Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#6

Amber29 wrote, “The argument of no "evidence" of AK and RS in the murder room is constantly used as proof they didn't do it. Well if we are back to using that logic, then RG is not guilty of breaking Filomenas window,crawling in a glass fill windowsill, and ransacking her room all while leaving NO trace of himself there. If the argument can't be used both ways then it is an invalid argument.” (I copied this from the previous thread and merged three paragraphs into one to save space)

I agree with part of this and disagree with part of it. Let us assume that there was no murder for a moment, just a broken window, etc. If that were the case, I would infer that there had been vandalism and possibly a break-in. There is broken glass consistent with a rock’s being thrown as Pasquali demonstrated. There is a possible hair and possible blood substance (Reps. 198 and 199, respectively). However, there is nothing which ties Rudy uniquely to Filomena’s room. In other words, if no murder had taken place, there is not enough evidence to find him or anyone else guilty of vandalism or whatever.

I am not surprised that no DNA of his was found in her room. If he wore gloves, then nothing he would have done would obviously leave DNA; if he did not wear gloves, then one would have to make an educated guess about what he touched and swab there.

On the other hand, the not-yet-dried blood in Meredith’s room ties Rudy to the crime in two central ways, namely the handprint found beneath her and the shoe prints. Rudy had to be in the room before the blood dried, on the bases of both the hand print and the shoe prints. If Amanda and Raffaele were in Meredith’s room at the same time, then where are there bloody shoe prints, hand prints, or footprints? Where are their bloody clothes? It is not just the lack of such evidence; it is the lack of it when there is so much evidence of Rudy.

The evidence that puts Rudy in the flat is why I think that Rudy was in Filomena’s room. To extend this idea, let’s reconsider the bloody footprint on the mat. It should not be used as evidence against anyone, because there are no distinguishing marks. However, Rudy probably made it, because there is no good evidence of anyone besides him being there on the night of 1 November. Could someone else be responsible for the bathmat print and for tossing the rock? Yes, but there is no evidence of that other person.

sherlockh said:

Body - Shoulder with bra strap imprint in blood by the closet. Moved some time after death from closet to middle of room. Staged.

Bra - Droplets on the cups show she was wearing it when she was still breathing. Cut off some time after death and placed by feet. Despite bloody hand print on pillow, no blood print on bra. Staged.

Pillow - Placed under body but bloody shoe prints and bloody hand print reveal this was done after the stabbings. Not a single blood print on shirt, pants, underwear, body. No bloody shoe prints around the pillow. Impossible. Staged.

Duvet - Placed some time after death. Smaller blood spots were already dried on the body. Corner intentionally pulled up over the foot. Staged.

Locked door - Blood on inside handle but not on outside handle. Guede's bloody shoe prints not turning around or shuffling. He did not close the door. Staged.

JMO

Click to expand...

Yes, this is a comprehensive list. I don't understand why the pillow placed beneath her was part of the staging, though. It seems to run counter to an assault. I've never understood that part of the staging.

Steely Dan said:

IIRC, the imprint showed that the person who left it had a hammer toe. RS has a hammer toe.

Click to expand...

But if you look at the foot chart, the big toe does not match in size to either man.

Check out this footprint chart.

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index...The_Media_3_in_fact_theres_far_more_evidence/

Steely Dan said:

Check out this footprint chart.

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index...The_Media_3_in_fact_theres_far_more_evidence/

Click to expand...

I did, the big toe matches neither man. I don't think they could get an accurate measurement from a soft bath mat anyways, maybe the tile floor, but not on fabric that's made to wick moisture away.

Chris_Halkides said:

Amber29 wrote, “The argument of no "evidence" of AK and RS in the murder room is constantly used as proof they didn't do it. Well if we are back to using that logic, then RG is not guilty of breaking Filomenas window,crawling in a glass fill windowsill, and ransacking her room all while leaving NO trace of himself there. If the argument can't be used both ways then it is an invalid argument.” (I copied this from the previous thread and merged three paragraphs into one to save space)

I agree with part of this and disagree with part of it. Let us assume that there was no murder for a moment, just a broken window, etc. If that were the case, I would infer that there had been vandalism and possibly a break-in. There is broken glass consistent with a rock’s being thrown as Pasquali demonstrated. There is a possible hair and possible blood substance (Reps. 198 and 199, respectively). However, there is nothing which ties Rudy uniquely to Filomena’s room. In other words, if no murder had taken place, there is not enough evidence to find him or anyone else guilty of vandalism or whatever.

