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

[OldSteve]

sniped

How on earth did Raffaele and Amanda manage not to be drenched in blood? Why did noone see the blood-soaked pair in Perugia?

Agree and more - why didn't AK leave bloody finger prints, foot prints in MK's room, or have splatter on her clothing, or bruises/marks on her? Nothing to suggest multiples knives were used. No evidence to place AK in MK's room at the time of the murder IMO.

 

[missyjane77]

sniped

Agree and more - why didn't AK leave bloody finger prints, foot prints in MK's room, or have splatter on her clothing, or bruises/marks on her? Nothing to suggest multiples knives were used. No evidence to place AK in MK's room at the time of the murder IMO.

Precisely. A murder as brutal as this one, the attackers should have wounds and/or marks of some sort brought on during the attack.

 

[SMK]

From retired FBI agent Steve Moore's "The Mountain of Missing Evidence at http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI2.html:

If Amanda and Raffaele had actually killed Meredith in company with Rudy Guede, the following evidence WOULD have been there:

BLOOD TRANSFER
1. Meredith’s room would have been filled with the bloody footprints, handprints and smears of THREE PEOPLE, not one.

In the world of homicide (and other) investigations, law enforcement officials and prosecutors use the word “transfer”. Transfer is what it sounds like; the transfer of physical evidence from one person to another. Transfer is especially prevalent in murders (especially by stabbing) and rape. The nature of this case indicates that it would have the MOST transfer of any type of case.

2/3 of the required evidence missing, means 2/3 of the people were not there.

If the prosecution’s story is true, we are missing all credible evidence of the participation of, or even presence of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in the cottage at the time of the murder.

With three alleged assailants, that would mean that 2/3 of the evidence is simply missing. Evidence of Rudy Guede’s presence and participation are everywhere; bloody footprints, DNA, fingerprints, palm prints, bodily fluids, hair and even fecal matter. Nobody; not even Rudy Guede disputes this evidence. How then can the total absence of evidence of any other person be explained? The prosecution cannot provide an answer.[. . . ]

 

[Nova]

Let's put ourselves in Filomina's shoes for a moment. Suppose you went out one day. Everything in your room was left more or less in its place, clothes in the wardrobe, computer on your desk, nothing tossed on the floor. When you returned, your clothes were pulled out of the wardrobe onto the floor, your laptop on the floor with the clothes. You look around, see the window is broken, and then see broken glass on top of the clothes that are on the floor.

What is the logical conclusion regarding the order in which things were put on the floor? Was the glass put on the floor, and then the clothes, or were the clothes put on the floor, and then the glass? This doesn't require any complex analysis. A retired mechanical engineer is not needed for understanding the situation. We see the floor, then the clothes, then the glass on top. What happened first?

And this is precisely the problem with the "break-in staging" part of the case. If a room is being tossed, can't glass move more than once? Was there glass under the clothes as well as on top of it? How would Filomena know, unless someone carefully moved everything, one item at a time, photographing as s/he went? I've read nothing to suggest that was done.

Instead, it seems LE took one glance at the room, saw glass on top of something, and asked Filomena, "Did you leave broken glass on your clothes?" She, of course, said no and the conclusion was made. ILE decided experts weren't needed. Apparently, you agree.

 

[Nova]

I think the family is named as heckling journalists.

Not in the link we were given here.

ETA I double-checked. The Daily Beast link you are using merely says "Knox's supporters." I seriously doubt AK's mother was "growling" at reporters. Come on.

 

[Nova]

Addendum: Using the law of Occam's razor, in which the simplest explanation is likely to be the true one, isn't it far more likely that this known burglar, taking his time robbing the place, as all were out, and sitting on the toilet, was dismayed to hear Meredith return early, and go into her bedroom to call her Mom? After thinking of what to do, he decides to go in and confront her, and the rest is history---a history which takes place in around 10 minutes....this, rather than the whole twisted, convoluted, complicated scenario envisioned by Mignini? How on earth did Raffaele and Amanda manage not to be drenched in blood? Why did noone see the blood-soaked pair in Perugia? The following report, regardless of WHO wrote it, resonates with reality, cold, drab, plain reality:http://www.injusticeinperugia.biz/RonHendry9.html

Yes.

