Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #15

[wasnt_me]

I think the common question of "If the clasp was contaminated, why wasn't everything else contaminated" is the essential question. The answer is pretty straightforward: because there were only two pieces of evidence procured 46 days later. A pair of socks, and the bra clasp. (As far as I know).

Also, there could be contamination in the other samples. If you look at the cigarette butt, for instance, you can see lots of tiny bumps far below the rest. Contamination? Noise?

I really think PS never found the dna on the bra clasp to start with, but if they have to prove contamination in court, I'm just reviewing where it could ahve come from. I think she had no clue what she was doing with mixed DNA samples, and she didn't ever even find RS's dna on the clasp. but if somehow I'm wrong and she did find it, I'm guessing contimination had to be it.

but as far as nothing else being contiminated, we don't know if anything else was. we just don't. I'd call to retest everything, seriously. But On December 18th, they also collected the purse, the bloody jacket, I believe the pillow was still in there, they got the mop, obviously. And I don't know what else, but then they did the luminol testing that night, as well. So all that dang on evidence sat up in there 47 days.

Oh, and other things were contiminated. the towels were so degraded, they couldn't even be tested. I wish the towels could have been tested.

Nova brought up a point of asking were other "purse type things" found in the room. I dn't know the answer to that, but I'm thinking an empty purse on a bed during a "robbery" would mean everything in the purse was taken. If they took the pictures exactly as the bed was, then my question is why aren't the contents of her purse all over the bed or the floor? It was a good sized bag, so she had to have crap in it. if a robber is in a hurry, he dumps the whole purse on the bed and takes what he wants, leaving chapstick, lipstick, lotion, gum, receipts, hygeine products, and whatever else can be in a purse on the bed. OR he dumps it all in his bag to sort out later. I find it odd that he'd dump out the purse and stack the stuff neatly somewhere in the house. Like I said, viewing the pictures, there does not appear to be purse like stuff around the bed. I'll look again though tomorrow to be sure.

I can be wrong, nova, and everyone else, so that's why I need your comments on my little theories.

 

[miley]

wasnt_me, here is something you posted not long ago (quoting from RG's appeal translation):

wasnt_me:
on the single bed, covered by the bottom sheet, two irregularly-formed bloodstains; also on the bed, amongst other items – a purse, two sponge socks, a bloodstained book - an ivory-coloured terry cloth towel heavily smeared with blood. page 4

I'm taking for granted that the bed was made. Maybe it wasn't. I understand that RG could have moved her purse from another location to the bed in order to rifle through it. but how did the set of socks and the book get on the bed or stay on the bed, if RG had ripped off her sheet? maybe she didn't make the bed, since she'd had such a long night the night before. But I see there's a set of socks on her bed and more socks on the floor. Just wondering the state of things, because I doubt her comforter and sheets were already on the floor before the attack. Am I making sense?

Don't know where I'm going with that, other than trying to really understand how the attack took place. I know what hendry says, but he doesn't account for how her sheet got off the bed and the other items, like a book and socks, got on the bed.

In any event, this on page 6, really makes me understand there was just one attacker:

The traces of DNA and Guede’s Y chromosome on the cuff of the left sleeve of the victim’s sweatshirt supported a conclusion that considerable pressure had been applied to immobilise her left hand, in contrast with her right hand, on which multiple wounds were visible.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=encrypted.google.com

I have had these exact same questions.. I assumed the bloody socks on the floor were the ones she had been wearing - do you think it's possible she was actually wearing the ones thrown on her bed, it would make more sense - I could see the books maybe sliding to the edge if the duvet/sheet was pulled out from underneath and then later, he put the purse, socks and towel on the bed.

ETA: there's yet another Y chromosome

 

[wasnt_me]

Exactly. To me, it makes more sense to ask, "How did RS get his DNA on the clasp without touching the rest of the bra?" Being a middle-aged gay man, my experiences with bras are few and far in the past; but as I recall, removing one took more than touching one side of the clasp. Maybe they have push-button bras nowadays, but I doubt it.

LOL push button bra!

:floorlaugh:

I pinch my bra at the back to get out of it, but I have to touch the material moreso than the hooks. I might inadvertently touch the hooks, but the goal is to do it almost as if you are snapping your fingers, but with the two sides of the clasp between those fingers. I do a little tug, and push them against each other in the opposite directions (like snapping your fingers) and it comes undone fairly easily. I'll put some thought into it next time I do it and let you k now if i'm describing it right.

Like I said before, RG's DNA was reportedly all over the rest of the bra, so there was totally not any need for two men to be playing tug of war with her bra and if they were, then more evidence of RS would be in the room, plain and simple.

