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

[Nova]

Indeed I watched the movie - and could not figure out why the focus was on Knox as the instigator in a sex crime. I just got hung up right there and thought the prosecutor was nuts. So men NEVER cover a body with a blanket? And because she may have covered the body, she is then the maniac who hatched the plan and instigated two guys to join her? Because Meredith complained about her tidiness as a roomate? Too much. Too big a leap....

(I'm snipping my quote of your post because I can't answer your autopsy questions. I'm sure someone else here will be able to do so.)

ziggy, I share your amazement at the prosecution's (and some posters') insistence that AK was some sort of sex-crime mastermind. (The movie dialog may be speculation, of course, or some other form of dramatic license. True crime movies are famous for taking a statement from one person and giving it to another in order to condense the action to two hours minus commercials. FWIW, I thought the movie showed AK and MK as friends and minimized any conflict between them.)

Yes, of course, male murderers sometimes cover their victims. It's sometimes assumed to be a sign that the killer knew and cared about his victim, but I don't know how close a relationship is required. If RG killed MK in a fit of rage and/or fear (she caught him in the middle of the burglary, say), he may well have felt some regret afterward and covered her with the duvet.

And I know women can instigate crimes, even ones of great brutality. But I'm with you: I can't think of many cases where a woman as young as AK instigated such a violent sex crime.

otto has pointed out, however, that some couples seem to have a chemistry that prompts each to act in ways he or she wouldn't act alone. So there's another possibility.

 

[ziggy]

OK I'm confused UHghen; seems there is talk about dried blood on her back suggesting she was moved or livor mortis partially developing in the shoulder area.

Here's what I want to know: when was the bra removed? What is the theory on that by the prosecution? If shortly thereafter, then no bra strap marks would show up lighter on the back post livor mortis. If livor mortis had already set in, lines may be visible whereby Meredith's back and shoulder bra straps might constrict some blood from pooling in those areas.

Staging question: Isn't it possible that
a) the roomate left some clothes on her floor that were though to be ransacked clothes but may have already been there when the window was broken? I went to college people and I know what many girls' rooms look like. or...
b) there was glass under the ransacked debris as well but glass was strew on top of the clothes from maybe a chair or desk or sill while the ransacking was taking place?

Seems possible. To state that it was "without-a-doubt" a staged break in seems faulty.

 

[ziggy]

Yes Nova I think Otto's got a point about the chemistry with some couples, but typically I would expect for others to have noticed some hint of the sexual perversion - a joke, an aside, group sex , hints of threesomes, anything - but instead they were simply glued to each other.

 

[Nova]

Yes Nova I think Otto's got a point about the chemistry with some couples, but typically I would expect for others to have noticed some hint of the sexual perversion - a joke, an aside, group sex , hints of threesomes, anything - but instead they were simply glued to each other.

And to be fair, otto himself (IIRC) has pointed out how briefly AK and RS had known one another. Still, a "Bonnie and Clyde" (bad example, not sex criminals, I know) effect makes more sense to me than that MK was killed because she criticized AK's housekeeping.

 

[Nova]

ziggy, I think your questions about the alleged staging of the break-in are good ones. (And the defense did have an expert who argued the break-in was quite real.)

The room's occupant, Filomena, testified that she left the room in a neat condition and the prosecution used that as proof that glass on top of strewn clothes must mean staging, but other posters have noted that "neat" to people in their twenties isn't necessarily "neat" to older people.

 

[Allusonz]

OK I'm confused UHghen; seems there is talk about dried blood on her back suggesting she was moved or livor mortis partially developing in the shoulder area.

Here's what I want to know: when was the bra removed? What is the theory on that by the prosecution? If shortly thereafter, then no bra strap marks would show up lighter on the back post livor mortis. If livor mortis had already set in, lines may be visible whereby Meredith's back and shoulder bra straps might constrict some blood from pooling in those areas.

Staging question: Isn't it possible that
a) the roomate left some clothes on her floor that were though to be ransacked clothes but may have already been there when the window was broken? I went to college people and I know what many girls' rooms look like. or...
b) there was glass under the ransacked debris as well but glass was strew on top of the clothes from maybe a chair or desk or sill while the ransacking was taking place?

Seems possible. To state that it was "without-a-doubt" a staged break in seems faulty.

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

 

[Allusonz]

I realize you and others are speculating, but I'd be interested to hear more about this idea of RG returning to the crime scene hours after the murder.

I should admit up front I'm asking because at first thought I find the idea so unlikely--but I know you guys don't throw out speculations lightly. (Actually, nobody seems to do so in this thread, whatever they think of the verdicts.)

Whatever do you imagine (again, I understand you are speculating) RG could have been thinking? I can see him wandering by to see if police were at the cottage, but why would he take the risk of entering and rearranging things, including the body?

I did consider this scenerio but in fact ruled out that he did indeed return. I do believe that RG did in fact use both washrooms

I do believe that it was ILE and the forensic teams that actually moved the body. First I do believe she was checked as I would hope any officer would do to see if she was still alive. I have always been perplexed why the prosecution went out of their way to make such an issue of ILE not doing this as it goes against their laws not to render aid

As for the moving of the body. There were a number of concerns with respect to this autopsy and the way it was handled right from the start. I believe that if GM truly thought this had happened he would of been like a leech and broadcasting it to the world

First the coroner did not even see the body till about 24 hours after death. We are talking forensics 101 when i say the first thing you do is take the body temperature as it is critical in helping to determine TOD. This temperature was not even taken till 11 hours after she had been found.

