Meredith Kercher murdered in Perugia, Amanda Knox convicted #3

[dgfred]

that's not true, kemo...there have been plenty of explanations given, (one being) to think anyone could remove invisible traces of their presence while leaving invisible traces of someone else's presence is preposterous.
we (on the forum) have discussed the "staging" and the "clean up" over and over - I'm not convinced there was either (I also don't believe they go hand in hand)... what "evidence demonstrates they engaged" because I haven't heard, read, seen anything that sounds reasonable -
however, I'm still open to the possibility - maybe you can give me a clearer picture of what happened, say, starting with the staging... rock, window, glass, clothes etc... what do you think happened?

If there are "numerous" references to the lamp, could you please provide a link? (i don't care if it's true justice or whatever) I'm frustrated because I have searched everywhere. Last night I finally found an article briefly explaining the animation (the reenactment made with avatars) Mignini showed the jury - the film showed (something to the effect) amanda and rafaelle running down the hall to amanda's room grabbing the lamp and then they run into meredith's room - that was it, that was all it said about the lamp. Then I found a forum that had Amanda's testimony from the trial (possibly translated?) and the lamp is mentioned...

(during the trial migini questions amanda) Listen, another question. The lamp that was found in Meredith's room, a black
lamp with a red button, that was found in Meredith's room, at the foot of
the bed, was it yours?

I did have a lamp with a red button in my room, yes.

So the lamp was yours.

I suppose it was.

Was it missing from your room?

You know, I didn't look.

Did Meredith have a lamp like that in her room?

I don't know.
Amanda Knox Testimony - In Session Message Boards
​

Since I don't know if it was mentioned again in the trial, I have no way of knowing the significance... (the above doesn't say much) do you know if there are crime scene photos showing the lamp in meredith's room vs. amandas room? I can't seem to find any -

In the crime scene photos (the one with MK's foot showing) you can actually see the wire from the lamp going out under the door. It was plugged into the hallway socket. I believe it was used to closely examine under the bed and for other possible evidence in the room that they wanted to clean... then was locked into the room by 'accident'.

 

[missyjane77]

I think the problem here is that some people are speculating on what happened and not necessarily looking at the evidence (or lack of). I also think there are some people who absolutely refuse to even consider their guilt/innocence.

 

[Isabella]

I think the problem here is that some people are speculating on what happened and not necessarily looking at the evidence (or lack of). I also think there are some people who absolutely refuse to even consider their guilt/innocence.

And there are some who absolutely refuse to look at any evidence that isnt in favour of Amanda Knox.

I think most who "absolutely refuse to consider there innocence" is because after looking at all the evidence we do not believe she can be innocent.

I also think some people are WAY too focussed on Migini rather than looking at the facts of the case.

 

[kemo]

I'm sorry if I came across as intolerant of those with views that I do not agree with. I realize that the prevailing opinion of those who are inclined to believe in the "strong possibility" of Amanda's (and Raffaele's) innocence it that Giuliano Mignini is inherently corrupt and dishonest and any evidence present or interpretation of that evidence by anyone working under him, is not to be trusted. I can't respond to this because I can't vouch for Mignini's character. If some evidence comes to light that he has made it a practice of falsifying evidence or otherwise getting his "team" to use fraud to obtain convictions, I would certainly look at this in a different light. As it stands, there is just no reason for me to question the validity of that evidence.

As I have stated, what I am really interested in is the question of what really happened that night. I am operating on the assumption that the Perugian authorities are basically honest and all the evidence is presented in good faith.

I haven't seen anywhere where anyone has taken the position that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent and Rudy was either a lone wolf or had "unknown" accomplices and backed their position up by evidence. Instead, they seem to attack the evidence or interpretation of that evidence as essentially unreliable due to the unreliability of the prosecution team.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Well you might not like this opinion but it is a valid one: if the evidence doesn't stand up to criticism, if there were tests that were run in such a way (and controls changed in the lab) to force a result (as is alleged with the knife), if there is more than 1 interpretation of the evidence, then just saying, "well that's nice, but that still means AK and RS did the crime" is not something sleuthers are going to necessarily sign up for and say. Some will, but those on the fence probably won't feel comfortable declaring their guilt.

It may not matter to those who believe that AK and RS are equally culpable in this crime, but it does matter to many that rules are followed, laws are followed, testing procedures are followed (and this is critical) and that evidence can and does hold up to scrutiny. It HAS to in order for a conviction to be a 'good one,' i.e. one that isn't a wrongful conviction.

Questioning evidence is only problematic if there's something wrong with the evidence that people don't want others to see/find/observe. Is that the case?

