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

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #841
So the kitchen knife used during the murder was previously used to cut bread?
(ref: Frank's blog)

I do not believe the point was that it was used to cut bread. I believe the point that was trying to be given is that they found starch. As we all know starch is porous and collects and is a great medium for things like BLOOD to accumulate in
 
  • #842
You are VERY right about this! I spent some time in off-campus housing, and same thing: Doors open, people bringing friends in and out late at night, very lax co-ed dorm feeling, even though it was technically a rental house some blocks away. I can see why Amanda would be more mildly puzzled than alarmed initially.

Interesting ... so the cottage was really just a college dorm and it was normal for the front door to be wide open. Therefore, there was no reason for Amanda, Laura, Filomina and Meredith to be alarmed if the front door of their home was wide open when no one appeared to be home. What next?
 
  • #843
wasn't me,
I hope you are kidding about the 'wasn't even thoroughly investigated' part. Surely you don't think the police did not search the ground outside the window, the wall, and the surrounding area. That is making the 'conspiracy' into something so huge it isn't even feasible. This will not get anywhere in regards to understanding the case IMO.
 
  • #844
I do not believe the point was that it was used to cut bread. I believe the point that was trying to be given is that they found starch. As we all know starch is porous and collects and is a great medium for things like BLOOD to accumulate in

"It seems that a Lugol Iodine test was performed, and the solution turned dark, which means it was positive for starch carbohydrates. If this is true, in the crevice there was what there was supposed to be for a knife that just had a kitchen use: starch. Therefore they thought the knife was used to cut bread"

(from your link)

Maybe the starch came from the gloves. Maybe it came from bread. Maybe blood sticks to starch. Maybe the starch was caught in the handle where there was no blood. Maybe it's not starch. So many possibilities.
 
  • #845
I have not been able to verify whether this particular article was just that a hoax or legit. As such I will treat it that way unless I comes across articles that can confirm it. Some I do know is confirmed as for Nara I would personally like more information before I would determine the merit of it

Dempsey thought it was so important she translated it and then wrote a blog about it. Frank seems to think it's an April Fools joke.

Would you like me to repost the interview with Nara where she is clearly not hearing impaired?
 
  • #846
"It seems that a Lugol Iodine test was performed, and the solution turned dark, which means it was positive for starch carbohydrates. If this is true, in the crevice there was what there was supposed to be for a knife that just had a kitchen use: starch. Therefore they thought the knife was used to cut bread"

(from your link)

Maybe the starch came from the gloves. Maybe it came from bread. Maybe blood sticks to starch. Maybe the starch was caught in the handle where there was no blood. Maybe it's not starch. So many possibilities.

Starch can come from a variety of sources. Since it is Italy pasta comes to mind for me. What is more important is where that starch was found and that they have decided that there would be no need to take the knife apart as there appears to of been "NO CLEANING" of the knife
 
  • #847
Dempsey thought it was so important she translated it and then wrote a blog about it. Frank seems to think it's an April Fools joke.

Would you like me to repost the interview with Nara where she is clearly not hearing impaired?

I have already read it some days ago. As I stated previously, until I am satisfied that that particular portion can be verified I will put little weight to it.
 
  • #848
They luckily didn't clean all their traces. I am not sure why they left blood traces in the bathroom. This is all pretty much speculation territory. Maybe it was a rushed clean job and they left some traces. Maybe they thought the break in by itself wouldn't be enough reason for the police to break open MK's door. Maybe they thought it could be explained away by repeating over and over 'it is all normal because I live here'. I don't know. I only know that their plan wasn't perfect and that they made plenty of mistakes. JMO.

I didn't say anything about expecting the worst or other people. Just thought why people buy such a bizarre story and not be at least a little suspicious? This is websleuths after all :)

I do not know how they managed to clean up all their evidence, seen or unseen, but leave RG's evidence. Futhermore, if they purposely left his evidence, why would AK implicated PL and not RG? To purposely clean around RG's footprints etc means AK and RS must be trying to frame him. So why not go ahead and frame him? Additionally, how do they clean footprints made over or under RG's without removing RG's?

