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

[SMK]

Quite true. Since Meredith is the subject, pro-justice applies to everyone. I don't have a need to define people that believe justice has not been done. Do we need that? If so, what sort of respectful term can be used? Similarly, is a special term required to define people that believe justice has been done? Should we talk about justice believers and justice non-believers? Do we really need that terminology in a debate about the facts of the case?

Not sure to what extent it applies to this forum, but in general, there needs to be the understanding that if AK and RS are wrongfully convicted - and the appeals process itself entertains this idea - then true justice for Meredith Kercher would be Rudy Guede the sole convict, with a longer sentence. (in US, most likely the death penalty).

 

[missyjane77]

Yes, there has been a guilty verdict and it is my understanding that until that verdict is overturned, it stands. That would explain why Raffaele and Amanda are currently facing 25 and 26 years in prison.

I think you're missing the point. As of right now, they are considered innocent according to Italian law. If the appeals do not overturn the ruling, they are then considered guilty.

 

[otto]

Yes, I see. Do you consider the defense counter-arguments on these points to be robust? ( that the break in was real, and not staged, as per the Hendry analysis, for example; that the confession was coerced; that the alibis became incongruent under lies told within the interrogation (ie, we have proof you were there, Raffaele is no longer supporting your alibi )??

The staged break in ... yes, broken glass cannot be on top of ransacked things unless the window was broken after the things were ransacked.

Hendry, the accident reconstructionist, adds a comment (not an explanation) about being a glass expert. I have no doubt that when vehicle glass is broken, he can assess the direction from which it was broken. As for glass in an old building in Italy, I doubt this can be determined. Hendry is not a crime scene analyst, and I do not regard him as an expert regarding the events that occurred during the night of the murder primarily becaus he has no training the subject, and he ignores too many facts.

I do not believe that a normal person confesses to murder after 2 hours of questioning on Nov 5 (half the time without a interpreter).

This has all been debated for about 4 years now. Everyone comes to their own conclusions. I think my conclusion is known, but this case isn't over yet so we'll see what happens next. If the appeal is successful, it will be based on evidence in Italy ... all of it, not just a retest of DNA evidence four years after it was first tested.

 

[SMK]

I think you're missing the point. As of right now, they are considered innocent according to Italian law. If the appeals do not overturn the ruling, they are then considered guilty.

Yes, I have been reading this numerous places, and a real divergence from US law, wherein if the defendant is found guilty by a jury of his peers, he really is guilty. If an Appellate court overturns, then he is not. In Italy it seems to be "guilt as tentative; precursor to appeal ; then if stands under all appeals, truly guilty.":crazy:

 

[otto]

Of course, I expect that arguments for the guilt of AK and RS will "keep coming back." That's what we're discussing.

If I'd known we were playing take one sentence out of context and misconstrue its meaning, I could have chosen my words more carefully. What I was saying is that I don't understand why arguments for AK's guilt keep coming back to her supposed "confession." In fact she never confessed to murder.

Her confession to being in the cottage at the time of the murder is like Rudy's confession to being in the cottage at the time of the murder. They have both claimed they were there, and both claimed they didn't commit murder. Neither of them sought assistance for Meredith.

 

[SMK]

The staged break in ... yes, broken glass cannot be on top of ransacked things unless the window was broken after the things were ransacked.

Hendry, the accident reconstructionist, adds a comment (not an explanation) about being a glass expert. I have no doubt that when vehicle glass is broken, he can assess the direction from which it was broken. As for glass in an old building in Italy, I doubt this can be determined. Hendry is not a crime scene analyst, and I do not regard him as an expert regarding the events that occurred during the night of the murder primarily becaus he has no training the subject, and he ignores too many facts.

I do not believe that a normal person confesses to murder after 2 hours of questioning on Nov 5 (half the time without a interpreter).

This has all been debated for about 4 years now. Everyone comes to their own conclusions. I think my conclusion is known, but this case isn't over yet so we'll see what happens next. If the appeal is successful, it will be based on evidence in Italy ... all of it, not just a retest of DNA evidence four years after it was first tested.

Yes, thank you. Yes, it has been discussed ad nauseum, and would be nice to wrap it all up. I do believe false confessions can occur with intelligent people, after only 40 minutes (happened in the family) but alas, all of this will as you say be decided in Italy. Hendry, although he is not a bonafide expert in criminal forensics, did it for me. Up until I read him, I believed Mignini.

