10/14 thru 11/11 [Archive] - In Session Message Boards

KnoxCase

10-14-2009, 01:01 PM

I came across a site that deals with the science of the knife wounds and blood patterns.

Be warned- It has very graphic visuals of the wounds.

Alternate Theorys- Perugia Murder

What is interesting is the scenario also agreed its most likely one attacker from behind with logical and believable inputs. The victim in the kowtow position.

The murder and blood associated to the crime, everywhere near the victim is fact.

No other footprints, no other fingerprints, nothing of multiple attackers are in this room....it would be impossible for multiple attackers, in this bloody up close event, to not leave anything, not even the other "attackers' be covered in blood. Nothing of bloody clothing of the accused was found either. They went through the room and Rafaele's and nothing was found, Amandas clothes were also found to be clean.

If somehow people can fantasize, and place other humans in this murder scene, as Mignini trys, you have a better imagination than I.

Also the mystery of someone holding Merediths arm has been mentioned (again without leaving any evidence on her) is logically explained at this site too.

More believable is she was holding herself up with one arm, from the floor. The other arm free most likely. No one was holding it and standing beside her in the puddle of the blood.

It was one attacker, from behind, imo.

Michael

10-14-2009, 01:02 PM

Hey Michael,
You stated that Amanda was not asked to 'imagine' in the interrogation... but it was mentioned more than once that she 'imagined'
that Patrick was there. Right???

Hi Dgfred,

Indeed, but there is a huge difference between imagining something off your own back and then telling your imaginings to police as fact and actually being asked to imagine 'by' the police. My point was, that the police did not ask her to 'imagine', they asked her to try and remember. It has however been a claim made by Amanda's family that she was 'told' to imagine be the police. This isn't true.

dgfred

10-14-2009, 01:04 PM

KnoxCase

10-14-2009, 01:08 PM

Hey Michael,
You stated that Amanda was not asked to 'imagine' in the interrogation... but it was mentioned more than once that she 'imagined'
that Patrick was there. Right???

the interrogation is only corruption, sadly enough.
listen to none of it as it wasn't a fair interrogation.

instead it was done in the dark, with no legal representation.

they should be ashamed, imo. it's like the waterboarding incident.

a mental railroad job from hell.....unless you've been thru it, an average person cannot comprehend it.

watch the Michael Crowe film I posted here. Its just one example of this theory of finding the truth.

some feel it is a "fair" way to operate and treat people, others want it abolished (like myself).

If it were filmed, then I could make a better decision of fact on this matter.

But unfortunately, the secret police interrogators chose not to film it, chose not to allow legal representation of the accused, and chose to pressure and coerce the kid to say whatever they wanted.

only then was it over.

its a crime, imo.

dgfred

10-14-2009, 01:14 PM

But over half the stuff Amanda has written and said are not supported by facts... not just the police interrogation is what is questioned.

Michael

10-14-2009, 01:16 PM

KnoxCase -

You neglected to mention that the author of the site you mention is a laymen with no more medical knowledege then you or I and also happens to believe that Guede, Knox, Sollecito are all completely innocent. He unstead believes that the murder was in fact carried out by a deranged gang of Albanian mafia (one of whom was bow legged) and that this fact is being covered up by the whole gambit of Italian authorities and agencies in order to hide the fact that they are having a problem with Albanians. This individual is well known on the Meredith Kercher case Internet sphere for being, to put it kindly...'eccentric' and most give him a very wide birth. Worse, he insists on constantly posting photopgraphs of Meredith's injuries that Meredith's family fought hard to have the Italian courts rule that they cannot be published and can only be shown in court behind closed doors, to protect the dignity of the victim. Of course, if you find him in any way credible, or tasteful...that's your choice I suppose.

Michael

10-14-2009, 01:25 PM

the interrogation is only corruption, sadly enough.
listen to none of it as it wasn't a fair interrogation.

instead it was done in the dark, with no legal representation."

It was nothing like that KnoxCase. Amanda was questioned in the police station's public waiting room, she was hardly dragged off to the dungeons and tortured with thumbscrews. She was also being questioned as a 'witness'...since when are witnesses required to have a lawyer present?

The second time she spoke to police that night was at her 'own' insistance. She demanded to be heard. Prosecutor Mignini had to be dragged out of his bed at 3 am in order to accommodate her demand to be heard. In this case, it wasn't an interrogation, it wasn't even a questioning session, it was a 'statement'...she wanted to be heard, she talked, they listened. It was in giving this statement, Amanda gave the detailed story of how Patrick raped and murdered Meredith. The police didn't even ask for this statement. They wanted to go to bed.

I fail to see where the water boarding comes in or how it even compares to it.

Michael

10-14-2009, 01:27 PM

But over half the stuff Amanda has written and said are not supported by facts... not just the police interrogation is what is questioned.

Well, that's right...she's told a lot of lies.

KnoxCase

10-14-2009, 01:36 PM

It is much too difficult to explain away the conflicting/changing alibis and the conflicting/lying stories both Amanda and Raf have told. Why would Rudi clean up other's footprints/stains and leave his own? Question meant for knoxcase.

there was no cleanup in the bedroom. thats false. it was too bloody, the cleanup would have been too noticeable. we cannot forget these are supposedly stoned college kids, not professional forensic trained mafia hit men.

if you mean in the bathroom, I don't know, but I don't see any possibility some stoned college kids can precisely clean up them self and leave others, without being obvious. Its more speculation.
It definately wasn't Amandas footprint.

- clean-up?...the mop and bucket were found to be clean, and the forensic lab surely went thru it with a perfection.

- Rudy explains a bloody towel scene, he states he was in there 2 times at least. I suspect the footprint is his. Its not Amandas.

- Obviously Amandas DNA is everywhere in the bathroom, especially a sink. Yours is too most likely.

I guess due to focusing only on the prosecutions case, they didn't check everything for the other residents DNA, and footprints, and other girls footprints all over the cottage. Defense side said they didn't check the guitar and other items for her fingerprinys...there would be no reason for her to clean-up, she lived there...Rafaele was a guest.

if your asking me for answers your asking someone who doesn't know!
I'm just reading articles myself, and coming to my own conclusions.
I've jumped from guilty to innocent to guilty to innocent....but as this case winds down, I am leaning heavily for one attacker, Rudy. and recently, agree he was standing behind her when he made the fatal blow. To silence her, as throat attacks are known for. I don't believe the Left Hand theory, yet...it could have been right hand.

I know I'm a minority here, but it's still somewhat open minded and decent, but I don't have any answers...I only recommend people do their own searches and use the court documents as much as possible, pictures not media articles. The media like always is very biased for the most part.

Motive: Robbery....Rudy thought the cottage was to be empty. He didn't have a cellphone, cellphones were taken, he needed money for rent it was the new month, he didn't have a job,...he was on record for breaking and entering and carrying knifes... I don't buy his "date" scene as Merediths friends testified hours before her murder she said nothing of a "date" and had told them she was tired and going to study, which is why she borrowed Amandas lamp....

I'm unclear whether he was in the cottage when Meredith came in, or if he put a knife to her throat in the driveway and forced/followed her into the cottage at 9pm.

thats my interest...will probably never know obviously.

dgfred

10-14-2009, 01:42 PM

Bloody footprint on bathroom mat, couldn't have been the only one and others had to lead up to it... somebody cleaned it up and the print wasn't the size of Rudi's foot anyway.

Why is there a footprint of Rudi's shoe, but other bloody footprints are from bare feet?

What about the broken window glass 'on top' of Filomena's clothes?

I'm VERY suspicious of both their cell phones being turned off and their changing alibis.

KnoxCase

10-14-2009, 01:48 PM

It was nothing like that KnoxCase. Amanda was questioned in the police station's public waiting room, she was hardly dragged off to the dungeons and tortured with thumbscrews. She was also being questioned as a 'witness'...since when are witnesses required to have a lawyer present?

The second time she spoke to police that night was at her 'own' insistance. She demanded to be heard. Prosecutor Mignini had to be dragged out of his bed at 3 am in order to accommodate her demand to be heard. In this case, it wasn't an interrogation, it wasn't even a questioning session, it was a 'statement'...she wanted to be heard, she talked, they listened. It was in giving this statement, Amanda gave the detailed story of how Patrick raped and murdered Meredith. The police didn't even ask for this statement. They wanted to go to bed.

I fail to see where the water boarding comes in or how it even compares to it.

you can say that not being there.

the fact is numerous people all say the same story...the interrogations were kept in private "in the dark", and no legal representation was offered or allowed per Raffaele. Even Patrick said it was pressured and scary....Amanda said the same thing. Preston, Spezi....even the Manager for Led Zepplin in his book talks of this pressured coerced interrogation method as I posted. I have heard of it here in the states too. It goes on, this is not a new thing. Amanda just said the way it was, the way she felt, and even apologized for the interrogators.

film it.
thats all I'm saying.

if its so innocent, film it. its unfortunate they didn't film it, its unfortunate a neutral party wasn't there. she asked to call her mom they said "no", per her story.

Raffaele was Italian, he asked for help and they refused him, as I read it.

I admit I'm biased because as I said I know for a fact the deals that are made here too, interrogations threats, its scary as hell.
Most people cave in and sign papers to go home, to get away from the situation.

thats my 2 cents...

I fail to see Edgardo Giobbi as a "one stop" guilty or innocent " verdict shop as he claims interrogations are.

I fail to believe the police on this one subject. Video cameras are cheap, they were more than witnesses in reality, they were phone tapping them (not everyone else).... they should have filmed it!!

this debate wouldn't even be going on.

filming can help the police too, in cases like this.

the connection to waterboarding is if we pressure, threaten and scare people, they'll tell us anything we want them to.

have you watched the Michael Crowe video posted here....it shows an example of police interrogation, just as this case states. eerily similar.

its not anti-police either...a fearless policeman and detective and DA is what freed the innocent kid.

Michael

10-14-2009, 01:53 PM

there was no cleanup in the bedroom. thats false. it was too bloody, the cleanup would have been too noticeable. we cannot forget these are supposedly stoned college kids, not professional forensic trained mafia hit men.

But there are clear signs of cleaning and staging in the bedroom. First of all, there the disrobing and moving of the body. Second of all, the staging of items on the bed. Thirdly, there are Guede's trainer prints in the centre of the room, but none leading to the doorway to exit, at whioch point in the corridor his bloody prints start again. Unless he levitated out of the room, some of his prints were cleaned (collateral damage while others were attempting to clean their own traces perhaps). Fourtn, there is the positioning of Meredith's bedside lamp on the floor at the head of the bed and Amanda Knox's bedside lamp placed on the floor at the foot of the bed. The police believe these were to illuminate a particular area of floor for careful cleaning.

if you mean in the bathroom, I don't know, but I don't see any possibility some stoned college kids can precisely clean up them self and leave others, without being obvious. Its more speculation.
It definately wasn't Amandas footprint.

Well, they weren't precise. Traces were left. There's print that matches Amanda's size and doesn't match Rudy's size or shoe, on the pillow. Then there's the bra clasp that was cut off Meredith's body post death with a knife and has both Raffaele's and Amanda's (very low in her case) DNA on it. There is also a variety of bloody prints in the room that cannopt be read because they're too smudged. Some of those could also potentially have been left by Amanda and Raffaele.

- clean-up?...the mop and bucket were found to be clean, and the forensic lab surely went thru it with a perfection.

There's a whole host of ways to clean. I often clean and own a mop and bucket, but I rarely actually use those.

Jester

10-14-2009, 01:58 PM

No, Amanda wasn't an Erasmus student. Amanda went to the University of Strangers. It was basically a language college and was not arranged via UW. It was fully arranged by Amanda herself. Meredith was an Erasmus student (only Europeans are eligible for Erasmus courses anyway) and she went to the University, not the language college Amanda went to.

Thanks for that clarification. Haven't Amanda's family, or someone related to her, been saying that she was a scholarship recipient? Did her parents think that she was?

dgfred

10-14-2009, 02:01 PM

Does anyone know for sure about the 'leak' anyway? Was it pasta overflowing or a busted pipe... is there any evidence pointing one way or the other about whether this was true or not?

Michael

10-14-2009, 02:05 PM

the fact is numerous people all say the same story...the interrogations were kept in private "in the dark", and no legal representation was offered or allowed per Raffaele. Even Patrick said it was pressured and scary....Amanda said the same thing. Preston, Spezi....even the Manager for Led Zepplin in his book talks of this pressured coerced interrogation method as I posted. I have heard of it here in the states too. It goes on, this is not a new thing. Amanda just said the way it was, the way she felt, and even apologized for the interrogators.

What interrogations are held in public? I am sure it's scary to be questioned by police in a murder enquiry, but murder is a serious buisness and most people who commit murders don't want to own up or be caught. It seems to me you are questioning the whole manner of policing in general and then applying it all to this case.

The fact is, they were being questioned as 'wtnesses', they were giving witness statements. People do not have lawyers present when they're giving witness statements. I really don't see the foul here.

I fail to believe the police on this one subject. Video cameras are cheap, they were more than witnesses in reality, they were phone tapping them (not everyone else).... they should have filmed it!!

Witnesses, except in some extreme exceptions are not filmed. There's a whole host of privacy issues here.

In any case, I don't see the point in going on and on about this. Under Italian law, statements made as a 'witness' can be used against others but not the self. Therefore, Amanda's first statement of the 5th is not admissible in this trial. At the end of that statement, she was a formal 'suspect' and statements by suspects cannot be used either against the self or others if a lawyer isn't present, as one wasn't in this case. So, the second statement is also not a part of this trial. However, the statement she wrote and signed in her prison cell and insisted on handing over to police is admissable, both against herself and others.

What is certain therefore, is that if Amanda Knox is convicted of murder in this trial, it will not be as a result of statements she made in the early days of the case, but rather the evidence and clues that have been amassed against her since that time.

Michael

10-14-2009, 02:07 PM

Does anyone know for sure about the 'leak' anyway? Was it pasta overflowing or a busted pipe... is there any evidence pointing one way or the other about whether this was true or not?

No, except for the both the accused saying there was and the pipe under Raffaele's sink was found to be broken, but that was several days after the murder.

Michael

10-14-2009, 02:08 PM

Thanks for that clarification. Haven't Amanda's family, or someone related to her, been saying that she was a scholarship recipient? Did her parents think that she was?

Yes, I think she had a scholarship, but I can't swear to it. She was supposedly an honours srudent.

Jester

10-14-2009, 02:49 PM

you can say that not being there.

the fact is numerous people all say the same story...the interrogations were kept in private "in the dark", and no legal representation was offered or allowed per Raffaele. Even Patrick said it was pressured and scary....Amanda said the same thing. Preston, Spezi....even the Manager for Led Zepplin in his book talks of this pressured coerced interrogation method as I posted. I have heard of it here in the states too. It goes on, this is not a new thing. Amanda just said the way it was, the way she felt, and even apologized for the interrogators.

film it.
thats all I'm saying.

if its so innocent, film it. its unfortunate they didn't film it, its unfortunate a neutral party wasn't there. she asked to call her mom they said "no", per her story.

Raffaele was Italian, he asked for help and they refused him, as I read it.

I admit I'm biased because as I said I know for a fact the deals that are made here too, interrogations threats, its scary as hell.
Most people cave in and sign papers to go home, to get away from the situation.

thats my 2 cents...

I fail to see Edgardo Giobbi as a "one stop" guilty or innocent " verdict shop as he claims interrogations are.

I fail to believe the police on this one subject. Video cameras are cheap, they were more than witnesses in reality, they were phone tapping them (not everyone else).... they should have filmed it!!

this debate wouldn't even be going on.

filming can help the police too, in cases like this.

the connection to waterboarding is if we pressure, threaten and scare people, they'll tell us anything we want them to.

have you watched the Michael Crowe video posted here....it shows an example of police interrogation, just as this case states. eerily similar.

its not anti-police either...a fearless policeman and detective and DA is what freed the innocent kid.

Richard Cole, the Zeppelin manager that you've mentioned a couple of times, was arrested for suspected terrorism in Rome. Suspected terrorists are in their own category when it comes to questioning, a category that indeed includes waterboarding. That case has nothing to do with the investigation and questioning of suspects in Meredith's murder. That said, Richard Cole still didn't confess. Amanda did.

Jester

10-14-2009, 03:18 PM

Yes, I think she had a scholarship, but I can't swear to it. She was supposedly an honours srudent.

This doesn't make sense. If she was not affiliated with the University of Washington when she went to the language college in Perugia, who could have awarded her a scholarship? If she was taking a leave, then the scholarship would have been given to someone that was a student.

Michael

10-14-2009, 03:22 PM

This doesn't make sense. If she was not affiliated with the University of Washington when she went to the language college in Perugia, who could have awarded her a scholarship? If she was taking a leave, then the scholarship would have been given to someone that was a student.

No, if there was a scholarship it was for the UW, not for studying in Perugia. That had to all come out of her own pocket.

Jester

10-14-2009, 03:23 PM

Does anyone know for sure about the 'leak' anyway? Was it pasta overflowing or a busted pipe... is there any evidence pointing one way or the other about whether this was true or not?

I read somewhere the the pipe had broken before and that Raffaele had it repaired. Apparently it broke again on the night of the murder. Rather than wipe up the water, Raffaele and Amanda decided to get stoned, watch a movie ... and then walk back and forth through town with a mop the following day. Some people that really need a mop would buy one for a few dollars rather than walk around town with a mop.

Jester

10-14-2009, 03:25 PM

No, if there was a scholarship it was for the UW, not for studying in Perugia. That had to all come out of her own pocket.

Right, but she would not be awarded a scholarship if she was on leave from the University. If she took a leave, then the scholarship for attending UW would be suspended. Are you saying that she may have received a scholarship to attend UW when she finished high school?

Michael

10-14-2009, 03:28 PM

I read somewhere the the pipe had broken before and that Raffaele had it repaired. Apparently it broke again on the night of the murder. Rather than wipe up the water, Raffaele and Amanda decided to get stoned, watch a movie ... and then walk back and forth through town with a mop the following day. Some people that really need a mop would buy one for a few dollars rather than walk around town with a mop.

Well, Raffaele's plumber was scheduled to testify during the trial, supposedly to testify that Raffaele's sink had leaked on previous occassions and that Raffaele had requested a plumber very shortly before the 1st Nov. Yet, either he was a no show, or the defence decided not to put him on the stand. It was never explained why he never testified. One can read more into it.

Michael

10-14-2009, 03:30 PM

Right, but she would not be awarded a scholarship if she was on leave from the University. If she took a leave, then the scholarship for attending UW would be suspended. Are you saying that she may have received a scholarship to attend UW when she finished high school?

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

Jester

10-14-2009, 03:54 PM

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

That makes sense. She received a UW scholarship for one year at UW, but she was not on scholarship while in Perugia. Universities usually have loads of money for students that study overseas ... everything from research grants to travel grants. When taking part in University endorsed study abroad program, it's pretty easy to put together $10,000-$15,000 in grants and scholarships. Either Amanda was not eligible for that money, or she really did want to distance herself from any kind of structured, monitored program.

Michael

10-14-2009, 04:31 PM

That makes sense. She received a UW scholarship for one year at UW, but she was not on scholarship while in Perugia. Universities usually have loads of money for students that study overseas ... everything from research grants to travel grants. When taking part in University endorsed study abroad program, it's pretty easy to put together $10,000-$15,000 in grants and scholarships. Either Amanda was not eligible for that money, or she really did want to distance herself from any kind of structured, monitored program.

I'm not the one to ask about this, but I'm guessing maybe those grants are only given per UW policy to students when studying in one of their study abroad programs. What I know for sure, is that the UW doesn't have a study abroad program in Perugia (which is a little strange considering Perugia and Seattle are twinned cities).

lane99

10-14-2009, 04:38 PM

...Richard Cole still didn't confess. Amanda did.

It appears you are suggesting that people can not be coerced by police into making false confessions. If so, you are wrong.

Jester

10-14-2009, 04:49 PM

It appears you are suggesting that people can not be coerced by police into making false confessions. If so, you are wrong.

Amanda voluntarily wrote a statement implicating Patrick and much more. She gave that statement to police, calling it a gift. It was indeed the gift they needed to put her in jail. There was no coercion when she wrote that statement. No one forced her to voluntarily make a false confession. She wrote it freely and without solicitation. End of story.

Any information given prior to being a suspect is inadmissible in court, so it doesn't really matter what she said when she claims she was coerced to make a false confession. Those confessions are not part of the proceedings.

Michael

10-14-2009, 04:51 PM

It appears you are suggesting that people can not be coerced by police into making false confessions. If so, you are wrong.

You mean false 'accusation' right?

I also don't see how Amanda could possibly have been coeced when she demanded off her own back to be heard again and had Mignini dragged out of his bed to come in to hear what she had to say. It was 'then' that she gave all of the damning details against Patrick and her part in it. The first interview was halted as soon as she named Patrick as the murderer, at which point she was officially a suspect. If there was 'any' coercion, although highly unlikely (it just doesn't fit) it would have had to have been in that first session. Therefore, that leaves the second session when she gave her voluntary statement completely unexplained from an innocence perspective.

lane99

10-14-2009, 04:52 PM

No, except for the both the accused saying there was and the pipe under Raffaele's sink was found to be broken, but that was several days after the murder.

Actually, the answer to both his/her questions is "yes". Yes, there are people who know for sure. And, yes, there is also evidence that there was a leak. The broken pipe is the evidence of that.

lane99

10-14-2009, 04:55 PM

You mean false 'accusation' right?

