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

[michellesings]

I want to say to you that Meredith was beautiful, too. She was innocent as well.

 

[Nova]

My point is that the Italian jury was made up of 8 people, including 2 judges, and that there is no foundation to accuse the jury of being influenced by, or basing their opinions on, what was published in the newspaper. Furthermore, there is ample evidence, both circumstantial and forensic, to justify the conviction. Accusations that the jury was tainted, that both prosecutors are corrupt, that the police had tunnel vision and didn't do their jobs or had it in for Amanda or were anti-American, that the forensic analysts were incompetent ... all of this is nothing more than attacking people that were simply doing their jobs. It does not address the facts of the case. Instead, the facts of the case are simply dismissed with one singular remark; that being: "there is no evidence". After an 11 month trial, how anyone can conclude that there was no evidence and that the facts of the case are insignificant is beyond me. Those people that were doing their jobs have become the targets for the fact that Raffaele Sollecito and the American woman were convicted of murder, and the victim is ignored while Amanda Knox is placed on a pedestal.

Amanda Knox is an insignificant woman who arrived in Europe thinking it was her playground, and that she did not have to abide by any laws. She has paid a high price for her foolish, self indulgent, self entitled attitude. If she is innocent, she is the subject of a mountain of coincidences all pointing towards her guilt.

Just to take one example, nobody said both prosecutors were corrupt. ONE prosecutor has been convicted of corruption and that is noteworthy.

YOU claimed that with two prosecutors, there could be no corruption unless both were involved. You produced no evidence of this.

Now you say people are accusing BOTH prosecutors of being corrupt, when nobody said any such thing.

And in this way, you have created a "straw man" argument and added to the mythology surrounding this case.

Likewise, in the time I've spent on AK threads, both recently and a year ago, I've yet to find a WS poster who blames errors in the case on "anti-Americanism." I realize such charges didn't originate with you, but they are unfortunate because, IMO, they are beside the point and only cloud the issues.

***

BOTTOM LINE, IMHO: nobody here is accusing the Italians of anything but being human beings, quite naturally shocked by a brutal and senseless crime. There is considerable evidence that such cases tend to incline jurors toward believing whatever the prosecution claims in an effort to right the terrible wrong. The concerted campaign of slander against AK in the media only adds to the pressure to "protect society" from the "monster."

 

[Nova]

If the judicial system is completely different, and the jury system is completely different, how is it possible to say that the problems experienced by one system are automatically experienced by another?

There are no judges on American juries. There are judges on Italian juries. Should we assume that the judges on the jury are not able to determine whether the debated facts are based on court presented evidence? Should we assume that if an Italian jurist introduces something that was not presented in court, the judges on the jury will go along with it?

We should assume judges are NOT mind readers. Yes, we should assume that much.

We should assume judges are human and sometimes make errors. That is why we have appellate courts.

 

[Nova]

I would hope that it is obvious that I base my opinion on the actions of a woman that thought smoking dope in Italy was a good idea.

Must I point out that she was smoking dope with Italians themselves (as well as some Britons)?

In English we have a saying, "When in Rome..."

 

[michellesings]

This opportunity was for "if he implicated A and R" unless I'm mistaken. And his saying "I'm sorry".....he has maintained his innocence completely, however.

 

[Nova]

Wow! Lots of info to digest! Appreciate your patience -thanks!
Placing what you wrote in response to my post, as well as an additional post you made since the two provide a really good summary for anyone new here (including me) to read.







Okay, I've read it all and my conclusion is that Amanda may* have been inside Meredith's room and seen her body, may have helped in trying to clean up the scene or covered Meredith's body up with a quilt - but I do not see sufficient evidence to say she committed or helped murder Meredith.
*may because I am not sure about her DNA being found there - since I think her DNA would be all over the cottage.
IMO Amanda might be guilty of tampering with evidence and lying to police, but no proof that she was an accomplice to murder, unless they can show she was with Raffaele while he was stabbing Meredith while she was alive...
I think Amanda was trying to help protect Raffaele.

Where am I going wrong?

I don't think you're going wrong. I think the assumption all along has been that AK must be guilty BECAUSE otherwise she would have no reason to tamper with evidence, including the clean up and staging a break in.

