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

[wasnt_me]

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.

Also, if the bank call went out around 10pm or so (I can't remember the exact time they said) it might to safe to assume MK was dead or dying at that point. So we can pinpoint a murder time better.

Next, Some have asked why choose FR's window and I have discovered a possible reason.

I read that FR was the collector of rent for everyone in her house. Since her boyfriend was an associate of Rudy's, I don't think it's a stretch for RG to somehow know this. Whether he heard someone say "FR's got to get the rent from the girls, and then we're gonna..." Or whatever. Some casual mention is what I'm getting at. I don't even think it's a stretch for MK to have possibly told RG this at the club.

Now, I AM TOTALLY GUESSING, but say he said hello to her in the club and just commented, "First of the month. It'll be all about rent tomorrow, right?" Or "Geez, I'm out here drinking and ain't paid my rent yet." You know what I mean? Just an offhand comment. Then she might have said, "I know, right? I've still got to take all our rent to the landlord." And they keep claiming this was some sort of holiday, so maybe the landlord wasn't accepting the rent until Monday or something. I don't know, but would like more information on whether FR had the rent, had paid the rent or not, or was waiting for the apporpriate day after the holiday.

So if RG has knowledge of FR as the rent collector, then I believe it makes sense to break into FR's room. That's where the money should be. Even if he didn't talk to her the night before, I think he somehow knew this. So he breaks directly into the room where the money should be at. That's the room that seems to have been ransacked.

And let me tell you, this happened to me. Remember I told y'all that my rental property was broken into?

Well, my idiot renter, he's 30, insists on giving me cash. STILL insists on giving it to me after this happened. After new year's this year, I called him so I could go over to the house to get the rent. He'd live there since October, and was putting the rent in cash in an envelope and putting right on the table in front of the TV.

So I call him and he tells me someone broke in the place and of course the rent money was gone. This was the second break in at the place in 2 or 3 years. We've had the place since 1992 which no incidence until these two. So anyways, He started bringing the rent--in cash--to me at my house. I just collected April's rent from him, right? Since I was going over there to cut the grass and he wouldn't be home, guess where he left the rent? In an envelope in cash on the table right in front of where there is NOW no longer at TV (because it was stolen in the burglary.)

I was thinking man, I should tell him not to do that, but I was on the way over there, so it only sat there for maybe an hour. But see how nonsensical people can be? three months since the incident and he already feels safe about repeating this habit. I have asked for a check or MO to be mailed, but he just keeps doing cash. I don't get that, because it costs about the same to drive it to me. I just don't like this habit of leaving the cash, and or bringing it to me, then I have the cash sitting around until I go to the bank. I odn't like that.

Now how many of you think some of his friends know of this habit? Who can in turn tell other friends? Heck, I might be in the house when something like this happens, so I have to tell him to stop this behavior, for real.
But now that I've told you, don't fly here and throw rocks in my windows! LOL

 

[Nova]

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.

It's more scientific than merely glancing at the ground outside or asking Filomena how she remembers leaving the room.

But I agree, that is hysterical! Particularly the comments from the man holding the camera: he so clearly thinks the whole subject is a waste of time.

 

[wasnt_me]

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.

These things cited are weak circumstantial evidence, which another poster detailed why they don't weigh heavily against the other evidence that Rudy acted alone or possibily with an unknown partner. I don't believe she changed her story numerous times. Just once and then reverted back to being at RS's house. She did conjecture that RS placed a knife in her hand while she was sleeping, but it was still at his house where she dreams that could have happened. Let me know if I'm wrong, and there's another story besides being at RS's and then PL did it, and then back to being at RS's.

RS gave her an ailibi the first time. Under pressure, he now says he doesn't know where the girl was, but I just read something that said he is back to saying she was with him. Correct me if I'm wrong.

As for stating she was there, as the other poster cited, there are many false confession cases. Check the innocence project:

http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Facts_on_PostConviction_DNA_Exonerations.php

here are a few recorded false confessions/or confessions from people who obviously do not know what they are talking about:

http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Michael-Crowes-False-Confession

Court TVs Harriet Ryan reported that on the eve of the trial, DNA tests conducted on a 28-year-old mentally ill homeless mans clothes revealed Stephanies blood. The man, Richard Raymond Tuite, was seen wandering through the neighborhood and acting suspiciously on the day of the murder.

