WARNING:GRAPHIC PHOTOS Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #8

[dgfred]

dgfred, you've posted a lot of good posts recently, and I thank you. What I emboldened above is exactly the reason why I realized that the only thing I'm getting from arguing here is frustration, so I stopped and went back to lurking to save myself admonishments and further frustration.

I also realized that regardless of the outcome of the appeal, it's not going to stop people from continuing to argue that the appeal was wrong, conviction was wrong and so on and so forth. I suspect this is one of those cases where it'll be debated for decades to come.

I do look forward to lurking and reading more of your posts. Your thought about Patrick and how would AK know he was or wasn't there is quite interesting, and I've been pondering that all morning.

Thanks flourish.
I too am becoming frustrated with the debates. It is a continual circle. The trial results will be verified IMO... and we will still hear the same old arguments over and over again. My problem with that is although there are some problems with the Italian LE handling of the case (as in most every case IMO)... if you give the AK/RS/RG/P.R./family stories and excuses for ALL the things/evidence that points to them being guilty and use a:
Common Sense-
Smell-
Hinky Meter-
Excuseonometer-
Deflectometer-
Behavior-
Attitude-
(TEST) it is quite easy to see IMO how/why they were found unanimously guilty. They fail all the test completely.

***I have complete confidence in the Italian Judges and PEOPLE to look over ALL the evidence/experts presented and make a qualified judgement of the three's guilt. I have no reason to suspect they are not competant to do so. And they have IMO. I may need to do the same as you for awhile.

 

[OldSteve]

Again, EVERYONE has "conceded" that AK was wrong to implicate Mr. Lumumba. So if you want a concession, there you go.

But that accusation makes no sense as a guilty person's attempt to deflect suspicion from herself: PL might have an alibi (he did); in accusing him, AK put herself at the scene; according to some, AK was up all night cleaning and staging the crime scene, yet she dropped that subterfuge within two hours of questioning (per otto's reckoning). If AK were being crafty and devious, she was better off with her original story that she was with RS all night at his apartment.The accusation DOES makes sense as coerced testimony because LE already suspected PL based on a misreading of text messages.

Call is "making excuses" if you like, but all testimony should be corroborated by some circumstantial evidence.

BBM

And of course if she really was crafty - she would have gotten on a train out of Italy, and then on a plane back home....

The ILE innterrogation of her - no video/audio record is no good.

What is most amazing to me, is how DNA has been used incorrectly in this case!
Because AK lived in the cottage, DNA should be used in an exclusionary way - such that the lack of it, as it involves MK room and murder, is the best proof of AK's innocense.
She or others would not have been able to selective clean her DNA up.

 

[ChasingMoxie]

When I initially looked into this case I started with a bias against AK, and I thought for sure that I would find that the people professing her innocence were just succumbing to xenophobic fears and assumptions. After reading about the facts in the case on this site and others, I realized that I had made an unfair and inaccurate assumption. I completely changed my mind and now find myself arguing for her release alongside them.

 

[sherlockh]

BBM

And of course if she really was crafty - she would have gotten on a train out of Italy, and then on a plane back home....

The ILE innterrogation of her - no video/audio record is no good.

What is most amazing to me, is how DNA has been used incorrectly in this case!
Because AK lived in the cottage, DNA should be used in an exclusionary way - such that the lack of it, as it involves MK room and murder, is the best proof of AK's innocense.
She or others would not have been able to selective clean her DNA up.

No offense but the 'lone wolf theory' has been completely blown away by every single court involved (now even the Supreme Court). Even both defense teams have now introduced new witnesses who claim that multiple people were involved. Why does one need to leave DNA evidence behind if you stab someone? What direct DNA evidence do you see of the hair pulling, the bruises on Meredith's head, lips, nose, etc...? Where is the DNA evidence of the one that strangled her? Apparently you can do all those things without leaving any DNA. I wish every murderer would leave a pile of DNA behind. I really do, but it doesn't always happen. The obvious place where they would have left DNA is the knife handle which they both did, but of course that is not proof of anything. I wish we could leave the 'lone wolf theory' behind and look forward to the appeals. JMO.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Moxie,

I too started out with some bias against AK and RS. I typically find myself supporting the prosecution side in probably 97%+ of the cases I follow.

But as I got into the facts of this case and started to read about the details of the investigation and saw things that were wrong or incompetent I started to question what evidence I could trust and what was the evidentiary truth.

Then I went onto the fence for a good long while.

It's been through reading the 'guilty' arguments here that I realized ILE and the tabloids have done a great job of misleading and that the more misstatements I see and the more assumptions made about things that no one can possibly know, I was seeing evidence of 2 people who were very possibly railroaded and are actually innocent of the crime (as opposed to thinking there was reasonable doubt, but they might be guilty).

An emotional barrier seemed to be breached in which the guilty arguments were based on a more visceral level. That's the point in which objectivity appears compromised.

Anyway, that's the circuitous route I took in getting to my conclusion. The fact that I actually reached a conclusion was a surprise, because I expected to remain on the fence.

 

[OldSteve]

No offense but the 'lone wolf theory' has been completely blown away by every single court involved (now even the Supreme Court). Even both defense teams have now introduced new witnesses who claim that multiple people were involved. Why does one need to leave DNA evidence behind if you stab someone? What direct DNA evidence do you see of the hair pulling, the bruises on Meredith's head, lips, nose, etc...? Where is the DNA evidence of the one that strangled her? Apparently you can do all those things without leaving any DNA. I wish every murderer would leave a pile of DNA behind. I really do, but it doesn't always happen. The obvious place where they would have left DNA is the knife handle which they both did, but of course that is not proof of anything. I wish we could leave the 'lone wolf theory' behind and look forward to the appeals. JMO.

Think I didn't explain my point about exclusionary use of DNA - simply when a person is known to be in place, or lives in place, then finding that person's DNA should be no surprise (exceptions being certain unexpected bodily fluids).
However, NOT finding that person's DNA on the Duvet, or on MK becomes significant when the DNA of others is found - With advances in touch DNA, AK is either simply very lucky, or not involved, or perhaps the ILE did a poor job of finding/testing.
http://www.policemag.com/Channel/Technology/Articles/2008/12/Just-a-Touch.aspx

 

[miley]

dgfred: My point was (AND STILL IS) that someone from the family (or innocent side) gave the diary/journals information away. I don't believe the 'cited' article.

IMO from pm-ing several at PMF the information was from Candace and Frank... not an investigator. If someone can produce the 'investigator's' name, maybe I would change my mind. I also think it was a bad decision... but that doesn't mean the family/innocent side didn't release the info. They certainly have made a few doosies IMO... like the entire 'PR' campaign.

Here's the investigator's name Superintendent Gubbiotti, the police officer that leaked Amanda's journals and diaries to the media.

What I don't understand is why you prefer to believe pmf posters over the Italian prosecutors and ruling judge presiding over this case.. especially since, it seems, you hold the Italian Judicial system with such high regard..


eta: the defamation case Amanda won against the author/journalist and newspaper publishers.

Quote: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=127508&page=12

 

[dgfred]

Kinda reaching a bit are we? IIRC the case was for a book written that included information on her 'sex life'.

Was Gubbiotti charged in the defamation case? Is there a link that doesn't go back to Frank or Candace that states this? But really... in the end, anything written while in jail under suspicion of murder should be fair game IMO anyway.

 

[Nova]

Well that is kind of the problem. Once the verdicts are verified, the 'innocent' posters will be able to keep their arguments going for a long while (like around 20 years) using the same excuses... think of the post counts. The 'guilty' side will only be able to post that the courts have decided, and they received a fair trial. The views will not change regardless. I for one welcome the appeals, and am confident the knife/bra-clasp evidence will be found reasonable. Once that is done IMO the defense will be left impotent. I also enjoy the debate with any evidence/or lack of... just don't like the attitudes or the snarkiness much of the time. IMO the case wouldn't be such a big deal to the 'innocent' side if it would have happened here in the United States... she would just be another prisoner.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm just as disturbed by injustice here in the States. I've spent far more time on the West Memphis Three thread than I have here. Of course, I've had more years to obsess over that miscarriage of justice.

That the bra clasp was improperly collected is a fact; we've all seen the video. That the testing of the knife did not conform to international standards and that the DNA sample supposedly found was too small to be definitive is also a fact. What the appeals court eventually rules in re these items will tell us more about the court than the collection and the testing. So I certainly agree with you that the verdict isn't going to automatically change everyone's mind.

It's funny how snarkiness and tone only seem to bother those who believe Amanda Knox to be guilty, and only when they are confronted by the paucity of evidence against her.

 

[Nova]

When I initially looked into this case I started with a bias against AK, and I thought for sure that I would find that the people professing her innocence were just succumbing to xenophobic fears and assumptions. After reading about the facts in the case on this site and others, I realized that I had made an unfair and inaccurate assumption. I completely changed my mind and now find myself arguing for her release alongside them.

I too started with a bias against AK, in my case because of the "anti-Americanism" theme. I thought, "Oh, come on. Italians may not like George Bush, but they aren't going to send a 20-year-old girl to prison just to spite him." I still don't believe that's the reason for AK's conviction, but the evidence of her guilt just isn't there.

 

[flourish]

It's funny how snarkiness and tone only seem to bother those who believe Amanda Knox to be guilty, and only when they are confronted by the paucity of evidence against her.

<snip>
Really? Well perhaps those who believe her to be innocent seem to use snarkiness and rude tone more than those who believe her to be guilty.

Oh look! We can both make sweeping, unfounded generalizations!

There's no need for snarkiness, condescension, belittling and rudeness IN ANY CASE ON ANY THREAD HERE.

:devil:

 

[SleuthyGal]

The innocents are 'reaching' when they provide answers to questions. The innocents are 'snarky' when they present data to refute something in the guilty list against AK.

Nova, ever notice how it's about emotion and tone and beliefs and never just about the data itself.

