Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #16

[Malkmus]

Hah! Did I call it or what? (and to think, I was mostly joking about the independent experts being charged with defamation/slander or being investigated in retribution)

You and Frank

(posted July 19th on PerugiaShock)

It’s so nice to see so much friendship and agreement in the team. Actually they could do some more to defend them. How about suing Conti & Vecchiotti, too?

http://perugiashock.com/2011/07/19/a-farewell-to-weapon/

 

[Allusonz]

Don't we get an appeal either way? I think Italy allows the prosecution to appeal as well.

ETA Never mind. SMK answered this on the preceding page. Yes, either side may appeal.

Yes there is if the other side does appeal it

 

[Allusonz]

continued....http://www.u.tv/News/Amanda-Knox-DNA-appeal-sparks-legal-battle-by-forensic-experts/d0df96b7-a107-413a-8aab-c1c9db3cfae1

Looks like a desperation move. Not only do they have all the video recordings, she was unable to give the experts some of the documentation (for example some of the SAL's) and the documentation she did give has been refuted by far to many very respected DNA experts prior to the independent ones.

The problems go deeper than Stephanoni. It makes me think that there will be an investigation from the way various players in this have been acting.

I agree Monday should be very interesting....

ETA I feel at times as I read the various posts that I am in a very bad horror film right out of the twilight zone

 

[Allusonz]

Although it's odd that BN would write:



As we all know, no semen was ever attributed to RG. But there is the alleged and untested semen stain. Is this what she is referring to? Is she speculating? Is it a mistake (wouldn't be her first... or fifth)? Or is this more of her "insider" information like the blonde hair collected and lost?

BBM

I have always been of the opinion that this had indeed been tested just never been presented. The plot thickens

 

[Allusonz]

Hah! Did I call it or what? (and to think, I was mostly joking about the independent experts being charged with defamation/slander or being investigated in retribution)

Yes you as well as Frank did!! This may not yet be the end of it either unless someone steps in and puts a stop to it.

 

[Allusonz]

Looking at the Brian Stow situation, I actually was thinking that the Italian system seems less error-prone. Imagine if Giovanni had said something along the vein that Amanda had said?

It's interesting if you think back over the case. If Amanda hadn't falsely implicated Lumamba, then the DNA indicating Guede would have come in while she was still walking around free. There would have been no investigation of Sollecito's place and so no knife, and there wouldn't have been an additional DNA sweep weeks later that would have gotten the bra clasp. She probably wouldn't have been tried at all.

If I was operating off a presumption of guilt, I'd have to think that Amanda and Raf left their flat shortly after Amelia finished playing, in order to pack up Amanda's things to go to Gubbio the next day. They left their turned off cell phones behind in their flat. They ran across Rudy at the basketball court (Amanda said she met Lumamba at the basketball court, so she would be lying as closely to the truth in case there were witnesses). They proceeded together to the cottage and arrived at around 9:45.

I don't know what happened next, but because there is no evidence of blood on clothing and no evidence of cleaning up of DNA in the murder room or hallway, the only thing that makes sense with the evidence provided is that they were naked and attacking Meredith while Rudy was clothed and attacking her. OR, Rudy attacked and killer her and fled, and Amanda and Raffaelle exited from her bedroom at around 11:30pm and found her in her room dead, and Amanda screamed (the scream heard at 11:30). They then got very bloody trying to figure out what happened? Oh, I don't know. The point is, if they were present, they were involved in the attack in such a way that they got no blood on their clothes, only on Amanda's bare left foot... so it must have been close to the time of death so the blood would still be wet enough to get on her feet, but also wet enough to mask her bare footprints in the room.

OR, they only got blood on their bare skin, then they went into the bathroom to wash off the blood, getting blood to fully cover the bottom of Raffaele's foot, and to cover the bottom of Amanda's foot. For some reason, in each scenario it is their left foot. Actually, that makes me think the bathmat print would be Amanda's.

Anyway, teh blood comes from washing off the blood from skin (not clothing) on another part of the body. Oh wait, and that was done in the bidet.... then after cleaning her feet in the bidet she entered the shower with Raffaelle, and they washed off the traces of the murder. The showering has to be done right after the murder to explain the footprints.