I am not surprised that no DNA of his was found in her room. If he wore gloves, then nothing he would have done would obviously leave DNA; if he did not wear gloves, then one would have to make an educated guess about what he touched and swab there.

On the other hand, the not-yet-dried blood in Meredith’s room ties Rudy to the crime in two central ways, namely the handprint found beneath her and the shoe prints. Rudy had to be in the room before the blood dried, on the bases of both the hand print and the shoe prints. If Amanda and Raffaele were in Meredith’s room at the same time, then where are there bloody shoe prints, hand prints, or footprints? Where are their bloody clothes? It is not just the lack of such evidence; it is the lack of it when there is so much evidence of Rudy.

The evidence that puts Rudy in the flat is why I think that Rudy was in Filomena’s room. To extend this idea, let’s reconsider the bloody footprint on the mat. It should not be used as evidence against anyone, because there are no distinguishing marks. However, Rudy probably made it, because there is no good evidence of anyone besides him being there on the night of 1 November. Could someone else be responsible for the bathmat print and for tossing the rock? Yes, but there is no evidence of that other person.

Click to expand...

As far as the broken window goes I remembered something. IIRC, AK and RS's defense put an expert on the stand that showed a rock could be thrown from the balcony to break Filomena's window. However, on cross examination they were shown how the window was on the night of the murder. There was a shutter pulled out that would have blocked a rock from hitting the window. The expert then had to admit it would have been impossible.

geevee said:

I did, the big toe matches neither man. I don't think they could get an accurate measurement from a soft bath mat anyways, maybe the tile floor, but not on fabric that's made to wick moisture away.

Click to expand...

When you look at the chart look at the percentage of probability that it was either man's foot.

I was just going to take note that as Maresca did not get a chance to speak on Tues, he must be pushed into Dec 16-17, which will likely push the defense into Jan and the rebuttals and deliberation a bit further. Ah, well. Maybe they will catch up.

Steely Dan said:

As far as the broken window goes I remembered something. IIRC, AK and RS's defense put an expert on the stand that showed a rock could be thrown from the balcony to break Filomena's window. However, on cross examination they were shown how the window was on the night of the murder. There was a shutter pulled out that would have blocked a rock from hitting the window. The expert then had to admit it would have been impossible.

Click to expand...

The prosecutor's argument was meretricious. We can all agree that if the outer shutters were closed, the rock could not break the window. There are one or two ways, however, that the shutters might have come open (IIUC they did not close tightly, owing to swelled wood). One is that they were not closed in the first place (Filomena's initial testimony was uncertain on this point). Two is that Guede climbed up once to open them, then threw the rock. Three is that he used a stick to open them while standing below. EDT: Four is that they were closed but came open due to wind.

One problem with objecting to Pasquali's demonstration is that (by itself) it does not answer the question of how the window was broken. This comes back to the problem I discussed in the previous thread: the lack of a comprehensive narrative/timeline of the crime. Massei's conjecture with respect to how the window was broken was never tested, but there is no way that the distribution of glass would be the same as it is if the window were broken as Pasquali indicated.

otto said:

How does the defense account for bleach, used to clean a shower, still staining feet after at least two showers were taken at the cottage. It's likely that Knox and Meredith also showered before going out for Halloween, so if the shower was cleaned on October 31, at least four showers were taken between then and November 2, when Knox could have stained her feet with cleaning residue that was revealed with luminol. It sounds very unlikely ... that bleach cleaning residue was staining feet after four showers had been taken, all of which would have included non-bleach cleaning products.

Why wasn't there the same evidence of Meredith tracking bleach residue when she showered at noon on November 1?

Click to expand...

Not sure, but I also do not know when the shower was last cleaned. It is also the case that it would be just traces of cleaning products, that could leave that residue, as can water that has rust in it. I am not sure what the water quality is there.