 

[otto]

Not sure to what extent it applies to this forum, but in general, there needs to be the understanding that if AK and RS are wrongfully convicted - and the appeals process itself entertains this idea - then true justice for Meredith Kercher would be Rudy Guede the sole convict, with a longer sentence. (in US, most likely the death penalty).

We still have the problem of the footprint that does not belong to Rudy, the staged break in, the absence of alibis, the lies, the false accusations and so on. How is that to be explained?

Rudy's sentence was the same as that of Amanda and Raffaele, with a reduction of 1/3 applied to the final sentence because he chose a different trial process. What's interesting is that I don't recall anyone referring to Rudy as innocent until his final appeal. What was widely stated was that he was guilty in the court of first instance, therefore guilty. That first verdict was then used to argue the "lone wolf" theory (i.e.: he's guilty, we know it and he did it alone).

 

[otto]

Yes, thank you. Yes, it has been discussed ad nauseum, and would be nice to wrap it all up. I do believe false confessions can occur with intelligent people, after only 40 minutes (happened in the family) but alas, all of this will as you say be decided in Italy. Hendry, although he is not a bonafide expert in criminal forensics, did it for me. Up until I read him, I believed Mignini.

Seriuosly? Did you look at the blood spatter images? His arrows don't seem to have anything to do with the direction of the blood.

 

[SMK]

Her confession to being in the cottage at the time of the murder is like Rudy's confession to being in the cottage at the time of the murder. They have both claimed they were there, and both claimed they didn't commit murder. Neither of them sought assistance for Meredith.

I know this will annoy you, and I apologize, but didn't Amanda say it was suggested to her to envision being there? (I know a tactic once used by unscrupulous psychiatrists to commit patients for insurance purposes, was to ask them to "envision how you would kill yourself", and then use this as a "confession" and proof empirical of "suicidal ideation". ugh) This was my understanding, so bespeaks fantasy and false confession. I am a person who wanted to believe in Knox's guilt, but could not, after doing a bit of investigating.....I know you must be worn out with all of this after 4 years....

 

[SMK]

Seriuosly? Did you look at the blood spatter images? His arrows don't seem to have anything to do with the direction of the blood.

I assumed he knew whereof he spoke. Gee, I do not know a thing about blood spatter. But that former FBI agent believes Hendry, and we must assume he knows something about spatter.. . . ?

 

[SMK]

I guess what has always bothered me is the law of Occam's razor, that the simplest explanation is likely true: Rudy Guede was known to break in by using rocks, he was known to brandish a knife, he was known to be sexually aggressive. I have been familiar (as a reporter) with 2 cases of violent rape and break in at the hands of a lone black male. It resonates. Moreso than the idea of 2 college students who had eachother, school, family, and fun in Perugia, throwing it away in a weird fit. From the Hendry analysis: http://http://www.salem-news.com/articles/december042010/amanda-know.php
In reconstructing the murder, Hendry also uncovered a stunning forensic blunder made by police. "I determined that blood stains found under the bed, 47 days after the crime, could not have been deposited when Meredith was killed, because there were objects in the way."

The police knew this, says Hendry, but they made a fundamental mistake in their analysis. They concluded that the objects were put there after the murder to cover those blood stains, as part of a staging activity. But Hendry's analysis revealed that the truth is quite different.

"The police created these bloodstains themselves," he says. "Photos show that they ransacked the room after the murder, and they carelessly tossed a pair of blood-soaked boots under the bed with other footwear.

"When they removed this footwear from under the bed, they found the stains made by blood that had not yet dried when the boots were moved and had dripped onto the floor. They looked at pictures taken the day Meredith was found, saw that a shopping bag was covering the floor at the spot where the stains were located, and jumped to exactly the wrong conclusion."

It was a useful error for the prosecution, Hendry notes, because it helped them frame two innocent people. They submitted a police report containing the grossly misinterpreted stain analysis to the court, and it became part of the evidence through which Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were convicted.

Hendry says the key to understanding what happened to Meredith lies in an outside-in approach – looking at the big picture before trying to determine the meaning of each detail. The overall view of the Meredith Kercher murder scene is that of a burglary that turned into a robbery assault and finally became a sexual assault and murder.

"Every element of this crime scene points to an outside intruder," says Hendry. "For starters, the forced entry was real, not staged. I have looked at many accidents involving broken windows, and the spray of glass on the floor shows clearly that this window was broken exactly the way it appears, by someone heaving a rock from outside."