The problem is that there are no smears indicating a clean up and no explanation how AK managed to clean up her own and RS' DNA while leaving copious amount of RG's DNA.

And the evidence for the break-in relies largely on eyewitness memory (which may be faulty) rather than expert analysis.

 

[Nova]

The article also says that Patrick fired Knox ... and describes her in none to flattering ways.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Lumumba-reveals-framed-Merediths-murder.html

Would this be one of the examples of bringing tabloid gossip into the discussion?

Probably, but didn't PL say some harsh things about AK when he was still angry over her involving him in the crime? Things he later took back or at least softened?

I don't believe the available evidence shows that AK had been fired at the time of the murder. Limited to handing out flyers, maybe, IIRC.

 

[Nova]

Raffaele has indeed attempted to distance himself from Amanda, specifically in terms of not providing her with an alibi. It is Amanda that avoided being the one to report the crime, instead acting like a complete airhead and wandering off for something to eat instead of reporting to Filomina that her bedroom window had been smashed.

RS retracted his alibi when the police told him they had concrete proof that AK was in her own house at the time of the murder. I don't know another way to say this: suspects under pressure often say what they think their interrogators want to hear.

You deliberately manipulate language to make AK look as guilty as possible, which weakens your own argument.

AK went to RS' apartment to tell him about the break in. Apparently, she ate something before they returned to the cottage and called the police.

What did she eat? How much did she eat? How long did it take to prepare? Was it prepared when she arrived, or did she ask RS to make it for her?

You make it sound like she dined leisurely at Le Cirque, which was clearly not the case.

 

[Nova]

JBean, this may be of interest:

Here are six important ways in which the Italian courts differ from the U.S. courts in their practice of interpreting law and delivering justice:

1) Defendants do not have to take an oath to tell the truth.

2) Convicted criminals can automatically appeal.

3) The jury is not sequestered until deliberations.

4) Juries for criminal cases include two judges and six citizens. One of the judges presides over the trial.

5) Verdicts do not need to be unanimous; only a majority is required for a murder conviction.

6) The jury has 90 days to file their explanation of why they made their decisions.

http://www.mylifetime.com/movies/am.../article/italian-american-justice-differences

I'm not picking on you, otto. I know you didn't invent that list.

But convicted criminals can automatically appeal in the U.S., too. Maybe the list writer means the appeals in Italy are automatically heard; here, an appellate court can decide whether the appeal merits a hearing.

I could be wrong, but sequestration has become rarer in the U.S. because trials have become longer and there is concern about cost. (IIRC, studies have shown that jurors often resent one or both parties for confining them, so lawyers are less likely to ask for sequestration.)

I know that when I was a juror in New York State (25 years ago, so that may be old info), sequestration was automatic but not until deliberations began. I think that's fairly common over here, too, at least in certain states. It is not the case in California.

I must say I very much like the idea of the Motivation Report. What we get in the States are random and voluntary press interviews and a lot of talking heads opining as to how jurors reached their decision. In my couple of personal experiences, the lawyers and media really had no idea what went on during deliberations.

I agree with Jbean, it's hard for me to get my head around the idea of the presiding judge being a member of the jury. To me, that almost has to tilt the verdict in favor of the prosecution. I prefer the English-American system of the presiding judge being a neutral party who referees between the advocates. (This opinion is NOT meant to imply that Italy isn't a civilized country. I just think there is a problem of fairness if the presiding judge also sits on the jury.)

 

[Nova]

I want to say to you that Meredith was beautiful, too. She was innocent as well.

To my knowledge, this is one case where nobody has suggested the victim was in any way responsible for her own death.

If I'm wrong, please don't tell me.

 

[OldSteve]

Nobody has claimed that all that occurred, but even if they did, it would still be more credible than the claim that three people who barely knew one another suddenly entered into a conspiracy to torture and murder a young woman.

You hit the proverbial nail on the head! I find this case to be very strange in that ILE is not able to present what really took place that night, apart from Rudy killing Meredith.

If what was posted in #148 (link below) is all there is to convict Amana - Wow! She should have gotten herself the heck out of Italy and back home as soon as she could!