Re Hendry's report on shattering glass which you excerpted above, there has been some debate on his credentials. It seems to me that one person who would certainly be an expert on shattered glass is an accident investigator.

 

[SMK]

.

"Re Hendry's report on shattering glass which you excerpted above, there has been some debate on his credentials. It seems to me that one person who would certainly be an expert on shattered glass is an accident investigator." posted by Nova


I would agree. And even besides that, I am paying attention to his scrutinizing, his line of reasoning, and these speak more loudly than his credentials, to me. I am of the belief that even an astute layperson, if willing to give attention, might discover the truth. I have been disillusioned and disenchanted by "professionals" and "experts" many, many times so I care less about credentials and more about reasoning. Notwithstanding, Hendry does have credentials that afford him some expertise here.

 

[Nova]

.

"Re Hendry's report on shattering glass which you excerpted above, there has been some debate on his credentials. It seems to me that one person who would certainly be an expert on shattered glass is an accident investigator." posted by Nova


I would agree. And even besides that, I am paying attention to his scrutinizing, his line of reasoning, and these speak more loudly than his credentials, to me. I am of the belief that even an astute layperson, if willing to give attention, might discover the truth. I have been disillusioned and disenchanted by "professionals" and "experts" many, many times so I care less about credentials and more about reasoning. Notwithstanding, Hendry does have credentials that afford him some expertise here.

I agree. The point is not that we should believe something just because Hendry says it, but that we might believe it because it makes sense.

 

[otto]

Short answer: Regardless of what Filomina may have thought, is it not possible that Guede himself pushed the big shards of glass in on top of some clothes that were lying around as well as other objects?:waitasec:

Does it really seem reasonable that he didn't flush the toilet but he played with the broken glass?

 

[otto]

And this is precisely the problem with the "break-in staging" part of the case. If a room is being tossed, can't glass move more than once? Was there glass under the clothes as well as on top of it? How would Filomena know, unless someone carefully moved everything, one item at a time, photographing as s/he went? I've read nothing to suggest that was done.

Instead, it seems LE took one glance at the room, saw glass on top of something, and asked Filomena, "Did you leave broken glass on your clothes?" She, of course, said no and the conclusion was made. ILE decided experts weren't needed. Apparently, you agree.

Filomina did not put the glass on her things. How did the glass get on top of her clothes, clothes that were in the wardrobe when she left?

 

[Nova]

Filomina did not put the glass on her things. How did the glass get on top of her clothes, clothes that were in the wardrobe when she left?

Per Hendry, the existing photos of the room do not show much glass on top of her things. For that, we must rely on Filomena's memory. (As always, I want to be clear I'm not accusing her of lying, just of being human and therefore fallible.)

And as I said, there is no law of physics that says glass can't move twice, once when a window is broken and again when the room is being tossed.

 

[otto]

Are we turning ourselves into pretzels to distance Knox from the staged break in? Wouldn't it be easier to find some other drifter to blame it on? What about the tramp, maybe we should hold him responsible for the break in and murder. He's a drug addict who lived on a park bench. I think this strategy might work better than suggesting Rudy played with broken glass after the murder, or that the glass had anti-gravity powers.

 

[otto]

Per Hendry, the existing photos of the room do not show much glass on top of her things. For that, we must rely on Filomena's memory. (As always, I want to be clear I'm not accusing her of lying, just of being human and therefore fallible.)

And as I said, there is no law of physics that says glass can't move twice, once when a window is broken and again when the room is being tossed.

Are you saying that because some retired guy in the US did not post photos of glass on the clothes, it didn't happen?

Did the glass get on top of the clothes because Rudy played with the glass, or did it fly?

 

[SMK]

Does it really seem reasonable that he didn't flush the toilet but he played with the broken glass?

