Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #14

[SMK]

There are some interesting evidence points for comparison in the case of Noara Jackson's murder of her mother and the murder of Meredith Kercher. The main points for the conviction of Noara were: no explanation for what she was doing at the time of the murder, staged break in. The main points for the defense were: no DNA in her mother's bedroom, no blood, unidentified DNA on the sheets, no bloody clothes.

The absence of DNA or blood from Noara in her mother's bedroom, even though she had a cut on her hand, was used to argue that she couldn't have committed the crime - very similar to the case of Knox and Sollecito. The break in was considered staged because of the unusual location of a broken window. Even though people had walked into the home - past the area of the staged break in - it was still viewed as a staged break in since it was the location of the broken window, and not the broken glass, that mattered.

18 year old Noara used soft drugs. She had no criminal record. She had a sense of entitlement. She covered her mother's face after the knife attack. Her DNA was not in her mother's bedroom even though she lived in the house. There were no bloody clothes or footprints pointing to Noara as the murderer. Noara's biggest problems were her absence of alibi and the staged break in. The cut on her hand was circumstantially connected with the night of the murder, but the absence of blood in her mother's bedroom gave doubt.

This has many similarities to the murder of Meredith Kercher - with circumstantial evidence being the strongest link between the murder and the three convicted prisoners. Regarding the staged break in at the cottage, not only is the location of the break in suspicious but the location of the broken glass on the floor also leaves many questions.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/10/48hours/main6383885.shtml

I wish Knox had a cut or something which could not be explained. I wish as with Nora, there had been no Rudy Guede....

 

[otto]

Yes, I am very, very curious about those at PMF, for certain reasons, and no, sir, I would not change my mind, for other reasons....

So regardless of the verdict, your opinion would remain the same. Would it not be reasonable to assume that others, regardless of their current view, would also maintain their opinion regardless of the legal decision?

Personally, I've been flexible in terms of my opinion regarding legal decisions. I was of the opinion that Brad Cooper would be found not guilty due to the exclusion of rebuttal testimony regarding computer forensics. He was found guilty, but I think there is a strong case for appeal. I think he is probably guilty, but based on the information I had (which was only what was available through media and not all inclusive) I thought he would be found not guilty. Similarly, I recognize that the information I have regarding the murder of Meredith Kercher is restricted to some legal documents and some media information. Based on what I have read, I agree with the verdicts. If all the information were to change, I would reconsider my position.

For example, if there was an explanation for why Rudy, who in the past climbed onto the balcony to break into a second floor room, chose the more dangerous, visible method for entering the second floor room ... I would accept that perhaps he broke in that way. If there was an explanation for who made the footprints that clearly don't belong to Rudy, I would accept that there was someone other than Knox and Sollecito at the murder scene (I don't accept photoshopped monkey business with electronic files as implicating Rudy). If Knox and Sollecito had an explanation that could to be corroborated in any way about their activities between 8:45 and 6:10 AM, then I would accept their alibis. If Knox and Sollecito could explain why they lied about sleeping until 10 when evidence proves otherwise ... and if they could explain why their trip to Gubbio did not happen ... I would accept it. There is so much that I see as indicating guilt at this time.

 

[otto]

I wish Knox had a cut or something which could not be explained. I wish as with Nora, there had been no Rudy Guede....

Rudy had a cut, but I don't remember his explanation for it.

 

[SMK]

Rudy had a cut, but I don't remember his explanation for it.

Yes, Rudy did! Why not Knox and Sollecito? as to the other, I think both sides will remain convinced of guilt or innocence, as we now maintain, regardless of the outcome. It is possibly not being delved into thoroughly, so how can it change unless it is? Who photoshopped?

 

[otto]

Yes, Rudy did! Why not Knox and Sollecito? as to the other, I think both sides will remain convinced of guilt or innocence, as we now maintain, regardless of the outcome. It is possibly not being delved into thoroughly, so how can it change unless it is? Who photoshopped?

Any images on the internet that are not authentic, but which in fact shrink Rudy's foot length to be equal to Raffaele's foot length, or stretch Rudy's foot width to be equal to Raffaele's foot width, are photoshopped. I can do it too ... in fact, I can make Amanda's foot match the print on the bathmat.

Not everyone that commits a bloody knife murder leaves DNA, blood, bloody footprints, bloody clothes, cuts on themselves or clear forensic evidence that they murdered. As with the Noura Jackson case, she left no evidence of herself at the scene even though she had a cut on her hand and lived in the home. What convicted Noura is the same type of evidence that convicted the murderers of Meredith ... staged breakin, lies, absence of alibis, behavior after the murder. In the murder of Meredith Kercher, we also have DNA evidence, bloody footprints, luminol revealed evidence and very convenient memory loss only at the time of the murder.

 

[SMK]

Any images on the internet that are not authentic, but which in fact shrink Rudy's foot length to be equal to Raffaele's foot length, or stretch Rudy's foot width to be equal to Raffaele's foot width, are photoshopped. I can do it too ... in fact, I can make Amanda's foot match the print on the bathmat.

Not everyone that commits a bloody knife murder leaves DNA, blood, bloody footprints, bloody clothes, cuts on themselves or clear forensic evidence that they murdered. As with the Noura Jackson case, she left no evidence of herself at the scene even though she had a cut on her hand and lived in the home. What convicted Noura is the same type of evidence that convicted the murderers of Meredith ... staged breakin, lies, absence of alibis, behavior after the murder. In the murder of Meredith Kercher, we also have DNA evidence, bloody footprints, luminol revealed evidence and very convenient memory loss only at the time of the murder.

 

[otto]

Before it is suggested that this case is not about Noura Jackson, I would like to point out that the evidence against Knox and Sollecito should not be viewed in isolation and that counter examples are important in terms of explaining why the absence of DNA does not mean the guilty parties are innocent, why the location of a staged break in is significant in terms of concluding that the break in was staged, or why a consistent, verifiable alibi is important in terms of establishing innocence.

 

[SMK]

Before it is suggested that this case is not about Noura Jackson, I would like to point out that the evidence against Knox and Sollecito should not be viewed in isolation and that counter examples are important in terms of explaining why the absence of DNA does not mean the guilty parties are innocent, why the location of a staged break in is significant in terms of concluding that the break in was staged, or why a consistent, verifiable alibi is important in terms of establishing innocence.

1. Yes, and I can see how an innocent might be convicted because of these variables.
2. Nora, unlike Amanda, was viewed as having many antisocial traits:

Noura Jackson trial: Witnesses say daughter wanted money from mom, used drugs


Evidence showed that Noura Jackson was a distant teenager, a drug user, an underage drinker, an angry daughter and often a stranger to the truth.

In the eyes of a jury Saturday, evidence showed she also was a killer.http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/feb/21/guilty-jury-convicts-daughter-second-degree-murder/

and a comment posted beneath the article: What a shame with no more evidince than what they had that the jury could charge her with second degree murder. I would be ashamed if I was a juror on that trial!!!

 

[Nova]

I wonder if the Knox parents have set a new precedent for parents of murder suspects ... maybe add yet another twist to the TV murdertainment industry. Maybe the Anthony parents should have tried the same stunt.

Oh, please. The press was in a frenzy about this case even before AK was arrested. There was no stunt. There was simply the hiring of an expert to help a family not used to being in the public eye.

I don't know ... how would a murderer's parents be responsible for the actions of their adult children?

You said it; I didn't. These games have gotten old.

If Amanda's mom understood the Italian court system, why was she, pre-verdict, on talking head programs announcing that the verdict from the trial didn't mean much and that the real trial was the appeal ... or do you agree that the appeal is the real trial?

I've said I don't know. But Ms. Mellas was not the only person to say as much.

 

[otto]

1. Yes, and I can see how an innocent might be convicted because of these variables.
2. Nora, unlike Amanda, was viewed as having many antisocial traits:

Noura Jackson trial: Witnesses say daughter wanted money from mom, used drugs


Evidence showed that Noura Jackson was a distant teenager, a drug user, an underage drinker, an angry daughter and often a stranger to the truth.

In the eyes of a jury Saturday, evidence showed she also was a killer.http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/feb/21/guilty-jury-convicts-daughter-second-degree-murder/

and a comment posted beneath the article: What a shame with no more evidince than what they had that the jury could charge her with second degree murder. I would be ashamed if I was a juror on that trial!!!

Amanda was an entitled woman (see Berlin job attitude), a drug use, an underage drinker, and a stranger to the truth. I have no idea what sort of temper Amanda had.

In the eyes of the jury, evidence also showed that Knox and Sollecito were killers.

We still have many similarities.

 

[Nova]

Realistically, the prosecutions case lives and dies based on one thing only, if it loses the contested DNA evidence:

If the court continues to say that RG couldn't have killed MK on his own (a ridiculous assertion IMO, but then this is the country whose judges thought for a while that all true rape victims would rather risk death than to cooperate in any way with an attacker), then they have a good chance of keeping the guilty verdict.

