Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #17

[Nova]

I will grant you one thing, Fred.
IF Hellman and the jury decide to uphold the convictions, at this point I will begin to supsect that Knox and Sollecito were in fact involved....

Et tu, SMK?

Given the obvious miscarriages of justice already perpetrated in Perugia, why do you suddenly trust this court over your own judgment?

In nearly every case of false confessions in the U.S. that we have discussed, appellate courts upheld the convictions of innocent persons.

I realize there are differences between the appellate courts in the U.S. and those in Italy, but one thing both must share is considerable pressure to uphold the respective "system" of each and affirm the rulings of lower courts.

 

[SMK]

Et tu, SMK?

Given the obvious miscarriages of justice already perpetrated in Perugia, why do you suddenly trust this court over your own judgment?

In nearly every case of false confessions in the U.S. that we have discussed, appellate courts upheld the convictions of innocent persons.

I realize there are differences between the appellate courts in the U.S. and those in Italy, but one thing both must share is considerable pressure to uphold the respective "system" of each and affirm the rulings of lower courts.

......:razz: ......... I was attempting to use hyperbole.:blushing::blushing:

I want so much for Hellman to right things, that if he does NOT , I am looking for an exit. Sorry.:tears:

 

[Nova]

He did though in his CNN interview change that scenerio to one of her in the kitchen. Does that not strike anyone as very odd coming from a prosecutor? That is a totally different circumstance and I don't believe he has done himself any favours in doing so

It certainly does nothing to give me confidence in the Italian justice system. As I said above, it seems that anyone may say anything with or without supporting evidence.

 

[Nova]

Being involved by letting him in brings the charge to murder regardless of participating.

I believe Mignini thought/thinks she actually did wield the knife.

You didn't answer SMK's question. If what you say is true, then why did Mignini feel the need to insist that AK was present in the bedroom and took the lead in the murder? After all, there is no forensic proof she was there. Even though the knife, which is obviously not the murder weapon, as AK's DNA on the handle, we know she cooked at RS' place so of course her DNA is found on kitchen implements.

 

[Nova]

<modsnip>.

For example: You drive 2 friends to a bank robbery, they commit a murder while inside (you did not know they would murder someone), you are also charged with murder.

In this case: Whether she knew something bad or not would happen. She did nothing to help and did not call for an ambulance afterwards that might have saved Meredith.

Sorry, you are mixing up charges and hypothetical facts.

Your theory of felony murder at the bank depends on the getaway driver's KNOWING that the bank would be robbed (even if he didn't know a murder would take place). He has to participate in the underlying felony (robbery) in order to fit the definition of felony murder.

Admitting someone to your house is not a felony, as SMK has already pointed out. No criminal culpability attaches unless you conspired to commit murder beforehand or take an active part at the time of the crime.

As I've already pointed out, the European concept of "failure to assist" is a different crime. AK has not been charged with it.

 

[Nova]

Well turn that around and look at the investigators perspective.

You have a gruesome murder, you have at least suspicious individuals and what looks like to you as an experienced investigator a staged break-in. One of those suspicious individuals actually lived at the crime scene. Both individuals were at the crime scene when policed arrived. Both acted 'odd' after the murder was discovered. They are sitting in seperate rooms at the police station.

You tell one that you KNOW (even though only suspicious) the other was there when the crime was committed. The one you tell immediately says his first recollection was a load of rubbish and the other left his home (which was both's alibi) during the time frame of the murder.

You then go to the other and tell them the first suspicious individual has stated the other (she) left his home and did not return until after the time frame of the murder. She then drops her alibi and states meeting the murderer at the courts, letting him in, and hearing him murder Meredith.
Hours later she does not plainly state she was not involved, but brings up dreams and imagining things. This is not a retraction by any means BTW.

LE did exactly what they should have done after a confession such as hers.

Why would the police AT THAT VERY MOMENT not go and arrest a person suspected of a gruesome murder? Should they wait to decipher AK to figure out if it was a dream? Should they not arrest Patrick because the story was the best truth she could remember? Should they wait weeks for forensics to back it up? NO.

I really don't understand the point of view you are taking regarding this... if that is really your honest position.

Patric Lumumba owned and operated a public establishment. LE could have very easily checked his whereabouts before arresting him.

They clearly weren't interested in verification once they got an answer they liked, even if that answer came from a dream or game of "let's imagine." In fact, they actively threatened and intimidated PL's alibi witnesses.

 

[Nova]

I agree, AK and RS reacted in such a way as to raise red flags. I recall once seeing a true crime docu on A& E. A man had called police to report his elderly mother missing. ( He lived with her, and was about 48 and she, in her 70s). Police found his mother's abandoned car along a highway at night, purse was in the front seat, but had been emptied of money and credit cards. They came to his door and informed him, "We found your mother's car." He immediately turned his head to the right, and looked out toward a certain highway. (where she was found). This alone made him a suspect.(He later confessed).

I'm sorry but that's lame. If he moved his head at all, he had a 50/50 chance of turning in the direction of the car. Assuming his confession was genuine, that may be nothing more than coincidence.

This sounds like one of those weak arguments LE so often uses to get search warrants.

ETA I'm sorry, my friend. I should have been clearer: I did not mean that you were lame for posting that case. I see the relevance. I am just opining that lucky guesses all seem like genius in hindsight.

 

[SMK]

I'm sorry but that's lame. If he moved his head at all, he had a 50/50 chance of turning in the direction of the car. Assuming his confession was genuine, that may be nothing more than coincidence.

This sounds like one of those weak arguments LE so often uses to get search warrants.

ETA I'm sorry, my friend. I should have been clearer: I did not mean that you were lame for posting that case. I see the relevance. I am just opining that lucky guesses all seem like genius in hindsight.

No, to tell you the truth, I had wondered at the time, was in not natural enough to turn one's head in the direction of the highway, when they had said, "We found your Mother's car abandoned."...:waitasec:

 

[Malkmus]

Patric Lumumba owned and operated a public establishment. LE could have very easily checked his whereabouts before arresting him.

They clearly weren't interested in verification once they got an answer they liked, even if that answer came from a dream or game of "let's imagine." In fact, they actively threatened and intimidated PL's alibi witnesses.

I've read before that PLE was not interested in hearing the professor who was PL's alibi despite him contacting them several times. It took him flying himself back to Perugia to be heard. There's also the odd fact of PL's bar being kept closed for months after he was released.

 

[Malkmus]

I've yet to hear anyone from the pro-guilt side form any sort of timeline regarding the sequence of events that led to her confession. Whenever it's been mentioned it's simply put as "She was questioned for two hours, bopped on the head twice and out popped a confession". There is always evasion re the text message, the scenario involving the translator telling her a personal story of breaking her leg and forgetting what happened, and why once Mignini came in her statement only changed to suit PLE's theory of the crime... among other things that don't add up.
The same goes for any sort of plausible scenario for the murder. Again, it's basically been "Amanda, Rudy and Rafaelle met up to party and yada, yada, yada... things go out of control". Reminds me of a Seinfeld episode...

[video=youtube;O6kRqnfsBEc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6kRqnfsBEc[/video]

 

[SMK]

I've yet to hear anyone from the pro-guilt side form any sort of timeline regarding the sequence of events that led to her confession. Whenever it's been mentioned it's simply put as "She was questioned for two hours, bopped on the head twice and out popped a confession". There is always evasion re the text message, the scenario involving the translator telling her a personal story of breaking her leg and forgetting what happened, and why once Mignini came in her statement only changed to suit PLE's theory of the crime... among other things that don't add up.
The same goes for any sort of plausible scenario for the murder. Again, it's basically been "Amanda, Rudy and Rafaelle met up to party and yada, yada, yada... things go out of control". Reminds me of a Seinfeld episode...

Seinfeld Clip - The Yada-Yada - YouTube

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh: Imagine Mignini saying that in court!!

 

[Nova]

I've read before that PLE was not interested in hearing the professor who was PL's alibi despite him contacting them several times. It took him flying himself back to Perugia to be heard. There's also the odd fact of PL's bar being kept closed for months after he was released.

The knee-jerk defense of Perugia LE is just as mystifying to me as the insistence that Amanda Knox is a mad, sex-killing fiend. Even if one somehow finds sufficient evidence to deem AK and RS guilty, it's still obvious that PLE cops wear giant shoes and travel in a teeny-tiny car.

 

[wasnt_me]

I wanted to ask a question.

I was thinking about the whole laundry thing, and I was wondering if AK and RS had seen MK put stuff in the washing machine before going out.

I do not remember hearing anything indicating that they testified to seeing this. If they didn't, I am skeptical that MK put those clothes in the wash before she left for the party. The reason being, from what I understand, she got home at 530am, and was tired as all get out. She didn't get up until RF had already left the house. So then it seems RS and AK just kind of described MK leaving, not doing any chores first.

So if they did not witness this, I was wondering if MK's phone really did drop the call to her parents at 856pm and she decided that she'd try them after she did the laundry. She stripped the top of her bedding off and took a load into the washroom.

Meanwhile, RG heard the front door opening and turned off the light in the bathroom. While he's sitting there, thinking Oh, crap--literally, MK is getting her laundry together and into the wash. Maybe she left her jacket on because the house hadn't warmed up and maybe RF's door to her room was closed. Or maybe MK noticed what had happened in RF's room after doing the laundry and she screamed, causing RS to have to emerge from the bathroom.

Or whatever other scenero could have occured.

I'm just wondering about this laundry because it's odd that she would have left clothes sitting wet in the wash from about 4pm to about 9pm. Well, maybe she'd do that, but going from my own personal experience, if I'd been partying till 530am the night before and had slept in, the last thing I'd be doing is laundry before going out again. Esp laundry I couldn't wear because it was wet. It would seem that she would have at least wanted to let the cycle go through so it could be drying while she was gone, but maybe she just didn't have enough time for all that after she woke up.

But, the laundry is also a problem for the prosecution, because I don't understand why it wasn't getting sorted or hung up to dry if the murder had occurred so late in the evening. And I wouldn't understand any scenero of her remaining in her jacket and tennis shoes for a few hours before starting the laundry which is why I think she could have started it when she first walked in the door, and trying to stay warm in the cottage. But she didn't even have time to turn on the heat. So I guess then I'd like to know where the heat switch is, because that might be a clue as to how she discovered RG, too.

But anyways, I just can't see her at home doin laundry in her jacket after being home for quite some time.

It could be possible that she started the laundry on Halloween, though, and just never took it out. Since no one else had done laundry the next day, the roommates might not have noticed that she'd actually been attempting to do her laundry the other day, but then went to the halloween party and overslept, etc, etc. Laundry can still be damp after 2 days, too, so...

What do you guys think?

 

[wasnt_me]

Imagine they tossed all this stuff together. Any transfer of any DNA from investigators etc could of transferred easily as has been shown in the experts report but a number of things were again taken out of this pile and tested in the December run including the coat she was wearing etc

I find that incompetent period

her jacket is a good example, because she'd seen RS and AK before she'd left the house. What if she'd hugged them?

Mk's Jacket was on the floor by her body. It was then dragged through blood. It appeared on the floor by the rolled up posters, and it finally came to rest in what appeared to be a clothes hamper for DIRTY clothes of all things!

 

[wasnt_me]

There is alot of truth in those quotes SMK. What the pro-guilt now are trying to do is discredit everything they can to create confusion. Will it work? I don't know. I believe Hellmann is onto their game but he himself is under extreme pressure from within his own ranks

Unless investigators have been embarrassed and put on blast this way in the past, then I don't know why Hellmann would not overturn it.

If it's par for the course for prosecutors to be on appeal for abuse of office, for the investigations to be called out for being slipshod and if DNA testing is regularly called into question in Italy's trials, then maybe I'd agree that it would not be overturned.

However, if AK and RS's case is indeed the eye of a perfect storm of first time stuff like this, then I'd say they have a good chance of getting out.

 

[emyr]

I wanted to ask a question.

I was thinking about the whole laundry thing, and I was wondering if AK and RS had seen MK put stuff in the washing machine before going out.

I do not remember hearing anything indicating that they testified to seeing this. If they didn't, I am skeptical that MK put those clothes in the wash before she left for the party. The reason being, from what I understand, she got home at 530am, and was tired as all get out. She didn't get up until RF had already left the house. So then it seems RS and AK just kind of described MK leaving, not doing any chores first.

So if they did not witness this, I was wondering if MK's phone really did drop the call to her parents at 856pm and she decided that she'd try them after she did the laundry. She stripped the top of her bedding off and took a load into the washroom.

Meanwhile, RG heard the front door opening and turned off the light in the bathroom. While he's sitting there, thinking Oh, crap--literally, MK is getting her laundry together and into the wash. Maybe she left her jacket on because the house hadn't warmed up and maybe RF's door to her room was closed. Or maybe MK noticed what had happened in RF's room after doing the laundry and she screamed, causing RS to have to emerge from the bathroom.

Or whatever other scenero could have occured.

I'm just wondering about this laundry because it's odd that she would have left clothes sitting wet in the wash from about 4pm to about 9pm. Well, maybe she'd do that, but going from my own personal experience, if I'd been partying till 530am the night before and had slept in, the last thing I'd be doing is laundry before going out again. Esp laundry I couldn't wear because it was wet. It would seem that she would have at least wanted to let the cycle go through so it could be drying while she was gone, but maybe she just didn't have enough time for all that after she woke up.

