Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #17

[Allusonz]

What about hitting a golf ball thru the window from the inside with closed shutters, would any glass go outside then?

Oh right except it has been showing where the marks are on the shutters which are not consistent with it being thrown from inside

 

[Allusonz]

Off for more zada zada's now. Malkmus I will get you back for this :giggle:

 

[dgfred]

Except AK testified that she did not do her laundry there as there was not a dryer and instead took her laundry to a laundrymat

Washing clothes is not drying them. What AK testified to is barely relevant IMO.
Especially if she was trying to cover up evidence of a murder she was involved in.

 

[dgfred]

Oh right except it has been showing where the marks are on the shutters which are not consistent with it being thrown from inside

Right... except you can open the window to the inside, with the marks on the inner shutters behind it in perfect alignment with a rock being thrown from inside directly into it.

 

[sherlockh]

I posted the video of the defense expert re-creating the throwing of the rock and surprise it landed in just about the exact same place it was actually shown on an Italian news report.

Glass does go in both directions as many have presented videos here to prove. Alas I can only go by what my zada zada golf balls do when they have broken a window. Most of the glass went forward, downward and some went out to the deck the gentleman was sitting on as he ended up with a glass shard in his shoulder

Ok, if glass goes in both directions then it must have been broken from inside with the shutters closed. Otherwise there would have been glass outside. Thanks. I still don't see how this matters all that much, since nobody climbed that wall and somebody (not FR) tossed stuff around before breaking that window.

 

[emyr]

Washing clothes is not drying them. What AK testified to is barely relevant IMO.
Especially if she was trying to cover up evidence of a murder she was involved in.

I didn't know there was no dryer. So that means if she committed the murder and got blood on her clothes, she would have had to dispose of them or go to a laundromat to dry them. The clothes she was seen in the day before were lying on her bed. That makes it unlikely that her clothes were ever bloody. Which makes it more difficult for the prosecution to describe her participating in the murder.

 

[emyr]

Right... except you can open the window to the inside, with the marks on the inner shutters behind it in perfect alignment with a rock being thrown from inside directly into it.

I was going to agree with this, but then it sounded like you were saying they opened the glass window (either partially or fully) so they were throwing a rock at only the window and interior shutter... which doesn't explain the gathering of glass on the window sill.

The glass window had to have been closed didn't it? To have glass on the sill?

And if the issue is that there is glass inside a room instead of outside on the ground, then that means you only have two scenarios don't you?

1) That someone partially opened the exterior shutters, throwing a rock which struck the interior shutters causing a mark and embedded glass, causing the glass to fall onto the sill, into the room, but mostly in the area in front of the window.

2) Someone had the exterior shutters CLOSED, and partially opened the interior shutter, such that the rock struck the exterior shutters and ricocheted into the interior shutters, thus leaving glass only on the sill, at the foot of the window, and imbedded on the interior shutter.

 

[dgfred]

I didn't know there was no dryer. So that means if she committed the murder and got blood on her clothes, she would have had to dispose of them or go to a laundromat to dry them. The clothes she was seen in the day before were lying on her bed. That makes it unlikely that her clothes were ever bloody. Which makes it more difficult for the prosecution to describe her participating in the murder.

Doesn't really 'mean' anything IMO that we can conclude positively about it.

What if she didn't get blood on her clothes?
What if she only washed some towels and socks?
What if she was wearing different clothes than a day earlier?
What if she did only wash them, but dried them somewhere else? IIRC there was a rumor that she was seen at the laundromat with another guy.

So IMO kind of tough to figure out exactly.

 

[dgfred]

I was going to agree with this, but then it sounded like you were saying they opened the glass window (either partially or fully) so they were throwing a rock at only the window and interior shutter... which doesn't explain the gathering of glass on the window sill.

The glass window had to have been closed didn't it? To have glass on the sill?

And if the issue is that there is glass inside a room instead of outside on the ground, then that means you only have two scenarios don't you?

1) That someone partially opened the exterior shutters, throwing a rock which struck the interior shutters causing a mark and embedded glass, causing the glass to fall onto the sill, into the room, but mostly in the area in front of the window.


2) Someone had the exterior shutters CLOSED, and partially opened the interior shutter, such that the rock struck the exterior shutters and ricocheted into the interior shutters, thus leaving glass only on the sill, at the foot of the window, and imbedded on the interior shutter.

I'll take scenario neither one. I believe the window was partially opened with the inner shutters behind it and the outside shutters closed per Filomena's testimony. Throwing a rock from inside the room then strikes the window then the inner shutters behind it. With glass spraying the room and some landing on the sill, inside of the outside shutters. So no, the window would not have to be shut for my scenario to leave glass on the sill.