No, I meant false confession, as I said. And I'm not the least bit surprised that you're unaware that they happen. You don't appear generally well informed on such matters.

Michael

10-14-2009, 04:56 PM

Amanda voluntarily wrote a statement implicating Patrick and much more. She gave that statement to police, calling it a gift. It was indeed the gift they needed to put her in jail. There was no coercion when she wrote that statement. No one forced her to voluntarily make a false confession. She wrote it freely and without solicitation. End of story.

Any information given prior to being a suspect is inadmissible in court, so it doesn't really matter what she said when she claims she was coerced to make a false confession. Those confessions are not part of the proceedings.

Well, Amanda herself never used the word 'coerced'. Others are projecting that onto it.

Jester

10-14-2009, 04:56 PM

Actually, the answer to both his/her questions is "yes". Yes, there are people who know for sure. And, yes, there is also evidence that there was a leak. The broken pipe is the evidence of that.

I thought the pipe was taken apart ... that a bottom section was removed. That's done by taking a wrench and loosing then fasteners. If my sink was leaking, I would either tighten the fasteners, or put something under it to catch the leak. I wouldn't take the bottom part of the pipe off.

Michael

10-14-2009, 04:58 PM

No, I meant false confession, as I said. And I'm not the least bit surprised that you're unaware that they happen. You don't appear generally well informed on such matters.

Then you're plainly wrong. It was a false 'accusation', she accused an innocent man of rape and murder, how can that be anything else except a false accusation?

Michael

10-14-2009, 05:00 PM

I thought the pipe was taken apart ... that a bottom section was removed. That's done by taking a wrench and loosing then fasteners. If my sink was leaking, I would either tighten the fasteners, or put something under it to catch the leak. I wouldn't take the bottom part of the pipe off.

It's evidence that the pipe was broken on the day police looked at it days after the murder. That's all.

Jester

10-14-2009, 05:19 PM

It's evidence that the pipe was broken on the day police looked at it days after the murder. That's all.

The whole leak/mop story sounds absurd to me.

Michael

10-14-2009, 05:53 PM

The whole leak/mop story sounds absurd to me.

Well...I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt, even though it can't be proven. I can take it or leave it. It certainly at least would explain some things that need explaining and I find them hard to explain any other way. A leak and need for a mop provides a tangible reason for their suddenly heading to the cottage that night. Otherwise, we have to accept that for some 'unknown' reason, they just suddenly decided to change what had been the theme of the evening (watching a touchy feely movie, having a dinner together, being happy they both find they have an evening off) to "Right. Let's go to the cottage."

I certainly have less of a "problem" accepting the leak then I used to. The problem I had with it was when the time for it was put at 23:00, which also just happened to be the time publicised as Meredith's estimated time of death. It was just one massive, overly convenient coincidence too far for me. In short, it was a major red flag. Once the time was correctly adjusted for the leak to have occurred some time before 21:30, then the 'amazing convenient coincidence' goes away. Suddenly it's not so incredible.

It also would explain their dual fixation on the need for a mop in both of their stories. We know the mop wasn't used in the clean-up. So then why else the fixation on it, unless because the need for it was actually the dynamic that sent them to the cottage on the night of the murder in the first place? They both have told lies. But liars normally mix truth with lies.

pixiejoolz

10-14-2009, 06:38 PM

No, I meant false confession, as I said. And I'm not the least bit surprised that you're unaware that they happen. You don't appear generally well informed on such matters.

You post is confusing to me. I think we all know that there is such a thing as a false or coerced confession, so your personal sniping is really pointless.

What false confession are you talking about? When did Amanda confess - falsely or otherwise -to having anything to do with the murder?

I thought that the only lie she told that has already been proven 100% to be a lie is that the bartender was the killer. That's a false accusation, not a false confession. jmo

Jester

10-14-2009, 07:59 PM

You post is confusing to me. I think we all know that there is such a thing as a false or coerced confession, so your personal sniping is really pointless.

What false confession are you talking about? When did Amanda confess - falsely or otherwise -to having anything to do with the murder?

I thought that the only lie she told that has already been proven 100% to be a lie is that the bartender was the killer. That's a false accusation, not a false confession. jmo

In Amanda's voluntary statement, she implicates Patrick and says that she doesn't remember if she was at her house on the night of the murder. I reads like a false allegation, and a weak confession that she was at the house at the time of the murder. There was no coercion during this statement.

"In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw him at my front door. I saw myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming. But I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked.
...

I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik
...

In these flashbacks that I'm having, I see Patrik as the murderer, but the way the truth feels in my mind, there is no way for me to have known because I don't remember FOR SURE if I was at my house that night."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1570225/Transcript-of-Amanda-Knoxs-note.html

A flashback relates to an earlier occurrence, not an imaginary event.

Jester

10-14-2009, 08:21 PM

Well...I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt, even though it can't be proven. I can take it or leave it. It certainly at least would explain some things that need explaining and I find them hard to explain any other way. A leak and need for a mop provides a tangible reason for their suddenly heading to the cottage that night. Otherwise, we have to accept that for some 'unknown' reason, they just suddenly decided to change what had been the theme of the evening (watching a touchy feely movie, having a dinner together, being happy they both find they have an evening off) to "Right. Let's go to the cottage."

I certainly have less of a "problem" accepting the leak then I used to. The problem I had with it was when the time for it was put at 23:00, which also just happened to be the time publicised as Meredith's estimated time of death. It was just one massive, overly convenient coincidence too far for me. In short, it was a major red flag. Once the time was correctly adjusted for the leak to have occurred some time before 21:30, then the 'amazing convenient coincidence' goes away. Suddenly it's not so incredible.

It also would explain their dual fixation on the need for a mop in both of their stories. We know the mop wasn't used in the clean-up. So then why else the fixation on it, unless because the need for it was actually the dynamic that sent them to the cottage on the night of the murder in the first place? They both have told lies. But liars normally mix truth with lies.

So the leak was around 9:30, Raffaele and Amanda headed to the cottage to get the mop, maybe met up with Rudy on the way, maybe Rudy was asking about Meredith, maybe Amanda said she'd be home and to join them on their way to the cottage ... maybe once they got the cottage things got out of hand.

Michael

10-14-2009, 08:50 PM

So the leak was around 9:30, Raffaele and Amanda headed to the cottage to get the mop, maybe met up with Rudy on the way, maybe Rudy was asking about Meredith, maybe Amanda said she'd be home and to join them on their way to the cottage ... maybe once they got the cottage things got out of hand.

21:30 is the latest. It was probably some time before. The leak took place during the washing up, the washing up immediately followed dinner. Amanda put the real time on dinner by stating on the stand that Jovana Popovic, the girl that wanted the lift to the train station, returned to cancel the lift and they were having dinner at the time. Popovic testified that she arrived at their apartment at 20:30 - 20:45 and she stayed no longer then a couple of minutes. Dinner would have been finished some short time after that immediately followed by the washing up and leak. Therefore, some time before 21:30.

As for the rest, your scenario is as good as any. Only, I don't think she went alone, I think she went with Raffaele. The witness Antonio Curatolo puts both of them in the basketball court, just across the road from the cottage, at about 21:30.

I also think that when they bumped into Guede...it was mentioned that Meredith was home alone and everyone else was away for the weekend. But that last bit is just what seems logical and natural to me, rather then established fact of course.

pixiejoolz

10-14-2009, 10:12 PM

In Amanda's voluntary statement, she implicates Patrick and says that she doesn't remember if she was at her house on the night of the murder. I reads like a false allegation, and a weak confession that she was at the house at the time of the murder. There was no coercion during this statement.

"In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw him at my front door. I saw myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming. But I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked.
...

I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik
...

In these flashbacks that I'm having, I see Patrik as the murderer, but the way the truth feels in my mind, there is no way for me to have known because I don't remember FOR SURE if I was at my house that night."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1570225/Transcript-of-Amanda-Knoxs-note.html

A flashback relates to an earlier occurrence, not an imaginary event.

Everything about that so-called statement screams "lie" to me. She sounds like she thinks she is starring in some really bad soap opera and she's writing her part as she goes along.

It's amazing that in a statement to the police anyone would actually says things like "in these flashbacks" and "flashes of blurred images." You can't tell if she is a delusional psycho, she's channeling Squeaky Fromme or she is just someone who is accustomed to having any wild nonsense she spouts blindly accepted by other people. Any way you parse it, Amanda and reality don't live near each other, imo.

Emerald

10-14-2009, 10:49 PM

Actually, the answer to both his/her questions is "yes". Yes, there are people who know for sure. And, yes, there is also evidence that there was a leak. The broken pipe is the evidence of that.

JMO

The leak at RS's apartment has absolutely nothing to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher. EXCEPT to establish important time line elements. It also establishes gaping holes in Amanda's 'memory' of events.

Amanda Knox has some serious issues which she refuses to even mention, much less explain.

----Filomena's broken window. Immediately noticed by RS upon entering the apartment. Not even mentioned by Amanda. Oh, that's right, Amanda didn't see it in the hours she was there alone in the apartment that morning after the murder.

----Amanda is so concerned about stuff at her own apartment that she goes whining back to RS for help. Oh, that's right, Amanda cleans RS's apartment before she takes RS back to her own apartment.

----Amanda, out of the blue, decides to go into great detail about a totally innocent person's (Patrick Lumumba) participation in the crimes against Meredith Kercher. In her fictitious rendition about Patrick, Amanda includes facts of the crime which had not yet been released by the police. How did AK know these details?

Larry King Live, Thursday Oct 15, 9pm est on CNN he will be interviewing the parents of AK.

Michael

10-14-2009, 11:18 PM

Everything about that so-called statement screams "lie" to me. She sounds like she thinks she is starring in some really bad soap opera and she's writing her part as she goes along.

It's amazing that in a statement to the police anyone would actually says things like "in these flashbacks" and "flashes of blurred images." You can't tell if she is a delusional psycho, she's channeling Squeaky Fromme or she is just someone who is accustomed to having any wild nonsense she spouts blindly accepted by other people. Any way you parse it, Amanda and reality don't live near each other, imo.

Hi PixieJoolz. It makes her sound like exactly what she is...a very bad creative writer.

Emerald

10-14-2009, 11:28 PM

One striking element is missing in all of Amanda's fictitious accounts......

Any sympathy, concern or mention of the VICTIM, Meredith Kercher.

Jester

10-15-2009, 12:09 AM

One striking element is missing in all of Amanda's fictitious accounts......

Any sympathy, concern or mention of the VICTIM, Meredith Kercher.

She was in so much shock on November 2, the day Meredith was found murdered, she thought she'd write a song, but instead she was hungry.

I think Amanda's mother has a bit of doubt about her innocence. Her mother doesn't understand how Amanda could completely forget phoning her ... a bit like mom isn't buying into it all.

Emerald

10-15-2009, 12:45 AM

She was in so much shock on November 2, the day Meredith was found murdered, she thought she'd write a song, but instead she was hungry.

I think Amanda's mother has a bit of doubt about her innocence. Her mother doesn't understand how Amanda could completely forget phoning her ... a bit like mom isn't buying into it all.

It will be interesting to watch the interview on LKL. I like to see besides hear the answers.

Have it set to record in case I forget.

Emerald

10-15-2009, 01:04 AM

She was in so much shock on November 2, the day Meredith was found murdered, she thought she'd write a song, but instead she was hungry.

I think Amanda's mother has a bit of doubt about her innocence. Her mother doesn't understand how Amanda could completely forget phoning her ... a bit like mom isn't buying into it all.

I was positively stunned when those diary entries were posted. Not only no sympathy for what the victim, Meredith Kercher, experienced, AK seemed a bit peeved that the other room mates did not experience the same fate.

JMO

Jester

10-15-2009, 01:18 AM

I was positively stunned when those diary entries were posted. Not only no sympathy for what the victim, Meredith Kercher, experienced, AK seemed a bit peeved that the other room mates did not experience the same fate.

JMO

Amanda saying that Laura, Filomina, and Raffaele are f-ed up confuses me. Doesn't that phrase usually mean that someone's head is a bit messed up? I don't understand why Amanda would say that about others ... unless she was really meaning herself. Does that make sense in some other context that I'm missing?

Emerald

10-15-2009, 01:52 AM

Jester

10-15-2009, 02:12 AM

JMO

AK means she thinks she is superior to those people. Manipulative people think that about everyone. Those the manipulator cannot control are dismissed as not being worthy of the time to try and manipulate. AK knew immediately she had lost control of the situation. Filomena did not follow the script when she arrived with her boyfriend being commanding and exacting. Not at all the fictional scene AK imagined.

That's how I understood the "f****d" entry.

JMO

I agree that she believes that she is superior, and I guess that makes sense then that she thinks others are messed up ... in a way ... as a put down. That comment was part of the diary that she wrote at the police station after the murder was discovered. Filomina's friends were suspicious of Raffaele and Amanda when they were warming up in the car after the police arrived, even searching their car afterwards. Filomina had disagreed with Amanda about whether Meredith always locked her door, and Laura wasn't even there. Filomina's boyfriend helped break down the door. Raffaele had given her a place to sleep and eat for a week (since they'd met) and continued to give her a place to stay after the murder. He even gave her his clothes to wear. Amanda had no rational reason to say that Filomina, Laura, and Raffaele were messed up ... but I guess that doesn't really matter because Amanda doesn't seem to be a very rational woman.

Emerald

10-15-2009, 03:17 AM

Jester

10-15-2009, 05:00 AM

I did not know Filomena was suspicious of AK from the very beginning. Searched the car? Filomena or police?

--AK expected Filomena to 'discover' the crime scene. She insisted to RS Meredith's locked door was common. Therefore, RS did not do more to open the door.

After the bedroom door was opened, did AK make any attempt (in front of Filomena or Police) to see what was behind it? Or did AK immediately flee the apartment to sit in th car or on the stoop?

The more details revealed, the more intriguing this case is.

JMO

I believe it was Filomina's friend and her boyfriend that were immediately suspicious of Amanda and Raffaele. A&R were in their car to warm up while the police arrived at the scene and before they all went to the police station. I think that the friends gave Raffaele and Amanda a ride to the police station. The friends found the comments and actions of Raffaele and Amanda so odd that they searched their car afterward to see if A&R had hidden anything in their car.

My understanding is that as soon as Meredith's door was opened, police quickly closed it, and right away told everyone to go outside.

Emerald

10-15-2009, 05:12 AM

Did the boyfriend testify? I'd like to know what he was looking for in the car.

Jester

10-15-2009, 05:27 AM

Did the boyfriend testify? I'd like to know what he was looking for in the car.

I was just looking for where I read it, but didn't find the link yet.

Jester

10-15-2009, 05:32 AM

"1350 Phones seized, reported by Bartolozzi at 14:00

Evening PG and LA take RS and AK to Perugia police station in their car. PG and LA have stated that during the trip RS was constantly asking them questions regarding the murder and investigation of a manner that caused them to become so concerned and suspicious, they thorougly checked over the interior of the car after RS and AK got out, for ‘incriminating evidence’ they were afraid the pair may have ‘planted’ there. The ‘suspicious’ behaviour of the couple continued inside the police station, which was noted and reported by multiple witnesses"

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmktimeline

Emerald

10-15-2009, 05:57 AM

Emerald

10-15-2009, 06:42 AM

Early Morning Patrick Lumumba is arrested and taken into custody as a ‘Suspect’ on the back of the testimonies provided by Raffaele and Amanda

Amanda's statement about Patrick Lumumba has been discussed quite a bit. What was Raffaele's statement? Did both statements say the same thing as if rehearsed?

Jester

10-15-2009, 02:16 PM

Thanks for the link.

So, while Filomena's boyfriend was dealing with the police, AK and RS were in AK's room? Not with the police? If that's correct, it reinforces my belief AK knew what was behind that bedroom door before it was opened.

Yes, Amanda and Raffaele went into Amanda's room and closed the door when the police arrived. It was at this time, most likely, when Raffaele phoned his sister, and Amanda phoned her mom. Raffaele then phoned the police. During testimony, Amanda said she knows what Raffaele said in the phone call with police, but not in the phone call Raffaele made to his sister.

Jester

10-15-2009, 02:26 PM

Amanda's statement about Patrick Lumumba has been discussed quite a bit. What was Raffaele's statement? Did both statements say the same thing as if rehearsed?

Raffaele says nothing about Patrick, as his statement has him in his apartment throughout the night. Even though both were questioned by police (I suspect Raffaele's questioning was a little harsher than Amanda's questioning), only Amanda made false accusations and partial confessions. Raffaele does say that Meredith's DNA got on the knife in his kitchen because Meredith had dinner at his apartment. Amanda says during testimony that Meredith did not have dinner at his apartment. I think it's because their stories don't match that they were arrested ... no alibi.

pixiejoolz

10-15-2009, 02:43 PM

Raffaele says nothing about Patrick, as his statement has him in his apartment throughout the night. Even though both were questioned by police (I suspect Raffaele's questioning was a little harsher than Amanda's questioning), only Amanda made false accusations and partial confessions. Raffaele does say that Meredith's DNA got on the knife in his kitchen because Meredith had dinner at his apartment. Amanda says during testimony that Meredith did not have dinner at his apartment. I think it's because their stories don't match that they were arrested ... no alibi.

I think you just summed up a crucial part of the prosecution's case with two very simple words: no alibi. jmo

Jester

10-15-2009, 03:23 PM

I think you just summed up a crucial part of the prosecution's case with two very simple words: no alibi. jmo

The only real alibi that Raffaele and Amanda gave was that their memories were erased from smoking pot ... a fairy tale that the judge rejected. After that, their stories are all over the place. When reading through the translated transcript of Amanda's testimony, I was surprised that she also referred to what she had to say as a story. Her lawyer should have not only told her to listen to the question, and only answer that question, but also to present her information as facts, not stories.

lane99

10-15-2009, 05:50 PM

Then you're plainly wrong. It was a false 'accusation', she accused an innocent man of rape and murder, how can that be anything else except a false accusation?

Apparently it's necessary for me to inform you that false confessions sometimes also include statements falsely implicating others.

Michael

10-15-2009, 06:11 PM

Apparently it's necessary for me to inform you that false confessions sometimes also include statements falsely implicating others.

Amanda didn't 'implicate' Patrick, your euphamism isn't appropriate. She outright accused him of committing the whole crime, of being a rapist and murderer, even giving a detailed story of it. At the same time, she gave herself (what she thought) an innocent passive role, of one who is scared, cowering in the kitchen, terrified of Patrick (ie, a victim herself). That's not a 'confession', however you dress it. I know exactly 'why' you want to get rid of the false accusation label and revise history by calling it a false confession. It's because the term 'false confession' is loaded and carries agenda driven political baggage. The term is not applicable in this case and I would think rather an insult to the actual victim, Patrick Lumumba.

I might also add, nobody extracted this false accusation out of her. She herself went to the police after they'd already finished questioning her earlier in the night and 'demanded' to be heard again...she insisted on giving the police her story about Patrick, refusing to wait until the morning (hence why Mignini had to be dragged out of his bed to attend).

And as much as you might want to argue false confessions happen, which indeed they do, Amanda Knox is the ugly sister rather then Cinderella in terms of 'that' glass slipper.

lane99

10-15-2009, 06:15 PM

Well, Amanda herself never used the word 'coerced'. Others are projecting that onto it.

It should be noted that it's not particularly relevant whether or not she specifically used the word "coerced".

Any intelligent observer capable of being even remotely objective would not hesitate to acknowledge Ms. Knox's version of events includes police conduct that is clearly coercive.

Michael

10-15-2009, 06:23 PM

It should be noted that it's not particularly relevant whether or not she specifically used the word "coerced".

Any intelligent observer capable of being even remotely objective would not hesitate to acknowledge Ms. Knox's version of events includes police conduct that is clearly coercive.

'Who' exactly decides what is coercive? It seems all rather subjective to me.

And let's face it, why exactly should Amanda be believed anyway? Especially when she has such a poor track record in terms of telling the truth, has an enormous incentive to say (or imply) that she was coerced, and six professionals have testified there was none of what she alleges taking place?

Moreover, you've yet to explain how 'coercion' can possibly explain her second statement that night that she gave on her 'own' insistance, directly in the presence of Dr Mignini, that same statement where she gave the actual detailed story of her accusation against Patrick. She wasn't being coerced then, so what's your explanation? Then there's the hand written memoir she wrote the next day in her cell, signed and insisted on handing over to police as a 'gift' and contained the line "I stand by what I said about Patrick last night". Where was the coercion there?

lane99

10-15-2009, 06:36 PM

...I might also add, nobody extracted this false accusation out of her...

You don't wish to tell the truth about this, either. Her false confession was orginally extracted as a result of the police interrogation.

The fact that she repeated it later is not incompatible with false confessions in general.

Additionally, I expect most unbiased readers who have actually read the statement will likely notice it appears to be the product of someone who is very confused and attempting to reconcile information that they has been fed that does not match her own memories.

Precisely the type of situation that precedes many false confessions.

pixiejoolz

10-15-2009, 06:37 PM

lane99

10-15-2009, 06:42 PM

'Who' exactly decides what is coercive? It seems all rather subjective to me...

Ok, on this we can agree. To some extent it is subjective.

For example, I believe when the police hit you, that is coercive. If I recall, there are people on the anti-Amanda site that you run that don't think that it is.

