Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #15

[Nova]

So you are saying Amanda Knox and Casey Anthony are of the same type. What links them, in your mind? Narcissism?

Word games.

 

[Nova]

Seems so. If this is the case, though, it could mean RG simply killed MK to prevent being IDed, during a burglary in progress. BUT there was also a theory that it was a fight between RS, AK, RG, and MK, over money, and the sexual assault was staged, along with a break-in. And why did Guede admit to consensual sex if something sexual had not occurred? He could have said he heard a scuffle and fled, never having gone near MK at all....

This case is full of people being told that ILE has unassailable evidence that must be explained. AK accused PL. RS told the story about "pricking" MK while make dinner.

RG may well have thought it wiser to claim consensual sex than try to combat ILE forensic techs who were insisting his DNA had been found in MK's vagina.

 

[Nova]

It should be about finding justice for Meredith and the conviction of all parties that participated in her murder. Arguments that the DNA could have been contaminated, although there is no proof that this happened, should not result in any of the parties involved in the murder walking free.

So you admit you are willing to convict people based on unreliable evidence. I rather thought so.

 

[Nova]

There has been a conviction, and the culprits are desperately grasping at the possibility that contamination could have occurred in order to reverse the verdict. We know have confirmation that it's possible that contamination could occur, but no confirmation that it did occur.

Why would anyone expect large amounts of DNA to be all over a crime scene? In most cases I've followed, I recall claims like: a tiny piece of DNA was found on some item of clothing, or a partial print was found on a surface. I don't recall any case where it was said that huge amount of the culprits DNA was spread all over the crime scene. In the murder of Nancy Cooper, there was no evidence that a murder had occurred in the home (where she was likely murdered). In the murder of Laci Peterson, again there was no evidence that a murder had occurred other than her body in a remote area. Can you think of any case where there was abundant DNA from a culprit at a murder scene (excluding blood and semen).

Yes. Unless it is also a lie, there is abundant DNA from Rudy Guede in the Meredith Kercher murder.

 

[Nova]

...I'm pretty sure that Ms Anthony is guilty of murdering her daughter, but the jury thinks she didn't do it. Some people think Knox didn't murder Meredith, but the jury thinks she did.

So juries make mistakes. That is not just a point made by many of us all along, it also begs the question.

 

[miley]

Is this the RG DNA supposedly found inside MK? Because if it doesn't actually belong to RG, that means the murder may have been much simpler than we've imagined.

yes, remember we talked about how it was worded ..."his Y chromosome was found on a vaginal swab inserted into the body of the victim"

so what are you thinking?

 

[Nova]

Not really ...

Knox, and many other witnesses, were questioned in the days leading up to the day that Knox falsely accused an innocent man of murder.

Knox provided an alibi that could not be independently verified. That is, although she claimed that she was at Sollecito's apartment watching a movie, eating dinner, listening to music, having a shower and sleeping, it was proven untrue. That is, dinner was not at 10 or 11 as Knox claimed, but at 8:20 or 8:30. The movie concluded at 9:10 and there was no human interaction with the computer until the following morning at about 6 AM, when the computer was used for music. I don't believe they sat in silence from 9:10 until the following morning.

After two hours of questioning as a witness, at a time when Knox was not expected to be at the police station, she falsely accused an innocent man of murder. No one knows what was said during that interview except what was written in the statement that Knox signed at 1:45 in the morning. At this time, her status was changed from witness to suspect and she was detained.

At about 5:45, after demanding to be heard, she again signed a statement confirming her earlier statement. Neither this statement, nor the one signed at 1:45, were used against her in court ... they were inadmissable.

Later, while alone in a cell, she asked for paper/pen and reiterated that she stood behind her statements about Patrick. I don't remember the date of this voluntary statement that she described for police as a "gift". For some reason, Nov 9 comes to mind.

Knox did not declare that Patrick was innocent. In fact, she remained silent regarding his innocence.

Regardless of her changing alibi, the events that she claims occurred at Sollecito's apartment between 9 PM and 10 AM (when she said they woke up) did not happen.

This is a deliberate misrepresentation or distortion of the facts and otto's errors have been corrected many times.

AK's alibi was never proven untrue. Like most people she was home after 9 at night and has only her partner's word for that.

If "no one knows" what was said during the tag team interrogation of AK, whose fault is that? ILE's.

Although the earlier statements were rules inadmissible under Italian law, they were admitted and read before the jury in the slander suit by ILE against AK. otto has no way of knowing whether one or more jurors gave those early confessions weight despite judicial instructions to the contrary.

