Meredith Kercher murdered - Amanda Knox convicted, now appeals #5

[otto]

I don't believe the lamp had any part in the murder, and I believe it was already in the room when Meredith was attacked. Meredith only had her bedside lamp as a light source at night. It's likely that at some point she borrowed the lamp to use as her desk lamp to do homework with. Amanda was constantly sleeping over at Raffaele's, so Meredith probably knew she wouldn't be around to miss it.
Also, the problem with the "Amanda was looking for an earring on the floor" scenario is A) had an earring been torn out we'd know. He ear literally would have been torn. B)There was already the lamp by the bed which, if Amanda was looking for something she would have just grabbed that one and used it to sweep the floor or under the bed with. C) The location where her lamp was found is consistent with it having first been on or near the desk and then pushed from there to in front of the bed by the force of the door being swung open.

So Meredith took Amanda's lamp, plugged it into the outlet outside her bedroom, placed it on the floor, and used it to study?

The door was a left hinge swing, and the desk was to the right of the door. For the door to push the lamp closer to the bed requires the following:

- Meredith took Amanda's lamp without permission
- She placed the lamp on the floor beside the desk that already had a lamp
- She did her school work on the floor even though she had a desk
- She closed the door and then placed the lamp in such a way that she couldn't open the door without moving the lamp
- she plugged the lamp into the hallway even though she obviously had outlets in the room

 

[otto]

That's rudy's version of what happened on his "date" with Meredith and doesn't really address how he he left the toilet unflushed if he was involved in a four way plot to have sex with her, or what scared him off the toilet. According to his version which you're going by he had nothing to do with what went on in that bedroom. Is that what you believe? What is the scenario you believe happened that night which addresses all the evidence?

The facts of the case don't include a scenario created by my imagination - I believe that is Amanda's specialty. Facts are the Rudy confessed to being present in the cottage at the time of the murder. He also explains why he used the toilet.

 

[otto]

Amanda had one small blood drop on the faucet of the sink. It's plausible that she didn't notice this drop ever, before or after the murder, as it was on the silver-colored faucet, not the bright white sink bowl where Meredith's blood was found in multiple droplets. I still haven't heard a reason as to where Amanda's blood would have come from if not her ear piercing since we know she had no injuries.



Rudy was likely on the toilet when Meredith unexpectedly came home. He didn't flush so not to make noise and probably rushed to the front door which he found couldn't be opened without a key. He went into Meredith's room, surprising her, and the attack happened. During the attack he stepped in Meredith's blood with his shoe, leaving the prints found in there. Sound plausible so far?
At that point he probably noticed he was covered in blood, pants and shoes. So he takes his shoe off while in the bedroom, at some point pressing the bloody knife against the bed to steady himself, leaving the bloody imprint which does not match the knife found at Raffaele's apartment.
He goes in to the bathroom, rinses his shoe and pant leg in the sink. Puts his wet foot down on the mat which leaves the bathmat print. Then puts his shoe back on, which he hasn't thoroughly cleaned because he's in a rush to get the heck out of there. But he remember that he has to have the key to unlock the front door (and for anyone who doesn't know: Yes, you had to have a key just to get out of the house. The door was always locked or it would swing open). SO he goes back into Meredith's room, goes through her purse where he again leaves his DNA. He takes her keys, credit cards, cash, and phones. He leaves her room, locking the door behind him to delay discovery of the body, walks down the hall (leaving his faint bloody shoeprints in the hallway), unlocks the front door and runs like a bat out of hell. In his diary he wrote that at that moment escaping the cottage his pants were wet.

If Amanda's blood was in the sink the day before the murder, why did Amanda state during court testimony that it was not there before the murder? Was she "helping police", imagining, not remembering?

