Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #17

[SMK]

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

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.

Very good point, well made.

 

[SMK]

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

Defense's recreation of the rock throwing.


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?

I agree with all. And wish the prosecution had done a re-creation of it being thrown from the inside. It is important, if you are accusing two students.

 

[emyr]

I read another site somewhere where they were dismissing the defense's recreation of climbing into the window because the guy they had doing it was abnormally tall. In fact, the guy was chosen because he was the same height as Guede, who is quite tall.

And much of the reason they said it must be staged is because the glass was on top of things. If Romanelli's laptop was near to the window, the glass could be on top of it because it was never touched. The glass could be on top of clothes because the glass was on top of the clothes in the bags near the window. Then Rudy entered the room and clothes from the top of the wardrobe were scattered on the floor (ONLY the clothes from the top of the wardrobe were scattered on the floor. In my mind, this is because the room was dark and he was stumbling around, not because he was rifling through her wardrobe).

When the scene was discovered, people could have easily picked up objects with glass on top of them and transferred them onto other clothing.

 

[SMK]

I read another site somewhere where they were dismissing the defense's recreation of climbing into the window because the guy they had doing it was abnormally tall. In fact, the guy was chosen because he was the same height as Guede, who is quite tall.

Yes, that is right. Guede is a tall and athletic African, only 23 at the time of the crime, and could be said to have a natural advantage coupled with experience re breaking in via window.

 

[wasnt_me]

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

Did you see them on that video, using pictures to try to figure out where the ones by the bed were?

 

[sherlockh]

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.

There was a lot of rumors at first. I never really believed it was AK in that laundromat but who knows. I have not read that the Polish girl identified AK's clothes, and I can't find it either. All I have read was something about her sweatshirt and that must have been much earlier in the day.

I see lots of complexity, but I don't see what that proves. They did what they did, and I am sure many things they could have done differently. IMO they were rather arrogant by keeping their knives, and probably also their clothes (going to the laundromat). Not caring after a murder? I think that sobered them up pretty quickly.

Everybody has their own opinions about what should or should not have happened. What you call 'highly improbably' I call 'highly probable'. The knife print on the bed shows that someone only got very little blood on him. Why would their be blood all over their clothes? The one who inflicted the bigger wound must have gotten some more blood, as you can see on the door handle and into the bathroom where she mixed her DNA in the victims blood. But what she was wearing at that moment is impossible to know. You have not taken into account that AK was supposed to work, that her work was cancelled, that they were supposed to go on a trip. It is just speculation but IMO this makes it very reasonable that she went to the cottage around 9pm, to take a shower and/or change clothes, and get ready to leave early the next day on their trip. Her story of taken a shower the next morning is not credible IMO.

I don't believe in blood showers, or must have stepped in blood, or must have left more DNA, or must have done this or that, and all those made up stories. There was a lot of blood but not instantly all over. They left within a minute or 2 after the murder as indicated by witnesses. I believe that RG stayed a little longer in the murder room as his shoe prints show. But all 3 left in a hurry. What exactly they were wearing during the murder we can't say for sure. There is just too much guess work involved to draw any conclusions. JMO.

 

[wasnt_me]

I am truly hoping that they are aquitted and that Hellmann takes his gavel and tosses it around with a very heavy hand and it does not go there :giggle:

I know I am dreaming but it's a truly a super duper cool dream where Mignini, Stephanoni, MN, Commodi, and a few others are twiddling their fingers in a jail cell :innocent:

Why did this post give me an image of Thor, swinging around his hammer and knocking out everyone at the prosecution table?

 

[wasnt_me]

I am going on memory here but I believe there was testimony that MK had put in a load of laundry prior to leaving. As well you are right with respect to it still being damp after 2 days

I hadn't seen AK testify that MK had done laundry before leaving. She's the only one who could testify to that since RS didn't testify at all.