Additionally, if you are that intent on cleaning, why leave a big footprint in plain sight on a bathmat? Rush cleaning job? Why the rush? They had the whole night. So why even leave the house at all? Just spend the whole night there cleaning. Also, why come home and take a shower? Shouldn't AK have done that while at RS's when she was bloody? Why return to the murder scene the next day for the shower? If she'd returned to do more cleaning, she claims she arrived around 1030am. No one can tell me that within over an hour, she didn't have enough time to realize about this bathmat. Because if it's her intent to clean evidence, that bathmat is glaring.
 
  • #849
I wish we had a forum for this case, I'm constantly getting lost tracking back through threads trying to find where I read certain details.

Anyhow, I recall it was said that ILE did not obtain a DNA profile or footprints from anyone else who lived in or regularly visited the cottage besides AK and RS. This proves that ILE chose their suspects before analyzing the evidence. If you add the probable contamination, lack of photos, not recording interrogations, removing evidence, altering the crime scene, tracking evidence from person to person and room to room, it starts to sound like a circus. Who are these investigators and why do they even have jobs? What sort of system allows this to happen without recourse?

I'm asking because it seems obvious that this was a terribly mismanaged case; even those who agree with the outcome should be able to admit that huge, bumbling mistakes were made throughout. But I don't understand how anyone can be confident about a verdict born out of this degree of ineptitude. If the wrong people are in jail for this it's a terrible injustice that I worry a great deal about; I would rather a murderer walk free than an innocent be persecuted.
 
  • #850
Do we know that RG had been inside upstairs? Your post is the first I've heard of it.

Hendry points out that the broken window was hidden from the road by a tree, but allowed a burglar to view both the road and the parking lot. IIRC, he also points out that entering via the balcony would mean a burglar might be trapped on the balcony if someone turned out to be home. By entering through the window that was broken, the burglar made his noise (breaking glass with the rock) while he was still in a place where he could run away easily if a light came on in response to the sound or if a car entered the parking lot.

You can read all this in the Hendry links, but I know the pro-verdict camp has conveniently decided to ignore him.

And Hendry may be wrong on this score. But it is one explanation why a burglar would go to the trouble of entering via a physically inconvenient point of entry.

Also one that does make the most sense of any explanations I have read. It also points out a number of other things which I had not noted in the photos. It is well thought out
 
  • #851
Right---and I really do NOT think the postal police would have to drive around looking for the residence. Being who they were, they would have known the location and arrived swiftly and smoothly.

Yes, this was my question, because I read that it was the investigative police who were lost. So My question is, were they saying both the PP and the investigative units got lost that day?
 
  • #852
Ha, are you talking to yourself :slap: .

The vicious cycle continues: a nonexistant 'flaw' in the case is seen from an internet poster's computer screen, we give the same valid reasoning and explanations for the perceived wronging of AK (again), then the 'crowd' moves to the next point of the massive conspiracy against the :innocent: AK.
And on and on.

What ARE you talking about?

YOU proposed a bit of speculation. It had several logical flaws which were pointed out to you. So you announced your own speculation was irrelevant.

I refused to apologize for taking your posts seriously, so you reverted to your original speculation. It still doesn't make logical sense, but there's no "vicious cycle."
 
  • #853
wasn't me,
I hope you are kidding about the 'wasn't even thoroughly investigated' part. Surely you don't think the police did not search the ground outside the window, the wall, and the surrounding area. That is making the 'conspiracy' into something so huge it isn't even feasible. This will not get anywhere in regards to understanding the case IMO.