 

[otto]

Here's the whole thing. Also, the section you highlighted makes more sense in context, as with the majority of her statements which are constantly used out of context:

"Dear Madison (and everyone)
Missing you (a blank spot). I'm missing everyone I care
about back home. It's pretty frickin' lonely around here.
I'm definitely going to need a hug when I get back. Then
a good long talk, and some hot chocolate if you can
manage. Not going to lie - [this is the worst experience of
my life. Take that back, the night when I spent hours
trying to tell the police I was innocent while they told
me I was lying, yelled at me,] hit me [- that was the
worst experience of my life.] The second worst was when I
realized Meredith had been murdered. Which means things
have only been getting better since then, and this is the
kind of outlook I'm trying to keep on the days ??
I’m not telling you this to burn you out, but you're the
person I’d be telling this to anyway, and I'm ??
furious. It’s not like they beat me here in prison
and the food’s not bad but I really, really, don’t want to
be here. I’ve been studying to distract myself and in the
meantime feeling like an absolute coward for letting
the police confuse me. [When they threatened to throw
me in jail for 30 years for lying to them I should have
held out my arms for the cuffs and told them to have
fun condemning an innocent person (or just to **** off)
but instead I got confused and scared and I ****ed up.]
I ****ed up so bad Madison and I’m so sorry I did it
because I hurt a friend of mine and landed myself in
here. It’s been 26 days since I arrived here. The first
8 I was kept in isolation without books, TV, and they
watched me while I took my showers. Since then I’ve
?? with a crazy woman and then I have changed
?? with 3 other people, 2 of which are"

Which friend did Amanda hurt?

 

[otto]

Thanks for the correction. I wonder what the assignment was and how the story ever came to light.

BTW, the prison story was written by someone named Marie Pace and was only speculated to be Amanda, and the prison never confirmed whether it was Amanda when asked by the newspaper. That speculation was based on Marie being Amanda's middle name which sounds like a stretch if you ask me.

Amanda's middle name is Marie. Pace is Italian for peace? The story, Amore mio, has been attributed to Amanda. The story is about a drug fueled night, watching a partially dressed woman die?

http://www.corriere.it/cronache/09_...1de-be1f-00144f02aabc.shtml?fr=box_primopiano

 

[Salem]

For of those of you who might be interested, we have a chatroom. Here are instructions for entering: Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

It is open 24/7. TOS applies, but its not quite as stringent

Salem

 

[Monzoo]

So Meredith took Amanda's lamp, plugged it into the outlet outside her bedroom, placed it on the floor, and used it to study?

The door was a left hinge swing, and the desk was to the right of the door. For the door to push the lamp closer to the bed requires the following:

- Meredith took Amanda's lamp without permission
- She placed the lamp on the floor beside the desk that already had a lamp
- She did her school work on the floor even though she had a desk
- She closed the door and then placed the lamp in such a way that she couldn't open the door without moving the lamp
- she plugged the lamp into the hallway even though she obviously had outlets in the room

I'm going to try to understand your argument here. Are the facts as you know them that:

1. The lamp's plug was outside the door
2. The lamp was on the floor
3. Meredith wouldn't have used the outlet in the hall because she had outlets in her room she could have used, and if it was plugged in the hallway she would have trouble closing the door

Was the cord sticking out of the door the morning the murder was discovered -- before the door was opened? If it was, it would have been possible for Meredith to borrow the lamp and use the outlet in the hall.

Have you considered that the lamp was in the room on the desk, and fell onto the floor during the time Meredith's door was being broken down?

It seems to me that with the placement of the lamp in your diagram, it would be impossible to open or close the door. Since we know the door had been closed and locked, we know it could not have been there.

More to the point, however, is what does the lamp mean as evidence? Is the fact that it belonged to Amanda mean she is the only one who could have moved it there, and is therefore involved in the murder? I can think of many scenarios as to how the lamp got there that don't involve Amanda. I don't remember it being an important piece of the prosecution's case.

 

[Monzoo]

Amanda's middle name is Marie. Pace is Italian for peace? The story, Amore mio, has been attributed to Amanda. The story is about a drug fueled night, watching a partially dressed woman die?

http://www.corriere.it/cronache/09_...1de-be1f-00144f02aabc.shtml?fr=box_primopiano

Who attributed it to Amanda? Did anyone deny she wrote it? Further, how many other inmates at the prison have a name that contains Marie or Maria, who would have a similar reason for using that name? It seems like a rather flimsy attribution to me.

More to the point, however: if Amanda did write it, why would that mean anything whatsoever as far as her guilt in this case?

Do you think that people who write about horrible subjects must be predisposed to commit them? I guess we shoul lock up Stephen King and Dean Koontz, then.

