Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #17

[sherlockh]

Did the police not look through the clothing and belongings of Knox and Sollecito?

Sollecito's apartment was searched after he was arrested. On the 6th of November I believe.

 

[SMK]

Sollecito's apartment was searched after he was arrested. On the 6th of November I believe.

Well, they did not find anything pointing to guilt with either. Whether this is because there was in fact nothing, or because a clean up occurred, we now cannot know.....

 

[SMK]

I have always been bothered by lack of blood, lack of injuries RE Knox and Sollecito. In so many crime docus I have seen, they find the suspect's boots, with blood on them, or blood in the car, or blood on the carpet, or unexplained scratches on the suspect's arms, face, hands, or torso.

Then when I read opinions like this one, I really cannot see how AK and RS were not found to have any blood or injuries on their persons , clothing, or shoes:

BLOODY CLOTHING: NOT THERE
There would be blood-stained clothes, underwear and/or shoes of the attackers.

There is a simple answer to why Guede’s clothes were not found to have blood on them. They were never found. Guede left the country, and disposed of his clothes and shoes. Those items can never be tested. But Amanda and Raffaele stayed in town. Their clothes would have been with them. Maybe even ON them. The blood would likely not have even been dry. Even after laundering, it is easy to detect latent blood on fabric and certainly leather. Any blood on Amanda or Raffaele’s clothes or shoes would have been found.

No blood was ever found on any of their clothes or shoes.

The prosecution might argue that the two disposed of the clothes they allegedly wore at the murder. But then one would have to believe that they cleverly and secretly disposed of their shoes, they disposed of their clothes, they disposed of one murder knife……but they kept a second murder knife, and returned it to their silverware drawer.

INJURIES TO THE ASSAILANT(S)
3. There would have been bruises, cuts and other injuries to Amanda and Raffaele.

It is a rare occurrence when a frenzied fight involving a knife does not involve injuries to both parties, even when one is assumed to be larger and stronger than the other.

When I was on an FBI SWAT Team, we had an exercise designed to teach us the dangers of trying to fight off a knife attack. A red magic-marker played the part of a knife, and an “assailant” would attempt to attack another member of the SWAT Team with it. We did this in white t-shirts and open sleeves so we could see the wounds. Within seconds, the assailant had usually dispatched the victim with stabs and slashing attacks to the neck and torso, as the victim fought back desperately. Without exception though, the attacker was “cut”. Always. And almost every time on the hands or fingers. This is because the victim, in attempting to fight off a knife, reaches for the hands, which deflects the knife into fingers or other parts of the hands. In addition to the “cuts”, there were bruises and lacerations simply from elbows and arms flying.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI2.html

 

[Malkmus]

Did the police not look through the clothing and belongings of Knox and Sollecito?

Amanda's conversation with the Supreme court judges. In it they list the evidence being used to hold her and Raf in jail:

Amanda:
The circumstantial evidence against me does not meet the standard required by law to keep me in jail because:
I'm a young foreigner; I have a clean record; and my behavior was influenced by the use of cannabis.
My memoir was not correctly translated and was used only partially.
The record of my conversation with my mom in jail (17 Nov) was misinterpreted.
The DNA traces on the knife and my blood traces in the small bathroom are not proof.
The scientific results are not proof against me.
They were used to theorize my presence at the crime scene and the role I played in the crime.But this theory is not logical.
Supreme Court:
The clues against you are serious.
The knife that was seized at Raffaele's house belongs to Raffaele's house, not to the victim's house, and has traces of Meredith's DNA on the blade and of your DNA on the handle.

Raffaele initially said he spent the whole evening with you but then, during questioning on 5 and 6 November, he said that you went out and did not return until at about 1 am.
Robyn Butterworth said that on 2 November you described the position of the corpse to her although, in light of the intervention of the postal police, you could not have been aware of this information.
Laura and Filomena described a sweatshirt you were wearing on the day of the crime and that sweatshirt has not been found.
In the memoir you described realistically how Meredith was screaming, how you reacted to that and the presence of a man in the room. Then you described the traces of blood you saw on Raffaele's hand during the dinner of 1 November at around 11 pm.
While talking to your mother in jail you said "This is so stupid, because I can't say anything else. I was there, I can't lie about that, there's no reason I should."
By inserting such elements into a wider picture, we notice that a shoe print in the crime scene is considered to belong to Raffaele. The alibi Raffaele gave has failed because he tried to maintain that he was working at his computer during the crime, although no human activity was detected on his computer. He stated that he received a call from his father at 11 pm, when in fact that call was at 20.40 pm.
The phone traffic of both your cellphone and Raffaele's stopped at 20.40. Raffaele said he spent the night sleeping, but his computer and cellphone were turned on again at dawn on 2 November.
Traces of Rudy were found at the crime scene and Rudy is someone you know.
In the little bathroom were found: traces of Meredith's blood on the little carpet, of you on the sink and of both you and her on the bidet.

