Meredith Kercher murdered - Amanda Knox convicted, now appeals #7

[browneyedgirl]

MY 18 YEAR OLD SON CALLED ME THE OTHER NIGHT FROM COLLEGE JUST TO LET ME KNOW THAT HE WAS COMING HOME ON THURSDAY FOR A LONG WEEKEND....HE CALLED TO TELL ME THAT AT 3:15 am....THE REASON WHY IM SHARING THIS IS TO REAFFIRM THAT KIDS DO THINGS WITHOUT THINKING ABOUT THE WHYS....SURE THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT I WOULD HAVE PREFERRED HE WAIT TO CALL THE NEXT DAY AND SHARE AT A REASONABLE HOUR, HOWEVER TO HIM...IT WAS REASONABLE..THEY HAD JUST FINISHED PIZZA AND A MOVIE...THEIR BRAINS JUST OPERATE IN THE HERE AND NOW SO FOR US TO TRY TO READ ANYTHING MORE INTO THE PHONE CALL AK MADE TO HER MOTHER, I THINK WE ARE TAKING A SCRIPT FROM THE ILE, AND GRASPING AT STRAWS...TRYING TO MAKE THE SUSPECTS FIT THE CRIME.

I DO NOT THINK THEIR HOUSE WAS KEPT AS NEAT AND TIDY AS MOST OF US PREFER. I THINK THEY CLEANED, AS DID I IN COLLEGE, ON AN AS NEEDED BASIS. MAYBE AK AND RS WASN'T TOO CONCERNED WITH A BREAK IN BECAUSE NOTHING REALLY LOOKED ANY DIFFERENT THAN USUAL....MAYBE THE BLOOD IN THE BATHROOM WASN'T ENOUGH TO TRIGGER AN ALARM IN A 20 YEAR OLD BRAIN. WITH HER LIFE OF PRIVILEGE, MAYBE SHE WASN'T AS TUNED INTO THE HARDER FACTS OF THE WORLD AND ALL THE EVIL THAT RUNS ABOUT.

AND THE LAST POINT I WANT TO MAKE IS THIS....I'M SURE THAT IF THEY WERE ANYTHING LIKE YOUR AVERAGE COLLEGE KID, PEOPLE CAME AND WENT AT ALL HOURS OF THE DAY AND NIGHT. I DON'T THINK IT HAS EVER BEEN PROVEN THAT AK OR RS HAD ANY CONNECTIONS TO RG BEFORE HE IMPLICATED THEM LEAVING THE SCENE OF THE CRIME....MONTHS LATER, MIND YOU, IF I AM WRONG ON THAT POINT PLEASE CORRECT ME. SO I DONT THINK THAT IT IS FAIR TO IMPLY THAT THEY ARE THE ONES THAT INTRODUCED RG TO MK THUS ULTIMATELY LEADING TO HER BRUTAL MURDER.

I JUST CANNOT GET PAST THIS......IF AK AND RS WERE IN THAT ROOM DURING THAT HORRIFIC ACT, WHY ISNT THERE MORE PHYSICAL AND CONCRETE EVIDENCE. WHEN IT IS ALL SAID AND DONE RG'S DNA IS THE ONLY DNA THAT IS FOUND IN SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS TO CONVICT HIM AND HIM ALONE IN MY COURT.

 

[miley]

The print was in "haematic substance". Is that not blood? I think it is blood. The print in the hallway has been attributed to Knox.

This is a bloody footprint made by Knox in the hallway outside of Meredith's bedroom. How did she get blood on the bottom of her bare foot?

I don't know that they were tested for blood. I thought they were not tested for blood. Whatever was on the bottom of the foot to make the print was cleaned up.

your posts directly contradict one another.

Once the false reports were leaked to the media saying there were bloody footprints, the defense has had a hard time convincing otherwise. Then, Patrizia Stefanoni said the footprints were never checked for blood.
Everyone was like, huh?

The defense insisted she turn over all information, data etc. pertaining to the prints but she refused... finally, half way into the trial she was forced to hand it over... the prints haaaad been tested (and with a sensitive blood test no less) the truth was out - all prints negative for blood.
The bottom line, Stefanoni Lied and Comodi tried to cover it up.

This is what happened.. it might be difficult to accept this sort of deception, but it's true

eta: there are facts to this case that simply can't be changed - see massei report.

 

[miley]

The problem here is that Amanda did not call her mom when she saw the door open, or the blood in the bathroom. You keep saying that she called her mom because she thought something was wrong, but Amanda did not alert anyone to report that something was wrong. She didn't call her mom, police, or any of her roommates. She simply showered and left. Filomina was concerned about Meredith, not Amanda. Raffaele claims that he told Amanda to phone her roommates. Amanda did not call her mom until the door was about to be broken, but why did she call then ... nothing had yet happened. Edda asked Knox this very same question.

