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

[SMK]

I know you and otto wish it were otherwise, but the fact is, EVERY murder trial is about the defendant. It's fine to say it's about the victim, but unless the defense tries to make the victim the issue, his or her fate is sealed by the time of trial. By that point, the defendant's fate is at issue.

I certainly understand why prosecutors tell victim's families that they need to be in court to keep the jurors' minds on the victim. Nevertheless, the trial itself is about the defendant.

If the Knox family's PR efforts have been great, in fairness they were up against a lot of leaking from ILE and showboating from the prosecutor.

But I agree with the rest of your post about the complexity of the case. Whether AK is actually guilty or innocent, there are items of evidence that make me scratch my head. But doubts by law benefit the defense.

This is even more true when you take into account that family and many others do not believe Knox (or Sollecito) are guilty. So the trial becomes a question of Knox herself being another victim of Guede/Mignini----this does not in any sense suggest Kercher's murder was not a massive and unspeakable tragedy.

 

[Nova]

One is either convinced by the below, or automatically sees alternate explanations:

Against the lone-wolf scenariohttp://aklwei.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/the-actual-case-against-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito/
Both the Micheli report from Guede’s trial and the Massei report from Knox/Sollecito’s trial rejected the argument that Guede acted alone. There are many reasons for this; chief among them that the argument that this was a break-in was rejected and instead the disarrayed room was staged to make it appear there was a break in. Guede would not have a reason to stage a break-in to deflect attention while at the same time leaving unassailable evidence of his presence, including in the bathroom. Therefore, Guede would have had been provided access to the house, and the Massei report argues that it is improbable that Meredith let Guede in.. therefore whoever let Guede in was at the house that night and was responsible for staging the break-in to deflect attention from themselves. Amanda was the only resident without an provable alibi.

The signs that the burglary was staged include:

No footprints in the grass below the window (and no ground dirt tracked in)
An undisturbed nail sticking out on the outside wall under the window, which seems unlikely if someone pulled their body up over that wall
A lack of scuff marks on the wall that would have been climbed
Glass still sitting on the window sill that a climber would have had to pull themselves over
No glass was found on the ground outside the window
What was disturbed in the bedroom with the “break-in” was only clothes; boxes and drawers remained closed and unchecked
Valuables, including computer, were not taken
The shutters on the window with the broken glass were argued to be closed; this would have required climbing the wall twice.
Someone breaking in would have to rely on the chance occurrence that the inner shutters were not locked, and thus not preventing access once the window was broken.

I don't deny that some of the above is puzzling and therefore troubling.

But we have no way of verifying the other roommates' alibis and probably never will.

More importantly, the Motivation Report concludes that MK would never have voluntarily let in RG. I think that's a leap to something we can't know. Since she was seeing a boy who lived downstairs, I'm confident she did not willingly have sex with RG. But let him in, say, to use the bathroom? Who knows? It would have depended on whether she thought of him as a friend of her boyfriend. She had met him before, after all, and in my experience college students tend to be rather lax about security, especially with anyone who appears to be a friend of a friend.

 

[Nova]

The signs that the burglary was staged include:

[. . . ]
What was disturbed in the bedroom with the “break-in” was only clothes; boxes and drawers remained closed and uncheckedWas Rudy disturbed in his search, by needing a trip to the bathroom?

Valuables, including computer, were not takenWas Rudy disturbed in his hoist, by the early and unexpected arrival of Meredith?

The shutters on the window with the broken glass were argued to be closed; this would have required climbing the wall twice.F first said they were closed, then said she was not certain.

Someone breaking in would have to rely on the chance occurrence that the inner shutters were not locked, and thus not preventing access once the window was broken.Burglars are willing to take that chance.

It would appear that an Italian Forensics detective - albeit "retired", although I fail to see the shame in retirement :cop: - did believe that the break-in was NOT staged: http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=7995762

"One witness said his office window had been broken with a large rock, and a computer stolen. The computer and a cell phone were later found in the possession of Guede, who was also found with a switchblade."http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=7995762&page=2

Another possibility is that, on the night of the murder, RG didn't have a handy way to dispose of stolen items such as computers, so he was only looking for loose cash.