Perhaps you could have agreed afterall.

 

[emyr]

Doesn't really 'mean' anything IMO that we can conclude positively about it.

What if she didn't get blood on her clothes?
What if she only washed some towels and socks?
What if she was wearing different clothes than a day earlier?
What if she did only wash them, but dried them somewhere else? IIRC there was a rumor that she was seen at the laundromat with another guy.

So IMO kind of tough to figure out exactly.

Yes, but you've proved my point. You have to come up with additional scenarios to explain the evidence. The straightforward scenario is she committed murder in the clothes she was last seen wearing. Of course, she could have been naked, or wearing different clothes, but that adds complexity to the story. Going somewhere to wash and dry her clothes also adds complexity (and if they brought forward the guy who says he saw her at a grocery store, one would've thought they would bring forward a laundromat witness. Both would have had the same credibility.)

 

[Nova]

What?

Why wouldn't she 'imagine' she was NOT involved? :dance:

The mental gymnastics being shown regarding AK's confession/accusation/Nov 6 statements are impressive IMO from the supporters. Obviously.

Your reply makes no sense, fred. Nobody asked AK to imagine she was not at the crime scene. She said she was with RS at his apartment.

AK was asked to "imagine" she was at the crime scene in order to recover "lost" memories. That should make us all suspicious of the interrogation process.

 

[Nova]

There are many reasons, many are evidence of what was not present:

*Lack of anything stolen.
*Per testimony the shutters were closed except for swollen wood preventing them being totally shut.
*The inprobability of anyone choosing that window to break into the cottage.
*No dna on the window sill or in the room of an intruder.
*No glass outside the window on the ground and no disturbances on the ground showing someone was below the window.
*Glass only on the sill suggesting the window shutters were closed when the window was broken.
*Testimony that glass was on top of clothes thrown to the floor suggesting the room was tossed before the window was broken.
*AK's dna mixed with Meredith's blood in a spot in Filomena's room, but no dna of RG in the room.
*The recognition by experienced investigators of a staging, and the suspicion of persons that would need to cover up having a way into the cottage= keys.

What evidence do you have that any of the investigators were "experienced"?

With all due respect, I think that's an assumption we might all make. But there's nothing in the treatment of the crime scene that suggests experience in any valuable sense. I could collect any gang of random people and collect evidence as well (i.e., as badly).

Does the pro-guilty argument boil down to this: "When all is said and done, we trust LE"?

 

[emyr]

I'll take scenario neither one. I believe the window was partially opened with the inner shutters behind it and the outside shutters closed per Filomena's testimony. Throwing a rock from inside the room then strikes the window then the inner shutters behind it. With glass spraying the room and some landing on the sill, inside of the outside shutters. So no, the window would not have to be shut for my scenario to leave glass on the sill.

Perhaps you could have agreed afterall.

But... If it's a high impact strike, then the glass won't spray TOWARDS where the rock struck it. And even if it did, it would have to spray towards the strike, and make a hard turn around the edge of the window to land at the corner of the sill. As well as across the whole sill itself. You should have an accumulation of glass in the area it was struck while open (near her wardrobe) with the rest radiating out from it. If it's a low impact strike, then the glass would fall straight down, also leaving an accumulation of glass near Filomena's wardrobe.

I mean, I'm no expert, but that's just the basic law of gravity isn't it? Though, if I were to defer to the experts, the only two scenarios presented were the ones I outlined before.

The glass is primarily on the sill and in front of the window, with the remainder scattered in the clothes and 4 to 5 feet out on the blue throw rug. Real or staged, I don't see how the initial glass window could have been anywhere but in the closed position.

Edited to Add: Maybe your theory was the theory presented by the experts, and I didn't understand it correctly? If so, I guess I stand corrected. Though it really seems like a weird way for glass to act, IMO.

 

[dgfred]

Yes, but you've proved my point. You have to come up with additional scenarios to explain the evidence. The straightforward scenario is she committed murder in the clothes she was last seen wearing. Of course, she could have been naked, or wearing different clothes, but that adds complexity to the story. Going somewhere to wash and dry her clothes also adds complexity (and if they brought forward the guy who says he saw her at a grocery store, one would've thought they would bring forward a laundromat witness. Both would have had the same credibility.)

I don't agree. Why would the straightforward scenario be she committed murder in the clothes she was last seen wearing?
Throwing the clothes worn during the murder away is possible and probable.
Not getting blood on her clothes is another possibility. I don't see the additional complexity unless one tries to make it too complex.

 

[Allusonz]

Right... except you can open the window to the inside, with the marks on the inner shutters behind it in perfect alignment with a rock being thrown from inside directly into it.

Do you seriously believe that a rock that size if thrown at a window would not continue its' outward momentum right out the window?

 

[dgfred]

Your reply makes no sense, fred. Nobody asked AK to imagine she was not at the crime scene. She said she was with RS at his apartment.

AK was asked to "imagine" she was at the crime scene in order to recover "lost" memories. That should make us all suspicious of the interrogation process.

Makes sense to me, Nova :great: .

Whether AK is asked to imagine she was there or not doesn't matter to me, she could have said or imagined she WAS NOT there. Her answers and her statements later are what make me suspicious.

 

[dgfred]

What evidence do you have that any of the investigators were "experienced"?

With all due respect, I think that's an assumption we might all make. But there's nothing in the treatment of the crime scene that suggests experience in any valuable sense. I could collect any gang of random people and collect evidence as well (i.e., as badly).

Does the pro-guilty argument boil down to this: "When all is said and done, we trust LE"?

Well, maybe they had had training and been on the job more than one day.
Yes I agree... any gang of random people could probably have collected evidence and also seen evidence of a staged break-in as well at that crime scene.

Does the innocent-project going on boil down to "Everything is wrong or misinterpreted by the pro-guilt people and judges/jurors as to their guilt"?

 

[Nova]

I don't agree. I think there were many 'signs' that it was a staging. I don't think the crime scene was compromised at all by just picking up her laptop.
It wasn't the only thing with glass on top of it.

For instance in alot of stagings the stager will bust out a window or screen, but do it from the inside. Which is a giant red flag to investigators that someone already inside had committed the crime and staging.

Very similar here; as there was no disturbance on the ground below, no glass on the outside of where the shutters would have been if closed, glass on top of clothes already thrown to the ground, and nothing stolen from the room.
Also no dna of an intruder struggling up and thru the window is of note.

We can't know there was "no DNA," only that no DNA was collected.

Likewise, I don't believe the ground outside was investigated so carefully that we can say with any certainty there was no glass in the dirt.

Nothing stolen can indicate (a) staging; (b) the intruder found nothing he could cash in; or (c) the burglary was interrupted (by stomach problems or the return of a resident).

It's already been pointed out that glass can fall on top of clothes that are already on the floor. And once there is glass on anything, it can be moved about when the room is tossed. (We know at least one piece ended up in MK's room!) Where is the evidence that there was no glass UNDER the clothing?

Yes, breaking glass from the inside often betrays a staging, but that doesn't mean it happened here. ALL THE FORENSIC EXPERTS who have opined on the matter find the glass patterns suggest a genuine break in. The prosecution offered no experts who believe otherwise.

 

[dgfred]

Do you seriously believe that a rock that size if thrown at a window would not continue its' outward momentum right out the window?

See, I think the whole problem is you don't understand what I am saying.

You open the glass window with the Inner shutters behind it. The Outer shutters are still closed. You then throw the rock into the glass striking the Inner shutters behind it leaving the mark. Glass flies all over the room and onto the sill (but can't go farther because of the closed Outer shutters).
Going out the window is impossible in this scenario. Does that explain it better?

 

[dgfred]

We can't know there was "no DNA," only that no DNA was collected.

Likewise, I don't believe the ground outside was investigated so carefully that we can say with any certainty there was no glass in the dirt.

Nothing stolen can indicate (a) staging; (b) the intruder found nothing he could cash in; or (c) the burglary was interrupted (by stomach problems or the return of a resident).

It's already been pointed out that glass can fall on top of clothes that are already on the floor. And once there is glass on anything, it can be moved about when the room is tossed. (We know at least one piece ended up in MK's room!) Where is the evidence that there was no glass UNDER the clothing?

Yes, breaking glass from the inside often betrays a staging, but that doesn't mean it happened here. ALL THE FORENSIC EXPERTS who have opined on the matter find the glass patterns suggest a genuine break in. The prosecution offered no experts who believe otherwise.

<modsnip>.

*No dna 'was collected' showing someone entered the room??? Right

*I, for one can say that I believe the investigators noticed there was no disturbance below the window... as they testified to.

*Right, nothing was stolen. That is one part of the staging, not the only part.

*The testimony was that glass was on top of the close, I don't believe we are in a position to say they were lying or mistaken.

*All <modsnip> 'forensic experts' (what kind of experts?) could not sway the judges/jurors that there was a real break-in... or me either :innocent: .
The prosecutors must have relied on the jurors using common sense.