Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #17

[SMK]

SMK, that's nice in theory. But I've been on juries where the meaning of the phrase was argued for hours. And nobody mentioned Kant.

:razz: ....Seriously, though, all Western jurisprudence is Kantian. IF held to seriously - which it is not - Knox and Sollecito would have benefited from reasonable doubt in the first trial. Legally, it does not matter whether they are guilty or not, but whether reasonable doubt has been surpassed by the prosecution..........

 

[SMK]

@Fred: I think Perugian LE handled Guede better, and were able to do so, as he left an abundance of clear evidence and admitted to being at the scene and to being sexual with Meredith.

 

[SMK]

It was a blue zip-up Addidas jacket. It was found on the floor covered in blood with the sleeves turned inside out. Personally, I find the sleeves turned inside out very telling.
It was then thrown into a laundry hamper by PLE and later collected on December 18th.

Here it is November 2nd.



You can watch the December 18th collection videos here:

http://www.oggi.it/focus/attualita/...mento-del-gancetto-del-reggiseno-di-meredith/

Yes, I have always agreed with Hendry that the killer - in his professional opinion, Guede - pulled the jacket off her, which is why it had its sleeves turned inside out. Its being blood soaked, to Hendry, indicated that she was stabbed before being raped, and not after:

With the struggle over, Rudy seizes the collar of the blue sweatshirt Meredith is wearing and pulls her toward the nightstand, leaving a heavy trail of blood. After moving her upper body for about 1-1/2 feet in a counterclockwise arc, the jacket begins to come off, and she is caught up in the mat on the floor, so Rudy tosses it toward the desk.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendry10.html

ETA: I can never read Hendry's analysis without feeling real pity for Meredith, and anger at Guede. Should the convictions stand, he the guilty will do the least time, IMO:razz:

 

[dgfred]

Was she even wearing that jacket to her friends apt?

If she did, could she have took it off immediately OR a while later? Are not both possible?

Could she have taken it off and the sleeves became 'inside/out'?

Could it have been pulled off of her?

Could it have just fell into the blood, even if she wasn't wearing it?

It may be very telling, but what it is telling is hard to decipher.

 

[Nova]

What evidence shows that?

What about taking classes in an old Italian town, sleeping with an Italian for a week, endless other interaction with Italians, etc. I think she could at least function in Italian. IIRC she spoke of talking to RS alot about his past and his mom at least.

She'd basically just arrived in Italy, fred. I'm aware she took Italian classes in school before she left, but there's a big leap from taking classes to fluency. A murder conspiracy is a specialized agreement, the vocabulary for which is unlikely to be covered in class.

I have had to demonstrate "proficiency" in two languages (Spanish as an undergrad, French as a grad student); neither effort would have enabled me to agree to criminal activity with people I hardly knew.

AK only knew RS for a little over a week. They could not possibly have talked "a lot." We also don't know how much she understood of what he said. There are reports that she and MK tended to hang out together because neither was entirely comfortable speaking Italian.

As for your other question, we've discussed the evidence that the anime didn't stop running until 9:48 that night. Yes, it's possible they didn't watch to the end, that mid-cartoon they suddenly got up and ran out to commit murder, but I don't believe they did. And I don't believe they ran out the very second the cartoon ended.

So I put them at RS' place until 10 pm. By 10:12 or 15, MK's cell phones are pinging where they were discarded.

There simply wasn't enough time for AK and RS to decide to commit murder (or even play a prank), collect their accomplice (RG), go to the cottage, interrupt MK and kill her.

 

[SMK]

Was she even wearing that jacket to her friends apt?

If she did, could she have took it off immediately OR a while later? Are not both possible?

Could she have taken it off and the sleeves became 'inside/out'?

Could it have been pulled off of her?

Could it have just fell into the blood, even if she wasn't wearing it?

It may be very telling, but what it is telling is hard to decipher.

I will admit it is hard to decipher. How can Hendry or anyone really know?

However, he is an expert at reenacting accidents, and this crime is similar to an accident (brutal, unplanned, sudden, disorganized and irrational)... His logic is very, very compelling....it was cold out, and probably she had kept it on for the first few minutes of being home, which is when the attack likely occurred....