 

[wasnt_me]

I don't know how cold it gets in italy in october, november, but maybe she wore two socks. I was thinking she had them in her purse in case it got cold, and when they fell out as he dumped the purse in his bag, the sock might of just not fallen into his bag, and got lumped on the bed. Those books might have been the books she'd brought home, and if she'd stripped her bed before leaving, as I guess, then it'd make sense that they'd be on the bed. But for me, I know I don't strip the bed and make it later unless I knew already I had clean sheets, and then 90% of the time, if I do have clean sheets, I put them on right away. can't imagine she'd wash her only set of sheets at night, but she could have taken the sheets off and left, thinking she'd finish making the bed when she got home. I don't too much buy that theory, but maybe you guys let me know what you think.

 

[miley]

I believe so. I'm trying to figure out how stuff was on the bed, but the sheets weren't on the bed. I guess he could have ripped them off with a lot of force to make the books stay in place, but what about the fitted sheet, cause it's not on there, either. unless they don't use them over there. I'm trying to figure out why he ripped the sheets off the bed.

I was thinking that she'd done it before leaving for the party. I was thinking maybe she'd planned to put new sheets on before going to bed and washing the old sheets, since she'd started doing laundry. I don't know....

anyway, I found the bathmat crap. I really can't believe she said it. at first I thought they were just misunderstanding her, but mig really did specifically ask her if she'd had two feet on the thing while going to her room. Her answer indicated that she understood the question.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=165

You have to do "find on this page" and put in bathmat.

I don't know about that story. I put that in my skeptic column and concede that I might have been wrong interpreting that she'd used the mat like a towel. That whole thing confuses me, but the interpretor added that she'd done it so she wouldn't slip with her wet feet. That makes no damn sense. You use the bathmat to wipe your feet and then you proceed out of the room. You don't surf on the thing.

I'm puzzled by that story and RS's knife-pricking story.

I understand what she's saying because sometimes I do it myself and probably why I haven't put a lot of thought into it - I don't see how it indicates guilt..

 

[Nova]

LOL push button bra!

:floorlaugh:

I pinch my bra at the back to get out of it, but I have to touch the material moreso than the hooks. I might inadvertently touch the hooks, but the goal is to do it almost as if you are snapping your fingers, but with the two sides of the clasp between those fingers. I do a little tug, and push them against each other in the opposite directions (like snapping your fingers) and it comes undone fairly easily. I'll put some thought into it next time I do it and let you k now if i'm describing it right.

Like I said before, RG's DNA was reportedly all over the rest of the bra, so there was totally not any need for two men to be playing tug of war with her bra and if they were, then more evidence of RS would be in the room, plain and simple.

That's what I was thinking. I've heard of people removing a bra with one hand, but they still have to touch the fabric on both sides of the clasp.

 

[Nova]

I don't know how cold it gets in italy in october, november, but maybe she wore two socks. I was thinking she had them in her purse in case it got cold, and when they fell out as he dumped the purse in his bag, the sock might of just not fallen into his bag, and got lumped on the bed. Those books might have been the books she'd brought home, and if she'd stripped her bed before leaving, as I guess, then it'd make sense that they'd be on the bed. But for me, I know I don't strip the bed and make it later unless I knew already I had clean sheets, and then 90% of the time, if I do have clean sheets, I put them on right away. can't imagine she'd wash her only set of sheets at night, but she could have taken the sheets off and left, thinking she'd finish making the bed when she got home. I don't too much buy that theory, but maybe you guys let me know what you think.

But don't we have a stained pillow case? I can't imagine washing sheets without washing the pillow case. That's the item that gets the most facial oil, unremoved make-up, etc., on it.

 

[dgfred]

I disagree and have cited several sources (to your none) explaining why. If you're truly worried about facts being misrepresented then it seems like you'd at least try to settle this debate. Currently you've added nothing.

I've never presented this as fact, if you think it's spinning, then take it up with Barbie Nadeau

That's bull. Nothing is presented (from you or anyone else) as FACT regarding a 'plea-deal'... as there is no such thing. Settled.

 

[Sonata]

That's what I was thinking. I've heard of people removing a bra with one hand, but they still have to touch the fabric on both sides of the clasp.

Correct. There is no way in heck you can undo a bra only touching the clasp. I have years of experience and if someone can teach me otherwise I'd be grateful. I still have to twist the thing round, but I am not the most lady-like of women...

But then think about that... the fact that (in my eyes at least) one would consider being able to remove a bra with such little contact an extremely delicate, elegant and lady-like feat. Certainly NOT the kind of scenario one would expect as part of a brutal murder. This makes me think that the finding of RS's DNA on such a small and insignificant area of the bra is an indication of contamination.

 

[wasnt_me]

LOL push button bra!

