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

[otto]

Well, it would depend on who you believe. Why do you think Vinci is on the prosecution's side?

The court in Perugia has previously heard that a clasp on the bra carried only traces of DNA belonging to Mr Sollecito.
His lawyers argued on Friday that the presence of the DNA was the result of laboratory contamination and not evidence that their client was involved in the brutal attack on Miss Kercher.
Last week they sketched out a scenario in which an intruder murdered Miss Kercher after being disturbed while trying to rob the house she shared with other students in the Umbrian university town.
Mr Sollecito's lawyers allege that Miss Knox's DNA has also been found on the torn bra. They will argue that the DNA evidence is so complex and confused that it cannot be used to incriminate their client. [ . . . ]Defence lawyers have called the entire scenario a fantasy based on the the fevered imagination of prosecutors and deeply flawed evidence.

OR.............................


"The analysis of the profile [found on the bra] in our opinion shows clearly the presence of at least three individuals," according to forensic expert Francesco Vinci, retained by Mr Sollecito's legal team.
There was a "mix" of DNA with the strongest trace from Miss Kercher but also traces from other individuals, both male and female, making it "impossible or nearly impossible" to draw any firm conclusions from the evidence, said Professor Vinci.
Prosecutors allege that during a kinky sex game, Miss Kercher, on all fours, was held down by Mr Sollecito and Mr Guede, who allegedly tried to rape her.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/3268373/Meredith-Kerchers-bra-had-DNA-from-all-three-suspects.html

Vinci declared that DNA on the clasp matched all three suspects, and then tried to eliminate that evidence by suggesting it was a result of contamination. Seems to me that it's a very odd approach for introducing the contamination argument, but I suppose Raffaele's experts were desperate to explain his DNA on the clasp.

 

[otto]

Wow...the media may have gotten it wrong...what a surprise!

I think the court concluded that Vinci got it wrong.

 

[otto]

Why don't you read what Vinci himself is quoted as saying in the article you posted, Otto?

It doesn't really matter how many odd claims came from Vinci, the courts did not accept the testimony, and I think Vinci was let go from the defense team. I guess no one was happy with him.

 

[ziggy]

If that was true you would always get smeared luminol findings at any cleaned crime scene. Then you could never identify anything. Also these luminol pics are not exactly pristine anyway. But anyway, I tried to Google 'luminol footprints' and the first 2 pages were results from this case.
Isn't that amazing?

That's because this case is all over the internet in light of the controversy in which luminol prints that could not be said to have been made in blood and other possible explanations ignored, were used to convict someone of murder.

You see a good deal of luminol prints where the blood may have been on the shoe but reduced as the person walked on carpet or other material - some of those footprints are not easily seen by the naked eye and luminol enhances the shoe print. Also, shoe prints on dark carpet - luminol enhances the print for shoe print matching.

The prosecutor's logic was that someone walked in MK's blood in her room, managed to clean up those footprints on the floor of MK's room, but after cleaning footprints from other locations in the flat as well, some of the "cleaned" footprint shapes glowed with very distinguishable shape under the light/luminol test while other "cleaned" footprints disappeared without a trace. Isn't that pretty much what you are willing to believe? How do you reconcile that?

 

[SMK]

I don't follow. You are prepared to damage the reputation of an officer of the court because of what? Because she prosecuted the case against Amanda and Raffaele, or because co-counsel was Mignini?

I am not in a position to damage anyone's reputation. I just have cause for doubt, is all.

 

[otto]

I am not in a position to damage anyone's reputation. I just have cause for doubt, is all.

What justification is there to question the integrity of both prosecutors? We know that one illegally wire tapped some people ... what reason is there to paint the other with the same brush?

 

[SMK]

What justification is there to question the integrity of both prosecutors? We know that one illegally wire tapped some people ... what reason is there to paint the other with the same brush?

I don't know, perhaps because she keeps such close association with Mignini? In any case, it is just speculation. I just do not think she made a good case, obviously. It needs no bad character to be doubted. Why would I still think I had reasonable doubt, if I thought she made a great case ? ( I think Amanda's character was dragged through the mud, myself...I even wrote things about her, based on swallowing such character assassination, without doing enough researching and reflecting...)

 

[wasnt_me]

Hey, I'm changing gears a bit, and hopefully anyone interested will hop in with what they think.

I'm still trying to presume innocence on RS and AK. I don't think RG is innocent because he's the only stranger on the scene with no reason to be in the apartment, has a history of burgalry, placed himself at the scene and claimed conscentual sex when Meredith's bra had been ripped from her body and her shirt was jacked up to her neck. That's not conscentual. I have other reasons, but these are the main ones.

However, I'm having serious problems now with the breakin scenerio. Upon reading about the window, I understand that F's window has in essence two shutters. If you are standing inside the room, from what I understand, you must first open a set of white solid shutters, then you must open the glass and then you can swing open the green shutters. If Filomena locked ALL three layers to the window, I'm not seeing how the rock could have been thrown inside.

I can see that he could have climbed up and somehow forced open the green shutters. Now, he would have to break the glass and then get the white solid shutters open. If he threw the rock from the ground or banged it on the glass while standing up on the iron thing on the other window below, then the glass would have shattered, fell down on him and the rock would still be outside. Either it would fall on the ground or it would still be in his hand if he were standing on the iron thing.

So, for me, that begs the question (if we're still trying to believe what the scene is saying, that this window breakin the point of entry), are there marks on the white inner shutters to indicate a rock was hit against them or thrown against them?

Okay, so still going with this breakin through the window theory, say he climbed up there, after shattering the window, there is no longer a need for the rock, because it can't help him get through the white shutters. Why would he continue to carry it back up to the window to at this point force the white shutters open? If the white shutters were locked, then he only had to climb up a second time to somehow get himself up there enough to unlatch the frame of the glass and then somehow pry or bust open the white shutters. therefore, the rock should not even be in the room.

The only way that the breakin theory is actually viable is if those white shutters were for some reason already open inside the room, or if they were unlocked so that the rock could force them to fly back when it hit. But do we know if there are marks on this shutter, because the rock would have left marks if they'd been closed.

OR am I understanding incorrectly that there were white shutters, then glass, then green shutters?

I have decided that if there are three layers to the window, and if F was correct that she'd secured it all, then the rock must have been retrieved from outside and brought into the house. The white shutters were then opened, the rock was hit against the glass (not thrown because that would have opened the green shutters, allowing glass and the rock to go back outside) and then the rock was dropped on the floor in the room and the green shutters were opend.

So now, if the white shutters were open already, RG was incredibly lucky, because I tend to believe others who have agreed that F, going away for a few days, would have secured the room. Unless, for some reason, one of the remaining roommates opened the window at some point while F was gone. If Amanda doesn't own up to it, only Meredith could have done that. Now, I don't know where this garden is, but if she worried about seeing someone in it, and F's window overlooked it, Meredith could have opened it to check out the garden. (unlikely, but just saying, it's possible if the garden is located there or M needed to see something on that side of the house.)

So if he was that lucky, then he could have climbed up the window, forced back the green shutters, came down, retrieved the rock and threw it in, then unlatched the frame holding the broken glass, and then entered the house.

So, those who know more about this window, am I correct in my reasoning about it?

 

[otto]

I am not in a position to damage anyone's reputation. I just have cause for doubt, is all.

Sure, and I'm asking what cause there is to doubt the integrity of an officer of the court; an officer that is without a blemish on her record?

 

[otto]

I don't know, perhaps because she keeps such close association with Mignini? In any case, it is just speculation. I just do not think she made a good case, obviously. It needs no bad character to be doubted. Why would I still think I had reasonable doubt, if I thought she made a great case ? ( I think Amanda's character was dragged through the mud, myself...I even wrote things about her, based on swallowing such character assassination, without doing enough researching and reflecting...)

She has a normal working association with Mignini. That's normal, not reason to believe that she is a corrupt prosecutor.

 

[ziggy]

Flourish, I think anyone can see my looking at the bloody footprint that it was made by someone standing on the full foot, not tip toes. The only people that really walk toe first, heel second, are models. Everyone else steps heel to toe. The only reason the foot print ends at the edge of the mat is because the rest of the print was on the floor.

Pro-conspiracists would argue that the world was flat if it helped make evidence against Knox and Sollecito disappear.

The only people who really walk toe first and heel second are models??? You are now an expert in this area after all the ciritcisms you've had of other people stating opinions across a scientific field? This is an epic fail otto:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Px69eKV5lWk

Models also walk heel first when going forward. What part of your foot hits the floor first when going downstairs? The ball. Try walking backwards or downstairs with your heel first otto.hmmm. I'm not sayin AGAIN - please really read this so that I don't have to reply when you twist my words again - I'm not saying this is what happened, merely pointing out that you are wrong.

In addition, just to set the record straight, I offered that it could be a partial footprint left by someone who didn't want to put their foot down but did so as not to fall over and tried to minimize the contact...not that someone tip toed around. I know that you know this. Pehaps for the first time in 8 or 9 years on Websleuths I'll use the ignore feature.

@flourish: if you feel there is a socioligical construct to this; then what about the other possibility in that same realm that Anti-Americanism played a role in this verdict? I think examining both types of xenophobia would be prudent.

Again: I don't have a dog in this hunt. Looking means looking at all the possibilites not dismissing them - do I lean one way? Yes, but, show me how the great weight of the evidence goes the other way in a logical sense and I don't care if I change my mind - I'm not attached to being right, just want to know what the truth is.

 

[otto]

Hey, I'm changing gears a bit, and hopefully anyone interested will hop in with what they think.

I'm still trying to presume innocence on RS and AK. I don't think RG is innocent because he's the only stranger on the scene with no reason to be in the apartment, has a history of burgalry, placed himself at the scene and claimed conscentual sex when Meredith's bra had been ripped from her body and her shirt was jacked up to her neck. That's not conscentual. I have other reasons, but these are the main ones.

However, I'm having serious problems now with the breakin scenerio. Upon reading about the window, I understand that F's window has in essence two shutters. If you are standing inside the room, from what I understand, you must first open a set of white solid shutters, then you must open the glass and then you can swing open the green shutters. If Filomena locked ALL three layers to the window, I'm not seeing how the rock could have been thrown inside.

I can see that he could have climbed up and somehow forced open the green shutters. Now, he would have to break the glass and then get the white solid shutters open. If he threw the rock from the ground or banged it on the glass while standing up on the iron thing on the other window below, then the glass would have shattered, fell down on him and the rock would still be outside. Either it would fall on the ground or it would still be in his hand if he were standing on the iron thing.

So, for me, that begs the question (if we're still trying to make this window breakin the point of entry), are there marks on the white inner shutters to indicate a rock was hit against them or thrown against them?

Okay, so still going with this breakin through the window theory, say he climbed up there, after shattering the window, there is no longer a need for the rock, because it can't help him get through the white shutters. Why would he continue to carry it back up to the window to at this point force the white shutters open? If the white shutters were locked, then he only had to climb up a second time to somehow get himself up there enough to unlatch the frame of the glass and then somehow pry or bust open the white shutters. therefore, the rock should not even be in the room.

The only way that the breakin theory is actually viable is if those white shutters were for some reason already open inside the room, or if they were unlocked so that the rock could force them to fly back when it hit. But do we know if there are marks on this shutter, because the rock would have left marks if they'd been closed.

OR am I understanding incorrectly that there were white shutters, then glass, then green shutters?

I have decided that if there are three layers to the window, and if F was correct that she'd secured it all, then the rock must have been retrieved from outside and brought into the house. The white shutters were then opened, the rock was hit against the glass (not thrown because that would have opened the green shutters, allowing glass and the rock to go back outside) and then the rock was dropped on the floor in the room and the green shutters were opend.

So now, if the white shutters were open already, RG was incredibly lucky, because I tend to believe others who have agreed that F, going away for a few days, would have secured the room. Unless, for some reason, one of the remaining roommates opened the window at some point while F was gone. If Amanda doesn't own up to it, only Meredith could have done that. Now, I don't know where this garden is, but if she worried about seeing someone in it, and F's window overlooked it, Meredith could have opened it to check out the garden. (unlikely, but just saying, it's possible if the garden is located there or M needed to see something on that side of the house.)

So if he was that lucky, then he could have climbed up the window, forced back the green shutters, came down, retrieved the rock and threw it in, then unlatched the frame holding the broken glass, and then entered the house.

So, those who know more about this window, am I correct in my reasoning about it?

I think there are outside shutters and inside glass windows. There is no glass on the ground outside the window. The shutters were swollen from years of being weathered, and would stay closed using friction. If someone climbed in through the window, that person had to perch on the side of the building 20 feet above the ground (nothing to stand on), reach in a broken window with shards of glass everywhere, unlock the window, then climb in through the window without getting cut ... and, of course, then arrange the glass on top of the ransacked items again without getting cut. Anyone that has cleaned up a broken drinking glass knows that a cut is almost par for the course ... but apparently not so with this spiderman feat.

 

[SMK]

She has a normal working association with Mignini. That's normal, not reason to believe that she is a corrupt prosecutor.

Otto, you speak with an idle tongue, i know nothing of her, and prior to his indictment, Mignini was "without blemish" as well. I don't like the case they made. Capeesh?

 

[ziggy]

@wasnt me: have you read the Shutter Island section @ sciencesphere?

http://www.sciencespheres.com/

It's regarding Filomena, the shutters and the illogical presumptions that could have been made from her testimony. Just some food for thought on the shutters.

 

[wasnt_me]

I think there are outside shutters and inside glass windows. There is no glass on the ground outside the window. The shutters were swollen from years of being weathered, and would stay closed using friction. If someone climbed in through the window, that person had to perch on the side of the building 20 feet above the ground (nothing to stand on), reach in a broken window with shards of glass everywhere, unlock the window, then climb in through the window without getting cut ... and, of course, then arrange the glass on top of the ransacked items again without getting cut. Anyone that has cleaned up a broken drinking glass knows that a cut is almost par for the course ... but apparently not so with this spiderman feat.

I think I'm confused by this window. I thought i read a report that explained that there were white shutters inside the room. I am trying to find it now. Told you, studying this case all night is probably not the best idea for me, but that's why I'm relying on you guys, who have been here since day one, and I appreciate you appeasing me as I catch up on the case. I'm sure sometimes I sound like a novice, because I don't know all the evidence yet.

 

[SMK]

@wasnt me: have you read the Shutter Island section @ sciencesphere?

http://www.sciencespheres.com/

It's regarding Filomena, the shutters and the illogical presumptions that could have been made from her testimony. Just some food for thought on the shutters.

This is an excellent passage from that text @ link below:

It is a critical fact for the understanding of this trial that guilt was preordained; the evidence was an afterthought. Once one sees this cart-before-the-horse mentality for what it is, one can practically sit back and watch as the evidence is twisted to achieve the result, rather than being objectively discovered and analyzed. The distortion of the evidence to wrongfully convict Amanda and Raffaele is especially clear in the Motivation. I urge everyone with an interest in this case to read it. Even in the translation produced by the anonymous and unaccountable team assembled by the guilters, the Motivation is self-damning in its illogical and preposterous assertions.

It is not a coincidence that while those who assert that Amanda and Raffaele are guilty point to this document, they rarely cite its actual contents. Those contents show just how weak the prosecution’s case was. As several observers stated shortly after its release, it appears to have been designed to be overthrown on appeal on the basis of its own content. It is as if those who wrote it knew perfectly well that they were convicting innocent people, and sought some form of repentance by including the seeds of self-destruction.
http://www.sciencespheres.com/

 

[ziggy]

 

[otto]

I think I'm confused by this window. I thought i read a report that explained that there were white shutters inside the room. I am trying to find it now. Told you, studying this case all night is probably not the best idea for me, but that's why I'm relying on you guys, who have been here since day one, and I appreciate you appeasing me as I catch up on the case. I'm sure sometimes I sound like a novice, because I don't know all the evidence yet.

This is a picture of the broken window

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image_page.php?album_id=21&image_id=631

 

[ziggy]

Did they dust Filomena's room high and low along with the windowfor prints? I;'m reading and reading about all this stuff and not finding any reference to prints. Also, it strikes me that the "after" (after initial crime scene collection) photos of MK's room, shows the room with no residue of print powder. Did I miss those?

 

[wasnt_me]

@wasnt me: have you read the Shutter Island section @ sciencesphere?

http://www.sciencespheres.com/

It's regarding Filomena, the shutters and the illogical presumptions that could have been made from her testimony. Just some food for thought on the shutters.

okay, I saw this report that says there are Scuris (inner panels) in the window.

http://aklwei.wordpress.com/2011/01/21/a-visual-guide-to-the-break-in/

See on the left, that white shutter thing? The report says:

"since if these inner panels had been closed, they would have continued to provide an adequate obstacle to the possibility of opening the window, in spite of the broken pane."

See this picture, look at the window on the right side, see the white inner panel? I'm not imagining this am I? There is an inner white set of shutters, right?