WARNING:GRAPHIC PHOTOS Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #8

[SleuthyGal]

Then he was inside that room and can't claim otherwise.

 

[dgfred]

Yes, but glancing under the duvet is hardly messing up anything or moving about the room.

 

[dgfred]

Regarding AK testifying/making statements in court at the appeal and saying 'sorry' in a way to Patrick... plus stating his innocence on the phone with her mother and at court later on:

How would AK have known (at the time of the call) that Patrick WAS innocent... unless she was actually at the cottage during the murder??? :waitasec:

Shouldn't she have been saying 'I accused him wrongly'... and 'I have no idea if he was there or not'??? Or 'I don't know'!!! Interesting indeed.

 

[Malkmus]

Well... are you saying at that point at trial on the stand (where the Italian courts EXPECT lying) she would say/change something to show herself in the best possible light??? Plus she and her lawyers had plenty of time to figure out the best answer to this question they had to know was coming.

Since being at RS's was her entire alibi... why would she say that in the phone conversation, again? IMO she was speaking of the cottage. IIRC she uses this EXACT SAME WORDING in her accusation of Patrick. 'i was there and remember...' :waitasec: Another coincidence???? Wow, poor girl :innocent: .

dgfred, you do realize that the lawyer who brought up this phone call in court was Girgha - her defense lawyer - don't you? The call was not used by the prosecution to make her look more guilty.

And why would Amanda not be telling her mother, in what was possibly their first conversation since she'd been arrested, that she wasn't at the cottage and that it would be stupid to lie about it?

 

[Malkmus]

IIRC he testified that he looked (or pulled up a part) under the duvet and saw the blood and her neck wounds.

Batistelli testified the complete opposite. He said he never went in the room. It was Luca who said he saw him go in and lift the duvet.

 

[Malkmus]

Regarding AK testifying/making statements in court at the appeal and saying 'sorry' in a way to Patrick... plus stating his innocence on the phone with her mother and at court later on:

How would AK have known (at the time of the call) that Patrick WAS innocent... unless she was actually at the cottage during the murder??? :waitasec:

Shouldn't she have been saying 'I accused him wrongly'... and 'I have no idea if he was there or not'??? Or 'I don't know'!!! Interesting indeed.

I don't remember her saying "I know he's innocent", just that he hadn't done what was implied in her statements from the 5th since she realized she had never met him that night.

 

[ziggy]

Maybe this link can help you ziggy

Ron Hendry is a forensic engineer with 28 years of experience. He initially re-created the crime scene out of curiousity, but now is an expert for the defense

He covers everything from the break-in to the altercation in MK's room (careful some photos are crime scene photos)

Hopefully this re-construction will help answer some of your questions

I came across this quite some time ago and found it to be fascinating

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

ETA this link http://injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendryindex2.html

AWESOME! I was up late reading - couldn't stop.

* I can't get over the size of the space - how small. I would think if there were three people assaulting Meredith, while her fatal wound was inflicted, at least one of them may have been in front. I'm trying imagine in my mind three people and they are all behind her or on the sides. I guess it's possible but I see it more as "surrounding" your prey. If that is the case, one would have been in front and hence the aspirated spray would not have spewn onto the wardrobe but onto the perp - or there would have been a bare spot.

* Not sure how the footprint on the bathmat can absolutely be ruled out as belonging to Rudy.

* If this was an effort to force Meredith into sex, then why is it more evident that the sex was attempted AFTER she was attacked by the pillow being under her hips and her bra ripped off while she was aspirating blood - then why didn't Amanda take place in it? Why is her DNA missing? She was the sex freak mastermind after all.

Just my the questions that plague my mind....(yawn) gotta stay off those sites - sleepy!!!

 

[dgfred]

dgfred, you do realize that the lawyer who brought up this phone call in court was Girgha - her defense lawyer - don't you? The call was not used by the prosecution to make her look more guilty.

And why would Amanda not be telling her mother, in what was possibly their first conversation since she'd been arrested, that she wasn't at the cottage and that it would be stupid to lie about it?

Yep, but thanks for your guidance.

Nobody said it was used by the prosecution.

If she knows Patrick is innocent in that conversation, HOW did she know?

'Stupid to lie about it'???? That's pretty funny :crazy: Isn't that her SOP???

 

[dgfred]

Batistelli testified the complete opposite. He said he never went in the room. It was Luca who said he saw him go in and lift the duvet.

So you are thinking he saw Meredith was dead, saw her throat was cut, but didn't go into the room??? You think he meant he saw through the duvet???
His referring to 'not going in the room' is meant as not going about the room disturbing things IMO.

 

[dgfred]

I don't remember her saying "I know he's innocent", just that he hadn't done what was implied in her statements from the 5th since she realized she had never met him that night.

You surely remember her claiming he hadn't done what she implied in her earlier statements... but he might have right? How would she know he didn't- if she wasn't there? Pretty simple question but I notice how it is easily twisted to seeming innocent.

If she was so sure he wasn't involved, maybe she should have made SURE the authorities KNEW she was lying/dreaming/misremembering/flashbacking/fibbing/confused/coerced/whatever and Patrick was NOT INVOLVED... her mother should have too. Seems the acorn didn't fall far from the tree IMO.

 

[Nova]

So you are thinking he saw Meredith was dead, saw her throat was cut, but didn't go into the room??? You think he meant he saw through the duvet???
His referring to 'not going in the room' is meant as not going about the room disturbing things IMO.

Batistelli killed Meredith!

Because if AK or RS uses language as inexactly as you describe, it is always taken here as a sure sign he or she is a murderer.

 

[Nova]

Yep, but thanks for your guidance.

Nobody said it was used by the prosecution.

If she knows Patrick is innocent in that conversation, HOW did she know?....

She doesn't know, really, but saying someone is "innocent" is one way we have of admitting we falsely accused him. It's a softer way of admitting to lying without saying "I lied."

And this is the sort of thing I was talking about in my previous post.

 

[dgfred]

Batistelli killed Meredith!

Because if AK or RS uses language as inexactly as you describe, it is always taken here as a sure sign he or she is a murderer.

Well, AK is the master of inexact language.

If she had known he was going to use 'inexact language' as you say... maybe she could have accused him.

 

[dgfred]

She doesn't know, really, but saying someone is "innocent" is one way we have of admitting we falsely accused him. It's a softer way of admitting to lying without saying "I lied."

And this is the sort of thing I was talking about in my previous post.

Could she have admitted he was 'innocent' to authorities???

Could her mom have 'admitted' that AK had lied???

 

[ChasingMoxie]

Well, AK is the master of inexact language.

If she had known he was going to use 'inexact language' as you say... maybe she could have accused him.

If you believe that Bastistelli said "I did not enter the room" when he actually meant "I entered the room but I did not move around the room or disturb any evidence" then you are claiming that he used inexact language. I actually believe "inexact" is putting it nicely, because to me it sounds like he said exactly the opposite of what you claim he meant.

I think that he may have worried that he did something wrong, and he was scared, and it may have affected his testimony or recounting of events, perhaps similar to how I think fear and pressure influenced AK's recollection of events.

 

[dgfred]

Maybe... but that is not the only problem she has. Plus that version allows her to say or do anything at anytime because of 'fear and pressure'.

 

[Nova]

Well, AK is the master of inexact language.

If she had known he was going to use 'inexact language' as you say... maybe she could have accused him.

No, she only accused the person her interrogators wanted her to accuse, so they would leave her alone. Accusing someone else would have served no purpose.

 

[dgfred]

How has that worked out so far for her?

 

[Nova]

Could she have admitted he was 'innocent' to authorities???

Could her mom have 'admitted' that AK had lied???

Could we move on, please?

The point has been conceded countless times. AK should not have implicated PL, but in fact she implicates him in the most tenuous (ETA: I mean "tentative"--maybe I killed MK) possible terms; no competent police force would have arrested anyone on the basis of AK's statements. EM was thousands of miles away, didn't speak the language, and left the matter to AK's attorneys.

You been given hundreds of pages of evidence that innocent subjects confess or make false accusations under the pressure of interrogation.

So I assume this subject keeps popping up because there is so little actual evidence against Amanda Knox.

 

[dgfred]

Yeah, that's why :innocent: .