But, the laundry is also a problem for the prosecution, because I don't understand why it wasn't getting sorted or hung up to dry if the murder had occurred so late in the evening. And I wouldn't understand any scenero of her remaining in her jacket and tennis shoes for a few hours before starting the laundry which is why I think she could have started it when she first walked in the door, and trying to stay warm in the cottage. But she didn't even have time to turn on the heat. So I guess then I'd like to know where the heat switch is, because that might be a clue as to how she discovered RG, too.

But anyways, I just can't see her at home doin laundry in her jacket after being home for quite some time.

It could be possible that she started the laundry on Halloween, though, and just never took it out. Since no one else had done laundry the next day, the roommates might not have noticed that she'd actually been attempting to do her laundry the other day, but then went to the halloween party and overslept, etc, etc. Laundry can still be damp after 2 days, too, so...

What do you guys think?

Wasn't the laundry all towels? (And before this is used as evidence as a cover-up, there were towels left in Meredith's room. So you'd think they would've cleaned all the towels, not just some of them.)

 

[wasnt_me]

I don't know what her laundry consisted of, but if she were doing linens that time, then it would make sense that her sheet and duvet wouldn't be on the bed.

This picture shows some towels, but how do we know what's in the machine? Maybe she was doing towels first and planned to follow with her sheets, though, she'd need another set of sheets, since they had no dryer. BTW, are the items in the washing machine moving during this picture? I wouldn't understand the reason to wash some towels, but not all towels or all items involved in the murder. The washer doesn't look full, so why not put in the other towels? And if it's just towels, how did they distinguish that it was MK's laundry? Because no other housemates claimed the towels?

Wondering because AK said she'd showered and realized that there were no towels in the bathroom. That would make sense if MK had decided to wash "their towels" the evening that AK was gone.

I'm puzzled by this picture. Because someone must have turned this washer back on. I don't believe that even from the time the postal police arrived and when they'd started taking pictures that there would be condensation still on the washer. What's up with that?

LM and RF's bathroom is right in the same room as RG would have been in, except he would have had the door closed for MK to have loaded the machine without noticing him.

But if there were a time to notice him, they would have been in very close proximity to each other while she was loading it. can you imagine RG's tension if he heard her doing that and he was trying to be quiet but she heard something and then suddenly stopped.

There would be that moment of silence where they are both frozen and listening with terror in their hearts. I imagine her whipping the bathroom door open and him trying to stumble out of there with his pants half down and chasing her to her room, where she was going for either her keys or her phone.

They said one of the chairs in the kitchen area had been knocked over, right? I'm looking for a picture of that.

 

[emyr]

This is a dumb point, but the movie Amelie is very whimsical and light-hearted. Most of the movie's Amanda listed as liking were in the same vein (They were going to watch "Stardust" next). I suppose murderers come in all personality types, but you couldn't have picked a less likely film to inspire a murderous, or even sex-crazed mood.

Edited to add: There's even a scene where Amelie is having sex and she finds the experience both bizarre and amusing. She giggles. It's not a good mood-setter for what they are accused of. In addition, Amanda was attracted to Raffaelle because he looked like Harry Potter, another whimsical story she was in the process of reading. And she spent all her time singing Beatles songs ("all you need is love.") None of this really matches someone who is after aggressive, violent sex, and thinks of other people as prudish etc. etc.

 

[wasnt_me]

Before I go to bed, it occurs to me that RG did not take laptops etc because he had just commited a murder and he figured that the laptops might get traced back to him. he'd already been caught with one from the law office.

I think he probably thought that if the devices were missing, the police would question around to find out if any like them had been pawned or whatever and by whom. Know what I mean? In FR's room and in MK's room, it appears that a lot of bags were looked through, and LM's drawer was open and one bag was laying sideways on the floor. I can't descern anything of AK's room yet.

I also noticed that there is blood on the inner door handle and on the side of the door to MK's room. So that indicates that either the attack happened with the door closed or the killer reached around to pull the door closed as he left for the bathroom, without fully closing it. Have you ever done that? grabbed the side of the door just to pull it closer to the frame, but not bothering to make sure it's shut? There is no blood on the outter handle that I can see. This could indicate that he was a door closing kind of person and might have closed RF's door, to conceal what he'd done to the unsuspecting eye.

Was any of this talked about before?

 

[Allusonz]

I still do not understand why they scrubbed the bloody footprints off the floor in the corridor and around the bed, however, they left the blood smears on the floor, and they constantly stepped in said smears.

Why again did the prints have to come up off the floor? I also "heard" they didn't even notice RG's corridor footprints for hours after discovering the murder.

I don't understand this either. Then they tried to replace them