I think she surprised Rudy, and he did the unthinkable....I cannot imagine Guede doing anything with RS and AK.....He was used to acting alone, not in concert....As I said above, he to me is the culprit, and will do the least amount of time should the convictions stand....

 

[Nova]

Didn't the same crime techs collect the evidence against him? Didn't the same lab test the evidence used against him? Wasn't he prosecuted by Mignini? What was the evidence botched or mishandled in his case? These wide-reaching general statements are kind of misleading regarding 'incompetent' IMO. Why no protest for his incarceration due to a incompetent investigation?

He admitted being at the cottage, but now he admits AK and RS were there too. He also said he had a 'date' with Meredith. Perhaps AK set up this date in the first place and he isn't lying about that part. He claims to have tried to help Meredith, that only leaves two more (that were there) people as the possible murderers.

What is your point, fred?

The quantity of evidence against RG is far greater, he had a criminal record, he fled the jurisdiction after the murder, he--with the aid of his attorney--has repeatedly placed himself at the scene of the crime.

No, I don't think RG is innocent.

 

[dgfred]

Yes, I have always agreed with Hendry that the killer - in his professional opinion, Guede - pulled the jacket off her, which is why it had its sleeves turned inside out. Its being blood soaked, to Hendry, indicated that she was stabbed before being raped, and not after:



http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendry10.html

ETA: I can never read Hendry's analysis without feeling real pity for Meredith, and anger at Guede. Should the convictions stand, he the guilty will do the least time, IMO:razz:

@SMK
I don't see how anyone can tell if Meredith pulled a jacket off to get the sleeves inside/out or if someone pulled it off her. Would there have been much more of RG's dna present on her jacket if he pulled it off?

For example:
My daughter, who is 20 long-sleeved clothes/jackets/etc are usually inside/out after she removes them... whether in the hamper or on the floor. It drives me bonkers because I like stuff 'just so' with the sleeves the right way and always straighten them out if I see them.

 

[dgfred]

What is your point, fred?

The quantity of evidence against RG is far greater, he had a criminal record, he fled the jurisdiction after the murder, he--with the aid of his attorney--has repeatedly placed himself at the scene of the crime.

No, I don't think RG is innocent.

My point was there is little 'fuss' over the conviction of RG.

I disagree:
The evidence against RG is NOT greater
He did NOT have a criminal record
He fled, AK and RS told a bunch of rubbish
He placed himself there, but he has also placed AK and RS 'there'

I don't think he is innocent either, nor his companions that night.

 

[dgfred]

As for your other question, we've discussed the evidence that the anime didn't stop running until 9:48 that night. Yes, it's possible they didn't watch to the end, that mid-cartoon they suddenly got up and ran out to commit murder, but I don't believe they did. And I don't believe they ran out the very second the cartoon ended.

So I put them at RS' place until 10 pm. By 10:12 or 15, MK's cell phones are pinging where they were discarded.

There simply wasn't enough time for AK and RS to decide to commit murder (or even play a prank), collect their accomplice (RG), go to the cottage, interrupt MK and kill her.

Even if they only had from 10pm (which I don't agree with) to 1am... I don't understand the 'not enough time to prank/murder' theory. How long does it take?

 

[SMK]

@SMK
I don't see how anyone can tell if Meredith pulled a jacket off to get the sleeves inside/out or if someone pulled it off her. Would there have been much more of RG's dna present on her jacket if he pulled it off?

For example:
My daughter, who is 20 long-sleeved clothes/jackets/etc are usually inside/out after she removes them... whether in the hamper or on the floor. It drives me bonkers because I like stuff 'just so' with the sleeves the right way and always straighten them out if I see them.

Point taken. Yes, she may have carelessly removed and tossed it. BUT that it was so blood soaked raises questions. It may have fallen in the blood, but Hendry's scene is very believable. Or do you think Hendry holds to "black man found, black man guilty"?

 

[Nova]

:razz: ....Seriously, though, all Western jurisprudence is Kantian. IF held to seriously - which it is not - Knox and Sollecito would have benefited from reasonable doubt in the first trial. Legally, it does not matter whether they are guilty or not, but whether reasonable doubt has been surpassed by the prosecution..........

I understand the importance of Kant. I used to teach a history of aesthetics.