Here is the sweatshirt on her bed, photographed November 2nd.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...01286599.45660.106344459390034&type=1&theater

 

[SMK]

Amanda's conversation with the Supreme court judges. In it they list the evidence being used to hold her and Raf in jail:



Here is the sweatshirt on her bed, photographed November 2nd.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...01286599.45660.106344459390034&type=1&theater

So the sweatshirt was recovered, then.....and nothing on it...:waitasec:
Where does this conversation of Knox and SC Judges come from?

 

[Malkmus]

So the sweatshirt was recovered, then.....and nothing on it...:waitasec:
Where does this conversation of Knox and SC Judges come from?

Whoops, I don't usually forget to post links. PMF reposted it via Perugiashock.

http://perugiamurderfile.net/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=59&p=1175

It's amazing how much on the SC's list is either false or taken out of context. The sweatshirt was never missing, the shoeprints turned out to be Rudy's, the blood on Raf's hand she said was from the fish he was cutting, and the "I was there" comment referred to Raf's apartment. Apparently, even just knowing who Rudy was was enough to count as evidence against her.

 

[SMK]

Whoops, I don't usually forget to post links. PMF reposted it via Perugiashock.

http://perugiamurderfile.net/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=59&p=1175

It's amazing how much on the SC's list is either false or taken out of context. The sweatshirt was never missing, the shoeprints turned out to be Rudy's, the blood on Raf's hand she said was from the fish he was cutting, and the "I was there" comment referred to Raf's apartment. Apparently, even just knowing who Rudy was was enough to count as evidence against her.

Yes, it is annoying how old theories which have been discounted in the courts, continue to live on in the media and in the forums.

This is what "turned" me, finding out that so much of the "proof" had been discounted, and remained alive due to media spin:

When Amanda took the stand during her 11-month trial in June 2009, her lawyer asked if she’d really told her parents that she was “there.”

Amanda: “Of course.”

Luciano Ghirga: “What did you mean by ‘I was there’”?

Amanda: “I was in Raffaele’s apartment and wasn’t afraid to say it.”

Remember, police have eavesdropped on Amanda’s every telephone call and private conversation since Nov. 2007. This is the best they could do.

Amanda Knox wasn’t referring to the crime scene, when she told her parents “I was there” during an intercepted prison conversation in 2007. She clearly meant at the apartment of boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, as two courts have already agreed. You’d never know that from the new stories claiming she incriminated herself. No. Perugia police leaked that falsehood in 2007. It was debunked long ago when the courts forced them to cough up the report that I’ve posted.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/02/28/amanda-knoxs-there-doesnt-place-her-at-crime-scene/

 

[Nova]

I left out the personal comment which said this: "(Comment: For me it must have been the 5th as he was said to have dropped it off midday and we know where he was at midday on the 2nd.)". I am assuming the laundromat was closed in the weekend? The laundromat guy also said that the shirt was already washed. Anyway, the point was that there are indicators that they were washing and cleaning clothes. Nothing complex about it.

RS had one shirt cleaned-- maybe five days after the murder--and that's incriminating?

 

[Nova]

Well, they did not find anything pointing to guilt with either. Whether this is because there was in fact nothing, or because a clean up occurred, we now cannot know.....

Of course we don't know how well PLE searched RS' apartment. But surely they did some luminol testing. I question AK's and RS' ability to clean so thoroughly that blood on floors and clothes wouldn't be detected.

 

[Nova]

Amanda's conversation with the Supreme court judges. In it they list the evidence being used to hold her and Raf in jail....

I'm sorry but the Italian justice system seems hopelessly Alice-in-Wonderland.

One of the items listed against AK is RS' testimony that she left his apartment and was gone until 1 a.m.

But if RS' statement is correct, then he is innocent, so why is he in custody?

If RS' statement is untrue, then why is it used against AK?

 

[SMK]

Of course we don't know how well PLE searched RS' apartment. But surely they did some luminol testing. I question AK's and RS' ability to clean so thoroughly that blood on floors and clothes wouldn't be detected.

I agree, and often suspects have attempted to clean blood and it is still found via the luminol, which obviously did not happen in this case. I recall a case of a dentist who murdered his wife. When the police came to his home, it was spotless: He had had the carpets steam cleaned, and the entire place had been vacumed, dusted, and bleached. They still found blood with the luminol.

