nearly half the time in Italy the jury does get it wrong.

I have heard anywhere from 40-50% all over the internet, but I would like an actual source. So far, I have not seen any documentation that backs up this statistic which makes me quite dubious of its accuracy . Skeptically, it does not make sense to imprison almost 50% that are eventually acquitted.

 

[Malkmus]

I have heard anywhere from 40-50% all over the internet, but I would like an actual source. So far, I have not seen any documentation that backs up this statistic which makes me quite dubious of its accuracy . Skeptically, it does not make sense to imprison almost 50% that are eventually acquitted.

Believe me, I thought the same exact thing. Until I did find the data. And now I can't seem to locate it. Will need some time to relocate it, but it exists.

 

[mdana]

I kind of skimmed over the whole fifth key discussion. It did not interest me, and I do not consider myself well versed in the topic.

However, I never noticed if this point was mentioned about the possibility someone besides the four roomates had a key. I think it was Hendry or some other Pro-Knox writer that suggested this theory. Obviously, the landlord has a key. What about the two people that lived in the apartment before AK and MK? I was under the impression the two Italian woman had two roomates before the two foreigners arrived. If they did not change the locks, then the two previous roomates could have still had workable keys and a boyfriend or someone else could have had a duplicate.

The reason I mention this is I remember a case on TruTV (I think) where a woman quickly moved out of an apartment and another woman moved in shortly afterwards. The second woman was murdered the first week in her new apartment and the police zeroed in on her current boyfriend who had an arrest record (relatively minor DUI, drunk and disorderlies, maybe an assault charge dismissed, if I remember correctly). They had no hard evidence, and it languished for 3-4 years when a new dectective was assigned the case or it was reopened with new dectectives.

It turned out that the previous owner had been going through a messy divorce at the time, and had to get a restraining order against her husband. He had a gun collection with a specific interest in the gun that was used as the murder weapon. Unfortunately, the previous tenant had never been contacted, so this information was never pursued. After another 18 months they got enough evidence to get an arrest and eventual conviction of the ex-husband who had tried to kill his ex-wife to avoid divorce proceedings and ended up killing the wrong woman, because the landlord never changed the locks.

 

[Malkmus]

In 2001, latest figure available, reversals were almost 47% of
all appeals decisions on the merits and roughly 35% of all appeals concluded.

www.cbs.dk/content/download/67295/930261/file/Bruna Szego.pdf

This is the best and most thorough report I've been able to find so far.

 

[wasnt_me]

Yet another small fact that somehow got turned into something entirely different on the basis of wild speculation and nothing else as far as I have read. I did not notice it mentioned in the MOT as incriminating evidence, if there is other information I would like to read it.

I put in a quote a couple pages back about it that came from RG's Mot. Report. the judge in that case assumed that the lamp had just been in the room the whole time and wasn't part of the crime scene.