:floorlaugh:

I pinch my bra at the back to get out of it, but I have to touch the material moreso than the hooks. I might inadvertently touch the hooks, but the goal is to do it almost as if you are snapping your fingers, but with the two sides of the clasp between those fingers. I do a little tug, and push them against each other in the opposite directions (like snapping your fingers) and it comes undone fairly easily. I'll put some thought into it next time I do it and let you k now if i'm describing it right.

Like I said before, RG's DNA was reportedly all over the rest of the bra, so there was totally not any need for two men to be playing tug of war with her bra and if they were, then more evidence of RS would be in the room, plain and simple.

Whooa! I just undid my bra! LOL I was remembering I had to test it and sitting here at my desk, I just undid it! LOL.

Good thing I'm at home for lunch, but yes, I touch the material more than I do the hooks, but that time, i touched the hooks and everything. I would think though a guy would do it differently if he were undoing it while it's on me, but I think it's logical and right to assume that the material gets touched the most and you use the MOST friction on the material, not the hooks. Now I gotta get back dressed. Okay, to do that, I needed two hands and I used the material only. Not the hooks. I just put them up to each other and the hooks kind of just naturally caught without me having to touch them at all.

 

[wasnt_me]

I understand what she's saying because sometimes I do it myself and probably why I haven't put a lot of thought into it - I don't see how it indicates guilt..

No, it doesn't. Esp since it's not even her footprint. Surprised they were screaming that her DNA was on the rug.

Anyways, explain to me about this riding the rug thing that you do.

 

[wasnt_me]

But don't we have a stained pillow case? I can't imagine washing sheets without washing the pillow case. That's the item that gets the most facial oil, unremoved make-up, etc., on it.

yup, but I say RG stained it, not the boyfriend.

I see what you're saying, she should have taken the pillow case off, too. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't, but I sleep with my dogs and do my sheets a lot more often because of it.

 

[wasnt_me]

Correct. There is no way in heck you can undo a bra only touching the clasp. I have years of experience and if someone can teach me otherwise I'd be grateful. I still have to twist the thing round, but I am not the most lady-like of women...

But then think about that... the fact that (in my eyes at least) one would consider being able to remove a bra with such little contact an extremely delicate, elegant and lady-like feat. Certainly NOT the kind of scenario one would expect as part of a brutal murder. This makes me think that the finding of RS's DNA on such a small and insignificant area of the bra is an indication of contamination.

Yeah, if you could undo it by just touching the hooks, they'd be popping off all the time when we sit with our backs against a chair, or anything. bras are not designed to just pop open.

Also, I agree about the murderer not being all delicate. The bra was apparently ripped off. you can see that by looking at the threads on the full bra. The thread came undone, releasing the clasp piece. But as for the cutting theory, you can't cut it without grabbing the fabric, because all the bras I've ever seen are elastic to fit around our torsos, so the fabric has s ton of give. You have to pull it taunt to be able to slice it. that requires touching the fabric--Unless MK was running or pulling in the opposite direction like a on a cartoon and she created the tauntness in the fabric herself. Still, I couldn't imgine getting the knife up under the fabric in that situation to make an upward slice without touching it, because the fabric has to be held on by something for even her to create the tauntness by pulling to opposite way.

 

[Nova]

Correct. There is no way in heck you can undo a bra only touching the clasp. I have years of experience and if someone can teach me otherwise I'd be grateful. I still have to twist the thing round, but I am not the most lady-like of women...

But then think about that... the fact that (in my eyes at least) one would consider being able to remove a bra with such little contact an extremely delicate, elegant and lady-like feat. Certainly NOT the kind of scenario one would expect as part of a brutal murder. This makes me think that the finding of RS's DNA on such a small and insignificant area of the bra is an indication of contamination.

I agree.

And this is OT, but may I express my sympathy to anyone anywhere who has to wear a bra? I've never tried one on, but those things look damn uncomfortable. Hot, too.

 

[Nova]

yup, but I say RG stained it, not the boyfriend.

I see what you're saying, she should have taken the pillow case off, too. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't, but I sleep with my dogs and do my sheets a lot more often because of it.

I think it's possible it was RG. What is appalling is that it hasn't been tested? What if it turned out to belong to one of RG's friends? (Unlikely, but not impossible.) That could change the case entirely!

 

[emyr]

Just reviewing Amanda's testimony....

With the presumption of innocence (you could come up with a less damaging version, but I am going with the most likely version of the truth if she is innocent):

her behaviour makes me think she thought Lumamba was guilty. i.e. she assumed the police had hard evidence against Lumamba. She named him. She retracted her testimony, but now she was suspicious that Lumamba was really the murderer and she was frightened of him. She looked back over his past behaviour and was filled with suspicion... over time, she realized that if the police thought she did it and she know she didn't, maybe they were wrong about Lumamba as well. Once it was proven he was innocent she felt truly terrible that he was jailed only because of her testimony.