Link to 148:
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Meredith Kercher murdered - Amanda Knox convicted, now appeals #8

 

[sherlockh]

I'm willing to hear otherwise. But thus far I haven't heard the evidence that puts either AK or RS at the murder at the time MK was killed. DNA can't be dated, so mixtures of their DNA with blood or other substances don't give us times.

That is true that it can't be dated. That is what Stefanoni testified. However, her testimony was very damning. It is difficult to argue that the blood in the bathroom didn't come from the murder room, and mixed indicates that both the blood and AK's DNA were deposited at the same time. The defense didn't convince me (nor the judge and jury I believe) that there is a reasonable alternative explanation for the mixed traces. Same with the luminol footprints, and the bathmat footprint. I do try to look at this case from both sides and sometimes I even agree with the defense but this is an important area where they lost me and the case IMO.

 

[Nova]

The police, forenic analysts, prosecutors and jury in the investigation into the murder of Meredith Kercher have all been accused, by those that want Amanda to be innocent, as having been corrupt or incompetent. The family of Meredith Kercher does not agree. It might be a good time now to look at the list of circumstances that has been assembled regarding this case ... and then we should decide whether the jury made a decision based on reading the newspaper....

As usual, we are supposed to be swayed by this "abundance" of evidence, even though when viewed claim by claim, most of it is less than what it seems.

(The bullet points below are otto's. The remarks in italics are mine.)

•the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito on Meredith’s bra-clasp in her locked bedroom;

If it is indeed RS' DNA, it is almost certainly the result of contamination which was caught on videotape. By contrast, RG's DNA is all over the bra.

•the almost-entire naked footprint of Raffaele on a bathmat that in *no way* fits that of the other male in this case – Rudy Guede;

The footprint is not a "match" to RS, it is at best "consistent with." otto misstates the evidence here, much as the tabloids did and perhaps as the jurors may have done in their minds.

•the fact that Raffaele’s own father blew their alibi that they were together in Raffaele’s flat at the time of the killing with indisputable telephone records;

I can't comment here because I'm not sure what otto means. My own fault, no doubt.

•the DNA of Meredith Kercher on the knife in Raffaele’s flat which Raffaele himself sought to explain as having been from accidentally “pricking” Meredith’s hand in his written diary despite the fact Meredith had never been to his flat (confirmed by Amanda Knox);

This one doesn't pass the laugh test. The problems with the DNA testing have been discussed at length. That RS invented a lame excuse when police falsely insisted the testing was conclusive merely shows a young man at the end of his wits, not a murderer.

•the correlation of where Meredith’s phones were found to the location of Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guedes’s flats;

RG's guilt is certain: his DNA was found all over and inside the victim, and he has confessed with the guidance of his attornies. So evidence that can be attributed to RG can't be fairly also held against AK. There's no evidence that AK planted the phones near RG's flat.

•the computer records which show that no-one was at Raffaele’s computer during the time of the murder despite him claiming he was using that computer;

As otto knows, we have no transcript or recording of the interrogation of either AK or RS. We have no way of knowing whether RS actually claimed he was on the computer all night, or whether he merely made the comment in the casual way most of us do where we describe an evening using the most significant event ("I was at the movies") without attempting to claim that activity took the entire night. For all we know, LE invented this alleged statement out of whole cloth, but I think it's more likely they took a casual remark describing the evening ("We were on the computer.") and then deliberately pretended it was an absolute statement describing the entire timeframe and therefore a lie. Much as posters here at WS do when they want to make someone look guilty.

•Amanda’s DNA mixed with Meredith Kercher’s in five different places just feet from Meredith’s body;

AK lived there. The quantities of her DNA mixed with MK's are minimal and not surprising: anywhere MK's blood fell, there was a good chance it would land on AK's DNA.

•the utterly inexplicable computer records the morning after the murder starting at 5.32 am and including multiple file creations and interactions thereafter all during a time that Raffaele and Amanda insist they were asleep until 10.30am;

I can't explain it either, but inexplicable doesn't automatically equal incriminating. Using your computer isn't in and of itself a crime.

•the separate witnesses who testified on oath that Amanda and Raffaele were at the square 40 metres from the girls’ cottage on the evening of the murder and the fact that Amanda was seen at a convenience store at 7.45am the next morning, again while she said she was in bed;

All of these witnesses have been discredited to a large extent. The witnesses to AK's and RS' presence in the square made conflicting statements. The witness that placed her at a convenience store at 7:45 is contradicted by his own employees.

•the accusation of a completely innocent man by Amanda Knox;

A completely innocent man with an airtight alibi. So much for the master plan by the super villain! AK's accusation of PL was wobbly from the start and entirely consistent with ILE's theories at the time. This clearly indicates AK was responding to ILE's aggressive tactics. Her finest hour? No. But also not uncommon, even among innocent suspects.

•the fact that when Amanda Knox rang Meredith’s mobile telephones, ostensibly to check on the “missing” Meredith, she did so for just three seconds - registering the call but making no effort to allow the phone to be answered in the real world

I'm not sure the above is true from AK's point of view. I can't vouch for European cell phones, but my cell phone starts ringing in my ear some seconds before it begins ringing at the other end of the line. The two "rings" aren't in synch. So I'm not sure how long AK thought she waited before hanging up. I know my niece, who just turned 19, answers her cell phone as if her life depends on it. If she hasn't picked up in a few rings at my end, I know she isn't going to.

But assuming none of the above is relevant to AK on the day after the murder, one is still left with descriptions of AK as "flaky" and erratic. Her writing reveals a very short attention span. I haven't seen any evidence of how long she lets cell phones ring before hanging up. Does somebody have those figures for comparison? Seems to me we need them if we are going to claim this fact is significant.

•the knife-fetish of Raffaele Sollecito and his formal disciplinary punishment for watching animal at his university – so far from the wholesome image portrayed;

Ah, ha. And weren't you just saying the tabloids had no effect on opinions that were formed? RS' knife collection (pretty common among boys) is now a "fetish." How long did he watch "animal " on the computer? A recent survey showed that 90% of Americans have watched some form of online; at least some of that must be chocked up to curiosity. What is the proof that RS was actually turned on by bestiality and what does it have to do with this case?

(To be continued...)

 

[Nova]

•the fact that claimed multi-year kick-boxer Raffaele apparently couldn’t break down a flimsy door to Meredith’s room when he and Amanda were at the flat the morning after the murder but the first people in the flat with the police who weren’t martial artists could;

I'm not sure what you have convicted RS of here. I guess you're proving he's a wimp. Had he broken down the door, it would have given him and AK the perfect opportunity to contaminate the murder room with their DNA. (How odd those masterminds didn't think of that!) But I don't see how this "fact" incriminates anybody. Some posters have a tendency to list everything that strikes them as odd or unexplained and then claim all those items as "proof" of guilt. But minor mysteries can be significant or meaningless, relevant or irrelevant.

•the extensive hard drug use of Sollecito as told on by Amanda Knox;

IIRC, Allusonz has shown us repeatedly that there is no evidence either were doing hard drugs the night of the murder. What RS may have done two years before--or even two days before--is irrelevant. This bullet point smacks of what I suspect is a tendency to convict AK and RS because they did drugs and had sex. Neither of those things are murder. Having sex isn’t even a crime.

•the fact that Amanda knew details of the body and the wounds despite not being in line of sight of the body when it was discovered;

This is hearsay and highly suspect. Personally and like the claim of the postal police that they never entered MK's room, I don't believe it. There were too many people in the small area of the cottage, too many people in small cars, too many people together at the police station. Those people were excited and upset and undoubtedly talking. Who knows at this point what AK heard or when she heard it? It is common for LE to claim suspects have knowledge "only the perp could have"; often it turns out the knowledge came from town gossip or was suggested by the interrogation questions themselves.

•the lies of Knox on the witness stand in July 2009 about how their drug intake that night (“one joint&#8221 is totally contradicted by Sollecito’s own contemporaneous diary;

What you call a "lie" was told on the stand more than a year after the night in question? AK couldn't possibly have just forgotten, could she? What exactly did she have to gain by claiming to have smoked one joint but not two?