Another:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCyKnc1BVV8

This guy now says his friend had nothing to do it and he acted alone, but the story isn't over, because the defense team is investigating the person who last saw the victim alive. There are some very good reasons to suspect this coworker, but it's too long to detail in a thread that isn't about that case. Still hopefully, you can see from this video, that the suspect doesn't know the details of the crime scene. Apparently, chuck and Ryan went to a bar and went home. Chuck says a couple years later, he dreamed that they did this crime. Friends told on him, which led to this interrogation. Ryan contends they went home and has never changed his story.

this is Ryan's interrogation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5McAuB6zhH0

Important to note, these interrogations went on for hours, not just these small clips shown. With these two suspects, I'd say Chuck is like AK and Ryan is like RS in the sense that AK went ahead and caved and made up something. RS has not done that.

Check out these:

http://www.falseconfessions.org/cases-the-incarcerated

http://www.falseconfessions.org/cases-the-exonerated

I'm leery right now of giving my reasons for their innocence because I feel I haven't thoroughly studied the case. But I do have some reasons. I can get them together for you.

 

[SMK]

Also, if the bank call went out around 10pm or so (I can't remember the exact time they said) it might to safe to assume MK was dead or dying at that point. So we can pinpoint a murder time better.

Next, Some have asked why choose FR's window and I have discovered a possible reason.

I read that FR was the collector of rent for everyone in her house. Since her boyfriend was an associate of Rudy's, I don't think it's a stretch for RG to somehow know this. Whether he heard someone say "FR's got to get the rent from the girls, and then we're gonna..." Or whatever. Some casual mention is what I'm getting at. I don't even think it's a stretch for MK to have possibly told RG this at the club.

Now, I AM TOTALLY GUESSING, but say he said hello to her in the club and just commented, "First of the month. It'll be all about rent tomorrow, right?" Or "Geez, I'm out here drinking and ain't paid my rent yet." You know what I mean? Just an offhand comment. Then she might have said, "I know, right? I've still got to take all our rent to the landlord." And they keep claiming this was some sort of holiday, so maybe the landlord wasn't accepting the rent until Monday or something. I don't know, but would like more information on whether FR had the rent, had paid the rent or not, or was waiting for the apporpriate day after the holiday.

So if RG has knowledge of FR as the rent collector, then I believe it makes sense to break into FR's room. That's where the money should be. Even if he didn't talk to her the night before, I think he somehow knew this. So he breaks directly into the room where the money should be at. That's the room that seems to have been ransacked.

And let me tell you, this happened to me. Remember I told y'all that my rental property was broken into?

Well, my idiot renter, he's 30, insists on giving me cash. STILL insists on giving it to me after this happened. After new year's this year, I called him so I could go over to the house to get the rent. He'd live there since October, and was putting the rent in cash in an envelope and putting right on the table in front of the TV.

So I call him and he tells me someone broke in the place and of course the rent money was gone. This was the second break in at the place in 2 or 3 years. We've had the place since 1992 which no incidence until these two. So anyways, He started bringing the rent--in cash--to me at my house. I just collected April's rent from him, right? Since I was going over there to cut the grass and he wouldn't be home, guess where he left the rent? In an envelope in cash on the table right in front of where there is NOW no longer at TV (because it was stolen in the burglary.)

I was thinking man, I should tell him not to do that, but I was on the way over there, so it only sat there for maybe an hour. But see how nonsensical people can be? three months since the incident and he already feels safe about repeating this habit. I have asked for a check or MO to be mailed, but he just keeps doing cash. I don't get that, because it costs about the same to drive it to me. I just don't like this habit of leaving the cash, and or bringing it to me, then I have the cash sitting around until I go to the bank. I odn't like that.

Now how many of you think some of his friends know of this habit? Who can in turn tell other friends? Heck, I might be in the house when something like this happens, so I have to tell him to stop this behavior, for real.
But now that I've told you, don't fly here and throw rocks in my windows! LOL

I think your theory is 100% correct. It makes more sense than any other, and flies with my own experience (I have known people who were robbed because they stupidly made an offhand remark in front of people of dubious character about having a large amount of cash at home that they would have to take to the bank- and YES, you had better be careful, and make some changes in your own situation, for obvious reasons. anic

 

[SMK]

These things cited are weak circumstantial evidence, which another poster detailed why they don't weigh heavily against the other evidence that Rudy acted alone or possibily with an unknown partner. I don't believe she changed her story numerous times. Just once and then reverted back to being at RS's house. She did conjecture that RS placed a knife in her hand while she was sleeping, but it was still at his house where she dreams that could have happened. Let me know if I'm wrong, and there's another story besides being at RS's and then PL did it, and then back to being at RS's.

RS gave her an ailibi the first time. Under pressure, he now says he doesn't know where the girl was, but I just read something that said he is back to saying she was with him. Correct me if I'm wrong.

As for stating she was there, as the other poster cited, there are many false confession cases. Check the innocence project:

http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Facts_on_PostConviction_DNA_Exonerations.php

here are a few recorded false confessions/or confessions from people who obviously do not know what they are talking about:

http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Michael-Crowes-False-Confession

Court TVs Harriet Ryan reported that on the eve of the trial, DNA tests conducted on a 28-year-old mentally ill homeless mans clothes revealed Stephanies blood. The man, Richard Raymond Tuite, was seen wandering through the neighborhood and acting suspiciously on the day of the murder.

Another:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCyKnc1BVV8

This guy now says his friend had nothing to do it and he acted alone, but the story isn't over, because the defense team is investigating the person who last saw the victim alive. There are some very good reasons to suspect this coworker, but it's too long to detail in a thread that isn't about that case. Still hopefully, you can see from this video, that the suspect doesn't know the details of the crime scene. Apparently, chuck and Ryan went to a bar and went home. Chuck says a couple years later, he dreamed that they did this crime. Friends told on him, which led to this interrogation. Ryan contends they went home and has never changed his story.

this is Ryan's interrogation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5McAuB6zhH0

Important to note, these interrogations went on for hours, not just these small clips shown. With these two suspects, I'd say Chuck is like AK and Ryan is like RS in the sense that AK went ahead and caved and made up something. RS has not done that.

Check out these:

http://www.falseconfessions.org/cases-the-incarcerated

http://www.falseconfessions.org/cases-the-exonerated

I'm leery right now of giving my reasons for their innocence because I feel I haven't thoroughly studied the case. But I do have some reasons. I can get them together for you.

:goodpost::goodpost:

 

[Allusonz]

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

Stephanoni received special permission to lead the forensic team in the collection of the forensics. This is simply unheard of. The person that is to analyze the DNA is never suppose to be involved in the collection to eliminate testing bias

Stephanoni also perjured herself on the stand with a number of statements such as stating that there was sufficient biological material on both the bra and knife handle, stating that various things were never tested for blood just to name a few. You have stated that her work was reviewed. If you consider that her boss looked over her reports as a review of the testing you are very mistaken with what a review of the DNA entails.

They tossed all accepted protocols/procedures out the window with the collection and testing methods they used and had the audacity of putting the collection on video.

To start they removed bloody footprints from the floor tiles, then by using pictures tried to replace them back on the tiles the following day when in fact the entire tile should of been lifted.

It is stated here that this is "old news" when in fact some of it is not.
There was no DNA on the knife. If there had of been the machine would not of returned a too low reading 12 times before Stephanoni overrode the machine values so many times in order to get what is called "noise". There simply was not enough material to even consider testing but did this stop Stephanoni? No it did not. Instead she used methods never used before and ones never documented in any scientific literature

The amount of alleged DNA on the blade was LCN DNA. She performed an LCN DNA test in an ordinary DNA lab environment using methods never heard of before. She stated that the handle had sufficient DNA for additional testing and it has now been proven that in fact there was never enough to test the first time by the independent analysts.

So to use your lifesaver analogy if one lifesaver equals 5 picograms the blade and handle both had one lifesaver or less on each. The appointed experts have stated that there was no way to get a valid profile from the knife and the test results should never of been admitted in the first trial.

It was also stated during trial the knife had been cleaned and in fact now tests the independent analysts have done prove that this knife had never been cleaned with bleach.In no way to date have they in fact confirmed Stephanoni's work and in fact to date the results are quite the opposite to which is being claimed in this post.

Often you posted that the bra clasp had "abundant" DNA. Guess what? That as well appears to have been LCN DNA according to the experts. As well, the forensics team videotaped the collection of this item and by doing this proved that there had been introduced far too many errors for the results to of been produced in the first trial. Those errors can never be corrected. Thus the testing introduced during the first trial were invalid and have been found to be so during this review to date.

To use your lifesaver analogy on the bra clasp there should of been according to the documentation presented 1000 lifesavers on that bra clasp. Since it is being classified as LCN DNA, and low amounts reported I will be generous in the number of lifesavers I give you on this one. I will state 10 lifesavers which would be equal to 50 picograms in this particular lifesaver analogy

Any respected forensic expert knows that items which are wet must be dried and stored properly. Instead they took this bra clasp and stored it in a jar of liquid. To again use your lifesaver analogy have you ever heard of anyone storing a lifesaver to eat later in a jar of liquid? No. The reason being is that it would melt thus you would not have a lifesaver to eat.

The other area of interest had been the defense continued requests for the .fsa files which were continually refused to be released by the prosecution. The prosecution stated these files were not required by the defense to conduct a review but they are and surprise the experts are now indeed requesting these .fsa files be released to them so they can further evaluate how she arrived at her findings.

I will now be curious if they even exist or were these tests results simply made up?

To sum this up there was no abundance of DNA on the handle of the knife or the bra clasp. The errors introduced during the collections cannot be fixed. Any previous results reported could not be reported because of this contamination and what appears to be insufficient quantities to be tested period let alone tested in a regular DNA laboratory.

I will again point out that in LCN DNA the readings that you have continually posted in this forum were bogus and here is why. LCN DNA readings are the OPPOSITE of regular DNA readings. In other words they should not be identical as you would get in regular DNA readings.

If the .fsa files are not given to the independent analysts it not only destroys the DNA findings against AK and RS but could impact the defense of RG. Technically, not only could all the DNA results against AK and RS be tossed but all the DNA against all 3 could conceivable be tossed.

The only misleading statements are the ones that are in the article and in your post. If you think I am being harsh I am. I am totally sick and tired of the erroneous, false and misleading information posted with respect to the DNA

As well, in reality the experts to date not only rejected the work of the police, but also Stephanoni and the prosecution presenting this information during a trial. These are very serious violations of which the ramifications I do not believe I have seen the likes of ever.

To use your analogy again so far the independent experts have ZERO LIFESAVERS against AK and RS. The original DNA tests should never of been presented in a court of law. Good science has no international boundaries!!!!

 

[Allusonz]

These things cited are weak circumstantial evidence, which another poster detailed why they don't weigh heavily against the other evidence that Rudy acted alone or possibily with an unknown partner. I don't believe she changed her story numerous times. Just once and then reverted back to being at RS's house. She did conjecture that RS placed a knife in her hand while she was sleeping, but it was still at his house where she dreams that could have happened. Let me know if I'm wrong, and there's another story besides being at RS's and then PL did it, and then back to being at RS's.

RS gave her an ailibi the first time. Under pressure, he now says he doesn't know where the girl was, but I just read something that said he is back to saying she was with him. Correct me if I'm wrong.

As for stating she was there, as the other poster cited, there are many false confession cases. Check the innocence project:

http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Facts_on_PostConviction_DNA_Exonerations.php

here are a few recorded false confessions/or confessions from people who obviously do not know what they are talking about:

http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Michael-Crowes-False-Confession

Court TVs Harriet Ryan reported that on the eve of the trial, DNA tests conducted on a 28-year-old mentally ill homeless mans clothes revealed Stephanies blood. The man, Richard Raymond Tuite, was seen wandering through the neighborhood and acting suspiciously on the day of the murder.

Another:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCyKnc1BVV8

This guy now says his friend had nothing to do it and he acted alone, but the story isn't over, because the defense team is investigating the person who last saw the victim alive. There are some very good reasons to suspect this coworker, but it's too long to detail in a thread that isn't about that case. Still hopefully, you can see from this video, that the suspect doesn't know the details of the crime scene. Apparently, chuck and Ryan went to a bar and went home. Chuck says a couple years later, he dreamed that they did this crime. Friends told on him, which led to this interrogation. Ryan contends they went home and has never changed his story.

this is Ryan's interrogation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5McAuB6zhH0

Important to note, these interrogations went on for hours, not just these small clips shown. With these two suspects, I'd say Chuck is like AK and Ryan is like RS in the sense that AK went ahead and caved and made up something. RS has not done that.