MK strikes me as more tidy than AK, I do not see her wondering around the place barefoot. She might have worn flip flops so she did not track it

I also do not know how long such residue last after cleaning,

I never thought there was a Knox boot print anywhere, and especially not in the murder room

One cannot merely go by just 4 pieces of DNA either. Some DNA is more probative than others, like the DNA in the body. Also 4 pieces of DNA could be oodles of DNA stuff, like the DNA in the body, that could have been a lot as opposed to DNA on the purse which might have been a speck. The mixed DNA of RG and MK in the murder room leaves no doubt he was involved in the murder.

This is not a who done it. It is whether you believe a 20 year old girl with no known history of psychological problems or law problems nor any evidence she had this horrible temper(no fights in school, etc) would suddenly decide one night to kill her roommate over who did or did not flush the toilet. Sorry, but IMO, you would need to place her in that murder room and there is no evidence of her involvement in the murder.

The footsteps do not make sense because even if blood, why is not in MK's DNA? If RG tracked visible prints, RS and AK should have too. So what, did they cleaned up? Well, either they cleaned up then they used bleach and that is why the luminol light up killing MK DNA. However,the tests were negative for blood. I also think if they were using bleach, they probably would have needed to have footorints in the murder room and so there would be luminol in there too. but there is not. how could they not bloody prints in the murder room yet there be no evidence of bleach there (no luminol lights)

The other scenario is that they are blood, but why doesn't it match Mk DNA? Or the third scenario is that it is cleaning products or rust from water acquired in the shower with AK running around barefoot

Remember defense need not prove any of these scenarios. But with prosecutors not even tying AK to the murder room the prosecution need to prove that those prints were MK's blood, done with AK's feet or that it was AK who cleaned those prints. Without testing positive for blood or MK DNA, it raises the possibility of the reasonableness of the defense scenario.

Chris_Halkides said:

Amber29 wrote, “The argument of no "evidence" of AK and RS in the murder room is constantly used as proof they didn't do it. Well if we are back to using that logic, then RG is not guilty of breaking Filomenas window,crawling in a glass fill windowsill, and ransacking her room all while leaving NO trace of himself there. If the argument can't be used both ways then it is an invalid argument.” (I copied this from the previous thread and merged three paragraphs into one to save space)

I agree with part of this and disagree with part of it. Let us assume that there was no murder for a moment, just a broken window, etc. If that were the case, I would infer that there had been vandalism and possibly a break-in. There is broken glass consistent with a rock’s being thrown as Pasquali demonstrated. There is a possible hair and possible blood substance (Reps. 198 and 199, respectively). However, there is nothing which ties Rudy uniquely to Filomena’s room. In other words, if no murder had taken place, there is not enough evidence to find him or anyone else guilty of vandalism or whatever.

I am not surprised that no DNA of his was found in her room. If he wore gloves, then nothing he would have done would obviously leave DNA; if he did not wear gloves, then one would have to make an educated guess about what he touched and swab there.

On the other hand, the not-yet-dried blood in Meredith’s room ties Rudy to the crime in two central ways, namely the handprint found beneath her and the shoe prints. Rudy had to be in the room before the blood dried, on the bases of both the hand print and the shoe prints. If Amanda and Raffaele were in Meredith’s room at the same time, then where are there bloody shoe prints, hand prints, or footprints? Where are their bloody clothes? It is not just the lack of such evidence; it is the lack of it when there is so much evidence of Rudy.

The evidence that puts Rudy in the flat is why I think that Rudy was in Filomena’s room. To extend this idea, let’s reconsider the bloody footprint on the mat. It should not be used as evidence against anyone, because there are no distinguishing marks. However, Rudy probably made it, because there is no good evidence of anyone besides him being there on the night of 1 November. Could someone else be responsible for the bathmat print and for tossing the rock? Yes, but there is no evidence of that other person.

Click to expand...

Yes and I also think you can get to a RG conviction with alot less evidence, you do not need the rock throwing, all you need is RG admitted being there at the time of the murder and he left DNA inside the victim as well as the bloody palmprint. That seals it for him - other DNA is just gravy.

