Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #17

[sherlockh]

Well, it may be referred to as a 'jacket' since it zippered and was over her shirt. And it was soaked in blood, so she likely had not removed it. All of these things are grist for the mill to sleuthers, of course.

I always wear my sweatshirts over my shirts. Some of them are zippered. Never I call them jackets. Nowhere in the judges report I see the word 'jacket'. I don't see the logic. Sorry.

 

[dgfred]

I would agree with that statement if MK had been murdered in a different place and if RG's DNA, prints in blood, etc., hadn't been found all around and even inside her.

Since a break-in that may or may not be real is at issue here, I think RG's past is very relevant. Yes, of course, we should keep in mind that he was never convicted.

But what are the odds that there is a broken window at a crime scene where an accused burglar admits to being present?

But there is evidence all around the crime scene (the entire cottage) that point to AK and RS being involved too. I feel the need to mention the mixed dna with Meredith's blood/luminol bare prints/bathroom bare partial print/bra clasp, no alibi, the rubbish told, and knife... even though I don't want to really open up any of the 'old' arguments again and I know the are highly disputed here and elsewhere. Just mentioning.

***The staged break in is crucial evidence of AK at least being involved, and there by RS too. RG would have no reason to do so. If the staged break in is not disproven somehow, I really see no way out of at least the convictions being upheld... even if with a reduction in time being served if the knife and bra clasp are thrown out. That is my opinion only.

Then perhaps we should see others past and behavior as relevant too:
AK
-Citation for a loud rock throwing party. Is that relevant in some way?
-Rumor of a previous 'prank' of a kidnapping while at Univ. of Washington.
-Phone calls to a later charged cocaine dealer both just before and just after the murder of Meredith. Didn't RG mention Meredith calling AK a drugged-up tart? Was that one of the truthful things he told since some leave in what times he claimed to have done things regarding TOD and where he was to fit into scenarios of AK and RS being innocent?
-Was she a 'tart' or not? Is it relevant whether she was or wasn't? Would this cause tension with RS or other girls?
-Are her many different stories of what happened to investigators and not remembering other times relevant to her guilt? In my opinion they are.
-Did she have behavior problems, or cleanliness problems from the cottage mates point of view at all? Can we assume she did because Meredith's friends testified Meredith had mentioned these things? Did she bring several men to the cottage, as the friends also said Meredith had mentioned?
-Was she jealous of Meredith at all? Maybe because of her many friends, where I don't recall any from Italy testifying on AK's behalf. Maybe because Meredith was going to be in Patrick's favor mixing drinks for him, while she was being demoted for poor work behavior to just handing out flyers? Was she angered at all by Meredith's sort of brushing her off a bit on Halloween night?

*Did AK care about these things at all, or look at them this way? IMO all these things are relevant if you look at a view from guilt, but not from a view of innocent. Same way for RG IMO, he had bad previous behavior and a kind of tough upbring. But like here in US trials, you can't even usually bring up convictions in most instances... it may not be relevant concerning this case or it may be.

RS
-Previous drug habit or problems. There's those drugs again :waitasec: .
-Liked carrying a knife on all occaisions. Wouldn't this be HIGHLY relevant?
-On 'watch' for looking at animal . No comment needed.
-Liked violent magna comics. How about the relevance of this? Can violent tendencies be assumed?
-Was his dad overbearing? Or just a concerned parent? Did he need to keep close tabs on him? Was this effecting RS? His dad could not lie for him during testifying (because of phone records)... and surely this put his defense in a bad way. Is the lying by RS relevant to his guilt? It is in my opinion.
-Was his mother's death effecting him terribly? Is it relevant in any way?
-Was he a virgin? Is that relevant, should it be? Just asking because I don't think so but the past is the past in some cases, and other times it can be of importance to different people/views... because AK was much more experienced. Did he have a problem with this... is it relevant? Did he trust AK?

Relevance of past behavior/actions is a tough call sometimes IMO.

 

[dgfred]

Well, it may be referred to as a 'jacket' since it zippered and was over her shirt. And it was soaked in blood, so she likely had not removed it. All of these things are grist for the mill to sleuthers, of course.

They call it a sweatshirt in the report, with a zipper. But IMO that can be considered a jacket too.

Soaked in blood doesn't show whether she was wearing it or not.
She could have taken it off herself and it fell into blood later.
She could have had it torn off her by the murderers and it fell in blood.
She could have had it on while murdered, then taken off by the murderer afterward to stage a rape scene more clearly. Thus RS dna on the bra clasp and her undressing possibly much after the murder.

Since there are no knife marks and it is not torn apart... it is hard to tell IMO.

 

[wasnt_me]

Some good points there fred.