I don't know why you are razzing me. I know from personal experience that people wrestle with the meaning of the term, "reasonable doubt". I've experienced that working for trial attorneys and as a juror. And those were people raised in the U.S. speaking English.

In the 25 years I've lived here, the state of California has changed the definition of reasonable doubt given to jurors. So obviously Kant wasn't the final word on the subject.

When we allow for differences in culture, history and language, I don't think we can know that the phrase will mean exactly the same thing to Italian jurors that it means to you.

Nonetheless, until an Italian legal expert comes along to explain subtle cultural differences, I agree we have to assume for purposes of discussion that Italy and the U.S. use the same standard of proof.

 

[dgfred]

@Nova,
Are you sure about Meredith's cell pinging at 10:12 15 where they were discarded? I thought that was the time of the bank call.

 

[dgfred]

Point taken. Yes, she may have carelessly removed and tossed it. BUT that it was so blood soaked raises questions. It may have fallen in the blood, but Hendry's scene is very believable. Or do you think Hendry holds to "black man found, black man guilty"?

I don't agree with Hendry's analysis at all, but that is known already. Blood soaked raises too many questions for us to figure out what it means exactly IMO.

 

[SMK]

I understand the importance of Kant. I used to teach a history of aesthetics.

I don't know why you are razzing me. I know from personal experience that people wrestle with the meaning of the term, "reasonable doubt". I've experienced that working for trial attorneys and as a juror. And those were people raised in the U.S. speaking English.

In the 25 years I've lived here, the state of California has changed the definition of reasonable doubt given to jurors. So obviously Kant wasn't the final word on the subject.

When we allow for differences in culture, history and language, I don't think we can know that the phrase will mean exactly the same thing to Italian jurors that it means to you.

Nonetheless, until an Italian legal expert comes along to explain subtle cultural differences, I agree we have to assume for purposes of discussion that Italy and the U.S. use the same standard of proof.

I was only teasing, Nova..:innocent::seeya:..guess I remain the sole person who thinks razzing is funny....:waitasec:I understand how much the concept of reasonable doubt lacks an exact or fixed definition. It is a shame, because it is relatively easy to understand: reasonable doubt does not mean all doubt, it means doubt which any reasonable person would hold. It should be a universal standard, but I am agreeing with you, it is muddled and murky....thanks for your always excellent input....

 

[SMK]

I don't agree with Hendry's analysis at all, but that is known already. Blood soaked raises too many questions for us to figure out what it means exactly IMO.

I was serious about the last question. Do you think Hendry may be trying to pin it on the black man?

 

[Nova]

My point was there is little 'fuss' over the conviction of RG.

I disagree:
The evidence against RG is NOT greater
He did NOT have a criminal record
He fled, AK and RS told a bunch of rubbish
He placed himself there, but he has also placed AK and RS 'there'

I don't think he is innocent either, nor his companions that night.

It's true that I and others became aware of the case because American media were following the tale of an American student accused of murder abroad. So our knowledge of the evidence against AK and RS is much greater than our knowledge of the evidence against RG.

If I'd followed RG's trial, perhaps I would have a different impression, but I doubt it.

(You are correct: RG had no formal convictions. But there is sufficient evidence to conclude he regularly engaged in criminal behavior.

I don't know how you can say there is as much evidence against AK and RS as there is against RG, but, of course, you are entitled to your opinion.)

 

[dgfred]

I was serious about the last question. Do you think Hendry may be trying to pin it on the black man?

Well, anybody but AK would be my opinion... probably just leaves RG available.

 

[Nova]

@Nova,
Are you sure about Meredith's cell pinging at 10:12 15 where they were discarded? I thought that was the time of the bank call.

Honestly, fred, I'm NEVER sure I have the facts of this case straight. (I trust you won't use that admission against me in the future. LOL.)

I think the bank call was closer to 10 and the change in cell phone towers came roughly a quarter-hour later. I'm also aware of the overlap of cell coverage in Perugia and that this sort of evidence isn't perfect.

Nonetheless, MK dead by 10 or so and the cell phones discarded 15 minutes later conforms to the best estimates of TOD and gets the killer(s) out of the way before the car breaks down outside the cottage.

 

[dgfred]

@Nova,
Do you think posting that he had a criminal record is misleading?