Page 1 of 13 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 318

Thread: Meredith Kercher murdered - Amanda Knox convicted, now appeals #6

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    28,814

    Meredith Kercher murdered - Amanda Knox convicted, now appeals #6

    Please continue here. Please be mindful of TOS and don't let emotion get the better part of the discussion.


    [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55843"]Thread 1[/ame]

    [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92575"]Thread 2[/ame]

    [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94005"]Thread 3[/ame]

    Thread 4 - On hold.

    [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125994"]Thread 5[/ame]


    Appeal is to be decided in March 2011.

    Last few posts from previous thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nova View Post
    Lifetime basically only shows two movies: in the more popular one, the plucky heroine has to fight off and eventually kill the man who betrayed her. The other movie shows a good girl who falls prey to drugs and a bad boyfriend and becomes a killer (and/or hooker).

    Guess which one the Amanda Knox movie will be?
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    I think I fall into the same category as the people objecting to the film. It's been known for some time that the film was being made, but objections to it being shown have only recently come to light. Now that we've had a glimpse of what the film is like (through the trailer), it looks to be in poor taste.
    Last edited by Salem; 02-12-2011 at 03:08 PM.

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Salem For This Useful Post:


  3. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    21,724
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    There is no way to do a film such as this in good taste, imo. Unless maybe it is a documentary? Even then I would wonder.

    I think the best movie would be one from the minds of the posters here, who have dedicated so much time to the actual court documents, etc. and picked apart every little piece of evidence until it screamed.

    And still we have a difference of opinion. Amazing, isn't it? I find the whole thing very interesting, from the event itself, to how every one looks at it. And I really feel for Meredith's family here. No matter what happened, to have your daughter's last hour on earth portrayed in such a manner, for the world to see, had got to be a very sharp, painful stab in the heart.

    I don't think they should have been allowed to advertise the movie (unrealistic, I know, but still).

    Salem
    I had to bring this quote over ... because reading this made me start thinking about how a movie about a murder could be done more respectfully.

    Rather than show a violent attack, the scene could follow Meredith going home and show her settling in to study, cut to 1-3 figures entering the cottage and then silence ... with a photo tribute to Meredith and maybe some shots of her memorial.

    I'm not convinced that sex and violence were needed to draw an audience for this film ... too bad the producer didn't realize that.

    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg9eSyhgzBw[/ame]
    Last edited by otto; 02-07-2011 at 05:49 PM.

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to otto For This Useful Post:


  5. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    18,418
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    I had to bring this quote over ... because reading this made me start thinking about how a movie about a murder could be done more respectfully.

    Rather than show a violent attack, the scene could follow Meredith going home and show her settling in to study, cut to 1-3 figures entering the cottage and then silence ... with a photo tribute to Meredith and maybe some shots of her memorial.

    I'm not convinced that sex and violence were needed to draw an audience for this film ... too bad the producer didn't realize that.
    I want to be clear that while I am skeptical about this film, I by no means think we should discard the first amendment to ban it.

    otto, there is no evidence whatsoever that 3 figures entered the cottage together. Even if you believe the evidence shows 3 people (in addition to the victim) ended up there eventually, there's no evidence they arrived together.

    So even in one brief and tasteful example, we've already left the available evidence and departed for the land of fiction.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Nova For This Useful Post:


  7. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    21,724
    Quote Originally Posted by Nova View Post
    I want to be clear that while I am skeptical about this film, I by no means think we should discard the first amendment to ban it.

    otto, there is no evidence whatsoever that 3 figures entered the cottage together. Even if you believe the evidence shows 3 people (in addition to the victim) ended up there eventually, there's no evidence they arrived together.

    So even in one brief and tasteful example, we've already left the available evidence and departed for the land of fiction.
    I wrote 1-3, not 3.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to otto For This Useful Post:


  9. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    18,418
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    I wrote 1-3, not 3.
    The principle is still the same. Sorry, I should have made it clear I wasn't objecting to your example, per se, just pointing out that any film made will require choices that tilt the narrative toward one conclusion or another.