Amanda was not convicted of carelessness, she was convicted of murder.

it's one way or the other - either a) amanda is a freak because she took a shower in a bloody bathroom Or b) the liability of a broken door far out weighed the small amount of blood on the bathroom rug.

If you recall, Amanda was worried, told Filomenia she couldn't get in touch with Meredith.. Yet where was the first place Filomenia went when she entered the house.. she went straight to her Own bedroom (not Merediths) - more concerned about what may have been stolen from her Own room. The bathroom did not alarm her. (until a year later on the stand)

I'm not faulting Filomenia for going to her room first, just saying no one thought there had been a murder... not amanda, Raffaele, Filomenia, her boyfriend and not even the Police --- Apparently, the bloody shoe prints Rudy left weren't even alarming.

Testimony from Edda Mellas:

Mrs Mellas said: “In the first call she said she had spent the night at Raffaele's house and then gone home to take a shower. She had found the door open and faeces in the bathroom.

“She said that she and Raffaele had gone back to the house and were pounding on Meredith's bedroom door. They had tried to break in and I told her to call the police.”

Mrs Mellas said the calls became increasingly frantic: “The second time she said it was horrible...
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...-along-great-with-meredith-says-her-mother.do
​

 

[Allusonz]

your posts directly contradict one another.

Once the false reports were leaked to the media saying there were bloody footprints, the defense has had a hard time convincing otherwise. Then, Patrizia Stefanoni said the footprints were never checked for blood.
Everyone was like, huh?

The defense insisted she turn over all information, data etc. pertaining to the prints but she refused... finally, half way into the trial she was forced to hand it over... the prints haaaad been tested (and with a sensitive blood test no less) the truth was out - all prints negative for blood.
The bottom line, Stefanoni Lied and Comodi tried to cover it up.

This is what happened.. it might be difficult to accept this sort of deception, but it's true

eta: there are facts to this case that simply can't be changed - see massei report.

i only posted some of what i found, here is another little bit that i have

(page 64 hearing Sept. 26, 2009). “Dr. Stefanoni confirmed that to prove that blood is present, you have to test for it. Dr. Stefanoni claimed that no testing was done. In July 2009 the test records revealed otherwise. The luminol findings were tested using tetramethylbenzidine, and the tests were negative for all tracks. The luminol findings tested negative for blood.

 

[Allusonz]

Interesting enough one of the first calls made by both Filomenia and Laura were to lawyers

 

[miley]

Maybe we're talking past one another here, otto. You seem to think there was something sinister, or at least suspicious, about that call.

But while I agree AK could have been more on top of things, I don't see what she did that morning except procrastinate dealing with a break-in, probably hoping one of the flatmates who spoke Italian would come along and take over.

Do I think AK should have been more on the ball? I certainly do, particularly given that MK's door was locked and MK wasn't answering knocks. But 20-year-olds often think they and their friends are invulnerable and assume everything will turn out okay.

***

So if that phone call to Seattle matters, why did EM ask about the phone call? How do we know she did? What did AK reply?

(talking in a prison visit) apparently, the police claim Mellas said "But this was before anything happened except for the fact that the house was..."
it ends there and the police do not provide the rest of the conversation

I've never seen a link

 

[miley]

Interesting enough one of the first calls made by both Filomenia and Laura were to lawyers

definitely a smart move.

 

[claudicici]

I don't understand what about the earlier phone call makes AK more suspicious of being guilty? It seems like it's being regarded as some sort of circumstancial evidence.AK does some strange things but does anyone reallt believe she'd call her mother at 3AM to tell her that she murdered someone?
I actually think it is possible that AK saw Meredith dead body when she returned to the cottage,locked the door so she would not have to deal with it since she was looking forward to her outing with RS,her mind went back into lala land,she took a shower and after returning to RS house the little bit of conscience she has kicked in and she started thinking maybe she should alert someone after all.
I can totally see her being guilty of something like that and I think all the circumstancial evidence points to her being odd and uncaring but not to her being a killer.
Another thing I don't understand is if it really happened the way the prosecution was saying why would RG not have implicated AK and RS as soon as he was arrested? He would have had no reason whatsoever not to do so?

