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

Status
Not open for further replies.
We cannot be convicted on bad moral character nor should we judge a person's character by what they may do when faced with such a shocking situation, coercion and fear - as it is proven that all people deal with crisis differently. Heck - if I knew I were innocent but my only way out was to throw some guy I barely knew under the bus and let the police sort it out and I was in extreme fear, I'd throw said person under the bus. I am going to survive and not be screwed over by the police no matter what. Some people have survival skills that you may judge as immoral, but you can't put yourself in that place honestly and know exactly what YOU would do.
That had occurred to me , too---better Patrick than me, and under such conditions, who can blame her? Ultimate responsibility belongs to aggressive cops.
 
Yeah, you wanna call that bad moral character? If it's me I wanna call it being coerced to throw them a bone - done - get them off my scent until I can figure out what the hell just happened. It doesn't necessarily go to guilt or innocence or bad moral character. It has to be viewed in the totality of the circumstances.
 
What is the motivation NOT to test the semen on the pillow?
What is the motivation NOT to collect the bra clasp immediately?
What is the motivation NOT to collect Meredith's purse immediately?
What is the motivation NOT to recklessly move Meredith's sweatshirt/coat around and not collect it immediately?
What is the motivation NOT to collect the rug immediately?

Rudy is all friggin over that crime scene but the investigators have to scrape for evidence of AK and RS.

And it is impossible for two out of three attackers/murderers to clean up ONLY the evidence that implicates them and leave a buttload that implicates the third. Nonsense!
 
I think it was up to police to check this man's alibi, to be taking all this Knox kid had to say with a grain of salt, and to not be laying hands on this poor man. Patrick's true anger should be at ILE, and indeed, he is suing them for millions...

Are you saying that in the states, when an eye witness identifies a murderer, police let the guy do as he wants until police can verify that there are no alibi witnesses?
 
Personally I'd like to see what's on that prosecutor's computer. What kind of fantasies are recorded there? It's just as easy to speculate that he might be harboring some sexually perverted fantasies of his own, asserted it into his investigation because it caused a stirring and then proceeded to make the evidence fit - as it is to believe that AK suddenly became a nymphomaniac/murderess. All it takes is speculation it seems to convince many of a "story".
 
Are you saying that in the states, when an eye witness identifies a murderer, police let the guy do as he wants until police can verify that there are no alibi witnesses?
Amanda's confused blather is unlike most eye witness reports. Yes, they ought to have checked an alibi to see if he could be eliminated before jumping to conclusions and beating this poor man.
 
Are you saying that in the states, when an eye witness identifies a murderer, police let the guy do as he wants until police can verify that there are no alibi witnesses?

They bring him/her in for questioning- especially if the witness didn't see the murder happen, because, you know, he/she might have an alibi.
 
We cannot be convicted on bad moral character nor should we judge a person's character by what they may do when faced with such a shocking situation, coercion and fear - as it is proven that all people deal with crisis differently. Heck - if I knew I were innocent but my only way out was to throw some guy I barely knew under the bus and let the police sort it out and I was in extreme fear, I'd throw said person under the bus. I am going to survive and not be screwed over by the police no matter what. Some people have survival skills that you may judge as immoral, but you can't put yourself in that place honestly and know exactly what YOU would do.

I will judge people by their actions, and Amanda's actions speak of poor moral character. Others are free to judge people as they please. If you meet someone and learn that they are a liar, you may well choose to pursue a relationship with that liar. Personally, I would run in the opposite direction.

I honestly know that if I lied and my boss was jailed because of my lie ... I would do everything I could to straighten it out as fast as possible. It's absurd to suggest that people do not honestly know what they would do in that situation ... absolutely absurd.
 
Are you saying that in the states, when an eye witness identifies a murderer, police let the guy do as he wants until police can verify that there are no alibi witnesses?

UH, no but they detain him and IMMEDIATELY check alibis - and release him. They don't keep him jailed for weeks. We actually care about a persons rights.
 
They bring him/her in for questioning- especially if the witness didn't see the murder happen, because, you know, he/she might have an alibi.

It took two weeks for an alibi witness to come forward. If an eyewitness identifies a murderer anywhere, that person is arrested. Numerous rape convictions were obtained using this process in the US ... eye witness, arrest, conviction. End of story. In this case, fortunately that eye-witness testimony was proven to be a lie.
 
What is the motivation NOT to test the semen on the pillow?
What is the motivation NOT to collect the bra clasp immediately?
What is the motivation NOT to collect Meredith's purse immediately?
What is the motivation NOT to recklessly move Meredith's sweatshirt/coat around and not collect it immediately?
What is the motivation NOT to collect the rug immediately?

Rudy is all friggin over that crime scene but the investigators have to scrape for evidence of AK and RS.

And it is impossible for two out of three attackers/murderers to clean up ONLY the evidence that implicates them and leave a buttload that implicates the third. Nonsense!

OK:
Why are you calling it a semen stain. Do you have transcripts describing this evidence? Wasn't the value of the bloody prints on/near/around it considered more important than a stain they couldn't date?

Why does evidence have to be collected immediately from a SEALED and protected crime scene?

If the item is photographed in its original position does it matter if it is moved?

How much evidence is appropriate? How much would they have had to clean up? The knives, the footprints, get rid of clothes, wash off in bathroom... what else?

*Why do you continue to post about 'all over the crime scene' and a 'buttload' of evidence of RG when there were only 5 instances of his dna in the room?
After all, he said he was invited in by Meredith. Why not believe him too?
If he is considered a liar, then there is no way IMO not to view AK and RS in the same way as being proven liars.
 
UH, no but they detain him and IMMEDIATELY check alibis - and release him. They don't keep him jailed for weeks. We actually care about a persons rights.

Maybe murderers, in the states, that have been identified by eye witnesses are allowed to run around and do as they please while police verify the eye witness testimony. Under Roman law, people can be detained while that investigation occurs. Joran van der Sloot was detained using the same law ... and he was released, just like Patrick. I don't recall anyone complaining about that particular aspect of Roman law when it was applied in Aruba.
 
OK:
Why are you calling it a semen stain. Do you have transcripts describing this evidence? Wasn't the value of the bloody prints on/near/around it considered more important than a stain they couldn't date?

Why does evidence have to be collected immediately from a SEALED and protected crime scene?

If the item is photographed in its original position does it matter if it is moved?

How much evidence is appropriate? How much would they have had to clean up? The knives, the footprints, get rid of clothes, wash off in bathroom... what else?

*Why do you continue to post about 'all over the crime scene' and a 'buttload' of evidence of RG when there were only 5 instances of his dna in the room?
After all, he said he was invited in by Meredith. Why not believe him too?
If he is considered a liar, then there is no way IMO not to view AK and RS in the same way as being proven liars.

A stain on a pillow under the hips of a rape and murder victim would be important - if it was Rudy's and more degraded then it would tend to show that they had perhaps been involved before. It could also be additional evidence of Rudy's guilt for that crime...matching semen stain to what is on/in the victim. It is not for LE to make judgments on what value to give evidence at the scene, they should collect it. It's a piece of the puzzle, and every piece is needed to complete the puzzle.

Evidence that is not immediately collected is ripe for additional contamination. As is proven by the videos, the investigators went from room to room without changing booties and they collected evidence without changing gloves each time. Sealing a crime scene is useless when the people who are allowed to go in are inept and proven capable of contaminating the scene and the evidence therein.

Because after the evidence is moved it contaminates the other things it comes in contact with and likewise those things contaminate it. Dude this should be a serious no-brainer.

You photograph it and then collect it - you don't throw it around the room and let it come in contact with other objects because microscopically things will show up that one cannot see in a photograph and may not have originally been there but for the throwing around!!

RG's evidence is the only viable evidence - there is no evidence to suggest a clean up - there is no smearing of a clean up under luminol testing and there was no evidence of bleach or blood on the knife.

RG left bloody footprints! He left fluids and fecal matter. How did AK and RS clean up only their footprints without leaving a clean smear only visible with luminol?

Is there any evidence to suggest MK would have asked Rudy over? Did any of her friends know she was seeing him? Was he even the type she would see - seems she has higher standards than Rudy, given her judgments of AK.

You simply can't make this fit. I know you want to, I know you try hard but it does not fit.

I came into this case after the movie was released and am 99% pro prosecution on this board. Looking into the evidence (what there is of it) more in depth - I can't believe this case. It's a complete sham and would be a hysterical embarrassment for a DA in a modern American court.
 
Maybe murderers, in the states, that have been identified by eye witnesses are allowed to run around and do as they please while police verify the eye witness testimony. Under Roman law, people can be detained while that investigation occurs. Joran van der Sloot was detained using the same law ... and he was released, just like Patrick. I don't recall anyone complaining about that particular aspect of Roman law when it was applied in Aruba.

I did not suggest that they do. They are probably detained and if they have an alibi that checks out they are released. This happens quickly - usually we try to have it in the first 48 hours. We don't want the wrong guy in jail while the perp destroys evidence and creates distance. It was the duty of the police to quickly assess P's alibi and possible innocence. If they failed in their duty they have only themselves to blame.
 
Well Ziggy,
It fit pretty nicely for the prosecution as both were convicted and are struggling at appeal IMO. If you got your 'feelings' of a sham from that movie... maybe you should consider the 10,000 pages of evidence in the case file instead of a lifetime movie.

One question for you: Why would RG not clean up his footprints and leave his poo in the toilet? After all, somebody cleaned up something in there... the bathmat 'partial' print can not be easily explained away using that logic. Why other stuff cleaned but not evidence of his being present. Why and who?
 
*Why do you continue to post about 'all over the crime scene' and a 'buttload' of evidence of RG when there were only 5 instances of his dna in the room?
After all, he said he was invited in by Meredith. Why not believe him too?
If he is considered a liar, then there is no way IMO not to view AK and RS in the same way as being proven liars.

That is like the joke answer I give people whenever they ask me a question about "how many" of any particular thing...I always answer 2 or 7. Yes that makes no sense.
You are talking simply instances of DNA here without taking the quality and nature of the samples into consideration. That's a bit misleading. I don't think RG's DNA samples were scant molecules that had to be amplified. That a higher volume of DNA of one of a possible three assailants that is found in a better quality for testing tends to prove that they were probably the assailant. And, it fails to explain how bloody foot/hand prints and smears were only left by one of three possible assailants when that ONE allegedly ran off and there is no scientific evidence of a clean up.
 
A stain on a pillow under the hips of a rape and murder victim would be important - if it was Rudy's and more degraded then it would tend to show that they had perhaps been involved before. It could also be additional evidence of Rudy's guilt for that crime...matching semen stain to what is on/in the victim. It is not for LE to make judgments on what value to give evidence at the scene, they should collect it. It's a piece of the puzzle, and every piece is needed to complete the puzzle.

Evidence that is not immediately collected is ripe for additional contamination. As is proven by the videos, the investigators went from room to room without changing booties and they collected evidence without changing gloves each time. Sealing a crime scene is useless when the people who are allowed to go in are inept and proven capable of contaminating the scene and the evidence therein.

Because after the evidence is moved it contaminates the other things it comes in contact with and likewise those things contaminate it. Dude this should be a serious no-brainer.

You photograph it and then collect it - you don't throw it around the room and let it come in contact with other objects because microscopically things will show up that one cannot see in a photograph and may not have originally been there but for the throwing around!!

RG's evidence is the only viable evidence - there is no evidence to suggest a clean up - there is no smearing of a clean up under luminol testing and there was no evidence of bleach or blood on the knife.

RG left bloody footprints! He left fluids and fecal matter. How did AK and RS clean up only their footprints without leaving a clean smear only visible with luminol?

Is there any evidence to suggest MK would have asked Rudy over? Did any of her friends know she was seeing him? Was he even the type she would see - seems she has higher standards than Rudy, given her judgments of AK.

You simply can't make this fit. I know you want to, I know you try hard but it does not fit.

I came into this case after the movie was released and am 99% pro prosecution on this board. Looking into the evidence (what there is of it) more in depth - I can't believe this case. It's a complete sham and would be a hysterical embarrassment for a DA in a modern American court.

I agree and what you wrote sums up my feelings too - thanks!
 
I did not suggest that they do. They are probably detained and if they have an alibi that checks out they are released. This happens quickly - usually we try to have it in the first 48 hours. We don't want the wrong guy in jail while the perp destroys evidence and creates distance. It was the duty of the police to quickly assess P's alibi and possible innocence. If they failed in their duty they have only themselves to blame.

First of all, Patrick would not have needed an alibi if Amanda had not accused him of murder, and secondly, unfortunately, it took two weeks for an alibi witness to come forward on Patrick's behalf. Nobody wants the wrong guy to spend two weeks in jail ... except Amanda.
 
Well Ziggy,
It fit pretty nicely for the prosecution as both were convicted and are struggling at appeal IMO. If you got your 'feelings' of a sham from that movie... maybe you should consider the 10,000 pages of evidence in the case file instead of a lifetime movie.

One question for you: Why would RG not clean up his footprints and leave his poo in the toilet? After all, somebody cleaned up something in there... the bathmat 'partial' print can not be easily explained away using that logic. Why other stuff cleaned but not evidence of his being present. Why and who?

Corrections fred: and please read my posts more carefully in the future so as to avoid unecessary replies to correct misinformation. I think it really boggs down the forum flow of information.

1. they got a conviction in Italy not the U.S. I do believe that this would not happen in a U.S. court with today's modern techniques that are required by CSI - the whole MR. FUNG incident was years ago - Italy is obviously way behind.

2. I did not get my feelings of sham from the movie, I got it from my own observation of the evidence when my curiosity was piqued by the movie. Please do not suggest that I have not read many pages and watched numerous videos in a quest for the truth when said quest was entered with NO AGENDA. I don't care about AK or RS or even MK really. The truth has no agenda.

3. This was a reckless and disorganized killer. What evidence do you think shows a clean up? There are plenty of explanations why he left evidence in the toilet - the most obvious is he was interrupted when he heard someone come home. He didn't clean up because he was in a bit of a hurry to exit stage left even, his crime scene! Maybe he attempted to clean off a shoe and then just decided to bolt. He had no idea how long he had to clean up, so why start? It might have been a quick thought and then the realization that his best bet was to jam on out. Still, I don't see solid evidence of clean up.
 
Well Ziggy,
It fit pretty nicely for the prosecution as both were convicted and are struggling at appeal IMO. If you got your 'feelings' of a sham from that movie... maybe you should consider the 10,000 pages of evidence in the case file instead of a lifetime movie.

One question for you: Why would RG not clean up his footprints and leave his poo in the toilet? After all, somebody cleaned up something in there... the bathmat 'partial' print can not be easily explained away using that logic. Why other stuff cleaned but not evidence of his being present. Why and who?

That mysterious missing half of the footprint ... but perhaps it wasn't a clean up. I eagerly away what sort of explanations pro-conspiracists have for the disappearing 1/2 of a bloody footprint.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
64
Guests online
2,598
Total visitors
2,662

Forum statistics

Threads
590,011
Messages
17,928,914
Members
228,037
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top