 

[wasnt_me]

The whole laundry thing always confused me as well. I had originally believed reports that AK and RS were "cleaning up" with the laundry, which is why I thought they were guilty in the beginning. Then, it was reported that MK put a load in before retiring. The only way she might have been doing laundry in her jacket is if the house was cold. It was about 45 degrees out. Yes, it may have been a prior time, with others away.....Good point about the heat, and the discovery of Guede.....

This is the thing, laundry stinks if you keep leaving it in the washing machine for hours. And I just cannot see her even wanting to do laundry after partying till 530am on Halloween, sleeping in, and then going to her friend's house for a while. But maybe I'm just lazy like that.

 

[sherlockh]

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?

*Snipped*. I think ringing the door bell is 'a bit' easier.

 

[wasnt_me]

I thought in AK's accounts of the last time she saw MK she mentions that she was taking laundry out of the machine. This suggests that MK probably put another load in before leaving for the evening.

Where's that testimony and where are the wet clothes she took out of the wash? I thought the drying rack was empty according to pictures?

 

[wasnt_me]

Thanks Fred. Very helpful.

But I thought MK's money and phones were stolen?

This was also stated in the post you responded to:

*No dna on the window sill or in the room of an intruder.

The poster said it was proof of staging. My first thought is that there is NO DNA AT ALL of RS and AK in the murder room, so this poster must also believe that AK and RS were not in that room, then.

 

[wasnt_me]

<modsnip>

Items were stolen including money, credit cards, keys, and her bank card

FR stated three different scenerios with respect to the state of the window. As well remember that it was a very windy night.

What expert stated for the prosecution that this was staged in testimony? They did not forensically analyze the window below, the wall, or the planter.

This is the basics. It has been gone over many times here. I am sure others will add more as my time is limited

I'd just like to add that there are NO PICTURES of GLASS on top of any of FR's things, except the rug by her bed.

 

[wasnt_me]

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

And we do not know what kind of searching the PLE did in the yard. If they can't even keep up with a bra clasp, I hardly expect them to find clear specs of glass in the yard.

Additionally, they said the ground below the window didn't look disturbed. Well, my neighbor just moved out, and she had to use my driveway. We're in townhouses. So it was about 2 feet of grass she had to carry her items over, like mattresses, couches, etc. So her and her friends worked for about three hours. The only disturbance I saw in the grass was where the ramp to the truck had been laying. And yes, I looked on purpose and obeserved the area, because of this very case.

So if she and her friends and trample grass for 3 hours with no visible sign that they were there, save the truck ramp impression, then I believe RG, who had no truck, could leave the grass unruffled for a few minutes of walking around before he climbed into the window.

Additionally, that wall does indeed have scuff marks on it, and I've put pictures of those marks up there before.

There was also a hair and a bloody substance on this window, too. They just didn't get any DNA out of the blood. I don't know about the hair.

So what guilters believe about this window is not even true.

 

[emyr]

*Snipped*. I think ringing the door bell is 'a bit' easier.

Yes. Absolutely.

But if he was still concerned someone MIGHT be home, breaking through the window nearer to the pathway of the house would enable him to flee more quickly, and also to see someone approaching the home and flee upon spotting them.

 

[wasnt_me]

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

I don't even believe a scenerio where someone would throw a 9lb rock INSIDE the house. Rather, they'd take it and smash it against the drawn back glass.

It's not plausible to throw the rock at the closed green shutters, as they will fly open and the rock will land outside. I don't understand this theory of throwing a 9lb rock inside the house.

I think doing so might have dented the white shutters horribly more. I'd posted a video once to demonstrate that, but I can't find it on youtube at the moment. However, the people threw a rock at a shutter, and the bottom half of the shutter flew off. So I assume from that, if you throw a rock at the glass with the white shutter behind it, the white shutter will break and you might even dent FR's wall.

So I think they would have hit the rock against the glass while it faced the white shutter, which again wouldn't have put any glass AT ALL on the windowsill. But it also wouldn't have put a glass spray over on the blue mat by the bed, either. and mostlikely it wouldn't have put glass on top of FR's laptop, which was either by the desk or by the bed, I can't remember which, but either way, too far for low impact glass to fly BACKWARD to cover.

We'll never know about her laptop since she altered the crime scene and took it.

But again, just imagine someone taking a nine pound rock and lobbing at the window in the position that it's in on this picture. Then imagine them--on purpose, dropping it on FR's shopping bag in such a way that the bag ripped and fell over. This was the last thing they did, according to the prosecution, because that's why "glass is on top of everything," supposedly.

It's also possible that the glass is in the position it's on the window sill because RG pulled the shutters closed when he climbed in. Doing so, could push that glass into the formation it's in now, whereas it might have been more scattered at first. It's logical that he'd close them to keep peeping eyes from seeing what he was doing, because he planned to start in FR's room, which he did.

He might not have pulled them tightly enough and they could have blown back open. FR gave a statement that such a thing happened sometimes before. She also gave a statement that the window scared her and she wanted bars on it, like LM's window.

Why would FR fear this window if it's an implausible climb?

ETA:

I see him climbing in, closing the shutters, casing the house for residents, dropping the glass in Mk's room. I'm not 100% sold that RF's room was "trashed." I think she was messy.

 

[SMK]

There was a lot of rumors at first. I never really believed it was AK in that laundromat but who knows. I have not read that the Polish girl identified AK's clothes, and I can't find it either. All I have read was something about her sweatshirt and that must have been much earlier in the day.

I see lots of complexity, but I don't see what that proves. They did what they did, and I am sure many things they could have done differently. IMO they were rather arrogant by keeping their knives, and probably also their clothes (going to the laundromat). Not caring after a murder? I think that sobered them up pretty quickly.

Everybody has their own opinions about what should or should not have happened. What you call 'highly improbably' I call 'highly probable'. The knife print on the bed shows that someone only got very little blood on him. Why would their be blood all over their clothes? The one who inflicted the bigger wound must have gotten some more blood, as you can see on the door handle and into the bathroom where she mixed her DNA in the victims blood. But what she was wearing at that moment is impossible to know. You have not taken into account that AK was supposed to work, that her work was cancelled, that they were supposed to go on a trip. It is just speculation but IMO this makes it very reasonable that she went to the cottage around 9pm, to take a shower and/or change clothes, and get ready to leave early the next day on their trip. Her story of taken a shower the next morning is not credible IMO.

I don't believe in blood showers, or must have stepped in blood, or must have left more DNA, or must have done this or that, and all those made up stories. There was a lot of blood but not instantly all over. They left within a minute or 2 after the murder as indicated by witnesses. I believe that RG stayed a little longer in the murder room as his shoe prints show. But all 3 left in a hurry. What exactly they were wearing during the murder we can't say for sure. There is just too much guess work involved to draw any conclusions. JMO.

I understand that what you are saying could make a certain amount of sense. I always harbor a tiny doubt about RS and AK, though most of the time I am dismayed at the holes in the evidence, and the coercion which I believe occurred. So I believe they were wrongfully convicted in a terribly shabby manner for the most part, but I am always open to someone proving me wrong. Always.

As for the idea that there did not have to be blood: I have been amazed at the true crime stories I have seen , where the suspect thinks they have gotten rid of it, yet there will be a small spot of the victim's blood, for instance, on the cuff of their pants, or on the drawstring of their sweatshirt, or on a carpet...Did they not scan the suspects' clothes..:waitasec: Oddly enough, there was a case in 1980 where a woman killed her married lover's wife with an axe during a quarrel, and then showered the blood away......

 

[wasnt_me]

I'm open to it, but I don't see FR's room as being trashed. I think she was just messy. I don't see any scenerio where RG was alone or whether AK and RS were staging it, that it makes sense that FR's room is the only trashed room.

Except, if RG started trashing it, got a suddenly urge to take a dump and then that's when MK got home. But I think he would have cased out the house first, got his drink and used the bathroom, leaving no time to start on FR's room.

From other crimes he was assosicated with, it seemed RG took his time in these spaces, cooked, made himself at home. So I see no reason to hurriedly trash FR's room in that kind of scenerio. So I seriously think she was messy.

I don't know. I have to think on it more.

But it's even more unlikely if RS and AK did it, because they had all night to ransack the WHOLE house. Why only do RF's room?

 

[SMK]

I'm open to it, but I don't see FR's room as being trashed. I think she was just messy. I don't see any scenerio where RG was alone or whether AK and RS were staging it, that it makes sense that FR's room is the only trashed room.

Except, if RG started trashing it, got a suddenly urge to take a dump and then that's when MK got home. But I think he would have cased out the house first, got his drink and used the bathroom, leaving no time to start on FR's room.

From other crimes he was assosicated with, it seemed RG took his time in these spaces, cooked, made himself at home. So I see no reason to hurriedly trash FR's room in that kind of scenerio. So I seriously think she was messy.

I don't know. I have to think on it more.

But it's even more unlikely if RS and AK did it, because they had all night to ransack the WHOLE house. Why only do RF's room?

Good points....

 

[emyr]

There was a lot of rumors at first. I never really believed it was AK in that laundromat but who knows. I have not read that the Polish girl identified AK's clothes, and I can't find it either. All I have read was something about her sweatshirt and that must have been much earlier in the day.

I see lots of complexity, but I don't see what that proves. They did what they did, and I am sure many things they could have done differently. IMO they were rather arrogant by keeping their knives, and probably also their clothes (going to the laundromat). Not caring after a murder? I think that sobered them up pretty quickly.

Everybody has their own opinions about what should or should not have happened. What you call 'highly improbably' I call 'highly probable'. The knife print on the bed shows that someone only got very little blood on him. Why would their be blood all over their clothes? The one who inflicted the bigger wound must have gotten some more blood, as you can see on the door handle and into the bathroom where she mixed her DNA in the victims blood. But what she was wearing at that moment is impossible to know. You have not taken into account that AK was supposed to work, that her work was cancelled, that they were supposed to go on a trip. It is just speculation but IMO this makes it very reasonable that she went to the cottage around 9pm, to take a shower and/or change clothes, and get ready to leave early the next day on their trip. Her story of taken a shower the next morning is not credible IMO.

I don't believe in blood showers, or must have stepped in blood, or must have left more DNA, or must have done this or that, and all those made up stories. There was a lot of blood but not instantly all over. They left within a minute or 2 after the murder as indicated by witnesses. I believe that RG stayed a little longer in the murder room as his shoe prints show. But all 3 left in a hurry. What exactly they were wearing during the murder we can't say for sure. There is just too much guess work involved to draw any conclusions. JMO.

The truth is, if I found the DNA evidence convincing, I would believe they were guilty, and it wouldn't matter what the difficulty of committing the murder was. Truth IS often stranger than fiction.

But I don't see how you would dismiss the bloody washing up but believe in her guilt. Unless you don't believe the luminol footprints were a result of diluted blood?

If her feet were bloody from diluted water, then that means she washed off in the bathroom. That means her hands and legs were bloody, because she used the bidet to wash off her leg and blood got on her foot.

Why would her hands be bloody and not the cuff of her shirt? Why would her legs be bloody and not her pants? That means her clothes had to have been cleaned, disposed of, or she wasn't wearing clothes. I would vote wearing clothes and she disposed of them. Actually, I would probably vote naked, and trying to stop them, screaming, and then freaking out.

Actually... no... I still can't come up with a good scenario. For her behaviour the next day to work (IMO), she had to either be a cold instigator or in a hallucinogenic drug haze/frenzy.

I understand that you see it, but I really don't.

EDITED TO ADD:
Obviously I don't think the luminol footprints prove anything because I don't think she is guilty. But if I DID believe she was guilty, I would absolutely believe they were diluted blood, and my scenario would include the sequence of how they would have occurred.