You want me (and others, I assume) to declare that AK and RS are guilty and come down off that fence (and also change all the 'innocent' opinions over to guilty too), then we all have to see the evidence that proves AK and RS committed the crime.

Did the lab that tested the knife change ANY of their procedures or controls when they ran the tests? Were the results definitive without monkeying around with the tests?

Was the bra clasp that has RS's DNA on it compromised in any way?

If evidence cannot withstand scrutiny then perhaps it's not very good evidence and should be ignored.

You and many others want to rely on statements AK and RS said; the problem with this is that you don't know EXACTLY what they said and the context in which any statements were made nor the questions asked, because there's no record.

You're getting a summary of a summary by the media. Is that good enough? Not for me it isn't. What if they got a statement wrong or took it out of context? In fact I saw that already when I read a sentence from AK's journal (in her own words) and realized immediately that she was making a sarcastic/facetious statement about the knife having MK DNA on it. The way it was told on this forum was, "AK says that RS put the knife in her hand when she was sleeping! OMG what a liar she is!" That is NOT what she says and the tone does not convey without seeing the diary, and in fact, several sleuthers who did read it still didn't detect or understand the statement was sarcastic until it was pointed out. Big difference in meaning! HUGE, in fact.

After seeing that I now know to distrust things that are told to me 3rd, 4th hand, 5th hand. If I can't see something for myself or view a transcript, or see a test result, or see testimony, then I'm going to discount the veracity of what I'm being told. Why? Because people make assumptions and interpret things often incorrectly. That diary entry proved that to me in spades.

 

[dgfred]

Well like the prosecution says in so many words- the case stands by itself with no single piece of evidence making or breaking the case. It is the totality
of the evidence that proved their being guilty.

Another problem is that when a poster questions a certain piece of evidence as not proving/showing guilt... that poster is never satified with the answer given for the problem... it always seems to be contaminated or even falsified,
or not proving anything.

*I think they decided that they could get away with it. I don't think they believed that RG would be found for a long, long time. Even if he then turned on them... who would the public/LE believe??? 2 white/good students or a black 'drifter'? They probably also believed they had cleaned up enough to explain away anything that was left. As bad as that sounds it is basically true as far as the public's view at least.

 

[SleuthyGal]

It's true that there are some posters (and every case has them) that don't believe any forensic evidence results or at least find fault with those that point towards guilt. I mean look at the O.J. case. There were samples collected (properly) that were sent straight to the Dept of Justice (completely bypassing the 'tainted' LA lab), showing a mixture of Simpson/Nicole/Ron blood and still people were not believing the DNA results and thought there was something wrong with the LA lab. They couldn't wrap their head around the fact that these samples never touched the LA lab in the first place. Nope, their minds were made up. Unfortunately, they were on the jury. :-#.

I'm a strong believer in physical/forensic evidence and DNA testing, but that evidence has to be collected, stored, processed, tested, and interpreted properly. If anything hinky happens during the collection phase then you've got reasonable doubt for that piece of evidence. That doesn't mean no other evidence is worthy of showing guilt but you need to be able to know that each piece in the puzzle is valid or else that piece should be discarded from consideration. If everything was collected fine but something happens in the lab then guess what? You've got an issue with that evidence, whether you think there should be or not. The physical evidence is only as good as the collection/processing of it. In most cases the testing is valid. In some cases there are issues. A good defense lawyer should exploit every instance where something wasn't collected/handled/processed/tested properly. It HAS to be because people's lives and freedom are on the line and you want the right people behind bars.

Now, whose footprint is on that bathmat? How do I know for sure it's RS's?

What evidence of AK is in MK's room that shows she participated in the crime? (forget about the bathroom for a moment). Can AK be forensically placed in MK's bedroom at the time of the murder?

Why was no blood detected on the RS knife? I'm talking down in the tiny grooves. A sensitive blood test, more sensitive than the DNA test, came back negative on that. How was the DNA test run on RS's knife? What did the results show and how strong a DNA match was there? Was the lab equipment modified in any way that is not done in every other case?

People want to talk evidence--this is talking evidence!

ETA: I don't care what the public view is or what 'most people think.' I'm here to discuss the case, not jump on a bandwagon because of what 'most' people believe. I think a lot of people believe whatever they're told to believe and don't think for themselves! Further, what is imagined AK or RS might have thought about the crime (complete speculation) is irrelevant to me. That's not evidence either.

People are saying that folks don't want to talk evidence. Well what is imagined is not evidence. What is believed is also not evidence. One has to be able to point to it and/or show proof of it for it to be evidence.