What strikes me as utterly odd about this new toilet fight motive is the fact that it was not even MK bathroom. Why would she be in there? I suppose the smell could have attracted her but I also think she was polite and non confrontational. Would she really have interrupted AK w her boyfriend and a guest and chide her then? no, she would have flushed the toilet and raise it the next morning. If guests were there and it was not AK bathroom, why assume it was AK? It could have been either of the 2 men. Why would MK raise a big stink (literally) about it that night if 1) she would not have known it was AK; 2) I doubt she was the type picking fights with roommates when guests are there let alone high.

Indeed, I would think a better motive is the 3 were loud, Mk asked them to quiet down and they kill her. Still ridiculous, but it is more plausible than to think MK would raise a toilet fight that night.

Also re the knife: by the prosecution dismissing this was premeditated it makes their knife story ridiculous. Who carries a knife from their kitchen drawer around with them? What did RS just coincidentally carry a knife around w him just in case his GF wants to murder? If he was a knife collector, he would not carry around an ordinary kitchen knife, he would have used a nicer one, like Swiss army.

Why didn't AK just use a knife from her own drawer? The only way the knife makes sense is if you think they went there to kill MK, they went back to RS to get the knife, then headed to the cottage.

In addition, the knife has a big problem bc it has no evidence of blood. If the knife was cleaned w bleach, it would have tested positive for luminol. Also, you would not have been able to clean that knife w bleach and still find the low copy DNA there. In addition, they never proved it matches the cuts.

Prosecution needs to tie her to that room and by making this a DNA case, they have to deliver. But some of the things they argue just sound ridiculous, first, a murder weapon that has no blood on it; then this toilet story. They would have been better off going w their weak circumstantial case w the sex motive.

Yellow said:

Not sure, but I also do not know when the shower was last cleaned. It is also the case that it would be just traces of cleaning products, that could leave that residue, as can water that has rust in it. I am not sure what the water quality is there.

MK strikes me as more tidy than AK, I do not see her wondering around the place barefoot. She might have worn flip flops so she did not track it

I also do not know how long such residue last after cleaning,

I never thought there was a Knox boot print anywhere, and especially not in the murder room

One cannot merely go by just 4 pieces of DNA either. Some DNA is more probative than others, like the DNA in the body. Also 4 pieces of DNA could be oodles of DNA stuff, like the DNA in the body, that could have been a lot as opposed to DNA on the purse which might have been a speck. The mixed DNA of RG and MK in the murder room leaves no doubt he was involved in the murder.

This is not a who done it. It is whether you believe a 20 year old girl with no known history of psychological problems or law problems nor any evidence she had this horrible temper(no fights in school, etc) would suddenly decide one night to kill her roommate over who did or did not flush the toilet. Sorry, but IMO, you would need to place her in that murder room and there is no evidence of her involvement in the murder.

The footsteps do not make sense because even if blood, why is not in MK's DNA? If RG tracked visible prints, RS and AK should have do. So what did they cleaned up? Well, either they cleaned up then they used bleach and that is why the luminol light up killing MK DNA. However,the tests were negative for blood. I also think if they were using bleach, they probably would have needed to nave footorints in the murder room and so there would be luminol in there too. but there is not. how could they not clean bloody prints in the murder room yet there be no evidence of bleach.

The other scenario is that they are blood, but why doesn't it match Mk DNA? Or the third scenario is that it is cleaning products or rust from water acquired in the shower with AK running around barefoot

Remember defense need not prove any of these scenarios. But with prosecutors not even tying AK to the murder room the prosecution need to prove that those prints were MK's blood, done with AK's feet or that it was AK who cleaned those prints. Without testing positive for blood or MK DNA, it raises the possibility of the reasonableness of the defense scenario.

Click to expand...

BBM
Tweets from trial on Monday:

Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki 1m
Crini believes the shoe prints on the pillowcase are from a female's shoe as suggested by police

La Nazione ‏@qn_lanazione 58s
Meredith trial, Prosecutor Crini: "On Meredith's pillowcase bloody footprint"

La Nazione ‏@qn_lanazione 2m
Process Meredith, the bloody footprint on the pillowcase is Amanda's

otto said:

Thanks. So it's like a finger print, but it's a palm print. So Guede's palm print has been connected to the pillow case. The shoe print has been connected to Knox's shoe size. Were they both there, or was it Guede and someone else with the same shoe size as Knox?

