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

[otto]

I don't think it's safe to assume anything in this case. No DNA testing of the other occupants of the house? That's Forensics 101. If a thorough examination of the ground beneath the window was performed, where are the photos? Where is the testimony?

Where is the expert testimony on glass patterns, etc., that proves the break-in was staged? Oh, that's right: some non-professional saw glass on her computer case. (Just to be clear: I'm not rolling my eyes at you, otto. I am very frustrated at how much of this case depends on our blind faith in Italian LE. Sorry, but I don't have blind faith in California LE. Why would I have greater faith in the Italians?)

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?

 

[SMK]

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.

So are you saying that premise is correct? (that it was a NONsexual fight, staged to look sexual?--wish I could locate that piece from The Daily Sun)---how could the glass of water and envelope perched on table edge be undisturbed in that tiny room with 3 killers violently assaulting one vicitm???:waitasec:

 

[Malkmus]

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?

Because if Laura or Filomena's DNA turned out to be any of the unidentified DNA on the bra clasp or mixed samples of blood and DNA it would render the DNA findings of Amanda in the cottage utterly worthless.

 

[otto]

Disagree - would be rare for there to be no scratches, etc... but even so, if by chance no marks made, I still cannot find blood smears, etc to shows othes in the room with MK in what had to involve allot activity if the orgy said to take place really did.
Oh, least I forgot - RG not implicating AK or RS.

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.

 

[Malkmus]

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.

I think we need to get off the false premise that someone having over 40 wounds (of which only three were actual deep stabs) is proof of multiple assailants. 10 seconds on google will reveal (unfortunately) an infinite number of news stories which contradict that notion. This one for example:

http://www.conservativesforamerica....many-100-stab-wounds-in-21-year-old-mom-to-be

 

[Malkmus]

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.

This straw man again? I thought we just clarified a few days ago that no one has said the room was too small for three people to attack someone in, just that the evidence doesn't support that notion.

 

[otto]

otto, surely you can understand our frustration with what is missing in terms of expert testing, analysis and testimony.

You are willing to look at a photo of techs looking at one piece of ground and assume all ground was carefully examined. But we know all the residents weren't treated the same forensically, so why think the ground was?

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.

 

[otto]

Because if Laura or Filomena's DNA turned out to be any of the unidentified DNA on the bra clasp or mixed samples of blood and DNA it would render the DNA findings of Amanda in the cottage utterly worthless.

Dr Stefanoni did not find Amanda's DNA on the bra clasp. Why would Laura's DNA be there?

 

[otto]

This straw man again? I thought we just clarified a few days ago that no one has said the room was too small for three people to attack someone in, just that the evidence doesn't support that notion.

No, we didn't clarify that at all. Evidence actually supports the theory that there were three attackers ... which is why the jury unanimously found all three suspects guilty of murder.

 

[Malkmus]

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.

Well, that and the fact that they couldn't count the number of rings in a shoe print correctly - a mistake which led to Raffaele's arrest, broke a few hard drives by accident, couldn't interpret a text message correctly despite the presence of a police interpreter - leading to the arrest of an innocent man, destroyed by accident a key piece of forensic evidence (the bra clasp), lied about the results of the blood tests on the Luminol prints, I mean how many more examples need to be listed to show that we can't take their word on anything (and there are more)? FYI, according to Frank at PS, Raf's lawyer stated that there was glass under the window outside.

 

[Malkmus]

Dr Stefanoni did not find Amanda's DNA on the bra clasp. Why would Laura's DNA be there?

You're right. It would render the DNA evidence against Amanda and Raffaele worthless.

 

[Malkmus]

No, we didn't clarify that at all. Evidence actually supports the theory that there were three attackers ... which is why the jury unanimously found all three suspects guilty of murder.

Um, I countered your claim that posters on here are arguing that the room was too small for a four-person struggle. No one is saying that. Your response is that there is evidence of multiple attackers. Two completely different arguments.

 

[SMK]

No, we didn't clarify that at all. Evidence actually supports the theory that there were three attackers ... which is why the jury unanimously found all three suspects guilty of murder.