 

[otto]

MY 18 YEAR OLD SON CALLED ME THE OTHER NIGHT FROM COLLEGE JUST TO LET ME KNOW THAT HE WAS COMING HOME ON THURSDAY FOR A LONG WEEKEND....HE CALLED TO TELL ME THAT AT 3:15 am....THE REASON WHY IM SHARING THIS IS TO REAFFIRM THAT KIDS DO THINGS WITHOUT THINKING ABOUT THE WHYS....SURE THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT I WOULD HAVE PREFERRED HE WAIT TO CALL THE NEXT DAY AND SHARE AT A REASONABLE HOUR, HOWEVER TO HIM...IT WAS REASONABLE..THEY HAD JUST FINISHED PIZZA AND A MOVIE...THEIR BRAINS JUST OPERATE IN THE HERE AND NOW SO FOR US TO TRY TO READ ANYTHING MORE INTO THE PHONE CALL AK MADE TO HER MOTHER, I THINK WE ARE TAKING A SCRIPT FROM THE ILE, AND GRASPING AT STRAWS...TRYING TO MAKE THE SUSPECTS FIT THE CRIME.

I DO NOT THINK THEIR HOUSE WAS KEPT AS NEAT AND TIDY AS MOST OF US PREFER. I THINK THEY CLEANED, AS DID I IN COLLEGE, ON AN AS NEEDED BASIS. MAYBE AK AND RS WASN'T TOO CONCERNED WITH A BREAK IN BECAUSE NOTHING REALLY LOOKED ANY DIFFERENT THAN USUAL....MAYBE THE BLOOD IN THE BATHROOM WASN'T ENOUGH TO TRIGGER AN ALARM IN A 20 YEAR OLD BRAIN. WITH HER LIFE OF PRIVILEGE, MAYBE SHE WASN'T AS TUNED INTO THE HARDER FACTS OF THE WORLD AND ALL THE EVIL THAT RUNS ABOUT.

AND THE LAST POINT I WANT TO MAKE IS THIS....I'M SURE THAT IF THEY WERE ANYTHING LIKE YOUR AVERAGE COLLEGE KID, PEOPLE CAME AND WENT AT ALL HOURS OF THE DAY AND NIGHT. I DON'T THINK IT HAS EVER BEEN PROVEN THAT AK OR RS HAD ANY CONNECTIONS TO RG BEFORE HE IMPLICATED THEM LEAVING THE SCENE OF THE CRIME....MONTHS LATER, MIND YOU, IF I AM WRONG ON THAT POINT PLEASE CORRECT ME. SO I DONT THINK THAT IT IS FAIR TO IMPLY THAT THEY ARE THE ONES THAT INTRODUCED RG TO MK THUS ULTIMATELY LEADING TO HER BRUTAL MURDER.

I JUST CANNOT GET PAST THIS......IF AK AND RS WERE IN THAT ROOM DURING THAT HORRIFIC ACT, WHY ISNT THERE MORE PHYSICAL AND CONCRETE EVIDENCE. WHEN IT IS ALL SAID AND DONE RG'S DNA IS THE ONLY DNA THAT IS FOUND IN SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS TO CONVICT HIM AND HIM ALONE IN MY COURT.

Filomina and Laura were not "college kids". They were two women, employed in law firms, who had two rooms that they were prepared to rent out. Meredith took one room and Amanda took the other room. I highly doubt that they were okay with people coming and going at all hours of the day and night.

Although it may be hard to remember how things were prior to the use of DNA (which happened in the early 1990s), people have been justifiably convicted of crimes they committed for a very long time without relying on DNA. In this case, we have a prosecution and conviction that is solidly based on a combination of circumstantial and forensic evidence.

The fact that Raffaele, after learning about Meredith's DNA on the knife, wrote in his diary that the DNA got there because he nicked her with a knife when she had dinner at his house, falls into the circumstantial evidence category. What is the explanation for this? It appears that he was offering an explanation for the DNA ... a lie to explain this DNA. That is problematic. This is not the only instance of circumstantial evidence, but one piece in the puzzle. There are many more instances such as the fact that whoever did this used a key to enter the cottage, then staged a break in. Who could have done that? The list goes on and on. Challenging the DNA on the knife by suggesting that it is a result of contamination is not an argument based on evidence, it is a "what if" scenario. What if the DNA on the knife was a result of contamination? There's nothing to support that, but what if. What if Raffaele's DNA flew off the cigarette butt in the kitchen and landed on the bra clasp in a locked bedroom? There is nothing to support that, but what if it happened? What if there was no DNA evidence, and police had to solve the murder based on crime analysis? Would the same three people have been convicted? Most likely Amanda and Raffaele would still have been convicted ... but the only evidence against Rudy is the DNA evidence, so perhaps he would have gotten away with it.

 

[otto]

your posts directly contradict one another.

Once the false reports were leaked to the media saying there were bloody footprints, the defense has had a hard time convincing otherwise. Then, Patrizia Stefanoni said the footprints were never checked for blood.
Everyone was like, huh?

The defense insisted she turn over all information, data etc. pertaining to the prints but she refused... finally, half way into the trial she was forced to hand it over... the prints haaaad been tested (and with a sensitive blood test no less) the truth was out - all prints negative for blood.
The bottom line, Stefanoni Lied and Comodi tried to cover it up.

This is what happened.. it might be difficult to accept this sort of deception, but it's true

eta: there are facts to this case that simply can't be changed - see massei report.

My posts contradict one another? And in between the two sentences you pasted, I asked for information about the blood testing, then researched the Judge's report, and then posted about the blood analysis admitting my mistake. I then posted that the luminoled prints were tested for blood, and the conclusion of the court was that the print that matched Amanda's bare footprint was made in blood (contrary to the suggestion that the prints were tested for blood and the conclusion was that it was not blood) outside of Meredith's bedroom.

The truth was indeed out that the substance was tested using an analysis that tested for low number count DNA. The conclusion was that although the DNA was low, it was present and indicated a mixture of Amanda's DNA and Meredith's blood in Filomina's bedroom. Not all of the luminol prints indicated a mix with DNA, or suggested haematic substance, but some did. The conclusion was that the footprint in the hallway, that matched Amanda's footprint, was made with haematic substance, and that the footprint in the bathroom that matched Raffaele's print was also made with blood.

It's actually somewhat revealing that you selected two sentences I posted and omitted the comments in between ... thus giving the impression that I had unknowingly contradicted myself. It appears to be a case of selectively using information to present something different than what is.

 

[jjenny]

I don't understand what about the earlier phone call makes AK more suspicious of being guilty? It seems like it's being regarded as some sort of circumstancial evidence.AK does some strange things but does anyone reallt believe she'd call her mother at 3AM to tell her that she murdered someone?
I actually think it is possible that AK saw Meredith dead body when she returned to the cottage,locked the door so she would not have to deal with it since she was looking forward to her outing with RS,her mind went back into lala land,she took a shower and after returning to RS house the little bit of conscience she has kicked in and she started thinking maybe she should alert someone after all.
I can totally see her being guilty of something like that and I think all the circumstancial evidence points to her being odd and uncaring but not to her being a killer.
Another thing I don't understand is if it really happened the way the prosecution was saying why would RG not have implicated AK and RS as soon as he was arrested? He would have had no reason whatsoever not to do so?

So, in your view, it is plausible that a normal 20 year old would find a dead body of her roommate, decide to not notify anyone but instead go on her normal business? What kind of person would do something like that?

 

[otto]

So, in your view, it is plausible that a normal 20 year old would find a dead body of her roommate, decide to not notify anyone but instead go on her normal business? What kind of person would do something like that?

A murderer.

What kind of person in Seattle arrives home to find the front door wide open, blood on the sink and a bloody footprint on the bath mat, thinks nothing of it, has a shower, dawdles around, then leaves to visit a friend for lunch and only then mentions to the friend that something is not right at home. Who then calls one of the roommates (Meredith), gets no answer, then calls Filomina ... who says to call Meredith ... and then fails to tell Filomina that she has already called Meredith and got no answer?

Are people in Seattle odd and anable to recognize and react to a break in?

 

[dgfred]

I don't have a transcript of the interrogation and, I suspect, neither do you.

We have other evidence that the movie "Amelie" played on RS' computer until sometime after 9 p.m. Later, when asked what they did that night, RS replied, "We were on the computer." That, frankly, is how people think and talk.

It's only when LE cries "Gotcha!" and says computer records show it wasn't in use ALL night that the response starts to look suspicious.

Frankly, if you or I were interviewed about last Sunday evening, we, too, could be made to look like we were hiding something because our answers would be general rather than precise.

A recurring problem with the interrogation of innocent suspects is that innocent people don't know they need to keep a minute-by-minute account of everything they do.

Seems you are doing some mental gymnastics to get around this :waitasec: .

They were not on the computer 'all night' any way you look at it, having a transcript or not doesn't either :banghead: .

So you are saying: The cops ask you (during a murder investigation) what you did last night.... and your answer would be 'on the computer' :crazy: .
Then you are shown this couldn't be so, and you CHANGE your alibi. Then you are told this alibi couldn't be right either, you CHANGE your alibi once again. You might would be sitting right there in jail with them in that case.

If I was asked what I did last Sunday during a murder investigation... I would be a specific as I possibly could. Unless that is I had something to do with it.
You can not get any more suspicious than claiming you were doing something that you obviously were NOT. Not to mention changing your answers to 'fit' the evidence against you. Minute by minute would be another matter... but not hours upon hours IMO.

 

[Monzoo]

The Motivation Report for Rudy Guede's trial is out.

Here is an Italian story. I read a google translation, which states that the conviction should be held against Rudy only and not AK or RS who are still at the appeal stage. Didn't Mignini state that Rudy's final conviction could be held against RS and AK because they found that he committed the crime with others?

 

[kemo]

There is so much WRONG with the behavior of Amanda and Raffaele but you "Friends of Amanda" who seem to think that vague, imprecise answers are "normal" for young people today, have apparently never been involved in a murder investigation. Having a friend brutally murdered is deadly serious business. If the witness somehow doesn’t pick up that "vive", the investigator will convey it very clearly. It is possible that Amanda could care less about Meredith's death and saw it all as a chance to have something "real life" to write about, but she would certainly "catch on" to the fact that she was expected to answer a bunch of very specific questions as accurately as possible before she could go back to savoring all of the excitement and attention. The fact that she failed to do just this is what made her a suspect in the first place.

 

[Allusonz]

from one straight jacket to another Happy Birthday Flourish

:bdsong:



oh i upped the ante to 2 bottles of red wine will make it 3 now for your special day :innocent:

 

[Allusonz]

There is so much WRONG with the behavior of Amanda and Raffaele but you "Friends of Amanda" who seem to think that vague, imprecise answers are "normal" for young people today, have apparently never been involved in a murder investigation. Having a friend brutally murdered is deadly serious business. If the witness somehow doesn’t pick up that "vive", the investigator will convey it very clearly. It is possible that Amanda could care less about Meredith's death and saw it all as a chance to have something "real life" to write about, but she would certainly "catch on" to the fact that she was expected to answer a bunch of very specific questions as accurately as possible before she could go back to savoring all of the excitement and attention. The fact that she failed to do just this is what made her a suspect in the first place.

BBM

Respectively Said

Speaking for myself, you know nothing about my life experiences thus i do not believe you can make that assumption

 

[otto]

Miley, in response to your comment a couple of days back stating that Barbie said that police leaked diaries to the media, or that the prosecutor made a deal with Rudy:

Finally had a few moments to watch the documentary that followed the film. The diaries written by Knox were confiscated by police, but Barbie Nadeau does not say that police leaked those documents to the media. There is no information about who had access to those diaries.

Barbie also does not say that prosecutors made a deal with Rudy and therefore his sentence was reduced, or that he gave false evidence as part of the deal. What Barbie said was, in the context of opting for the fast-track trial, Rudy made a deal. That is, he made a deal "because that's the way the Italian law works."

 

[otto]

There is so much WRONG with the behavior of Amanda and Raffaele but you "Friends of Amanda" who seem to think that vague, imprecise answers are "normal" for young people today, have apparently never been involved in a murder investigation. Having a friend brutally murdered is deadly serious business. If the witness somehow doesn’t pick up that "vive", the investigator will convey it very clearly. It is possible that Amanda could care less about Meredith's death and saw it all as a chance to have something "real life" to write about, but she would certainly "catch on" to the fact that she was expected to answer a bunch of very specific questions as accurately as possible before she could go back to savoring all of the excitement and attention. The fact that she failed to do just this is what made her a suspect in the first place.

I would tend to agree. It was the cirucmstantial evidence of the lies Amanda told, her voluntary statement, the completely unbelievable story that she found the door open where she did nothing, and so much more that made police suspicious. There is nothing normal about the way that Amanda reacted to the murder of Meredith Kercher, and it cannot all be excused as "Amanda being Amanda" or "Amanda being Amelie". She was a mature student traveling and studying in Europe who had a history of taking advantage of situations (Berlin), indulging in drugs, selecting friends that enjoyed the world of drugs, lying to police, treating a murder investigation like a joke and basically doing exactly the opposite of what others in her situation were doing.

 

[otto]

BBM

Respectively Said

Speaking for myself, you know nothing about my life experiences thus i do not believe you can make that assumption

I don't follow. Knowing about you has nothing to do with this case. What we have is a 20 year old woman (now 23) who went to Europe, got stoned, blew off a job in Berlin, took advantage of the kindness and generosity of those she met, and appears to have treated her home (the home of others who permanently lived and worked in Perugia) into some kind of student hangout while she shacked up elsewhere with her brand new boyfriend. When her roommate was murdered, nothing she did or said cleared her of involvement in the murder. Others were eliminated as being involved, but her actions and statements led her further into the spotlight of suspect.