 

[otto]

I'm going to try to understand your argument here. Are the facts as you know them that:

1. The lamp's plug was outside the door
2. The lamp was on the floor
3. Meredith wouldn't have used the outlet in the hall because she had outlets in her room she could have used, and if it was plugged in the hallway she would have trouble closing the door

Was the cord sticking out of the door the morning the murder was discovered -- before the door was opened? If it was, it would have been possible for Meredith to borrow the lamp and use the outlet in the hall.

Have you considered that the lamp was in the room on the desk, and fell onto the floor during the time Meredith's door was being broken down?

It seems to me that with the placement of the lamp in your diagram, it would be impossible to open or close the door. Since we know the door had been closed and locked, we know it could not have been there.

More to the point, however, is what does the lamp mean as evidence? Is the fact that it belonged to Amanda mean she is the only one who could have moved it there, and is therefore involved in the murder? I can think of many scenarios as to how the lamp got there that don't involve Amanda. I don't remember it being an important piece of the prosecution's case.

Yes, the lamp cord was under the locked door and plugged into the hallway when the police arrived.

Given the way the door opened, if the lamp was on Meredith's desk, there is absolutely no way that opening the door would cause it to fly off the desk, across the room and behind the door, and land on the floor behind the open door ... given the positioning of the desk and hinge of the door, that is impossible.

Yes, the lamp is relevant evidence.

Can you think of any scenarios and imaginings where the person that most likely put the lamp on the floor of Meredith's room is someone that was looking for something?

 

[Monzoo]

Yes, the lamp cord was under the locked door and plugged into the hallway when the police arrived.

Given the way the door opened, if the lamp was on Meredith's desk, there is absolutely no way that opening the door would cause it to fly off the desk, across the room and behind the door, and land on the floor behind the open door ... given the positioning of the desk and hinge of the door, that is impossible.

Yes, the lamp is relevant evidence.

Can you think of any scenarios and imaginings where the person that most likely put the lamp on the floor of Meredith's room is someone that was looking for something?

I think this is where an unequal burden of proof comes into play.

If one is arguing that the convictions of AK and RS are unsafe -- that is, the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof -- one need not prove difinitively that AK and RS did not do it. One only need provide a reasonable interpretation of evidence that points to innocence(or, that the evidence does not PROVE them guilty.)

It is possible that the lamp was brought into the room by Meredith's killer. It is possible that it was used to look for something on the floor by said killer(s). However, this is not the only possibility, and perhaps not even the most likely one.

If you want to assert that the lamp is somehow integral to proving AK or RS guilty of murder, you have the burden of proving it.

Unequal burdens, yes, but that is justice. AK and RS do not have to prove their innocence -- only that the prosection did not meet its burden.

 

[Malkmus]

So Meredith took Amanda's lamp, plugged it into the outlet outside her bedroom, placed it on the floor, and used it to study?

The door was a left hinge swing, and the desk was to the right of the door. For the door to push the lamp closer to the bed requires the following:

- Meredith took Amanda's lamp without permission
- She placed the lamp on the floor beside the desk that already had a lamp
- She did her school work on the floor even though she had a desk
- She closed the door and then placed the lamp in such a way that she couldn't open the door without moving the lamp
- she plugged the lamp into the hallway even though she obviously had outlets in the room

Otto, the "lamp cord was sticking out from the door before it was broken down" is another myth. The whole reason that rumor got started was because there was a photo taken by ILE much later in the day after the door had already been broken down which showed the cord sticking out of the doorway. It's important to noter that neither the postal police, nor Luca who broke the door down mentioned any cord sticking out from the door and when Amanda was cross-examined on the stand she was never asked if she saw the lamp cord sticking out from under the door. Additionally there are photos from earlier in the day which show the cord still within the room.
Even the folks over at PMF acknowledge the cord wasn't sticking out from under the door.
http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=310&p=75287&hilit=lamp+cord#p75287

 

[Malkmus]

The facts of the case don't include a scenario created by my imagination - I believe that is Amanda's specialty. Facts are the Rudy confessed to being present in the cottage at the time of the murder. He also explains why he used the toilet.

Not following your logic here. All I asked was for a scenario where Rudy used the toilet but didn't flush according to your belief that all three were involved. You keep stating that we're supposed to go by Rudy's version. But Rudy's version has him completely innocent and the reason he was scared off the toilet was because he heard some stranger killing Meredith. Again, is this what you believe?

 

[Malkmus]

Which friend did Amanda hurt?

She's of course referring to Patrick. Is there someone else you think she'd be referring to?

 

[Malkmus]

Amanda's middle name is Marie. Pace is Italian for peace? The story, Amore mio, has been attributed to Amanda. The story is about a drug fueled night, watching a partially dressed woman die?

http://www.corriere.it/cronache/09_...1de-be1f-00144f02aabc.shtml?fr=box_primopiano

Pace is Italian for "peace" as well as being a last name. Just like in English someone can have the last name "Strong". As it stands, the Marie Pace story is just wild speculation, never confirmed nor denied, AFAIK.

 

[Malkmus]

Here is a photo of the lamp with its marker in front of it. The cord is inside the room.

 

[otto]

I think this is where an unequal burden of proof comes into play.

If one is arguing that the convictions of AK and RS are unsafe -- that is, the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof -- one need not prove difinitively that AK and RS did not do it. One only need provide a reasonable interpretation of evidence that points to innocence(or, that the evidence does not PROVE them guilty.)

It is possible that the lamp was brought into the room by Meredith's killer. It is possible that it was used to look for something on the floor by said killer(s). However, this is not the only possibility, and perhaps not even the most likely one.

If you want to assert that the lamp is somehow integral to proving AK or RS guilty of murder, you have the burden of proving it.

Unequal burdens, yes, but that is justice. AK and RS do not have to prove their innocence -- only that the prosection did not meet its burden.

We can only work with what's available to us. If there has been no suggestion by any of the other residents in the cottage that Meredith went into Amanda's room when she wasn't there and took Amanda's lamp, then I don't think it's for us to come up with this explanation for the final location of the lamp. Not even Amanda came up with that story.

The lamp is one piece of the evidence, but eliminating this evidence would not result in a not guilty verdict ... so it's not that integral to proving guilt. In fact, no piece of evidence in isolation is integral to proving guilt ... but everyone knows that.

There is something fishy about the lamp. That much is true. As it stands, it appears that the person that murdered Meredith went into Amanda's room and touched nothing but the lamp, put it on Meredith's bedroom floor, wiped away all prints, and then locked it in the room. That's a strange little detail.

 

[Malkmus]

If Amanda's blood was in the sink the day before the murder, why did Amanda state during court testimony that it was not there before the murder? Was she "helping police", imagining, not remembering?

I gave you my opinion on that in the first paragraph of my post you're quoting.

 

[otto]

She's of course referring to Patrick. Is there someone else you think she'd be referring to?

I thought that Patrick was her employer of a couple of weeks, not a friend.

 

[otto]

I gave you my opinion on that in the first paragraph of my post you're quoting.

It wasn't "asserted" that it was connected with the murder. Amanda was asked if it was there before the murder, and she said that it was not. Therefore, it must have gotten then at the time of the murder. Amanda confirmed that it was related to the murder ... something that no one else was sure about until her testimony.

 

[Malkmus]

We can only work with what's available to us. If there has been no suggestion by any of the other residents in the cottage that Meredith went into Amanda's room when she wasn't there and took Amanda's lamp, then I don't think it's for us to come up with this explanation for the final location of the lamp. Not even Amanda came up with that story.

The lamp is one piece of the evidence, but eliminating this evidence would not result in a not guilty verdict ... so it's not that integral to proving guilt. In fact, no piece of evidence in isolation is integral to proving guilt ... but everyone knows that.

There is something fishy about the lamp. That much is true. As it stands, it appears that the person that murdered Meredith went into Amanda's room and touched nothing but the lamp, put it on Meredith's bedroom floor, wiped away all prints, and then locked it in the room. That's a strange little detail.

Neither roommates were there the night of the murder. If Meredith borrowed it that evening, there would be no one to witness it.
It would have been an extra and unnecessary step to get the lamp from Amanda's room to look under the bed when Meredith's lamp is right there.
Also, I don't think it's a fact that the lamp was wiped of fingerprints or that it was even tested. I know for a fact that it wasn't tested for DNA, so not so sure it was tested for fingerprints. But even so, why would Amanda wipe her fingerprints off it when it was her lamp?