It has been no secret from me that this crime scene was bungled every step of the way. I truly believe that most of it was simply lack of training. They did not even properly secure the crime scene immediately or after. Everyone was wandering all over the place

I could go on a rant for hours about this but i think the experts, videos, and common sense will prevent me from doing so :giggle:

 

[Nova]

Thanks, Allusonz, for the Hendry info.

For a non-science-oriented person like me, I think the most convincing argument is that if four people were in that small room during the murder, the blood spatter would be different and there should be dozens of additional, bloody footprints. (Yeah, I know: the additional footprints were erased during the clean up, but if so, we have that magic cleaning again that only removes evidence inculpatory to AK and RS.)

 

[Allusonz]

Thanks, Allusonz, for the Hendry info.

For a non-science-oriented person like me, I think the most convincing argument is that if four people were in that small room during the murder, the blood spatter would be different and there should be dozens of additional, bloody footprints. (Yeah, I know: the additional footprints were erased during the clean up, but if so, we have that magic cleaning again that only removes evidence inculpatory to AK and RS.)

WHAT!!!! You mean my bubble of her flying through the air has been BURST

You realize this will simply require a NEW Designer Straight Jacket!!!

Here all this time i thought she had wings :floorlaugh:

 

[Allusonz]

Got it. Thanks. I thought you meant they were trying to insert a "mystery woman" into the crime. I'm not saying it's impossible some unknown woman was involved, but it strikes me as a big reach to suddenly make that argument on appeal.

But the presence of DNA from the other flatmates, whom we know weren't there for the murder, would certainly drive home the point that AK's DNA being there probably has nothing to do with the crime. To my ear, THAT sounds more like an appellate argument.

There is actually quite a bit of DNA that has never been associated to various people. The fact they did not get DNA from so many could be one explanation

 

[Nova]

There is actually quite a bit of DNA that has never been associated to various people. The fact they did not get DNA from so many could be one explanation

Did I understand Malkmus correctly that they never even got DNA swabs from all the other residents of the house? How is that possible?

Sadly, the more I learn about the way this case was investigated, the worse Perugia LE looks. (Just Perugia and just this high-profile case. I'm not casting aspersions on all Italians or all Italian cases. And let's be clear that cases get botched just as badly in the U.S.A.)

But the worse the prosecution's case looks, the more it appears the judges and jury bent to the social/political pressure to convict the "Sex Fiend from Seattle".

And that doesn't bode well for AK's or RS' appeal, not unless the appellate judges are persons of unusual integrity.

 

[trillian]

I did consider this scenerio but in fact ruled out that he did indeed return. I do believe that RG did in fact use both washrooms

I do believe that it was ILE and the forensic teams that actually moved the body. First I do believe she was checked as I would hope any officer would do to see if she was still alive. I have always been perplexed why the prosecution went out of their way to make such an issue of ILE not doing this as it goes against their laws not to render aid

BBM (and snipped).
I think a possible reason may be that the postal police were asked about contamination and denied it. The police probably shook hands with RS/AK upon arrival as would be normal, then one entered the room and touched things. It is understandable there would be pressure to answer questions in a way to comply with the investigations theory.

If he doesnt enter = no contamination. Of course it is ridiculous to think that he did not.

 

[dgfred]

So, surprisingly/unsurprisingly, Andrea Vogt has written a misleading article regarding the judge's report of Rudy's supreme court hearing.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/436221_knox28.html?source=mypi

To assume she meant she was at the cottage is laughable. Vogt should have included the context of the phone conversation.

Here is her cross examination:

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]

Regarding the shower.

Did AK specifically say she washed her hair?

It's possible to take a shower and not actually wash one's hair. Some people don't wash their hair every day though they may still shower every day. And it's possible to use too much conditioner and one's hair can look limp and stringy, even after washing.

Nice try :innocent: . That was more than expected.

But I was just curious what the ladies thought about it... I can't really tell from the pics.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I wasn't attempting to answer your question about "what the ladies thought about it."

I was asking folks if there are any specific statements in which AK said she washed her hair (or if this is being assumed).

Right now I still haven't seen any statement in which she specified washing her hair. I won't assume she necessarily did.

 

[dgfred]

Nobody asked you to assume anything btw.

 

[SleuthyGal]

and...still no actual answer to the question whether AK made this statement or not.

Did AK say she washed her hair? Or did she just say she took a shower (and used the blowdryer)?

Anyone know?

 

[dgfred]

Notice open front door, notice blood drops and stains in bathroom, take shower, naked 'bathmat shuffle' to and fro, dress, blow dry hair, notice poo, go back for lunch at RS's.

Nothing about shampoo.

 

[SleuthyGal]

From Trillian: If he doesnt enter = no contamination. Of course it is ridiculous to think that he did not.

Yes correct. They sure are trying to distance themselves from the crime scene (they = the postal police). Is this police guy claiming he merely looked into the room? Did he make any statements about the condition of the victim--anything that would provide more clues about whether he approached MK or not? Standing at the doorway, with a comforter covering her, he wouldn't be able to determine whether a victim was alive or not.

 

[dgfred]

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