Hendry says a close examination of the details supports the view that Meredith inadvertently walked in on a burglary. Crime scene photos show a fleece jacket turned inside-out and soaked with blood, indicating that she had not had time to remove it after arriving home. Phone records show that she made an aborted call to her mother in the UK just after the time her friend walked her home, which Hendry cites as further evidence that the attack took place minutes, if not seconds, after she stepped through the door. Finally, the strength and leverage needed to inflict the elongated wound in Meredith's neck, along with the torn bra straps, suggest she was attacked by an enraged male.

 

[otto]

I know this will annoy you, and I apologize, but didn't Amanda say it was suggested to her to envision being there? (I know a tactic once used by unscrupulous psychiatrists to commit patients for insurance purposes, was to ask them to "envision how you would kill yourself", and then use this as a "confession" and proof empirical of "suicidal ideation". ugh) This was my understanding, so bespeaks fantasy and false confession. I am a person who wanted to believe in Knox's guilt, but could not, after doing a bit of investigating.....I know you must be worn out with all of this after 4 years....

The problem with "what Amanda says" is that she doesn't have a very good track record for telling the truth. She claimed she was interrogated for 54 and then confessed. In fact, on the 5th of November, she was questioned for 2 hours before confessing. Indeed, she, and many others, had been questioned on earlier, but the actual time between the start of questioning on Nov 5 and her confession was 2 hours. We heard that she was deprived of the necessities of life (food and drink) and beaten until she confessed. It's a little hard to believe that she and Raffaele ate pizza around 10 or 10:30 on Nov 5, and then 3 hours later she was starving to much that she had no alternative but to confess. Another example of less than truthful statements: we have the claims that that they slept until 10 on the morning of Nov 2, but we know that isn't true due to phone and computer activity. The list goes on and on with problematic statements from Amanda and Raffaele. She can claim that she was told to imagine what happened, or hypothesize what she thought happened, but that's not an excuse for accusing an innocent man after 2 hours of questioning.

 

[dgfred]

Thank you, J. And thanks to you, Salem and believe09 for the leeway.

FWIW, I've exchanged any number of perfectly cordial PMs with the same posters with whom I've traded snarks in public posts. There's nothing going on here that lessens my respect or affection for posters such as otto, dgfred, flourish and others.

Thanks Nova,
There is an excellent piece on TJMK that you and all posters here might want to read :websleuther: . Especially read the posts linked in the articles.

All analysis from Judge's reports, so no media or internet rumors.

 

[otto]

I assumed he knew whereof he spoke. Gee, I do not know a thing about blood spatter. But that former FBI agent believes Hendry, and we must assume he knows something about spatter.. . . ?

Are retired accident reconstruction analysts considered crime scene analysis experts in the US? What training does Hendry have? Are his credentials available anywhere? I looked. I couldn't find them.

 

[otto]

I guess what has always bothered me is the law of Occam's razor, that the simplest explanation is likely true: Rudy Guede was known to break in by using rocks, he was known to brandish a knife, he was known to be sexually aggressive. I have been familiar (as a reporter) with 2 cases of violent rape and break in at the hands of a lone black male. It resonates. Moreso than the idea of 2 college students who had eachother, school, family, and fun in Perugia, throwing it away in a weird fit. From the Hendry analysis: http://http://www.salem-news.com/articles/december042010/amanda-know.php
In reconstructing the murder, Hendry also uncovered a stunning forensic blunder made by police. "I determined that blood stains found under the bed, 47 days after the crime, could not have been deposited when Meredith was killed, because there were objects in the way."

The police knew this, says Hendry, but they made a fundamental mistake in their analysis. They concluded that the objects were put there after the murder to cover those blood stains, as part of a staging activity. But Hendry's analysis revealed that the truth is quite different.

"The police created these bloodstains themselves," he says. "Photos show that they ransacked the room after the murder, and they carelessly tossed a pair of blood-soaked boots under the bed with other footwear.

"When they removed this footwear from under the bed, they found the stains made by blood that had not yet dried when the boots were moved and had dripped onto the floor. They looked at pictures taken the day Meredith was found, saw that a shopping bag was covering the floor at the spot where the stains were located, and jumped to exactly the wrong conclusion."

It was a useful error for the prosecution, Hendry notes, because it helped them frame two innocent people. They submitted a police report containing the grossly misinterpreted stain analysis to the court, and it became part of the evidence through which Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were convicted.

