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

[otto]

Originally Posted by Malkmus

I've given a few reasons as to why it seems likely that she was attacked upon coming home.

Perhaps you have. That's nice.

Dempsey places the murder later in the evening, as does the court.

[SMK]

Originally Posted by otto

So you missed the photo of the blood spatter with the meaningless arrows?

what blood spatter with meaningless arrows???

[SMK]

Originally Posted by otto

Perhaps you have. That's nice.

Dempsey places the murder later in the evening, as does the court.

What are the reasons stated for this?

[Malkmus]

Originally Posted by otto

The blue hoodie was collected on Dec 18. Wouldn't you like to argue that because it was not collected on Nov 2, the DNA from Rudy was a result of contamination ... or ... is it only contamination when it's Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp?

"The blue-coloured sweatshirt, exhibit [reperto] 171, had been collected as well during the course of the second search, the one carried out on December 18 and the sample collected from one of the cuffs, identified by the letter B, had revealed the genetic profile of the victim and the chromosome Y of Rudy Hermann Guede (page 101 hearing May 22, 2009 statements of Dr. Stefanoni)."

pg 198; Judge's summary

Rudy's lawyers didn't argue contamination so why would I or anybody else?

This is a straw man you're making. I don't think you'll be able to find any posts of mine where I said the reason the bra clasp was contaminated because it was collected 6 weeks later. There are several dubious circumstances surrounding that clasp, least of which is the newest revelation of how it was basically rendered useless by ILE for additional testing. Intentional? Maybe not. More incompetence? Surely.

[Malkmus]

Originally Posted by otto

So you missed the photo of the blood spatter with the meaningless arrows?

No. You disagree with his arrows. Is everyone you disagree with a nut?

[Malkmus]

Originally Posted by otto

Perhaps you have. That's nice.

Dempsey places the murder later in the evening, as does the court.

So, you've read her book? What did you think of it?

[SMK]

Originally Posted by otto

I'm afraid we can't have it both ways. Either those forensic analsyts and crime scene experts (real ones, not retired accident theorists in other countries) were bumbling fools that contaminated all the evidence or they were professionals that did their jobs correctly. It has long been argued that the DNA on the bra clasp could only be a result of contamination because it was not collected during the first collection of evidence. The blue hoodie was not collected during the first collection of evidence so therefore, by the same logic, any DNA results must be a result of contamination.

If we are to argue that DNA on the blue hoodie, even though it was collected weeks later, is valid because of additional evidence, then it can also be argued that the DNA on the bra clasp is valid because of other evidence.

Good lord, why was it collected weeks later? and NO, I simply do not know - in light of all the books about "junk science" ruining the courts - if forensics can always be trusted, regardless of what country you are in. If only these questions weren't there. And Amanda lived there, so I feel very confused about what prints were made when and where. Professionals make mistakes all the time.....I know this for a fact, having seen doctors, for instance, bungle a surgery of my husband's.....

[otto]

Originally Posted by Malkmus

The call was one second, hence "incomplete". The judge's conclusion that she was fiddling with her phone, dialing random numbers and immediately hanging up is nonsensical to me. That you're able to establish that she hung up because she got no answer doesn't fit either.

Why do you say the call to her mother lasted one second? I don't see anything about the duration of the call.

"1. at 20.56 hours on 1.11.07, an attempted call was made towards the family number (‚home‛) at 441737553564 referable to Meredith Kercher’s mother"

pg 331; Judge's summary

[otto]

Originally Posted by Malkmus

Rudy's lawyers didn't argue contamination so why would I or anybody else?

This is a straw man you're making. I don't think you'll be able to find any posts of mine where I said the reason the bra clasp was contaminated because it was collected 6 weeks later. There are several dubious circumstances surrounding that clasp, least of which is the newest revelation of how it was basically rendered useless by ILE for additional testing. Intentional? Maybe not. More incompetence? Surely.