If, however, the appeals court has ever dealt with a knife attack (instead of just taking the prosecution's assertions at their word), they may decide that the 'lone wolf' theory has merit, and there you have your reasonable doubt - a viable alternate scenario that fits the evidence and actually makes logical sense.

I know, there are those that still think the 'staged robbery' thing would kill that, but realistically the 'evidence' of it shouldn't have been allowed into the trial in the first place, as the scene was altered before it was documented - a severe no-no to any impartial judge. The rest of the basis for that theory is based entirely on the 'experience and instincts' of the LEO who testified about it, which really doesn't hold enough weight to make such a case altering decision....

Thank you. I remain amazed that this scene--the lynchpin of ILE's case--was neither preserved properly nor subjected to a formal forensic analysis.

As far as I can tell, no forensic analysis was done of the glass fragments and where they landed. Nobody even took pictures of what, if anything, was underneath the tossed clothes.

If the appellate court accepts the trial court's reliance on witness memory and nothing else to deem the break-in "staged," then I don't won't hold out any hope for justice in Italy.

 

[SMK]

Amanda was an entitled woman (see Berlin job attitude), a drug use, an underage drinker, and a stranger to the truth. I have no idea what sort of temper Amanda had.

In the eyes of the jury, evidence also showed that Knox and Sollecito were killers.

We still have many similarities.

........ :razz: PS: Are we sure Noura is the real killer.....

 

[otto]

Oh, please. The press was in a frenzy about this case even before AK was arrested. There was no stunt. There was simply the hiring of an expert to help a family not used to being in the public eye.



You said it; I didn't. These games have gotten old.



I've said I don't know. But Ms. Mellas was not the only person to say as much.

What I said (the sentence following your bolded one): "That is, the murderer is not the victim of a crime, but is in fact the criminal that is experiencing the consequences of their actions." It could be a considered a game to take something out of context.

I distinctly recall Edda Mellas on a talking head show stating that the appeal was the real trial. Perhaps others picked up on that, but I believe that she is the original source for that propaganda.

The US press goes into a frenzy anytime a pretty white woman or child is missing or murdered. Perhaps the fact that Meredith is British and half Indian played a part in making the pretty white Seattle woman murderer the star of this media frenzy. For example, Casey Anthony was a media star well before her arrest. Spousal homicide victim Michelle Young was in People magazine three years before her husband's arrest.

 

[otto]

........ :razz: PS: Are we sure Noura is the real killer.....

Investigators, family and the jury are all convinced that Noura is the real killer, but if we're going by the Amanda Knox supporter standards ... Noura is another victim of a mean prosecutor, incompetence and corruption.

 

[Nova]

There are some interesting evidence points for comparison in the case of Noara Jackson's murder of her mother and the murder of Meredith Kercher. The main points for the conviction of Noara were: no explanation for what she was doing at the time of the murder, staged break in. The main points for the defense were: no DNA in her mother's bedroom, no blood, unidentified DNA on the sheets, no bloody clothes.

The absence of DNA or blood from Noara in her mother's bedroom, even though she had a cut on her hand, was used to argue that she couldn't have committed the crime - very similar to the case of Knox and Sollecito. The break in was considered staged because of the unusual location of a broken window. Even though people had walked into the home - past the area of the staged break in - it was still viewed as a staged break in since it was the location of the broken window, and not the broken glass, that mattered.

18 year old Noara used soft drugs. She had no criminal record. She had a sense of entitlement. She covered her mother's face after the knife attack. Her DNA was not in her mother's bedroom even though she lived in the house. There were no bloody clothes or footprints pointing to Noara as the murderer. Noara's biggest problems were her absence of alibi and the staged break in. The cut on her hand was circumstantially connected with the night of the murder, but the absence of blood in her mother's bedroom gave doubt.

This has many similarities to the murder of Meredith Kercher - with circumstantial evidence being the strongest link between the murder and the three convicted prisoners. Regarding the staged break in at the cottage, not only is the location of the break in suspicious but the location of the broken glass on the floor also leaves many questions.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/10/48hours/main6383885.shtml

Except for the issue of staging, you can't possibly think the Jackson murder is in any way comparable to the Perugia murder. So I don't know what are "the many similarities" of which you speak.

Frankly, I'm not convinced Noura is guilty, but then I only watched the single one-hour program last night and read the transcript in your link.

But Noura's mother had considerable control over Noura (via the purse strings) and was demanding that Noura take responsibility for her own life. That is a traditional point of friction between parent and child. There is no equivalent motive for AK or RS to kill MK, much less for them to enter into a conspiracy with RG.

***

As for the supposedly staged break in, the Jackson case would only be comparable to Perugia if Filomena had left her bedroom door locked from the outside. She did not. In the Jackson case, the garage doors were supposedly locked, so gaining entry to the garage would not admit an intruder into the house. Such was not the case in Perugia.

 

[Nova]

Fast track requires admitting some guilt. Knox and Sollecito have stuck together throughout ... with Sollecito still giving Knox little treats, chocolates and so on throughout the trial. If Sollecito admits any guilt, he takes Knox down with him.

So now you're saying Sollecito is willing to go to prison for life out of love for Knox? Because we've read countless sources that say the two have little contact.

 

[Nova]

So regardless of the verdict, your opinion would remain the same. Would it not be reasonable to assume that others, regardless of their current view, would also maintain their opinion regardless of the legal decision?

Personally, I've been flexible in terms of my opinion regarding legal decisions. I was of the opinion that Brad Cooper would be found not guilty due to the exclusion of rebuttal testimony regarding computer forensics. He was found guilty, but I think there is a strong case for appeal. I think he is probably guilty, but based on the information I had (which was only what was available through media and not all inclusive) I thought he would be found not guilty. Similarly, I recognize that the information I have regarding the murder of Meredith Kercher is restricted to some legal documents and some media information. Based on what I have read, I agree with the verdicts. If all the information were to change, I would reconsider my position.

For example, if there was an explanation for why Rudy, who in the past climbed onto the balcony to break into a second floor room, chose the more dangerous, visible method for entering the second floor room ... I would accept that perhaps he broke in that way. If there was an explanation for who made the footprints that clearly don't belong to Rudy, I would accept that there was someone other than Knox and Sollecito at the murder scene (I don't accept photoshopped monkey business with electronic files as implicating Rudy). If Knox and Sollecito had an explanation that could to be corroborated in any way about their activities between 8:45 and 6:10 AM, then I would accept their alibis. If Knox and Sollecito could explain why they lied about sleeping until 10 when evidence proves otherwise ... and if they could explain why their trip to Gubbio did not happen ... I would accept it. There is so much that I see as indicating guilt at this time.

Per Hendry, the terrace may have provided the easier access, but it was also the most visible at night and tended to leave one trapped if discovered.

The broken window provided the most cover and the easiest escape up until one was inside the cottage.

 

[Nova]

Yes, Rudy did! Why not Knox and Sollecito? as to the other, I think both sides will remain convinced of guilt or innocence, as we now maintain, regardless of the outcome. It is possibly not being delved into thoroughly, so how can it change unless it is? Who photoshopped?

Haven't you heard? Amanda Knox was in another room, calling out instructions in a language she didn't speak.

 

[Nova]

What I said (the sentence following your bolded one): "That is, the murderer is not the victim of a crime, but is in fact the criminal that is experiencing the consequences of their actions." It could be a considered a game to take something out of context.

I distinctly recall Edda Mellas on a talking head show stating that the appeal was the real trial. Perhaps others picked up on that, but I believe that she is the original source for that propaganda.

The US press goes into a frenzy anytime a pretty white woman or child is missing or murdered. Perhaps the fact that Meredith is British and half Indian played a part in making the pretty white Seattle woman murderer the star of this media frenzy. For example, Casey Anthony was a media star well before her arrest. Spousal homicide victim Michelle Young was in People magazine three years before her husband's arrest.

I'm not sure why you are speculating as to U.S. press interest in the case. There was far more frenzy on the part of Italian and English media. But, yes, I'm sure the fact that AK is a pretty blonde makes the story more interesting to editors than if she were older or less attractive or of a U.S. racial minority. Unfortunately, but true.

Your mention of MK's racial heritage is the first time it has ever even occurred to this American that she was anything but English. So, no, while racism is alive and well in the U.S.A., I don't think the race of the victim is obviously a factor in this case.

***

I didn't deliberately take your remark out of context. Now that you have provided the full context, I still fail to see how that changes the fact that Mr. Knox and the Mellases are also essentially losing a daughter and deserve our sympathy and at least a little respect. Your insistence on demonizing them is, in my view, tacky.

***

I didn't challenge your assertion that Ms. Mellas said the appeal is the "real trial." I merely said we've heard similar statements from other sources, so if Mellas is confused, she isn't alone. Most recently, Malkmus pointed out that appellate jurors are required to have higher education levels, so that is one more reason why someone might think the appellate court's verdict is more apt to be just.

 

[Nova]

........ :razz: PS: Are we sure Noura is the real killer.....

I'm not. But as I said above, I only watched the one hour program; I don't pretend to be well versed on the case.