 

[missyjane77]

Thank you SleuthyGal. I don't think (I know) I couldn't have said it any better.

 

[miley]

I'm sorry if I came across as intolerant of those with views that I do not agree with. I realize that the prevailing opinion of those who are inclined to believe in the "strong possibility" of Amanda's (and Raffaele's) innocence it that Giuliano Mignini is inherently corrupt and dishonest and any evidence present or interpretation of that evidence by anyone working under him, is not to be trusted. I can't respond to this because I can't vouch for Mignini's character. If some evidence comes to light that he has made it a practice of falsifying evidence or otherwise getting his "team" to use fraud to obtain convictions, I would certainly look at this in a different light. As it stands, there is just no reason for me to question the validity of that evidence.

As I have stated, what I am really interested in is the question of what really happened that night. I am operating on the assumption that the Perugian authorities are basically honest and all the evidence is presented in good faith.

I haven't seen anywhere where anyone has taken the position that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent and Rudy was either a lone wolf or had "unknown" accomplices and backed their position up by evidence. Instead, they seem to attack the evidence or interpretation of that evidence as essentially unreliable due to the unreliability of the prosecution team.

just because someone doesn't agree with the prosecution doesn't mean they are "friends with Amanda" or believe the Italian gov. is corrupt - my opinion is if their guilt was obvious then there wouldn't be so much controversy, which is what has sparked my interest to this point...

right now, I'm still trying to figure out some of the basic stuff - for instance the broken window... initial reports state the prosecution as saying the window was broken from the outside then the inside, I don't understand what happened or why Mignini changed his mind - was it changed again? see, I'm not even sure where the prosecution stands on this issue.

I've placed very little importance on the staging because the way it appears to me, someone threw a rock and it broke the window - the shutters must have been open and then shut later. Whether or not someone got in the house that way, I don't know, they may have tried, realized they couldn't fit (shut the shutters) and climbed back down. A rock was found in the room. Maybe if there were clear photographs of where the glass fell - i did read that not all of the glass was found so I assume they tried to piece it back together so it must have been a pretty large piece missing... it seems pretty straightforward unless i missed something, is there more to it then that? what do you think happened?

 

[miley]

In the crime scene photos (the one with MK's foot showing) you can actually see the wire from the lamp going out under the door. It was plugged into the hallway socket. I believe it was used to closely examine under the bed and for other possible evidence in the room that they wanted to clean... then was locked into the room by 'accident'.

yes, I've seen that photo, it does have a black cord in it but it doesn't show what it's connected to.

(before they found meredith) while everyone was inspecting the house, amanda was pointing out all of the strange things, filomenia was checking her room, her boyfriend is looking around, etc... finally, they are all standing outside meredith's door debating on whether or not to kick it in - the various perspectives I've read all sound pretty much alike and no one, not even the police, mentions a cord running underneath the door plugged into the hall outlet. If something was that out of place, then why isn't it mentioned?

Mignini asks amanda about a lamp at the foot of the bed... why isn't there a lamp at the foot of the bed in any of the crime scene photos? other then what i posted, was it mentioned anywhere else during the trial? can I ask where you read this, or is it secret?

 

[Kaly99]

yes, I've seen that photo, it does have a black cord in it but it doesn't show what it's connected to.

(before they found meredith) while everyone was inspecting the house, amanda was pointing out all of the strange things, filomenia was checking her room, her boyfriend is looking around, etc... finally, they are all standing outside meredith's door debating on whether or not to kick it in - the various perspectives I've read all sound pretty much alike and no one, not even the police, mentions a cord running underneath the door plugged into the hall outlet. If something was that out of place, then why isn't it mentioned?

Mignini asks amanda about a lamp at the foot of the bed... why isn't there a lamp at the foot of the bed in any of the crime scene photos? other then what i posted, was it mentioned anywhere else during the trial? can I ask where you read this, or is it secret?

Wow, this is another really excellent point... It hadn't even occurred to me that none of the witnesses nor the police had mentioned a cable snaking out of the room and plugged in outside.

The lamp always seemed slightly odd. Why would AK and RS have left it in there, especially if it was plugged into the corridor? They couldn't really have missed it. Why would RG have used it? Possibly if he'd dropped something, but unlikely since he was in a rush. Why were no DNA, blood, or fingerprint tests ever done on it? There would surely be some evidence of AK on there, yet the police never used it as evidence putting her at the scene (sure, it was her lamp, so it wouldn't exactly be damning evidence, but that didn't stop them using her DNA in the communal bathroom as evidence). Like you, the only things I've found out about the lamp are the questions AK was asked in court and the cartoon the prosecution used to show what they thought happened, plus the photo of it plugged in outside the room. As far as I can tell the prosecution never used it as a main part of their case. Why?

I'm really starting to think that the most likely explanation for how that lamp got there is that one of the first police officers to arrive on the scene needed more light, went next door to Amanda's room, and grabbed the lamp from her desk, and it inadvertently became a part of the crime scene. And more, that the prosecution knew quite well that's probably how it got there (since they work with the police) and that's why they didn't make it a main part of their case - although they did use it to sway the jury against AK, by questioning her on it and then later including it in their little crime scene animation (during their closing argument, at a time when the defence were very unlikely to question them on it).

This is actually pretty huge. Was RS's DNA on that lamp? Was he the last one to use it, before the police officer plugged it in, switched it on, and went to examine the crime scene?

 

[jjenny]

This is actually pretty huge? You are too funny.
You've come up with a little story that you have no basis for, and you've declared it "pretty huge."
Way to go.

 

[Kaly99]

This is actually pretty huge? You are too funny.
You've come up with a little story that you have no basis for, and you've declared it "pretty huge."
Way to go.

'No basis for' - other than the fact that not one of the witnesses nor any of the police officers mentioned a cable snaking out underneath Meredith's door, and the fact that the photo which shows the lamp also shows it plugged in, with the cable snaking out underneath Meredith's door? And the fact that the prosecution didn't carry out any forensic tests on the lamp, and never made it a major part of their case, yet still managed to sneak mention of it in to influence the jury?

The possibility that the prosecution may not only have deliberately covered up something which could've explained Sollecito's DNA being on the bra clasp, but used that same fact as extra evidence against the people they were prosecuting? Damn right I think that's pretty huge. Care to offer a bit more of a rebuttal?

 

[jjenny]

'No basis for' - other than the fact that not one of the witnesses nor any of the police officers mentioned a cable snaking out underneath Meredith's door, and the fact that the photo which shows the lamp also shows it plugged in, with the cable snaking out underneath Meredith's door? And the fact that the prosecution didn't carry out any forensic tests on the lamp, and never made it a major part of their case, yet still managed to sneak mention of it in to influence the jury?

The possibility that the prosecution may not only have deliberately covered up something which could've explained Sollecito's DNA being on the bra clasp, but used that same fact as extra evidence against the people they were prosecuting? Damn right I think that's pretty huge. Care to offer a bit more of a rebuttal?

This is actually pretty absurd. Since you've come up with a story, then maybe you should provide links supporting it, rather than me trying to prove the negative. Thank you very much.

 

[SleuthyGal]

This is rich.

There's whining when alternative theories are not brought up and shared, and then there's ridicule when alternative theories are shared.

There's whining when evidence is not being discussed, and there's whining and obfuscation when posters are trying to discuss evidence.

And when questions are asked about sources, statements, (you know, asking for proof instead of just taking someone at their word), crickets are often heard chirping in response or someone's personal opinion is posited.

An assertion is being made about a lamp and so far I've not seen anyone point to evidence that shows the lamp was a part of this crime. Simple questions/logical questions like 'whose fingerprints were on the lamp?' and 'is there DNA on that lamp?' cannot be answered, yet the lamp is supposed to be this hinky thing because Mignini said so.

I'm going to file this under 'can't win for losing.'

 

[Tizzle]

This is actually pretty huge? You are too funny.
You've come up with a little story that you have no basis for, and you've declared it "pretty huge."
Way to go.

This is actually pretty absurd. Since you've come up with a story, then maybe you should provide links supporting it, rather than me trying to prove the negative. Thank you very much.

jjenny? Are you kidding? Was someone else posting for you the other day or something?? YOU are the one that posted something about the lamp to begin with. MANY have asked for links to information about the lamp or for your theory. You ignored us, but found time to come back to tell posters that their theories are absurd, demanding links from them! LOL! THAT is absurd, NOT Kaly's post/theory. Where are the links to information about the lamp, the discussion YOU started the other day???? You have none and that is why you're not willing to "prove the negative" whatever that means. Way to go.

 

[dgfred]

'No basis for' - other than the fact that not one of the witnesses nor any of the police officers mentioned a cable snaking out underneath Meredith's door, and the fact that the photo which shows the lamp also shows it plugged in, with the cable snaking out underneath Meredith's door? And the fact that the prosecution didn't carry out any forensic tests on the lamp, and never made it a major part of their case, yet still managed to sneak mention of it in to influence the jury?

The possibility that the prosecution may not only have deliberately covered up something which could've explained Sollecito's DNA being on the bra clasp, but used that same fact as extra evidence against the people they were prosecuting? Damn right I think that's pretty huge. Care to offer a bit more of a rebuttal?

I'll give it a go.
The prosecution probably could not make it a BIG part of the case because:
The lamp was AK's, so her DNA would be all over it regardless of its use that night. MK could have borrowed the lamp to see a little better studying. If it didn't have RG's or RS's dna on it the relevance would be negligible.
***In my personal opinion the lamp was used by AK in the clean up (maybe to see bloodprints or to find an earing or something) and was locked in the room on accident. I do believe AK saw it there during her 'shower', but couldn't do anything about it at that time. I also believe if she did not have anything to do with the murder... she would have mentioned it missing from her room if she didn't have anything to do with it being in MK's room in the first place.
IF it only had AK's and maybe even MK's dna on it... imo I don't see how it could be such a 'huge' deal for either side... unless someone tells what it was used for.

 

[SleuthyGal]

The lamp is only an important detail if it can be shown/proven that it:

1. was not borrowed by MK (then it's presence in MK's room is hinky)

2. Has fingerprints of someone other than AK or MK *or* was wiped completely clean (that would be hinky for a lamp)

Otherwise if no one can testify to how the lamp came to be in MK's room and no one can say MK *didn't* borrow it, then it's presence could be there for innocent reasons. If there's no proof that it's connected to the crime, then it needs to be excluded from consideration (and attention turned on the things that can be connected to the crime).

Again, any halfway decent attorney, upon asking 2 questions, could get a jury to disregard the lamp altogether if there is no PROOF that the lamp wasn't borrowed by MK. The prosecution has no business including the lamp in their scenario if they can't show proof of it's connection to the crime. Just being in MK's room isn't proof of anything.

Process of elimination as to what evidence is really evidence connected to the crime and what is not.

 

[dgfred]

The lamp is only an important detail if it can be shown/proven that it:

1. was not borrowed by MK (then it's presence in MK's room is hinky)

2. Has fingerprints of someone other than AK or MK *or* was wiped completely clean (that would be hinky for a lamp)

Otherwise if no one can testify to how the lamp came to be in MK's room and no one can say MK *didn't* borrow it, then it's presence could be there for innocent reasons. If there's no proof that it's connected to the crime, then it needs to be excluded from consideration (and attention turned on the things that can be connected to the crime).

Again, any halfway decent attorney, upon asking 2 questions, could get a jury to disregard the lamp altogether if there is no PROOF that the lamp wasn't borrowed by MK. The prosecution has no business including the lamp in their scenario if they can't show proof of it's connection to the crime. Just being in MK's room isn't proof of anything.

Process of elimination as to what evidence is really evidence connected to the crime and what is not.

Probably why the lamp wasn't used against AK at trial.
Only mentioned as a question to AK... she said she didn't notice it in there or missing. So a half or even a full decent attorney really didn't have to do anything.

 

[kemo]

'No basis for' - other than the fact that not one of the witnesses nor any of the police officers mentioned a cable snaking out underneath Meredith's door, and the fact that the photo which shows the lamp also shows it plugged in, with the cable snaking out underneath Meredith's door? And the fact that the prosecution didn't carry out any forensic tests on the lamp, and never made it a major part of their case, yet still managed to sneak mention of it in to influence the jury?

The possibility that the prosecution may not only have deliberately covered up something which could've explained Sollecito's DNA being on the bra clasp, but used that same fact as extra evidence against the people they were prosecuting? Damn right I think that's pretty huge. Care to offer a bit more of a rebuttal?

Kaly99.
This is exactly what I was talking about. You are discounting evidence on the assumption that the prosecutor is possibly/probably dishonest, therefore nothing any prosecution witness testifies to can really be believed.

I'm not arguing against this assumption nor am I arguing against the assumption that the crime was committed by Space Aliens. These are issues that I simply have no reason to believe are a factor, but if they do turn out to be a factor, I have no relevant knowledge to contribute to any discussion.

Someone brought up O.J. The defense made the argument that the lead detective was "racist"; therefore none of the evidence that was collected could be trusted. An effective tactic, to be sure, but I don't think justice was served. It rendered discussion of the DNA evidence futile.

From what I can gather, Mignini got himself in trouble over his handling of the "Monster of Florence" case. He was accused of inappropriately promoting publicity for himself and miss-using an anti-slander law that I do not understand because it doesn't seem to exist in America. I am not aware that he was accused of falsifying evidence or suborning perjury.