Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #17

[Nova]

*I feel like you have a good idea :innocent: .

*She insisted she was with RS until HE SAID she was not.

*The PLE believed Patrick was involved, because SHE TOLD them he was.

*Well, since SHE SAID she met him, let him in, and did nothing while Meredith was murdered by Patrick... it does 'look' like the case had been solved. They also had another suspect (who had been giving her an alibi) STATING AK was not around his apt at the time of the murder as previously claimed. It basically was solved as far as RS, AK and someone else being involved IMO.

We go around and around with this. Both RS and AK were responding to lies told them by PLE. Yes, they were naive. Most people who don't follow coerced-testimony cases are.

Both RS and AK were ordered to respond to false info and, not surprisingly, their responses were also false.

 

[Nova]

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.

In re #2, how does the rock fail to impale glass on the outside shutter, but impale glass on the inside shutter only on the rebound?

 

[dgfred]

I think their (AK and RS) responses were much closer to the real (or best) truth.

 

[Nova]

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.

Sorry, fred, I should have just said, "I don't see how your statement relates to mine."

I see it now, but AK didn't have to "imagine" she wasn't there, she knew she wasn't there. She was asked to imagine something else. Once somebody says "Let's play pretend," reasonable people should know that whatever follows is unreliable. And even more so when the "somebody" is an authority figure.

 

[Nova]

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"?

No, with apologies to Gertrude Stein, it boils down to "There is no there there."

Whenever one views the evidence with a critical eye, it evaporates.

 

[dgfred]

No, with apologies to Gertrude Stein, it boils down to "There is no there there."

Whenever one views the evidence with a critical eye, it evaporates.

Really? Your position is that all the evidence pointing to guilt has/will evaporate? I hope you are not too attached to this position.

 

[Nova]

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?

Yes, you are clear. But such a scenario should have left a different glass pattern, one that would have been discovered by the ballistics expert and Ron Hendry.

Glass doesn't just "fly all over." Glass is governed by the laws of physics.

 

[Nova]

IMO you are just digging the whole deeper.

*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.

There's no hole. <modsnip> Massei chose to ignore expert testimony.

 

[Salem]

STOP TELLING OTHER POSTERS THEY ARE WRONG. STOP. Just because they see the evidence differently than you do - doesn't make them wrong. It means the evidence is open to interpretation and, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, their interpretation is JUST AS GOOD AS YOURS.

SO STOP TELLING OTHERS THEY ARE WRONG.

THIS GOES FOR BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE. This post lands at random.

Salem

 

[dgfred]

There's no hole. You and Massei choose to ignore expert testimony.

There is one where the alibis should be :truce: .

Me, Massei, the other 20+ judges, the jurors and most of the world I guess.

 

[Nova]

I think their (AK and RS) responses were much closer to the real (or best) truth.

(Edited in response to Salem's post above. Fred, I know removing my post makes it seem like I said something really nasty here. I promise you I did not. But Salem has asked us to stop contradicting one another, so I am obliging.)

 

[dgfred]

No problem Nova. We are disagreeing... not 'fighting' anyway.

Hopefully we will behave and Salem can put away his/her clippers.

 

[emyr]

What did the expert testimony state happened in relation to the glass? In the staged scenario did they say Amanda and Raffaelle placed the glass on the sill? Or did they strike the glass with a rock while the glass window was closed? Or something else? Anybody have a link?

 

[SMK]

What did the expert testimony state happened in relation to the glass? In the staged scenario did they say Amanda and Raffaelle placed the glass on the sill? Or did they strike the glass with a rock while the glass window was closed? Or something else? Anybody have a link?

I never really was clear on how they decided it was staged. They never had an expert do an analysis. Someone like Hendry refuted that the scene was staged. And this link reveals just how vague this premise really was: http://maundygregory.wordpress.com/2011/08/08/knoxsollecito-how-to-spot-a-fake-burglary/

 

[Nova]

Really? Your position is that all the evidence pointing to guilt has/will evaporate? I hope you are not too attached to this position.

Honestly, I don't think there is any evidence inculpatory to AK and RS that can't be better explained by other, simpler explanations.

The bottom line for me is that there simply wasn't time for AK to conspire in a language she didn't really speak with two boys she barely knew.

 

[sherlockh]

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.)

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.

Blonde, bespectacled Filomena Romanelli also posed a string of problems for the defence. She said that when she returned to the house they shared on 2 November 2007 the washing machine was warm.

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

Finally we heard from Fabrizio Angeluce, the owner of the laundromat and dry cleaners also located on Via Garibaldi.

His testimony was simple. He basically said that Raffaele came into his store on either Friday the 2nd or Monday the 5th of Nov &#8211; he could not remember the exact date but it was one of the two &#8211; and dropped off one shirt that was not exactly new, and seemed to have been washed.

Sollecito had asked if he could dry clean the shirt as soon as possible, and get a rush service done because he needed it urgently. The witness said the shirt was brown and not exactly new. and and it seemed to have already been washed. He washed and ironed the shirt and that was it.

He decided to come to the police after he heard that Sollecito was arrested. Sollecito has claimed that he needed his shirt soon as it was the one he would wear to his graduation exam and ceremony.

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

 

[SMK]

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/

If it was the 5th, though, this would seem an awfully tardy clean up job....

 

[SMK]

"Every element of this crime scene points to an outside intruder," says Hendry. "For starters, the forced entry was real, not staged. I have looked at many accidents involving broken windows, and the spray of glass on the floor shows clearly that this window was broken exactly the way it appears, by someone heaving a rock from outside."

http://salem-news.com/articles/december042010/amanda-know.php

 

[sherlockh]

If it was the 5th, though, this would seem an awfully tardy clean up job....

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.

 

[SMK]

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.

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