WARNING:GRAPHIC PHOTOS Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #9

[wasnt_me]

Here's an outside pic. I don't know when it was taken, and unfortunately, the investigators are again outside with their protective footies, picking up other objects on the bottom of them. Assuming this is the front porch, so let me know if I'm right or wrong.

 

[Nova]

I don't know where that informaion is coming from ... that, for example, Laura's DNA wasn't collected. What should investigators have done with Laura's DNA? She wasn't in Perugia at the time of the murder, so clearly not a witess or suspect. Same story with Filomina ... full alibi for the time of the murder.

What would be the reason for collecting their DNA?

As anyone who watches TV knows, you take DNA from everyone who belongs in the house so that you recognize their traces when you find them and don't waste time looking for an intruder with that DNA. Laura's DNA would be a control sample.

In this case, apparently, such controls were not needed because ILE relied on the more scientific "hip wiggle" test instead.

 

[Nova]

Some people seem to believe that a standard sized bedroom is too small for three people to attack one person. Personally, I don't agree. There's nothing to be done ... no one is changing their opinion on whether a standard sized bedroom is large enough for the type of attack that occurred.

Do you have figures on what are standard sizes for bedrooms in Italy? MK's room was very small by American standards, but I realize we are the country of "Give me land, lots of land...."

But IIRC, MK's was the smallest of the bedrooms in the upstairs apartment. Even if that is a standard size in Europe, it's sill very cramped quarters for four people in a violent struggle.

 

[Nova]

I don't recall what the orig. discussion was about that led to my statement, but I stand by what I said. If the defense is stepping forward to prove ANYTHING, even Rudy's past, they are going above what is required of the defense, at least it's that way in the united states. Whether juries actually respect that is another story, and this is probably why defenses will go above their burden. But the burden of proof in the crime lies with the prosecution. I'm trying to convey that the defense has a low threshold in the law for proving anything, only a threshold for raising reasonable doubt.


If it is not this way in Italy, let me know.

It's true that the burden of proof usually lies with the prosecution, but that doesn't mean the defense gets to throw out any wild conjecture and force the prosecution to prove it wrong.

For what are called affirmative claims--such as insanity or self-defense--the burden of proof actually shifts to the defense.

For other claims, such as alternate theories of the crime (RG acted alone, say), the defense has to demonstrate a reasonable basis for the claim. (Otherwise, the defense could claim MK was killed by Martians and then dare the prosecutor to disprove it.) If the judge doesn't agree there is a reasonable basis for the argument, he or she won't allow it.

I assume--and we all know the problem with assuming--that Italy must have equivalent principles. Otherwise, nobody would ever be convicted of anything.

 

[sherlockh]

Do you have figures on what are standard sizes for bedrooms in Italy? MK's room was very small by American standards, but I realize we are the country of "Give me land, lots of land...."

But IIRC, MK's was the smallest of the bedrooms in the upstairs apartment. Even if that is a standard size in Europe, it's sill very cramped quarters for four people in a violent struggle.

AK's room is the small one. Not sure how she fit in

 

[wasnt_me]

It's true that the burden of proof usually lies with the prosecution, but that doesn't mean the defense gets to throw out any wild conjecture and force the prosecution to prove it wrong.

I never said that they got to do that. I said all they have to do is cast reasonable doubt on the evidence presented. I don't believe I ever said they could cast out wild assertions and make the prosecution prove it wrong. But if the defendent says he was home alone all night, it IS up to the prosecution to prove that wrong. It is also in the best interest of the defendent to try to prove it, but IT IS NOT HIS BURDEN. I don't know how much clear I can make that.

For what are called affirmative claims--such as insanity or self-defense--the burden of proof actually shifts to the defense.

I agree that if they raise a defense like this, the bar of their burden raises ON THAT particular claim.

For other claims, such as alternate theories of the crime (RG acted alone, say), the defense has to demonstrate a reasonable basis for the claim. (Otherwise, the defense could claim MK was killed by Martians and then dare the prosecutor to disprove it.) If the judge doesn't agree there is a reasonable basis for the argument, he or she won't allow it.

I assume--and we all know the problem with assuming--that Italy must have equivalent principles. Otherwise, nobody would ever be convicted of anything.

This is the same thing that I'm saying. They cast reasonable doubt on their involvement in the crime. They can use a theory that RG worked alone and then cast reasonable doubt on any evidence that might indicate their involvement. We're saying the same thing in a different way. but I'm also asserting that they are not required to produce another assailant. Just to turn all the evidence against them into doubt.

I really don't know how else to state myself so that it can be understood, but I've always known that the corner of our justice system is innocent until proven guilty--not guilty until you prove yourself innocent.

 

[Allusonz]

I don't know where that informaion is coming from ... that, for example, Laura's DNA wasn't collected. What should investigators have done with Laura's DNA? She wasn't in Perugia at the time of the murder, so clearly not a witess or suspect. Same story with Filomina ... full alibi for the time of the murder.

What would be the reason for collecting their DNA?

The lived in the cottage. We are talking forensics 101 here especially when you have DNA from unknown people. What you are trying to do is find out whose DNA it is then if they have alibis obviously they are removed as a POI

If you take this DNA and then find additional DNA that does not belong to the people that reside there it tells LE that maybe they should did deeper.

Hard to do though when you state "Case Closed" before the forensics collected has come back or ILE had even finished collecting it all. They were more concerned with making sure she was arrested prior to her mother arriving the morning of the 6th. Huge red flag when i here both of those pieces of information

The bottom line is you follow the evidence you dont make the theory up then try and fit the forensics to the theory if it does not fit

 

[Allusonz]

Nobody entered a premise 6 times in 33 days. There is no proof of any of that. It wasn't in any trial. Now the funny thing is that no proof is needed because he was a police informant. You might as well say he broken in 20 times. Who needs proof? Just say he is a police informant and they are covering him. Silly stuff IMO.

Your right he did not enter the same premise 6 times he entered a number of different ones.

I believe that if he had been dealt with sooner MK would be alive today instead of being raped and killed

 

[Allusonz]

Go ahead. First we read that there was no investigation on the exterior of the cottage, so I reference information in the Judge's summary detailing the findings from the investigation under the window. Then we read that investigators didn't really investigate, they just looked and reported their thoughts, so I provide a photo of what investigators did outside the cottage. Then we read that because there is no photo of those investigators standing underneath the window, we should still doubt that investigators did a thorough investigation of the area under the window.

Sure, if you present that sort of information to me, and I refuse to accept the obvious, you should remind me of my remark.

They did not properly forensically analyse the exterior of that cottage properly. Nor did they properly forensically analyze the inside of the cottage properly.

They as well did not forensically analyze the area where the cell phones were found.

Investigators that do it properly would of been down below that area looking for even more than glass. RG could easily of dropped items, there could of been DNA left on the wall, around the area below but we will never know as they did not treat this crime scene properly

They did not even bother sealing the area off allowing people to wander around at will.

This crime scene was not processed properly period

 

[Allusonz]

Her bra was cut off after she had been fatally injured. There were 43 injuries to Meredith. I doubt three assailants would have much in the way of injuries.

They would though of left traces of themselves there. What I find even more ironic is when individuals state that they cleaned it up. I can see it now they are cleaning the crime scene and leaving traces of themselves while in the midst of cleaning up the initial one. Sorry does not add up either way I look at it

 

[Allusonz]

I gotta go with "making stuff up," because if RG knows the boys, one of the boys was dating one of the girls. So RG's knows the girls by association. Not only that, the boys MIGHT have known that he was a petty thief, so wouldn't they maybe at least consider him on a burglary upstairs?

these speculations might cast doubt on RG's burlgary motive, but still...the judge is off base to think a friendship would keep RG out of the downstairs. A friendship should have kept RG from any illegal entry on that property, if we are going with that theory.

If I was a burgler, and had inside information that the residents would not be home on a particular night, it would be a deciding factor in that home being my target rather than the other way around. You will often hear of people arriving home from holidays etc to find that this had in fact had happened

 

[Allusonz]

As far as I could see, there are no metal bars below Filomina's bedroom window. Have you seen another angle of the cottage where there bars below Filomina's bedroom? When I put those images together I was in fact trying to find an explanation for how Rudy climbed in through the window ... but the question that wouldn't go away was: why didn't he climb the metal grill directly under Amanda's room and in through her window? That makes far more sense than somehow horizontally scaling the wall, 16 feet off the ground, to Filomina's room.

I'm assuming that Rudy, if he broke in, was looking for the easiest way to enter the cottage. The balcony and Amanda's window both seem easier than Filomina's bedroom.

IIRC There was a grate over the window or bars of some sort between them, I forget now exactly how that worked. After the murder better ones were put on as you can see in later pictures

 

[Allusonz]

From what i understand, no injuries, except a blemish on her neck that was not bleeding. Now, RG's hand had a cut, but to be fair, have we been told that his actual BLOOD was in the house or just DNA? And do we know if he'd been injured in anyway besides the hand cut? He was picked up 5 or 6 days later, so bruises might have healed, but open wounds? Probably not.

IIRC it was actually a hickey (sp)?

 

[Allusonz]

See, you got AK syndrome, about to admit to something you didn't do! :waitasec:

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

oh god toooooooo funny

 

[SMK]

Nobody entered a premise 6 times in 33 days. There is no proof of any of that. It wasn't in any trial. Now the funny thing is that no proof is needed because he was a police informant. You might as well say he broken in 20 times. Who needs proof? Just say he is a police informant and they are covering him. Silly stuff IMO.

The motivation report makes it clear that Guede engaged in unlawful entry, theft, and had a knife. It makes it clear that there are several occasions of this. To not want tot see this seems willful blindness. I am sure Guede himself would encourage such.

 

[SMK]

Your right he did not enter the same premise 6 times he entered a number of different ones.

I believe that if he had been dealt with sooner MK would be alive today instead of being raped and killed

Right. He engaged in several crimes of unlawful entry, the motivation report makes it clear he stole and had a knife---why was he not locked up? Yes, I think Meredith would still be alive if Guede had been dealt with.

 

[SMK]

Nobody entered a premise 6 times in 33 days. There is no proof of any of that. It wasn't in any trial. Now the funny thing is that no proof is needed because he was a police informant. You might as well say he broken in 20 times. Who needs proof? Just say he is a police informant and they are covering him. Silly stuff IMO.

It was reported by a UK journalist that Guede had committed 6 felonies in a 33 day period. Certainly when one reads within the Motivation report about the stolen goods, the break-in at the nursery, the knife and hammer in his possession, the laptop from the Law Offices, a picture of Guede as a burglar begins to emerge. The elderly couple testified in court that he brandished a knife. Why would they lie? Why the interest in painting Guede as other than he was?

 

[Nova]

So ... because DNA may not have been taken from people that could not have committed the murder, it's quite likely that police did not properly investigate the area under the broken window? I don't think that's true.

Once sloppy, always sloppy. That's no greater leap than the "once a liar, always a liar" standard you apply to AK.

 

[SMK]

I just happened to be reading this article about the DNA collection and the review of such process within the appeal, and it makes it seem that the convictions standing are already a done deal. Has anyone else read it (link below).
IMO, the appeal ought to have been based on all which led to the arrest of AK and RS being questioned. That would have been a real appeal. This seems just a further way to make the convictions even more solid. http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/the_limited_dna_reviews_-_why_they_probably_wont_help_defense_and_may_/

 

[SMK]

In any case, I think if you look at the over-all picture, the defense has had to be humble and yielding, when it seems the only hope would be some aggressive action, if possible. Otherwise, it would seem to be game over. It's been fun talking to myself.