Jester

10-15-2009, 06:50 PM

pixiejoolz

10-15-2009, 06:59 PM

Amanda accused Patrick in her voluntary statement. She voluntarily stands behind those accusations. She describes Patrick's involvement, and then goes on to say that she doesn't remember if she was there other than in a flashback (also known as a recalled, vivid memory).

Was her voluntary statement false? If so, why would she make false claims against Patrick when there was no coercion, or anyone even requesting that she make a statement? Did she really expect that she could describe parts of the murder and not implicate herself? How could she know anything about the murder if she were not there?

Just a theory: perhaps she isn't as clever a liar as she thinks she is.

Or perhaps she just thought that her lie about Patrick would be swallowed whole, so no one would care about the inconsistencies in her story. Actually, I guess that just circles right back to not being as clever a liar as she thinks she is. jmo

Michael

10-15-2009, 07:15 PM

You don't wish to tell the truth about this, either. Her false confession was orginally extracted as a result of the police interrogation.

The fact that she repeated it later is not incompatible with false confessions in general.

Additionally, I expect most unbiased readers who have actually read the statement will likely notice it appears to be the product of someone who is very confused and attempting to reconcile information that they has been fed that does not match her own memories.

Precisely the type of situation that precedes many false confessions.

This is completely untrue. In the first questioning session, which is the one in which she was supposedly 'coerced', as soon as she turned round and said "It was Patrick, it was him, he did it!" her staus was officially changed from 'witness' to 'suspect' and the questioning was immediately halted. Amanda gave no 'story' in that session, the one with the alleged coercion. It was later, after the halting of that session that she decided she wanted to make a statement and 'insisted' on being heard. It was in the early hours of the morning and no lawyer was available, yet she refused to wait until the next morning so Mignini had to be dragged from his bed to be present. It was 'then' that she gave her detailed in depth full story about going to the cottage with Patrick and his raping and murdering Meredith. So again, where was the corcion for this second statement of that night???

As someone who has read the statement, it reads to me like someone who is guilty that has made a false accusation against someone she knows to be innocent in order to get the police's attention away from her and is trying to cover her butt because she knows she's told a pack of lies.

Jester

10-15-2009, 07:17 PM

Just a theory: perhaps she isn't as clever a liar as she thinks she is.

Or perhaps she just thought that her lie about Patrick would be swallowed whole, so no one would care about the inconsistencies in her story. Actually, I guess that just circles right back to not being as clever a liar as she thinks she is. jmo

It was a huge oversight for her to claim that she had flashbacks to the night of the murder and that Patrick was a rapist murderer, and to then expect that she was not implicating herself. Michael said it best in saying that Amanda wanted to be perceived as a victim ... that scary Patrick frightened her so much that when she heard Meredith scream in the back bedroom, while she was standing next to the exit, she just covered her ears.

floorplan http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t189/zed0101/knoxautocadfloorplan2.jpg
(created in autocad based on Kermit's original work)

Michael

10-15-2009, 07:33 PM

It was a huge oversight for her to claim that she had flashbacks to the night of the murder and that Patrick was a rapist murderer, and to then expect that she was not implicating herself. Michael said it best in saying that Amanda wanted to be perceived as a victim ... that scary Patrick frightened her so much that when she heard Meredith scream in the back bedroom, while she was standing next to the exit, she just covered her ears.

floorplan http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t189/zed0101/knoxautocadfloorplan2.jpg
(created in autocad based on Kermit's original work)

Hi Jester. I think also, she didn't expect the police as a result to immediately arrest Patrick and drag him to jail on the back of her accusation. It's likely she assumed that they'd just some time the next day go and see Patrick and he would explain he was working in the bar the previous night and the police would apologise for disturbing him and leave him be. In the meantime, they'd be off her case, let her go and probably leave her alone as from that point they'd see her as 'unreliable'. Of course, after they spoke to Patrick she'd offer an apology to them and give some sort of excuse. Since they didn't let her go, she immediately got to work on her excuse because she knew they'd find her accusations to be a pack of lies, so she sat down and set about writing her two page note which contained her excuse.

It backfired terribly because not only did they arrest Patrick, but there was a set of unfortunate circumstances that made the situation worse. This being that police would find that Patrick's phone was pinged in the area of the cottage the night of the murder, that Patrick changed his phone sim the next day, that he didn't tote up his bar receipts until after 11 pm that night and because his bar was quiet that night and the few witnesses who could place him there and give him his alibi took days to track down.

Jester

10-15-2009, 07:54 PM

Hi Jester. I think also, she didn't expect the police as a result to immediately arrest Patrick and drag him to jail on the back of her accusation. It's likely she assumed that they'd just some time the next day go and see Patrick and he would explain he was working in the bar the previous night and the police would apologise for disturbing him and leave him be. In the meantime, they'd be off her case, let her go and probably leave her alone as from that point they'd see her as 'unreliable'. Of course, after they spoke to Patrick she'd offer an apology to them and give some sort of excuse. Since they didn't let her go, she immediately got to work on her excuse because she knew they'd find her accusations to be a pack of lies, so she sat down and set about writing her two page note which contained her excuse.

It backfired terribly because not only did they arrest Patrick, but there was a set of unfortunate circumstances that made the situation worse. This being that police would find that Patrick's phone was pinged in the area of the cottage the night of the murder, that Patrick changed his phone sim the next day, that he didn't tote up his bar receipts until after 11 pm that night and because his bar was quiet that night and the few witnesses who could place him there and give him his alibi took days to track down.

I agree. Amanda's CSI based idea about how the investigation would unfold was way wrong. She also didn't realize that police had tapped her phones (she should have followed the Joran v.d. Sloot case to better understand Roman law) and were aware that her mother was arriving soon. She may have thought that she would leave the country when her mother arrived ... but that was not an option. You're probably quite right in that she assumed the police would go after Patrick, investigate for a few days, and that she would buy herself some time.

Emerald

10-16-2009, 01:52 AM

Emerald

10-16-2009, 02:09 AM

Amanda Knox's parents will be interviewed on Larry King Live Friday Oct 16, 9pm est (2100 hrs).

Earlier I posted they would appear Thursday night. Either I was wrong or they were bumped for the story of the balloon incident with the little boy.

Anyway, it will be Friday night. I'm very interested to SEE the interview live and unscripted. A transcript cannot capture nuances.

JMO

Jester

10-16-2009, 02:22 AM

Jester

10-16-2009, 02:26 AM

JMO

Y'all are giving AK way too much credit for thinking through her accusation 'confession' of Patrick Lumumba.

Take everything AK said and instead of Partrick Lumumba, say Rudi Guede.

There you have the whole story.

For some reason, throughout this trial, AK has been very careful NEVER to implicate RG. Even though he has bee tried and sentenced for his role in the crime.

JMO

One does have to wonder about the one black guy instead of the other black guy scenario. It's interesting that Amanda mentions a gorgeous black guy that she met when she first arrived in Perugia ... in her myspace page. I don't have the link handy, but it's posted on the last thread.

It's almost like she picks a black guy in case anyone saw them together ... but maybe she feels a little responsible for involving Rudy, and a little upset with Patrick for reducing her work responsibilities to that of standing on the street handing out fliers instead of working the crowd and serving drinks ... while Meredith was being promoted to mixing drinks behind the bar.

Jester

10-16-2009, 02:46 AM

Here it is: http://thedeadkidsofmyspace.com/foxyknoxy03blogs.html

September 2 in Perugia with her sister:
"then, deanna and i went to grab a sandwich at the same cafe and i bumped into the most beautiful black man i have ever seen. he said he'd see me when i come back from germany. eheheheh"

Jester

10-16-2009, 03:00 AM

I first heard about this murder when it was briefly covered on CNN in November 2007. I didn't think of Amanda and Raffaele as wrongly accused. I thought of Amanda as a student that went overseas, thought the world was her oyster, and that she proceeded to party like a wild animal until it ended in murder. I didn't even bother following the case until several months later when there were murmurings about a possible wrongful arrest. In the subsequent months, I read several reports to better understand the facts, to form my own opinion about whether she was indeed an out of control student who was away from home and without restraint, or whether she was a sweet, innocent, hard-working student who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. After wavering for a long time, I have come to the conclusion, based on the evidence, her statements, and her demeanour surrounding the time of murder, that Amanda cannot be completely innocent.

I wonder if she can see what's in store for her, or whether she is still optimistic.

Jester

10-16-2009, 03:33 AM

Read this, and watch the videos ... even though they are in Italian ... to better understand Meredith Kercher, the victim.

We already know far too much about Amanda ... and none of it is very good.

In 2007, when Meredith was murdered, her mother was 63, her father 68, so we know they waited until they were older to have children. Meredith's sister, aged 25 ... her mother was 38 when she was born, father was 43.

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C300/

Emerald

10-16-2009, 04:05 AM

September 2 in Perugia with her sister:
"then, deanna and i went to grab a sandwich at the same cafe and i bumped into the most beautiful black man i have ever seen. he said he'd see me when i come back from germany. eheheheh"

I'm just now beginning to understand the timeline.

AK went to Germany after finding the apartment in Perugia? Therefore, she was well aware of her financial needs. Yet, decided to blow $$ in Germany when she had the opportunity to acquire some while still enjoying the new experience.

Did Deanna go with Amanda to Germany?

You know, even in Amanda's court testimony, she seems indignant that her lies are questioned. Like AK is saying anything she lies about is okay, because she is 'creative' (:rolleyes:).

When someone can show or tell all their 'creativity' in 10 minutes (guitar/songwriting, gymnastics, imaginary stories, etc) they aren't very creative at all. Plus, AK has a history of blaming her own inappropriate behavior on everyone else.

Represented herself as a martyr for the arrest in Washington...... Gymnastics in the Police station...... Interrupting situations with (repeated same chord) guitar playing...... moving in with a man she had just met...... desire to "kill for a pizza"...... etc.

JMO

Jester

10-16-2009, 06:42 AM

I had an epiphany ... Amanda Knox should have blamed her cartwheels, splits, and backflips on having a body stone. Maybe she can weave that into her appeal.

Yes, Amanda and her sister went to Perugia in early Sept to check things out. Then they went to Germany, I think in the Hamburg area, where they stayed with an Aunt, and visited their grandmother. Then she went to Berlin where she was to work in the gov't office for two weeks, and I think her sister did something else ... not sure. Amanda spent a morning at work, then walked off the job, but she did not give up the two free weeks in her uncles' friend's apartment in Berlin. She partied for the two weeks, and then went to Perugia.

Amanda was paying 300 Euros in rent per month. In her mind, she may have been calculating one dollar to one Euro. Rent was in fact 450 US$/month. She needed nearly $3000 in rent alone to finish off the school year.

Emerald

10-16-2009, 09:28 AM

JMO

Since Amanda did not have a scholarship, she would be responsible for tuition, books and supplies. The rent included only the building, possibly the utilities too. Food, toiletries and sundries are not cheap either.

Partying with alcohol and drugs is very expensive. Even if others were inviting her to partake as a friend, that would get old in a hurry. Raffaele was on a controlled allowance.

Did AK work in US? Where did she get the $8000 stated in her account? Was it a US grant or student loan?

JMO

Michael

10-16-2009, 11:39 AM

Emerald

10-16-2009, 11:50 AM

I've been googling around for info. Now that I have so many more directions to go (thanks Jester and Michael), it's easier to find stuff.

One thing I found was that Amanda does not come from a wealthy family, but they are very comfortable. I do wonder, though, what future generations will think when they find so much inheritance spent on this. The Family is already selling rights to the likes of John Grisham.

Nothing I've found is Amanda's Family showing any sympathy for Meredith's Family.

I would like to add if the so-called FOA have any further ideas about how more can be learned, please tell me. It's not necessary to attack when you do. The google trend is most definitely running against Amanda's innocence. So, I can only read what appears. Where is the other stuff?

JMO

Emerald

10-16-2009, 12:05 PM

As far as I understand it, Amanda was to be studying out there for a term, or semester, rather then the whole year. I'll see if I can get confirmation on that.

Thanks Michael. I've been reading a lot at Perugia Murder File site. Great links that lead to other links. Which leads to info for googling. Different directions.

Nancy Grace is not my favorite entertainer, but whenever she tries to have people on there to talk about the case, it's impossible to get them to answer a question. Reporters will try, but those FOA refuse to answer coherently. Can't understand their minutia replies unless you already know what they are talking about.

For instance, Nancy Grace asked about the RS DNA on the bra, making the very good point if it really was his DNA then AK was there too since AK and RS say they were together all night. The FOA would not answer the question.

It was also stated on the same show AK reported seeing blood on RS's hands that night. Thought it was from the dinner fish.

Did AK make that statement to Police?

Michael

10-16-2009, 01:22 PM

Thanks Michael. I've been reading a lot at Perugia Murder File site. Great links that lead to other links. Which leads to info for googling. Different directions.

Nancy Grace is not my favorite entertainer, but whenever she tries to have people on there to talk about the case, it's impossible to get them to answer a question. Reporters will try, but those FOA refuse to answer coherently. Can't understand their minutia replies unless you already know what they are talking about.

For instance, Nancy Grace asked about the RS DNA on the bra, making the very good point if it really was his DNA then AK was there too since AK and RS say they were together all night. The FOA would not answer the question.

It was also stated on the same show AK reported seeing blood on RS's hands that night. Thought it was from the dinner fish.

Did AK make that statement to Police?

Hi Emerald. Well, one of the purposes of PMF (Perugia Murder File) when it was created, was to be a clearing house for case related data. It also provides primary data in the form of professional translations that are unobtainable anywhere else. At the same time, we also have case specific data especially created by our senior members (such as Kermit's powerpoints on the context , and Nicki's powerpoints explaining DNA...she's a professor of micro-biology at the University of Milan, so it's all quite professional) and we have developed our own sources directly involved in the case, so it's also a primary source of information as well. Actually, I think this is the first time such a site has been created for one single specific case.

As for Nancy Grace, it probably is the hardest interview the FOA have ever had to face. Normally, their PR man David Marriott, doesn't allow interviews without an agreement that they'll be sympathetic, no hard questions will be asked and no other dissenting voices will be included. Therefore, the FOA have never been directly tested head on by the media. Unfortunately, despite that, they've been afforded much air time and print space because the prosecution rarely speak and the Kercher family never do. The media hates voids and so they've resorted to filling them with the Knox PR, be it from the FOA, or directly from the Knox/Mellas family (although in reality, one and the same thing).

The blood on Raffaele's hands as mentioned by Amanda, was from her prison diary.

Emerald

10-16-2009, 01:33 PM

Michael, have you ever gotten a reply about the question of Amanda's confession involving Patrick Lumumba? You've asked several times here, but I've read no reply.

JMO

Michael

10-16-2009, 02:27 PM

Michael, have you ever gotten a reply about the question of Amanda's confession involving Patrick Lumumba? You've asked several times here, but I've read no reply.

JMO

Well, 'that' question has been asked many times before, elsewhere as well as here and no, no answer has been forthcoming, either elsewhere or here. And so it remains.

Jester

10-16-2009, 04:09 PM

As far as I understand it, Amanda was to be studying out there for a term, or semester, rather then the whole year. I'll see if I can get confirmation on that.
Where was she studying again? I seem to be finding all sorts of conflicting information.

Jester

10-16-2009, 04:31 PM

Here's a link to the course calendar at the University of Strangers, where I guess Amanda was a student (page 22):

http://www.unistrapg.it/pdf/clic/francese.pdf

It looks like she could enrol from Oct. 1 - Dec 23. There were other options for length of study.

Emerald

10-16-2009, 05:01 PM

AK was in Europe for probably @ 7 weeks. Not that it matters. All it took was one bad decision. All these people were acquainted for a very short time.

n/t

10-16-2009, 10:45 PM

What's next in Knox trial?

In the United States, jury deliberations begin immediately following closing arguments but in Italy everything is scheduled. The prosecution delivers closing arguments on Nov. 20 and 21. Sollecito's attorneys get their opportunity on Nov. 28 and 30. Knox's attorneys won't get their chance until December 1 and 2.

Rebuttal arguments are scheduled for December 3. The jury won't begin its deliberations until Dec. 4 and they are expected to return a verdict by Dec. 6.

http://www.king5.com/topstories/stories/NW_101009WAB-amanda-knox-trial-KS.203a2de1b.html

Jester

10-16-2009, 11:07 PM

http://larrykinglive.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/16/amanda-knoxs-parents-shes-innocent/

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/06/perugia200806

Jester

10-17-2009, 12:55 AM

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0910/16/lkl.01.html

Jester

10-17-2009, 02:13 AM

From the transcripts:

"KING: I -- I gather you're as strong as John on this. John, what would an appeal be like?

JOHN: Well, ironically, both sides could appeal. I mean, Amanda can be acquitted --

KING: Really?

JOHN: She could leave the country, and then, on appeal, they could convict her and seek to extradite her back to Italy, after an appeals court -- KING: Whoa.

JOHN: -- would convict her. And there's -- there's such a level of vindictiveness here, I could see that almost happening."

I think this bolded statement demonstrates such a narrow minded perception of judicial systems that are different from those in the US. Many countries provide for both the defence and prosecution appealing a ruling, yet that provision in Italian law takes on the label of "vindictiveness". Different is bad, or what is the thinking?

Emerald

10-17-2009, 02:52 AM

Just watched LKL.

I don't expect anything but blind faith from Amanda's Family. These other people were disgusting. John Q Kelly has not ever met Amanda's Family, but that didn't stop his blathering. IMO, he's just appearing for face time and appearance fees. Maybe Joe Tacopina refused too appear and lie for the Family?

The interview was totally "Amanda is innocent". The word 'railroad' was used quite a bit. Again, not a single word of sympathy for Meredith Kercher. Plus, not a single word for RS. Amanda is being 'railroaded' because she is an American. I think we are supposed to, as Americans, rally to her defense because of it?

Larry King needed at least one commentator with a different perspective. None of the evidence was considered in this appearance, except to say they (Italian Justice) have none.

JMO

Emerald

10-17-2009, 03:39 AM

Hi Emerald. Well, one of the purposes of PMF (Perugia Murder File) when it was created, was to be a clearing house for case related data. It also provides primary data in the form of professional translations that are unobtainable anywhere else. At the same time, we also have case specific data especially created by our senior members (such as Kermit's powerpoints on the context , and Nicki's powerpoints explaining DNA...she's a professor of micro-biology at the University of Milan, so it's all quite professional) and we have developed our own sources directly involved in the case, so it's also a primary source of information as well. Actually, I think this is the first time such a site has been created for one single specific case.

As for Nancy Grace, it probably is the hardest interview the FOA have ever had to face. Normally, their PR man David Marriott, doesn't allow interviews without an agreement that they'll be sympathetic, no hard questions will be asked and no other dissenting voices will be included. Therefore, the FOA have never been directly tested head on by the media. Unfortunately, despite that, they've been afforded much air time and print space because the prosecution rarely speak and the Kercher family never do. The media hates voids and so they've resorted to filling them with the Knox PR, be it from the FOA, or directly from the Knox/Mellas family (although in reality, one and the same thing).

The blood on Raffaele's hands as mentioned by Amanda, was from her prison diary.

Bumped for relevance. This is most likely why the Larry King interview was so one-sided. Usually, LK will not allow this. I'm miffed.

Emerald

10-17-2009, 03:40 PM

Emerald

10-17-2009, 03:55 PM

From the LKL interview:
"Many people asked her to leave, but she said no. 'I'm going to stay. I'm going to try and help. I'm going to try and finish school,' " Mellas said.

What, exactly does this mean? Maybe if I ignore it, it will go away. AK would have been extradited to Italy to stand trial. The evidence is the same whether she fled or not.

JMO

Michael

10-17-2009, 08:52 PM

From the LKL interview:

What, exactly does this mean? Maybe if I ignore it, it will go away. AK would have been extradited to Italy to stand trial. The evidence is the same whether she fled or not.

JMO

Hi Emerald. Amanda was told by police not to leave town anyway. Don't believe the hype that says she could have left but didn't. And had she have done so secretly, she may as well have broadcast to the world 'I'm guilty'. She had no choice but to stay.

Jester

10-17-2009, 09:17 PM

JMO

I'm still miffed why AK's Family did that appearance on LKL. There has been no buzz and support on the news channels. So, basically, all the Family has done is put a negative light on this for AK.

They want it believed the reason this is happening to AK is because she is American. RS is Italian. He is in the same court with the same charges.

I just don't understand AK's Family reasoning. Doesn't make sense.

JMO

The interview was very one-sided. Here's the CNN news article that followed: http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/16/italy.seattle.knox.parents/index.html

Here's one statement that is contradicted my Amanda's own diary writings: ""She was extremely upset, and her roommate testified that when she found out it was Meredith that was killed, she was very upset. She cried; she did all of that. But by the time those photos were taken, it was hours later, and she was being comforted by Raffaele."

In Amanda's diary, written at the police station immediately after the murder, she wrote 'how strange, I think I'll write a song, I'm hungry', and other completely unaffected comments.

The family seems to be suggesting that police had tunnel vision, that they made an error in judgment when they decided that there was evidence of more than one murderer, and that once they focused on a multiple assailant theory they could not back out even though they were wrong.

Jester

10-17-2009, 09:28 PM

From the LKL interview:

What, exactly does this mean? Maybe if I ignore it, it will go away. AK would have been extradited to Italy to stand trial. The evidence is the same whether she fled or not.

JMO

Below is the same comment in the CNN news article. The family has pretty much announced that they wish Amanda had violated police directives and left Italy. They are also implying that, had she left Italy, she would not have been successfully extradited. I expect the prosecution will be very interested in statements like that when it comes to the question of whether Amanda should be released during appeal.

When will the family finally realize that everything they are doing is going against their hopes and wishes!

"After the murder, Mellas said, friends and family told Knox to leave Italy -- to either come home or stay with relatives in Germany -- but Knox refused because she wanted to help find the killer and prove that she had nothing to do with it.

"Many people asked her to leave, but she said no. 'I'm going to stay. I'm going to try and help. I'm going to try and finish school,' " Mellas said.

Looking back, her parents wish Knox had left. Now, all they can do is wait -- and hope things turn out how they believe they should.

"We have to believe that what they're hearing in court -- and it's so clear that she had nothing to do with it -- then they'll come out with the right answer," Curt Knox said. "I mean, that's -- that's what we have to believe.""

Michael

10-17-2009, 09:42 PM

The family seems to be suggesting that police had tunnel vision, that they made an error in judgment when they decided that there was evidence of more than one murderer, and that once they focused on a multiple assailant theory they could not back out even though they were wrong.

Hi Jester. Of course, that is only so much propaganda. The FOA argue, that because the ILE had accused them, they couldn't then let them go in order to save face. But the proof of this being complete nonsense is the fact that they happily turned around and let Patrick Lumumba go, despite arresting him and validating his arrest in two court hearings. He was let go the same day Rudy Guede was arrested. If the ILE truly believed Amanda and Raffaele to be innocent, they could have easily and it would have been the ideal opportunity, to have also let them go on the same day as Patrick. Indeed, how much easier would it have been for the ILE to simply blame everything on the lone black man, Rudy Guede, rather then also include two white, well connected, middle class white kids? It would be far from being the first time a black man has taken the fall for a crime. It would have solved so many problems for the ILE. The idea that the ILE felt trapped into prosecutiong two white students is a myth, since in reality, the opposite would have been the far easier path for them to take...let them go, blame the black man.

Michael

10-17-2009, 09:48 PM

Below is the same comment in the CNN news article. The family has pretty much announced that they wish Amanda had violated police directives and left Italy. They are also implying that, had she left Italy, she would not have been successfully extradited. I expect the prosecution will be very interested in statements like that when it comes to the question of whether Amanda should be released during appeal.

Well, it won't be a matter for the prosecution but for the judge, but you're quite right, the FOA campaign and Knox's family's public attitude has guaranteed that Amanda upon conviction has absolutely no chance of being granted restricted freedom. They've essentially ensured the judge has no choice whatsoever but to remand her in custody.

Now, I have to say, I have some sympathy for Amanda on this point. This after all is not her fault. Rather it is that of those supposedly with the intent of trying to help her...but all they've done is made her situation far worse.

Jester

10-18-2009, 01:01 AM

Hi Jester. Of course, that is only so much propaganda. The FOA argue, that because the ILE had accused them, they couldn't then let them go in order to save face. But the proof of this being complete nonsense is the fact that they happily turned around and let Patrick Lumumba go, despite arresting him and validating his arrest in two court hearings. He was let go the same day Rudy Guede was arrested. If the ILE truly believed Amanda and Raffaele to be innocent, they could have easily and it would have been the ideal opportunity, to have also let them go on the same day as Patrick. Indeed, how much easier would it have been for the ILE to simply blame everything on the lone black man, Rudy Guede, rather then also include two white, well connected, middle class white kids? It would be far from being the first time a black man has taken the fall for a crime. It would have solved so many problems for the ILE. The idea that the ILE felt trapped into prosecutiong two white students is a myth, since in reality, the opposite would have been the far easier path for them to take...let them go, blame the black man.

The following is my observations from following various cases over the last couple of years, and is nothing more than my generalized perception of cross border murders/disappearances ... because I look for patterns ...

There are two other cases that come to mind where media came out swinging about the injustices of foreign legal systems, rather than looking at the facts of the case within the context of foreign justice systems. Joran v.d. Sloot, a Dutch citizen in Aruba, was found guilty by the media in the disappearance of an adult student from Alabama. For at least a year the Aruban legal system, the Dutch, and the Arubans were labeled as corrupt and incompetent for not doing what the US media wanted. If he had been an American who was accused of having something to do with the disappearance of an Aruban, the reaction could well have been very different. Ryan Jenkins, a Canadian, was accused of murdering and dismembering his wife, then returning to Canada before committing suicide. Again, the media found him guilty without trial. US police first released false information (armed and dangerous ... not true) to the media, and later went so far as to state that the media coverage could have influenced his decision to commit suicide (hanging by a belt ... no weapon). In the case of Amanda Knox, she has been found innocent by the media and, again, we hear that all too familiar complaint about incompetence and corruption in a foreign legal system ... echoing exactly what we've heard before, particularly in the case of Joran v.d. Sloot.

In fact, Canada, Britain, The Netherlands, Aruba, Italy, and several other developed countries, have legal systems that have more in common with each other than they do with the US legal system. Each time there is a cross border crime involving a US citizen, the US media seems to conclude the if the victim is from the US, the other party is guilty (without trial) and if the accused is from the US, that the accused is innocent.

You are quite right. If Patrick was released two weeks after being arrested, based exclusively on alibi and in spite of witness statements implicating him, then there is no reason to assume that Amanda and Raffaele could not have been released had they been able to provide any alibi ... any consistent facts about what they were doing the night of the murder. Amanda placed herself at the murder by knowing facts about the case that she could not have known without being present during the murder. Raffaele placed himself with Amanda. DNA confirms they were both present during the murder. The fact that they are in jail has nothing to do with the personalities of the employees of the justice system, and everything to do with the evidence. Still, the media has clumsily omitted the evidence, and instead focused on suggestions of incompetence and corruption in the justice system.

It's probably great knowing that the media has your back when involved in a crime in a foreign country ... but ... perhaps the media should be a little more impartial.

Jester

10-18-2009, 01:19 AM

Well, it won't be a matter for the prosecution but for the judge, but you're quite right, the FOA campaign and Knox's family's public attitude has guaranteed that Amanda upon conviction has absolutely no chance of being granted restricted freedom. They've essentially ensured the judge has no choice whatsoever but to remand her in custody.

Now, I have to say, I have some sympathy for Amanda on this point. This after all is not her fault. Rather it is that of those supposedly with the intent of trying to help her...but all they've done is made her situation far worse.

I absolutely agree. Although the support group for Amanda's freedom probably makes Amanda feel a little better about her situation, their actions have resulted in offending people, such as the prosecutor, that are doing no more than their jobs. Blatantly stating that Amanda should have fled the country as soon as her roommate was murdered suggests two things:
1. she is guilty and the only way to avoid conviction is to avoid getting caught; and
2. that if she is free at any time in the future, those who support her freedom will do everything they can to get her out of the country.

Emerald

10-18-2009, 03:18 AM

Jester

10-18-2009, 05:20 AM

IMO, the lack of media support for Amanda is an indication most do not believe AK is innocent. There has been enough 'buzz' from connected commentators (attorneys, columnists) the cause would have been picked up a long time ago.

The CNN homepage topics list is generated by public interest. The Amanda story quickly disappeared.

I was irritated when it was suggested AK should have fled after the crime. Leaving would not have changed the evidence. AK would have still been tried after a lengthy extradition process to have her returned to Italy.

Did the Amanda Knox Story disappear from mainstream TV because no one was interested, or because media was not convinced that she was innocent?

John Q Kelly, the neighbour, that woman who thinks Amanda is a restless teenager ... quite the string or people behind the golden egg (or whatever that fairy tale is ... where everyone grabs onto the golden goose feathers, or the person in front, and can't let go ... human chain).

I guess the question is whether the US would have given her up ... kinda like whether Switzerland will give up Polanski (I expect they will, and he'll argue judicial corruption). Maybe she could have hidden in the Honduras.

If it had to go through extradition and trial, I expect it would go worse ... cuz then you'd also have "fleeing the jurisdiction" to add to the "didn't bother to phone the police until several hours later" problem.

Emerald

10-18-2009, 05:34 AM

Jester

10-18-2009, 09:00 AM

Jester, IMO the public pressure would be against the AK Family to pressure AK back to Italy to stand trial.

Not much is being reported. But, I do know if it was felt she was being 'railroaded' there would be more public support.

The Family's PR machine is wrong in not allowing dissenting opinions when they appear. It would garner more support. This way, it seems like the Family doesn't really want all the facts out there. They don't, but this is not the way to handle it. Now, th AK Family is just coming across like "because I said so".

JMO

I agree ... if Amanda had fled Italy, public pressure (media, court decisions) in the US would have been in favour of her returning to face the accusations, especially given the evidence. The US would have had no alternative but to acknowledge that the evidence was compelling, and agreed to extradition based on current laws. Unless Amanda was in some country that did not have extradition agreements with Italy, like the Honduras, then she would be extradited and she will most likely spend the remainder for her life in a cage.

Too bad Amanda's parents were so eager to get on TV and talk about how they really wanted to get their daughter out of Italy because she was about to be convicted for the murder of a British woman named Meredith Kercher.

Jester

10-18-2009, 09:08 AM

Emerald

10-18-2009, 09:27 AM

Is the Prosecutor aware of that appearance by AK's Family?

Emerald

10-18-2009, 09:38 AM

I still believe there's a possibility for Amanda to be innocent ... if she can explain how she knew that Meredith had her throat slashed before the facts of the crime were released, and if she could walk through the scene as a witness without having a breakdown.

Yes, it's a possibility. Amanda would still need to face a trial even if she had fled Italy. Going to a country with no extradition treaty would not work, unless she planned to never travel home. Can't run from cyberspace.

Emerald

10-18-2009, 03:34 PM

Jester

10-18-2009, 04:57 PM

http://larrykinglive.blogs.cnn.com/

Larry King Live blogs. Several different articles with viewer comments. Most are negative LK only had on the one side guests. Amazing how little support for AK's Family.

Did you see the comments about how tourism will be effected if Amanda is found guilty? Visions of Natalie Holloway all over again.

Jester

10-18-2009, 08:54 PM

This looks like the full LKL interview
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/crime/2009/10/18/lkl.knox.family.long.cnn

Emerald

10-18-2009, 09:59 PM

Jester

10-18-2009, 10:20 PM

Because of the negative response to the recent show, I hope LK will allow a rebuttal panel. At least to make it clear not all Americans hate and feel superior to other cultures.

I thought it very odd the only attorney they could find was one who had never even met the Family and was not versed on the case. John Q Kelly? What an idiot.

JMO
I agree. It's a bit of a shock to see LK entertaining people that make such derogatory remarks about a foreign country ... and for no reason other than that their daughter is involved in the murder of a British woman in Italy.

Michael

10-19-2009, 09:42 AM

I agree. It's a bit of a shock to see LK entertaining people that make such derogatory remarks about a foreign country ... and for no reason other than that their daughter is involved in the murder of a British woman in Italy.

In my view, the whole thing was a disgrace. It was nothing but xenophobic opining, with no balance and what 'information' was given, was complete misinformation. For example, Curt Knox still trundles out the 14 hour all night interrogation. It's a proven lie and he knows it to be. To also state there is 'no evidence', what is it they imagine their own lawyers have been arguing against in court for last 3 - 4 months...scotch mist?

Jester

10-19-2009, 10:38 AM

Michael

10-19-2009, 10:49 AM

I read somewhere in the last couple of days (don't remember where) that Amanda's forensic expert quit sometime in May ... Springtime ... do we know anything more about that, and whether another one was hired?

Yes, it's been mentioned a couple of times and it was also mentioned during the Larry King interview. The whole subject of the dissapearing defence expert is a mystery. No explanation has ever been provided. He left the case without even taking his fee. Make of it what you will.

Michael

10-19-2009, 10:52 AM

Emerald

10-19-2009, 11:08 AM

Michael, there has been mostly negative feedback on that appearance. At least that's what I've read. Then, there's the feedback we cannot see..... like those to the private e-mails and comments of the show.

http://www.cnn.com/feedback/cnntv/

Here is the link to send feedback, comments and e-mails to the CNN shows.

JMO

Emerald

10-19-2009, 11:15 AM

It seems a new element has arisen. 'Suspected' semen on Meredith's pillow: Neither side has presented this in court.

Unless the semen stain is proved to be from that night, and belonging to someone besides RG or RS, I don't really understand the relevance to AK's case.

JMO

Emerald

10-19-2009, 11:22 AM

Yes, it's been mentioned a couple of times and it was also mentioned during the Larry King interview. The whole subject of the dissapearing defence expert is a mystery. No explanation has ever been provided. He left the case without even taking his fee. Make of it what you will.

Could he be subpoenaed to testify in the inquiry for the 2nd trial?

My first thought is the expert quit for nefarious activity on the part of the defense. Like bribery. That's because I don't find the AK Family and their methods attractive. Maybe he quit for personal reasons (health, family issues, previous commitments).

JMO

Michael

10-19-2009, 11:44 AM

Unless the semen stain is proved to be from that night, and belonging to someone besides RG or RS, I don't really understand the relevance to AK's case.

JMO

It's relevant in the following sense. 'If' it is from Raffaele Sollecito, it places him Meredith's room, a room he has always maintained he never entered. 'If' it is shown to be Rudy Guede's, it further proves a sexual element to the assault. This is not good for the defence either, since for reasons I don't fully understand (although I can have a guess), the defence teams have continuously argued there was 'no' sexual assault.

Of course, that is even if it is semen. I have a couple of ideas as to what else it might be.

Jester

10-19-2009, 11:47 AM

Yes, it's been mentioned a couple of times and it was also mentioned during the Larry King interview. The whole subject of the disappearing defence expert is a mystery. No explanation has ever been provided. He left the case without even taking his fee. Make of it what you will.

Two things come to mind ... either he wasn't being paid on time, or maybe his interpretation of the DNA and other evidence did not help Amanda. If his results implicated Amanda, I could see her refusing to pay for that. That would also explain why a second expert was not hired ... as they could come to the same conclusion.

It's an interesting point though. The DNA is the point where the defence wanted an independent opinion ... and yet they didn't present their own expert to refute the evidence. It almost seems like the request was made to provide a new argument during appeal.

Michael

10-19-2009, 11:48 AM

Could he be subpoenaed to testify in the inquiry for the 2nd trial?

My first thought is the expert quit for nefarious activity on the part of the defense. Like bribery. That's because I don't find the AK Family and their methods attractive. Maybe he quit for personal reasons (health, family issues, previous commitments).

JMO

No, it wasn't for health as he continued working with his others projects. Neither would it have been down to other committments. A scientists time is carefully sceduled, they wouldn't have taken on a case if they were over booked with other stuff.

Subpoenaed? No, I don't think so. Even if he could, why? Any work a defence expert does for a client is a matter between them and their clients. A court has no right of access to it. Full disclosure only applies to the prosecution, not the defence teams or teams representing the victims.

pixiejoolz

10-19-2009, 12:03 PM

Two things come to mind ... either he wasn't being paid on time, or maybe his interpretation of the DNA and other evidence did not help Amanda. If his results implicated Amanda, I could see her refusing to pay for that. That would also explain why a second expert was not hired ... as they could come to the same conclusion.

It's an interesting point though. The DNA is the point where the defence wanted an independent opinion ... and yet they didn't present their own expert to refute the evidence. It almost seems like the request was made to provide a new argument during appeal.

I would bet that his conclusions were unfavorable to AK's defense. And although it's complete conjecture, I wouldn't be surprised if the family made it so unpleasant for the expert that he was willing to walk away unpaid. jmo, of course.

Jester

10-19-2009, 12:35 PM

I would bet that his conclusions were unfavorable to AK's defense. And although it's complete conjecture, I wouldn't be surprised if the family made it so unpleasant for the expert that he was willing to walk away unpaid. jmo, of course.

Something was not above board ... for sure. I do consulting, and reasons for walking away from a contract are, for example, that there are problems with contract and payment, something is borderline unethical, the client is a pain in the butt, etc. If everything is on the up and up, then everything goes smoothly. It could be that ethics came into the mix. If the expert concluded that Amanda's DNA was on the knife (which is easily enough explained as she used knives at Raffaele's apt), on Meredith's bra, and that it could have been her footprint, then the defence would not want his testimony. They could have asked the expert to only present favourable evidence and suppress unfavourable evidence, which could have compromised the integrity of the expert. It's easier to quietly let the expert disappear. I think that if the experts conclusions were favourable to Amanda, she would have hired someone to replace the one that left.

Jester

10-19-2009, 12:39 PM

It seems a new element has arisen. 'Suspected' semen on Meredith's pillow: PERUGIA SHOCK (http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/10/defensive-strategy-for-knox-and.html)

Neither side has presented this in court.

There was a remark somewhere about the use of vaseline. Per the linked article, it's possible that it's vaseline. Why wouldn't the prosecution have the evidence tested? I can understand why the defence would be concerned about the results ... like a double-edged sword ... but the prosecution would have no reason to fear the results. Both semen and vaseline point to sexual activity, whether consensual or assault. Furthermore, the prosecution is interested in truth and fact, so this could add to their argument, or aid in the pursuit of truth.

Michael

10-19-2009, 12:46 PM

There was a remark somewhere about the use of vaseline. Per the linked article, it's possible that it's vaseline. Why wouldn't the prosecution have the evidence tested? I can understand why the defence would be concerned about the results ... like a double-edged sword ... but the prosecution would have no reason to fear the results. Both semen and vaseline point to sexual activity, whether consensual or assault. Furthermore, the prosecution is interested in truth and fact, so this could add to their argument, or aid in the pursuit of truth.

Well done :) The police returned to the cottage a few months after the crime and siezed certain specific items to be taken away for testing. One of these items was a small tub of Meredith's vaseline.

Jester

10-19-2009, 01:06 PM

Well done :) The police returned to the cottage a few months after the crime and siezed certain specific items to be taken away for testing. One of these items was a small tub of Meredith's vaseline.

So it's quite possible that the evidence was tested by police, that it is vaseline, and that there's nothing more to it than conjecture. Prosecution would have no reason to introduce vaseline evidence on a pillow as it could have been left there at any time and it means very little. I don't remember where I read it, but I remember that it stood out as odd ... someone was asked whether Meredith used vaseline during sexual activity ... don't remember the context anymore.

Emerald

10-19-2009, 01:09 PM

There was a remark somewhere about the use of vaseline. Per the linked article, it's possible that it's vaseline. Why wouldn't the prosecution have the evidence tested? I can understand why the defence would be concerned about the results ... like a double-edged sword ... but the prosecution would have no reason to fear the results. Both semen and vaseline point to sexual activity, whether consensual or assault. Furthermore, the prosecution is interested in truth and fact, so this could add to their argument, or aid in the pursuit of truth.

Good question. It seems obvious, now, why the defense would not want it put in thhe line of evidence fire.

JMO

Emerald

10-19-2009, 01:21 PM

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/54907,people,news,oj-simpson-lawyer-john-q-kelly-slams-public-lynching-of-amanda-knox-meredith-kercher

John Q Kelly, the lawyer and nemesis of OJ Simpson, has called the case against Amanda Knox, the American student on trial in Italy for the murder of Meredith Kercher, "a public lynching".

The lawyer who masterminded the civil case against OJ Simpson, in which the former American football star was found liable for the death of his wife Nicole, was appearing on Larry King Live with Knox's parents, Edda Mellas and Curt Knox.

FWIW... John Q Kelly was the attorney representing the estate of Nicole Simpson for her children.

Robert Petrocelli was the lead attorney on the OJ civil case.

"This is actually a public lynching based on rank speculation and vindictiveness. It's just a nightmare what these people are going through."

John Q Kelly is an expert on this. His constant assault (day and night for many months) on Aruba and it's culture in the name of Natalee Holloway was egregious.

JMO

Jester

10-19-2009, 02:58 PM

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/54907,people,news,oj-simpson-lawyer-john-q-kelly-slams-public-lynching-of-amanda-knox-meredith-kercher

FWIW... John Q Kelly was the attorney representing the estate of Nicole Simpson for her children.

Robert Petrocelli was the lead attorney on the OJ civil case.

John Q Kelly is an expert on this. His constant assault (day and night for many months) on Aruba and it's culture in the name of Natalee Holloway was egregious.

JMO

I wonder what case J Kelly is talking about when he said this:

"There's no forensic evidence, there's no physical evidence: no motive, no opportunity, no confession, no substantive evidence whatsoever against Amanda."

I knew I'd heard of him before, but couldn't quite place it ... making derogatory remarks about foreign country's judicial systems seems to be his only weapon.

Michael

10-19-2009, 03:06 PM

Hi Jester. Only he's not making a 'case'. To make a case requires providing examples, evidence, proof. He offered none of those things. The only things he was bringing to the table was unsupported opinion stated as fact...and of course, probably most importantly, his 'name'.

I'm John Q Kelly and simply because "I'm" saying it, it has 'weight'. The thing is, John Q Kelly is a gun for hire just like anyone else in the game. He wasn't required to back up a thing he was saying, was asked no tough questions and let's face it, those who were eager to decry the case and the ILE were the only ones invited to the party.

Emerald

10-19-2009, 03:20 PM

IIRC, Larry King said the AK Family had never met John Q Kelly until they appeared together on LKL. Even then, they appeared to be in different studios.

John Q Kelly was there for an appearance fee. No knowledge of the case.

Larry King really made a mistake with this one. He should have asked questions and had a representative of the facts of the case.

JMO

Michael

10-19-2009, 04:04 PM

Emerald

10-19-2009, 04:09 PM

Too bad they could not dress as respectfully for the Courts as they did for the tv appearance.

Michael

10-19-2009, 04:11 PM

So it's quite possible that the evidence was tested by police, that it is vaseline, and that there's nothing more to it than conjecture. Prosecution would have no reason to introduce vaseline evidence on a pillow as it could have been left there at any time and it means very little. I don't remember where I read it, but I remember that it stood out as odd ... someone was asked whether Meredith used vaseline during sexual activity ... don't remember the context anymore.

Exactly. It is quite probably the case the police investigated the vaseline connection and found it not to be relevant to the case, hence why they never produced it in proceedings.

I should ellaborate here. The Vaseline Meredith had wasn't the normal kind (as in petroleum jelly), rather it was a small tub of Vaseline lip balm. It's not so popular in the US but is quite a major brand in the UK. Since it's Vaseline, the lip balm has some degree of petroleum jelly to it's base. Now, if Meredith had been using this lip balm, that would easily explain how this ended up on the pillow...through no more sinister reason then Meredith having used her pillow to sleep on and it being transferred to the pillow from her mouth.

lane99

10-19-2009, 06:36 PM

...As someone who has read the statement, it reads to me like someone who is guilty that has made a false accusation against someone she knows to be innocent in order to get the police's attention away from her and is trying to cover her butt because she knows she's told a pack of lies.

On the other hand, those who don't need Amanda Knox to be guilty in order to justify various byzantine conspiracy theories, may not see things quite the same way as you.

Because your notion that, after a pleasant evening of the police feeding her tea and cookies, she would calculatingly offer up a statement placing herself at the scene of the crime...as a way of drawing police attention AWAY from her...is one not likely to sit well with thoughtful observers. Since it is so obviously a story that would have precisely the opposite result.

KnoxCase

10-19-2009, 11:14 PM

******************
Supreme Court:Nov 2008
"she returned home at about 9 pm, telling her girlfriends not that she had a date but that she was tired and wanted to get to bed early.- The time of death is estimated to be around 11 pm on November 1 (if we presume the meal to have been consumed until 9 pm)."
***************
So here they use 2hrs. after eating to the time of death. Which was later found to be incorrect.
Of course we know the girls changed the time as testimony, and it was moved back closer to 6pm-7pm; they finished eating much earlier.
So why wasn't the time of death moved back 2hrs?
This Autopsy time of death, seems to be way off base for some reason. I think 9pm to 10pm, not 11pm to 12am.

This earlier time frame, of 9-10pm, fits Rudys story too.

Could it be Meredith surprised the burglar, who silenced her quickly with murder?
As Micheli mentioned in his report, possibly Rudy didn't flush, so as not to make himself known to the victim.

I think Rudy had murdered Meredith, much earlier than the 11pm.

Sifting thru his lies,(I think Merdith had a canceled phone call her last, to her mom around 9:10pm..not sure)

Rudy states the juice drink, talk, and sex was over about approx 9:20, and he heard the scream, mid-way into song 3, so approx 9:30pm...he says the murder occurred. The fight before the "unknown man" fled was 5 minutes...then he ran to Filomenas room and saw nothing out the window or a silhouette, then the towel scene, and he fled when he thought he heard noises.

Rudy states he was home cleaning up by 10:30pm, (the cellphones tossed in the bushes, with the last attempt to be used at 10:13pm- this specific location of cellphones being found in the bushes was midway to Rudys house, taking the back route so as not to be seen).
He has a alibi with friends by 11:30pm-00:00. midnight.

It seems more logical, than the early conspiracy theory of Raffaele and Amanda being in the crime scene, it's simpler and logical that Rudy did this alone. One doesn't have to speculate as much with Rudy's timeline.

Interesting too is, all the way thru Matteini, Riccareli, and the Supreme court it was believed that the infamous shoe print in the murder room was Raffaele's, damning evidence, but this was found conclusive that it was Rudys, later on. The prosecution and police all accepted this new fact. There was nothing of Raffaele in the crime scene then. For sometime nothing.

That's why there aren't any footprints or fingerprints, no hair, no bruises, cuts and blood DNA, of Amanda and Raffaele, in the crime scene.
Unless we are to believe they floated in air, during this physical atrocious murder. Its asking too much to believe in the prosecution's theory at this point of three adult humans tromping around in this room with a lot of blood on the floor.

I think Rudy's "toilet alibi" was very telling, he hadn't murdered anyone... yet, as there was no blood in Filomenas bathroom.
But he states at around 9:30pm he came out of the bathroom, never to return to the bathroom, at 9:30 the murder occurred....not 11pm.

jmo.

KnoxCase

10-19-2009, 11:59 PM

8:56 pm: After saying goodbye to Robyn on her way home from the English girls’ house, Meredith calls her mother while walking, but her call is interrupted for some unknown reason <TJMK>
-In evidence on Friday, Stefano Sisani, of the Perugia flying squad, revealed that a call to Kercher’s mother, Arline, in Coulsdon, Surrey, was made from her mobile at 8.56pm on the night of November 1. She used the phone daily to call her mother, who was ill. The call was cut off before she got through. <article?>
--

Found this translation. This little fact always made me wonder. Why do phone calls get cut-off?

and throw in, Raffaele pc last activity, accepted/ proven, was 9:10pm.

Emerald

10-20-2009, 10:03 AM

There's really nothing going on until the end of November. Unless somebody makes another inane tv appearance. Nothing to snark about.

The only important statements from the trial which have any bearing on the case would be the Kercher Family attorney statement and the verdict. The prospect of their statement is very sad, but their perspective will be interesting.

In the US, the Family of the victim is not heard directly by the court until the punishment phase of the trial. Except through direct testimony during the trial. This is one of the things about Italian trial system i especially admire.

Natalee Holloway case taught me about the Dutch Justice System. The trial of Amanda Knox has educated about the Italian Justice System.

Very eye-opening about the some glaring inadequacies in the US Criminal Justice System.

Emerald

10-20-2009, 02:24 PM

http://www.seattlecrimeblog.com/2007/11/articles/murder/amanda-knox-suspect-proud-to-find-meredith-kerchers-corpse/

Here is an article dated Nov 14, 2007. Not even 2 weeks after Meredith Kercher was murdered.

Robyn Butterworth, one of the last people to see Miss Kercher alive, told police in Britain that Amanda Knox, 20, "seemed proud" of being the first person to see the body.

Miss Butterworth, who was on the same university exchange programme as Miss Kercher, said she had run into Knox on the day Miss Kercher's body was found.

In a statement to the Northern Constabulary in Scotland, she said: "I went into the police waiting room. It was around 10.30pm. In the waiting room was Amanda, Meredith's flatmate.

"She kept talking about how she had found Meredith and seemed proud of being the first to find her. She behaved as if she was not upset."

Strange behavior from Amanda Knox or did she really discover Meredith then clean up?

Liars tells the truth in their lies.

JMO

Debb

10-20-2009, 03:25 PM

REF. American media coverage.

I have thought that the American media coverage was biased in her favor. I saw a 48 hours Mystery type special about the story about a year ago and thought it was pathetic. It was very biased in her favor IMO. I also saw a piece last week, I can't recall the details, but I think it was CBS news. They had a short interview with Amanda's father. The lead in to the story definitely gave the inpression that Amanda was innocent and more than "not guilty." Who are they scared of on this?

Jester

10-20-2009, 04:29 PM

http://www.seattlecrimeblog.com/2007/11/articles/murder/amanda-knox-suspect-proud-to-find-meredith-kerchers-corpse/

Here is an article dated Nov 14, 2007. Not even 2 weeks after Meredith Kercher was murdered.

Strange behavior from Amanda Knox or did she really discover Meredith then clean up?

Liars tells the truth in their lies.

JMO

By her own words, then, she was in the bedroom long before police arrived. She also described, for many, that Meredith bled out, adding to her claims that she knew all about the nature of the murder before any information was released.

If we only listen to what Amanda had to say in the 2-3 weeks after the murder, there is little doubt about her involvement. After she had a lawyer, her story changed, but that doesn't mean she's innocent.

Jester

10-20-2009, 04:30 PM

Michael

10-21-2009, 07:08 AM

I think the 48 hours story focused more on an attempt to smear the prosecutor, and imply judicial misconduct, than to distance Amanda from her involvement in the murder.

Yes, but then, that show was arranged by the FOA and featured a number of talking heads from the FOA, namely Douglas Preston and Paul Ciolino.

Emerald

10-21-2009, 09:21 AM

Michael

10-21-2009, 10:20 AM

The only thing the US media coverage can do is irritate the Italian process. Some of the things I've read indicate the Prosecutor will not put up with any nonsense like the LKL interview. Has he responded yet? Do you think he will?

Probably not since he himself wasn't defamed. And for the rest, people are allowed to defame a system or a country or a town. Strangely, the same doesn't apply to corporations. Imagine if you said such things about MacDonalds for example, you'd be in court before your feet could touch the ground. That is because the law classifies a corporation/company as a 'person'. In law, a 'person' can be defamed or libelled and as a result can take legal action. Towns, nations, systems, departments or government agencies, unlike private equivilents (companys, charities), are not legally reocognised as a 'person' and therefore, in the eyes of the law cannot be defamed.

Emerald

10-21-2009, 04:18 PM

Michael

10-21-2009, 04:42 PM

It seemed the AK Family was being very careful not to mention the Prosecutor..

Maybe the reason John Q Kelly was there, without any prior connection to the case may have been because the segment was bumped from Thursday night to Friday night. Those news shows have a list of 'talking heads' they can call on a moments notice. Perhaps JQK was the only one available for Friday night.

Hi Emerald. No prior connection? Are you sure? I'm not. It's true he had no 'overt' prior connection, but behind the scenes, who knows? One thing is true in regard to the FOA. Certain characters only reveal themselves to be FOA late in the day, some not directly at all. There's a reason for that. Certain personalities have a greater contribution potential if they are portrayed as an independent neutral commentator. The reality is, that when you scratch beneath the surface you find there certainly isn't any neutrality here. There's certainly a buddy network coming into play.

Of course, this is just my opinion (some of it...although I can prove direct connections for many others), but to form a view on how on the level these individuals are one only has to listen to their delivery and look for their evidence to back up their opinions. But, one never gets the evidence, only the opinions. Truly, talk is cheap.

Make no mistake. This is an intricate and complex case. For each layer one unravels, there's another beneath. Beware of those that attempt to over simplify it with unsupported soundbites.

Emerald

10-21-2009, 06:31 PM

I agree, Michael. This case is very complex.

I believe AK is guilty of complicity in the crimes against Meredith Kercher. But, then, I don't have the burdensome task of deciding to condemn her to prison for virtually the rest of her life.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind the Italian courts are doing everything humanly possible to assure the proper conclusion.

pixiejoolz

10-21-2009, 07:47 PM

Does anyone remember way, way back at the beginning of this case, that Anne Bremner was somehow connected with it? I almost positive that remember her discussing it on Nancy Grace (I think Bremner is from Seattle, too); but not a peep since then about it. :confused:

Emerald

10-21-2009, 08:18 PM

Anne Bremner appears from time to time. There is never lengthy commentary.

pixiejoolz

10-21-2009, 08:52 PM

Anne Bremner appears from time to time. There is never lengthy commentary.

I've seen her on the show, but I haven't heard her mention this case. Do you know if she is still connected with it? TIA

Emerald

10-21-2009, 09:24 PM

dgfred

10-21-2009, 11:05 PM

Nobody "connected to the case (FOA)" says more than there is no evidence. NObody will take questions or discuss it.

It's baffling that Larry King even allowed the appearance.:confused:

Anne Bremner has the clout to bring this case to tv. So, I don't know what's up.

The things done/said and actual evidence are probably quite hard to explain away :unsure: .

Emerald

10-22-2009, 10:03 PM

Just a bit of trivia.

Washington is a death penalty state. If Amanda Knox was being tried at home, it's possible the prosecutor would be seeking the death penalty for her sentence.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/states-and-without-death-penalty

KnoxCase

10-23-2009, 12:09 AM

Nobody "connected to the case (FOA)" says more than there is no evidence. NObody will take questions or discuss it.

It's baffling that Larry King even allowed the appearance.:confused:

I know what you mean. I understand the train of thought behind the common statement, but it is a vague statement on the pro-defense side.

I think what they really mean is there is "no evidence they believe in" against the two college kids. Obviously the prosecution has presented their case.

The saying "no evidence" also is a refusal to accept the prosecutions presentation, to deny it as hear-say and nothing more than that. Its not that they aren't aware of the pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution.

You have read enough, you understand both sides and both views, i'll assume.

as for Larry King, its just a show and one that was pushed out to make room for Balloon Boy.
No one at my workplace even knows about this case but maybe one or two that heard of it for 10 seconds in a news clip.
Its not of interest where I am, at all...zero, nothing, no interest, not talked about, not discussed, nothing.

If it goes to appeal, all these forums will dissipate I suspect.

jmo...

Jester

10-23-2009, 03:41 AM

I know what you mean. I understand the train of thought behind the common statement, but it is a vague statement on the pro-defense side.

I think what they really mean is there is "no evidence they believe in" against the two college kids. Obviously the prosecution has presented their case.

The saying "no evidence" also is a refusal to accept the prosecutions presentation, to deny it as hear-say and nothing more than that. Its not that they aren't aware of the pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution.

You have read enough, you understand both sides and both views, i'll assume.

as for Larry King, its just a show and one that was pushed out to make room for Balloon Boy.
No one at my workplace even knows about this case but maybe one or two that heard of it for 10 seconds in a news clip.
Its not of interest where I am, at all...zero, nothing, no interest, not talked about, not discussed, nothing.

If it goes to appeal, all these forums will dissipate I suspect.

jmo...

If this is a single assailant murder, how do you explain the barefoot print evidence? There is clear footprint evidence of Rudy with shoes. Did Rudy take off his shoes, shorten his barefoot print during the murder, then put his shoes back on and run away ... after throwing a rock against the window ... using the toilet, ransacking a bedroom ... leaving a knife with Meredith's DNA at her roommates boyfriend's apartment?

I have tried to imagine how Meredith's blood could have gotten into the bathroom without Rudy entering the bathroom, and tried to ... unbelievable ... imagine that the bloody and luminoled footprints were made by Meredith stepping in her own blood, and I can't see a scenario where this works.

Could you please take a couple of minutes and explain how the single assailant theory works with the evidence of barefoot bloody prints on the matt, and luminoled footprint evidence?

I think most people have heard about this case, but they don't really care about it. Sure it's a college murder involving citizens from Britain, Italy, and the US, but there doesn't appear to be much curiosity about who did it. That much has been proven.

Forums can go here and there, but the electronic information will not disappear ... unless it's a blog.

Jester

10-23-2009, 04:04 AM

Jester

10-23-2009, 06:25 AM

There are two barefoot prints in the cottage. They belong to someone that was at the scene of the crime. This has not been disputed.

Rudy has been verified as being at the scene during the murder with shoe prints. He wouldn't take off his shoes after the murder, walk in blood, put his shoes back on, and leave? He kept on his shoes. Besides, the bloody barefoot print doesn't match Rudy's barefoot print.

If Rudy didn't take off his shoes, why are there two unexplained barefoot prints; one in blood, one luminol?

If there is only one assailant, it must have been Meredith that made the bloody footprint on the matt. How could she have walked in her own blood to the bathroom? Impossible. The theory that Rudy wiped up Meredith's footprints, but left his own feces in the other bathroom, is ...

Impossible.

Someone else was in the cottage at the time of the murder.

KnoxCase

10-23-2009, 10:42 AM

If this is a single assailant murder, how do you explain the barefoot print evidence? There is clear footprint evidence of Rudy with shoes. Did Rudy take off his shoes, shorten his barefoot print during the murder, then put his shoes back on and run away ... after throwing a rock against the window ... using the toilet, ransacking a bedroom ... leaving a knife with Meredith's DNA at her roommates boyfriend's apartment?

I have tried to imagine how Meredith's blood could have gotten into the bathroom without Rudy entering the bathroom, and tried to ... unbelievable ... imagine that the bloody and luminoled footprints were made by Meredith stepping in her own blood, and I can't see a scenario where this works.

Could you please take a couple of minutes and explain how the single assailant theory works with the evidence of barefoot bloody prints on the matt, and luminoled footprint evidence?

I think most people have heard about this case, but they don't really care about it. Sure it's a college murder involving citizens from Britain, Italy, and the US, but there doesn't appear to be much curiosity about who did it. That much has been proven.

Forums can go here and there, but the electronic information will not disappear ... unless it's a blog.

Luminol footprints were not tested for blood, one option. Many things make Luminol glow. Many people lived in the cottage and walked barefoot. The defense knows if they looked harder you can find other peoples footprints there, actually many footprints were found, but they were focusing on Amanda and Raffaele, obviously building a case for them not interested in Laura and Filomenas prints. Amanda said her fingerprints are all over the cottage on her guitar, the tv area her room...but the prosecution wasn't interested in this, and somehow media headlines "clean-up! no fingerprints and she lived there!!"
well who would cleanup a place they lived in? really...

And I am by no ways read up, nor intelligent, on the footprints, because they were not in the crime scene of the bedroom. I've seen them a bit. Amanda took showers there, Meredith probably has some footprints around too that will show up with Luminol, Filomena and Laura prints can be found with luminol, as I understand it. The footprints are a real weak point for me.... I tend to look at them as "blobs" no offense to anyone who is a "footprint expert"...but blobs they are.....now the police work on the shoeprints that are very clear, was amazing work how to their favor the police found the shoeprint was Rudy and not Raffaele as originally stated.(this also kind of ruins the conspiracy theory against the police too...)

But the barefootprint blobs, I don't know....one defense guy had a theory Rudy took his shoe off as he was cleaning up. its all speculation isn't it? Is it Raffales? or Rudys...its a frkn blob...I've seen the pictures, and both look like they can fit if you work it right. Too bad there wasn't a few others.

many don't believe Rudy was helping Meredith but trying a short lived attempt to cleanup but the blood was too much, and he fled. But Rudy states he was in the infamous bathroom, not once but twice, as the towels soaked in blood very quickly he returned to get another.
The bathroom mat footprint is the big question,as I understand it.
I don't know, on its own its not enough. How it got there?
Why were all the footprints in the crime scene LEft side? Idk?
But they nailed Rudy on those tennis shoe prints...excellent work.

yes, Rudy told he went to the bathroom twice with the bloody Towel scene, after looking out Filomenas window and story1) couldn't see anything it was dark ...story2) saw a silhoutte that could have been Amanda all the way up to the street by the gate.
But this is the hard part for me, Rudys early testimonys were "couldn't see anything"...the only light was the lamp in Merediths bedroom, it was dark. Then only after the "interrogation 4 months later, Rudy can amazingly point to Raffaele and Amanda! the magic Edgardo Giobbi INterrogator Lying Squad Close the Case again! whooola!

Rudy is the only one who can probably tell the truth, but he's a habitual liar it seems. So everything is partial truths, partial lies.

Reading his story though, some is interesting like how dark it was, only the bedroom light was on, the floor lamp....no one else would add that.

but yet, Meredith discussed guys openly with close friends, and she said nothing of a consensual date with Rudy.

how about Raffaeles DNA on the bra clasp?
I think its obviously contaminated with 5 other peoples mixed DNA...but yet it doesn't answer the question, How did Raffaele's DNA get on that bra clasp?
How did all the other peoples DNA get on the mixed dna Bra Clasp?
Its very damning for Raffaele. Its a High Peak, strong read, as I understand it....but yet its also contaminated with other peopels dna?

you mention the knife, but personally I think thats a real weak piece for the prosecution. almost 100% experts believe its not the murder weapon , wrong size. the dna was miniscule to allow a fair re-test, and the lab report shows "too low" was read by the tool that provides dna data.....and for me, it doesn't match the bloody knife pattern on the bedsheet in the crime room. it doesn't fit hardly at all. very weak.

I think Rudy knows, he probably tossed it, like he did his bloody tennis shoes. He was reading up on the case as he hid in Germany. This is why
Micheli didn't believe him often, when he tried to pin it on Amanda and Raffaele, it was facts released from the news, contradicting how dark out it was and no light in the cottage as he said.

Emerald

10-23-2009, 11:30 AM

Is November 1 Daylight Savings Time 2009, like when Amanda phoned her mom at 12:47 and it was 4:47 (not quite DST in Seattle until the 3rd or 4th).

I wonder if Amanda will think about that night on November 1 ... the night she lost an hour, gained an hour, or otherwise misplaced an hour in DST. Coincidentally, so did her boyfriend ... misplace an hour or two. They both claimed marijuana induced amnesia, but no one believes this. Reefer Madness is known to be a myth.

I'm a child of the '60s. There was some marijuana which had been laced with other potent drugs. I've often wondered if the pot AK and RS claim to have smoked may have been laced. They knew it, but won't admit it.

JMO

Jester

10-23-2009, 12:38 PM

And I am by no ways read up, nor intelligent, on the footprints, because they were not in the crime scene of the bedroom. I've seen them a bit. Amanda took showers there, Meredith probably has some footprints around too that will show up with Luminol, Filomena and Laura prints can be found with luminol, as I understand it. The footprints are a real weak point for me.... I tend to look at them as "blobs" no offense to anyone who is a "footprint expert"...but blobs they are.....now the police work on the shoeprints that are very clear, was amazing work how to their favor the police found the shoeprint was Rudy and not Raffaele as originally stated.(this also kind of ruins the conspiracy theory against the police too...)

But the barefootprint blobs, I don't know....one defense guy had a theory Rudy took his shoe off as he was cleaning up. its all speculation isn't it? Is it Raffales? or Rudys...its a frkn blob...I've seen the pictures, and both look like they can fit if you work it right. Too bad there wasn't a few others.

<snipped for space>

But ... back to my question ... in the single assailant theory, how is the bloody footprint on the matt explained? Either Rudy took off his shoes after the murder, traipsed in the blood ... or someone else was there. No? How many murderers who know there are 4 tenants, and know they could be discovered any moment, take off their shoes after they murder?

Even if it is a blob ... what is the explanation?

dgfred

10-23-2009, 01:59 PM

Plus the bloody footprints that had to lead up to the one on the mat were cleaned up. Why would Rudi do that?

Emerald

10-23-2009, 02:10 PM

Emerald

10-23-2009, 02:13 PM

Plus the bloody footprints that had to lead up to the one on the mat were cleaned up. Why would Rudi do that?

dgfred, looks like we were posting at the same time.

If Rudy was hte one doing the clean up, why are his the only foot prints not cleaned up?

Michael

10-23-2009, 02:53 PM

Luminol footprints were not tested for blood, one option. Many things make Luminol glow. Many people lived in the cottage and walked barefoot. The defense knows if they looked harder you can find other peoples footprints there, actually many footprints were found, but they were focusing on Amanda and Raffaele, obviously building a case for them not interested in Laura and Filomenas prints. Amanda said her fingerprints are all over the cottage on her guitar, the tv area her room...but the prosecution wasn't interested in this, and somehow media headlines "clean-up! no fingerprints and she lived there!!"
well who would cleanup a place they lived in? really...

What else would the luminol prints have been but blood? And what do you mean 'they'd have found other prints if they'd "looked harder" '? I think that's HUGE assumption to make and one that's unwarranted since they applied luminol to the whole floor.

Moreover, the luminol footprint in the corridor that matches Sollecito tells us exactly what it was in since it's identical brother is also on the bath mat and that is in Meredith's visible blood.

As for Filomena and Laura's prints, they wouldn't be theirs since they were never there the day of the murder and on the day of the discovery only entered in shoes.

The media was correct regarding Amanda's fingerprints. Only one of her fingerprints was found in the cottage...on a glass in the kitchen. Amanda 'never' said anything about fingerprints on the TV or the guitar. I don't know where you got that from.

And I am by no ways read up, nor intelligent, on the footprints, because they were not in the crime scene of the bedroom.

The whole apartment is the crime scene. And, there is no law that states that all forensic evidence must be within 5 feet of the victim.

Its very damning for Raffaele. Its a High Peak, strong read, as I understand it....but yet its also contaminated with other peopels dna?

The other 'peoples' DNA on the clasp are Meredith's, which one would expect to find, Amanda Knox's and two unknown femlaes which is probably Laura's and Filomena's. But those one would expect to find there since the girls shared laundry facilities. The profiles aside from Meredith's and Raffaele's, are also very low, due to the point being almost unreadable. The amount of Raffaele's DNA on the clasp indicates it could only have got there by direct and vigorous conact. High profiles don't occur by contamination.

you mention the knife, but personally I think thats a real weak piece for the prosecution. almost 100% experts believe its not the murder weapon , wrong size. the dna was miniscule to allow a fair re-test, and the lab report shows "too low" was read by the tool that provides dna data"

It's important because it doesn't matter if a sample is very low, if it's a non-noisy reading, as the profile on the knife was. One would expect a noisy sample if contamination was the cause. Then, combined with the fact Meredith's DNA has no buisness being on there and the fact that the knife matches the main fatal wound, then it's important.

Michael

10-23-2009, 03:01 PM

It's understandable an immediate response is a try to assist a gravely wounded Meredith. The towels are evidence. Whoever was there, then tried to clean and stage the scene. Why would Rudy do this? Does the DNA on the towels only match Rudy and Meredith? Amanda lived in the home, so her DNA could be explained away on the towels.

The rifled rooms of the house were Filomena's and Meredith's. Very odd the only thing removed from Amanda's room (which is between the other 2) was the lamp for light in Meredith's room.

JMO

Laura's was gone through too. Her bag was open and had been gone through and so forth. However, it wasn't in a mess like Meredith's and Filomena's.

As for the towels, no DNA has been taken from them.

Amanda's room had luminol revealed bare footprints that match Amanda. The luminol pint in the corridor that mathces Amanda is right outside Meredith's door, pointing towards it.

Michael

10-23-2009, 03:03 PM

Even if it is a blob ... what is the explanation?

The print on the mat is rather far more then a blob, it's a very clear print actually, especially under enhancement.

KnoxCase

10-23-2009, 04:22 PM

But ... back to my question ... in the single assailant theory, how is the bloody footprint on the matt explained? Either Rudy took off his shoes after the murder, traipsed in the blood ... or someone else was there. No? How many murderers who know there are 4 tenants, and know they could be discovered any moment, take off their shoes after they murder?

Even if it is a blob ... what is the explanation?

Like I said I don't know either. As someone said "it's up to Rudy to tell the whole story"...whether he will or not is up to him.

One person said it was Rudy took a shoe off, maybe to clean blood from his shoe? As you say maybe he took his shoes off for some cleanup?...we can guess all day. Rudy had been to the house and he knew no one was home, upstairs or downstairs. Maybe he did know the tenants would be gone except Meredith? He knew the boys well and had met Meredith and Amanda. He claims to have spoken to Meredith Oct 31, maybe she told him? But this is only guessing.

But its no different than guessing it was Raffaele hopping on one foot in blood? Why would he be there leaving one footprint, when there is nothing to show his blood ever met his foot in the bedroom?
....he has been found to not have even one footprint in the murder scene, so its impossible to have any testimony to it being Raffaele.
Its even more difficult to fantasize Raffaele left a barefoot there, when he has no bloody barefootprint in the bedroom.

Only Rudy has numerous shoe-prints in the bedroom Which we can assume made his shoes bloody. Maybe he took one off to clean his Nike? This makes more logic than dreaming up Raffaele dropped one footprint somehow in blood and left one print somehow.

"if I toy with this thought, this theory of Raffaele one solo bloody barefootprint... it doesn't make any sense!
His shoes were found to not have any blood on them, therefore he wouldn't need to wash his feet. He never admitted to being in the bathroom as Rudy did. So there's no testimony, no bloody tennis shoes, no bloody socks nothing....and they searched his house and took his shoes.
"if" we imagine a dream, he had been cleaning up blood in the murder scene bedroom, where are Raffaele's footprints in the murder scene? there aren't any. Nothing works easily for this "dream" of Raffaele.

"If" I was a juror, the bathmat footprint would not convince me of anything, or exclude anything. The Bathroom Mat Footprint, would be left in the pile of "non-conclusive samples" like the bloody knife print on the bedsheet. imo.

Using Logic- you got me wondering more about this...:blink:

Which is easier to be logical?

A) Rudy who says he was in the room in a bloody event, going back and forth to the bedroom in a bloody situation...and having blood on his shoe, so it is possible he took a shoe off to clean it in the bathroom.

or

B) Raffaele who has no footprints at all in the crime scene and says he never showered there.

Call in the experts!
The experts cancel each other out, one saying maybe Raffaele....one maybe Rudy...."blob". partial footprint, and when a foot is moving it can distort the print too, someone wasn't standing still intentionally leaving a print like they do in prison. non-conclusive.

Raffaele leaving one odd print in the bathroom? but none in the murder scene? Its doesn't sound right because it probably isn't right.

I'd have to choose (A)......
The Lone Wolf, Rudy works because its "more real".
Rudy has motive for theft, he has motive for sex, he has the preponderance of evidence against him in the crime scene and in and on the victim.
Rudy was arrested for burglary, not charged, but arrested.
He created a "date"...his hand in the purse? why would he not be the thief? No one elses hands was found to be in the purse, no one elses DNA or prints was in the purse.

He admits to being in blood, he admits blood on his shoes, and he admits to running into and out of the bathroom, he admitted to throwing away the bloody shoes in Germany....

He didn't explain the one bare footprint...I wonder if he ever will?

Michael

10-23-2009, 05:03 PM

A) Rudy who says he was in the room in a bloody event, going back and forth to the bedroom in a bloody situation...and having blood on his shoe, so it is possible he took a shoe off to clean it in the bathroom.

So if he's cleaned his shoe, why's he then got blood all over them in order to leave a trail of bloody trainer prints leaving the cottage?

If his shoe is bloody, how's his bare foot bloody, in order to leave the print on the mat?

An identical print to the one on the mat is revealed in luminol further down the corridor in between Amanda's and Filomena's room, heading towards the kitchen. Who then cleaned that footprint? What's it doing there in the first place if Rudy had only removed his shoe to clean it?

If he had gone into the bathroom to clean his shoe, where did he do it? If he did it in the sink, why is Meredith's blood in the bidet? If he cleaned it in the bidet, then why is his footprint on the mat in front of the shower/sink instead of in front of the bidet?

Who cleaned the trail of his prints to the bathroom?

The greatest flaw of course, is that the print on the mat is not a match for Rudy, not only in features, but in side. For Rudy's foot to fit the print on the mat it needs to be shrunk down to 23 cm. That's smaller then Amanda's feet. There's no way that's Rudy Guede's footprint.

KnoxCase

10-23-2009, 05:13 PM

The other 'peoples' DNA on the clasp are Meredith's, which one would expect to find, Amanda Knox's and two unknown femlaes which is probably Laura's and Filomena's. But those one would expect to find there since the girls shared laundry facilities. The profiles aside from Meredith's and Raffaele's, are also very low, due to the point being almost unreadable. The amount of Raffaele's DNA on the clasp indicates it could only have got there by direct and vigorous conact. High profiles don't occur by contamination.

It's important because it doesn't matter if a sample is very low, if it's a non-noisy reading, as the profile on the knife was. One would expect a noisy sample if contamination was the cause. Then, combined with the fact Meredith's DNA has no buisness being on there and the fact that the knife matches the main fatal wound, then it's important.

Thats, interesting on the bra clasp, I'd never heard that it was females, only unknown. The laundry factor...

I've been reading on the "too low" and it's not good for the knife evidence. Applied Biosystems tool, using Geneie software...."too low" means not readable, I think was understood by non-technical people like the Judges and Jurors.

A person is not too turn up and amplify things for their convenience, these tools are not to be adjusted to force a reading. There was also no baseline. So I disagree on the knife.
Secondly it was not a proper amount. As good as these tools are they are not "magic machines" and need certain amounts for a good sample.
Legally it seems unfair there just isn't enough for a re-test should the jurors request it.

Among all the other issues with knife, the preponderance of the experts info also shows its not the right weapon for this stabbing.

A small knife, penknife, 3"...seems to be the majority on this issue.

Michael

10-23-2009, 05:23 PM

Thats, interesting on the bra clasp, I'd never heard that it was females, only unknown. The laundry factor...

I've been reading on the "too low" and it's not good for the knife evidence. Applied Biosystems tool, using Geneie software...."too low" means not readable, I think was understood by non-technical people like the Judges and Jurors.

A person is not too turn up and amplify things for their convenience, these tools are not to be adjusted to force a reading. There was also no baseline. So I disagree on the knife.
Secondly it was not a proper amount. As good as these tools are they are not "magic machines" and need certain amounts for a good sample.
Legally it seems unfair there just isn't enough for a re-test should the jurors request it.

Among all the other issues with knife, the preponderance of the experts info also shows its not the right weapon for this stabbing.

A small knife, penknife, 3"...seems to be the majority on this issue.

Stefanoni is the expert and is therefore on the cutting edge. Not the engineers that build the machines. She is best place to know what can and can't be done.

The knife is compatable with the fatal wound. It is not compatible with one of the smaller wounds. The prosecution have always maintained that more then one knife was probably used.

Emerald

10-23-2009, 06:22 PM

KnoxCase,

Why would Rudi bother to clean anything after the crime, leaving so much more?

That's why the 'lone wolf' theory does not work for me. Well, that and the forensic evidence left by Amanda.

Also, Amanda's room was not touched.

ETA.... I'd like to know who locked Meredith's bedroom door AFTER the crime.

Michael

10-23-2009, 06:44 PM

Rudy left his mess everywhere. He wasn't the least bit interested in cleaning or staging. He was either forensically unaware or didn't care, or both. But someone certainly was and did.

It is inescapable that there were two different mind sets, of at least two different individuals, at work at the crime scene.

Emerald

10-23-2009, 09:28 PM

Is the 2nd level trial as long as the first one? Will it take months?

Michael

10-23-2009, 09:35 PM

Is the 2nd level trial as long as the first one? Will it take months?

No, that should be shorter. It's being forecast that Guede's second degree will take about two weeks. Although, that reflects and a appeal for a fast track trial rather then a full trial like Amanda and Raffaele opted for. There's will be shorter then the first degree, but will be rather longer then two weeks I would imagine.

Actually, I'll post something up on Rudy's upcoming second degree trisl in in moment.

Michael

10-23-2009, 09:39 PM

Trans: 'Jools'

Il Messaggero:
ITALO CARMIGNANI AND VANNA UGOLINI
Kercher proceedings.

On November 18 Guede back to Court: has nothing to do with Amanda and Raffaele.

Rudy, the truth is in the towels.

His defence requests another expert: “Will demonstrate that he assisted Mez.”

Enough now with the half-sentences, and with the uncertainties. Now Rudy Guede, sentenced already to thirty years for the murder of Meredith Kercher, killed nearly two years ago when at 22 left London to come to study in Perugia. He (RG) wants to completely cut ties with the other two defendants, Meredith's roommate, Amanda Knox and her former boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, both also accused of the murder and for which their first degree trial process is near to the conclusions, due by the first week of December.
Rudy plays his last chance, big chance in the Appeal’s process, scheduled for November 18, during which he wants to completely overturn a verdict that, for now, has him inside a jail cell for three decades. For this reason his lawyers, Nicodemo Gentile and Valter Biscotti, have officially deposited the request to reopen the Appeal process.
At the first degree trial, in fact, the lawyers chose the abbreviated rite, were confident of being able to get Rudy acquitted based on the elements gathered, without introducing new ones, at the time.

Now however, the lawyers want to play two new aces. The first, as anticipated by the Il Messaggero, a psychiatric evaluation that examines Rudy’s behavior on the night when he fled from Meredith’s house. "It was not a escape to create an alibi as upheld by the judge Paolo Micheli (said Gentile and Biscotti) but a behaviour like a dissociative escape, for example, the attempt to run away by who is under shock from what he has seen.”

The second ace in the hand the lawyers want to play is that of an expert-analysis (perizia) of the towels found beside Meredith’s body. “I've used them to pad the victim’s wounds as she was dying,” Rudy claimed when he provided his version of events. Those towels however, were only partially analyzed, and then were poorly preserved, so they’re partly moldy. However, according to Rudy's lawyers, they could still be useful for analysis.
-------
“They eloped, I stayed to assist Mez”

Rudy against Amanda and Raffaele: no complicity.

Lawyer Gentile argues: “Beyond any consideration the objective and incontrovertible fact remains: the towels were taken by Rudy from the bathroom to try to staunch Meredith’s wounds. All other considerations in relation to such circumstances are without probative value, because is disengaged from any positive comparison.”

According to Gentile and Biscotti the fact that Rudy tried to save Meredith and then ran off without returning to the house on Via della Pergola indicates that there was no complicity between him and the other two defendants.“The conduct of Guede who sought, however, to help assist Meredith, represents an element of break and of invisible rupture in respect of the conduct of the other two defendants, because is about a conduct incompatible with the desire to kill of the other two subjects.”

Briefly, it’s the reasoning behind the request for partial reopening of the trial “is not understood why Rudy participated consciously and actively first in the sexual violence and the Kercher murder and then, moved by pity, tried to saved Meredith then later, still, even, didn’t come back to be with his accomplices to manipulate the crime scene.”

Indirectly, according to the lawyers, the testimony given by Nara Capezzali, the lady who said she heard a piercing scream that night and then the sound of feet running away from the house, is considered compatible with Rudy’s confession. “The foosteps on the gravel heard by the witness (say the lawyers) more or less simultaneous with the scream, can be attributed to the other defendants, as Rudy told when he was in jail in Germany when even the existence of Capezzali the witness was known only by the office of the prosecutor”.
In short, Capezzali heard only two people running away because the third was trying to rescue the victim.

Lawyer Gentile explains further, “Why would Rudy was to stage a sexual assault, knowing that, anyhow, having had a relation with Meredith, suspicion therefore would fall upon him?”

The search continues for new evidence, above all, testimony that should serve to reinforce what was said by Rudy, especially the reconstruction of that bloody night during which he wandered alone, changed his clothes and he met a friend.
”We have entrusted to the Ponzi International Institute (says lawyers Biscotti and Gentile) supplementary evidence to corroborate Rudy’s version.”

“The basic objective is to find and go deeper into some elements that we consider of great importance for the defense, as we think that many people must have got to see Rudy October 31 or November 1, but influenced by the uproar of the events might have distanced themselves. These people know that Rudy’s version is truthful especially regarding his movements and contacts of those two evenings.”

Biscotti and Gentile explained, “We turned to what is best in the field of investigation, because we want these investigations conducted in a specialized and precise manner. We want to trace, for example, the track of Oct 31, the meeting between Rudy and Meredith, with possible exchange of small effusions.
To center it, an email was also created, gruppoponziperrudylive.it, “because we are certain that there are still elements to clarify that only certain witnesses, to date not yet identified, could bring out into the light.”

The verdict for first degree for Sollecito and Knox, whom requested to be tried in an ordinary process and that of the appeals for Rudy, will be “crossing” and perhaps is why the President of the Court of Assize Giancarlo Massei, declared closed the debates hearing on 9 October and set the closing arguments to 20 November to start with the indictments from both prosecutors Giuliano Mignini and Manuela Comodi.
The busy schedule of hearings has been set and verdict could come in early December, when probably, at Rudy’s trial sentence would’ve arrived by then already.

Emerald

10-23-2009, 10:02 PM

Devil's advocate......

Let's say for a moment the scream was Amanda when she realized what had happened. The running feet sound was Amanda. The next morning she returns to clean up, lock Meredith's door. Hoping someone else would officially 'discover' the crime.

When no one else appeared to 'discover' what had happened, Amanda summons Rafaele.

Amanda knew what was behind the bedroom door before police entered.

JMO

KnoxCase

10-23-2009, 11:08 PM

Stefanoni is the expert and is therefore on the cutting edge. Not the engineers that build the machines. She is best place to know what can and can't be done.

The knife is compatable with the fatal wound. It is not compatible with one of the smaller wounds. The prosecution have always maintained that more then one knife was probably used.

Oh no, this will never sell. The OEM's who build these tools are very sure of how they are to be ran. They have whats called specifications and calibrations that are industry standard.

Adjusting anything is like adjusting the speedometer on your car so it reads 55 instead of the true value of 64 (for example)...

I don't think anyone is going to buy the knife is compatible. Thats kind of a lost argument.

Its only a stretch, but that there might be more than one knife but the Kitchen knife is definately not the murder weapon.

KnoxCase

10-23-2009, 11:26 PM

Rudy Nov 18.

So the article implys he's going to try to pin it on Amanda and Raffaele....good luck with that.
Gee, he forgot no one buys his "date" alibi. Merediths friends kind of ruined that alibi.

oh.. so about that dna of his, inside and on Meredith..and his bloody tennis shoe prints everywhere in the murder location...and in Merediths purse.

I'm afraid not many professionals buy his "toilet alibi" either. basically he says within 7 minutes, aka 2.5 Ipod songs, some stranger ran in killed Meredith and fled while he was pooping during his date.

What is interesting is we are starting to hear his final story. He's not helping anyone, he's trying to be 100% innocent, alone, and blame it all on the two college kids. He's trying to maintain the date and toilet alibi's.

Unfortunately this means many questions will go unanswered.

KnoxCase

10-23-2009, 11:56 PM

Laura's was gone through too. Her bag was open and had been gone through and so forth. However, it wasn't in a mess like Meredith's and Filomena's.

As for the towels, no DNA has been taken from them.

Amanda's room had luminol revealed bare footprints that match Amanda. The luminol pint in the corridor that mathces Amanda is right outside Meredith's door, pointing towards it.
********
Torre also pointed out that the luminol footprints that investigators say are of Knox's bare feet cannot be because Knox's second toe is longer than her big toe, and that characteristic is not apparent in the lumino-enhanced prints. He also pointed out that the bare footprints of the other two women who lived in the house were not taken for comparison, nor were those of the victim.
********

I was just sifting thru old notes, and came across this about the footprints.

KnoxCase

10-24-2009, 12:32 AM

This is only a sample of a few knife testimony's, in brief.

I couldn't find the article mentioning the size of the bloody knife pattern. But here's some old snips...

****************
Armando Finzi, an assistant in the Perugia police department's organized crimes unit, first discovered the knife in Sollecito's kitchen drawer. He said the first thing he noticed upon entering the place was a "strong smell of bleach." He opened the drawer and saw "very shiny and clean" knife lying on top of the silverware tray.

"It was the first knife I saw," he said. When pressed on cross-examination, said his "investigative intuition" led him to believe it was the murder weapon because it was compatible with the wound as it had been described to him. With gloved hands, he placed the knife in a new police envelope, taped it shut with Scotch tape, then placed it inside a folder, he said. There were smaller and bigger knives in the drawer, but no others were taken into evidence from the kitchen, he said. A small knife was taken into evidence from Sollecito's bedroom, along with other items.

The Knife Poll:

1) Dr. Lalli Nov 5, states the fatal wound was a penknife.

2) Torre, who is a renowned forensic consultant in Italy and has worked on a number of high-profile cases, told the judges and jurors today he believes the three cuts to Kercher's throat were made by a smaller knife, with a blade that was, at most, 3 inches long. He feels the the big wide slash to her throat was made by the sawing action of the smaller knife.

3) (Kercher witness) Bacci said that the knife the prosecutors believe is the murder weapon is compatible with the largest and deepest cut in Kercher's throat but is not compatible with another, smaller wound. This is the first time a witness for the prosecution has mentioned the possibility that more than one knife might have been used

4) the judge-appointed forensic expert who reviewed the evidence in the weeks after the homicide raised questions about the compatibility of the knife as the murder weapon, testifying that it did not match one of the two knife wounds on the right hand side of Kercher's neck.
"A blade of that dimension going in 4 centimeters deep would have made a wider wound," Cingolani said. "Many other knives are probably more compatible with a lesion of that type."

5) The judge Mattenini, in her 19 page report, said it was not yet clear who inflicted the fatal wound, but her ruling said Sollecito's footprints were found in Kercher's room and identified the murder weapon as a knife with a 3.3-inch-long blade that the Italian usually had with him.
(of course the Raffaele footprints were later proven to be Rudys)

Jester

10-24-2009, 02:30 AM

<snipped for space>

Which is easier to be logical?

A) Rudy who says he was in the room in a bloody event, going back and forth to the bedroom in a bloody situation...and having blood on his shoe, so it is possible he took a shoe off to clean it in the bathroom.

or

B) Raffaele who has no footprints at all in the crime scene and says he never showered there.

So, with the single assailant theory, there doesn't seem to be any explanation for the other footprints without assuming the experts are wrong, or creating scenarios that are inconsistent with other facts. Rudy wouldn't clean up a couple of footprints, and leave other obvious evidence, so he didn't clean up. The luminol footprint is a footprint, not a blob, and the bloody footprint has been identified by experts as a footprint, not a blob. That leaves us with two unexplained footprints that are smaller than Rudy's foot, so they must belong to someone else. The single assailant theory seems to rely on the familiar claim that experts are wrong ... the only argument that has been presented by defence. If we assume experts are not wrong, then there is no alternative but to conclude there were 2-3 assailants.

Emerald

10-24-2009, 08:50 AM

I'm one who does not subscribe to AK as a party to the actual murder, but the periphery of the crime. Staging, coverup attempt and negligent in assisting the victim.

The cleaning of the footprints could have been an attempt to not leave a mess behind. The room mates had recently chastised AK about her housekeeping habits. She seems to exhibit an attitude of "if I ignore it, it will go away". From what I've observed of the AK Family PR, this is a common thread. So, maybe, it was "if i ignore what I just witnessed, cleaning the footprints will make it go away".

Judging by the things Amanda lied about immediately, shows she had time to consider what she deemed condemning to herself. The lies are on the same level as those told to make AK paint herself as completely innocent in the disturbing the peace crime. Like "It's not my pot. I'm just holding it for a friend"

Lots of platitudes and trivialities. But they seems to fit. So does the evidence.

KnoxCase

10-24-2009, 05:21 PM

I'm a bit of that perspective too....Emerald.
It's the middle "gray" area thats not fully answered for me.

Its not that I can't believe another theory, its that the ones presented are too polarized for me, and none fully work 100%, imo...

The Lone Wolf is my more logical stance, but there's some very compelling things that don't fit with it still.

There's little oddities that don't add up, like being stoned as a alibi. Stoned- doesn't work for me either. Forgetting whether you had sex doesn't work too well... changing stories, and I'm not talking about the coerced-interrogation.

The Mignini theory doesn't work for the Lone Wolf club, either, not at all actually.
It leaves out logical motive, it ignores way too much science. It expects one to believe in fiction.

the scientific things, I tend to appreciate more.
Autopsy, Alternate Theories-Perugia Murder website on stabbing angles and explanations that are extremely interesting explaining the blood patterns. on this site its a solo murderer form behind, but also brings the two college kids into it somehow, though in a minor way. Which is

Accusations have to be able to stand up to scientific work, and our current technology is the best we have for now.

What do you do with a miniscule DNA? that normally can be retested, but in this case the prosecution says it was ruined and the defense has to take their word for it.? and many other questions focused on this, not because the defense are trying to be vicious, but because this is one of the two most critical pieces presented to put someone in prison for life, for murder.
A knife taken, and ran to a lab, swabbed and ran in a Applied Biosystem 3130 using GeneMapper software revision 3.2.1.
"too low" readings noted....then something happened and numbers came up? Maybe the "too low" means nothing, maybe its normal procedure to get "too low", its obvious highly trained people work here, its known humans can make machines read whatever they want.

here's the link if your interested in learning how to operate one of these tools... http://www3.appliedbiosystems.com/cms/groups/mcb_support/documents/generaldocuments/cms_041468.pdf

and this is just basic 101, junior high level stuff....yikes:crying:
lol.. if you can grasp this stuff, you'd have a great secure job career!

you could operate one......you don't have to know how a computer is built to operate one correctly. The tool, if calibrated , will provide all the millions of calculations...amazing.

**********

Another gray area is Naras Super Hearing = Time of Death

Nara says later in the night.....Rudy says earlier during his 7 minutes of Ipod listening the murder occurred....

So like Nara's super hearing testimony. I don't know how the results would turn out?
But I think they need to to test it. Its a simple test to run, maybe a few hours once the equipment was setup. Help eliminate the gray-issues.... I personally think its impossible for Nara to hear this, but I've been wrong before.

but shouldn't the court be interested enough to run a simple test?

or are the courts in too much of a hurry?

and soon Rudy, trying to pin it all on Raffaele and Amanda, but this contradicts his earlier testimonys he couldn't see anyone because it was too dark?

a trial of "great confusion".

KnoxCase

10-24-2009, 06:13 PM

So, with the single assailant theory, there doesn't seem to be any explanation for the other footprints without assuming the experts are wrong, or creating scenarios that are inconsistent with other facts. Rudy wouldn't clean up a couple of footprints, and leave other obvious evidence, so he didn't clean up. The luminol footprint is a footprint, not a blob, and the bloody footprint has been identified by experts as a footprint, not a blob. That leaves us with two unexplained footprints that are smaller than Rudy's foot, so they must belong to someone else. The single assailant theory seems to rely on the familiar claim that experts are wrong ... the only argument that has been presented by defence. If we assume experts are not wrong, then there is no alternative but to conclude there were 2-3 assailants.

The defense are experts too and they disagree with the prosecution experts.

I shouldn't have used the word "blob", maybe a non-conclusive footprint pattern. The experts have reviewed this and that in itself makes it important to this case, obviously. Not in my top pieces of evidence list, because the experts can't agree on them. Now take the shoeprint of Rudys tennis shoe.,..here is an example that made a 100% statement.

Footprint Verdict?

so if this footprint evidence is so great a issue of guilt, then what is to be said when there are none? (as in the murder location)

The prosecution is: footprints = guilt.

So applying this formula, inverted, "if " Footprints = Guilt....then "No Footprints= Innocent"

.......no footprints were found of Amanda nor Raffaele in the murder location.

and "if" Amanda and Raffaele were not in the murder location, why would they cleanup a bloody cottage? they wouldn't, of course.

jmo......

Emerald

10-24-2009, 06:28 PM

The defense are experts too and they disagree with the prosecution experts.

I shouldn't have used the word "blob", maybe a non-conclusive footprint pattern. The experts have reviewed this and that in itself makes it important to this case, obviously. Not in my top pieces of evidence list, because the experts can't agree on them. Now take the shoeprint of Rudys tennis shoe.,..here is an example that made a 100% statement.

Footprint Verdict?

so if this footprint evidence is so great a issue of guilt, then what is to be said when there are none? (as in the murder location)

The prosecution is: footprints = guilt.

So applying this formula, inverted, "if " Footprints = Guilt....then "No Footprints= Innocent"

.......no footprints were found of Amanda nor Raffaele in the murder location.

and "if" Amanda and Raffaele were not in the murder location, why would they cleanup a bloody cottage? they wouldn't, of course.

jmo......

So far, I'm not believing RS was there until after the fact the next day. Amanda was there then night of and probably at the time of the murder. It's also possible the scream heard was Amanda before she fled to RS'.

In that case, what would Amanda have witnessed making her scream before fleeing?

Just an opinion.

Michael

10-24-2009, 06:31 PM

KnoxCase -

Absence of evidence is not proof of absence.

Were it so, your lone wolf theory would be in major trouble..since there is no evidence of Guede in the small bathroom, no evidence of Guede in Laura's room, no evidence of Guede in Amanda's room (in which there are bare luminol footprints [Amanda's] and from which the lamp was taken) and no evidence of Guede in Filomena's room...the room he supposedly ransacked and broke into.

You can't have it both ways.

Michael

10-24-2009, 06:38 PM

KnoxCase -

Experts for the defence have a vested interest. Their job is to offer an opposing theory to that of the prosecution's, always. It doesn't matter how far fetched that interpretation may be, as long as it is opposed to the prosecition.

But, another essential difference, a prosecition expert that does not find anything incriminationg against a suspect still retains their job. Neither do they get a bonus if they do so. Not so for defence experts. Their employment depends on and only as far as, they say something useful to the defence. Therefore, their 'opinions' do NOT carry the same weight. Instead, they must be judged purely on the strength of their interpretations based on the actual data.

Michael

10-24-2009, 06:47 PM

Oh no, this will never sell. The OEM's who build these tools are very sure of how they are to be ran. They have whats called specifications and calibrations that are industry standard.

Adjusting anything is like adjusting the speedometer on your car so it reads 55 instead of the true value of 64 (for example)...

I don't think anyone is going to buy the knife is compatible. Thats kind of a lost argument.

Its only a stretch, but that there might be more than one knife but the Kitchen knife is definately not the murder weapon.

I strongly dissagree. It is the the actual scientists in the field, in the front line, that push the cutting edge, that move the field forward. The machine you refer to is already old, designed and built in a time when the field hadn't advanced (including its philosophy) to the point it has moved forward to now. The machine was built calibrated in line with protocols as they were 'then', not as they are 'now'.

Ir's also important to know, engineers will always set calibration to a point where they can absolutely 'guarantee' there won't be any failure. As a friend of mine recently pointed out elsewhere, it's like the submarine commanders in the movies, were maximum design depth is set at 100 metres, but they take the subs down to 200 metres to avoid the depth charges. They can easily handle those tolerances, just the engineers won't put in that in the guarantee in order to cover their behinds and those of their company.

What is important is not peak size, but peak to noise ratio. There was no noise. That rules out contamination. Contamination dictates a sample must be noisy.

Jester

10-25-2009, 12:45 AM

Michael

10-25-2009, 09:38 AM

We have to keep in mind that Amanda's expert disappeared in the Spring, and was not replaced. It's impossible that there are no other experts to replace the one that disappeared, so it could be that any expert hired by Amanda will not give the opinion she wants.

Hi Jester. Indeed, some may not and may value their integrity and walk. But also some will. For example, Torre. Once he starts on a case he never quits. I think it can be said he's a 'serial defence expert'. He goes from one case to the next. His history isn't that good either, since he's lost nearly every case he's consulted on. One of the most recent and famous of which was the Cogne case.

Michael

10-25-2009, 09:44 AM

Another gray area is Naras Super Hearing = Time of Death

Nara says later in the night.....Rudy says earlier during his 7 minutes of Ipod listening the murder occurred....

So like Nara's super hearing testimony. I don't know how the results would turn out?
But I think they need to to test it. Its a simple test to run, maybe a few hours once the equipment was setup. Help eliminate the gray-issues.... I personally think its impossible for Nara to hear this, but I've been wrong before.

but shouldn't the court be interested enough to run a simple test?

or are the courts in too much of a hurry?

I don't think it requires 'super hearing' at all. If you note the location of the cottage in relation to Nara's apartment the cottage sits at the base of a natural ampitheartre.

As for the test, the judge refused the test because the defence could have run the test any time leading up to and throughout the trial and failed to do so and instead left it, deliberately I feel, to the last moment after when buisness had been concluded.

Michael

10-25-2009, 09:49 AM

Jester

10-25-2009, 10:26 AM

Hi Jester. Indeed, some may not and may value their integrity and walk. But also some will. For example, Torre. Once he starts on a case he never quits. I think it can be said he's a 'serial defence expert'. He goes from one case to the next. His history isn't that good either, since he's lost nearly every case he's consulted on. One of the most recent and famous of which was the Cogne case.

Hello Michael. It's uncertain what happened to Amanda's defence argument, and experts, in the Spring of 2009, but it looks like if fizzled out ... or didn't have substance.

Amanda isn't going to claim unfair experts because she couldn't find one in her favour, dragging out the trial, is she?

KnoxCase

10-25-2009, 12:06 PM

I don't think it requires 'super hearing' at all. If you note the location of the cottage in relation to Nara's apartment the cottage sits at the base of a natural ampitheartre.

As for the test, the judge refused the test because the defence could have run the test any time leading up to and throughout the trial and failed to do so and instead left it, deliberately I feel, to the last moment after when buisness had been concluded.

Amplitheatre...well thats true, but this is why we use scientific tools and public testing with professionals to determine things.
Its not what you "think", or I think...thats the whole idea of proving something with scientific technology we have available.

This audio test is a very simple and low cost test to run. Its a very tried and true science, very old and well documented.
I think they will allow it, or request it be ran in the Appeal definitely, if it came to that.

The main point is for the time of death.
The "scream" won't by itself, prove innocence or guilt, it doesn't remove a murder occurred, but it helps clear away some of the "unknown". Was it 9:30pm most likely or 11pm? Does this matter?

you seem to place blame on the defense for late request, but the police never ran the test either...they are the ones who should have first verified the Nara claim.
The police should verify stories before accepting them as "the truth without proof" shouldn't they?
Is it their common practice to just accept what little old ladies say in the night as fact?

do you ever wonder?
why no one else heard this Jimi Hendrix decibel volume scream?
not one other apartment complex tenant....not anyone in the street, no one in a store or car driving by...
not even one other person heard this incredibly loud scream?

KnoxCase

10-25-2009, 12:14 PM

KnoxCase -

In the case of the DNA testing on the knife, only the defence experts have an issue with it. It is not only the defence experts that have said the test was good, but also the experts for the Kercher family who examined the exact same data, in this case Professor Francesca Torricelli testified to the validity of the work on the stand. This tells me everything really, since it is the Kerchers and their experts that can be referred to as the truly neutral parties in this case.

So you sound like you know the stance on every juror already?

"Only" the defense debates the DNA? Do we know what the judge and jurors think? They are in the courtroom too.

Obviously the prosecution believes in Stafani's work. Several posters not involved in this case find the DNA weak.

You use the Kerchers as an insinuation anything this lawyer says is golden, because he represents them. But this isn't the case, he's just a lawyer who has sided with the PM since the beginning it seems.

But even they didn't argue the knife wasn't the murder weapon....there might have been two! they changed the story too.

So how can this knife have DNA and not be the murder weapon?

You might be right, you might be wrong.... where's the bloody knife pattern the Kitchen Knife doesn't fit that either?

I think the Kitchen knife in its entirety is very very weak evidence at this point. I don't understand how others still hold onto the confidence in this knife as the murder weapon.

KnoxCase

10-25-2009, 12:31 PM

So far, I'm not believing RS was there until after the fact the next day. Amanda was there then night of and probably at the time of the murder. It's also possible the scream heard was Amanda before she fled to RS'.

In that case, what would Amanda have witnessed making her scream before fleeing?

Just an opinion.

you take this from the interrogation confession, obviously. Amanda heard the scream.

Alternate Theories website, I'm new to...mentions the same thing.
The Raffaele tale of her being gone until 1am...etc. thats the theory there I think. I don't fully know, but there is some really interesting perspectives on the knife angles and science. its hard for me to comprehend, there could be one attacker and yet the college kids are involved somehow....but who knows?

This "choosing" which tale to believe" really confuses me...and why is there so many tales, so many versions, one splintered off from another?

KnoxCase

10-25-2009, 12:39 PM

I strongly dissagree. It is the the actual scientists in the field, in the front line, that push the cutting edge, that move the field forward. The machine you refer to is already old, designed and built in a time when the field hadn't advanced (including its philosophy) to the point it has moved forward to now. The machine was built calibrated in line with protocols as they were 'then', not as they are 'now'.

Ir's also important to know, engineers will always set calibration to a point where they can absolutely 'guarantee' there won't be any failure. As a friend of mine recently pointed out elsewhere, it's like the submarine commanders in the movies, were maximum design depth is set at 100 metres, but they take the subs down to 200 metres to avoid the depth charges. They can easily handle those tolerances, just the engineers won't put in that in the guarantee in order to cover their behinds and those of their company.

What is important is not peak size, but peak to noise ratio. There was no noise. That rules out contamination. Contamination dictates a sample must be noisy.

The machine I refer to that you call old is the one Stafni used.

KnoxCase

10-25-2009, 12:40 PM

The Knife Poll:

1) Dr. Lalli Nov 5, states the fatal wound was a penknife.

2) Torre, who is a renowned forensic consultant in Italy and has worked on a number of high-profile cases, told the judges and jurors today he believes the three cuts to Kercher's throat were made by a smaller knife, with a blade that was, at most, 3 inches long. He feels the the big wide slash to her throat was made by the sawing action of the smaller knife.

3) (Kercher witness) Bacci said that the knife the prosecutors believe is the murder weapon is compatible with the largest and deepest cut in Kercher's throat but is not compatible with another, smaller wound. This is the first time a witness for the prosecution has mentioned the possibility that more than one knife might have been used

4) the judge-appointed forensic expert who reviewed the evidence in the weeks after the homicide raised questions about the compatibility of the knife as the murder weapon, testifying that it did not match one of the two knife wounds on the right hand side of Kercher's neck.
"A blade of that dimension going in 4 centimeters deep would have made a wider wound," Cingolani said. "Many other knives are probably more compatible with a lesion of that type."

5) The judge Mattenini, in her 19 page report, said it was not yet clear who inflicted the fatal wound, but her ruling said Sollecito's footprints were found in Kercher's room and identified the murder weapon as a knife with a 3.3-inch-long blade that the Italian usually had with him.
(of course the Raffaele footprints were later proven to be Rudys)

6) Mr. Introna testified that the cut on Ms. Kercher’s neck was made with a three-to-three-and-a-half-inch blade, ANSA said. The coroner, Francesco Introna

Michael

10-25-2009, 12:46 PM

you seem to place blame on the defense for late request, but the police never ran the test either...they are the ones who should have first verified the Nara claim.
The police should verify stories before accepting them as "the truth without proof" shouldn't they?
Is it their common practice to just accept what little old ladies say in the night as fact?

Why should they? There is a big difference bewteen some basic fact checking of your witnesses to going 'Right, we are going to do a full scientific sound verification test to see if you're telling us the truth'. What next, polygraph tests for all witnesses? Witnesses have the prima facie right to be belived. Innocent untol guilty applies to them just as much as the accused. It's not up to the police to do that but the defence if they wish to challenge it.

Michael

10-25-2009, 12:50 PM

The machine I refer to that you call old is the one Stafni used.

I know it's the one she used KnoxCase. And it's 'Stefanoni'.

Posted elsewhere, I quote it just for you:

Just curious. I've been going thru the manuals I could find and the only reference to "Too Low" was for the Threshold or Baseline readings setup.

I found the same thing when I looked thru some manuals. From what I read it sounded as though it just meant a value that was too close or below a preset value. There was no indication in the manual that it meant anything bad. Of course, the machine is designed for professionals and they are expected to understand their field.

ITALIAN WOMAN (http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/archives/179047.asp?page=19#comments)

Michael

10-25-2009, 12:52 PM

2) Torre, who is a renowned forensic consultant in Italy and has worked on a number of high-profile cases, told the judges and jurors today he believes the three cuts to Kercher's throat were made by a smaller knife, with a blade that was, at most, 3 inches long. He feels the the big wide slash to her throat was made by the sawing action of the smaller knife.

And he's normally on the losing side. There's a good reason for that.

And as I've stated before, the prosecution have always maintained that at least two kinives were used.

Michael

10-25-2009, 01:02 PM

"Only" the defense debates the DNA? Do we know what the judge and jurors think? They are in the courtroom too.

The judges also cross examined all of the experts that took the stand.

I 'know' the judges 'think' that no more expert witnesses are necessary.

You use the Kerchers as an insinuation anything this lawyer says is golden, because he represents them. But this isn't the case, he's just a lawyer who has sided with the PM since the beginning it seems.

NO, Maresca speaks FOR the Kerchers. He is there to represent their views both in the court and to the media. Maresca has sided with nobody, except the Kerchers.