Check out these:

http://www.falseconfessions.org/cases-the-incarcerated

http://www.falseconfessions.org/cases-the-exonerated

I'm leery right now of giving my reasons for their innocence because I feel I haven't thoroughly studied the case. But I do have some reasons. I can get them together for you.

sorry quoted wrong one will try this again

 

[otto]

<snip>

Court TVs Harriet Ryan reported that on the eve of the trial, DNA tests conducted on a 28-year-old mentally ill homeless mans clothes revealed Stephanies blood. .

"Court TVs Harriet Ryan reported that on the eve of the trial, DNA tests conducted on a 28-year-old mentally ill homeless mans clothes revealed Stephanies blood."

Ref: Rachael Bell
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/not_guilty/coerced_confessions/6.html

I think you forgot to put quotes and source some of your remarks.

 

[otto]

Allusonz, are you saying that the DNA results from the knife do not match Meredith?

It doesn't matter how much DNA was on the clasp since it's too corroded to be retested. I'm not sure how you get to the conclusion that there was not abundant DNA on that clasp.

 

[Allusonz]

Allusonz, are you saying that the DNA results from the knife do not match Meredith?

I am stating that the amount was TOO LOW to get a VALID PROFILE

 

[Allusonz]

These things cited are weak circumstantial evidence, which another poster detailed why they don't weigh heavily against the other evidence that Rudy acted alone or possibily with an unknown partner. I don't believe she changed her story numerous times. Just once and then reverted back to being at RS's house. She did conjecture that RS placed a knife in her hand while she was sleeping, but it was still at his house where she dreams that could have happened. Let me know if I'm wrong, and there's another story besides being at RS's and then PL did it, and then back to being at RS's.

RS gave her an ailibi the first time. Under pressure, he now says he doesn't know where the girl was, but I just read something that said he is back to saying she was with him. Correct me if I'm wrong.

As for stating she was there, as the other poster cited, there are many false confession cases. Check the innocence project:

http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Facts_on_PostConviction_DNA_Exonerations.php

here are a few recorded false confessions/or confessions from people who obviously do not know what they are talking about:

http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Michael-Crowes-False-Confession

Court TVs Harriet Ryan reported that on the eve of the trial, DNA tests conducted on a 28-year-old mentally ill homeless mans clothes revealed Stephanies blood. The man, Richard Raymond Tuite, was seen wandering through the neighborhood and acting suspiciously on the day of the murder.

Another:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCyKnc1BVV8

This guy now says his friend had nothing to do it and he acted alone, but the story isn't over, because the defense team is investigating the person who last saw the victim alive. There are some very good reasons to suspect this coworker, but it's too long to detail in a thread that isn't about that case. Still hopefully, you can see from this video, that the suspect doesn't know the details of the crime scene. Apparently, chuck and Ryan went to a bar and went home. Chuck says a couple years later, he dreamed that they did this crime. Friends told on him, which led to this interrogation. Ryan contends they went home and has never changed his story.

this is Ryan's interrogation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5McAuB6zhH0

Important to note, these interrogations went on for hours, not just these small clips shown. With these two suspects, I'd say Chuck is like AK and Ryan is like RS in the sense that AK went ahead and caved and made up something. RS has not done that.

Check out these:

http://www.falseconfessions.org/cases-the-incarcerated

http://www.falseconfessions.org/cases-the-exonerated

I'm leery right now of giving my reasons for their innocence because I feel I haven't thoroughly studied the case. But I do have some reasons. I can get them together for you.

This is the case of Ryan Ferguson which I have followed for some time and am amazed that the prosecutor which is now a judge took this to trial

 

[otto]

<snip>
The only misleading statements are the ones that are in the article and in your post. If you think I am being harsh I am. I am totally sick and tired of the erroneous, false and misleading information posted with respect to the DNA

I'm not sure I understand. Are you suggesting that it is "erroneous, false and misleading" to believe that the DNA tests completed by Dr Stefanoni are valid?

 

[otto]

I am stating that the amount was TOO LOW to get a VALID PROFILE

Doesn't it seem awfully coincidental that the results are a match to Meredith, with the only difference being that the graphed results have lower numbers than Meredith's DNA ... which is to be expected since it's LNC DNA?

 

[Allusonz]

I'm not sure I understand. Are you suggesting that it is "erroneous, false and misleading" to believe that the DNA tests completed by Dr Stefanoni are valid?

yes that is what i am saying. If contamination occurs in the collection process you must toss that piece and the list goes on

 

[Allusonz]

I'm not sure I understand. Are you suggesting that it is "erroneous, false and misleading" to believe that the DNA tests completed by Dr Stefanoni are valid?

A forensic expert does not scrape off bloody footprints then try and replace them the next day. The tile should be lifted or the print cut out etc etc etc

 

[otto]

yes that is what i am saying. If contamination occurs in the collection process you must toss that piece and the list goes on

Contamination hasn't been demonstrated yet, but maybe the experts in Rome will come up with something. The only DNA from Raffaele in the cottage, other than the clasp, was on the cigarette in the kitchen. That was collected early on. If the clasp was contaminated while it was on the floor of the bedroom, where did the DNA come from?

 

[Allusonz]

I'm not sure I understand. Are you suggesting that it is "erroneous, false and misleading" to believe that the DNA tests completed by Dr Stefanoni are valid?

A forensic expert does not state on the stand that there was suffiecient DNA to test when you have a piece of paper in your hand that states

Too Low
Too Low
Too Low
Too Low
Too Low

That is perjury

 

[wasnt_me]

This is not a complete list because I have not studied the case thoroughly, and because I'm typing this up on the fly.

I. There was a real break-in.

I'm contending that there was a real break-in based on the evidence. Part of my reasoning comes from independent study I did at studying pictures of broken windows, reading about how glass falls when they are broken, Hendry's analysis of the breakage of the window in question, a report that concluded it was staged, and my own observations of the window in question (from pictures)

A. There is sufficient evidence to conclude that RG was a burglar.
B. There is sufficient evidence that Rudy burgled with rocks before and that he has somehow gotten into a high window before after using a rock.
C. There is sufficient evidence that RG carried knives and threatened a homeowner with a knife, so it's reasonable that he'd make another knife threat on MK.
D. RG had a need to burgle because he was in threat of eviction.
E. There is sufficient evidence that RG didn't seem to regard whether anyone was in the place he burgled. He came in on a homeowner and threatened him with a knife to get him to open the front door. He encountered the woman at the nursery after he'd broken in there, and the boys downstairs at the cottage (I think and correct me if I'm wrong) said they discovered him sleeping on their sofa.

F. It was a good weekend to burgle. If he needed money to pay his rent or whatever, then the timing is right. He'd been burgling all month, so it really doesn't matter, but if this was a hoilday weekend when a lot of students were vacating the area, it's a good time for it. Even better if he happened to know from the residents of the cottage that 8 people would not be around, or at least not 4 men he'd have to fight, for sure.

G. Totally my conjecture, and I don't know if it's fact, but I'm going along with the assumption that he knew RF collected all the ladies' rent monies and therefore believed that it would be in RF's room somewhere. This is the same room that he used as a point of entry to the house. This is the only ransacked room (besides murder room).

H. we cannot say for certain the condition RF left her room in, what her idea of clean means, whether she locked all three layers of the window, or if she did or did not significantly (though accidentally) alter the crime scene as she checked around to see if anything was missing. We also don't know anything about the rent money to my knowledge (wonder if the landlord got paid at all that month? I didn't after my break in at my rental.) I don't believe FR is lying about anything, but I do believe we have a lot of room here to guess on what she thinks clean is, because I don't believe all the stuff lining the walls got that way by ransacking.

I. Glass landed in large shards clear across the room, as seen in pictures notably on the blue rug. I also think it's very dumb for AK and RS to go outside and get a rock to do it inside when they could have just thrown it from the outside in. I will say it's possible they were dumb enough to go out there to do it that way, but then realized the green shutters were closed and went back into the house to open them, and then when back inside got lazy and just did it from inside, but that's a stretch for me. There is also a mark on the inner shutters and glass imbedded in the inner shutters on the side that faces the outdoors. This means that something HAD to hit those white shutters from the outdoors, OR the white shutters were open into the room already when something hit them from inside. If that's the case, I expect to see a collection of glass on FR's floor under that white shutter, because that would indicate that the inner shutter had blocked the glass from behind it. I'd also expect to see more glass on FR's clothes and the dresser located right there next to that open inner shutter.

J. For me, the rock's path looks logical. It hit the corner of that inner shutter on it's way in, caused its path to curve. It hit the black bag on the floor and tore the bag on the way to the floor. It landed and tiny bits of it fell to mark it's landing. I do not believe a simulator would purposely place that rock off to the side half in and half out of a bag, but I believe it would naturally land there after the inner shutter modified the direction in which it was travelling, which might have also slown the rock's speed down.

K. RG carried glass breaking tools. Was caught with a glass breaker from a bus. Once he climbed the lower window, he is at least shoulder height to the window sill. If he had an accomplice, this person could have helped him get higher without scuffing the wall, but there is one scuff mark on this wall. We cannot say definitively that RG put the scuff mark there, of course, but if he's at least shoulder height to the sill, getting in is just a matter of doing a pull-up.

L. There is evidence that RG manually broke out the glass along the bottom pane of the window, set it on the sill, reached up to unlatch the window and then pulled himself inside.There are pings in the glass which indicate a new break in the glass from a different direction, and that direction is from the inside of the room out. It was made by Rudy bending the glass toward him from outside the room. Hope that makes sense. When windows break, a lot of times, you will see spikes or shards around the hole. It is not usually a clean break across the bottom as we see in the pictures. RG broke those shards off so he could pull himself up without getting cut.

M. There is evidence of some grainy sand or something on top of some clothes by the window. theorists assert that it is dirt or pieces of the wall from the scuff mark RG made with his shoes. They theorize he stepped on the clothes while climbing in the room. There is also a cord right beneath the window that goes to the TV. They contend that he tripped on it, causing the cord to tighten and pull the TV backward against some boxes on the dresser. These mishaps could have caused FR's clothes to fall out of that cabinet. The rock flying into the room, busting back the white inner shutter, which in turns hits that dresser, also could have caused all those clothes to fall out of the dresser. All these vibrations also could have reasonably caused FR's laptop to become unbalanced and fall, getting glass on it. Or RG could have contemplated taking her laptop and got glass on it from his own clothes.

N. Glass outside. We'd expect some no matter how the window was broken from inside or out. but we have no proof either way.

O. RG might have had an accomplice other than the other suspects. Other Websleuther's need to help me here if I'm wrong, but I read RG saying something about meeting someone in a white car in that area that day. We also know that other unknown fingerprints were around and unknown DNA on the bra clasp, too. Another person involved will explain RG story that he heard something going on when he went to the bathroom. It's logical that his friend could have helped him into the window, RG then opened the front door for his friend, RG got juice and went to the bathroom, MK arrived home, screamed to find this other person in her room. RG heard it, and saw his friend fighting with her. His friend could have said that RG was the black dude, so he'll get blamed and then left. I don't know about that, since it makes no sense for G to rape her in that scenerio. "Oh, might as well since she's dying," just doesn't ring true to me. So I don't know about this accomplice thing, please don't debate me on it. I'm still thinking about that one.

​

Okay, I thought I was going to get this all in one post, but I gotta take a break and move onto the next things that cause me to believe innocence.

The reason the break-in is essential to me is that I believe it's essential to guilt or innocence. A real break-in means a real burglar.

 

[otto]

A forensic expert does not scrape off bloody footprints then try and replace them the next day. The tile should be lifted or the print cut out etc etc etc

I understand that Bremner thinks the tile should have been removed from the bathroom floor (which would very likely result in the destruction of the tile). I also know that during the investigation into the murder of Michelle Young, the linoleum was not lifted from the bathroom floor. Why would Bremner think that the floor has to be taken for analysis in Italy, but not in North Carolina, or anywhere else, for that matter?

 

[otto]

A forensic expert does not state on the stand that there was suffiecient DNA to test when you have a piece of paper in your hand that states

Too Low
Too Low
Too Low
Too Low
Too Low

That is pergury

Actually, it's not "pergury" (interesting ... I knew I'd seen that spelling somewhere before). Isn't it a spectacular coincidence that the DNA was a match?

Here are the actual results. It's a match. The blue lines are from the knife. Coincidence or science?