Four DNA evidence items connect the culprits to the victim's bedroom.

• single sample of Guede due to sexual assault
• single sample of Sollecito on Meredith's bra
• single sample of Guede on Meredith's shirt
• single sample of Guede on Meredith's bag.

Four samples of DNA does not usually mean that DNA should be dismissed. It usually means that they got lucky, found four samples and now can look for justice for the murder of Meredith Kercher. Most murders are lucky if there is one DNA sample, yet in this case, the room is expected to be raining DNA?

There's also a complete absence of Knox DNA on her possessions in Meredith's bedroom ... this is what Knox has said in her defense. There is oodles of DNA from Guede and no DNA from Knox, so she must be innocent, but that isn't entirely true. There are three Guede samples, one Sollecito sample, prints belonging to all three if we include the bathmat and more evidence in the hallway, living room, large bathroom and Filomina's bedroom. Evidence of Guede is no more or less than evidence against Knox and Sollecito.

Click to expand...

There is alot more evidence against RG bc he should never have been there. You only need to have him there at the time of the murder (which he admits) as well as DNA inside her and the bloody palmprint. Other DNA just seals it further. Them you can believe or not believe his story of why he was there.

Indeed, I think the DNA inside the body as well as him admitting he was there would be enough for him.

As I mentioned, we also do not know if there are oodles of DNA cells involved in each of these spots. The contaminated RS has just a speck.

There is also RG DNA on her clothes, on her shirt.

As one expert said, if three murderers, RG should have been 1/3 of the DNA, not 3/3.

otto said:

BBM
Tweets from trial on Monday:

Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki 1m
Crini believes the shoe prints on the pillowcase are from a female's shoe as suggested by police

La Nazione ‏@qn_lanazione 58s
Meredith trial, Prosecutor Crini: "On Meredith's pillowcase bloody footprint"

La Nazione ‏@qn_lanazione 2m
Process Meredith, the bloody footprint on the pillowcase is Amanda's

Click to expand...

Did they ever bring this up before? Did they match the shoe w one of AK? A partial man print could also look like a female print (smaller).

W RG's prints, they matched it to a type of shoe he admitted he wore, just the make of the shoe, not the actual shoe. What did they do hear w these supposed bloody footprints? Do they contradict the footprints of RG?(ie. make it clear that it had to be a second shoe)

How do they know it was not made by one of the police or technicians? Maybe bc blood would have dried by then, but I think they would need to prove that, show blood would not have left prints so many hours later and they also need to match it to AK foot size as opposes to just being a female shoe. They need to show it is not RG (show it is a second make separate from the first make)

I was thinking how MK must have suffered, I read in the write up of her father's book that a boy had proposed marriage to MK months before she went to Italy, but she refused him. I wonder how that boy feels now, he must feel so bad. I so wish she would have married him and then never been in Perigua. That guy must have really loved her bc as far as I know he never sold out to the tabloids, I don't think (maybe others know if he did or not).

Yellow said:

There is alot more evidence against RG bc he should never have been there. You only need to have him there at the time of the murder (which he admits) as well as DNA inside her and the bloody palmprint. Other DNA just seals it further. Them you can believe or not believe his story of why he was there.

Indeed, I think the DNA inside the body as well as him admitting he was there would be enough for him.

As I mentioned, we also do not know if there are oodles of DNA cells involved in each of these spots. The contaminated RS has just a speck.

There is also RG DNA on her clothes, on her shirt.

As one expert said, if three murderers, RG should have been 1/3 of the DNA, not 3/3.

Click to expand...

I understand that four DNA sources were discovered in Meredith's bedroom and I've listed them. If I missed any, I'd like to add them to the list, as I think it is important to understand whether the room is covered in DNA, or whether there are two sources from Guede related to the struggle, and one related to Sollecito.