The only thing I would say is that for one reason or other (and I could go into all the possible ones if needed, though I doubt it is) there seems to be a huge consensus that RG is guilty at least partially for MKs murder.

So far as I can tell there is no debate on that, which is WHY the trial for him is not coming into question. Perhaps this is short-sighted of us because technically it should still matter.

It's not a new argument and some people that advocate AK and RS's innocence, including myself, have mentioned that RG probably has a case for retesting, if Italy allows it at this phase. I don't believe anyone here, whether they have vocalized it or not, is confident about RG's case, either. I, for one, would like to be, but I can reconcile his evidence at least with what fits the evidence.

I have always said that if RG's dna wasn't in her vagina, if he didn't have a proclivity for squatting, defecating, and stealing from people, and throwing rocks in windows, if he hadn't admitted to being there, if he hadn't skipped town, if he hadn't made up a story of romance, conversation, and a bathroom break and murder happening all within 20 minutes, if people who knew him didn't paint him as a liar at every chance, if his friends had supported some of his alibis, etc, etc, etc...then I might be more apt to believe in his innocence.

As it stands for AK and RS and has been repeated hundreds of times, they have no DNA at the crime scene. there is no evidence they were there during the murder. The only bad things they have going for them is they can't prove they spent the night alone together, that some footprints that might be AK's were made in the course of her living there (and the same for DNA found in the bathroom) and not during a murder, and people are hollering cleanup and staged break-in without proof.

 

[wasnt_me]

I don't know exactly what the blood soaking pattern might reveal to an expert. Frankly, I would be surprised if experts couldn't tell at least whether the jacket (sweatshirt, hoody, whatever) was on or off when MK was first stabbed. They should be able to tell by the relationship of the blood stains to MK's known wounds.

I'll certainly grant your point that some people remove jackets in a way that leaves the sleeves reversed. I don't, but I believe that others, including your daughter, do.

It was a jacket, Adidas, I believe and it zipped up. It looks like she got stabbed on the side of her neck and bled down the jacket. It's possible that after she got stabbed, depending on it if was a the fatal wound or not, she could have struggled and wrested out of the jacket. It's also possible that she was dying in the jacket, he took it off her and pulled her shirt up.

I don't know how many spots on that jacket was tested, so I cannot say whether there should be more of RG's DNA on it. With Stephanoni's incompetence, I do wonder about it. They claimed there was enough DNA there to prove he was holding her by that wrist. So maybe he was holding her from behind with the knife to her neck, he stabbed her because she was struggling and it startled him, she lurched forward to get away and he only had the sleeve, and she shed the jacket as she propelled forward. He tossed it down. Or, again, he could have taken it off her as she was bleeding to death.

I think what's important is the fact that it was on her, meaning she was wearing it. It tells us something about the TOD. I'm going to go on a limb and assert that she didn't take it off, ball it up and leave it on the floor in a place that so happened to be right beside where her head would finally rest when she died. So....she was wearing it at the time of the attack.

 

[dgfred]

If AK had not lied to investigators.
If AK did not have her dna mixed with Meredith's blood in 5 locations.
If there wasn't a staged break in.
If AK's dna wasn't on the knife?
If AK hadn't admitted to being at the crime scene.
If AK had an alibi.
If AK would not CONTRADICT herself during testimony as with Patrick's lawyer
If there were not AK's Luminol bare footprints in the cottage.
If AK hadn't accused an innocent man of murder.
If AK could remember what she actually did that night.
If AK didn't lie some more to investigators.
If AK hadn't turned her phone off that night.
If AK hadn't contacted a cocaine dealer before and after the murder.

Perhaps I might lean towards innocent.

 

[SMK]

I always wear my sweatshirts over my shirts. Some of them are zippered. Never I call them jackets. Nowhere in the judges report I see the word 'jacket'. I don't see the logic. Sorry.

.....

 

[wasnt_me]

Do I remember correctly that he admitted to sexual activity with MK on the Skype call, even before his DNA was found inside her?

If so, I don't know how anyone gets around that.

No, you don't get around getting sexual enough to need a condom, but her being fully redressed and murdered all between 9pm and 930pm.

 

[SMK]

If AK had not lied to investigators.
If AK did not have her dna mixed with Meredith's blood in 5 locations.
If there wasn't a staged break in.
If AK's dna wasn't on the knife?
If AK hadn't admitted to being at the crime scene.
If AK had an alibi.
If AK would not CONTRADICT herself during testimony as with Patrick's lawyer
If there were not AK's Luminol bare footprints in the cottage.
If AK hadn't accused an innocent man of murder.
If AK could remember what she actually did that night.
If AK didn't lie some more to investigators.
If AK hadn't turned her phone off that night.
If AK hadn't contacted a cocaine dealer before and after the murder.

Perhaps I might lean towards innocent.

