Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#8

I can't find the post anymore, but upthread it was suggested that it was acceptable that the Sollecito family released Nov 2, 2007 crime scene video of Meredith to a television studio (where it was immediately broadcast) because, during the on-going appeal, a lawyer presented a slide presentation of crime scene photos without requiring the removal of media.

First of all, it is imperative that crime scene photos are presented during the appeal of a murder conviction - it's not optional. When that lawyer (Meredith's lawyer?) presented that evidence in court, it was normal and expected. It should not be suggested that it was out of order to present the evidence.

Secondly, presenting crime scene photos in an appeal is not something that should be criticized as "abnormal". If someone from the media elected to remain in the courtroom during the presentation of that evidence, that was a choice. If any reporter had the poor taste to discuss those photos ... good luck with the shoddy career.

otto said:

I can't find the post anymore, but upthread it was suggested that it was acceptable that the Sollecito family released Nov 2, 2007 crime scene video of Meredith to a television studio (where it was immediately broadcast) because, during the on-going appeal, a lawyer presented a slide presentation of crime scene photos without requiring the removal of media.

First of all, it is imperative that crime scene photos are presented during the appeal of a murder conviction - it's not optional. When that lawyer (Meredith's lawyer?) presented that evidence in court, it was normal and expected. It should not be suggested that it was out of order to present the evidence.

Secondly, presenting crime scene photos in an appeal is not something that should be criticized as "abnormal". If someone from the media elected to remain in the courtroom during the presentation of that evidence, that was a choice. If any reporter had the poor taste to discuss those photos ... good luck with the shoddy career.

Click to expand...

The case had collapsed so Maresca in a desperate attempt at emotional blackmail started showing graphic crime scene photos before the media had been cleared from the courtroom. Showing the photos served no purpose at that point other than to try and make the jurors feel guilty about acquitting the pair.

otto said:

I can't find the post anymore, but upthread it was suggested that it was acceptable that the Sollecito family released Nov 2, 2007 crime scene video of Meredith to a television studio (where it was immediately broadcast) because, during the on-going appeal, a lawyer presented a slide presentation of crime scene photos without requiring the removal of media.

First of all, it is imperative that crime scene photos are presented during the appeal of a murder conviction - it's not optional. When that lawyer (Meredith's lawyer?) presented that evidence in court, it was normal and expected. It should not be suggested that it was out of order to present the evidence.

Secondly, presenting crime scene photos in an appeal is not something that should be criticized as "abnormal". If someone from the media elected to remain in the courtroom during the presentation of that evidence, that was a choice. If any reporter had the poor taste to discuss those photos ... good luck with the shoddy career.

Click to expand...

Yes there is nothing wrong with crime scene photos shown in open court, it is done in every case even in front of the media. What would be wrong would be the media to take photos of what is shown or something like that. Sometimes crime scene photos are left on a big screen even. Unfortunately it's a necessary evil for the jury to see them and remember the crime.

MichaelSmith said:

The case had collapsed so Maresca in a desperate attempt at emotional blackmail started showing graphic crime scene photos before the media had been cleared from the courtroom. Showing the photos served no purpose at that point other than to try and make the jurors feel guilty about acquitting the pair.

Click to expand...

Crime scene photos must be presented during a prosecution appeal. This may not make sense to people familiar with only the US legal system, as they are unfamiliar with the prosecution appeal process. Meredith's lawyer (the lawyer representing the victim) is part of the appeal process. Crime scene photos must be made available to Judge and jury during an appeal. It's not an option.

The media is responsible for following the trial, even if they don't speak Italian, and leaving the room if they are unable to tolerate evidence.

The purpose of presenting crime scene photos during the appeal phase of the trial is to familiarize the Judge and jury of the facts of the case.

Amber29 said:

Yes there is nothing wrong with crime scene photos shown in open court, it is done in every case even in front of the media. What would be wrong would be the media to take photos of what is shown or something like that. Sometimes crime scene photos are left on a big screen even. Unfortunately it's a necessary evil for the jury to see them and remember the crime.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. If media remained in the courtroom during the crime scene evidence presentation, and then published the most gruesome photos ... well, that person should be forced out of journalism, IMO. Was it Frank from Perugia Shock? He's still loitering around the case.

Amber29 said:

So much evidence against RG was collected that day including Meredith's purse and blue sweatshirt. Iirc the pillow was collected that day as well. Lots of key pieces came from the Dec 18th visit.

Strange to me that nothing else was considered contaminated. Especially when you point out that RSs DNA wasn't found on anything else from that day. Weird how they could place RSs DNA on that exact spot on the clasp that was cut from Meredith's bra.

Click to expand...