This relates to the discussion yesterday, where there was some concern that the absence of Knox's DNA meant that she could not have been in the room and definitely could not have been involved in a struggle. At the same time, we know that Guede was in the room and involved in the struggle, and only three sources of DNA relate to him, while only one relates to Sollecito. That so little DNA was found makes it less likely, in my opinion, that Knox's absence of DNA means anything.

Yellow said:

Did they ever bring this up before? Did they match the shoe w one of AK? A partial man print could also look like a female print (smaller).

W RG's prints, they matched it to a type of shoe he admitted he wore, just the make of the shoe, not the actual shoe. What did they do hear w these supposed bloody footprints? Do they contradict the footprints of RG?(ie. make it clear that it had to be a second shoe)

How do they know it was not made by one of the police or technicians? Maybe bc blood would have dried by then, but I think they would need to prove that, show blood would not have left prints so many hours later and they also need to match it to AK foot size as opposes to just being a female shoe. They need to show it is not RG (show it is a second make separate from the first make)

Click to expand...

The shoe print on the pillow case is nothing new. The print is size 35, same as Knox. I suppose that means that either Knox, or someone with her shoe size, was in the room at the time of the murder.

The likelihood that the bloody print on the pillow case belongs to investigators is equal to the likelihood that the palm print on the pillow case and all the other foot prints at the crime scene belong to investigators. Investigators wore white booties, and the print is that of a shoe, so, in my opinion, not very likely.

Yellow said:

What strikes me as utterly odd about this new toilet fight motive is the fact that it was not even MK bathroom. Why would she be in there? I suppose the smell could have attracted her but I also think she was polite and non confrontational. Would she really have interrupted AK w her boyfriend and a guest and chide her then? no, she would have flushed the toilet and raise it the next morning. If guests were there and it was not AK bathroom, why assume it was AK? It could have been either of the 2 men. Why would MK raise a big stink (literally) about it that night if 1) she would not have known it was AK; 2) I doubt she was the type picking fights with roommates when guests are there let alone high.

Indeed, I would think a better motive is the 3 were loud, Mk asked them to quiet down and they kill her. Still ridiculous, but it is more plausible than to think MK would raise a toilet fight that night.

Also re the knife: by the prosecution dismissing this was premeditated it makes their knife story ridiculous. Who carries a knife from their kitchen drawer around with them? What did RS just coincidentally carry a knife around w him just in case his GF wants to murder? If he was a knife collector, he would not carry around an ordinary kitchen knife, he would have used a nicer one, like Swiss army.

Why didn't AK just use a knife from her own drawer? The only way the knife makes sense is if you think they went there to kill MK, they went back to RS to get the knife, then headed to the cottage.

In addition, the knife has a big problem bc it has no evidence of blood. If the knife was cleaned w bleach, it would have tested positive for luminol. Also, you would not have been able to clean that knife w bleach and still find the low copy DNA there. In addition, they never proved it matches the cuts.

Prosecution needs to tie her to that room and by making this a DNA case, they have to deliver. But some of the things they argue just sound ridiculous, first, a murder weapon that has no blood on it; then this toilet story. They would have been better off going w their weak circumstantial case w the sex motive.

Click to expand...

These are excellent points.
It wasn't Amanda's poop and it wasn't Meredith's toilet yet somehow they got into a fight to the death over it and Amanda just happened to have brought Raffaele's knife with her from his kitchen.
Oh and in the great clean up they didn't bother to flush the toilet - the cause of the whole thing to begin with.

It really is a matter of looking at the big picture and asking if it makes sense at all.

otto said:

The shoe print on the pillow case is nothing new. The print is size 35, same as Knox. I suppose that means that either Knox, or someone with her shoe size, was in the room at the time of the murder.

The likelihood that the bloody print on the pillow case belongs to investigators is equal to the likelihood that the palm print on the pillow case and all the other foot prints at the crime scene belong to investigators. Investigators wore white booties, and the print is that of a shoe, so, in my opinion, not very likely.

Click to expand...

Here is the defense case on that pillow print. As I suspected, they argue that it is a partial print of RG and the expert testified that it matches RG. This is probably something the court should have had an independent expert also evaluate to buttress that conclusion.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-04.html