And I wasn't just referring to the Kercher's lawyer, but also to the Kercher's own experts who have testified on the stand and each have supported the prosecution evidence and interpretation.

So how can this knife have DNA and not be the murder weapon?

Because the prosecurion believe more then one knife was used on the victim. Three attackers = potentially, three knives.

Emerald

10-25-2009, 04:45 PM

you take this from the interrogation confession, obviously. Amanda heard the scream.

Alternate Theories website, I'm new to...mentions the same thing.
The Raffaele tale of her being gone until 1am...etc. thats the theory there I think. I don't fully know, but there is some really interesting perspectives on the knife angles and science. its hard for me to comprehend, there could be one attacker and yet the college kids are involved somehow....but who knows?

This "choosing" which tale to believe" really confuses me...and why is there so many tales, so many versions, one splintered off from another?

KnoxCase, if you are asking a question, I'd be happy to discuss, but am confused.

My post was hypothetical if the scream Amanda heard was her own when she witnessed the aftermath of the game. Amanda was there for the initial portion of the game; not expecting the outcome of death.

Was the final murderous cut a result of a left to right (or right to left) slashing stroke? From behind or in front of the victim? Or the result of the victim falling into the blade held to her throat?

Emerald

10-25-2009, 08:32 PM

Question....

Why did the defense wait so long to request a 3rd opinion on the scientific evidence? What's the point in waiting until the trial is over?

KnoxCase

10-25-2009, 09:57 PM

The judges also cross examined all of the experts that took the stand.

I 'know' the judges 'think' that no more expert witnesses are necessary.

NO, Maresca speaks FOR the Kerchers. He is there to represent their views both in the court and to the media. Maresca has sided with nobody, except the Kerchers.

And I wasn't just referring to the Kercher's lawyer, but also to the Kercher's own experts who have testified on the stand and each have supported the prosecution evidence and interpretation.

Because the prosecurion believe more then one knife was used on the victim. Three attackers = potentially, three knives.

The hearing began with a request from the Kercher family lawyer Francesco Maresca to have the hearing heard behind closed doors, but this was rejected by Judge Massei. The application was made to "protect the dignity and" of Miss Kercher.
****
So Maresca is a paid lawyer, and he is being paid by the Kerchers or the city?

wait a minute?
Its 3 knives now? I haven't ever heard anyone state that before?

I just posted a list of experts disagreeing with the 6.5" knife. The knife the prosecution is running around with is weak.
and btw, this 6.5" Kitchne Knife is the only piece, a weak piece, of evidence, that puts the accused in the room. I never came across even one article or report that mentioned 3 knifes being used?

3 knives? You think Mignini will say there was 3 knives in his closing?

I'm still open to any new evidence though, but it appears to be a theft murder/rape of one person....by one person. jmo.

the police evidence that convicted Rudy is very strong, clear footprints, fingerprints, dna in and on the victim, footprints in blood, confession by the accused of being there, and his motive seems believable.

KnoxCase

10-25-2009, 10:09 PM

KnoxCase, if you are asking a question, I'd be happy to discuss, but am confused.

My post was hypothetical if the scream Amanda heard was her own when she witnessed the aftermath of the game. Amanda was there for the initial portion of the game; not expecting the outcome of death.

Was the final murderous cut a result of a left to right (or right to left) slashing stroke? From behind or in front of the victim? Or the result of the victim falling into the blade held to her throat?

I was just reading an old article, that some felt that is similar what happened. The murder wasn't intended, and they weren't in the room, the murder was an accident but they were all there. call it the "game theory". ??????????

Michael

10-25-2009, 10:23 PM

The hearing began with a request from the Kercher family lawyer Francesco Maresca to have the hearing heard behind closed doors, but this was rejected by Judge Massei. The application was made to "protect the dignity and" of Miss Kercher.

Maresca asked for it, in total, knowing he'd only get half of what he wanted. In that sense, it was a victory in that all those elements that involved exactly what was done to Meredith ware held behind closed doors.

It's a bit like when you ask for funding. You ask for an inflated amount, because you know you'll only receive a fraction of what you ask for. The less you ask for, the less you receive.

So Maresca is a paid lawyer, and he is being paid by the Kerchers or the city?

Maresca doesn't work for free, just as 'none' of the lawyers on this case does. Everyone needs to eat.

Work for the city? As in Perugia? No, of course not. Maresca is based in Florence, a completely different district to Perugia and in any case, is not paid by his district but by the Italian state. Neither does payment depend on a result. Simply, he's a state recommended lawyer.

wait a minute?
Its 3 knives now? I haven't ever heard anyone state that before?

No, I said there are 'potentially' three knives, since there were three attackers. The prosecution however don't believe there actually were three, instead they believe the number to be two. There are four reasons for this:

1. Multiple attackers indicates the possibility/probability of multiple knives.

2. The Knife found in Raffaele's apartment which had both Amanda's and Meredith's DNA indicates it was directly involved in the crime, yet it doesn't match at least one of the wounds nor at least one (although it's a match for the fatal one) of the wounds to Meredith. This indicates more then one knife.

3. An eye witness puts two knives at the scene in the hands of two of the defendents.

4. Rudy Guede was certainly directly involved in the crime, yet, he couldn't have been sexually assaulting the victim, restraining the victim and threatening her with a knife at the same time...a person only has two hands, not 3 or 4 or 5...

As a further clue, although not direct evidence, it's known Raffaele Sollecito had an obsession with knives, having a collection and always carrying one on his person. Since Amanda's and Meredith's DNA is on the knife that's been found, it's logical to construct a scenario where she (Amanda) was wielding that knife, Raffaele a second (later dosposed of), while Guede was restraining an arm of the victim with one hand while carrying out a sexual assault with the other.

Emerald

10-25-2009, 10:41 PM

KnoxCase,

Why shouldn't the victim's Family have a voice in the judicial process?

Michael

10-25-2009, 11:10 PM

KnoxCase,

Why shouldn't the victim's Family have a voice in the judicial process?

Probably because KnoxCase has no other point of reference other then the common law system where the victim has no voice whatsoever and is purely an afterthought. The civil law system, where the victim has equal status in law, is an alien concept to those raised within the common law system.

KnoxCase

10-26-2009, 08:53 PM

KnoxCase,

Why shouldn't the victim's Family have a voice in the judicial process?

I never said they shouldn't.
But it is obvious someone hurting so much, like a family would, can make emotional decisions instead of hard decisions based on facts and evidence.

Maybe another theory will emerge?

One things for sure, Rudy is going to try to pin the entire crime on the two college kids, and try to convince the court the sex was consensual and not a rape, and that he's not a burglar who carried knifes around, and that he was trying to save Meredith. It was a left handed Italian man. He couldn't see anything because it was dark and the only light on in the cottage was a lamp and when he looked out Filomeans window it was too dark to see....until he talked to Mignini, then he said he could tell it was Amanda up by the gate, by the road a silhoutte...and it was Raffaele who murdered Meredith.

Why do you think Rudy, who doesn't side with Amanda & Raffaele, why didn't he place them both in the murder location?

Emerald

10-26-2009, 09:26 PM

I never said they shouldn't.
But it is obvious someone hurting so much, like a family would, can make emotional decisions instead of hard decisions based on facts and evidence.

Maybe another theory will emerge?

One things for sure, Rudy is going to try to pin the entire crime on the two college kids, and try to convince the court the sex was consensual and not a rape, and that he's not a burglar who carried knifes around, and that he was trying to save Meredith. It was a left handed Italian man. He couldn't see anything because it was dark and the only light on in the cottage was a lamp and when he looked out Filomeans window it was too dark to see....until he talked to Mignini, then he said he could tell it was Amanda up by the gate, by the road a silhoutte...and it was Raffaele who murdered Meredith.

Why do you think Rudy, who doesn't side with Amanda & Raffaele, why didn't he place them both in the murder location?

JMO

AK and RS are doing everything they can to avoid accusing RG. I have not heard from their defense, "Hey! You have the murderer convicted and serving time. What do you want with me?"

RG's second level trial will start before the closing statements for AK and RS begin. That should be very interesting.

What would happen if RG just said, "Yeah, I did it ALONE"? Would his sentence be any different?

Pierre

10-26-2009, 10:09 PM

I never said they shouldn't.
But it is obvious someone hurting so much, like a family would, can make emotional decisions instead of hard decisions based on facts and evidence.

Maybe another theory will emerge?

One things for sure, Rudy is going to try to pin the entire crime on the two college kids, and try to convince the court the sex was consensual and not a rape, and that he's not a burglar who carried knifes around, and that he was trying to save Meredith. It was a left handed Italian man. He couldn't see anything because it was dark and the only light on in the cottage was a lamp and when he looked out Filomeans window it was too dark to see....until he talked to Mignini, then he said he could tell it was Amanda up by the gate, by the road a silhoutte...and it was Raffaele who murdered Meredith.

Why do you think Rudy, who doesn't side with Amanda & Raffaele, why didn't he place them both in the murder location?

I dont believe a word rudy says. He would have called LE if he was just there for a date with Merideth. He's a liar theif and murderer.

Emerald

10-26-2009, 10:46 PM

I dont believe a word rudy says. He would have called LE if he was just there for a date with Merideth. He's a liar theif and murderer.

I totally agree, Pierre.

I also believe Amanda Knox could have interceded to help the victim instead of just herself.

JMO

Michael

10-27-2009, 08:30 AM

I never said they shouldn't.
But it is obvious someone hurting so much, like a family would, can make emotional decisions instead of hard decisions based on facts and evidence.

KnoxCase, I find it rather offensive that you would dismiss the validity of the Kercher family's views so. It is highly wrong to label victims of crime as being incapable of reational, measured and objective thought. Are they emotional about the death of their daughter/sister? You bet! However, give them more credit in being able to view the evidence in a non-hysterical manner.

The Kercher family have no interest in seeing just 'anyone' convicted of Meredith's murder, only those who were actually involved. In fact, they are probably even more interested in that then anyone else, since they have the highest interest in seeing that the justice is served properly and there's no injustice. Also remember, they are not left to merely sink or swim in a sea of evidence and legalese or make 50/50 decisions on the basis of emotion. They also have the advice, counsel and interpretation of two highly experienced lawyers.

And certainly, the history of the system does not support you preconceived notions about familys of victims. In the Italian system, it is actually far from uncommon that the victim's family will actually disagree with the prosecution in court and argue against the prosecution opinion, or argue strongly their belief in the accused's innocence. On many occassions in the past have actually put in motions to the judge that he/she dismiss evidence or even a whole case or have leniancy in sentencing. The function of the victims in the Italian system is a further check and balance on it, not only to ensre the prosecution prosecutes a case vigorously, sure or correctly, but also the other way, in that the prosecution don't force a wrongful conviction.

This is also reflected elsewhere. Just for example, the Lockerbie Pan-Am bombing of 1989. The majority of the relatives of the British victims here in the UK, actually strongly believe in the innocence of of the convicted bomber Al-Magrahi and have been quite vocal in that belief.

Emerald

10-27-2009, 03:21 PM

No matter how it's presented, I can't explain away the evidence against Amanda Knox. The physical and her own words. Amanda was there when the murder was being committed. She witnessed the murderer leaving the scene.

What I'm having a problem with is Amanda being involved in the actual murder. Can't put the evidence together to make Amanda culpable.

Do I think Amanda deserves to be held responsible for the lying, cover up and staging? Indeed I do. Meredith Kercher could have been helped by Amanda Knox. Possibly still be alive. Instead, AK chose to try to cover her own presence at the crime scene, flee and make up lies to misdirect the investigation.

That's the way Amanda was taught, because that's exactly what her Mother says she advised Amanda to do. Basically, 'ignore and it will go away'. The facts of the evidence do not change, even if AK fled to US, Germany or Mars.

JMO

Jester

10-27-2009, 03:28 PM

KnoxCase, I find it rather offensive that you would dismiss the validity of the Kercher family's views so. It is highly wrong to label victims of crime as being incapable of reational, measured and objective thought. Are they emotional about the death of their daughter/sister? You bet! However, give them more credit in being able to view the evidence in a non-hysterical manner.

The Kercher family have no interest in seeing just 'anyone' convicted of Meredith's murder, only those who were actually involved. In fact, they are probably even more interested in that then anyone else, since they have the highest interest in seeing that the justice is served properly and there's no injustice. Also remember, they are not left to merely sink or swim in a sea of evidence and legalese or make 50/50 decisions on the basis of emotion. They also have the advice, counsel and interpretation of two highly experienced lawyers.

And certainly, the history of the system does not support you preconceived notions about family's of victims. In the Italian system, it is actually far from uncommon that the victim's family will actually disagree with the prosecution in court and argue against the prosecution opinion, or argue strongly their belief in the accused's innocence. On many occasions in the past have actually put in motions to the judge that he/she dismiss evidence or even a whole case or have leniency in sentencing. The function of the victims in the Italian system is a further check and balance on it, not only to ensure the prosecution prosecutes a case vigorously, sure or correctly, but also the other way, in that the prosecution don't force a wrongful conviction.

This is also reflected elsewhere. Just for example, the Lockerbie Pan-Am bombing of 1989. The majority of the relatives of the British victims here in the UK, actually strongly believe in the innocence of of the convicted bomber Al-Magrahi and have been quite vocal in that belief.

In reading the transcripts of Amanda's testimony, I have to say that I really enjoyed the questioning by the lawyer representing Meredith. He was very to the point, and asked questions that tried to get to the bottom of what Amanda meant when she said that she "imagines" this or that. He put her on the spot, so to speak, regarding some of her unbelievable claims.

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=165
See examination by FM (Francesco Maresca)

Emerald

10-27-2009, 05:36 PM

I've read part of the linked testimony of AK. Very interesting.

Don't understand why her attorney allowed those rambling responses. The more she spoke, the more AK contradicted herself. RS's attorney had to step in with objections.

Kind of seems like AK's attorney doesn't have a lot of faith in his client's innocence.

JMO

Pierre

10-27-2009, 05:58 PM

I totally agree, Pierre.

I also believe Amanda Knox could have interceded to help the victim instead of just herself.

JMO

The "extreme sex orgy" doesnt make any sense at all,IMO.

Michael

10-27-2009, 06:13 PM

The "extreme sex orgy" doesnt make any sense at all,IMO.

Don't think of it as 'an extreme sex orgy', in this case it's a euphemism for 'gang rape', or at least, a group attack that involved a sexual element.

Emerald

10-27-2009, 07:05 PM

The "extreme sex orgy" doesnt make any sense at all,IMO.

FWIW

I don't believe it was an "extreme sex orgy" either. I DO, however, believe Amanda Knox was in the house when Meredith Kercher was in distress, trying to clean the scene afterward to deflect the investigation of her presence.

JMO

Emerald

10-27-2009, 07:37 PM

JMO

Further reading of linked testimony.... It seems Amanda Knox has 'selective' confusion. When she accuses someone else, the details are graphic. When it comes to taking responsibility for the choices she made, that's when the convenient confusion happens.

IMO

Emerald

10-27-2009, 08:31 PM

Was AK's computer checked for usage the night of the crime?

KnoxCase

10-27-2009, 10:35 PM

AK's pc was fried by the prosecution's computer expert.
So then the expert destroyed Merediths hardrive too.
I think another one was destroyed, but I lost count.

I think most assume it was irrelevant.
Assuming, all it held was pictures that were meaningless, showing Amanda and Meredith happy friends.
Defense believe it held more proof there wasn't any connection to Rudy, (furthermore proving there wasn't a premeditated planned drugged sex orgy rape/murder.via pc activity that was destroyed.)

The defense offered to have the manufacturer repair the hardrive, but Judge Matteini said "no" and denied Amandas legal team of this. The defense team offered to pay for the repair, but the Judge refused them.

The Judge made some comment, the evidence wasn't used against Amanda or for her. so the hardrive didn't matter at all.
something really abrasive.

Of course remember, this was Mattenini who also convicted Patrick to prison and accused the 3" knife to be Sollecitos...and stated Patrick wanted to have sex with someone non-willing (Meredith). It was a very colorful fantasy-fiction story she wrote in her report. In hindsight, its slanderous and embarrassing to her no doubt. In her favor she had very little proof at the time, only MIgnini's fiction accusations still uncontested.

KnoxCase

10-27-2009, 10:38 PM

I was just flying through some time-line, and comparing theories.

1) Mignini's...we all know. Threesome drugged ritual sex rape murder etc..

2) Rudys "Toilet Alibi"...7 minutes on the toilet

3) The Raffaele apartment alibi...

1) Amanda on the stand, in public, said they left from the cottage to Raffaeles at 4-5pm. to go watch the movie.
2) Jovana Popovic said on the stand she first stopped by the Raffaeles apt. at 5:30-05:45pm. (This verifys the story)
2a) Amanda states she was listening to music on Raffaeles computer, before the movie, and the door rang and it was Jovana Popovic.
2b)Popovic stated that on November 1st, she passed by Raffaele’s around 5:30-5:45pm to ask if he could drive her in his car to the bus station, to pick up a suitcase that was due to arrive from Milan on a bus at midnight that evening. Since others were busy, and Raffaele had a car and it was late at night she asked him to do her this favor.
When she buzzed his door she was invited up, and Raffaele was there with Amanda. She requested the favor of him, he thought for a minute, and then he agreed to take her to the bus station at midnight. She arrived at her appointment at 6pm (15-20minute walk).

3) 6:30pm 18:30 pc activity, (either downloading the film or watching it...It was the first time to watch per Raffaele so he probably had to download it.) Marcotti for the prosecution.
4) 8:15pm So now we get to Patrick's message.
AK: Okay.
So, Patrick's message came, I believe you said, at 8:15.
AK:Yes.
More or less. What did it say exactly?
Okay, taking a step backwards, the message of Patrick arrived before dinner?
Yes, I think we had only just started watching the film, or it was before
the film. I don't know if we started the film first, or were just starting
to put it on.

- 8:35 pm Amandas Cell phone is off.

5) Popovic returns 8:40pm, speaks to Amanda, who came to door on the street and Raffaele was upstairs, but Popovic declined coming inside, Raffaele was upstairs, as I read it. Popvic testimony.

6) 8:42 Raffaele receives last call from his Dad.
- 8:42 pm Raffaeles cellphone is off.

7) Experts tend to agree last pc usage was 9:10 - 9:17pm, assuming the movie was over. (was the movie paused during the interruptions?)

8) Amanda on the stand-
Um, around, um, we ate around 9:30 or 10, and then after we had eaten and he was washing the dishes, well, I don't look at the clock much, but it was around 10. And...he...um...well, he was washing the dishes and the water was coming out and he was very "bummed", displeased, he told me he had just had that thing repaired. He was annoyed that it had broken again.
**Yes. And did you eat dinner?
Yes. But it was very late when we ate.
Fish?
Yes. Fish and a salad.
And then something happened to the faucet of the sink?
**
So, I wanted to know something else. At what time did the water leak in Sollecito's house? After dinner, I don't know what time it was.
Towards 9, 9:30? 21, that's 9? No, it was much later than that.
A bit later? How much? We had dinner around...10:30,
so that must have happened a bit later than that.
Maybe around 11
*****
So you talked a bit. Then what did you do?

Then we smoked a joint together. What we did is, we said all right, let's
find some rags, but he didn't have a "mop" how do you say "mop"? he didn't
have one, and I said "don't worry, I have one at home, I'll bring it tomorrow,
the leak is in the kitchen, it wasn't like it smelled bad or anything, we
could just forget about it for the night, and then think about it tomorrow.
So, we went into his room, and I think I...yes...I lay down on his bed,
and he went to the desk, and while he was there he rolled the joint, and
then we smoked it together.

Did you fall asleep together?

Yes, first we made love, and then we fell asleep

********
Defense says they found a 00:58 pc activity on Raffaeles pc.

***************

which is more believable?

Emerald

10-27-2009, 11:28 PM

LG: To make a jump in time, did you also wake up together?

AK: Probably, but I can't be quite sure, because sometimes I wake up early in the morning, I don't remember well.

Then immediately in the same testimony:

LG: Now we come to the morning of Nov 2nd. What did you do the next morning, when
you woke up?

AK: So, when I woke up, I don't remember what time it was, but I think around 10, 10:30, I was there and I saw that Raffaele was still sleeping, so I watched him for a little while, then I said, okay, I'm going home to take a shower and change.........

Then I took this mop that was near my room that was
in a closet thing near my room, and I went to Raffaele's house, locking the door behind me, because all the time I was doing these things, nobody had come back to the house. So um, I thought, strange, okay, let's see what Raffaele says, because I didn't know what to think, and so I wanted to talk it over with him. When I got back to his house, I...he was in the bathroom, and I started to clean up the floor in the kitchen, but it was by now almost dry, just a bit of water left because it had evaporated. Then he came out and we made breakfast, and while we were preparing it and drinking coffee, I explained to him what I had seen, and I asked him for advice, because when I went into my house, everything seemed in order, only there were these little weird things, and I couldn't figure out how to understand them.

JMO

Amanda Knox left RS's house as soon as he went to sleep. Went to her own house. Returned to RS's.

Why did she not notice the water evaporated that morning before she says she left RS's @10:30?

Frankly, for me, her 'alibi' is complete BS. Details....Details....Details UNTIL we come to the detail of what time she woke. Was RS awake or not? Same testimony. Different replies. Amanda Knox was not there beside RS when she woke!