For some reason, all along I pictured that all the evidence had been collected and then, out of the blue, 46 days later, there was the bra clasp. Now, I understand that much of the evidence in Meredith's bedroom was collected on December 18. It sounds like stuff was piled in the hallway as they combed the cottage for evidence. After the evidence was collected and stuff was out of the way, investigators sprayed luminol and collected even more evidence.

otto said:

Crime scene photos must be presented during a prosecution appeal. This may not make sense to people familiar with only the US legal system, as they are unfamiliar with the prosecution appeal process. Meredith's lawyer (the lawyer representing the victim) is part of the appeal process. Crime scene photos must be made available to Judge and jury during an appeal. It's not an option.

The media is responsible for following the trial, even if they don't speak Italian, and leaving the room if they are unable to tolerate evidence.

The purpose of presenting crime scene photos during the appeal phase of the trial is to familiarize the Judge and jury of the facts of the case.

Click to expand...

Previously the courtroom was cleared of media when the photos were shown. Maresca put Meredith's mother in a very uncomfortable position because journalists were asking her about it and if he had permission to do that.

otto said:

The reason that police went back on Dec 18 was to apply luminol and look for blood evidence (I believe that 6 weeks is optimal).

Click to expand...

the "6 weeks is optimal" has been repeatedly asserted in many threads over the last few years but no cite was ever provided to my knowledge, only demands for the poster requesting the cite/link to prove otherwise. since harmony has repeatedly asked us to use links, can one be provided for "6 weeks"? thx.

Please be sure to continue linking to facts, photos and attached thumbnails. :seeya:

Click to expand...

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#8

Amber29 said:

So much evidence against RG was collected that day including Meredith's purse and blue sweatshirt. Iirc the pillow was collected that day as well. Lots of key pieces came from the Dec 18th visit.

Strange to me that nothing else was considered contaminated. Especially when you point out that RSs DNA wasn't found on anything else from that day. Weird how they could place RSs DNA on that exact spot on the clasp that was cut from Meredith's bra.

Click to expand...

I think they planted it and then destroyed the clasp by not storing it correctly so it'd rust.

They'd spent weeks testing his clothes, car, shoes, his apartment and trying to connect him to Guede but came up empty then along comes the clasp after Dr Sollecito went on TV and showed the shoe prints were Guede's. JMO

SMK said:

This kind of thing also is perplexing; I assume Crini means the original Meredith DNA on the knife still holds, while the defense have called it invalid.

Which side is in keeping with international or national standards of evidence? They can't both be right.
One wants to be able to know whether Knox is "conclusively linked to the murder" (and hence, deserving of being held accountable) or not (and perhaps is being sold down the river). It infuriates me that I have no expertise and thus have to just believe what is told me.

http://www.theweek.co.uk/europe/ama...tate-guilty-verdicts-court-told#ixzz2nVEKECu3

Click to expand...

Regarding the DNA, Dr Stefanoni presented her results. Conti and Vecchioti refuted those results. Hellman ruled in favour of C&V, and released the suspects. The prosecution appealed, Hellman's ruling was annulled. C&V results were re-examined. The result was that the results of Dr Stefanon were confirmed, whereas C&V were deemed incomplete and illogical. 2/3 labs and peer reviews agreed

Next, the interpretation of the data was challenged. Conti and Vecchioti cited Gill, and were reviewed by Balding. Balding agreed that the DNA on the clasp, without doubt, belongs to Sollecito. He said that secondary transfer was highly unlikely. He did not examine the DNA results from the knife.

Balding cited 3-4 other profiles in Sollecito's bra clasp DNA sample (CH has posted that he reviewed the results and arrived at the same conclusion). Balding qualified his statement by mentioning that Meredith was a contributor, and drop-in alleles that peak at 15 can be discarded. In the UK, they look at peaks of 10. As far as I could understand from the critique of Conti and Vecchioti, there was possibly one other male contributor on the clasp. Meredith's boyfriend has not been ruled out and is also not a suspect. The profile could belong to him.

Meredith's DNA sample on the knife was larger than Knox's DNA sample on the same knife. Knox's DNA found on the knife (not sweat) was recently identified and it is not starch. Even Conti and Vecchioti agreed that DNA on the grove in the knife at Sollecito's apartment could only belong to Meredith. C&V interpreted Knox's DNA on the knife at Sollecito's apartment as starch, which was an error.

With Sollecito's defense, the allegation is that there are two mistakes of contamination: Sollecito's premonition and insightful knowledge of DNA on the knife in his kitchen drawer (there was no dinner party) is a mistake, and contamination of bra has no foundation. The knife was equally uncompromised in both the lab and the apartment/cottage.

With Knox, there are barefoot prints in luminol that present serious questions, as well as mixed DNA/blood samples in places where they should not be (Filomina's bedroom) ... and her story is atrocious. If her book is anything like her short stories, one may as well wish to live in a Casey Anthony Jodi Anthony nightmare fantasy. It makes no more sense than an Amanda Knox fantasy. Her short stories make no sense.