 

[SMK]

There is absolutely no evidence of Amanda Knox in the room at the time of the murder, nor is there evidence that she participated in any way.
a. No blood
b. No hairs
c. No fingerprints
d. No footprints
e. No saliva
f. No DNA

2. There are absolutely no items of Amanda’s which have any blood on them
a. No clothes
b. No shoes
c. No socks
d. No underwear

3. Amanda had not a scratch on her the morning after the attack
a. No cuts
b. No bruises
c. No lacerations

4. There was absolutely no blood found in Raffaele’s apartment or Amanda’s room.
a. Nothing on the floors
b. Nothing on knives
c. Nothing on carpets
d. Nothing on walls
e. Nothing on clothes
f. Nothing on utensils
g. Nothing on doorknobs

5. There was no escape attempt by Amanda or Raffaele
a. Rudy escaped to Germany shortly after the attack
b. Amanda did not attempt to flee
c. Raffaele did not attempt to flee

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI2.html

 

[SMK]

I'm sorry but the Italian justice system seems hopelessly Alice-in-Wonderland.

One of the items listed against AK is RS' testimony that she left his apartment and was gone until 1 a.m.

But if RS' statement is correct, then he is innocent, so why is he in custody?

If RS' statement is untrue, then why is it used against AK?

Right; they want it both ways. To believe it to use against Knox; to disbelieve it to use against Sollecito.

 

[sherlockh]

Well, they did not find anything pointing to guilt with either. Whether this is because there was in fact nothing, or because a clean up occurred, we now cannot know.....

Except for the murder weapon of course

 

[sherlockh]

RS had one shirt cleaned-- maybe five days after the murder--and that's incriminating?

5 November would be the first available date for him to clean since they were busy on the 2nd, but I never said it was incriminating in the first place. The point was made that there was no laundromat witness but there is. Point was also made that washing clothes is 'adding complexity'. I showed that they wash their clothes. Go figure

 

[SMK]

Except for the murder weapon of course

what murder weapon?

ETA: I meant in searching Sollecito's apartment or Amanda's room, that no incriminating blood was found.

As far as the knife in the drawer, I have always heard that there was a question regarding this being the real weapon. I am sorry, but to me, so much points to Guede being a lone wolf killer. There is even a social message or lesson to be drawn from this scenario which I believe has been lost by the focus on Knox and Sollecito.

If I am wrong, I hope I will truly be proven so one day, so that I may rethink all...

Amanda Knox Expert Disputes Murder Weapon

PERUGIA, Italy, July 6, 2009
A medical examiner hired by Amanda Knox gave grisly testimony today about how her roommate was likely killed, and concluded that the knife presented by the prosecution could not be the murder weapon.

Medical examiner Carlo Torre also told the court he believed only one knife was used in the crime, and that only one person was involved in the killing.

Ivory Coast native Rudy Guede has already been convicted for taking part in the death of Knox's roommate Meredith Kercher and was sentenced to 30 years in prison.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=8014386

 

[emyr]

But she did change clothes. She was going to work. Who knows what she was wearing? Her boyfriend doesn't even remember. What is so complex about washing clothes? The laundromat guy did testify.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/08/kercher-trial-knox


http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/report_from_the_courtroom_how_saturday_went/

But it is complex. The original concept was that she went to a laundromat the morning of the murder, and was spotted drying her clothes there (since she had no dryer in the cottage). This action alone is risky for a murderer. (and adds complexity).

But this would have enabled her to lay the clothes she wore the day before on her bed (and they wouldn't be wet). You have provided a witness who said that Raffaelle provided a shirt, and only his shirt, to be cleaned and returned to him. This adds complexity to Raffaelle's story, as well as some stupidity to his story, because it certainly would have been simpler for him to dispose of murder clothes, rather than take them to a person to launder them, an action extremely above the radar.


To fit in with a murder scenario of wearing the clothes she was last seen in (at 8pm by the girl who needed her suitcase delivered, that's who testified as to what she was wearing correct?), you have to have her stab someone in a way to get no blood spatter on her clothes (highly improbable), or stab her and then wash her clothes and also dry them surreptitiously. OR, explain how she changed clothes between 8pm and 9pm, and then disposed of those clothes. OR say she killed Meredith naked.

IMO, if the facts led me towards believing in her guilt, I would assume she was there but did not stab Meredith. In a group sex-crazed scenario, I would imagine her in the next room drugged-up and uncaring.