I read this page by a known forensic investigative engineer and was aghast at the incompetence by the ILE crime scene investigators. On just this one page is dated photographic proof of how ILE moved items in the crime scene, creating more blood stains with their carelessness. It's right there for all the world to see!

Anyone looking at those photos and looking at the blood stains (and these pictures were taken by the ILE) cannot pretend they don't see problems which compromise the crime scene! It's right there!

 

[Nova]

<snip>
Really? Well perhaps those who believe her to be innocent seem to use snarkiness and rude tone more than those who believe her to be guilty.

Oh look! We can both make sweeping, unfounded generalizations!

There's no need for snarkiness, condescension, belittling and rudeness IN ANY CASE ON ANY THREAD HERE.

:devil:

I'll grant you that mine was a broad generalization and not applicable to everyone on any side.

Personally, I haven't encountered any snarking, condescension, belittling or rudeness in this thread that was more than I, as a grown-up, could handle. But I don't think any of us is so blameless, we need chastise the others. (Mods excepted, of course.)

 

[Nova]

The innocents are 'reaching' when they provide answers to questions. The innocents are 'snarky' when they present data to refute something in the guilty list against AK.

Nova, ever notice how it's about emotion and tone and beliefs and never just about the data itself.

I read this page by a known forensic investigative engineer and was aghast at the incompetence by the ILE crime scene investigators. On just this one page is dated photographic proof of how ILE moved items in the crime scene, creating more blood stains with their carelessness. It's right there for all the world to see!

Anyone looking at those photos and looking at the blood stains (and these pictures were taken by the ILE) cannot pretend they don't see problems which compromise the crime scene! It's right there!

Thanks, sleuthy. That link also answers sherlockh's contention above that it is universally accepted now that there were multiple assailants. As Hendry notes, it is "universally accepted" only because of errors made by ILE.

 

[flourish]

I'll grant you that mine was a broad generalization and not applicable to everyone on any side.

Personally, I haven't encountered any snarking, condescension, belittling or rudeness in this thread that was more than I, as a grown-up, could handle. But I don't think any of us is so blameless, we need chastise the others. (Mods excepted, of course.)

Oh for goodness sake, I am a grown-up, too. Are you implying that people who don't appreciate snarkiness are children?

In any case, the snarkiness is unnecessary and not appropriate.

 

[SleuthyGal]

There was only one assailant, as demonstrated quite well by a forensic analysis of the crime scene, done by someone who's been in the field for some 30 yrs and has no dog in this fight, so to speak.

He even analyzed the cuts on MK and from his detailed drawings, it's clear that one person likely inflicted the wounds, which was his conclusion. There were fewer wounds than I thought, so that was a surprise to me as well. From some of the tabloid descriptions it sounded like there were dozens of cuts on MK. But essentially there were 3 non fatal and 1 fatal cut and some bruises and clumps of hair pulled out.

He lays it all out, with pictures, pointers to the ILE photos and blood spots, he explains the patterns, the direction of the blood, where the attack started, etc. It's interesting stuff for sure. I appreciate seeing the pictures side-by-side from when ILE first encountered the crime scene and then a month or so later, when they took pictures again. Unbelievable how many items were moved and how the scene was altered.

 

[Nova]

Oh for goodness sake, I am a grown-up, too. Are you implying that people who don't appreciate snarkiness are children?

In any case, the snarkiness is unnecessary and not appropriate.

Not at all. I was just expressing my personal feelings. I'm sorry if my remark seemed directed at you or anyone else as an individual.

Frankly, I love a good snark and think the world is a dull place without one every now and then. But that's just me. It isn't a comment on you, the mods or the TOS.

My contention stands, however, that none of us (mods excepted) really has the standing to lecture others on snarkiness.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Thanks Nova. I concur completely. Universal acceptance of ILE's analysis and conclusions are not very universal at all. There are many experts (not living in Italy) who upon examining the scene (detailed photos), the victim (autopsy) and data, have a very different viewpoint.

 

[Allusonz]

<snip>
Really? Well perhaps those who believe her to be innocent seem to use snarkiness and rude tone more than those who believe her to be guilty.

Oh look! We can both make sweeping, unfounded generalizations!

There's no need for snarkiness, condescension, belittling and rudeness IN ANY CASE ON ANY THREAD HERE.

:devil:

It is my belief that Salem has done an outstanding job of moderating this thread!!!

That being said I don't always agree with her decisions :innocent:

I am quite certain Salem is marking off the calender days for when this appeal is over. I have not had the heart to tell her that there will probably be more :floorlaugh:

 

[Allusonz]

Oh for goodness sake, I am a grown-up, too. Are you implying that people who don't appreciate snarkiness are children?

In any case, the snarkiness is unnecessary and not appropriate.

Did I happen to mention that i resigned from adulthood?

That I still enjoy Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (no not for the chocolate) but I want to know what ingredients were in all those truly cool treats

Finally, does this mean i have to put my fairy wings back on? As I think you found my secret stash :giggle: