1005 users online (177 members and 828 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 46 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 682
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    29,161

    Meredith Kercher murdered in Perugia, Amanda Knox convicted #3

    Please continue here.

    Thread 2

    Thread 1

    Thanks,

    Salem
    Last edited by KateB; 05-31-2015 at 02:10 AM. Reason: repair url tag.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Cereal City & K-zoo
    Posts
    1,023
    Quote Originally Posted by dgfred View Post
    Not really mitigating circumstances... he got 30 years then it was reduced because of the 'fast track' trial and time already served. Mitigating circumstances is what got RS an extra year and AK two extra.
    Aren't you the one that, earlier in the thread, was calculating why his sentence was reduced and included mitigating circumstances into the equation? What's changed?

    ETA: LOL, yes, it was you that posted the "calculations". Yours is the first post here:

    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...=92575&page=20

    Quote Originally Posted by dgfred View Post
    What mitigating circumstances?
    We don't know "what mitigating circumstances", yet, but this article suggests his age and no prior convictions.


    BBM:
    Why Guede got his sentence reduced on appeal

    The recent ruling in the appeal for Rudy Guede confirmed the conviction, but reduced the sentence to 16 years. The reduction thus far is believed to come from two things:

    1. applying mitigating circumstances to Guede’s sentence, thus reducing his sentence by 6 years. Originally Guede did not have mitigating circumstances applied, but then Knox and Sollecito got mitigating circumstances. Two of the mitigating circumstances argued for by the defense were age & no prior record.

    http://aklwei.wordpress.com/2009/12/...ced-on-appeal/
    Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable... Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals.
    ~MLK, Jr.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    N.C., USA
    Posts
    3,252
    Thanks Salem.

    OK Tizzle I got you now. 6 years mitigating for young age/no criminal history/etc... sorry for not getting what y'all were saying there.

    No need to be snarky about my reply in caps if you are going to post that they are innocent... which we all have seen is not what the court decided.
    Maybe you should have posted 'wrongly convicted' then.
    The Seeker / Sports Freak /

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Cereal City & K-zoo
    Posts
    1,023
    Quote Originally Posted by dgfred View Post
    ther_beatingA_Dead

    Uhhh no. They are CONVICTED murderers it seems.
    Yes, fred, I'm well aware that they are convicted of murder. Caps unnecessary. It is my opinion that WRONGFULLY convicted is a more proper description, though.

    OJ Simpson was found Not Guilty, so, I guess he must be innocent. Because he wasn't convicted of the crime, right? Jurors and judicial systems are never faulty? Is that right?
    Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable... Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals.
    ~MLK, Jr.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Cereal City & K-zoo
    Posts
    1,023
    Quote Originally Posted by dgfred View Post
    Thanks Salem.

    OK Tizzle I got you now. 6 years mitigating for young age/no criminal history/etc... sorry for not getting what y'all were saying there.

    No need to be snarky about my reply in caps if you are going to post that they are innocent... which we all have seen is not what the court decided.
    Maybe you should have posted 'wrongly convicted' then.
    I believe they are innocent though. I can post it any way I choose to post it, innocent, not guilty, wrongfully accused, railroaded, victims of a witch hunt. It all means the same to me, WRONGFULLY CONVICTED, and I've never been shy about voicing my concerns with 2 innocent people being held hostage in an Italian prison.

    Snarkiness not intended. I guess I'm just a "snark" by nature.
    Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable... Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals.
    ~MLK, Jr.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    N.C., USA
    Posts
    3,252
    So this likely means that AK/RS will not get any more mitigating factors in their appeal... since they have already been applied. Uh oh... looks like they maybe should have took the 'fast track' too.
    The Seeker / Sports Freak /

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    N.C., USA
    Posts
    3,252
    Quote Originally Posted by Tizzle View Post
    I believe they are innocent though. I can post it any way I choose to post it, innocent, not guilty, wrongfully accused, railroaded, victims of a witch hunt. It all means the same to me, WRONGFULLY CONVICTED, and I've never been shy about voicing my concerns with 2 innocent people being held hostage in an Italian prison.