:razz:

 

[dgfred]

Whether she was wearing the jacket or not has it's problems too in figuring out the timing of the murder IMO.

What if she had kept the jacket on for some time because it was a slightly chilly Nov 1st? That could make the murder much later.

What if she was wearing the jacket during the murder, but someone took it off her much later? Wouldn't that make it hard to tell the exact timing?

What was the heating like in the cottage? Was it on? Was she cold or hot natured? Like porridge- was she hot, cold or just right with or without the sweatshirt?

What if she took it off just on arrival, sleeves inverted... and it happened to fall in blood later on?

Could she have had her jacket on OR off and still be murder both EARLIER or LATER? It is very hard for me to figure out without more of the evidence.

 

[wasnt_me]

.....

It's a jacket. Whether or not someone wants to take it off when they get in the house is up to them. It's still a jacket. In a translated document, maybe the word Jacket ISN"T in there. It's still a jacket, regardless. Even if it translates as sweatshirt, others have pointed out other errors in the MOT report, and this one is plenty minor.

This below, looks like a jacket.

This google link ought to pull up all sorts of pictures for Adidas JACKETS and they look like MK's JACKET.

adidas jackets women - Google Search

Call it whatever you like, because it's true, whether a sweatshirt OR JACKET, she could have chosen to wear it in the house or not.

I doubt she "chose" to wear it in the house. I think she didn't have a chance to decide to take it off from the look of this picture:

From this picture, it looks like she got stabbed in the neck while wearing it. In the first picture, where the tech is holding the jacket up, it appears that the sleeve on the right side has a rip in it.

Again, it's possible that she balled it up and threw it on the floor and then her head just so happened to wind up laying right next to it in death. That's possible. Or is it probable that she got stabbed in the neck while wearing it?

 

[SMK]

It's a jacket. Whether or not someone wants to take it off when they get in the house is up to them. It's still a jacket. In a translated document, maybe the word Jacket ISN"T in there. It's still a jacket, regardless. Even if it translates as sweatshirt, others have pointed out other errors in the MOT report, and this one is plenty minor.

This below, looks like a jacket.

This google link ought to pull up all sorts of pictures for Adidas JACKETS and they look like MK's JACKET.

adidas jackets women - Google Search

Call it whatever you like, because it's true, whether a sweatshirt OR JACKET, she could have chosen to wear it in the house or not.

I doubt she "chose" to wear it in the house. I think she didn't have a chance to decide to take it off from the look of this picture:

From this picture, it looks like she got stabbed in the neck while wearing it. In the first picture, where the tech is holding the jacket up, it appears that the sleeve on the right side has a rip in it.

Again, it's possible that she balled it up and threw it on the floor and then her head just so happened to wind up laying right next to it in death. That's possible. Or is it probable that she got stabbed in the neck while wearing it?

It is, indeed , an Addidas Women's Jacket!! (too bad something so evil and sad had to happen to the person wearing it )

Yes, Hendry believes she was stabbed while wearing it: His description of this most brutal and horrific attack makes logical sense from beginning to end:

MEREDITH KERCHER WAS MURDERED IN A SUDDEN ATTACK BY A SINGLE PERPETRATOR.
Here is what really happened:
1. The killer is already in the cottage when Meredith arrives home. He confronts her as she is sitting on the edge of her bed, attempting to call her mother in the UK. After a brief struggle, both are upright as he positions himself behind her, with the blade of a pocketknife against the right side of her neck. He inflicts a stab wound along with other cuts, possibly while demanding money. Blood flows onto the floor and the slats of the bed (see inset). Meredith raises her hand to the wounds and leaves finger streaks on the wall.

2. The attack moves diagonally across the room as Meredith tries to break free of her assailant. Torn newspaper under the legs of the chair suggest it was slammed violently into the desk. Blood drops on the floor and under the desk, hair (see inset), and shoe streaks attest to the struggle at this location.

3. Meredith falls to her knees while still upright in front of the wardrobe, at which point the killer straddles her from behind and clamps his hand over her face, hard enough to leave bruises on both sides of her jaw. He pulls her head back and plunges his knife into her throat. He then pulls the blade upward and from left to right, creating a three-inch gaping wound.

4. Meredith collapses to the floor, then attempts to rise and crawls a short distance, holding herself up with her right arm and clutching her wounds with her left hand. She is gasping for breath, and leaves a spray of aspirated blood drops on the wardrobe door. She quickly begins to lose consciousness and collapses on her side, facing the wardrobe (with her head near police marker L).