 

[SMK]

I don't deny that some of the above is puzzling and therefore troubling.

But we have no way of verifying the other roommates' alibis and probably never will.

More importantly, the Motivation Report concludes that MK would never have voluntarily let in RG. I think that's a leap to something we can't know. Since she was seeing a boy who lived downstairs, I'm confident she did not willingly have sex with RG. But let him in, say, to use the bathroom? Who knows? It would have depended on whether she thought of him as a friend of her boyfriend. She had met him before, after all, and in my experience college students tend to be rather lax about security, especially with anyone who appears to be a friend of a friend.

I would agree with you. If he asked to use the bathroom, as a young college girl, I think she would be friendly, considering he was known to the boys downstairs. I do not think she would have sex with him, as she had a love interest with someone else. I agree there are some troubling aspects re the above, yet there are equally worrisome things about the conviction, as we have agreed....

 

[SMK]

Another possibility is that, on the night of the murder, RG didn't have a handy way to dispose of stolen items such as computers, so he was only looking for loose cash.

Good point, and I had read more than once that he was short on rent money.

 

[Nova]

Another strange thing regarding the break-in/key is that we're supposed to believe that Amanda and Raf staged the break-in and then locked the door themselves. But when ILE arrived at the scene the door was cracked partly open from Raf trying to break it down to see if Meredith was in there. The theory among those who think they're guilty is that they were trying to break the door down to get Amanda's lamp after having thrown away the key. What doesn't make sense is that they supposedly tried to break in to get this "incriminating lamp" but gave up and then called the police who showed up and at that point Luca finished the job of breaking down the door.
I find it implausible that they would try to break down the door, fail, then call the police if they thought they'd left evidence of their guilt in that bedroom.

Thanks. Great point and not one I had seen before.

 

[SMK]

BTW, in the 1980s, I worked on a murder trial for Jack Ford, the CBS "legal analyst" quoted in the article above. Jack is a great guy, a smart guy and an excellent lawyer and commentator. But he's been basically a journalist for over 20 years and knows how that industry works.

If he argues that the leaks about DNA testing mean nothing and the verdicts will be upheld, there is no story. He HAS to argue that the leaks may mean reversals. That doesn't mean Jack is lying: he's merely telling us what might occur and it might. But we should keep in mind that for all media analysts, there is a built-in tendency to argue that something new and different has or will occur. That's what makes it "news".

(ETA: just to be clear, I should add that I haven't spoken to Jack since 1985, about the time he was beginning to work for CBS. The above is my opinion, not something he told me.)

missed this before, how interesting! I see the reasoning, though----so in your own opinion, do you think the convictions will be upheld, regardless of these media stories about "huge hope" and all?

 

[SMK]

PS: I understand fully that they have to "make news", and that it is just part of the journalism industry - but is it not a bit cruel to be misleading people, and causing things of this nature to be written as well? http://womenincrimeink.blogspot.com/2011/03/prosecutors-new-clothes-and-amanda-knox.html

 

[Nova]

Good point, and I had read more than once that he was short on rent money.

Obviously, I'm speculating; I have no experience as a burglar. The one time I was a victim was years ago and the burglar quite curiously stole little but a load of laundry. I lost my favorite pair of jeans (probable value when new: less than $10).

But I assume burglars who steal TVs and stereos and computers either have a "fence" at the ready or a place to store stolen goods. They probably also have a vehicle, though I suppose a burglar on foot might steal a laptop computer.

If they have none of the above, then I assume they confine themselves to smaller items: jewelry and cash.

 

[Nova]

missed this before, how interesting! I see the reasoning, though----so in your own opinion, do you think the convictions will be upheld, regardless of these media stories about "huge hope" and all?

I don't have statistics for Italy. But in the U.S., appellate reversals are rare, regardless of the trial errors or paucity of evidence. I realize an appeal at the current level in Italy is really quite a different procedure, but I fear there's just too much pressure on the Court to not appear to give in to American intimidation. There's also a lot of pressure, of course, whenever a victim is like MK: particularly appealing and vulnerable.

***

P.S. I first became aware of how the media treats the criminal justice system during the trial I worked for Jack Ford. The New York Times covered the case extensively, but it was obvious the media coverage was driven by what made the most sensational reading, not the reality in the court. When Jack and his partners won the case, there was a great hue and cry because of the Times coverage, when in reality the prosecutor had overreached and then suffered a number of major reversals at trial. In fact, it was never even close.

 

[Nova]

PS: I understand fully that they have to "make news", and that it is just part of the journalism industry - but is it not a bit cruel to be misleading people, and causing things of this nature to be written as well? http://womenincrimeink.blogspot.com/2011/03/prosecutors-new-clothes-and-amanda-knox.html

I'm sure the defendants' and victim's families have been apprised of the odds and difficulties. The rest of us are merely curious bystanders, so I don't know that it's "cruel" if we are misled.

 

[SMK]

Obviously, I'm speculating; I have no experience as a burglar. The one time I was a victim was years ago and the burglar quite curiously stole little but a load of laundry. I lost my favorite pair of jeans (probable value when new: less than $10).

But I assume burglars who steal TVs and stereos and computers either have a "fence" at the ready or a place to store stolen goods. They probably also have a vehicle, though I suppose a burglar on foot might steal a laptop computer.

If they have none of the above, then I assume they confine themselves to smaller items: jewelry and cash.

good point, and if we entertain the thought of Rudy as a lone wolf who must get back out the window, we could understand that he was likely looking for rent $$$ that the girls might have stored in an envelope or somewhere ----after all, it was the end of the month, and rent was being collected as it was soon due. He would of course have known this, and maybe even overheard a conversation about the rent , etc......

 

[SMK]

I don't have statistics for Italy. But in the U.S., appellate reversals are rare, regardless of the trial errors or paucity of evidence. I realize an appeal at the current level in Italy is really quite a different procedure, but I fear there's just too much pressure on the Court to not appear to give in to American intimidation. There's also a lot of pressure, of course, whenever a victim is like MK: particularly appealing and vulnerable.

***

P.S. I first became aware of how the media treats the criminal justice system during the trial I worked for Jack Ford. The New York Times covered the case extensively, but it was obvious the media coverage was driven by what made the most sensational reading, not the reality in the court. When Jack and his partners won the case, there was a great hue and cry because of the Times coverage, when in reality the prosecutor had overreached and then suffered a number of major reversals at trial. In fact, it was never even close.

Yes, I see---I do see, and am very worried
and --
thanks for the fascinating first-hand info! Scary, though, as many in the Innocence camp RE Knox are being duped by this technique of news creation, I fear---

 

[Nova]

good point, and if we entertain the thought of Rudy as a lone wolf who must get back out the window, we could understand that he was likely looking for rent $$$ that the girls might have stored in an envelope or somewhere ----after all, it was the end of the month, and rent was being collected as it was soon due. He would of course have known this, and maybe even overheard a conversation about the rent , etc......

Good point. I'd forgotten that he couldn't get out the door without a key. So assuming he broke in, RG could only steal what he could carry back out through the window.

All the more reason why he didn't steal larger items, not even laptops.

 

[SMK]

. . . but I fear there's just too much pressure on the Court to not appear to give in to American intimidation. There's also a lot of pressure, of course, whenever a victim is like MK: particularly appealing and vulnerable. . . (posted by Nova) Yes, I don't doubt that all this is weighing heavily. :0

 

[SMK]

Good point. I'd forgotten that he couldn't get out the door without a key. So assuming he broke in, RG could only steal what he could carry back out through the window.

All the more reason why he didn't steal larger items, not even laptops.

Yes, and when we take into account Hendry ( I know others here do not feel he is a legitimate source, but I do) saying that the front door, because it was inclined to blow open in the wind (it was windy that night) may have been locked by Meredith from inside when she returned.
So Hendry envisions the following scenario, which I find sound:
1. Rudy enters via the window in Filomina's room, and begins to rummage around for rent $$$
2. He needs a trip to the bathroom, and makes one at his leisure, believing that all of the occupants will be out late, and knowing that the boys downstairs are away for the weekend.
3. While on the toilet, he is surprised and alarmed to hear Meredith coming in the door at 9:30 or so.
4. He goes to exit quickly out the front door, only to find it locked with a key from inside. He is trapped.
5. He makes a rash decision to go confront Meredith with a knife and demand money and rape her. She is sitting on the bed, her coat still on, dialing her mother. She hangs up in surprise.
6. the struggle ensues and escalates.

 

[Malkmus]

Good point. I'd forgotten that he couldn't get out the door without a key. So assuming he broke in, RG could only steal what he could carry back out through the window.

All the more reason why he didn't steal larger items, not even laptops.

Guess I haven't been following closely enough as I don't see where the Rudy going back out the window scenario became something to consider. It's my opinion that after he cleaned up he ran for the front door, realized he needed the key to unlock it, rushed back in the room to get it - tracking blood on his shoe - and then unlocked the front door, leaving it open as Amanda saw it the next morning.

 

[SMK]

Guess I haven't been following closely enough as I don't see where the Rudy going back out the window scenario became something to consider. It's my opinion that after he cleaned up he ran for the front door, realized he needed the key to unlock it, rushed back in the room to get it - tracking blood on his shoe - and then unlocked the front door, leaving it open as Amanda saw it the next morning.

OK, yes , I understand this is another scenario. I only meant he had originally assumed he might go back out the window----but regardless of how he was going to exit, he 1. may have really been only looking for rent $$$ 2. did not expect Kercher to arrive home as early as she did. (of course, questions remain: 1. the barefoot mark in Filomina's room which seemed like Amanda's size 2. the odd behavior of AK and RS - this is why i had once wondered if they had done the clean-up but not the murder: if they felt in some way responsible for what Rudy did because they suggested in jest that he go get the $$$---of course this is all psychology, speculation, --important in its own right, but having little to do with the appeals process, which seems to be an empty gesture.)

 

[ks1]

[
3. The evidence of staging relied not on expert analysis with accompanying photos, etc., but primarily on the recollection of the girl whose room was tossed. (I have no reason to believe she is lying, but I do think it possible she had an imperfect memory of how she left the room.)[/QUOTE]

My theory is that Rudy was let in by Meredith, murdered her, did a little ransacking as well as stealing money from the purse, found the money and left, door was closed and locked behind him, realized he may have left evidence behind, threw the rock thru the window to re-enter the crime scene and HE was the one that attempted to clean up after himself.

 

[sherlockh]

IMO - before I would confict someone I would need solid evidence, or really good circumstantial evidence. I just don't see it in the case.
AK would have to have been extremely luckily not to have left or have something more substantial implicating her - an her carefree attitude should have worked against her when it came to leaving evidence behind.

Thanks. I understand your opinion. I do realize many people do not consider the alibi problems, witnesses, bra clasp, knife, luminol footprints, bathmat footprint, mixed DNA findings, staged crime scene (did I forget anything?) as solid evidence. I wonder if it is because they take an imaginary situation in the murder room as a starting point? Personally, I start with the evidence and see where that takes me. I find any murder unbelievable and this is certainly an unbelievable murder no matter who you think did it. The innocent sites try to make RG the obvious murderer but I don't see that. That Hendry guy even turns him into a necrophiliac which is just plain disgusting IMO. Luckily AK's carefree attitude did leave plenty of evidence. She made some huge mistakes. She should have removed the Q-Tip box for example, and even the bathmat (although that is easy to say now we know her bf's bloody footprint is on it).

When I started gathering info on this case I tried all kinds of scenarios to at least 'declare' one of them innocent. I tried RG on the toilet and I tried AK in the kitchen or even RS falling asleep behind his computer. But after making up several excuses I started asking myself why I needed to makeup more and more excuses. I reached a point where it is no use to continue making up excuses. You pretty much resort to declaring all of the police, investigators, scientists, prosecutors, judges, even interpreters corrupt or incompetent. That isn't realistic. All JMO