•the fact that after a late evening’s questioning, Knox wrote a 2,900 word email home which painstakingly details what she said happened that evening and the morning after that looks *highly* like someone committing to memory, at 3.30 in the morning, an extensive alibi;

Other than the length, why is this odd? And why is this evidence against her? If she were inventing an alibi, as you seem to suggest, she didn't have to send it to so many people or to anybody at all. In fact, prudence would suggest she not do so, since sending the email committed her to that particular "story." An alternative explanation is that she felt herself suspected of murder and wanted to defend herself to an audience that would not yell at her and interrupt her every sentence.

•the fact that both Amanda and Raffaele both said they would give up smoking dope for life in their prison diaries despite having apparently nothing to regret;

Here is more tabloid nonsense. I think almost anyone would find being falsely accused and imprisoned for murder a sobering experience. (And that's not even considering what one might have to do to acquire drugs in prison, because I don't know enough about Italian jails.)

•the fact that when Rudy Guede was arrested, Raffaele Sollecito didn’t celebrate the “true” perpetrator being arrested (which surely would have seen him released) but worried in his diary that a man whom he said he didn’t know would “make up strange things” about him despite him just being one person in a city of over 160,000 people;

Turn it around for a moment: RS has already been falsely accused and imprisoned. Maybe, just maybe, he's a little paranoid. He certainly has good reason. You're taking a casual diary entry and treating it as if it were a carefully considered logical conclusion that we must test for probability. That's not how people think, particularly under duress. Am I right that the news of RS' and AK's arrests had been reported in the media? Why wouldn't RS expect RG to accuse him? The police already had!

•the fact that both an occupant of the cottage and the police instantly recognised the cottage had not been burgled but had been the subject of a staged break-in where glass was *on top* of apparently disturbed clothes;

I know that's the opinion they reported. I wish ILE had brought in an expert on glass shattering, or at least taken enough photos for such experts to examine later.

•that Knox and Sollecito both suggested each other might have committed the crime and Sollecito TO THIS DATE does not agree Knox stayed in his flat all the night in question;

How do you know what Sollecito now believes? Malkmus provided a cite from an RS diary entry in which RS stated categorically that he believes AK was there all night. Each of AK and RS were pushed to implicate the other. RS did so briefly, then retreated from his claim. AK DID NOT. Saying she did is a gross distortion of what she actually wrote, as has been pointed out many times.

On a side note, the case against AK would be more convincing if misinformation such as the claim that AK abandoned her alibi of RS didn't keep popping up again. We've all seen what she actually wrote. It is clearly facetious and sarcastic and not a serious claim that RS slipped out to murder MK and then returned to frame AK for the crime.

•the bizarre behaviour of both of them for days after the crime;

And the tabloids return! I'm not going to explain again that people grieve in different ways and have different ways of responding to shock. We've all provided enough personal examples at this point.

•the fact that cellphone records show Knox did not stay in Sollecito’s flat but had left the flat at a time which is completely coincidental with Guede’s corroborated presence near the girl’s flat earlier in the evening;

Except that the cellphone records also show a tendency toward inaccuracy when there are short distances between towers, as there are in central Perugia.

•the fact that Amanda Knox’s table lamp was found in the locked room of Meredith Kercher in a position that suggested it had been used to examine for fine details of the murder scene in a clean up;

I agree this sounds odd in the form it is normally described. ETA: I wish I could picture it better, because it is equally odd to believe that AK and RS spent hours cleaning up the cottage but never noticed the lamp they had placed in MK's room. Yes, even professional criminals make mistakes, or we wouldn't have any of them in prison. Still, while it's may be true that murderers placed the lamp in MK's room, assuming such raises as many questions as it answers, IMO.

•the unbelievable series of changing stories made up by the defendants after their versions became challenged; Knox’s inexplicable reaction to being shown the knife drawer at the girl’s cottage where she ended up physically shaking and hitting her head.

I don't know the event that your last sentence refers to; that was Knox' reacting to her own knife drawer (shared with the other flatmates)?

As for changing stories, there's no question that once AK and RS tried to accommodate ILE's theory by changing their testimony, things went downhill fast. This is why they should have asked for lawyers in the first place, and we should remember this the next time we assume someone is guilty because he or she "lawyers up."

 

[Nova]

That is true that it can't be dated. That is what Stefanoni testified. However, her testimony was very damning. It is difficult to argue that the blood in the bathroom didn't come from the murder room, and mixed indicates that both the blood and AK's DNA were deposited at the same time. The defense didn't convince me (nor the judge and jury I believe) that there is a reasonable alternative explanation for the mixed traces. Same with the luminol footprints, and the bathmat footprint. I do try to look at this case from both sides and sometimes I even agree with the defense but this is an important area where they lost me and the case IMO.

BBM: are you sure of that? I'm not a DNA expert, but that's the first time I've heard that (or maybe just the first time I understood what I was hearing).

(ETA: IIRC, in the case of Jon-Benet Ramsey, Henry Lee commented that the foreign, male DNA found mixed with JBR's own DNA could have come from the person who packaged her underwear at the factory. That doesn't sound like the word "mixed" is proof the two DNA samples arrived in place at the same time.)

 

[jjenny]

BBM: are you sure of that? I'm not a DNA expert, but that's the first time I've heard that (or maybe just the first time I understood what I was hearing).

(ETA: IIRC, in the case of Jon-Benet Ramsey, Henry Lee commented that the foreign, male DNA found mixed with JBR's own DNA could have come from the person who packaged her underwear at the factory. That doesn't sound like the word "mixed" is proof the two DNA samples arrived in place at the same time.)

And yet that DNA on JBR's underwear appears to be one of the main reasons her parents have been cleared. Hard to imagine prosecutor would clear the parents it if she believed that DNA came from the person who packaged her underwear at the factory.

 

[costalpilot]

That is true that it can't be dated. That is what Stefanoni testified. However, her testimony was very damning. It is difficult to argue that the blood in the bathroom didn't come from the murder room, and mixed indicates that both the blood and AK's DNA were deposited at the same time. The defense didn't convince me (nor the judge and jury I believe) that there is a reasonable alternative explanation for the mixed traces. Same with the luminol footprints, and the bathmat footprint. I do try to look at this case from both sides and sometimes I even agree with the defense but this is an important area where they lost me and the case IMO.

It is amazing but true how many juries end up focusing on and using a single incident which they absolutely are convinced happened as the deciding factor in a verdict.
IMO

 

[JBean]

Nova I am going to add quotes to your post so when people quote you it won't get confusing. Hope I didn't screw that up

 

[SleuthyGal]

It appears that no matter how many times the real facts are presented (thanks for that, btw, Nova!) imagined, made-up, exaggerated or just plain incorrect evidential lists are dragged in yet again, as if repeating them overANDoverANDover will somehow lend them authenticity or credence.

They were incorrect or irrelevent then and they remain so today.

Garbage in...Garbage out.

There are some incriminating things in the list, but nothing that proves AK or RS committed MURDER.

And without proof they should not be in jail.

Imagination is not proof.
Assumption is not proof.
Extrapolation of fact to nuance another meaning is not proof.
Rumor is not proof.
Disliking the defendants and/or their alleged reactions is not proof.
Lying is not proof.

There is no proof that either AK or RS committed the murder. There is no proof that either AK or RS were in the apt during or around the time of the murder.

Not Guilty!

 

[Malkmus]

That is true that it can't be dated. That is what Stefanoni testified. However, her testimony was very damning. It is difficult to argue that the blood in the bathroom didn't come from the murder room, and mixed indicates that both the blood and AK's DNA were deposited at the same time. The defense didn't convince me (nor the judge and jury I believe) that there is a reasonable alternative explanation for the mixed traces. Same with the luminol footprints, and the bathmat footprint. I do try to look at this case from both sides and sometimes I even agree with the defense but this is an important area where they lost me and the case IMO.

No it doesn't. The action of wiping a sample of blood from a sink that Amanda used that morning, probably to brush her teeth, would mix the DNA and blood. The blood was found around the drain in the sink, right where Amanda would have spit her saliva/DNA onto. "Mixed" simply means that when Stefanoni wiped the sink that a particular swab picked up both the blood of Meredith and DNA of Amanda. When you wipe up two things with one swab how do they not get mixed? If I wipe up a ketchup stain next to a mustard stain with a cotton swab (not that I would use that) the two are going to mix. It doesn't mean both stains were deposited at the same time.