    Snarkiness not intended. I guess I'm just a "snark" by nature.
    Got ya.
    The Seeker / Sports Freak /

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    4,078
    We don't normally hear about mitigating/aggravating decision factors unless there's a DP case (at least here in the U.S.).

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    4,078
    For the record, I'm still on the fence and it's not a place I'm used to being or that's very comfortable. Lots of chafing being on that fence. I can't remember the last time I was on the fence, in fact; I've always had such strong opinions on a defendent's guilt or innocence.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    159
    Quote Originally Posted by dgfred View Post
    The pooling of the blood to one side of MK's bra showed that her bra was on,
    and laying sort of on her side during/after severe bleeding. There was also no blood below her pant's waistline. It was obvious to investigators that the bra and pants had been removed at a later time and the body moved... how long I do not know.

    You, me, jurors, judges and the investigators thought it strange also to stage a sexual assault (or bring more attention to it) when one already happened.
    ***This is an important part of the case!!!
    Thanks for that - what I'm wondering, though, is what was actually brought up in court about someone returning to the scene and moving the body. Was this a part of the prosecution case, or just something that was raised earlier on and then not mentioned in court? The only thing I've been able to find on it is this article on TJMK, and it seems to be based on the Micheli report rather than what was brought up during the trial. As I understand it, for the pre-trial report the prosecution present their strongest possible case to the judge, and the judge decides whether it could be true; at that stage they don't need to provide the same proof they would during the actual trial. So I'm dubious about TJMK using the Micheli report as a source, rather than what was discussed in court.

    I did have a look at the article anyway, and from what it says there seem to be two main things the prosecution claim show that the body was moved: first, that Meredith had lain on her shoulder in a pool of blood near the wardrobe, and that the blood had started to dry so that a mark was seen on her shoulder and in the blood itself:
    Micheli said that evidence showed that Meredith had lain on one shoulder near the wardrobe. She lay in that position long enough for the imprint of her shoulder and bra strap to remain fixed in the pool of blood after she was moved to the position in which her body was finally found. Photographs of blood on her shoulder matched the imprint by the wardrobe and her shoulder itself also showed signs that she had remained in that position for some time.
    The trouble here is that the TJMK people are being very non-specific and just saying 'for some time'. Are we talking 5 minutes? 10? An hour? Eight hours? Blood clots quickly by its nature, on a small cut probably within seconds. Even if a larger amount would take longer, isn't it possible it could have started to clot within, say five or ten minutes - at least enough to leave an imprint? I don't know for certain - and if it was important, I'm assuming it was discussed in more detail at trial - but just based on the above, I'm not convinced that proves she was moved hours later, rather than, say, 10 or 20 minutes after the attack. Particularly since I suspect that if Micheli had indicated she'd lain in that position for hours, TJMK would probably be a lot more specific than just saying 'for some time'.

    I also remember reading somewhere (sorry to be vague!) that one of the reasons Meredith may have died is that she was turned onto her back, so that the blood ran down into her lungs instead of out of the wounds and onto the floor. I'm not sure how accurate that is, but if true it would suggest she was alive when she was moved - obviously that would mean it happened not long after the attack, rather than hours later. So at the moment I'm not convinced by the TJMK article - I'll need a lot more information, particularly about what was actually said in court, before I believe the theory someone went into the bedroom to move her hours after the attack. Especially as there seems to be no convincing reason why they would do so.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    N.C., USA
    Posts
    3,252
    Well I don't know about the exact time period before the moving, but you also have to consider the cut bra (showing it was done after much bleeding) while showing she had been laying in a certain position for a period of time before it was cut. Also since she didn't have blood on her lower portions... it was believed that her pants had been removed around this time after death.
    The Seeker / Sports Freak /

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    159
    [Continued from above, replying to the cut bra issue dgfred mentions!]

    The second thing the prosecution talk about in the Micheli report is the bra clasp being cut, and they argue that there were blood spots on her bra which showed she was wearing it when the attack happened. The defence said that since there were spots of blood on her chest underneath where the bra would have been, she couldn't have been wearing it; Micheli concluded that this just meant her bra had moved around during the attack.

    Now, that last bit seemed quite important to me: if her bra was moving around to the extent that it wasn't even covering her, wouldn't that suggest that by that point, the clasp had already been cut? A fastened bra wouldn't usually move around that much (not a properly fitting one, anyway!). Surely the simple answer to the bra clasp issue is that although the attacker cut the clasp off, the bra was still hooked over her arms and shoulders and held on by her sweatshirt, so it didn't suddenly fly off to the other side of the room as the prosecution (and even the defence, to be fair) seem to think? It most likely came off completely either when she fell on to her side, or when she was moved onto her back. With the way her sweatshirt was pulled up, it seems likely the attacker was trying to remove her bra after he cut the clasp, and perhaps it was during that struggle that she was stabbed.

    I almost feel like I must be missing something here, because that seems like such an obvious explanation for how she could still have been wearing her bra even though the clasp had been cut. It seems odd that the judges and prosecution would have assumed that her bra would immediately ping off to the other side of the room somewhere as soon as the clasp was cut off. Is it just that they're all men who don't understand the mechanics of women's underwear (or, y'know, basic physics) or what?
    Last edited by Kaly99; 01-14-2010 at 04:33 PM.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    159
    Quote Originally Posted by dgfred View Post
    Well I don't know about the exact time period before the moving, but you also have to consider the cut bra (showing it was done after much bleeding) while showing she had been laying in a certain position for a period of time before it was cut. Also since she didn't have blood on her lower portions... it was believed that her pants had been removed around this time after death.
    I didn't see anything about the trousers on the TJMK article, so can't really comment on that till I know more about it. But if Guede's DNA was found inside Meredith, wouldn't he have needed to remove her pants/underwear himself?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    N.C., USA
    Posts
    3,252
    No. I believe the assault was digital, they might have been unbuttoned/unzipped but not removed or down.
    The Seeker / Sports Freak /

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    N.C., USA
    Posts
    3,252
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaly99 View Post
    [Continued from above, replying to the cut bra issue dgfred mentions!]

    The second thing the prosecution talk about in the Micheli report is the bra clasp being cut, and they argue that there were blood spots on her bra which showed she was wearing it when the attack happened. The defence said that since there were spots of blood on her chest underneath where the bra would have been, she couldn't have been wearing it; Micheli concluded that this just meant her bra had moved around during the attack.

    Now, that last bit seemed quite important to me: if her bra was moving around to the extent that it wasn't even covering her, wouldn't that suggest that by that point, the clasp had already been cut? A fastened bra wouldn't usually move around that much (not a properly fitting one, anyway!). Surely the simple answer to the bra clasp issue is that although the attacker cut the clasp off, the bra was still hooked over her arms and shoulders and held on by her sweatshirt, so it didn't suddenly fly off to the other side of the room as the prosecution (and even the defence, to be fair) seem to think? It most likely came off completely either when she fell on to her side, or when she was moved onto her back. With the way her sweatshirt was pulled up, it seems likely the attacker was trying to remove her bra after he cut the clasp, and perhaps it was during that struggle that she was stabbed.

    I almost feel like I must be missing something here, because that seems like such an obvious explanation for how she could still have been wearing her bra even though the clasp had been cut. It seems odd that the judges and prosecution would have assumed that her bra would immediately ping off to the other side of the room somewhere as soon as the clasp was cut off. Is it just that they're all men who don't understand the mechanics of women's underwear (or, y'know, basic physics) or what?
    I believe the blood flow on one side of the bra and the marks in the pooling of her shoulder was the best evidence that she was wearing the bra during the attack. I believe it may have been moved about somewhat during the attack (because of some spots under where it would have been) but the flow from the neck wounds showed it was on during the attack.

    There would be no reason imo for RG to move the body around after any period of time after death.
    The Seeker / Sports Freak /

Page 1 of 46 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 749
    Last Post: 02-24-2011, 10:59 PM
  2. Replies: 317
    Last Post: 02-11-2011, 06:45 PM
  3. Replies: 826
    Last Post: 02-07-2011, 01:46 PM

Tags for this Thread