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

[sherlockh]

Police also said there were blood stains on the window frame and broken glass of Meredith?s bedroom.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article424024.ece


What of this? Are they saying 2 windows were broken out in the house? I haven't hardly read a thing about this. Is it true? Front door wide open and a second broken window does sound like another person involved, IF one went out the window and one went out the front door.

Early media reports were very confusing. Lot of errors and rumors that were simply not true. Even today you still see some inaccuracies. I would say, stay close to the source (the judges report). A few things I remember from earlier reports:
- MK had black hairs in her hand
- Blood on Filomena's broken window
- Loud voices heard from cottage around 2am
- AK seen in a laundromat with some guy
- A text message saying 'Meredith will die tonight'

None of these were true or not related to the murder. I am probably forgetting a few

 

[wasnt_me]

I fail to understand the CSI tv show comment. Do you mean those contending that AK and RS cleaned up their evidence but purposely left RG's are watching too many?

One fingerprint left in blood is not hard to see if you are intending to purposely clean a crime scene.

I really do challenge those who believe in this half-baked clean up to tell me how it is possible to clean every ounce of themselves, but leave RG's crap, leave a bloody footprint on a mat, leave RG's bloody footprints in the hallway, but clean their own, etc. Then, knowing they left only his evidence, not implicate him when grilled by police.

If you are of the mindset of cleaning up a murder scene, I doubt you will discriminate on what you clean up. If you are doing it to implicate a third party other than your accomplice, I doubt you'll leave his evidence, but wipe out all traces of your own. If you are trying to implicate that accomplice, I dn't understand why PL got implicated. If you are afraid to implicate RG, I'm not understanding why you didn't try harder to clean up his "crap" along with your own.

I further don't understand why anyone, even if they believe AK and RS did it, would hold onto this half-bake cleanup theory. There doesn't necessarily have to be an attempt to clean up to implicate AK and RS, does it?

 

[wasnt_me]

Early media reports were very confusing. Lot of errors and rumors that were simply not true. Even today you still see some inaccuracies. I would say, stay close to the source (the judges report). A few things I remember from earlier reports:
- MK had black hairs in her hand
- Blood on Filomena's broken window
- Loud voices heard from cottage around 2am
- AK seen in a laundromat with some guy
- A text message saying 'Meredith will die tonight'

None of these were true or not related to the murder. I am probably forgetting a few

This is interesting because I saw something that indeed looked like blood in pictures on FR's windowsill, but I never brought that up because I saw no real mention of it anywhere.

I understand they said they found African hair at the scene. Is this not true?

I also understand that the meredith will die text was indeed real, but referred to Gray's anatomy TV show or something like that.

As for loud voices and witness accounts of seeing things, I carry less weight to those anyways than I do something that can be proved.

Whether MK's window is also broken can be proved. Whether they found tissues or not can be proved.

 

[sherlockh]

I fail to understand the CSI tv show comment. Do you mean those contending that AK and RS cleaned up their evidence but purposely left RG's are watching too many?

One fingerprint left in blood is not hard to see if you are intending to purposely clean a crime scene.

I really do challenge those who believe in this half-baked clean up to tell me how it is possible to clean every ounce of themselves, but leave RG's crap, leave a bloody footprint on a mat, leave RG's bloody footprints in the hallway, but clean their own, etc. Then, knowing they left only his evidence, not implicate him when grilled by police.

If you are of the mindset of cleaning up a murder scene, I doubt you will discriminate on what you clean up. If you are doing it to implicate a third party other than your accomplice, I doubt you'll leave his evidence, but wipe out all traces of your own. If you are trying to implicate that accomplice, I dn't understand why PL got implicated. If you are afraid to implicate RG, I'm not understanding why you didn't try harder to clean up his "crap" along with your own.

I further don't understand why anyone, even if they believe AK and RS did it, would hold onto this half-bake cleanup theory.

You are trying to complicate things. There is no telling what they were thinking. IMO they left RG's shoe prints and crap because they thought that would go well with the staged break in. Implicate a stranger. It is easy to say from your chair behind the computer that you would have flushed the toilet (so would I). But these kids couldn't have been thinking all that clearly. I don't agree with assumptions that they cleaned all their evidence. They probably cleaned a few shoe or foot prints, and they forgot a few things. That is all there is to it.

 

[sherlockh]

This is interesting because I saw something that indeed looked like blood in pictures on FR's windowsill, but I never brought that up because I saw no real mention of it anywhere.

I understand they said they found African hair at the scene. Is this not true?

I also understand that the meredith will die text was indeed real, but referred to Gray's anatomy TV show or something like that.

As for loud voices and witness accounts of seeing things, I carry less weight to those anyways than I do something that can be proved.

Whether MK's window is also broken can be proved. Whether they found tissues or not can be proved.

There was no African hair. There was MK's hair in blood. MK's window was not broken and there indeed was a text message and bloody tissues outside but not related to the crime. I am going from memory so correct me if I am wrong

 

[wasnt_me]

From this picture, it appears that the balcony in the back might have been more viewable from the road than FR's window. Of course I do not know how the road behind there slopes.

I say "appears" so if there's other pictures to dispute that, let me know, but we were once discussing that the balcony was more secluded. This picture doesn't bear that out.

 

[wasnt_me]

You are trying to complicate things. There is no telling what they were thinking. IMO they left RG's shoe prints and crap because they thought that would go well with the staged break in. Implicate a stranger. It is easy to say from your chair behind the computer that you would have flushed the toilet (so would I). But these kids couldn't have been thinking all that clearly. I don't agree with assumptions that they cleaned all their evidence. They probably cleaned a few shoe or foot prints, and they forgot a few things. That is all there is to it.

Wow, so now I'm complicating things and it's easy for me to sit back in my chair behind the computer and say something. I wonder how this became about me?

In any event, it's people's lives at stake and one person has lost her life. So I will turn a fingernail over for an hour, discussing just it, if it helps get MK justice and helps convict the right people.

I am not the one who made the half-baked clean up theory. I am not the one who asserted the toilet wasn't flushed in an attempt to implicate RG. I'm merely discussing the verasity of those theories. If you didn't make the assertions, you don't have to defend them. If you don't have the answer for it, just say you don't, but don't attack me personally.

 

[wasnt_me]

There was no African hair. There was MK's hair in blood. MK's window was not broken and there indeed was a text message and bloody tissues outside but not related to the crime. I am going from memory so correct me if I am wrong

I have yet to come across independent information about the african hair or about MK's broken window, so that was a complete shock to me to read in that article. As well as the bloody tissues. I'd love to know where they came from.

 

[sherlockh]

Wow, so now I'm complicating things and it's easy for me to sit back in my chair behind the computer and say something. I wonder how this became about me?

In any event, it's people's lives at stake and one person has lost her life. So I will turn a fingernail over for an hour, discussing just it, if it helps get MK justice and helps convict the right people.

I am not the one who made the half-baked clean up theory. I am not the one who asserted the toilet wasn't flushed in an attempt to implicate RG. I'm merely discussing the verasity of those theories. If you didn't make the assertions, you don't have to defend them. If you don't have the answer for it, just say you don't, but don't attack me personally.

Sorry, I didn't mean anything personal. When I say 'you' this was meant in general.

 

[Allusonz]

Oh, I got another question and I cannot remember where I read this from, so please bear with it.

I read somewhere that they found some bloody tissues in the murder room and outside somewhere, but blood didn't match suspects. What does anyone know of this?

And I really need to try to find where I read that, of course.

Very difficult to match DNA if you close the case within a few days and take no others DNA etc

As for the stuff in the toilet I believe it sunk to the bottom

 

[wasnt_me]

Sorry, I didn't mean anything personal. When I say 'you' this was meant in general.

It's okay. I think the "you're trying to complicate things" got me, but just so you know, I'm in bed on my laptop, not at a chair at a computer. :innocent:

 

[Allusonz]

Wow, so now I'm complicating things and it's easy for me to sit back in my chair behind the computer and say something. I wonder how this became about me?

In any event, it's people's lives at stake and one person has lost her life. So I will turn a fingernail over for an hour, discussing just it, if it helps get MK justice and helps convict the right people.

I am not the one who made the half-baked clean up theory. I am not the one who asserted the toilet wasn't flushed in an attempt to implicate RG. I'm merely discussing the verasity of those theories. If you didn't make the assertions, you don't have to defend them. If you don't have the answer for it, just say you don't, but don't attack me personally.

You are not complicating things. You are trying to come to a determination of what your belief is with respect to the information that is available just as all of us have done but maybe some of us forget that we went through the same process. Your advantage is many of us have already had the ability to filter alot of the fiction out. So dont twiddle your nails or I might be forced to get another supply of red wine. Flourish was going to pull her nails off and I thought it might be more soothing to relax with a glass of wine rather than injure herself :giggle:

 

[Allusonz]

I have yet to come across independent information about the african hair or about MK's broken window, so that was a complete shock to me to read in that article. As well as the bloody tissues. I'd love to know where they came from.

I have seen alot of theories with respect to the bloody tissues but I dont recall that issue being resolved. I need to think back in my memory a bit on this one

 

[Allusonz]

From this picture, it appears that the balcony in the back might have been more viewable from the road than FR's window. Of course I do not know how the road behind there slopes.

I say "appears" so if there's other pictures to dispute that, let me know, but we were once discussing that the balcony was more secluded. This picture doesn't bear that out.

That as well was my take on it. I would think those windows would be easily viewed from the road compared to Filomena's window which I would consider to be a big detterent

 

[Allusonz]

Ah-ha! What's all that about? Could it be RG's unknown accomplice that I so desperately want him to have had? Mark my words, I'm gonna find a way to get him another accomplice!

:waitasec:

Weird. I have always thought that there was someone else besides RG yet I cant seem to come up with anything to support that idea

 

[wasnt_me]

You are not complicating things. You are trying to come to a determination of what your belief is with respect to the information that is available just as all of us have done but maybe some of us forget that we went through the same process. Your advantage is many of us have already had the ability to filter alot of the fiction out. So dont twiddle your nails or I might be forced to get another supply of red wine. Flourish was going to pull her nails off and I thought it might be more soothing to relax with a glass of wine rather than injure herself :giggle:

I know I can probably be frustrating because everyone else is more imersed. Going back over the threads occasionally, I see names of some of you who seemed to be posting from the start.

What I do hope, though, is that my newness can bring a fresh eye to old evidence. I see that it did happen once, because Otto hadn't seemed aware or had forgotten that the window in FR's room had that inner white panel.

I don't know if I'm helping the conversation or not. It seems though, that for all 9 threads, boardmembers are still debating and having to cite the same details again and again as if they'd never heard them before.

 

[wasnt_me]

Weird. I have always thought that there was someone else besides RG yet I cant seem to come up with anything to support that idea

I just believe RG's first statement has a little truth to it. I can't help it. I don't know why. I just believe that he, having no reason to protect AK and RS, would have just implicated them, and not some sandy haired man. I believe that AK would have implicated him, not PL. So it's like RG is the spoke of the wheel and the answer to the case. I'm obsessed with everything about what he did that day because of that.

RG, who we definitely know was there, had what, a week , to think up something? And I personally think one makes up stories close to the truth, if they were there. But that's my opinion not proven by anything. If they weren't there and are lying, then of course, they won't know details to say unless it had been somehow fed to them by news or officials.

I'm guessing that RG had to have gotten some reports about the murder beforehand, but I don't know when reports started to implicate AK and RS in the news for him to have seen while in germany.

Unlike others, I don't hold to the "thick as thieves" rule that these people would not have turned on each other right away. I have to try to put myself in that mindset to come up with reasons not to. I completely understand why lovers would not turn on each other, but who is this RG to the couple that they wouldn't flip on him to save themselves, but instead implicate PL? I don't get that.

I guess I understand Otto's argument that they don't want to bring RG up, just in case no one finds him on their own, but that just doesn't ring true in light of the clean up theory. In light of the clean up theory that still leave's RG's evidence, I have to think that was done on purpose, because I can't believe you cleaned up every trace of yourself seen and unseen, but in the process, none of RG's seen evidence unless you want to blame it on him later. I cann't believe you did a rush clean up job, that just happened to get rid of all your own evidence, but then you return later to seperately clean RG's, but are interrupted by Postal police. Doesn't make sense.

If we all can agree there was no clean up, then I can accept what Otto says about the reason they didn't turn on RG. I don't agree with this, but it's plausible.

But if it were me--just me no one else--if they're telling me I'm going 30 years up the river on this, I'm sorry, I'm telling on RG if I know it. But like I said, that's just me. I wouldn't tell on PL if I knew about RG. However, there's no telling what I'd really do because I've never been in that situation. It's an extraordinary situation, but what I get from it is first, AK goes with PL with herself hearing the crime. She doesn't involve RS. Why? obviously to me, to protect him. She'd rather implicate herself than RS. Then she comes up with the dream thing about maybe RS put the knife in her hand while asleep. She knows she didn't do the crime, but here she is presented with this DNA on handle and blade, trying to make sense of how it occured. She knows she was asleep with RS in his house. So she can't come up with anything more plausible than what she did, unless she decided she'd been sleepwalking.

Even when RS decides he doesn't know where AK was that night, she doesn't say I was at his house, and he was the one who left. Or something like that. See what I'm saying? she doesn't appear, from my understanding, to hardcore turn on him. I mean, it's hard to second guess them, but I'm just trying to imagine why things went the way they went. In the process, you might see me make some conjectures. Please don't see it as complicating things. Just ignore my conjectures.

 

[wasnt_me]

Oh, I had forgotten what I was talking about.

Off the top of my head, conjecture with no facts, I believe in this accomplice for these reasons:

1. RG's first story where he blames the light haired man.
2. Prison mate story that RG denies, but sounds similiar to RG's first story, but has RG now in the room with the MK.
3. These bloody tissues that we don't know where they came from whose DNA it is, but were found near a murder scene.
4. Unidentified DNA in MK's room.
5. Could help explain how RG got up the wall without scuff marks.
6. Could help explain how the crime escalated. RG's crimes hadn't escalated yet that we know of, but if accomplice was wandering the house when MK got home and RG was in the bathroom, RG had no control over what accomplice was doing with MK. He could have felt the need to rush in and help friend, who was in the middle of a fight, but then friend ran out on him. I don't really buy this theory myself, because then the sexual assault makes no sense. I can't see why a person who is shocked that their friend attacked someone in the house they were about to rob would then get an itch to rape.

I just don't know and we don't have enough, I don't think, to concoct a second unknown accomplice coming along with RG.

 

[Allusonz]

I just believe RG's first statement has a little truth to it. I can't help it. I don't know why. I just believe that he, having no reason to protect AK and RS, would have just implicated them, and not some sandy haired man. I believe that AK would have implicated him, not PL. So it's like RG is the spoke of the wheel and the answer to the case. I'm obsessed with everything about what he did that day because of that.

RG, who we definitely know was there, had what, a week , to think up something? And I personally think one makes up stories close to the truth, if they were there. But that's my opinion not proven by anything. If they weren't there and are lying, then of course, they won't know details to say unless it had been somehow fed to them by news or officials.

I'm guessing that RG had to have gotten some reports about the murder beforehand, but I don't know when reports started to implicate AK and RS in the news for him to have seen while in germany.

Unlike others, I don't hold to the "thick as thieves" rule that these people would not have turned on each other right away. I have to try to put myself in that mindset to come up with reasons not to. I completely understand why lovers would not turn on each other, but who is this RG to the couple that they wouldn't flip on him to save themselves, but instead implicate PL? I don't get that.

I guess I understand Otto's argument that they don't want to bring RG up, just in case no one finds him on their own, but that just doesn't ring true in light of the clean up theory. In light of the clean up theory that still leave's RG's evidence, I have to think that was done on purpose, because I can't believe you cleaned up every trace of yourself seen and unseen, but in the process, none of RG's seen evidence unless you want to blame it on him later. I cann't believe you did a rush clean up job, that just happened to get rid of all your own evidence, but then you return later to seperately clean RG's, but are interrupted by Postal police. Doesn't make sense.

If we all can agree there was no clean up, then I can accept what Otto says about the reason they didn't turn on RG. I don't agree with this, but it's plausible.

But if it were me--just me no one else--if they're telling me I'm going 30 years up the river on this, I'm sorry, I'm telling on RG if I know it. But like I said, that's just me. I wouldn't tell on PL if I knew about RG. However, there's no telling what I'd really do because I've never been in that situation. It's an extraordinary situation, but what I get from it is first, AK goes with PL with herself hearing the crime. She doesn't involve RS. Why? obviously to me, to protect him. She'd rather implicate herself than RS. Then she comes up with the dream thing about maybe RS put the knife in her hand while asleep. She knows she didn't do the crime, but here she is presented with this DNA on handle and blade, trying to make sense of how it occured. She knows she was asleep with RS in his house. So she can't come up with anything more plausible than what she did, unless she decided she'd been sleepwalking.

Even when RS decides he doesn't know where AK was that night, she doesn't say I was at his house, and he was the one who left. Or something like that. See what I'm saying? she doesn't appear, from my understanding, to hardcore turn on him. I mean, it's hard to second guess them, but I'm just trying to imagine why things went the way they went. In the process, you might see me make some conjectures. Please don't see it as complicating things. Just ignore my conjectures.

One other thing to remember is that RS did not know RG at all and RS was not allowed to see a lawyer till his first hearing.

 

[Allusonz]

In theory, yes. But as in correcting Allusonz' spelling, calling you on this was petty and unnecessary. I'm afraid ILE's screw ups are so many, those trying to defend the verdicts are left to pick at people's grammar and spelling.

Thanks!!! I would love to say my brain is going faster than my keyboarding but alas my typing speed is probably faster than my brain speed. Must be the blonde in me :giggle: