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

[Malkmus]

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_/

That article was posted in December and made the false presumption that the appeals would be unsuccessful if Meredith's blood was found on the knife or if Amanda's DNA was found on the clasp. Fast forward three months later and we already have those results. No blood, and the clasp is destroyed. There has been no favorable news for the prosecution as of yet.

 

[SMK]

That article was posted in December and made the false presumption that the appeals would be unsuccessful if Meredith's blood was found on the knife or if Amanda's DNA was found on the clasp. Fast forward three months later and we already have those results. No blood, and the clasp is destroyed. There has been no favorable news for the prosecution as of yet.

Yes, I knew it was old---yet tell me this, why are they still gloating "on a certain site", saying that this is "nothing new", and that since the evidence is too scant to retest, it is good for the prosecution, as now the review will only be of the original methods, which were found to be sound, may times, even by impartial reviewers???:waitasec::sick: Please, Malkmus, this is exactly what they are saying: No surprise, and it is excellent for the prosecution, as now only the original records will be reviewed which led to conviction.

 

[otto]

Yes, I knew it was old---yet tell me this, why are they still gloating "on a certain site", saying that this is "nothing new", and that since the evidence is too scant to retest, it is good for the prosecution, as now the review will only be of the original methods, which were found to be sound, may times, even by impartial reviewers???:waitasec::sick: Please, Malkmus, this is exactly what they are saying: No surprise, and it is excellent for the prosecution, as now only the original records will be reviewed which led to conviction.

The fact that there is no more DNA on the blade of the knife is old news, isn't it? Isn't that what Dr Stefanoni has been saying consistently throughout her testimony? When the Rome team announced this, many people seemed to think this meant that Amanda would be free. The prosecutors simply said that it was to be expected.

My understanding is that some DNA was found on the handle, but not enough to perform another test. The clasp was corroded and cannot be retested.

If people are looking at this evidence and expecting that the convictions will be upheld, I think it means that they have confidence in Dr Stefanoni's analysis of the evidence.

There seems to be a lot of misleading statements coming out about the retesting of the DNA. That is, it has been said by some rather confused people that no new DNA means there never was any DNA. I'm at a loss to understand why anyone would say this, as it simply isn't true. One does not imply the other. As an analogy, suppose you have a roll of lifesavers. Each day you eat one until they are gone. Is it then reasonable to say that there never were any lifesavers? That is exactly what has been said regarding the absence of additional DNA for testing ... but it's a rather dumb thing to say.

"In reality, the two experts rejected the work of the police, saying “on that knife there was never enough to get biological material to get DNA profiles.”

link

 

[wasnt_me]

I found this, of course it's old, but it's RG's cellmate [prisonmate as I've just been advised.] claiming RG told him what happened that night. The story is VERY similiar to what he first told the police, except in this story, he goes ahead and places himself in the room.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFBg_PI76NI&feature=fvst


I wonder if all three of them weren't telling the truth on their very first statements all along. Wasn't there other unknown DNA that wasn't tested in MK's room? I just don't know because sperm wasn't tested and I don't know where the other guy's footprints went. I also don't know where MK's footprints went. I haven't read anywhere that says MK stepped in her own blood.

Doing a ton of guessing here, but if this were true, the OTHER guy could have come back to stage a breakin since he knew MK had let them in the house. It all sounds unlikely, except they could have broken in, hoisted one of them to the window to get in, then that person let the second person in through the door.

It's possible that RG could be the agressor and just describing his friend that way to relieve guilt. Maybe his friend saw him fighting with MK and then ran out, therefore no DNA. Or maybe MK surprised the friend in her room, he shoved her and ran the hell out, leaving RG in the bathroom coming out of the bathroom to confront MK alone. That would account for the crazy lady hearing a scream and then running. And didn't RG say somewhere that he met a friend in a white car in that parking garage?

OR, this guy could be making it up. RG chimed in on this to adamantly deny he said anything, with a lot of malicous toward the cellmate, too. In that denial statement he squarely called the crime AK and RS's.

 

[wasnt_me]

I watched a video of that innocence symposium, too. That FBI agent came out with some really good info. He also had a few pictures I hadn't seen before. One was of an investigator in his white suit, plainly stepping in crime scene blood.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/hcGYrufLupA

Some of this was tedious, so you might want to skip to his part at time stamp: 40:15.

The picture I'm talking about is at about 59:59.

The next interesting guy is at: 1:28:00.

Some of the stuff in the overall video, I found compelling, some of it boring, and some of it a waste of the time in the conference. So let me know your thoughts.

This guy states that the investigators didn't even canvas the neighborhood to ask questions of the residences. He does bring up the woman who heard the scream.

New things the video brought to my attention:

1. There was a purse on FR's bed that had been gone through. The only thing about this one is, FR was said to have looked through her things to see if soemthing was missing, so pictures in her room might not be how the room was initially found, since pictures were taken 2-3 hours later.


2. They believed RG tried to call MK's bank from her phone.
3. Cleaners with bleach in them get on your feet in the shower and that's how AK's footprints barefoot could have shown up on the floor.
5. Bleach is used in place of blood to train investigators on how to use luminol.

6. No crime scene evidence had been transferred to RS's house. I guess that includes the shower, where they would have needed to get cleaned because they were bloody. Wonder if it was found at RG's house or not, or if RG's house was tested.


There was more, but I can't think of it right now.

 

[sherlockh]

I found this, of course it's old, but it's RG's cellmate claiming RG told him what happened that night. The story is VERY similiar to what he first told the police, except in this story, he goes ahead and places himself in the room.

*Snipped*. It is not RG's cellmate, it is his prison mate.

 

[wasnt_me]

This is RG denying the "confession" for those who don't remember what he said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20000287-504083.html

Guede denies clearing Knox and her boyfriend, calling Alessi's statements "the pure invention of a wicked mind," and asserts that Kercher's murder was committed by Knox and Sollecito.

I wonder if this will be brought up in the appeal anyways? Or has it already been?

Here's some murder investigative comic relief for you about the shutter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jFWq_frHdw

Not a very scientific experiment, but funny nonetheless.

 

[jjenny]

When one inmate starts claiming that the other inmate told him something, I wouldn't exactly take these claims at face value.
We know police found Rudy because he left evidence at the scene. If his "friend" was there, where is physical evidence, such as fingerprints and DNA?

 

[sherlockh]

When one inmate starts claiming that the other inmate told him something, I wouldn't exactly take these claims at face value.
We know police found Rudy because he left evidence at the scene. If his "friend" was there, where is physical evidence, such as fingerprints and DNA?

I believe they found about 19 unidentifiable fingerprints in the murder room, and some say areas on the floor are wiped. They also could claim the bathmat footprint (or a luminol footprint) belongs to this unknown friend. But it is silly since the defense are the ones that claim a lack of evidence in the murder room is a basic reason why AK+RS should not have been involved. So now they refute their own logic. The other prison witness is even sillier. He says his own brother did it. Ok then

 

[SMK]

The fact that there is no more DNA on the blade of the knife is old news, isn't it? Isn't that what Dr Stefanoni has been saying consistently throughout her testimony? When the Rome team announced this, many people seemed to think this meant that Amanda would be free. The prosecutors simply said that it was to be expected.

My understanding is that some DNA was found on the handle, but not enough to perform another test. The clasp was corroded and cannot be retested.

If people are looking at this evidence and expecting that the convictions will be upheld, I think it means that they have confidence in Dr Stefanoni's analysis of the evidence.

There seems to be a lot of misleading statements coming out about the retesting of the DNA. That is, it has been said by some rather confused people that no new DNA means there never was any DNA. I'm at a loss to understand why anyone would say this, as it simply isn't true. One does not imply the other. As an analogy, suppose you have a roll of lifesavers. Each day you eat one until they are gone. Is it then reasonable to say that there never were any lifesavers? That is exactly what has been said regarding the absence of additional DNA for testing ... but it's a rather dumb thing to say.

"In reality, the two experts rejected the work of the police, saying “on that knife there was never enough to get biological material to get DNA profiles.”

link

Yes, this is my point. The major media outlets keep saying what great news this has been for Amanda Knox, and for the defense---that there is not enough DNA to retest, as if this will lead to the convictions being overturned. In reality, it merely means that the original collection of the samples, which has already been upheld in numerous independent reviews, and which led to conviction, will be reviewed. This seems to me to be VERY BAD news for Knox, Sollecito, and the defense.

 

[SMK]

I believe they found about 19 unidentifiable fingerprints in the murder room, and some say areas on the floor are wiped. They also could claim the bathmat footprint (or a luminol footprint) belongs to this unknown friend. But it is silly since the defense are the ones that claim a lack of evidence in the murder room is a basic reason why AK+RS should not have been involved. So now they refute their own logic. The other prison witness is even sillier. He says his own brother did it. Ok then

Well, first off, many a brother has turned his own brother in (as in the Capano case). And secondly, they do not refute their own logic by saying there was not enough of AK and RS's evidence. That the court upheld RG did not act alone could still leave AK and RS out and add others in.

 

[SMK]

I watched a video of that innocence symposium, too. That FBI agent came out with some really good info. He also had a few pictures I hadn't seen before. One was of an investigator in his white suit, plainly stepping in crime scene blood.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/hcGYrufLupA

Some of this was tedious, so you might want to skip to his part at time stamp: 40:15.

The picture I'm talking about is at about 59:59.

The next interesting guy is at: 1:28:00.

Some of the stuff in the overall video, I found compelling, some of it boring, and some of it a waste of the time in the conference. So let me know your thoughts.

This guy states that the investigators didn't even canvas the neighborhood to ask questions of the residences. He does bring up the woman who heard the scream.

New things the video brought to my attention:

1. There was a purse on FR's bed that had been gone through. The only thing about this one is, FR was said to have looked through her things to see if soemthing was missing, so pictures in her room might not be how the room was initially found, since pictures were taken 2-3 hours later.


2. They believed RG tried to call MK's bank from her phone.
3. Cleaners with bleach in them get on your feet in the shower and that's how AK's footprints barefoot could have shown up on the floor.
5. Bleach is used in place of blood to train investigators on how to use luminol.

6. No crime scene evidence had been transferred to RS's house. I guess that includes the shower, where they would have needed to get cleaned because they were bloody. Wonder if it was found at RG's house or not, or if RG's house was tested.


There was more, but I can't think of it right now.

Yes, a lot of the written material is better than the symposium. But #s 2 and 6 IMO point very strongly to a lone wolf burglar and murderer, as in Guede.

 

[SMK]

And seriously, if there was some sex game or some big 3 on 1 fight, why then take the time to call MK's bank??? Points MUCH more to a robbery gone murder. I think there is a strong likelihood that RG acted alone or with another, and that AK and RS had nothing to do with this. A pity they did not go to Rome for the weekend, and Filomina would have discovered the crime scene and called 112 alone. Or it is too bad that something did not detain Kercher, and cause her to stay out until 1 a.m. It would have been a simple robbery reported to the police.

 

[sherlockh]

Well, first off, many a brother has turned his own brother in (as in the Capano case). And secondly, they do not refute their own logic by saying there was not enough of AK and RS's evidence. That the court upheld RG did not act alone could still leave AK and RS out and add others in.

I don't think his brother did it.Of course the defense contradict themselves. At the one hand no evidence of AK in the murder room means she wasn't there, but on the other hand no evidence of Aviello's brother is no problem? So which one is it?

 

[SMK]

I don't think his brother did it.Of course the defense contradict themselves. At the one hand no evidence of AK in the murder room means she wasn't there, but on the other hand no evidence of Aviello's brother is no problem? So which one is it?

I thought they are saying check the samples for the brother.:waitasec:

 

[SMK]

Well, I am assuming this will not be part of the appeal anyway, so it is a moot point at this juncture?

 

[iluvmua]

Why I think Amanda Knox is Guilty:

1. She accused her boss (Mr. Lumumba) of killing Meredith
2. She has changed her story numerous times
3. Her former BF, RS would not even give her an alibi
4. Her confession(s) stating she WAS there


That's all I can think of right now, if anybody else wants to add to the list feel free.

Also for the people who think she's innocent, you can make a list as well stating why you think she's innocent.

 

[SMK]

Why I think Amanda Knox is Guilty:

1. She accused her boss (Mr. Lumumba) of killing Meredith
2. She has changed her story numerous times
3. Her former BF, RS would not even give her an alibi
4. Her confession(s) stating she WAS there


That's all I can think of right now, if anybody else wants to add to the list feel free.

Also for the people who think she's innocent, you can make a list as well stating why you think she's innocent.

Well, I have many, many reasons why I think she is innocent. I would love to believe she is guilty, so I would not need to feel anything or care in any way about her appeal. As for your reasons, they are too easily refuted (I wish they were NOT):
1. The police suggested Patrick to her. She was under duress. She did not know Patrick well enough to know he was innocent.
2. Only after her original story was not accepted, and police made her believe "I cannot trust my mind, and my dreams are real".
3. RS only changed his story when police scared him, said they had proof she was there.
4. False confessions happen daily. See the 1974 case of Peter Reilly, who confessed to the rape and murder of his alcoholic mother. He gave details of just how he did it. Then they realized he had an airtight alibi, and could not have been at the scene. He later said police harassed him into believing he could not trust his own mind. Knox said exactly this also.

 

[wasnt_me]

When one inmate starts claiming that the other inmate told him something, I wouldn't exactly take these claims at face value.
We know police found Rudy because he left evidence at the scene. If his "friend" was there, where is physical evidence, such as fingerprints and DNA?

It is my understanding that there is unknown DNA in the house. It is also my understanding that no DNA was taken from the other roommates. It's also my understanding that it's possible to find smudged, thereby unidentifiable fingerprints. I do not know if they said they found smudged prints, however.

It is also possible to commit a crime without leaving any fingerprints or DNA. We've all seen cases like these, right? Someone being convicted without DNA or fingerprint evidence or someone never being found because was there was none?

I was lending credibility to the statement, but because it has been made and it relates to the case, it's fair to take it into consideration, so that it may or may not be dismissed. The reason I give it any weight is because it is very close to the first story RG told.

 

[wasnt_me]

I believe they found about 19 unidentifiable fingerprints in the murder room, and some say areas on the floor are wiped. They also could claim the bathmat footprint (or a luminol footprint) belongs to this unknown friend. But it is silly since the defense are the ones that claim a lack of evidence in the murder room is a basic reason why AK+RS should not have been involved. So now they refute their own logic. The other prison witness is even sillier. He says his own brother did it. Ok then

Okay, the one that said the brother did it, is a different prison inmate. I dn't even know if he ever talked to RG or supposedly talked to RG. the guy talking about his brother is supposed to have been int he mafia. The other dude we're discussing was a child killer.

This mafia guy you mean said that his brother must have gotten an address to go to for stolen paintings confused with the cottage. under that confusion, the brother and a friend broke in there. This guy claims that his brother gave him the knife and some keys, which this guy says he hid on his own property.

They can solve that quick by getting a search warrant and digging up the man's property. Probably not simply or easy, but I believe we've dug up plenty of people's property here in the USA when we want to find answers.

Well, first off, many a brother has turned his own brother in (as in the Capano case). And secondly, they do not refute their own logic by saying there was not enough of AK and RS's evidence. That the court upheld RG did not act alone could still leave AK and RS out and add others in.

Right, and also I saw a case where the mother, who was a police officer, turned in her own son for rape and murder. It was heartbreaking.

Well, I am assuming this will not be part of the appeal anyway, so it is a moot point at this juncture?

I brought it up, but I wasn't talking about the brother. i was talking about the other inmate. I had already dismissed the mafia brother in my own mind, but we don't know if they'll bring either jail house statements up. I was asking if anyone thought they would. Your guess is that they won't, so thanks for answering.