The "gift statement" exonerates PL more than it reaffirms her earlier accusations. In it AK clearly states that her memory of the night of the murder is unreliable, and that what she does remember seems more like a dream.

Regardless of what ILE and otto may wish, no one can disprove all of AK's claims as to how she spent her night.

As usual, otto ignores how preposterous the entire prosecution theory is, because AK and RS didn't have time to build a conspiracy with RG. And AK didn't have the language skills to "supervise" a rape and murder in Italian.

 

[miley]

I don't know how it can be said that there was copious amounts of Guede's DNA at the crime scene. As far as I know, Guede opted for a fast track trial where he admitted being at the scene. I don't think that the court heard about evidence proving that he was there, only about evidence proving that there was sexual contact between Guede and Meredith, and that he used the toilet. Since the collection of DNA and lab analysis of DNA is in question, I think that would also put into question whether Guede's DNA really was on Meredith or in the toilet.

My understanding is that there were not multiple hits of Guede's DNA, but if you are aware of any DNA from Guede other than the toilet and what was used to prove sexual contact, I'm interested in hearing about it. His arrest was based on fingerprint identification.

Yes. Unless it is also a lie, there is abundant DNA from Rudy Guede in the Meredith Kercher murder.

yes there was
besides the Y haplotype found in her... his dna was found on the sleeve of her jacket, on her purse and the straps of her bra

his bloody hand on a pillowcase, his bloody shoe prints
(and I believe a bare footprint in the bathroom, too) plus fingerprints
eta: also dna on the t.paper in the bathroom

 

[Nova]

It's really stretching it to suggest that Knox was in grief or shock. She did not at any time express any condolences to the victim's family, and the only memorable thing she said after the murder was "she f-ing bled to death". During the investigation, she was described as flirting with her boyfriend and performing acrobatics. During the memorial, she was eating pizza elsewhere.

If you ask me, it sounds like you're coming up with yet another excuse to remove responsibility from Knox for the actions, words and deeds that resulted in her conviction.

Let's not forget that nothing about the murder scene caused her any concern ... she simply wandered off, carrying a mop, to have brunch with her boyfriend.

What does eating pizza have to do with whether AK felt grief or shock? Nothing.

You tell an untruth that the murder scene caused AK no concern. She mentioned it to RS and followed his advice concerning calling her roommates.

 

[Nova]

I found this quote of Amanda's, on a site, by the way, which is claiming that her words indicate concealment and deception:



Just for your interest, Otto, the analyst makes these claims (which I am not in agreement with):

All or nearly all of the supposed "lies" of RS and AK are like the ones you quote: they are responses to the defendants being told they can't trust their own memories and must "imagine" answers that suit ILE.

 

[Nova]

yes, remember we talked about how it was worded ..."his Y chromosome was found on a vaginal swab inserted into the body of the victim"

so what are you thinking?

I don't know what to think. Unfortunately, independent experts were never asked to review the DNA evidence against RG.

But the sexual assault always seemed so tentative for someone in a murderous frenzy. Of course, it's possible RG assaulted the victim sexually, but with Stefanoni merely looking to confirm a theory already "imagined" by the prosecution, who knows?

 

[otto]

the experts have confirmed no such thing and you're the only one who thinks they found dna on her underwear - everyone else is discussing a bra clasp!

DNA was found on the clasp of Meredith's bra, her underwear.

We are still trying to figure out how the boyfriend of Knox got his DNA on the underwear of his girlfriend's roommate; the victim ... but apparently everyone else would rather lose themselves in clasps, underwear and fasteners ... even though the bottom line is that his DNA is on the victim's underwear.

How many here are going to sit back and proclaim that the ony way a man's DNA could end up on a woman's underwear is because he smoked a cigarette with his accomplice hours earlier outside the bedroom ... and then his DNA flew onto the underwear six weeks later?

 

[otto]

What does eating pizza have to do with whether AK felt grief or shock? Nothing.

You tell an untruth that the murder scene caused AK no concern. She mentioned it to RS and followed his advice concerning calling her roommates.

Is Knox eating too much pizza? Hello?

The murder scene in fact did not cause any concern for Knox. She claims to have had a shower at the scene of the murder, and then she toodled on over to Sollecitio's apartment where she mopped a floor and then settled in for brunch. It was during that brunch that she apparently mentioned the state of the cottage - and where he and she started calling roommates like Filomina.

 

[otto]

otto's errors have been corrected many times.

QUOTE]

Could you please elaborate on, and itemize, those errors ... I think you are posturing and full of it.

 

[otto]

otto's errors have been corrected many times.

Could you please elaborate on, and itemize, those errors ... I think you are posturing and full of it.

 

[SMK]

I'm not clear why Casey anthony is on this thread, but she was found inncoent. You are talking about this with Otto, who has said time and time again that the juries and judges know what they are doing. So if they reach a verdict, then it is right and true. He has said that time and time again with respect to AK and RS, so let it be the same with CA, and let's get back to the trial that is the title of this thread, please.

Agreed. I was speaking of the 2 because I do wonder why the verdict is not final for Otto in the CA case, but seems to be in the Knox case.

 

[SMK]

All or nearly all of the supposed "lies" of RS and AK are like the ones you quote: they are responses to the defendants being told they can't trust their own memories and must "imagine" answers that suit ILE.

I agree.

 

[emyr]

Going through all of this forensic evidence of Stefanoni, I am currently surprised that I have moved from thinking of her as a forensic scientist doing her job to someone who has an active agenda for the prosecution who engaged in withholding critical evidence from the defense. I am surprised that this is indisputable.

Mainly, I find this indisputable because initially, I was agreeing with other forums were it did not seem outside the pale for her to engage in suspect-centric testing, that evidence that wasn't provided wasn't provided because it was superceded by more reliable evidence and wasn't asked for, and there was no proof that she had engaged in sloppy lab practices.

However, after reviewing the Massai report a few days ago, Stefanoni herself states that suspect-centric testing is strictly forbidden, and she goes to great lengths to describe the rigor of her lab practices. The evidence clearly shows she did not provide full unobjective answers of the testing results (ignored allelles that should have been counted). And the defense provided photographic evidence that she did not change her gloves, directly at odds with her testimony of outstanding rigor regarding the handling of evidence within her lab. There also seems to be no rational explanation for not providing the results of the TMB test, besides the fact that she wanted to strengthen the case against the defense, a motivation strictly forbidden to an objective scientist.

Back in the early days I'm reading chatter on blogs of people saying, to the effect, "Do you honestly expect us to believe that the forensic scientists were running around trying to pin this murder on Sollecito?"

I thought it would be next to impossible to prove that the forensic scientists were engaged in some kind of gotcha game against the defendants. Trying to say that these two are innocent because the evidence was planted is far more difficult than to say it was simply the result of contamination. However, Sollecito has clear evidence that Stefanoni was actively seeking a way to make him look guilty. And the Massai report shows that Stefanoni's actions were not innocent, as she stresses all the ways she did not do what is clearly obvious that she did do.

It is one thing for US to say: Look, 13 of the 15 Allelle's are Sollecitos, it's clearly him. It's another thing for Stefanoni to say: "I looked at the sample, ignored the two allelles that did not match Sollecito because even though I had access to his profile, I did not use his profile for this test, as I agree that suspect centric methodology is strictly forbidden."

What level do these lies reach?

If Amanda's changing alibi makes her a murderer, does Stefanoni's changing story about evidence testing make her a framer?

This is not to say that I am uncomfortable dismissing evidence because of contamination or possible planting. I am. The knife I dismiss, but the bra clasp is a stickier issue.

Do I presume innocence for the defendants but presume guilt by the prosecution? Or vice-versa?

If Stefanoni was tried in court, I would find her guilty of suspect-centric testing. I would find her guilty of withholding evidence. I would find her not guilty of being a planter, because even with the previous two counts of guilt, the presumption is still of innocence unless solid proof can be given.

But now, with Sollecito (under this scenario) I am being asked to find him guilty using evidence from a person who has been found guilty of suspect-centric testing and withholding evidence.

Yes, it substantailly weakens this evidence.

 

[SMK]

It is one thing for US to say: Look, 13 of the 15 Allelle's are Sollecitos, it's clearly him. It's another thing for Stefanoni to say: "I looked at the sample, ignored the two allelles that did not match Sollecito because even though I had access to his profile, I did not use his profile for this test, as I agree that suspect centric methodology is strictly forbidden."

What level do these lies reach?

If Amanda's changing alibi makes her a murderer, does Stefanoni's changing story about evidence testing make her a framer?

(snipped by SMK)
Good points.

 

[emyr]

bra clasp print out The tall peaks are Meredith (you can compare to the graph otto provided way back when).