Does it matter if the courts, lawyers, or prosecutors argued something when we have the opinions of people like Hendry, Waterbury, Fisher, Dempsey to discuss? I'm merely looking for logic in the debate. If evidence collected a couple of weeks after Nov 2 is contaminated because it was collected after Nov 2, then by that reasoning evidence on the blue hoodie must be a result of contamination. If this is not true ... if evidence collected after Nov 2 is not contaminated because it was collected a few weeks later, then what's the objection to the DNA on the bra clasp?

[otto]

Originally Posted by SMK

What are the reasons stated for this?

Why not pick up her book ... the reasons are all there.

One of them is that we are to believe that Rudy was fiddling with the phones and making calls to the bank, but at the same time he was too flustered after the murder to turn off the phones. Which was it ... calmly using the phones to call the bank, or frantically running down a dark road trying to dispose of the phones in the bushes but not turning off the ringer? Calm? Flustered?

[Malkmus]

Originally Posted by otto

Why do you say the call to her mother lasted one second? I don't see anything about the duration of the call.

"1. at 20.56 hours on 1.11.07, an attempted call was made towards the family number (‚home‛) at 441737553564 referable to Meredith Kercher’s mother"

pg 331; Judge's summary

I've always used the call records compiled by Thoughtful on PMF which gives the duration of each call.

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/vie...records#p43061

[otto]

Originally Posted by Malkmus

No. You disagree with his arrows. Is everyone you disagree with a nut?

Please explain to me what the direction of the arrows have to do with the blood spatter.

[Malkmus]

Originally Posted by otto

Does it matter if the courts, lawyers, or prosecutors argued something when we have the opinions of people like Hendry, Waterbury, Fisher, Dempsey to discuss? I'm merely looking for logic in the debate. If evidence collected a couple of weeks after Nov 2 is contaminated because it was collected after Nov 2, then by that reasoning evidence on the blue hoodie must be a result of contamination. If this is not true ... if evidence collected after Nov 2 is not contaminated because it was collected a few weeks later, then what's the objection to the DNA on the bra clasp?

Sorry, Otto, you'ere not going to get me to acquiesce to your rule that any and all evidence that is collected late is subject to contamination. The bra clasp was argued by the defense to be contaminated for good reason. It was in a different location than where originally found weeks earlier, it contained the unknown profiles of other people on it, it was shown on video being passed around and rubbed between the fingers of various members of the forensics squad who had touched god knows what else in there, Raf has never claimed to be in that room whereas Rudy has, and oddly it was collected and showcased for the camera the day after the only other evidence linking Raf to the crime was destroyed by family members on television (the wrong shoe prints fiasco).

[otto]

Originally Posted by Malkmus

So, you've read her book? What did you think of it?

She doesn't have any problem confirming Amanda's cartwheels ... the ones that so many people would like to see redefined as something different.

She's not a bad writer ... no different than any other trashy crime novelist. It's unfortunate that her agenda comes through each time she over-discusses something. For example, she spends pages describing something that isn't very important (all the different people that were brought in for questioning - sometimes more than once - during the investigation), but it sets the stage so she can explain away Amanda's actions and words. She states that Amanda accused Patrick after 2 hours of questioning, and then goes on to say that she was sooooooooooooooo hungry by 5 in the morning. Poor girl. She also says that poor Amanda didn't realize that she should have stopped talking at 1:45 in the morning. Oops for Amanda.

[SMK]

Originally Posted by otto

She doesn't have any problem confirming Amanda's cartwheels ... the ones that so many people would like to see redefined as something different.

She's not a bad writer ... no different than any other trashy crime novelist. It's unfortunate that her agenda comes through each time she over-discusses something. For example, she spends pages describing something that isn't very important (all the different people that were brought in for questioning - sometimes more than once - during the investigation), but it sets the stage so she can explain away Amanda's actions and words. She states that Amanda accused Patrick after 2 hours of questioning, and then goes on to say that she was sooooooooooooooo hungry by 5 in the morning. Poor girl. She also says that poor Amanda didn't realize that she should have stopped talking at 1:45 in the morning. Oops for Amanda.

But wasn't it LE who were suspecting Patrick, because of the text and the African hair, and so they put that idea in her mind? And maybe there was the pressure of hunger---we went through the interrogation techniques before.

[otto]

Originally Posted by SMK

Good lord, why was it collected weeks later? and NO, I simply do not know - in light of all the books about "junk science" ruining the courts - if forensics can always be trusted, regardless of what country you are in. If only these questions weren't there. And Amanda lived there, so I feel very confused about what prints were made when and where. Professionals make mistakes all the time.....I know this for a fact, having seen doctors, for instance, bungle a surgery of my husband's.....

Meredith's purse was also collected on Dec 18. It seems that people accept that the DNA on the purse and hoodie were done correctly. It is only the bra clasp ... which implicates Raffaele and not Rudy (this time) where there are objections. I think additional evidence, like luminol evidence (which requires a time period before it is useful) was collected a couple of weeks later. It was still a crime scene months after the murder, so I guess that's why evidence was collected over a period of time.

[SMK]

Originally Posted by otto

Why not pick up her book ... the reasons are all there.

One of them is that we are to believe that Rudy was fiddling with the phones and making calls to the bank, but at the same time he was too flustered after the murder to turn off the phones. Which was it ... calmly using the phones to call the bank, or frantically running down a dark road trying to dispose of the phones in the bushes but not turning off the ringer? Calm? Flustered?

Yes, I suppose I should get the book. Maybe he was not-so-calmly trying to get bank info, after which he ran and threw the phones?

[Malkmus]

Originally Posted by otto

She doesn't have any problem confirming Amanda's cartwheels ... the ones that so many people would like to see redefined as something different.

She's not a bad writer ... no different than any other trashy crime novelist. It's unfortunate that her agenda comes through each time she over-discusses something. For example, she spends pages describing something that isn't very important (all the different people that were brought in for questioning - sometimes more than once - during the investigation), but it sets the stage so she can explain away Amanda's actions and words. She states that Amanda accused Patrick after 2 hours of questioning, and then goes on to say that she was sooooooooooooooo hungry by 5 in the morning. Poor girl. She also says that poor Amanda didn't realize that she should have stopped talking at 1:45 in the morning. Oops for Amanda.

What is her agenda? Also, I haven't been able to find where she agrees with the prosecution's TOD.

[otto]

Originally Posted by Malkmus

Sorry, Otto, you'ere not going to get me to acquiesce to your rule that any and all evidence that is collected late is subject to contamination. The bra clasp was argued by the defense to be contaminated for good reason. It was in a different location than where originally found weeks earlier, it contained the unknown profiles of other people on it, it was shown on video being passed around and rubbed between the fingers of various members of the forensics squad who had touched god knows what else in there, Raf has never claimed to be in that room whereas Rudy has, and oddly it was collected and showcased for the camera the day after the only other evidence linking Raf to the crime was destroyed by family members on television (the wrong shoe prints fiasco).

Of course. The good reason is that the clasp was collected a few weeks after the murder.

The purse was also found in a different location ... bed or closet. Was that DNA contaminated ... since the purse was found in a different location and collected on Dec 18?

[Malkmus]

Originally Posted by otto

Please explain to me what the direction of the arrows have to do with the blood spatter.

If you're referring to the photo of Meredith's blood on the wardrobe, there are arrows pointing to the droplets that he suspects were "aspirated" by her. I don't see a problem there.

[Malkmus]

Originally Posted by otto

Of course. The good reason is that the clasp was collected a few weeks after the murder.

The purse was also found in a different location ... bed or closet. Was that DNA contaminated ... since the purse was found in a different location and collected on Dec 18?

The multiple DNA profiles on the clasp and it being touched by multiple people instead of simply picking it up with tweezers and bagging it is highly suspect. Let's face it, ILE has given a million reasons to doubt their competence in handling evidence. That being said...

Here's how this works, Otto. Police find evidence of you in a place where you don't belong. Either you argue that evidence and say you were never there (as Raf has) or you don't argue it and admit that you were there that night (as Rudy has). We're doubting the bra clasp because Raf claims he was never there. Is there reason to believe his defense's arguments against the clasp? Yes, amply so.

[Nova]

Originally Posted by otto

Made that up? I think not. Time and again? What time and again?

Are you suggesting that I make things up time and again? Amanda and Raffaele couldn't discuss anything because of the language barrier.

"Raffaele found Meredith to be a nice .. girl, but his lack of English prevented them from having a true conversation. When the foreign girls [Amanda and Meredith] had moved into the cottage, they'd tried speaking only in Italian, just to get in some practice, but they were unable to voice deeper thouhts than "Would you like mozzarella on that panini."

Ref: Candace Dempsey

Their common grounds were sex and drugs.

We've been around and around about this, otto, as you surely remember!

AK was learning Italian. She wasn't fluent, but that doesn't mean she didn't understand a word of it. The latter is your invention, to which you return whether we are talking about her relationship with RS or the interrogation and need for an interpreter.

From my own experience with much briefer stays (no more than a week) in France and Spain, one picks up a language much more quickly if one has to use it in everyday activity. I'm sure AK and RS could understand one another with regard to everyday matters, particularly if RS spoke slowly. But that's still a far cry from AK having the fluency to deal with an aggressive interrogation by LE. (And a far cry from AK having the fluency to negotiate a three-way murder conspiracy.)

Dempsey doesn't define the term "true conversation." If she means RS and AK couldn't fully discuss the subtler points of Italian futurist poetry, she's probably right. But since they'd only known one another for a week, I doubt they'd gotten around to early 20th century modernist movements. On the other hand, as Dempsey admits, AK could talk about pizza.

So her fluency was somewhere in between.

[Nova]

Originally Posted by otto

If you would be so kind as to familiarize yourself with the case, then I would be spared accusations such as: "playing games" and "making things up".

I make no claims to great knowledge of this case. However, I do recognize some of the unfounded assertions that resurface from time to time.

[Malkmus]

Originally Posted by otto

She doesn't have any problem confirming Amanda's cartwheels ... the ones that so many people would like to see redefined as something different.

She's not a bad writer ... no different than any other trashy crime novelist. It's unfortunate that her agenda comes through each time she over-discusses something. For example, she spends pages describing something that isn't very important (all the different people that were brought in for questioning - sometimes more than once - during the investigation), but it sets the stage so she can explain away Amanda's actions and words. She states that Amanda accused Patrick after 2 hours of questioning, and then goes on to say that she was sooooooooooooooo hungry by 5 in the morning. Poor girl. She also says that poor Amanda didn't realize that she should have stopped talking at 1:45 in the morning. Oops for Amanda.

By the way, she doesn't confirm the cartwheel. She simply presents both sides of what Amanda and ILE say happened. There is no way to confirm what actually happened, unless one side changes their version. Either way, I've never considered the cartwheel anything but juvenile, and surely not the actions of a person who otherwise has been touted as a calculating murderess who knew how to manipulate every situation to deflect guilt away from her.

[Nova]

Originally Posted by otto

Having read Barbie's book, I found her to be fair and balanced in her view. I did not perceive her as having a temperament where she would "love to write" something derogatory about the family. I understood "Knox supporters" to mean the same that it has always meant: Knox's family and friend.

But ... if you prefer to believe that Knox supporters, in this particular instance, meant "some other guy" and the people normally described as Knox supporters were not present ... sure. I will continue to believe that Chris, Deanna and Amanda's one friend were her supporters.

Family members growling at the press would be news, otto. Of course Barbie would have reported it. That has nothing to do with her being unfair to the Mellas and Knox families.