Next they needed to come up with a plan to hide their involvement, so at this point they threw away the phones. They have Amanda's keys to lock the door, but they remember they need to retrieve Meredith's keys to make it look properly staged... so they go into her pants or purse to get the keys, but don't leave their DNA while doing this. This is probably when they bring in Amanda's lamp to see. Maybe THIS is when they get blood on their foot, and then they have to hop around to prevent leaving lots of bloody footprints.

They remove what evidence that they can of the fact they were there. Except for the bloody bathmat print. Actually it seems like they just staged a robbery and nothing else, since there's no evidence of cleaning up the murder scene. And there should be swipes seen in the luminol if that was done. Did the bathroom look wiped down?
So they only bother going so far as to make it look like there had been a robbery? And they go back to Raffaele's apartment and turn on his music at 5:30 am. Maybe they went back to his apartment around 12:30 and slept for 5 hours, then went back to the flight at 6amish to stage the scene before Filomena would turn up. But only Amanda went back at that time.

And they went back to Raffaelle's flat and super cleaned it so there would be no trace of any murder evidence there. But they didn't do this at the cottage.. but that's why they have the mop. Because they certainly don't care about a broken sink if they have a murder to cover up. That's not why the mop is there. So why is the mop there?

And they call Filomena so she will meet them at the house and so she will be the one to break open the door? Or so her DNA will be interspersed in the scene? And then after calling her they wandered around with a mop?

The mop only makes sense if they wanted to provide an excuse for a clean up. And the bathmat boogie story only makes sense if Amanda knows that she cleaned up the hallway. Because if Amanda is the murderer she knows what evidence might be there to convict her.

If her breakdown about the knife is a legitimate sign of guilt then that means the knife used to kill Meredith was in the flat. Most likely the knife that was in her suitcase, that was stolen. But if that's true that means the knife at Sollecito's is false, and the prosecution has contaminated evidence.

As well remember they did all of this while allegedly stoned out of their minds. It did not make sense once the real facts came out and it still sounds convoluted :giggle:

 

[SMK]

A sexual predator or victim of a witch-hunt?

A report that raises serious doubts about the DNA evidence that helped to convict American student Amanda Knox of murder will be presented in an Italian court tomorrow. Was it all a grave miscarriage of justice? Susan Chenery talks to Knox's family in Perugia about their long fight to clear their daughter's name.
WE will never know, most of us, how close we all are to catastrophe. How suddenly a normal day in an ordinary life can shatter and nothing will ever be the same.

There is a lot at stake for the city of Perugia. There will be a great loss of honour if it is found it has framed innocent kids. The prosecution will fight back vigorously.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/a-sexua...a-witchhunt-20110723-1hu1z.html#ixzz1T1ZS7uvy

 

[iluvmua]

IF Amanda is truly innocent.... (Which she is not) Why frame your boss for murder..... why have no alibi (That your boyfriend will not even back up for you). Why have your blood mixed in with the victim ( and It's not just "because Amanda lived there") and your bloody footprints around the house and why stage a break in....... Amanda is not innocent, I believe she was there and knew what was happening.

No innocent person continues to lie and lie to the police and no innocent person frames someone else for murder. Amanda had a reason to lie..

I hope she never gets out.....

 

[Malkmus]

IF Amanda is truly innocent.... (Which she is not) Why frame your boss for murder..... why have no alibi (That your boyfriend will not even back up for you). Why have your blood mixed in with the victim ( and It's not just "because Amanda lived there") and your bloody footprints around the house and why stage a break in....... Amanda is not innocent, I believe she was there and knew what was happening.

No innocent person continues to lie and lie to the police and no innocent person frames someone else for murder. Amanda had a reason to lie..

I hope she never gets out.....

Amanda isn’t the first innocent person to accuse another innocent person of murder. See the case of Karl Fonteneau, same age as Amanda.

It was Amanda’s DNA found mixed in with Meredith’s blood, not Amanda’s blood. There is the unknown DNA of other people in those samples too. It could be that of other’s living in the house, but ILE never got reference samples from the roommates so we’ll never know. DNA in her own house does only prove she was in her own house.

If you believe the footprints were made in blood, then what is your theory of why they tested negative for blood, why those results were hidden from the jury, and why the prints have no streak marks?

The evidence for a staged break-in amounts to: It looks so much like a real break-in that it must be fake since Amanda and Rafaelle are guilty. Or do you have definitive proof that it was staged?

Her boyfriend has covered her alibi. But that no longer mattered to police after they wrongly attributed shoeprints (turned out they were Rudy's) to him that they were able to arrest him with.

I look forward to hearing your opinion on these points, as I don’t believe I got a response last time you raised them.

 

[~n/t~]

IF Amanda is truly innocent.... (Which she is not) Why frame your boss for murder..... why have no alibi (That your boyfriend will not even back up for you). Why have your blood mixed in with the victim ( and It's not just "because Amanda lived there") and your bloody footprints around the house and why stage a break in....... Amanda is not innocent, I believe she was there and knew what was happening.

No innocent person continues to lie and lie to the police and no innocent person frames someone else for murder. Amanda had a reason to lie..

I hope she never gets out.....

I think she's as innocent as Casey Anthony.

 

[emyr]

IF Amanda is truly innocent.... (Which she is not) Why frame your boss for murder..... why have no alibi (That your boyfriend will not even back up for you). Why have your blood mixed in with the victim ( and It's not just "because Amanda lived there") and your bloody footprints around the house and why stage a break in....... Amanda is not innocent, I believe she was there and knew what was happening.

No innocent person continues to lie and lie to the police and no innocent person frames someone else for murder. Amanda had a reason to lie..

I hope she never gets out.....

Just one note: her blood can not be mixed with the blood of the victim because she had no cuts on her body.

 

[sherlockh]

Just one note: her blood can not be mixed with the blood of the victim because she had no cuts on her body.

Lol...of course..you can only bleed from cuts on your body

 

[SMK]

Lol...of course..you can only bleed from cuts on your body

So you mean it was menstrual blood, or a nose bleed, or her ears? How does that point to murder?

 

[emyr]

@ miley

Missed you guys to sometimes there are just times when I am trying to see my head over the paper work and truly have to avoid my late night posts as it is very apparent I have been working late and can barely understand my own posts let alone my spelling :giggle:

I should do the same. I keep writing when I am clearly too exhausted to do so. My last post is a tired mess.

In any case, to the rest of you: Is there truly no sign of clean-up? Even in the bathroom?

For my "presumption of guilt" scenario, I have to be operating off the idea that both Amanda and Raffaelle have all the facts. If they have all the facts (they know they showered there, stepped in blood there, that Sollecito touched Meredith's bra) then... the result is very convoluted.

The time of death, if they did it, has to be several hours after 9pm. Preferably around 11:30 pm (to have time to leave the evidence, dump the phones, and also to work themselves up into a sexual murderous frenzy). Their initial alibi would focus on how to make certain they were not there around that time. They wouldn't make up lies to explain any evidence of a cover up in the hallway because there was no cover up in the hallway...

Honestly, when I heard about this case when I started I thought it was pre-meditated (turning off their cell phones), which goes farther to explain the evidence collected. But since there is no way it was pre-meditated (both were supposed to be doing something else the night of the murder), then the evidence becomes much more difficult to fit into the correct scenario. The facts as presented really needs a clean-up to have taken place at the cottage. In the absence of the clean-up, we have a very strange story of toting a mop around everywhere.

 

[emyr]

Lol...of course..you can only bleed from cuts on your body

As SMK says, how does that work? You'd have to jump through a lot of hoops to get non-cut based blood on the bottom of her foot. Which in any case, isn't true, because as stated elsewhere the evidence as presented by the prosecution showed her DNA was present in the bare footprint, not her blood.

Which makes more sense in either scenario.

 

[sherlockh]

As SMK says, how does that work? You'd have to jump through a lot of hoops to get non-cut based blood on the bottom of her foot. Which in any case, isn't true, because as stated elsewhere the evidence as presented by the prosecution showed her DNA was present in the bare footprint, not her blood.

Which makes more sense in either scenario.

That is just your opinion. Makes zero sense to me. You can bleed from your nose or AK's own explanation was that she bled from her ear. The DNA expert did show it was her blood and even if it was 'just' her DNA it does not belong mixed with MK's blood. It does not belong in the middle of the floor in a footprint, it does not belong in a blood stain on a q-tip box and certainly does not belong in the middle of the floor of another roommate. There is zero chance of any innocent explanation for that. <modsnip> That is all I got to say and it is just my opinion

 

[sherlockh]

I'd agree that there are a lot of people who appear to want her to be innocent no matter what, and a lot of people who appear to want her to be guilty no matter what.

The real problem is trying to spin the facts to fit an agenda. I think it's easy to fall into this trap.

I don't see a straightforward explanation for innocence, but I don't see a straightforward explanation for guilt either. Both involve convoluted stories.

There is no reason why people who think she is guilty would have an agenda or want her guilty no matter what, but there are plenty of reasons why people who think she is innocent want her innocent no matter what. Just look at their family and the media campaign they setup. There is a big difference between the 2 sites. I can criticize the prosecution and the investigation and still think she is guilty. The innocent site has to attack every single investigator and piece of evidence up to a point where it does not make sense anymore. Anyway, like I said. It is just my opinion.

 

[SMK]

There is no reason why people who think she is guilty would have an agenda or want her guilty no matter what, but there are plenty of reasons why people who think she is innocent want her innocent no matter what. Just look at their family and the media campaign they setup. There is a big difference between the 2 sites. I can criticize the prosecution and the investigation and still think she is guilty. The innocent site has to attack every single investigator and piece of evidence up to a point where it does not make sense anymore. Anyway, like I said. It is just my opinion.

I think many who believe she is innocent hold that belief due to DNA experts such as Dr. Hampakian and others who have revealed the evidence to be unreliable.

And some of us have reasonable doubt as to guilt, which is not equal to believing her "innocent no matter what:.

Even a PR campaign cannot be just spin - it has to have factual data to back it up.

 

[emyr]

That is just your opinion. Makes zero sense to me. You can bleed from your nose or AK's own explanation was that she bled from her ear. The DNA expert did show it was her blood and even if it was 'just' her DNA it does not belong mixed with MK's blood. It does not belong in the middle of the floor in a footprint, it does not belong in a blood stain on a q-tip box and certainly does not belong in the middle of the floor of another roommate. There is zero chance of any innocent explanation for that. Only if you really want to you start making up excuses as we see continuously in this thread. Just take a step back and ask yourself if there is really nothing 'hinky' about all those 'coincidences' people are so desperately trying to explain away here? This is websleuths after all. That is all I got to say and it is just my opinion

It's not my opinion at all. It's a fact. Amanda's blood was not in the footprints.

Yes her DNA was, and you have a point about that. But just be aware that you undermine that point by insisting the falsity that Amanda's blood was there.

I think you have merged the fact of a drop of Amanda's blood on the sink tap into all of the rest of the evidence. That was the only place where there was blood from Amanda.

It is also a fact that you cannot tell at what time DNA was deposited so we have no way of knowing when Amanda's DNA got on those objects.

The real argument here is not what you just stated, it is this: How can we explain that someone went into the bathroom and cleaned off Meredith's blood and the only DNA we find in those areas is from Meredith and Amanda. If the killer cleaned off in there, where is his DNA?

And that's a good question.

 

[Malkmus]

It's not my opinion at all. It's a fact. Amanda's blood was not in the footprints.

Yes her DNA was, and you have a point about that. But just be aware that you undermine that point by insisting the falsity that Amanda's blood was there.

I think you have merged the fact of a drop of Amanda's blood on the sink tap into all of the rest of the evidence. That was the only place where there was blood from Amanda.

It is also a fact that you cannot tell at what time DNA was deposited so we have no way of knowing when Amanda's DNA got on those objects.

The real argument here is not what you just stated, it is this: How can we explain that someone went into the bathroom and cleaned off Meredith's blood and the only DNA we find in those areas is from Meredith and Amanda. If the killer cleaned off in there, where is his DNA?

And that's a good question.

There was more than Just Meredith and Amanda's DNA in those samples. I know I sound like a broken record. But ILE didn't take reference DNA samples of the other girls living in the cottage. So we don't know who it belongs to.