    It is possible in theory to construct a film that is ultimately neutral, but very difficult to do in practice. And probably impossible with the budget and shooting schedule of a made-for-TV movie.

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Nova For This Useful Post:


  11. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    4,679
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    I wrote 1-3, not 3.
    The start of 1 - 3 still represents an issue

    On the record I will not partake in any movie discussion. I have no idea what the content is but I do know the aim of most movies

    I am actually saddened that MK's family has to go through this and I will simply not be a part of it

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Allusonz For This Useful Post:


  13. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    4,679
    I did though come across this interview with Dr. Greg Hampikian


    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vEFPZgW9HA"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vEFPZgW9HA[/ame]

  14. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Allusonz For This Useful Post:


  15. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    18,418
    Quote Originally Posted by Allusonz View Post
    I did though come across this interview with Dr. Greg Hampikian....
    What were you saying about how sometimes one thank-you just isn't enough?

  16. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Nova For This Useful Post:


  17. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    18,418
    Having a photo with the knife next to a ruler merely confirms my earlier conclusion: there's no way somebody chose to carry that knife out for the evening "just for fun."

  18. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Nova For This Useful Post:


  19. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,265
    I don't plan on watching the movie. TV movies are generally trashy and not well made to begin with. That being said, I'm sure at some point a "tasteful" version of the story could be made, but probably not until long after all the appeals are done and the maximum amount of information has been made available and some time has passed. IIRC, the Michael Winterbottom version is supposed to stay away from any depiction of the murder, barely focus on the Amanda character, but centralize more on a reporter covering the case.

  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Malkmus For This Useful Post:


  21. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    4,679
    Quote Originally Posted by Nova View Post
    What were you saying about how sometimes one thank-you just isn't enough?
    Sorry by the time it was at the end i was laughing so hard at what they had done i had tears rolling down my face

    The interesting part is that it was the defense that requested it be taken apart not the experts as has been reported thus I am thinking the objections ....

    Nope those objections make no sense to me whatsoever

  22. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    18,418
    Quote Originally Posted by Allusonz View Post
    Sorry by the time it was at the end i was laughing so hard at what they had done i had tears rolling down my face

    The interesting part is that it was the defense that requested it be taken apart not the experts as has been reported thus I am thinking the objections ....

    Nope those objections make no sense to me whatsoever
    As I'm sure you know, a basic rule of direct and cross-examination is "never ask a question unless you already know the answer." The same principle applies here, I feel certain: the prosecution doesn't want any surprises and has no way of knowing what is inside that handle.

    That, of course, is no FAIR reason not to take the handle apart and retest, but I'm sure that is the prosecutor's motivation for objecting.

    (And given the way the evidence was handled in this case, that knife handle may well hold traces of MY DNA!)

    What is telling is the defense request. Obviously, AK and RS are telling their lawyers there is no way that knife was involved in the murder, because their lawyers aren't worried that pulling the handle apart will unearth a huge sample of MK's blood.

  23. The Following User Says Thank You to Nova For This Useful Post:


  24. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    4,679
    Quote Originally Posted by Nova View Post
    As I'm sure you know, a basic rule of direct and cross-examination is "never ask a question unless you already know the answer." The same principle applies here, I feel certain: the prosecution doesn't want any surprises and has no way of knowing what is inside that handle.
    That, of course, is no FAIR reason not to take the handle apart and retest, but I'm sure that is the prosecutor's motivation for objecting.

    (And given the way the evidence was handled in this case, that knife handle may well hold traces of MY DNA!)

    What is telling is the defense request. Obviously, AK and RS are telling their lawyers there is no way that knife was involved in the murder, because their lawyers aren't worried that pulling the handle apart will unearth a huge sample of MK's blood.
    BBM

    I have 2 schools of thought on this

    No one wants to be surprised during any trial that includes the defense/prosecution

    If there is indeed DNA in that handle they would be very hard pressed to not be able to say contamination

  25. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    18,418
    Quote Originally Posted by Allusonz View Post
    BBM

    I have 2 schools of thought on this

    No one wants to be surprised during any trial that includes the defense/prosecution

    If there is indeed DNA in that handle they would be very hard pressed to not be able to say contamination
    Wouldn't that depend on whose DNA was there? Any number of people may have used that knife at RS' apartment and any or all of them may have left DNA in the handle.

    And, of course, if more of MK's DNA were found, the prosecution would simply claim it was additional evidence that this knife was one of the murder weapons. I think the prosecutor fears no additional MK DNA will be found and that will only fuel the skepticism over the tiny amount supposedly found on the blade.

  26. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Nova For This Useful Post:


  27. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    536
    Quote Originally Posted by Nova View Post
    I want to be clear that while I am skeptical about this film, I by no means think we should discard the first amendment to ban it./
    I guess they could start creating bad press, full page ads or however it's done.. basically start lobbying hard against the movie in hopes of stirring up enough negative publicity that the sponsors back out of advertising.

  28. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    536
    Thank you for the video Allisonz, reminds me of what Steve Moore said about a law enforcement truism, "absence of evidence is evidence of absence."

    and you know, John Kercher said it was two years before they could take home Meredith's things, things of hers they could all cherish. He was expecting a huge suitcase full of her stuff and instead he got a small beat up box -
    he also said none of her clothes were returned, all were taken for forensic testing - seriously? obviously he hasn't seen the video footage.

    why did they treat Meredith's personal possessions like that - so unnecessary. very strange manner of professionalism.

  29. The Following User Says Thank You to miley For This Useful Post:


  30. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    4,079
    I have no doubt the movie will be a work of creative fiction, taken from the tabloids first & foremost, made to hint at salacious (and likely false) hypothesis, treating neither victim, MK, nor suspects/defendants with anything akin to the plain truth.

    And really, we've had enough rumors to create a whole 'nother set of characters and a crime that veer far from what actually happened.

    Unfortunately people believe whatever rumor-du-jour comes across their computer or newspaper and align their beliefs with the lowest common denominator. It's easy to just accept what the media selects as 'truth,' I suppose.

  31. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to SleuthyGal For This Useful Post:


  32. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    21,724
    Quote Originally Posted by Nova View Post
    Having a photo with the knife next to a ruler merely confirms my earlier conclusion: there's no way somebody chose to carry that knife out for the evening "just for fun."
    The knife is still 12 inches in length, even when placed next to a centimeter ruler that is too short.

  33. The Following User Says Thank You to otto For This Useful Post:


  34. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    4,679
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    The knife is still 12 inches in length, even when placed next to a centimeter ruler that is too short.
    From the length of the ruler i would gather that this had cm (metric) on one side and if you flip it has the inches on the other side. This a very common type of ruler

  35. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    4,679
    Quote Originally Posted by Nova View Post
    Wouldn't that depend on whose DNA was there? Any number of people may have used that knife at RS' apartment and any or all of them may have left DNA in the handle.

    And, of course, if more of MK's DNA were found, the prosecution would simply claim it was additional evidence that this knife was one of the murder weapons. I think the prosecutor fears no additional MK DNA will be found and that will only fuel the skepticism over the tiny amount supposedly found on the blade.
    They would state contamination and here is just a brief synopsis why:

    We are supposed to believe that the knife was taken from RS's kitchen, used to kill MK, then returned back to RS's apartment but luminol testing in RS's apartment revealed no evidence of any clean up. No evidence of any kind was found in RS's apartment

    1.Officer that testified at the trial said he used "police intuition" when choosing the knife from Raffaele's drawer but took nothing else out of the drawer for CONTROL EXPERIMENTS

    2. No control experiments were run to follow the handling of the item from the field through to the laboratory. Remember this knife was collected from RS's appartment by the police, taken to the police station, sat there, then put in a open brown box and taken to the lab. The box was not tested. We have no idea how long the knife was actually at the police station, who had access to it etc.

    3. Patrizia Stefanoni testified that it had tiny scratches on the side, compatible with intense scrubbing with bleach. Bleach destroys DNA. If you clean an item, you will remove the DNA before the blood and we know the knife tested negative for blood so if it had been cleaned how did the DNA get there?

    Elizabeth A. Johnson, Ph.D

    “If someone had a knife covered in blood and they tried to clean it very well, they would remove their ability to detect the DNA before they removed the ability to detect the chemical traces of blood.” Therefore, the lack of blood makes it impossible for there to be DNA on the knife, so the DNA that was observed has to arise from contamination."

    Patrizia Stefanoni stated under oath that there is NEVER CONTAMINATION in her lab. Every expert i know states that contamination is an ongoing issue in their labs but in HER LAB NO CONTAMINATION EVER

    I wont even go into the problems with the lab i think i have posted enough on the lab.

  36. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Allusonz For This Useful Post:


  37. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    21,724
    Quote Originally Posted by Allusonz View Post
    From the length of the ruler i would gather that this had cm (metric) on one side and if you flip it has the inches on the other side. This a very common type of ruler
    It wouldn't matter how you flipped the ruler, the length of the knife has been officially measured to be 31 cm, or 12 inches.

  38. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to otto For This Useful Post:


  39. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    21,724
    Quote Originally Posted by Allusonz View Post
    They would state contamination and here is just a brief synopsis why:

    We are supposed to believe that the knife was taken from RS's kitchen, used to kill MK, then returned back to RS's apartment but luminol testing in RS's apartment revealed no evidence of any clean up. No evidence of any kind was found in RS's apartment

    1.Officer that testified at the trial said he used "police intuition" when choosing the knife from Raffaele's drawer but took nothing else out of the drawer for CONTROL EXPERIMENTS

    2. No control experiments were run to follow the handling of the item from the field through to the laboratory. Remember this knife was collected from RS's appartment by the police, taken to the police station, sat there, then put in a open brown box and taken to the lab. The box was not tested. We have no idea how long the knife was actually at the police station, who had access to it etc.

    3. Patrizia Stefanoni testified that it had tiny scratches on the side, compatible with intense scrubbing with bleach. Bleach destroys DNA. If you clean an item, you will remove the DNA before the blood and we know the knife tested negative for blood so if it had been cleaned how did the DNA get there?

    Elizabeth A. Johnson, Ph.D

    “If someone had a knife covered in blood and they tried to clean it very well, they would remove their ability to detect the DNA before they removed the ability to detect the chemical traces of blood.” Therefore, the lack of blood makes it impossible for there to be DNA on the knife, so the DNA that was observed has to arise from contamination."

    Patrizia Stefanoni stated under oath that there is NEVER CONTAMINATION in her lab. Every expert i know states that contamination is an ongoing issue in their labs but in HER LAB NO CONTAMINATION EVER

    I wont even go into the problems with the lab i think i have posted enough on the lab.
    Why doesn't Elizabeth, who has no connection with the case, mention the point about the knife being selected because it was on top of other things in the drawer, was particularly shiney (enough to stand out) and that one officer reported a smell of bleach? Why does Elizabeth claim that the knife was taken to the police station, left there and then put in an open box? The knife was bagged and boxed at the scene ... and because photos of the knife in the box during evidence collection were so well circulated, there has even been discussion about whether the knife was found in a box rather than in the kitchen drawer.

    Did Elizabeth actually say those things? It seems to me that the only point E. Johnson and G. Hampikian are making is that the DNA results could be a result of contamination.

    This is what the report says regarding the knife:

    The kitchen knife:

    The prosecution claims that DNA testing shows the presence of Amanda’s DNA on the handle and Meredith’s DNA on the blade. The following information pertains to the knife:

    1. The knife was selected from among several knives in the kitchen drawer of Raffaele’s apartment. It was the only knife collected from the kitchen, although it had no visible stains or notable characteristics.

    2. Testimony has been given in court that this knife could not have made two of the three slash wounds to the victim’s neck, but that a smaller knife could have made all three wounds. Furthermore, this knife did not match a bloody knife imprint left on the bed.

    3. An extremely sensitive chemical test for the presumptive presence of blood, tetramethyl benzidine (TMB, a chemical capable of detecting at least a 1:10,000 dilution of blood), was negative for both the handle and blade.

    4. A swabbing of the handle revealed the presence of Amanda’s DNA. This is not unexpected since she had used the kitchen knives to prepare food at Raffaele’s apartment.

    5. A swabbing of the center portion of the flat edge of the blade was taken for further analysis. This sample tested negative for blood with TMB.

    a. An extremely low level, partial DNA profile was developed for the blade swabbing using the Identifiler kit. The alleles detected were consistent with the DNA of the victim. The highest peak in the electropherogram was approximately 100 relative fluorescence units (rfu), while 21 of the 29 peaks that were detected and labeled as alleles fell between 20 and 50 rfu.

    b. This DNA does not originate from blood. A highly sensitive chemical test for blood was negative, and it is unlikely that all chemically detectable traces of blood could be removed while retaining sufficient cells to produce a DNA profile consistent with the victim.

    c. Numerous samples were collected from the crime scene that were tested and shown to contain high quantities of the victim’s DNA. There exists the real possibility that the low level, partial profile attributed to the knife blade is a result of unintended transfer in the laboratory during sample handling. Numerous examples of this have been documented by other laboratories.

    d. Electronic (.fsa) files that would allow independent analysis of the data have not been disclosed.

    e. Neither the extraction nor amplification of the low template DNA from the kitchen knife blade was duplicated. The test can not be reproduced as the swab and DNA extract were consumed during testing.

  40. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    21,724
    Here we go ... the knife, in a box, with a 12 inch ruler that measures both inches and centimeters.


  41. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to otto For This Useful Post:


  42. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    128
    Things that I have found to be true, even though the lies are repeated and used to suggest guilt:

    1. There were no proven "bloody" footprints of RS or AK anywhere. None.
    2. No evidence of "blood" on the 12in knife from RS's apartment.
    3. No one purchased bleach on the morning after.
    4. No evidence of a clean up at the cottage. No bleach used (which luminol would react with and show as smears).
    5. AK never had phone contact with RG
    6. No forensic evidence had been processed when Mignini boasted his
    "sex games gone bad" theory.
    7. RS computer actually did watch the movie Amelie
    8. No fingerprints, shoeprints, footprints, hair, or DNA of AK in MK's room
    9. No CCTV footage of AK going to the cottage that night.
    10. No one was involved in a satanic cult.
    11. Amanda did not take a shower in a room covered in blood. There were a few small drops and a diluted half-footprint on the bathmat.
    12. AK never offered any serious theory that RS put a knife in her hand to implicate her in the murder. She was stating an impossible scenario as can be seen by the context of her writing.
    13. RS called the police BEFORE the postal police or the carbinieri got there. (why else would they be waiting outside?)
    14. RS and AK were not "surprised" at the cottage holding a mop and bucket. The mop was not involved at all.
    15. AK had not put her own laundry in the wash that night or morning, it was MK's.

    I'm sure there are many I missed. Feel free to add and rearrange. I'm just so sick of hearing lies and half-truths perpetuated even after all this time.

  43. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to trillian For This Useful Post:


  44. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    536
    I read Amanda and her attorneys are going to sue Lifetime if they don't cancel the movie/commercials and internet ads. They also sent letters to Google and you-tube asking them to pull the ads.

    What I posted above, the possibility of stirring up negative publicity in hopes of advertisers pulling out, i was actually thinking along the lines of how people campaigned against Fox over G. Beck, isn't this sort of what happened?

    and Didn't Obama sign a new law protecting US citizens right to free speech abroad. In other words, doesn't the First Amendment take priority (over foreign laws) and protect a US defendant from a foreign lawsuit regarding libel issues ... how exactly does this law work?

    are the attorneys trying to stall the movie from airing or do they have actual grounds for a lawsuit? and Wasn't she given an extra year plus a fine for defamation - does this new law protect her in any way and does it prevent her from filing defamation suits in the future?


    I apologize for all the ques. - tia

Page 1 of 13 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 826
    Last Post: 02-07-2011, 01:46 PM
  2. Replies: 681
    Last Post: 12-25-2010, 02:11 PM
  3. Replies: 1214
    Last Post: 01-14-2010, 01:38 PM
  4. Anyone following Meredith Kercher/Amanda Knox
    By voynich in forum Amanda Knox
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-13-2009, 04:55 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •