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

[SMK]

Originally Posted by sherlockh

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...

[otto]

Originally Posted by SMK

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?

[sherlockh]

Originally Posted by SMK

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.

[sherlockh]

Originally Posted by SMK

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?

[SMK]

Originally Posted by otto

Professor Vinci found evidence of all three suspects on the bra clasp. Do you accept this evidence as well?

Yes. . . .

[SMK]

Originally Posted by sherlockh

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.

[otto]

Originally Posted by sherlockh

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

[otto]

Originally Posted by SMK

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.

[SMK]

Originally Posted by otto

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?

[otto]

Originally Posted by SMK

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?

[SMK]

Originally Posted by otto

Are "refuters" pro-conspiracy; attempting to refute, or prove false, the court conclusions?

Of course.

[otto]

Originally Posted by SMK

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?

[SMK]

Originally Posted by otto

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

• 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.
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. . .

[SMK]

Originally Posted by otto

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)

[SMK]

addendumIf Knox had not lived at that cottage, and if there were no Rudy Guede, I would believe the evidence.

[SMK]

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...

[otto]

Originally Posted by SMK

• 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.
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.

[otto]

Originally Posted by SMK

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?

[SMK]

Originally Posted by otto

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.

[otto]

Originally Posted by SMK

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.

YouTube

YouTube

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.

[otto]

Originally Posted by SMK

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.

[SMK]

Originally Posted by otto

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....

[SMK]

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?

[SMK]

Originally Posted by otto

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?

[otto]

Originally Posted by SMK

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.