That to many is up for debate...the 3 on 1 attack is nonsensical in so many ways. The evidence is not so clear to us, and we are not going to take LE word for gospel (whether in Italy or the US or the UK or anywhere---part of being of that generation which was taught to see corruption in authority)

I think someone posted this before, but i found that part about Rudy I had been looking for. I still think he was the lone wolf here...


In Sept 2007 – two months before the murder – a burglar later identified as Guede had broken into a house and threatened a couple with a knife before running away.
Defence lawyers called as a witness a local solicitor, Paolo Brocchi, who described how, in Oct 2007, an intruder used a rock to smash the window of his office, clamber through it and steal a mobile phone and a laptop computer.
Police arrested Guede a few days later after he broke into a school in Milan, armed with a knife, and found the stolen goods in his possession.
"The break-in was a carbon-copy of the way he used a rock to break a window at Kercher's house and enter," said Luca Maori, a lawyer representing Sollecito.
"It helps show how Guede entered alone that night, probably to steal, found Kercher undressing, tried to rape her and then killed her."
When Guede broke into the lawyer's office, he climbed up to a window which was about 15ft from the ground. When police investigated the apparent break-in at the cottage Miss Kercher and Miss Knox shared outside Perugia's stone walls, they found that a window of a similar height had been smashed. They decided that it was too high to clamber through and instead came up with the theory that it had been broken from inside by Miss Knox and Mr Sollecito to fake a burglary and throw police off their tracks.
"We heard evidence today that Rudy was perfectly able, and accustomed, to scaling such heights," said Luciano Ghirga, a lawyer representing Miss Knox. ‘

 

[SMK]

Um, I countered your claim that posters on here are arguing that the room was too small for a four-person struggle. No one is saying that. Your response is that there is evidence of multiple attackers. Two completely different arguments.

uh oh, don't hate me Malkmus, but i was just telling otto the room was too small for 4 persons to struggle in :blushing:

 

[Malkmus]

uh oh, don't hate me Malkmus, but i was just telling otto the room was too small for 4 persons to struggle in :blushing:

Ah, that's what I get for jumping in randomly. We had a discussion a few days ago about some of the analysis on IIP stating that when it didn't, so I jumped the gun.

Sorry, Otto!:seeya:

 

[wasnt_me]

uh oh, don't hate me Malkmus, but i was just telling otto the room was too small for 4 persons to struggle in :blushing:

For me, the size of the room might lend toward why RS and AK ought to have more bruises. Even if MK didn't get a hit off, they were probably knocking into each other very hard, trying to fight MK, possibly knocking into the wall and furniture. If it was 3 on 1, then the attackers ought to be bruised in my opinion.

 

[wasnt_me]

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.

Since you don't have to see it with your own eyes then, I just there's no reason to continue helping you look for a more concrete report about RG's criminal record. As I should take the investigators word for investigating outside, we'll take their word about RG's criminal record.

 

[sherlockh]

I think there is a more important question in this. When you have someone that has entered a premise 6 times in 33 days, is found to have stolen items as well as break and enter items in a backpack (which leads me to believe these may only be the times they are aware of and there possibly be even more) why would ILE not investigate him further. They had more on RG from these than they did of AK yet never arrested him, took him in for questioning, etc. Something is very wrong with this scenerio

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.

 

[sherlockh]

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.

We were talking about the defense trying to make a point of Rudy's history. Of course, they need to proof that. If you just take an objective look at this defense tactic then it is rather weak. No evidence of the actual break in, no shoe print, no DNA, no fingerprints on any of the glass parts or anywhere. So they try to make a connection by showing Rudy's past. And they do so with assumed break-ins. No arrests, nothing proven. It is just a weak tactic IMO.

 

[wasnt_me]

We were talking about the defense trying to make a point of Rudy's history. Of course, they need to proof that. If you just take an objective look at this defense tactic then it is rather weak. No evidence of the actual break in, no shoe print, no DNA, no fingerprints on any of the glass parts or anywhere. So they try to make a connection by showing Rudy's past. And they do so with assumed break-ins. No arrests, nothing proven. It is just a weak tactic IMO.

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.