What I meant was, in entering the room via the window, he might have had to push glass into the room, in order to clear the way for hoisting his body in. If clothes and things were laying about the tiny room, then glass would have been deposited on top of them. Also, he would likely have had glass on his person, his pants, his shoes, which as he moved around the room, would have shaken down on top of things. I have often been simply amazed when I have broken a glass in the kitchen, then swept it up----only to finding little pieces of glass tracked all over later.

 

[SMK]

Are we turning ourselves into pretzels to distance Knox from the staged break in? Wouldn't it be easier to find some other drifter to blame it on? What about the tramp, maybe we should hold him responsible for the break in and murder. He's a drug addict who lived on a park bench. I think this strategy might work better than suggesting Rudy played with broken glass after the murder, or that the glass had anti-gravity powers.

I will say it again:
What I meant was, in entering the room via the window, he might have had to push glass into the room, in order to clear the way for hoisting his body in. If clothes and things were laying about the tiny room, then glass would have been deposited on top of them. Also, he would likely have had glass on his person, his pants, his shoes, which as he moved around the room, would have shaken down on top of things. I have often been simply amazed when I have broken a glass in the kitchen, then swept it up----only to finding little pieces of glass tracked all over later.

 

[otto]

What I meant was, in entering the room via the window, he might have had to push glass into the room, in order to clear the way for hoisting his body in. If clothes and things were laying about the tiny room, then glass would have been deposited on top of them. Also, he would likely have had glass on his person, his pants, his shoes, which as he moved around the room, would have shaken down on top of things. I have often been simply amazed when I have broken a glass in the kitchen, then swept it up----only to finding little pieces of glass tracked all over later.

The glass was evenly distributed across the entire window ledge. This glass was not disturbed, so whomever we imagine entered this window did not touch the window ledge while entering the window.

Sorry ... no hoisting on the window ledge. The person that entered through this window would have had to enter like spiderman, or take a giant leap from the ground.

 

[otto]

I will say it again:
What I meant was, in entering the room via the window, he might have had to push glass into the room, in order to clear the way for hoisting his body in. If clothes and things were laying about the tiny room, then glass would have been deposited on top of them. Also, he would likely have had glass on his person, his pants, his shoes, which as he moved around the room, would have shaken down on top of things. I have often been simply amazed when I have broken a glass in the kitchen, then swept it up----only to finding little pieces of glass tracked all over later.

Okay, so he pushed the glass into the room when he hoisted himself into the room, and then he neatly arranged the glass evenly across the ledge (meticulously ensuring not one shard fell to the ground below)?

 

[Nova]

Are you saying that because some retired guy in the US did not post photos of glass on the clothes, it didn't happen?

Did the glass get on top of the clothes because Rudy played with the glass, or did it fly?

I know you know the trial transcripts as well as anyone. Perhaps you could point us to ILE's expert analysis of glass patterns in Filomena's room.

I've never claimed the glass was magical or that RG played with it. I merely speculated that tossing the room might move glass more than once.

 

[SMK]

Okay, so he pushed the glass into the room when he hoisted himself into the room, and then he neatly arranged the glass evenly across the ledge (meticulously ensuring not one shard fell to the ground below)?

Are they certain no shards fell to the ground below? Did they look in the leaves?
Or did Mignini say "case closed"? :waitasec:
Believe me, when I first read the reports of :
1. staged break-in
2. bleach clean up
3. mixed blood of Amanda and Meredith
4. bleach bought at store in early am
5. 2 suspects did not call police to report possible break in until after postal police came
I thought AK and RS were a couple of horrid psychos, and wished fervently that they would be convicted. But all 5 of those points were dismanteld, and I became disillusioned with the idea of their guilt. Not to mention hearing that Guede had a habit of being a "lone wolf" break and entry robber, with a rock and a knife in his backpack

 

[SMK]

Okay, so he pushed the glass into the room when he hoisted himself into the room, and then he neatly arranged the glass evenly across the ledge (meticulously ensuring not one shard fell to the ground below)?

why would Amanda and Raffael have neatly arranged the glass evenly across the ledge??????????:waitasec: