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

[Malkmus]

Originally Posted by otto

I understand that many are pro-conspiracy ... go for it!

The one where three people who had at most known each other less than a week conspire to kill a girl together out of lust? That's the only conspiracy I see. Otherwise, there's the well-documented incompetence on the part of police that led to what is probably two wrongful convictions, and is much more common in every part of the world. But that's just bad police work, I don't think they were smart enough to conspire against anyone.

[Nova]

Originally Posted by otto

Of course, that 10' x 11' or 110 square foot bedroom was too small for a murder scene. Hendry said so, so did Dempsey. The prosecutors, defense lawyers and courts haven't said this ... but that doesn't matter ... if Hendry and Dempsey said it, it must be true. I wonder if a murder has ever occurred in a bathroom ... according to Hendry and Dempsey, this is impossible.

With respect, otto, you are misquoting what was said. I haven't read all of Dempsey, but Hendry's point is that the room is too small for a 3-on-1 gang rape and killing in which two-thirds of the attackers leave no forensic evidence.

Nobody has ever said a murder can't be committed in 110 sf.

[Malkmus]

Originally Posted by otto

The black arrows show the direction of the blood? I'm not seeing that.

Where are you getting "direction of blood from"? I think only you can help yourself on this one, Otto.

[Malkmus]

Originally Posted by otto

Nova and I discussed this for pages and pages on another thread ... it's bait.

Yet you're the one giving an answer that doesn't fit the question. Who's baiting?

[otto]

Originally Posted by Nova

Perhaps you'd care to post a list of which words we can and cannot use. Obviously, we have been unable to satisfy you by choosing our own terms.

I say pro-guilt applies to Amanda, and you come back with that? Why?

Guilt ... Knox is guilty. Clearly that label doesn't apply to Meredith. Knox is guilty, the debate being whether the verdict is valid ... therefore "pro-guilt" applies to Knox.

If I'm mistaken, please be so kind as to inform me. To whom does the term "pro-guilt" apply ... who is the subject?

[Nova]

Originally Posted by otto

What should I say ... no, Dr Sollecito was coerced by the police ... bopped on the head ... and out popped the information about the phone call and the dinner time. That's what happened.

I was asking a serious (and, I believe, fair) question, otto: is it your recollection that Dr. S. testified that RS told him they had finished dinner?

I ask because my recollection of the Motivation Report is that Dr. S merely said RS mentioned the spilled water and the Court assumed that water was spilled while the dinner dishes were washed. I remember this because I thought of all the times we wash dinners from the previous meal just before or even while we are cooking the next one; in my house, a spill might only mean we were starting to prepare dinner, not that we had finished it.

[otto]

Originally Posted by Malkmus

Where are you getting "direction of blood from"? I think only you can help yourself on this one, Otto.

Aspirated blood presumably has a direction. Hendry adds his big black arrows which I assume he has added to indicate the direction of the aspirated blood. The arrows have little to do with the actual shape of the drops and the direction in which they appear to have landed on the side of the wardrobe. The shape of the blood drops appear to be at a 90 degree angle to the direction of the black arrows.

[Nova]

Originally Posted by otto

Nova and I discussed this for pages and pages on another thread ... it's bait.

I'm sorry you feel this way. My question is "bait" only in that I am asking whether you are quoting Dr. S' actual testimony or summarizing a conclusion drawn from it. There's no crime in doing the latter, but it is a different thing.

[otto]

Originally Posted by Nova

I was asking a serious (and, I believe, fair) question, otto: is it your recollection that Dr. S. testified that RS told him they had finished dinner?

I ask because my recollection of the Motivation Report is that Dr. S merely said RS mentioned the spilled water and the Court assumed that water was spilled while the dinner dishes were washed. I remember this because I thought of all the times we wash dinners from the previous meal just before or even while we are cooking the next one; in my house, a spill might only mean we were starting to prepare dinner, not that we had finished it.

Sure, and then we went on to debate your theory that they ate dinner three times that evening to line up with the changing dinner times given by Amanda. Is it really necessary to rehash the entire debate?

[Malkmus]

Originally Posted by otto

Aspirated blood presumably has a direction. Hendry adds his big black arrows which I assume he has added to indicate the direction of the aspirated blood. The arrows have little to do with the actual shape of the drops and the direction in which they appear to have landed on the side of the wardrobe. The shape of the blood drops appear to be at a 90 degree angle to the direction of the black arrows.

Why don't you forget the word "direction" as it's not mentioned in his reasoning for the arrows. The description clearly says the arrows are pointing to the part of the blood which are "hand-markings" which wouldn't be as discernible without the arrows.

[Nova]

Originally Posted by Malkmus

The one where three people who had at most known each other less than a week conspire to kill a girl together out of lust? That's the only conspiracy I see. Otherwise, there's the well-documented incompetence on the part of police that led to what is probably two wrongful convictions, and is much more common in every part of the world. But that's just bad police work, I don't think they were smart enough to conspire against anyone.

I agree. I have never imagined nor accused ILE of sitting down and deciding to frame an innocent American woman (not even to spite George Bush). I think open and conscious conspiracy is only very rarely the way innocent people are convicted.

[otto]

Originally Posted by Malkmus

Why don't you forget the word "direction" as it's not mentioned in his reasoning for the arrows. The description clearly says the arrows are pointing to the part of the blood which are "hand-markings" which wouldn't be as discernible without the arrows.

Then why doesn't he put arrows on all the smeared blood that could be hand-markings?

[Nova]

Originally Posted by otto

I say pro-guilt applies to Amanda, and you come back with that? Why?

Guilt ... Knox is guilty. Clearly that label doesn't apply to Meredith. Knox is guilty, the debate being whether the verdict is valid ... therefore "pro-guilt" applies to Knox.

If I'm mistaken, please be so kind as to inform me. To whom does the term "pro-guilt" apply ... who is the subject?

Of course, "pro-guilt" applies to belief in the guilt of AK and RS, which is why I don't see your problem with the term. Nobody has ever suggested MK was in any way responsible for her own death; nor should they, IMHO.

It's certainly a more precise term than "pro-justice," which applies to everyone, regardless of their opinion on the verdicts. And more precise than "pro-conspiracy" with regards to ILE, since very few posters have argued such a conspiracy transpired.

This is beginning to feel like a shell game: no matter what term any of us use, you will define it literally and narrowly and complain the proper term is something else.

[otto]

Originally Posted by Nova

I agree. I have never imagined nor accused ILE of sitting down and deciding to frame an innocent American woman (not even to spite George Bush). I think open and conscious conspiracy is only very rarely the way innocent people are convicted.

The language barrier prevented them from discussing anything beyond pizza, but they both like sex and drugs. Raffaele was moving to Milan in mid-November and Amanda's one semester study period was ending in Dec. They could have been looking to deepen their communication - which was through a mutual interest in sex and drugs. Raffaele had prior hard drug use. It's conceivable they shut down the phones and decided to score some cocaine or other hard drugs in the square, bumped into Rudy, headed to the cottage and there they found Meredith. It's conceivable that they were getting loaded while Meredith wanted a quiet evening. It's conceivable that Amanda put Rudy up to getting Meredith in on the party, or coming on to her. It's conceivable that things went very wrong.

[Nova]

Originally Posted by otto

Sure, and then we went on to debate your theory that they ate dinner three times that evening to line up with the changing dinner times given by Amanda. Is it really necessary to rehash the entire debate?

No, you could just answer a simple question. Are you quoting Dr. S or are you deducing a conclusion based on his testimony?

I never argued that they ate 3 times. That was something you invented; quite honesty, I can't remember why, but I assume you believed something I said implied multiple dinners. It did not.

[otto]

Originally Posted by Nova

Of course, "pro-guilt" applies to belief in the guilt of AK and RS, which is why I don't see your problem with the term. Nobody has ever suggested MK was in any way responsible for her own death; nor should they, IMHO.

It's certainly a more precise term than "pro-justice," which applies to everyone, regardless of their opinion on the verdicts. And more precise than "pro-conspiracy" with regards to ILE, since very few posters have argued such a conspiracy transpired.

This is beginning to feel like a shell game: no matter what term any of us use, you will define it literally and narrowly and complain the proper term is something else.

Pro-guilt is derogatory. I don't know anyone that advocates guilt. Wait ... I'm having yet another deja vu moment ... wasn't it just a week ago we had this very same discussion?

[Malkmus]

Originally Posted by otto

Then why doesn't he put arrows on all the smeared blood that could be hand-markings?

Probably because they aren't all hand markings and aspirated blood drops? Maybe you should ask him? I can't believe there's this much discussion over the meaning of a couple arrows pointing at what an author is talking about.

[Nova]

Originally Posted by otto

The language barrier prevented them from discussing anything beyond pizza, but they both like sex and drugs. Raffaele was moving to Milan in mid-November and Amanda's one semester study period was ending in Dec. They could have been looking to deepen their communication - which was through a mutual interest in sex and drugs. Raffaele had prior hard drug use. It's conceivable they shut down the phones and decided to score some cocaine or other hard drugs in the square, bumped into Rudy, headed to the cottage and there they found Meredith. It's conceivable that they were getting loaded while Meredith wanted a quiet evening. It's conceivable that Amanda put Rudy up to getting Meredith in on the party, or coming on to her. It's conceivable that things went very wrong.

It's conceivable, but what I don't understand is why AK and RS didn't go directly to the police. In your scenario, they invite a guest to the cottage and encourage him to ask MK to join them, but they have no prior knowledge that RG will rape and kill MK. So maybe they felt guilty on some level, but so guilty they didn't notice that they hadn't caused the murder? So guilty it never occurred to them that in staging a break-in they were only making matters worse? So guilty it never occurred to them that cleaning up was tampering with evidence? I find all that a stretch (ETA particularly since RS had a close relative who worked for the police).

But I have to wonder, why do you hold such enmity toward AK? Is it only that she accused an innocent man (no small sin, I agree)? Because in your scenario, she doesn't really do much to MK but say to a mutual friend, "Let's do some hash and party!"

***

Re the language barrier, I'm glad you're letting AK order pizza now. But the fact is we don't know her precise level of fluency beyond that. We know it fell well short of perfect knowledge of Italian, but how far short we just don't know.

[Malkmus]

Originally Posted by otto

Pro-guilt is derogatory. I don't know anyone that advocates guilt. Wait ... I'm having yet another deja vu moment ... wasn't it just a week ago we had this very same discussion?

I'd have no problem saying I'm pro-guilt when it comes to Joran Van Dersloot, Ted Bundy, or Charles Manson if someone wanted to argue their innocence. I don't find it derogatory. You say no one wants to "advocate guilt" as if that's advocating child abuse or something. Not getting the logic.

[otto]

Originally Posted by Nova

No, you could just answer a simple question. Are you quoting Dr. S or are you deducing a conclusion based on his testimony?

I never argued that they ate 3 times. That was something you invented; quite honesty, I can't remember why, but I assume you believed something I said implied multiple dinners. It did not.

It's a can of worms and you know it as well as I. Dr Sollecito was interviewed, and there were a couple of hundred pages in his testimony. None of his testimony has been translated to English. The courts understood that the lovebirds had dinner, and when they did the after-dinner dishes the water leaked under the sink. That water spill was mentioned to Dr Sollecito during the 8:42 phone call. The lovebirds then left the puddle of water on the kitchen floor until the following day at noon. I know that you want to argue that the court's understanding was incorrect, that the water leak at 8:40 was unrelated to dinner, that they ate dinner some other time corresponding to Amanda's 9:30, 10 and 11 PM dinner times ... splashing around in the puddle while they cooked. Go for it ... we've had this discussion and I know your point of view. I assume you know mine.

[Malkmus]

Originally Posted by otto

The language barrier prevented them from discussing anything beyond pizza, but they both like sex and drugs. Raffaele was moving to Milan in mid-November and Amanda's one semester study period was ending in Dec. They could have been looking to deepen their communication - which was through a mutual interest in sex and drugs. Raffaele had prior hard drug use. It's conceivable they shut down the phones and decided to score some cocaine or other hard drugs in the square, bumped into Rudy, headed to the cottage and there they found Meredith. It's conceivable that they were getting loaded while Meredith wanted a quiet evening. It's conceivable that Amanda put Rudy up to getting Meredith in on the party, or coming on to her. It's conceivable that things went very wrong.

Yet, no evidence whatsoever of cocaine being involved in this crime.

[otto]

Originally Posted by Malkmus

Probably because they aren't all hand markings and aspirated blood drops? Maybe you should ask him? I can't believe there's this much discussion over the meaning of a couple arrows pointing at what an author is talking about.

The big black arrows look very official, but they don't correspond to the direction of blood drops, and if they correspond to hand-prints, then I have to ask why the other bloody smudges are not also indicated with big black arrows. They too could be hand-prints. As it stands, the big black arrows have no consistent meaning.

[Nova]

Originally Posted by otto

Pro-guilt is derogatory. I don't know anyone that advocates guilt. Wait ... I'm having yet another deja vu moment ... wasn't it just a week ago we had this very same discussion?

Yes, and we all obliged you by moving on to other terms, terms you now find objectionable as well. This is why I asked you to provide an acceptable vocabulary for all of us.

[SMK]

Originally Posted by otto

Pro-guilt is derogatory. I don't know anyone that advocates guilt. Wait ... I'm having yet another deja vu moment ... wasn't it just a week ago we had this very same discussion?

Oh for god's sake---in this sense pro means "yes"---ok, "the Yes - They-Be -Guilty" or "the No-they-do not be guilty" --that is the terminology i will now use

[otto]

Originally Posted by Malkmus

I'd have no problem saying I'm pro-guilt when it comes to Joran Van Dersloot, Ted Bundy, or Charles Manson if someone wanted to argue their innocence. I don't find it derogatory. You say no one wants to "advocate guilt" as if that's advocating child abuse or something. Not getting the logic.

Everyone wants to see guilty people prosecuted. Is everyone is "pro-guilt".