 

[SMK]

It is too bad Rudy Guede fled, and was not found first. As per Nina Burleigh's book, the police were originally - rightly - looking for a male petty criminal type. Had they found him that day, I think they would have correctly focused on him.

ETA: And now of course I read a proposed scenario on PMF, ruminating about the footsteps heard....and then I can almost envision that this is real. It gives me pause, at least. Would like to be able to discount witnesses who heard them running....:waitasec:

FOA don't like anyone to remind them that it was not only Ms Capezelli who heard the running on the driveway from a flat that is absolutely directly opposite the gravel driveway but also by Maria Dramis who was in a bedroom on the *other* side of that appartment block and who heard them running along via del Melo, having cut through on the metal steps and then run along to the steps running down the side of the basketball court. Via Melo, which is completely pedestrian and really in effect a back alley really brings you out half-way down the steps directly behind one of the basketball hoops and about 15 yards from the vantage point at the edge of the court where you can observe. . .

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/vi...d=184c8af00c7e46b8a034b39d22e696ef&start=1250

In any case, the witness account was indeed called into question:

Ear witness against Amanda Knox mixed up nights

. . . The woman then recalled that she heard multiple people running away. From the balcony, she pointed her index finger in the direction of the first iron stairs to the right of her flat and then left along the path that runs along the driveway of the cottage.

“Then before I went back to sleep, I heard noises, people running on the iron stairs and along the gravel road.”

The woman specified:

“Almost at that same moment, while what I heard on the stairs was the loudest, I heard something else.”

In all frankness, if under your window you hear a loud scream and then the sound of an imprecise number of people running in different directions, then how can you accuse anyone in particular, without seeing them?

If, for example, two of your friends were to get into trouble, young people, who’d dated only a little while, and you knew that your testimony was considered “very important” for the purposes of the prosecution, then what’s possible for you to say: what else. You heard noises in the distance, people running in different directions. Attention. It’s not possible to say who they were.

And neither can Signora Capezzali be pushed to do that.

That is to say, there is a conceptual difference between her words and the decision to use them against Amanda and Raffaele. She heard only some noises.

Even if the testimony of this woman were reliable, something that would answer open questions, it’s not sufficient to properly accuse Amanda and Raffaele.

In court prosecutor Mignini affirmed:

“Timely, very timely, fundamental testimony from brave, frank and honest Signora Capezzali.”

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/04/14/ear-witness-against-amanda-knox-mixed-up-nights/

A third witness, Maria Dramis, who lived in the area testified that on the same night she heard the sound of running footsteps under her window, a sound that woke her up around 11 p.m. This was not an unusual occurrence, but it struck her in light of what she found out the next morning about the death of Kercher just down the road.

A peculiarity about the testimony of the Monacchia Dramis is that they did not report what they had heard to investigators until over a year after the fact. When they finally did explain what they heard, it was only after prompting from a journalist who accompanied them to the police station.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=7189205&page=1

 

[emyr]

[video=youtube;eJ38uzwD2Is]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ38uzwD2Is[/video]

Defense's recreation of the rock throwing.

It's interesting, I had read in the Massai report and elsewhere that part of the reason they discounted this is because he did not take into consideration the outside shutters. I thought this was because he had failed to explain why the glass did not fall down into the garden. However, this recreation without shutters at all would make it MORE likely that glass would have exploded so that it fell downards into the area where the garden was, and yet it did not. (No shutters on the exterior to offer additional reason for the glass not to fly that way.)

As the assumption is that the shutters HAD to be open to throw a rock through the window, then I don't see what the problem is with throwing a rock without those exterior shutters present. In the real burglary they would be open. Weird.

Edited to ADD:

After further review of the Massai report and how he dismisses this recreation, I am even further befuddled. He is stating that it is unlikely that it happened this way because it could have easily happened a myriad number of other ways. Isn't that the whole point of doing a recreation? If you can show a way that fits with how Rudy could have made that appearance of glass happen, that means it is possible that's the real answer? And more importantly, you must rely only on other evidence to prove a faked break-in?

Where is the prosecutions' re-creation that it could have been thrown from the inside?

ALSO, it seems to me if Rudy was making sure no one was home, this offered him the easiest way to verify no one was there (they might not answer the door even after he knocked). Break the window, wait to make sure they were gone... and now you know the inner shutter can open, so why not go ahead and enter that way?

 

[SMK]

Ballistic Expert Pasquali Video Shows How Rock Broke Window - Amanda Knox - YouTube

Defense's recreation of the rock throwing.

Thanks for posting this! Never saw it before.