Of course the outside of the cottage was investigated:

"On this subject it is also useful to recall that at the hearing of April 23, 2009, the witness Gioia Brocci mentioned above declared that she had observed the exterior of the house, paying particular attention to the wall underneath the window with the broken pane, the window of the room then occupied by Filomena Romanelli. She said: "We observed both the wall...underneath the window and all of the vegetation underneath the window, and we noted that there were no traces on the wall, no traces of earth, of grass, nothing, no streaks, nothing at all, and none [39] of the vegetation underneath the window appeared to have been trampled; nothing" (p. 142 declarations of Gioia Brocci). She also recalled the existence of a nail on that wall, which jutted out about 6cm, and added that "walking along the outside perimeter of the house" her shoes became dirty with "grass attached to the shoes" (p. 145, cf. also declarations of the assistant Zugarini, hearing of Feb. 28, 2009, p. 133).

The next fact to consider is that the pieces of glass from the broken pane were distributed in a homogeneous manner on the inside and outside parts of the windowsill, without any displacement being noted or any piece of glass being found on the ground underneath the window." (pgs. 50-51)

Ref: Judge's Summary
 
  • #854
I wish we had a forum for this case, I'm constantly getting lost tracking back through threads trying to find where I read certain details.

Anyhow, I recall it was said that ILE did not obtain a DNA profile or footprints from anyone else who lived in or regularly visited the cottage besides AK and RS. This proves that ILE chose their suspects before analyzing the evidence. If you add the probable contamination, lack of photos, not recording interrogations, removing evidence, altering the crime scene, tracking evidence from person to person and room to room, it starts to sound like a circus. Who are these investigators and why do they even have jobs? What sort of system allows this to happen without recourse?

I'm asking because it seems obvious that this was a terribly mismanaged case; even those who agree with the outcome should be able to admit that huge, bumbling mistakes were made throughout. But I don't understand how anyone can be confident about a verdict born out of this degree of ineptitude. If the wrong people are in jail for this it's a terrible injustice that I worry a great deal about; I would rather a murderer walk free than an innocent be persecuted.

This simply deserves more than a simple thank you!!!!

I believe, even if it is not this appeal, their convictions will be overturned and I am of the firm belief that many individuals, ILE, certain forums and individuals in those forums and writing campaigns, as well as newspapers will be on the receiving end of alot of litigation from AK and RS....
 
  • #855
I have already read it some days ago. As I stated previously, until I am satisfied that that particular portion can be verified I will put little weight to it.

... give little weight to the Oggi article, or give little weight to Frank's opinion that it is a joke?
 
  • #856
I am only asking for proof. Not some journalist claiming some kind of hearsay. Lets start with proof of the break in in the law offices.

With all due respect, it is the defense's job to create reasonable doubt to whatever the prosecution brings up. It is not the defense's job to prove they did not do it. that is how it is in the USA. Is it that way also in Italy? If so, the defense doesn't need to prove anything, just refute what's presented. The defense goes above and beyond when they start proving things. Which is fine and good for them, but it's really not their legal responibility.

With all due respect, if a journalists is making observations based on factual pictures, that's not hearsay. That's an interpretation of the crime scene. I don't know what journalist you're referring to, but I'm just saying. I've seen bloggers or whomever theorize, but that's different than when crime scene patholigists, like I think Hardy claims to be, analyzes a crime scene.
 
  • #857
Very curious how the side window has a better escape route than climbing onto the deck since the only way to access the side window is to walk all around the cottage (pretty much a 360 from the front door), past the deck, and access the narrow sidewalk that runs along the side of the cottage.

darn why would he use the front door then :giggle:
 
  • #858
You asked for a theory of how he got in the window. I gave it to you. It is plausible, which raises reasonable doubt. it's not my "opinion" on what those dust marks are on the clothes. It's the theory of another expert, and you're welcomed to read his entire theory on the links that have been posted on the past page or two in this thread.

To me, the most real part of it is, becomes the position of the rock, which has torn the shopping bag on its way into the room and landed half in the bag and half out. I'm not convinced someone staging a crime scene would place that rock on a bag and tear it and leave it half in the bag and half out. It is more logical for them to place it on the floor. There is also bits of the rock around the spot where it landed, proving that this is where is came to rest.

You might think someone helped the guy up to the window, but unless it's documented, we do not know how that guy got up to the window, or how Rudy got himself up to an office 15ft off the ground after breaking a window at another of his crime scenes. I do not know if the defense presented the scuff mark; however, the scuff mark is there, as people have been asking to see proof that someone was on the wall.

The illustration present a detailed and plausible way that Rudy got into the house. That creates reasonable doubt as to whether the scene was staged. Now, FR can say whatever she wants to say about how clean her room was, but we must agree that it is her opinion on what clean is. I'll tell you, my mom and I disagreed on what my idea of clean in my room was, but I'd swear to her that it was clean. I personally give less weight to what a person says versus what appears to be present, because people's memories are faulty, people not only made false confessions, but they've also been false witnesses against others. There are tons of studies about how someone will remember something incorrectly. So for me personally, I give less weight to people's actual statements on certain issues.

for example, FR could not be sure in what condition she left the shutters. So if she cannot be sure of that, I cannot be sure she's right about the condition in which she left the room. These are all minor details that no one thinks about when they are preparing to leave their house. I do not fault her, but I can understand how she might not recall correctly.

If you look at pictures of the glass spray, you will not see any glass stuck in the green shutters. This is because no glass hit them and got wedged, like a splinter. That means they were open when the rock flew. You also will see glass clear across the room tothe bedstand. The glass would not have flown backward at that force if it had been done inside the room.

If you look at the glass frame, you will see it's completely knocked out at the bottom as if someone had manually knocked it out. Look at other pictures of when an object hits a window and you will see that it does not perfectly knock 99% of the pieces out of the bottom, but creates shards. RG knocked those shards out manually to pull himself up. If you look closely at the glass, you can see pings in it where some glass was bent backward and broken off, as opposed to breaking the in direction it was originally struck toward.

Whether the glass was hit from inside or outside, we should see a little bit of glass outside. The investigators found none because they didn't look for it. Leaves had fallen that night and the glass should have been down beneath them either way. Once the perps opened the green shutters, if they'd been closed, enevitably, some glass would have fallen outside. This means that the breakin wasnt even thoroughly investigated to prove it false.

There are other notes I can make, too, and if you're interested, then I'll continue. As I said before, I have no dog in this fight, but i do not want to see someone railroaded. I DO want to see someone pay for Meredith.

And just as important to me, where is the Italian expert on these matters? AK and RS were convicted primarily (IMO) on the belief that the break-in was staged and AK was the only one who would benefit from a staging.

So why wasn't the alleged staging demonstrated by more than the memory of the room's tenant and a few glances by investigating officers? Why weren't experts turned loose to explain glass patterns, torn bags, etc?
 
  • #859
Lol..good one ;) It is a defense lawyer by the way who is climbing up there. I have no problem accepting the break in was easy but just show it. It is so obviously deceiving to show a guy who is already half way. If it is so easy to climb up there then where is the first part? Show how he steps up the small window, show how he holds himself onto that small window and somehow gets up vertically to reach to Filomena's window without falling backwards.

If I were a defense lawyer, I'd say show me how he couldn't do it.
 
  • #860
With all due respect, it is the defense's job to create reasonable doubt to whatever the prosecution brings up. It is not the defense's job to prove they did not do it. that is how it is in the USA. Is it that way also in Italy? If so, the defense doesn't need to prove anything, just refute what's presented. The defense goes above and beyond when they start proving things. Which is fine and good for them, but it's really not their legal responibility.

With all due respect, if a journalists is making observations based on factual pictures, that's not hearsay. That's an interpretation of the crime scene. I don't know what journalist you're referring to, but I'm just saying. I've seen bloggers or whomever theorize, but that's different than when crime scene patholigists, like I think Hardy claims to be, analyzes a crime scene.

There have been a couple of requests for media articles describing Rudy scaling 2 story walls with rocks to enter a law office. The wall has been described as identical to that of the cottage. I searched the net for info ... couldn't find it ... so if someone has a link to a media article, I think many are interested. As it stands, it seems to be rumor and gossip.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
128
Guests online
2,497
Total visitors
2,625

Forum statistics

Threads
632,815
Messages
18,632,118
Members
243,302
Latest member
Corgimomma
Back
Top