Hendry says the key to understanding what happened to Meredith lies in an outside-in approach – looking at the big picture before trying to determine the meaning of each detail. The overall view of the Meredith Kercher murder scene is that of a burglary that turned into a robbery assault and finally became a sexual assault and murder.

"Every element of this crime scene points to an outside intruder," says Hendry. "For starters, the forced entry was real, not staged. I have looked at many accidents involving broken windows, and the spray of glass on the floor shows clearly that this window was broken exactly the way it appears, by someone heaving a rock from outside."

Hendry says a close examination of the details supports the view that Meredith inadvertently walked in on a burglary. Crime scene photos show a fleece jacket turned inside-out and soaked with blood, indicating that she had not had time to remove it after arriving home. Phone records show that she made an aborted call to her mother in the UK just after the time her friend walked her home, which Hendry cites as further evidence that the attack took place minutes, if not seconds, after she stepped through the door. Finally, the strength and leverage needed to inflict the elongated wound in Meredith's neck, along with the torn bra straps, suggest she was attacked by an enraged male.

Please cite his credentials as a crime scene analyst.

 

[SMK]

Please cite his credentials as a crime scene analyst.

Duly noted. But I find what he says very plausible, and VERY worrisome. Remember, one can be correct in an analysis without being an expert in the field. Far too much weight is given regarding credentials, and I have long believed this. A professor of English Literature can make a very, very astute psychoanalysis of someone's character, far surpassing that of a clinical psychologist. A student can be more astute about a philosophical problem than the PhD. This was Plato's message with the Meno: It was the slave, and not the scholar, who got the geometric answer correct. "Show me your credentials" only goes so far. Hendry has raised some serious questions, and until they are answered, I am very, very bothered by them. Who can refute him? Fully and finally? What if Hendry is correct. Then what???

 

[otto]

Duly noted. But I find what he says very plausible, and VERY worrisome. Remember, one can be correct in an analysis without being an expert in the field. Far too much weight is given regarding credentials, and I have long believed this. A professor of English Literature can make a very, very astute psychoanalysis of someone's character, far surpassing that of a clinical psychologist. A student can be more astute about a philosophical problem than the PhD. This was Plato's message with the Meno: It was the slave, and not the scholar, who got the geometric answer correct. "Show me your credentials" only goes so far. Hendry has raised some serious questions, and until they are answered, I am very, very bothered by them. Who can refute him? Fully and finally? What if Hendry is correct. Then what???

Without credentials, it's just another layperson's opinion, no different from yours or mine.
(perhaps you should read the thread and review the discussion about Hendry)

 

[Nova]

Quite true. Since Meredith is the subject, pro-justice applies to everyone. I don't have a need to define people that believe justice has not been done. Do we need that? If so, what sort of respectful term can be used? Similarly, is a special term required to define people that believe justice has been done? Should we talk about justice believers and justice non-believers? Do we really need that terminology in a debate about the facts of the case?

Yes. Obviously. Or we wouldn't be discussing it.

I would propose we use "pro-verdict," but if by some chance the verdicts are overturned, you and others aren't likely to change your opinions on the guilt of AK and RS. So at that point, you'll become "anti-verdict," I guess.

 

[Nova]

The staged break in ... yes, broken glass cannot be on top of ransacked things unless the window was broken after the things were ransacked.

Hendry, the accident reconstructionist, adds a comment (not an explanation) about being a glass expert. I have no doubt that when vehicle glass is broken, he can assess the direction from which it was broken. As for glass in an old building in Italy, I doubt this can be determined. Hendry is not a crime scene analyst, and I do not regard him as an expert regarding the events that occurred during the night of the murder primarily becaus he has no training the subject, and he ignores too many facts.

I do not believe that a normal person confesses to murder after 2 hours of questioning on Nov 5 (half the time without a interpreter).

This has all been debated for about 4 years now. Everyone comes to their own conclusions. I think my conclusion is known, but this case isn't over yet so we'll see what happens next. If the appeal is successful, it will be based on evidence in Italy ... all of it, not just a retest of DNA evidence four years after it was first tested.

And still, Amanda Knox did not confess to murder. I am certain you know this, so your repeated posting of this misinformation puzzles me.

 

[scandi]

Hi, I'm curious as to the reason for the title of this thread ??? It takes a poster by surprise and then nothing about that here, that I have seen. Like this gal committed a ghastly murder scene. hwow: Just curious is all.