The bathmat boogie story is false. It is such a silly story, I feel it must be a lie told to fit with the evidence. She is telling a lie because she is innocent, and the truth will not exonerate her (she stepped in something random that caused her foot to floursce. So she lied so she won't go to jail. (I don't think she has a false memory).

Presumption of guilt (You could come up with a more damaging version, but I'm looking at the one most likely to be true

The police suggested Lumamba to her, and she leapt at the opportunity to look less guilty. She knew that they had placed her there, so she opted for the story that was the least damaging to her. She told a lie about the bathmat boogie because she was guilty and she needed an explanation for the evidence.

***********
As you can see, the most likely explanations involve poor scenarios for both parties. With Amanda, if innocent, she believed an innocent man to be guilty, lied about him, and lied to make herself look more innocent.

In the guilty version, the police actively manipulated and scared her (as proven by the same behaviour with Lumamba). The police believed she was guilty and did many things they shouldn't in order to prove it. (Including arresting Lumamba on weak testimony).

 

[Nova]

Just reviewing Amanda's testimony....

With the presumption of innocence (you could come up with a less damaging version, but I am going with the most likely version of the truth if she is innocent):

her behaviour makes me think she thought Lumamba was guilty. i.e. she assumed the police had hard evidence against Lumamba. She named him. She retracted her testimony, but now she was suspicious that Lumamba was really the murderer and she was frightened of him. She looked back over his past behaviour and was filled with suspicion... over time, she realized that if the police thought she did it and she know she didn't, maybe they were wrong about Lumamba as well. Once it was proven he was innocent she felt truly terrible that he was jailed only because of her testimony.

The bathmat boogie story is false. It is such a silly story, I feel it must be a lie told to fit with the evidence. She is telling a lie because she is innocent, and the truth will not exonerate her (she stepped in something random that caused her foot to floursce. So she lied so she won't go to jail. (I don't think she has a false memory).

Presumption of guilt (You could come up with a more damaging version, but I'm looking at the one most likely to be true

The police suggested Lumamba to her, and she leapt at the opportunity to look less guilty. She knew that they had placed her there, so she opted for the story that was the least damaging to her. She told a lie about the bathmat boogie because she was guilty and she needed an explanation for the evidence.

***********
As you can see, the most likely explanations involve poor scenarios for both parties. With Amanda, if innocent, she believed an innocent man to be guilty, lied about him, and lied to make herself look more innocent.

In the guilty version, the police actively manipulated and scared her (as proven by the same behaviour with Lumamba). The police believed she was guilty and did many things they shouldn't in order to prove it. (Including arresting Lumamba on weak testimony).

I think you are exactly right. The "boogie" was an attempt to explain "smearing" that ILE told her they had found. The accusation of Patrick was a response to ILE insisting they have proof he was there. Still not right, but far short of evidence that she committed murder.

And continue in the same vein, RS' brief retraction of AK's alibi was in response to ILE insisting they had proof that AK was at the cottage that night.

What's really scary is how many cases (not just in Italy) are built with this exact chain of LE lies.

 

[SMK]

Correct. There is no way in heck you can undo a bra only touching the clasp. I have years of experience and if someone can teach me otherwise I'd be grateful. I still have to twist the thing round, but I am not the most lady-like of women...

But then think about that... the fact that (in my eyes at least) one would consider being able to remove a bra with such little contact an extremely delicate, elegant and lady-like feat. Certainly NOT the kind of scenario one would expect as part of a brutal murder. This makes me think that the finding of RS's DNA on such a small and insignificant area of the bra is an indication of contamination.

I have always felt this way , too. I agree with all you are saying.

 

[SMK]

I agree.

And this is OT, but may I express my sympathy to anyone anywhere who has to wear a bra? I've never tried one on, but those things look damn uncomfortable. Hot, too.

They are. You are lucky, indeed! And yes, if RS were attempting to remove MK's bra, a little touch on the clasp would never, ever, do it. Struck me as contamination from the get-go. Just makes NO sense.

 

[SMK]

Whooa! I just undid my bra! LOL I was remembering I had to test it and sitting here at my desk, I just undid it! LOL.

Good thing I'm at home for lunch, but yes, I touch the material more than I do the hooks, but that time, i touched the hooks and everything. I would think though a guy would do it differently if he were undoing it while it's on me, but I think it's logical and right to assume that the material gets touched the most and you use the MOST friction on the material, not the hooks. Now I gotta get back dressed. Okay, to do that, I needed two hands and I used the material only. Not the hooks. I just put them up to each other and the hooks kind of just naturally caught without me having to touch them at all.

:laugh::laugh::laugh: