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

[otto]

Yeah, but not if you look at the bigger picture I put in there. I see the reflection you mention, but look more left in the smaller picture. It's a totally different design the inner panel. See where the glass is broken, there is a reflection of the green shutter, but then the glass is missing and if you look behind the glass, you see a white panel with a very different design on it. It seems to be attached to the wall of the window. I was thinking before that it could have been the door of that cabinet next to the window, but looking at the larger photo, you still see an inner panel on the right side.

I had to enlarge it to see for sure, and you are right ... there are three openings to the window. That explains why there is confusion about whether the shutters were open or closed. I'm guessing the inside shutters were open, the outside shutters were closed (friction), and the window was locked. All the theories suggesting Filomina was confused are really confused theories based on the assumption that there were only two openings to the window.

 

[dgfred]

My guess is it was tossed... hows that?

 

[ziggy]

I have a 20 year old daughter, 21 in November, in college... sooo yes I have.

Congrats on making it through the teen years! Having been one and lived with many, it's hard to imagine a person who leaves a table top full of "stuff" is necessarily a clean freak, but more possibly very typical and although not dirty, a bit of a messy or better, careless and carefree person. Especially when your room is a friggin cracker box. They look like my dorm room size.

 

[ziggy]

My guess is it was tossed... hows that?

How's that? Like the first date with a good looking guy who is the worst kisser ever - super lacking and disappointing.

 

[dgfred]

Thanks, she is the star of my night.

Another interesting thing to me is that the 'mark' on the inner shutters is kind of off-line to someone throwing a rock from the parking deck (same level as window) and if the outer shutters were not opened all the way then it would have been very difficult to hit that spot (mark) from the ground.

Of course what throws me is that we can't really be sure when that 'mark' was on the window or if is related at all to the crime. But it does look 'fresh'.

 

[wasnt_me]

I had to enlarge it to see for sure, and you are right ... there are three openings to the window. That explains why there is confusion about whether the shutters were open or closed. I'm guessing the inside shutters were open, the outside shutters were closed (friction), and the window was locked. All the theories suggesting Filomina was confused are really confused theories based on the assumption that there were only two openings to the window.

Otto, you are willing to make the assumption that those inside shutters were open? Because that would support the possibility that the rock could have been thrown from outside (assuming that the person first climbed up to pull open the green shutters.) Whether anyone actually climbed in from there is another matter.

I wonder what the opposite glass looks like. Because if that mark on the shutter (beside the digital number 7 in the 2007 date) in your blown up picture is the rock hitting the window, would the other pane on the opposite side be broken?

 

[dgfred]

How's that? Like the first date with a good looking guy who is the worst kisser ever - super lacking and disappointing.

Reminds me of your arguments so far. :crazy:

 

[ziggy]

Reminds me of your arguments so far. :crazy:

Doh! Good one. I like how well you relate to the disappointment by hot guys and their lack of abilites. We could get along.

 

[claudicici]

Ziggy !!!!! good to see you !!!!
anyways,I think it makes sense that the rock was tossed from the inside,the inner window was open,the middle one broken and the shutters were shut.It looks like that to me because of all the glass on the window sill,behind the broken glass,how would it have gotten there if it was thrown from the outside?...and no glass on the outside.
I don't think RG gained entrance through that window,I think Meredith let him in ,she did meet him before and was probably trusting enough to open the door.I really think RG had sort of an obsession with her and killed her when she rejected his advances and then staged the break in himself in case someone saw him walk in through the front door he could go with the I was in the bathroom and someone broke in story.

 

[wasnt_me]

But, In cases where I have seen faked break-ins, they usually determine that it was a staged scene because Glass is OUTSIDE and not inside.

So I'm confused about that glass outside thing. Why does glass have to be outside to indicate that the rock was thrown outside.

With the mark that was on the outside of the inner shutter, it appears that the inner shutter was possibly open or unlocked. RG could have climbed up, pulled the green shutters open and then threw the rock. It hit the inner shutter, making that mark as it landed in the room.

Why is that not possible? I thought that glass was supposed to go in the direction of the force that's breaking it? That would mean inside, not outside. Of course this ALL hendges on the position of the white shutters.


Please, please, please, explain "Q" to me in this photo below if a low velocity hit from inside the house broke the glass. Because I don't understand how the glass blasted backward.

 

[dgfred]

Hey claudicici,
That is the only possible scenario IMO that the defense/AK supporters should have ever argued. Even tho once the changing alibis and evidence of blood/dna/footprints/fake break-in came to light that pretty much destroyed that possibility. For quite awhile I thought that maybe AK had let RG in to harrass Meredith, knew something terrible happened, and tried to cover up the fact that she had let him in. Afterwards came back to stage the break-in with RS to make it seem it was persons not known to Meredith. But then the facts of the luminal prints in the hallway, AK's blood and dna mixed with Meredith's in the bathroom and Filomena's room, and RS's bare print on the bathmat, with other evidence presented pretty much sealed their fates IMO.

 

[SMK]

Hey claudicici,
That is the only possible scenario IMO that the defense/AK supporters should have ever argued. Even tho once the changing alibis and evidence of blood/dna/footprints/fake break-in came to light that pretty much destroyed that possibility. For quite awhile I thought that maybe AK had let RG in to harrass Meredith, knew something terrible happened, and tried to cover up the fact that she had let him in. Afterwards came back to stage the break-in with RS to make it seem it was persons not known to Meredith. But then the facts of the luminal prints in the hallway, AK's blood and dna mixed with Meredith's in the bathroom and Filomena's room, and RS's bare print on the bathmat, with other evidence presented pretty much sealed their fates IMO.

Exactly, exactly, what I had thought. But how is it certain (and I am really asking this, as I am not good at forensic evidence, etc.) that all of the above did not happen during a clean-up only????

 

[wasnt_me]

But then the facts of the luminal prints in the hallway, AK's blood and dna mixed with Meredith's in the bathroom and Filomena's room, and RS's bare print on the bathmat, with other evidence presented pretty much sealed their fates IMO.

With all respect, I did not understand that AK's blood was in F's room.

I thought they said her DNA mixed with MK's blood was. To me, AK's DNA could have come off the fact that she just took a shower, stepped on that bloody mat, which is why it was wet, and she tracked it to F's room when she went in there to examine that fact that the window was broken.

 

[dgfred]

If they were not involved in the actual murder, what would there have been to 'clean up'?

 

[SMK]

If they were not involved in the actual murder, what would there have been to 'clean up'?

what i have just said, I meant basically a staging.....maybe "setting up"---so how to answer my question?

 

[dgfred]

@wasn't me
That would be kind of terrible luck, to go along with ALL the other things... for Meredith's blood to mix with AK's dna in Filomena's room wouldn't it?
But even if you take that away, it doesn't explain the other things pointing at her/their guilt.

 

[wasnt_me]

Yes, but this is all terrible luck, isn't it?

It might not take away other things insinuating guilt, but it is a logical explanation for that DNA/blood mixture, is it not? I'm of the belief of raising reasonable doubt, not proving innocence. I thought that was what building a defense is all about.

If we can agree that it is logical and possible, and even probable that the DNA/blood mixture can occur this way and be transferred by the feet to the room, then we have raised a little reasonable doubt on that one piece of evidence, yes?

I thought we were raising reasonable doubt about this window, but it seems that some are not agreeing at which direction broken glass flies. Also some are not agreeing about the white shutters, though, there is a mark on the outside of them indictating that a rock possibly hit them on its way inside.

Now, to be absolutely clear, if AK and RS are culpable, along with RG, I have no problem conceding to that--when reasonable doubt has been exhausted.

 

[dgfred]

You lost me SMK???

 

[Malkmus]

With all respect, I did not understand that AK's blood was in F's room.

I thought they said her DNA mixed with MK's blood was. To me, AK's DNA could have come off the fact that she just took a shower, stepped on that bloody mat, which is why it was wet, and she tracked it to F's room when she went in there to examine that fact that the window was broken.

It was Amanda's DNA, not blood in Filomena's room. Part of the appeals requests were to reexamine the findings of mixed blood and DNA because, they claim, there were unknown female DNA traces in those samples too. Had ILE taken reference DNA samples of the roommates it would have cleared up a lot of these mysteries.

 

[dgfred]

Yes, but in Italy they give different 'weight' to different pieces of evidence.
Some point more towards guilt, some less. But the problem is when trying to explain/excuse away one piece of evidence... there are still SO MANY others.
It is not reasonable IMO to have to explain so many different aspects showing guilt, but have literally nothing that even resembles evidence of innocence.