5. With Meredith no longer struggling, the killer drags her, face down, away from the pool of blood, leaving a broad circular arc of blood. Meredith makes a last attempt to rise from the floor and leaves bloody finger streaks on the inner wardrobe wall. The killer begins to disrobe Meredith while she is still face down. He pulls her zippered jacket off and leaves it turned inside-out. He then rolls Meredith onto her back. He pulls her layered sweatshirt and tee shirt above her bra, then rotates her onto her side and pulls the bra apart with brute force. He tosses it at her feet.

6. Police find a fine spray of blood drops on the bra cups and on Meredith’s breasts, showing that she was still gasping for breath when the bra was removed.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendry100.html

 

[dgfred]

On thing to also consider is the crime techs handling it, moving it aside, and maybe collecting it later. That would make it seem to me that the jacket/sweatshirt was not of great importance to them. If she was wearing it during the murder, would they not want to handle it carefully to ensure getting all dna from it? What if AK's or RS's dna was on it, wouldn't it at least show more evidence of their being involved? It is confusing to say the least.

 

[wasnt_me]

:razz:

What's this Razz for? Upon reading that list, I'd say the person you were responding to is well on his way to believing innocence because the only thing in the post mentioned that didn't meet the that posts innocence standard was that she lied to investigators.

This contradicting herself to a lawyer and contacting a cocaine dealer is news to me, and sense luminol prints with no blood means nothing, and an ordinary kitchen knife in RS's drawer means nothing...well...It'd say the conclusion of innocent is drawing nearer.

 

[SMK]

What's this Razz for? Upon reading that list, I'd say the person you were responding to is well on his way to believing innocence because the only thing in the post mentioned that didn't meet the that posts innocence standard was that she lied to investigators.

This contradicting herself to a lawyer and contacting a cocaine dealer is news to me, and sense luminol prints with no blood means nothing, and an ordinary kitchen knife in RS's drawer means nothing...well...It'd say the conclusion of innocent is drawing nearer.

The razz was for all those items on the list that have been refuted, but are still set forth as gospel.

 

[dgfred]

It is, indeed , an Addidas Women's Jacket!! (too bad something so evil and sad had to happen to the person wearing it )

Yes, Hendry believes she was stabbed while wearing it:

But IIRC there is spray blood on the outside of her bra... showing both that the bra was on at the time of the fatal stab, and that her shirt was either pulled down/up or off. I also think one of the things pointing towards a later movement of the body was her shoulder mark in a blood pool and spray marks on her later removed bra. So in that regard the jacket could have been on and opened during the fatal blows, or it could have been off and later soaked in blood. It still doesn't help with TOD in my opinion.

 

[dgfred]

The razz was for all those items on the list that have been refuted, but are still set forth as gospel.

Refuted by some :innocent: , but believed by many including the judges/jurors IMO. Argument against the points are not exactly refuting IMO, just debate between points of view.

 

[wasnt_me]

The razz was for all those items on the list that have been refuted, but are still set forth as gospel.

To me, the razz indicates a person made a point you cannot refute. I guess that's why I'm confused.

 

[Nova]

Agreed on the language aspect. In my final year I had to give a business presentation in Russian. Took me WEEKS of vocab cramming and was a nightmare. I also had to give a 20 min presentation about my year abroad (I chose the topic of the modern Russian musical compared to western musicals) followed by 10 mins of questions, Again - nightmare and took ages of cramming. Neither of these things are of AKs level from what I can tell and yet I still to this day would be unable to negotiate an attack and/or cover up with Russians.

I never attained your level of fluency because I didn't get a chance to practice abroad (except for brief vacations). But because of a schedule conflict and because I had good grades, I was allowed to skip Spanish 4 and take a literature course in Spanish instead.

I was the only non-native speaker in the seminar and we were reading medieval Spanish (El Cid) and Renaissance Spanish (Don Quixote) and Mexican novels (Mexican Spanish retains a lot of Mayan and Aztec words so the vocabulary is very different). And I had to give oral reports as well as written ones.

It was a great experience by the end of a 3 month semester (longer than AK spent in Italy), but I hardly understood a word anyone said for at least the first six weeks. There's no way I could have "called out" murder instructions from another room.

 

[SMK]

But IIRC there is spray blood on the outside of her bra... showing both that the bra was on at the time of the fatal stab, and that her shirt was either pulled down/up or off. I also think one of the things pointing towards a later movement of the body was her shoulder mark in a blood pool and spray marks on her later removed bra. So in that regard the jacket could have been on and opened during the fatal blows, or it could have been off and later soaked in blood. It still doesn't help with TOD in my opinion.

So you think a sexual staging later? That is very extreme. No sex game. A row over money which turns inexplicably brutal and violent. Guede's departure leaving AK and RS to being the staging....how complex, and how does such a scenario leap from a to z??:waitasec: Hendry's analysis points to the every day banal but horrific danger of young female students living in off campus housing. This other is much more psychological, Freudian.....how can it be?:waitasec: