Meredith Kercher murdered in Perugia, Amanda Knox convicted #3

[jjenny]

...Justice was not served in Meredith's name when A&R were found guilty. She is not Resting In Peace. The memory of her has been muddied by this witch trial. That is the worst part of all of this. Meredith would NOT want these innocent people spending ANY of their lives in prison, for a crime they didn't commit, in her name. Her death was turned into a mockery by the wild theories put forth by the prosecution. The "cartoon" they invented is proof of that. So sad that more people don't realize this...

And you know that how? Meredith's family doesn't have a problem with AK and RS convicted.

 

[dgfred]

I agree kaly... I think the police must have used the lamp so they could see meredith's room better... and really, if there was ever an opportunity to tie amanda directly to the crime scene, this was it -- so why didn't they? (and scream it from the rooftops?)

if the killer used the lamp to "clean up" and then "accidentally" locked the lamp in meredith's room, then why not just turn around and use their (newly stolen) key to get the lamp back out --

What? Why would they need to 'see better'?

How would the lamp 'tie' AK to the crime scene. ANYONE including MK could have put the lamp in there and obviously it would have had AK's dna on it because it was hers.

There is the possibility that one/or the other of the killers didn't see the door being locked. There is the possibility that the killers were seperated and the one with the key had already left. Many possibilities... no answers. Maybe AK didn't notice it there until the next day's shower.

IMO the lamp was used during clean up to see under the bed. The defense sure did not think the lamp was such a big deal either way... since they did not argue the mention of it or it being in the video.

 

[Tizzle]

And you know that how? Meredith's family doesn't have a problem with AK and RS convicted.

By reading and researching and not being able to come up with ANY convincing evidence of their guilt is how I know that. Common sense is how I know that. I guess actual TRUE justice just isn't important to some. I'm so glad I'm not one of them. I'm so glad that I have an open mind and am able to ascertain the difference between rumor and fact.

Amanda's family and Raf's family have a problem that they were convicted, so by your line of thinking, they must be innocent. Meredith's family is grief-stricken, distraught and desperate for answers to why this had to happen to the youngest member of their immediate family. In their shoes, I might feel the same about the verdict. Doubtful, but possible.

 

[dgfred]

Thanks for at least addressing the points I made, djfred!

I agree that AK's DNA on her lamp wouldn't be of any special significance in terms of implicating her. What surprises me is that the prosecution apparently agreed, even, it seems, to the point of not testing it. After all, they considered AK's DNA in the bathroom to be evidence, when you would equally expect her DNA to be found there. So why wasn't the fact her lamp was found in the murder room of more concern? Especially when they didn't (and still don't) have any other forensic evidence linking her directly to the bedroom. It's just very odd that we know nothing about the lamp - no results from tests that were carried out on it, no theory as to how it got there presented in court (or not in such a way that the defence could challenge it, anyway). Nothing. It's very weird, is what it is. Why do we know so little about it?

Here's a question for you, though: why wouldn't AK mention the lamp being missing from her room, whether she had anything to do with the murder or not? If they were so desperate to get it back they tried to break the door down, they obviously knew it could be traced to her. Why not just go to Plan B, and tell the police that the only thing she'd noticed missing from her room was her reading lamp - seems a bit weird, but hey, maybe Meredith borrowed it? She could even have made a show of recognizing the cable plugged in outside. I see no reason for her to try and hide it, and very strong reasons why she'd mention it as just another of the 'odd' things she noticed in the cottage. Why not just tell them about it?

DNA on her own lamp is very different than her dna mixed with MK's blood in Filomena's room and the bathroom.

But she did say she didn't notice it under the door to LE... I believe she did but THOUGHT it would show she was involved somehow. I do NOT think they tried to break down the door just to get the lamp... I don't know for sure that they even tried. I have no idea why AK tells the things she does but doesn't tell other things... I wish I did.

 

[dgfred]

By reading and researching and not being able to come up with ANY convincing evidence of their guilt is how I know that. Common sense is how I know that. I guess actual TRUE justice just isn't important to some. I'm so glad I'm not one of them. I'm so glad that I have an open mind and am able to ascertain the difference between rumor and fact.

Amanda's family and Raf's family have a problem that they were convicted, so by your line of thinking, they must be innocent. Meredith's family is grief-stricken, distraught and desperate for answers to why this had to happen to the youngest member of their immediate family. In their shoes, I might feel the same about the verdict. Doubtful, but possible.

Well from reports Meredith's family is pleased with the verdicts and feel that the ones responsible are behind bars. So not really sure where this debate is going or is supposed to go :waitasec: .

What does common sense have to say about 2 people at a bloody crime scene acting strangely (reported by friends and foes alike) that repeatedly give the police a pile of rubbish (lies) when forming stories of their actions and whereabouts during the crime???

 

[Tizzle]

What? Why would they need to 'see better'?

>>snipped<<

Well, for the same reason that everyone thought Amanda should have noticed it wasn't in her room because she wouldn't have been able to see to get dressed, of course. Wasn't this a suggestion made by you on the last thread, as well?

ETA: Answer to my own question: Yes, it was a suggestion made by you...

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - British student murdered in Perugia, Amanda Knox convicted #2

 

[Tizzle]

Well from reports Meredith's family is pleased with the verdicts and feel that the ones responsible are behind bars. So not really sure where this debate is going or is supposed to go :waitasec: .

Then why bother responding?

What does common sense have to say about 2 people at a bloody crime scene acting strangely (reported by friends and foes alike) that repeatedly give the police a pile of rubbish (lies) when forming stories of their actions and whereabouts during the crime???

I've already addressed all of this numerous times. I don't think they acted strangely and the pile of 'rubbish' is a result of coercion and their responses being twisted to fit the bill for the Mignini's wild fantasies. Have I not been clear enough? If you don't get it now, I don't know how you ever will.

 

[dgfred]

Well, for the same reason that everyone thought Amanda should have noticed it wasn't in her room because she wouldn't have been able to see to get dressed, of course. Wasn't this a suggestion made by you on the last thread, as well?

ETA: Answer to my own question: Yes, it was a suggestion made by you...

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - British student murdered in Perugia, Amanda Knox convicted #2

I don't see your logic. Noticing the lamp missing from your own room is ALOT different than the police taking a lamp from another room in a crime scene to see better. So you are thinking the police break down the door, see a bloody deceased body laying on the floor and go to get another lamp from another room (in the crime scene area)... plug it in, lay wire under the door frame and place it at the end of her bed? This lamp stuff seems to be getting silly.

 

[dgfred]

Then why bother responding?



I've already addressed all of this numerous times. I don't think they acted strangely and the pile of 'rubbish' is a result of coercion and their responses being twisted to fit the bill for the Mignini's wild fantasies. Have I not been clear enough? If you don't get it now, I don't know how you ever will.

*Because you were wrong.
*I really see no logic in your excusing away the numerous and repeated lies.
*It wasn't Mignini that brought about the changes in alibi (stories).
*Clear as mud.
*Probably not... I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Regardless of descriptions of AK and RS behavior (which is subjective depending on who is describing it) and what they allegedly said (which, without a witness or a transcript of some kind or a recording, cannot be verified and thus stays in the 'rumor' bin), I think it's important to stick to what CAN be at least verified in this case...which is the physical evidence.

- Why is there insistence on concentrating on the (kind of) evidence which CANNOT be verified? All these debates about a lamp which the guilties don't even think is that important since it wasn't mentioned in the trial? I mean, why bother? How do you know the lamp is connected to the murder?

- What are the sources for what AK and/or RS said?

- How do you know it's ACCURATE? Are you looking at a transcript?

- Do you care if you are getting accurate info? (you should).

- Why is it that publications like: The Telegraph, etc. are deemed accurate and precise when it's something that points to 'guilty', but the same publications are considered tabloid rags and not accurate when something points to 'innocent?'

- Why aren't you insisting that your information come from as close to THE SOURCE as possible? Transcripts, witness statements in court, recordings...stuff that allows you to see with your own 2 eyes what's what? Would you want someone to judge you based on rumors, innuendos, misstatements? Or would you hope they would use transcripts?

 

[SleuthyGal]

Instead of 'beliefs' I'd really like to see FACTS. Where is the proof? Point to a report, a witness statement, a lab report, a transcript...something!

The minute you start with, "I believe..." or "I heard that..." or "I think what happened was..." or "I assume..." or "It's my understanding that..." you are no longer staying on the level of facts.

Opinions are nice I suppose, but it ain't evidence.

 

[dgfred]

Regardless of descriptions of AK and RS behavior (which is subjective depending on who is describing it) and what they allegedly said (which, without a witness or a transcript of some kind or a recording, cannot be verified and thus stays in the 'rumor' bin), I think it's important to stick to what CAN be at least verified in this case...which is the physical evidence.

- Why is there insistence on concentrating on the (kind of) evidence which CANNOT be verified?

- What are the sources for what AK and/or RS said?

- How do you know it's ACCURATE? Are you looking at a transcript?

- Do you care if you are getting accurate info? (you should).

Why is it that publications like: The Telegraph, etc. are deemed accurate and precise when it's something that points to 'guilty', but the same publications are considered tabloid rags and not accurate when something points to 'innocent?'

Why aren't you insisting that your information come from as close to THE SOURCE as possible? Transcripts, witness statements in court, recordings...stuff that allows you to see with your own 2 eyes what's what?

I'll try your questions:

Even the physical evidence will be questions as we do not know what test were run on them or the results until the reasoning from the judges is released. Their behavior IS relevant. What I was posting about their behavior was 'verified' by LE and AK's friends that gave them a ride immediately after the body was found- they were acting so strangely that they worried the pair may have left EVIDENCE in their car... seems even the friends were suspicious already.

-because we really don't have any (or hardly any) information/results/transcripts that can verify what do know.

-the sourses are AK's written gift to LE, her emails home and transcripts of her conversations with Mignini and in court. On RS you have transcripts of LE questioning (at least what he did answer to), his diary writings and his letters to others.

-I have read some transcripts, the emails and the 'gift' as well as some of RS's
written words. If they were not accurate I would assume the defense would have protested mightily... as well as the pro AK websites.

-I believe it is quite accurate... even the initial interview with AK. I absolutely see no reason for the authorities to make up stuff to frame an American woman... as well as one of their own and another person. Yes, I too want accurate information :banghead: ... thanks for the reminder.

As far as the news mags, I read what they say... but I like to verify with other sourses before believing they are gospel. There job/goal is to sell copies so I keep that in mind.

I don't insist my information come from anywhere... I take it where I can find it then go from there.

 

[kemo]

The defence had no reason to discuss the lamp at all, since the prosecution didn't bring it up as a main part of their evidence. And even if they did happen to consider the possibility that the lamp was left there accidentally by the police at a later point (and I think it's entirely possible it just didn't occur to them), they would hardly be likely to accuse the police of incompetence without proof. However, if the photo shows the lamp plugged in, yet none of the witnesses mentioned it, that would be some kind of proof, and that's why I'm keen to establish the facts there.

You're completely wrong about the prosecution being required to disclose the results of all their tests. They may have been legally required to give them the results of tests they planned to bring up in court, but the lamp wasn't discussed in court. And they still didn't manage to provide all the information even about evidence that was discussed. For example, when Stefanoni was questioned about the amount of DNA found on the bra clasp, she mentioned a number. The defence looked through their paperwork and realized there was no mention of this figure, so they had to ask the judge that Stefanoni be required to give them all missing information relating to it (source).

That was information about a crucial piece of evidence that hadn't been disclosed by the prosecution. Would they have voluntarily released information relating to tests that weren't even discussed in court? I very much doubt it.

Kaly99

Two points 1) (re RED) Perhaps you know something about Italian law I don't. In the US and the UK, generally the defense is able to obtain from the prosecution all information and full access to: 1) anything that the prosecution may introduce as evidence. 2) Anything they request that is available. 3) Any exculpatory evidence even if the defense is unaware of its existence. I would be very surprised if the Italian system doesn't work the same way. If you are aware that under the Italian legal system the prosecution is able to legally withhold critical evidence from the defense, please let us know.

2) (Re Blue) you are suggesting that the defense "messed up" and missed a critical point then you claim that they were intimidated from suggesting police incompetence. This is ridiculous. The defense team was pretty much the best that money could buy in Italy and challenging that competency of an investigation is SOP for defenses everywhere. Any country where the police intimidate defense attorneys in this manner doesn’t have MUCH of a justice system. If you are suggesting this is the case in Italy, back it up.

 

[dgfred]

Instead of 'beliefs' I'd really like to see FACTS. Where is the proof? Point to a report, a witness statement, a lab report, a transcript...something!

The minute you start with, "I believe..." or "I heard that..." or "I think what happened was..." or "I assume..." or "It's my understanding that..." you are no longer staying on the level of facts.

Opinions are nice I suppose, but it ain't evidence.

All those things you can find yourself.

Sentences need to start in that manner to show that it is one's opinion... like most of the post in this forum and not necessarily 100% right or absolute.
The facts (as I see them) are being applied... you just don't see them the same way and that is why the sentence should start with "I believe" because I already know others don't.

Discussion, debate, opinions, theories, and abstract scenarios are exactly what most want... that is what I (we) do to try to piece together what happened because we don't have (or can not get) all the information.

What is evidence/obvious to one poster is rumor/not to another and so on and so on.

 

[dgfred]

Seems now AK has been notified by the Italian authorities that she may now be charged with defamation for claiming LE hit her during her interrogation.
Possible 2 yr sentence I think if found guilty.

 

[Isabella]

instead of cartoon, what about "world of warcraft like"

Lol yea...im sure there are plenty of monsters on there just like Amanda

 

[Isabella]

Justice was not served in Meredith's name when A&R were found guilty. She is not Resting In Peace. The memory of her has been muddied by this witch trial. That is the worst part of all of this. Meredith would NOT want these innocent people spending ANY of their lives in prison, for a crime they didn't commit, in her name. Her death was turned into a mockery by the wild theories put forth by the prosecution. The "cartoon" they invented is proof of that. So sad that more people don't realize this.
Weird thing in all honesty i think Merediths memory has been sullied more on this board by some people than it ever was at the trial. As for anything else...unlike US her family was at the trial and heard ALL the evidence and after hearing ALL the evidence they said there was NO other verdict that could be reached other than a GUILTY one. So no i dont agree with you what you claim Meredith would want. What i do know that Meredith would have wanted..was to not die in the way she did at the hands of Amanda and her fellow murderers.



I haven't read anything about the defense declining to be present during any of the prosecution's 'testing'. Further, I have read nothing about them even being invited by the prosecution. Could you provide a link to this information, please? I am unable to locate anything and would like to read more. TIA

There is definetly a link on this forum stating the defence was invited to be there when the testing was done and they refused.

My reply in red.

 

[Isabella]

By reading and researching and not being able to come up with ANY convincing evidence of their guilt is how I know that. Common sense is how I know that. I guess actual TRUE justice just isn't important to some. I'm so glad I'm not one of them. I'm so glad that I have an open mind and am able to ascertain the difference between rumor and fact.

Amanda's family and Raf's family have a problem that they were convicted, so by your line of thinking, they must be innocent. Meredith's family is grief-stricken, distraught and desperate for answers to why this had to happen to the youngest member of their immediate family. In their shoes, I might feel the same about the verdict. Doubtful, but possible.

Her family was at the trial and heard ALL the evidence. They have NO doubt the right verdict was reached. They wanted justice for there daughter so if there was a chance they didnt do it i am positive they wouldnt hae been so happy about the result.

JMO

 

[Isabella]

Regardless of descriptions of AK and RS behavior (which is subjective depending on who is describing it) and what they allegedly said (which, without a witness or a transcript of some kind or a recording, cannot be verified and thus stays in the 'rumor' bin), I think it's important to stick to what CAN be at least verified in this case...which is the physical evidence.

- Why is there insistence on concentrating on the (kind of) evidence which CANNOT be verified? All these debates about a lamp which the guilties don't even think is that important since it wasn't mentioned in the trial? I mean, why bother? How do you know the lamp is connected to the murder?

- What are the sources for what AK and/or RS said?

- How do you know it's ACCURATE? Are you looking at a transcript?

- Do you care if you are getting accurate info? (you should).

- Why is it that publications like: The Telegraph, etc. are deemed accurate and precise when it's something that points to 'guilty', but the same publications are considered tabloid rags and not accurate when something points to 'innocent?'

- Why aren't you insisting that your information come from as close to THE SOURCE as possible? Transcripts, witness statements in court, recordings...stuff that allows you to see with your own 2 eyes what's what? Would you want someone to judge you based on rumors, innuendos, misstatements? Or would you hope they would use transcripts?

The problem is..we have witness statements from courts..ie the friends of Meredith or the flatmates and these generally get rubbished

As for the Telegraph personally no way would i call that a tabloid.

 

[Isabella]

Seems now AK has been notified by the Italian authorities that she may now be charged with defamation for claiming LE hit her during her interrogation.
Possible 2 yr sentence I think if found guilty.

Its a pity they cant just give her a truth drug...would solve so many problems in my opinion.