I remember when Knox was pining away, her hair falling out, wishing that she could have a white picket fence and a couple of offspring. Not so when she was released. Chinatown and white picket fences don't work, yet Knox has chosen to live the Seattle, Chinatown life.


Isn't pot legal in personal quantities in Seattle ... with a couple of cats, a website and 4.2 million in the bank?

MichaelSmith said:

I think they planted it and then destroyed the clasp by not storing it correctly so it'd rust.

They'd spent weeks testing his clothes, car, shoes, his apartment and trying to connect him to Guede but came up empty then along comes the clasp after Dr Sollecito went on TV and showed the shoe prints were Guede's. JMO

Click to expand...

I see. So the clasp was collected on November 2, contaminated with Sollecito's DNA and then placed in the crime scene (wrong location) on December 18? That's how it became contaminated.

The sample was destroyed? ... but it was examined by Conti and Vecchioti and peer reviewed by Balding. How does that work? Destroyed or peer reviewed?

Whose car was tested and then there was a conspriracy?
The Sollecito family did more than go on TV. November 2, 2007 crime scene video was released by Sollecito. It was footage of the victim that horrified the family. Sillecito did this for his own benefit (to allege contamination).

Sollecito's defense team argued that the bloody barefoot print on the bath mat was the wrong size, but when given the opportunity to submit their dimensions to the court, they declined. That is, they shrunk the black kid to make his foot fit the print and then withheld the photos.

The bloody barefoot print on the bathmat was attributed to Sollecito - in part because of the Hammer Toe.

redheadedgal said:

the "6 weeks is optimal" has been repeatedly asserted in many threads over the last few years but no cite was ever provided to my knowledge, only demands for the poster requesting the cite/link to prove otherwise. since harmony has repeatedly asked us to use links, can one be provided for "6 weeks"? thx.



Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#8

Click to expand...

That's right. 46 days after the murder, the evidence collection/luminol team collected evidence at the cottage in Perugia as part of the Meredith Kercher Murder Investigation. It takes about 30 seconds to search "optimal luminol six weeks" on the net ... didn't think a link was necessary.

I would like to point out that any authentic video of the crime scene, dated November 2, 2007 was released illegally by Sollecito's family. The release of that footage by the Sollecito family horrified Meredith's family. I do hope that the original footage released by the suspect in violation of the law is not being posted here. It seems to me that it would be such an insult to the victim.

"Relatives of Meredith Kercher, the British student murdered in Perugia in November, were said to be shocked and distressed last night after images of her bloodied corpse were broadcast on Italian television.

The footage, shown in news bulletins by RAI, the Italian state broadcaster, showed police forensic scientists examining Ms Kercher’s bedroom and collecting evidence, including her underwear and bloodstained bra, as her body lay nearby beneath a duvet with one foot sticking out."

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article2596828.ece

"Eight “notices of termination of the investigations” have been reported by the public prosecutor of Perugia… Four Sollecito family members, the TV journalist on Telenorba and the director of the station, are accused of the crimes of defamation, invasion of privacy, publication of documents during the investigation, and publication of gruesome acts….

According to the reconstruction, the Sollecito family members delivered to Telenorba the video and photos of the crime scene survey carried out by the forensic team on November 2 of 2007 in Meredith’s house. Telenorba then put the material on the air.

Other investigations are on-going."

http://www.lanazione.it//perugia/2009/04/01/162310-corpo_meredith_telenorba.shtml

The Day of the Dead is different than a Hallowe'en Party, right?

The above article says that her bra was collected on November 2, 2007.

"The footage, shown in news bulletins by RAI, the Italian state broadcaster, showed police forensic scientists examining Ms Kercher’s bedroom and collecting evidence, including her underwear and bloodstained bra, as her body lay nearby beneath a duvet with one foot sticking out."

So, was her bra collected on November 2, per the video and legal filings, or was it collected at the same time on December 18? What is the original source of photos of the bloody bar ... other that Injustice in Perugia? Surely there is source other than a suspect advocate.

otto said:

I see. So the clasp was collected on November 2, contaminated with Sollecito's DNA and then placed in the crime scene (wrong location) on December 18? That's how it became contaminated.

The sample was destroyed? ... but it was examined by Conti and Vecchioti and peer reviewed by Balding. How does that work? Destroyed or peer reviewed?

Whose car was tested and then there was a conspriracy?
The Sollecito family did more than go on TV. November 2, 2007 crime scene video was released by Sollecito. It was footage of the victim that horrified the family. Sillecito did this for his own benefit (to allege contamination).

