Page 23 of 50 FirstFirst ... 131415161718192021222324252627282930313233 ... LastLast
Results 551 to 575 of 1236

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

  1. #551
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,707
    Quote Originally Posted by sherlockh View Post
    Yes, because they were cleaned. I am probably misunderstanding you?
    I mean they would not have been able to see clearly what they left. They would not have therefore known what might show , or know how to make Guede's invisible ones remain yet not their own...

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to SMK For This Useful Post:


  3. #552
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    23,385
    Quote Originally Posted by SMK View Post
    In addition, I believe the report by Sollecito's legal team's forensic expert, which proved the so-called print of Raffaele's was actually that of Rudy Guede, to be FAR more convincing than the Massei report.

    Forensics expert Francesco Vinci showed in great detail, in his expert testimony in court, that the two prints actually belonged to Rudy Guede. THAT is what I find so difficult to refute.
    Professor Vinci found evidence of all three suspects on the bra clasp. Do you accept this evidence as well?

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


  5. #553
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,553
    Quote Originally Posted by SMK View Post
    I think it is pretty clear from Vinvi's report and pictures that the footprint is as well.
    I am not surprised. From a more objective point of view, in every trial against RG it was never concluded that his footprint was anywhere. Up to the Supreme Court it was noted that the bathmat print is compatible with RS and excludes both AK and RG. So how you can say 'pretty clear' is beyond me.

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


  7. #554
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,553
    Quote Originally Posted by SMK View Post
    I mean they would not have been able to see clearly what they left. They would not have therefore known what might show , or know how to make Guede's invisible ones remain yet not their own...
    I still don't get it. How do you know how visible the prints were before they cleaned them?

  8. #555
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,707
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    Professor Vinci found evidence of all three suspects on the bra clasp. Do you accept this evidence as well?
    Yes. . . .

  9. #556
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,707
    Quote Originally Posted by sherlockh View Post
    I still don't get it. How do you know how visible the prints were before they cleaned them?
    I guess I have been taking it on faith that the refuters are learned, and telling the truth.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to SMK For This Useful Post:


  11. #557
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    23,385
    Quote Originally Posted by sherlockh View Post
    I am not surprised. From a more objective point of view, in every trial against RG it was never concluded that his footprint was anywhere. Up to the Supreme Court it was noted that the bathmat print is compatible with RS and excludes both AK and RG. So how you can say 'pretty clear' is beyond me.
    This is from the Rudy Guede's final appeal (PRESIDED OVER BY DR. UMBERTO GIORDANO)

    "For Sollecito they give evidence: traces of DNA on the piece of fabric to which to the hooks of the bra are attached, the knife, which is compatible with the wounds inflicted on Meredith, found at his house with traces of Knox's DNA on the handle and Kercher’s on the blade, a print of a bare foot which is compatible with Sollecito's, found on the mat in the bathroom. For Knox: the traces on the knife handle found at the home of Sollecito, statements by Guede, the footprints from Knox and Sollecito detected by luminol, traces of genetic material on the sink and bidet, the phrase "I was there" in a conversation intercepted in prison between Knox and her parents, the testimony of Nara Capezzali who, at the time of the crime from her home about 70 meters away from via della Pergola heard a heart-rending scream and soon afterwards the footsteps of people going in opposite directions, towards via del Melo and along via del Bulagaio." (page 10)

    Having viewed the records, the sentence and the appeal
    heard in PUBLIC HEARING on December 16, 2010,
    on the report made by Judge Dr. ENZO IANNELLI
    Having heard the Chief Appeal Court Prosecutor
    in the person of Dr. Gialanella


    http://truejustice.org/ee//documents...cingreport.pdf
    Last edited by otto; 04-07-2011 at 01:10 PM.

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


  13. #558
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    23,385
    Quote Originally Posted by SMK View Post
    I guess I have been taking it on faith that the refuters are learned, and telling the truth.
    In Rudy's final appeal ... notably overseen by a prosecutor other than Mignini ... the conclusion is that footprints from Knox and Sollecito were detected by luminol. This suggests to me that without luminol, they were not detected.

  14. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to otto For This Useful Post:


  15. #559
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,707
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    In Rudy's final appeal ... notably overseen by a prosecutor other than Mignini ... the conclusion is that footprints from Knox and Sollecito were detected by luminol. This suggests to me that without luminol, they were not detected.
    Right, they were not visible. How is it determined that they were made the night of the crime?

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


  17. #560
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    23,385
    Quote Originally Posted by SMK View Post
    I guess I have been taking it on faith that the refuters are learned, and telling the truth.
    Are "refuters" pro-conspiracy; attempting to refute, or prove false, the court conclusions?

  18. #561
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,707
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    Are "refuters" pro-conspiracy; attempting to refute, or prove false, the court conclusions?
    Of course.

  19. #562
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    23,385
    Quote Originally Posted by SMK View Post
    Right, they were not visible. How is it determined that they were made the night of the crime?
    How is it possible that luminol evidence is accepted in any courtroom ... except that there is no other expanation for the evidence that is detected using luminol. That is ... have we had any other reasonable explanation for the footprints that were detected using luminol?

  20. #563
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,707
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    This is from the Rudy Guede's final appeal (PRESIDED OVER BY DR. UMBERTO GIORDANO)

    "For Sollecito they give evidence: traces of DNA on the piece of fabric to which to the hooks of the bra are attached, the knife, which is compatible with the wounds inflicted on Meredith, found at his house with traces of Knox's DNA on the handle and Kercherís on the blade, a print of a bare foot which is compatible with Sollecito's, found on the mat in the bathroom. For Knox: the traces on the knife handle found at the home of Sollecito, statements by Guede, the footprints from Knox and Sollecito detected by luminol, traces of genetic material on the sink and bidet, the phrase "I was there" in a conversation intercepted in prison between Knox and her parents, the testimony of Nara Capezzali who, at the time of the crime from her home about 70 meters away from via della Pergola heard a heart-rending scream and soon afterwards the footsteps of people going in opposite directions, towards via del Melo and along via del Bulagaio." (page 10)

    Having viewed the records, the sentence and the appeal
    heard in PUBLIC HEARING on December 16, 2010,
    on the report made by Judge Dr. ENZO IANNELLI
    Having heard the Chief Appeal Court Prosecutor
    in the person of Dr. Gialanella


    http://truejustice.org/ee//documents...cingreport.pdf
    • For Sollecito they give evidence:


    traces of DNA on the piece of fabric to which to the hooks of the bra are attached,


    the knife, which is compatible with the wounds inflicted on Meredith, found at his house with traces of Knox's DNA on the handle and Kercherís on the blade,

    a print of a bare foot which is compatible with Sollecito's, found on the mat in the bathroom.


    • For Knox:


    the traces on the knife handle found at the home of Sollecito, statements by Guede,

    the footprints from Knox and Sollecito detected by luminol,

    traces of genetic material on the sink and bidet,

    the phrase "I was there" in a conversation intercepted in prison between Knox and her parents,

    the testimony of Nara Capezzali who, at the time of the crime from her home about 70 meters away from via della Pergola heard a heart-rending scream and soon afterwards the footsteps of people going in opposite directions, towards via del Melo and along via del Bulagaio.
    Must rush out, but surely I am not the only one who believed the defense's vigorous refutations of some of these, nor various experts' refutations? In fact, all of this was refuted. But I will leave it for others to grapple with. . .

  21. #564
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,707
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    How is it possible that luminol evidence is accepted in any courtroom ... except that there is no other expanation for the evidence that is detected using luminol. That is ... have we had any other reasonable explanation for the footprints that were detected using luminol?
    That they were made from another , prior, time? or that they were in fact made during a clean up or staging, after Guede had committed the act alone (I have written elsewhere how/why I have suspected this)

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to SMK For This Useful Post:


  23. #565
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,707
    addendumIf Knox had not lived at that cottage, and if there were no Rudy Guede, I would believe the evidence.

  24. The Following User Says Thank You to SMK For This Useful Post:


  25. #566
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,707
    quick closing thoughts:

    • why should we believe what Rudy says?


    • why was the bra collected 47 days later? contamination?


    • how do we know when Amanda's prints were made? why not the day prior?


    • the woman who heard this is from what I had heard not all that reliable, and half deaf


    • "I was there", at Sollecito's, even though they say I had left


    • were there not huge questions about the knife?


    • if Mignini can break the law once, he may do so even in this case?


    • and finally, can all refuters be stupid, evil, and dishonest?


    Reasonable doubt about much of it...

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


  27. #567
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    23,385
    Quote Originally Posted by SMK View Post
    • For Sollecito they give evidence:


    traces of DNA on the piece of fabric to which to the hooks of the bra are attached,


    the knife, which is compatible with the wounds inflicted on Meredith, found at his house with traces of Knox's DNA on the handle and Kercherís on the blade,

    a print of a bare foot which is compatible with Sollecito's, found on the mat in the bathroom.


    • For Knox:


    the traces on the knife handle found at the home of Sollecito, statements by Guede,

    the footprints from Knox and Sollecito detected by luminol,

    traces of genetic material on the sink and bidet,

    the phrase "I was there" in a conversation intercepted in prison between Knox and her parents,

    the testimony of Nara Capezzali who, at the time of the crime from her home about 70 meters away from via della Pergola heard a heart-rending scream and soon afterwards the footsteps of people going in opposite directions, towards via del Melo and along via del Bulagaio.
    Must rush out, but surely I am not the only one who believed the defense's vigorous refutations of some of these, nor various experts' refutations? In fact, all of this was refuted. But I will leave it for others to grapple with. . .
    Are you suggesting that because the evidence was argued during trial, it isn't valid? Has there ever been a trial where evidence was not argued? It seems to me that that is job of a defense lawyer ... to attempt to refute the evidence. The court determines whether the arguments are valid and ... in this case ... we have a detailed explanation from the Judge explaining why those arguments were rejected.

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


  29. #568
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    23,385
    Quote Originally Posted by SMK View Post
    That they were made from another , prior, time? or that they were in fact made during a clean up or staging, after Guede had committed the act alone (I have written elsewhere how/why I have suspected this)
    Can you refer me to where lawyers presented arguments providing an alternate time frame (other than the murder) for the footprints that were detected using luminol?

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


  31. #569
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,707

    Angry

    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    Can you refer me to where lawyers presented arguments providing an alternate time frame (other than the murder) for the footprints that were detected using luminol?
    no, it is my own thought. But as for all refutations to my refutations: Ergo, anyone who believes Knox and Sollecito were railroaded is a deluded idiot and half wit. : ( So why even have this forum, they are both guilty as sin, and the rest of us should dry up. Kind of what is being said, between the lines.

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


  33. #570
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    23,385
    Quote Originally Posted by SMK View Post
    quick closing thoughts:

    • why should we believe what Rudy says?


    • why was the bra collected 47 days later? contamination?


    • how do we know when Amanda's prints were made? why not the day prior?


    • the woman who heard this is from what I had heard not all that reliable, and half deaf


    • "I was there", at Sollecito's, even though they say I had left


    • were there not huge questions about the knife?


    • if Mignini can break the law once, he may do so even in this case?


    • and finally, can all refuters be stupid, evil, and dishonest?


    Reasonable doubt about much of it...
    Half deaf? She doesn't seem half deaf. She seems to be quite capable of hearing normal conversation.

    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd-Th8lIxyo[/ame]

    It is important to note that although Paul Ciolino claims police did not speak to Nara at all, she did testify in court ... thus making it rather obvious that Paul Ciolino is not being truthful. Clearly investigators spoke to her about what she heard on the night of the murder.

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


  35. #571
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    23,385
    Quote Originally Posted by SMK View Post
    no, it is my own thought. But as for all refutations to my refutations: Ergo, anyone who believes Knox and Sollecito were railroaded is a deluded idiot and half wit. : ( So why even have this forum, they are both guilty as sin, and the rest of us should dry up. Kind of what is being said, between the lines.
    The case is under appeal, just like many trials all over the world. Until the appeals are exhausted, new information is possible ... which is why many people are still following the case. Although there was an abundance of evidence presented during the 11 month trial, only three pieces of evidence are under review during appeal: knife, clasp, eye-witness testimony. All the other evidence has been accepted by the courts. We will know how the court rules on May 21. After that ... I think the Supreme court makes it's ruling.

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


  37. #572
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,707
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    The case is under appeal, just like many trials all over the world. Until the appeals are exhausted, new information is possible ... which is why many people are still following the case. Although there was an abundance of evidence presented during the 11 month trial, only three pieces of evidence are under review during appeal: knife, clasp, eye-witness testimony. All the other evidence has been accepted by the courts. We will know how the court rules on May 21. After that ... I think the Supreme court makes it's ruling.
    but that will not change anyone's mind, on either side, I assume....

  38. The Following User Says Thank You to SMK For This Useful Post:


  39. #573
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,707
    i.e., if the convictions are overturned, you will continue to think they are guilty; if they are upheld, I will still have reasonable doubt. How could it be otherwise, now?

  40. The Following User Says Thank You to SMK For This Useful Post:


  41. #574
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,707
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    Half deaf? She doesn't seem half deaf. She seems to be quite capable of hearing normal conversation.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd-Th8lIxyo

    It is important to note that although Paul Ciolino claims police did not speak to Nara at all, she did testify in court ... thus making it rather obvious that Paul Ciolino is not being truthful. Clearly investigators spoke to her about what she heard on the night of the murder.
    what about my other points?

  42. #575
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    23,385
    Quote Originally Posted by SMK View Post
    but that will not change anyone's mind, on either side, I assume....
    Really? I disagree. I had no opinion of the involvement of Amanda and Raffaele in the murder until the trial. Trial evidence convinced me of their guilt. If it is demonstrated that errors were made in the evidence, then I would reconsider my opinion. I think many would.

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


Page 23 of 50 FirstFirst ... 131415161718192021222324252627282930313233 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1206
    Last Post: 04-01-2011, 12:43 AM
  2. Replies: 749
    Last Post: 02-24-2011, 10:59 PM
  3. Replies: 317
    Last Post: 02-11-2011, 06:45 PM
  4. Replies: 826
    Last Post: 02-07-2011, 01:46 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
  •