Sollecito's defense team argued that the bloody barefoot print on the bath mat was the wrong size, but when given the opportunity to submit their dimensions to the court, they declined. That is, they shrunk the black kid to make his foot fit the print and then withheld the photos.

The bloody barefoot print on the bathmat was attributed to Sollecito - in part because of the Hammer Toe.

Click to expand...

The clasp was collected December 18.

C&V asked to examine it and discovered the hooks had rusted. I think it was destroyed it on purpose.....otherwise she was totally incompetent.

[video=youtube;gLE4s3jXTVU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLE4s3jXTVU[/video]

otto said:

That's right. 46 days after the murder, the evidence collection/luminol team collected evidence at the cottage in Perugia as part of the Meredith Kercher Murder Investigation. It takes about 30 seconds to search "optimal luminol six weeks" on the net ... didn't think a link was necessary.

I would like to point out that any authentic video of the crime scene, dated November 2, 2007 was released illegally by Sollecito's family. The release of that footage by the Sollecito family horrified Meredith's family. I do hope that the original footage released by the suspect in violation of the law is not being posted here. It seems to me that it would be such an insult to the victim.

"Relatives of Meredith Kercher, the British student murdered in Perugia in November, were said to be shocked and distressed last night after images of her bloodied corpse were broadcast on Italian television.

The footage, shown in news bulletins by RAI, the Italian state broadcaster, showed police forensic scientists examining Ms Kercher’s bedroom and collecting evidence, including her underwear and bloodstained bra, as her body lay nearby beneath a duvet with one foot sticking out."

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article2596828.ece

"Eight “notices of termination of the investigations” have been reported by the public prosecutor of Perugia… Four Sollecito family members, the TV journalist on Telenorba and the director of the station, are accused of the crimes of defamation, invasion of privacy, publication of documents during the investigation, and publication of gruesome acts….

According to the reconstruction, the Sollecito family members delivered to Telenorba the video and photos of the crime scene survey carried out by the forensic team on November 2 of 2007 in Meredith’s house. Telenorba then put the material on the air.

Other investigations are on-going."

http://www.lanazione.it//perugia/2009/04/01/162310-corpo_meredith_telenorba.shtml

Click to expand...

The crime scene video comes from the FOA website and has been available for years. Barbie Nadeau said the cops were handing out crime scene photos like they were business cards to any journalist who wanted them.

DerKritiker2011 said:

Maybe? Or not?

I think hickeys can be differ. They are dependend on the length of suck, the size of the affected area, the location and so on. In this case it MUST be determined by an expert not by a ordinary person.

Click to expand...

bbm

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

I'm sorry, I know you didn't mean that in a funny way, but just reading that part made me laugh!

Okay, but seriously, what kind of expert would this be?? There is no such thing as a hickey expert!!

Katody said:

You mean when they coerced and manipulated her into signing a false statement.

Click to expand...

Coerced and manipulated her into letting someone else take the heat for her....coerced and manipulated her doing something to benefit herself........

SMK said:

Just a side note:
On Amanda's blog, she now has a page with all of the characters involved in this trial, some pics, some quotes and dates, for reference:

http://www.amandaknox.com/the-meredith-kercher-murder/names/

Click to expand...

No, no, no, SMK! Remember?? Amanda doesn't even know the relevant phone records from her case! Why would we go to her site for information, when she doesn't have any information herself??

SMK said:

This kind of thing also is perplexing; I assume Crini means the original Meredith DNA on the knife still holds, while the defense have called it invalid.

Which side is in keeping with international or national standards of evidence? They can't both be right.
One wants to be able to know whether Knox is "conclusively linked to the murder" (and hence, deserving of being held accountable) or not (and perhaps is being sold down the river). It infuriates me that I have no expertise and thus have to just believe what is told me.




http://www.theweek.co.uk/europe/ama...tate-guilty-verdicts-court-told#ixzz2nVEKECu3

Click to expand...

SMK, we have seen in every case we follow in the US, the defense says one thing and the prosecution says something completely opposite. It happens all the time, sometimes I sit there and listen to a defense, and I"m like "oh wow, this is big, wow, how can this be??" And then the prosecution will get up and I'm like, "ohhhh." Or vice versa, prosecution says something outrageous, and defense brings it back to reality. It does seem like, in a lot of cases, like they're trying to mess with the minds of the jurors, I don't know how right that is, but whatever, I am in no position to judge.

So I just try to keep that in mind always. That it's the defense's job to do whatever (legally) possible for their client, and the prosecution's job to do whatever (legally) possible to get a conviction. It can't be that they're both right, one is right and one is wrong. But they are both pulling as hard as they can.

I try to keep in mind that by necessity, one side is wrong, in this case and in all cases. So it does nobody any good to just "believe" whatever one side says hook, line, and sinker. That's the whole point of the trial, to see the evidence for oneself, and decide on your own.